Talk:Micah True/Archive 1

Archive 1

Credit where credit is due

The content of the present footnote "A" – The book was on the New York Times Best Seller List for more than four months, although book critic Dan Zak, writer of the Style section of the Washington Post thought it contained extraneous efforts to be "gonzo and overly clever." Zak, Dan (June 21, 2009). "Running, the Natural Way". Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 3, 2012 – is from the Born to Run article in Wikipedia, albeit with a better citation than was in the original. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hearsay

2nd paragraph says "Fellow runners considered him to be "a legend" in the ultramarathon community[7][8], a "pillar of the running community"[1], and "the leader" of ultramarathoning[9] who inspired many to take up the sport.[10]"

This is all hearsay, hyperbole and nonsense. There is no ultrarunning community. If there were, Micah True would be no more considered a legend by that community than would any other ultrarunner. He never won or placed in any recognised ultramarathon. "Pillar of the running community" makes no sense whatsoever. "Leader of ultramarathoning" is similarly unfounded nonsense. All of this paragraph should be removed. Being quoted in a newspaper does not make a personal opinion any more than a personal opinion. Stick to the facts.

Last sentence of segment says: "Despite his notoriety, he was humble and never let fame go to his head.[17]"

This is pure conjecture and personal opinion. How could the writer possibly know what Micah True let go to his head, and why should we be interested in that writer's opinion on that anyway? Stick to the verifiable facts.Hypesmasher (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

yeah, at least attribute such peacock quotes directly to who ever actually said it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There are also sources that say that he was 'not the best runner.' You could put that in, if you bother to read the sources and change content (and don't forget to source it). You have all the tools at your disposal, and it only takes effort for you to make this a better article. His impact did not depend upon placing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say he "impacted" the sport of ultrarunning,it says he "lead" it. It also says he was a "legend" in the ultrarunning community. That's a difficult thing to accomplish without ever excelling at the sport. Further it claims he was a"pillar of the running community". That's just nonsense. What it should say is that he achieved a modicum of fame, inside and outside the sport, due to his inclusion in the book Born To Run, and was well-known among Boulder, Colorado competitive long distance runners. End of. Hypesmasher (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Meaning?

"According to a feature article about True's death the result of the tragedy would be that "Instead of launching a fear of the sport of running, True’s passing while [running] has inspired a culture of reverence and awe."[23]"

A culture of reverence and awe? What does that even mean? Why is this quote included? Why is this article filled with personal opinions?Hypesmasher (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Reputation is by its nature all "hearsay" and personal opinion. These are all from multiple WP:rs. You can read them yourselves, and edit too. You apparently don't like what the sources say, but this is not about WP:truth. He was notable, and the sources are consistent, and that's what they say. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have found examples of misrepresentation of sources. Also there is no reason to quote all sources that say something about him. Not every statement is encyclopedic. The article should focus on his career and achievement not on statements about his personality from eulogies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix it and quitcherbellyachin. It is better to fix the problem than fix the blame. To answer your immediate question, it has to do with his "legacy" and lessons that might be learned. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So, what does one do? Just delete everything considered nonsense? The point of the hearsay representing illegitimate content is that it is akin to a friend of the subject writing "He was a great guy and everyone loved him." or "He had a heart of gold." Its allowance opens the door for "No, he wasn't. He was a mean SOB.", etc. None of that has any place here. Certainly, nonsensical garbage like "...inspired a culture of reverence and awe" should be removed. It appears the original writer has mistaken 'being quoted in a newspaper' for verifiable fact. Hypesmasher (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It was quoted in Time Magazine. Carbone, Nick (April 2, 2012). "Micah True: How Did an Experienced Ultramarathoner Go Off Course". Time. Archived from the original on April 3, 2012. Retrieved April 2, 2012. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's still just hyperbolic personal opinion and nonsense. How could anyone know what True's death has inspired in the group in question, i.e., the billions of people who hadn't run ultramarathons prior to his death. Again, that something is quoted from a newspaper or periodical doesn't make it verifiable fact. A single personal opinion, especially on based purely on a prose-writer's flight of fancy, has no place here. Hypesmasher (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Eulogy

Basically, this entire article reads like a second-hand eulogy. And we all know how many facts one of those contains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypesmasher (talk • contribs) 02:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Mariposa" and "ghost dog"

Anyone care to explain the meaning of these? The references don't help. "Mariposa" according to Google either means butterfly or gay man. Presumably calling a lady he's left behind that would mean either he called her his butterfly or someone has been spamming. Also "ghost dog" means nothing. Please explain or I might delete. Thanks. Cls14 (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Foreign runners who took part in the race (at least when the participant numbers were small) were encouraged by True to adopt an "animal spirit guide". They all, therefore, took on animal nicknames. Mariposa is spanish for butterfly, and is apparently the name adopted by True's girlfriend, Maria. Hypesmasher (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

True found the dog emerging from a river in Mexico, apparently a stray, and thought to have been previously struggling in the water. When it followed the group he was guiding, he adopted it. Since it was actually an animal, it was probably assigned the title of "Ghost Dog" and considered to be an "animal spirit guide" in its own right, in lieu of being assigned a nickname. Hypesmasher (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That's cute, but I don't think its encyclopedic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Legend" still erroneous

"Fellow runners considered him to be "a legend" in the ultramarathon community and a significant influence on runners taking up the sport.[8][9][1] [10] [11]"

The fact is that True was little known outside of Colorado prior to his inclusion in the book Born To Run. Please consider the following as a suitable replacement for the above sentence (the book having been mentioned in the preceding paragraph).

True's inclusion in the book garnered him some attention in ultrarunning circles, and some of its readers have credited him as their inspiration for taking up the sport. Hypesmasher (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Enlarged heart

Need a reference on that. Ironically, super athletes (e.g., Miguel Indurain, Eddie Merckx, and Lance Armstrong, for example) have all been said to have "enlarged hearts" that were said by medical students at the time to be "diseased" because they were so enormous. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is "Enlarged Heart" mentioned in the article? Hypesmasher (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Shock

"Runners expressed shock at his passing.[10][24]"

Is this pertinent? I say it should be removed as irrelevant. Hypesmasher (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Protocol

"True is survived by his partner Maria Luisa Walton, his older brother Stephen Hickman, his younger sister Suzanne Dean, younger brother David Hickman, and his dog Guadajuko."

Do Wiki articles that mention the subject's death usually list the still-living pets or animals owned by the subject as having survived him or her? It's a dog. It shouldn't be included. I suspect it is included here purely on the grounds of the over-emotionality of the original poster. Hypesmasher (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange lead

The first paragraph is now mostly about Christopher McDougall and not Micah True. It needs a rewrite or removal. WWGB (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree it is not about McDougall but about the main reason True is notable, which is the fact that he appeared in the book.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Read it again : "The book chronicles McDougall's time in Mexico's Copper Canyon with the Tarahumara Indians, who taught him a new and better way to run wearing simple thin-soled sandals so he could avoid the injuries that frequently beset long distance runners." That is all about McDougall, not about True. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

But isn't that just the sentence construction being bad? Was it not True who studied running with the Tarahumara? If not then I agree that the sentence should be rewritten to focus on True's role in the book.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have tweaked the lead to address my concerns, hope that doesn't change meaning or upset anyone. WWGB (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made yet another change to the sentence(s) in question, in order to try to make clear that the only person who claimed to have been taught a new way to run in sandals by the Tarahumara was Chris McDougall. Micah True never notably ran in sandals at all (and he never notably ran barefoot either). News reports from the time he was missing state that his friends sent the searchers a picture of the sole of his usual running shoes to aid with tracking. See http://running.competitor.com/2012/04/news/white-horse-leads-micah-true-from-the-wilderness_50249 about halfway down, beginning "When it was determined that True had been wearing a pair of Saucony Peregrine trail running shoes..." As I understand it, unlike McDougall, True never had foot problems requiring a change from normal running shoes. Also, True never claimed to have studied running with the Tarahumara. Funny, that the reportedly sponsorship-eschewing True had been scheduled to speak at a Saucony-sponsored Boston Marathon event on April 13th, 2012 - See http://bostonmarathon.runnersworld.com/2012/04/micah-true-event-planned-friday-before-boston.html Hypesmasher (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·, although I think some of it should be removed. True was virtually (read: as good as entirely) unknown, in or out of ultrarunning circles, before the publication of the book. Since that time, romantically-inclined readers of the book appear to have wished the book's mythical figure into real life existence. Without the book, True would never have qualified for a page in Wiki. He is famous for having been written about, with much poetic license, in a book. I believe the revised sentence detailing McDougall's personal Tarahumara sandal-wearing lessons (that has to be taught?) should be removed. Hypesmasher (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on the way he is portrayed in the book, describing the similarities and differences between the books highly mythological depiction and the real True.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Relative importance of CCUM race

Present text says:"According to Indian Country Today, "His race introduced hundreds of international runners to Mexican Indian ways and a better way to run and live." Its continuation is said to be especially important given the adverse effects of the worst Mexican drought in many years.[20]"

There are a few things wrong with this.

1. The Raramuri who participated in the race left their remote homesteads and travelled long distances to attend the race in Urique, a normal Mexican, not Raramuri, town. Many don't speak Spanish, even fewer speak English or other mainstream languages, and all are timid with respect to interacting with outsiders. As such, the international runners would have been introduced to "Indian ways" to about the same extent as the Raramuri were introduced to "international ways", i.e., not very substantially.

2. There have been no reports of the Raramuri ever exhibiting a "better way to run". Running is successively putting one foot in front of the other at faster than walking pace. Running in sandals made of tires does not represent a better way to run for the overwhelming majority of international runners.

3. There have been no reports of any international participants either being taught or adopting a Raramuri way of life (to include Micah True).

4. The annual race provided total prize money of around US$9,000 and a few tons of corn (i.e., less than 10 tons in total) - See http://www.caballoblanco.com/2012report.html. Not all winners of prize money are Raramuri. The Raramuri presently number over 220,000. The non-Raramuri Mexicans, who are not immune to the effects of drought, number around 110 million. One not-great source reports that the drought-produced annual loss of corn for the Raramuri is estimated to be 20,000 tons. See bottom half of http://www.anarcho-punk.net/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=8036

I think this quote should be removed as it does not adequately reflect reality, and is simply the hyped-up ramblings of an over-enthusiatic periodical writer, who appears to have been strongly influenced (like so many people) by the over-enthusiatic writings of the author of Born To Run.

Again, being quoted from a printed article does not make something fact. Hypesmasher (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

University studies

Present text: "True attended Humboldt State University where he studied Eastern religions and Native American history."

This is backed up only by a supposed claim made by True to the author of the book, Born To Run. It sounds a bit vague and unlikely. If it's important enough to include, it should be important that it is verified. Since that's probably not going to happen, it should be removed. That True is said to have claimed it doesn't make it (verifiable) fact. Hypesmasher (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Quoting quotes and other stuff from printed articles as fact

Present text: 'His motto was: "If I get hurt or injured, it's my own damn fault."[25]'

This is a direct quote (of a supposed quote by the subject) taken from an obituary in The Telegraph (UK newspaper). The Telegraph provides no citation or back up for it. It apparently comes from an incident reported in the book Born To Run (did Micah True exist, or do or say anything, outside this book?)...

“You’ve got to make the oath right here, before we cross over to the other side,” Caballo insisted. “Back there is the way out. This is the way in. If you’re in, you’ve got to swear it.” We shrugged, dropped our packs, and lifted our hands. “If I get hurt, lost, or die,” Caballo began. “If I get hurt, lost, or die,” we chanted. “It’s my own damn fault.” “It’s my own damn fault!” “Uh … amen.” “AMEN!” See: http://www.theduneiers.com/duneier/Resolution09/Entries/2009/8/7_35_Born_to_Runby_Christopher_McDougall.html

This doesn't say that it was True's motto. It says that he insisted that the other people there made an oath using those words (even if that doesn't make sense - i.e., the oath should have been not to hold anybody else liable for personal loss or injury). As the original is obviously a misinterpretation of the incident reported in Born To Run, it should be removed.

This article's varied "quotes" should be reviewed and removed if necessary. Hardly any of it is based on anything but hearsay, yellowish news coverage and, of course, the first, second and thirdhand (mis)quoted text of Born To Run. Hypesmasher (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you reevaluate and realize this is not the forum for WP:Soapbox. Read WP:Truth and WP:RS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that is a pretty misplaced comment since Hypesmasher is not soapboxing but giving his opinion of the validity of the material in the article based on critical analysis of the sources and not on his own opinion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you either provide a good citation for Micah True ever stating that his motto was "If I get hurt or injured, it's my own damn fault." or get busy removing that sentence from the article. Simple. I'll gladly stand corrected if you provide such a citation. I further suggest that you lose the partiality and apparent misplaced post-mortem "loyalty" to the mythical Caballo Blanco figure, stop cherry-picking from Born To Run (which is the ultimate Soapbox in this case), and help True achieve his goal of being authentic, even in death. Hypesmasher (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile the WP:Truth page is plain stupid. It basically says that if something has been published in a "reliable source" (like a newspaper news report), it should be treated as "knowledge" for Wikipedia purposes. Therefore, many Wiki articles should include many sentences that begin "A source inside the department who wished to remain anonymous, due to the fact that he was not authorized to discuss the issue, said..." or "Mrs Snipe, a neighbour of the deceased, said that she had long suspected that he had been up to no good, what with all the comings and goings late at night, etc." Newspapers and other web sources are many times sensationalist and not accountable to their readership. They are, therefore, not reliable sources. Perhaps that's what the WP:Truth page meant. Hypesmasher (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal (unqualified) opinion presented as fact

Present text: "The event was said to be unique, and one which only True could successfully organize.[23]"

1. Every event is unique.

2. The second half of the sentence has not been shown to be based in fact.

This is about to be removed. Hypesmasher (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Informal Boxing Career and Cheating at Sport

Present Text: "True attended Humboldt State University where he studied Eastern religions and Native American history. In order to pay for his schooling, True began boxing for money with the name "Gypsy Cowboy." [10]"

This information was apparently volunteered by True to the author of Born To Run, and presented in the book (Chapter 32). The chapter adds that True admitted to taking dives and participating in fight fixes during this part (informal professional) of his boxing career (see pages 276-277 and link to Google Books at bottom - availability of pages on GB is variable depending on when it is accessed). Should this extra information regarding cheating at sport be included, or should the above information be removed?

The actual quote from the book is: "I just wandered the country. Taking dives, winning some, losing but really winning others, mostly putting on good shows, and learning how to fight and not get hurt."

http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=_onEr-4TXJsC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=born+to+run+dives&source=bl&ots=_U_f4EpJwD&sig=FF0etAbWtTLOk8CCvbDMkfZcnZ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1NCFT8PPPMaA2wWK65CVCQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=born%20to%20run%20dives&f=false

Or search for Gypsy Cowboy Dives Hypesmasher (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant quotes from True himself

Present text: True stated his best advice to fellow runners was: "Run easy, light, smoooooth, happy ... and run free! Andale!"[12]

How is this relevant? How is it more important than the million other things he said in his lifetime? Are we to suppose that he directed this advice to fellow runners who were running with difficulty, heavy, rough, unhappy and bound? Is his advice important?

Present text: True's own website described the 2011 marathon: "While some are at war in many parts of Northern Mexico and the world, we came together at the bottom of a deep canyon to share with the local people of the region, eat, laugh, dance, run, and create peace."[18]

First, it's an ULTRAmarathon. Perhaps the original writer would care to make the several necessary corrections. Why is how True saw the 2011 event relevant to this page about True. That is, the subject of this page is True, not the 2011 event.

Present text: Just prior to his last run, he tweeted about the race, "We are [messengers] fueled by the message. When the message we carry is of Truth/Beauty, love, hope, and peace ..."[3]

Again, how is this one tweet especially relevant? Was True a noted philosopher? Should we be especially interested in his random dime-store philosophizing on Twitter? Do these quotes not fall under the Self-published rule? How can we verify that we are the messengers fueled by the message, and what the message is that we carry?

Present text: If I were to be remembered for anything at all, I would want that to be that I am/was authentic. No Mas. Run Free!

How is this auto-epitaph relevant? I ask in the knowledge that "having been authentic" appears to feature well down the list of what Micah True appears to be being remembered for, e.g., "being a pioneer of ultrarunning" and other invented nonsense. If I write that I'd prefer to be remembered for being the greatest lover and baseball player the world has ever known, will the quote show up in my posthumous Wiki article? The inclusion of this quote may tend to convince readers that True actually was authentic. That hasn't been and can't now be verified.

Again, the article still reads like a eulogy (e.g., it contains a certain bias with respect to True's motives and thought processes). It is my contention that such an article should not read very differently whether the subject is alive or dead. Would an article of a live Micah True have reasonably included the above quotes? Hypesmasher (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote from Chris McDougall involving unverifiable idea

Present text: Author Chris McDougall tweeted: "Caballo had the only funeral he would have wanted: his friends spent days running in the wilderness in his honor."[8][14]

Did Micah True ever state that he wanted such a "funeral"? Can that be verified? Hasn't Micah True been described in various places as being "humble", etc? How does the idea of his wanting his friends to spend several days running in the wilderness in his honor square with the notion of his humility?

Why is this quote considered important to this article? Would it have been reasonably included in a Wiki article on a live Micah True? Hypothetically: "The only funeral Caballo would want would be his friends spending days running in the wilderness in his honor."?

In order to make this article an article and not a eulogy, quotes like this one should be removed. Hypesmasher (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

More Born To Run hype

Present text: He credited his start in running to a hermit named Smitty whom he met on the island of Maui, Hawaii [10].

Bearing in mind that he was a boxer before he ever went to Maui, are we to believe that True never ran before he got there? Why is this article filled with "exciting" Born To Run quotes? Hypesmasher (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think McDougall's book is important in that it put True in the spotlight. I'm not 100% certain how it should be used in this article though. It should certainly be given some amount of weight, but if it contradicts a more reliable source, for instance the recent New York Times article, we should go with the article. Also, McDougall's views, if controversial, should be attributed to him. That's my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper)#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 Although True did not write or publish Born to Run, most of the historic information relating to him in it appears to amount to his own testimony. That is, it appears he claimed stuff and McDougall wrote it down (at least that's the impression I get; it doesn't seem as if McDougall went and researched any of it - otherwise we'd have access to the same sources he did). Consider his university education, as a case in point. If someone wrote a book about me, I might be tempted to invent a nice history for myself. If I were writing a book about someone, I might be tempted to encourage him to spin the odd yarn, or, at least, make his stories interesting. No point in including a bunch of useless bunion stories from Newman.--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Running Career section

The fact is that Micah True had ZERO "running career" to speak of. Hence the fluff filling up this section. The Running Career section should comprise the first sentence only, or be removed entirely. I favor the latter. Hypesmasher (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be remedied by changing the name of the section. True definitely had a running "career" but certainly not the kind where you make money at it. Perhaps changing the title to "Running" or something? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it is important to make clear that True wasn't a "successful" ultramarathoner, in the normally accepted sense of that term. If his running advice is to be included, readers should be made aware that he wasn't a noted coach or competitor, and that the advice, therefore, should not be treated as might running advice or tips from an ultrarunner, say, of Scott Jurek's calibre and competitive experience. I actually feel that the advice quoted is so much fluff and should be removed as one instance of mere rambling among, perhaps, millions. We could all offer such advice. Basically, I feel the article should reflect the fact that True was notable for having been included in Born To Run, and that he was included in that book due to where he lived and who lived beside him (he didn't actually regularly run with the Raramuri, or switch to wearing sandals, etc.), and that he wasn't, in fact, notable for his ultrarunning prowess, which was middle of the pack at best. I feel the entire "Running Career" section is irrelevant and should be removed, or, at least, carry the disclaimer in the first sentence.--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I do think that people might be interested in learning about True's "Running Philosophy" (to go some way toward explaining why he chose to live in the Canyons half the year). I think that would make a good replacement section.--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think WP:WORDS is a relevant guideline here. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about True, we should use facts and attribution (or the absence thereof) to demonstrate that. If the facts in the article don't imply he was a successful competitive ultra-marathoner, then we're good, and we don't need to say anything.

I also note that one doesn't necessarily need to win lots of races to be able to give good running advice. I'm even not saying True gave good advice (because I don't know). As for including his advice in the article, we should include the advice that's been reported in secondary sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that "True enjoyed no significant success in competitive ultramarathoning" is unprovable. However, I don't believe that a negative has to be proved to be included in Wiki. To prove that some other runner did enjoy such success (for Wiki purposes) would take no more than a Google. Googling -Micah True Ultramarathon competitive success- returns nothing to support a contention that he did enjoy such success. Meanwhile, if Wiki says the existence of a published statement "proves" a given thing is true, then it must accept that the non-existence of such a statement (where one would be expected, should the thing exist) "proves" the opposite.

If there's going to be a section titled "Running Career", that a "career" ever existed should be either proved, or a disclaimer that one never actually existed provided. --Hypesmasher (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Now, what is a "career"? The Wiki article for the term quotes the Oxford English dictionary thus: "[a person's] course or progress through life (or a distinct portion of life)". Wiki goes on to say: "It can also pertain to an occupation or a profession that usually involves special training or formal education,[1] and is considered to be a person’s lifework.[2]" So, what definition is being used here? Could readers be misled by the use of that definition? That is, can Micah True be said to have had a "running career"? If so, how is that to be distinguished from the running career of, say, Haile Gebrselassie or Scott Jurek? Are we to suppose that anyone who has traveled on foot one step, at a pace faster than walking pace, has had a running career? If I've ever voted, or even just offered an opinion on a matter of public interest, may I claim to have had a political career? If I've ever bitten my tongue, does that entitle me to claim a diplomatic career? It doesn't matter what words mean; what matters is how they are likely to be interpreted. If Micah True had a running career, so did almost every person who now has a Wiki page.--Hypesmasher (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked, and, according to Wiki, Scott Jurek hasn't had a "Running Career". Therefore, for comparison, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haile_Gebrselassie. I'm confident that you'll notice a few differences.--Hypesmasher (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think "[a person's] course or progress through life (or a distinct portion of life)" is an excellent definition of "career" as it is used in this article. If you're worried, though, why don't you just change "Running carrer" to "Running" and we'll be done with it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that definition is what most people would first think of. I believe that for most people, "career" gives the sense of a trajectory set out upon in the hope of making progress, in the eyes of oneself and others, and measured in terms of the achievement of generally-accepted milestones (usually income, position or peer recognition). In this case, winning races, breaking records, or completing some arduous challenges might be examples of such milestones. However, I would be prepared to accept the compromise of a change of section title to "Running". He was, after all, principally notable for running. However, I'd like to have all the irrelevant filler removed. It matters not what he did for money when he wasn't running.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It may not matter to you, but it's included reliable sources like the New York Times and Washington Post. I personally find the information rather interesting. "Running" sounds good. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You may personally find it interesting, but it has nothing to do with running. Uncconected activities that a hobbyist runner performs when he is NOT running are, by definition, irrelevant. Had True financed an Olympic dream that way, fair enough. However, this is pure filler.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The point is not whether or not you or I find something interesting. The point is that the authors of reliable sources found it interesting. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That it was published somewhere only serves to qualify it for inclusion under the rule of verifiability. It does not mean that it merits inclusion. Otherwise, someone could argue for reprinting the entire article, indeed, all the entire articles ever published on True, here, on the Wiki page. Our job is to sift the pertinent and relevant from the verifiable stock. That True moved furniture (and, perhaps, once helped a guy paint a house, etc.) is not relevant to his "Running". Stick it in "Life", if you want. Something like "True sometimes moved furniture for a living, and sometimes did odd jobs."--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

I have reverted your removal of sourced material regarding True's employment. It is supported by several reliable sources, and your blanking broke at least one other reference. (References can be named, and then be called again without having to enter the entire citation. You removed the main reference.) I'm not sure what else you want me to discuss here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the information is sourced. I dispute that it is relevant to a section titled "running". True basically ran as a hobby. How he made his living is entirely irrelevant. Please try to keep the sections on topic. Really though, consider allowing this tumbleweeded section to just disappear. It's embarrassingly sparse.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving furniture is how True supported his running "hobby". How is that irrelevant? ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant under the "Who cares about that minutiae?" clause. Why not also add where he did his grocery shopping in order to fuel that hobby? Why not add what kind of bed he rested from that hobby in? Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypesmasher (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between his employment and his grocery shopping is that the sources report his employment. If they think it was important, so do we, by definition. Besides, as I have pointed out before, your blanking of the sentences broke other references producing a cite error. Please don't revert again until you can prove the employment isn't important. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause a cite error. I'll try not to do it again. The thing is that the sources (all the sources) cite loads of things that have nothing to do with True's running or running at all. The employment info should not be included in the "Running" section for the same reason that all those other things aren't included.--Hypesmasher (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is eligible to "survive" a deceased person?

I removed the reference to "his partner, Maria Luisa Walton" having survived True, due to the fact that it could set a deleterious precedent for similar Wiki articles on deceased persons. I did so for the following reasons:

1. Only legally-related persons, including partners, normally qualify as "survivors" of a deceased person. It appears that Ms Walton did not enjoy such a status, no matter the nomenclature that the couple perhaps chose to use in describing their relationship.

2. The cited AP article containing the notice of cause of death describes Ms Walton as True's "girlfriend".

3. True is said to have divided his permanent residence between Batopilas, Chihuahua, Mexico and Boulder, Colorado, USA. The aforementioned AP article gives Ms Walton's permanent residence as Gilbert, Arizona, USA.

4. Other sources describe the couple first meeting in 2010.

5. Apparently, nobody was close enough to True to be aware of his actual birth date.

Hypesmasher (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Actual Cause of Death

First, the citations given (to two AP articles; presently #30 & #31) do not cover the purported verbatim quote from the autopsy report itself. Would the contributor in question please rectify this oversight.

The autopsy was inconclusive. It did not cite an actual cause of death, but instead speculated on a "best determination" of the probable cause.

True was found to have had an enlarged left ventricle of his heart. Apparently, this is a common occurrence in ultrarunners and others who engage in extreme endurance training and sport. It is not necessarily a bad thing (or a threat to health), but, perhaps, just a hypertrophic adaptation by a muscle (the heart) in response to physical stress being placed upon it, akin to a bicep enlarging as a result of weight-training.

It should further be noted that the ME's "best determination" points to the cause of death being, not the cardiomyopathy (ventricle enlargement), but some entirely guessed at, possible dysrhythmia, possibly caused by that condition. Speculation upon speculation.

Basically, cause of death has not been discovered. Hypesmasher (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree here that the cause of death is not determined. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No significant successes

Hi, I have reverted the addition of the following sentence to the "Running Career" section of the article.

True enjoyed no significant success in competitive ultramarathoning.

The sentence seemed inappropriate for a few reasons. First, it's uncited, and this article still falls under WP:BLP since True died recently. Second, it's not very objective. Who's to decide what "significant" means? Third, it doesn't seem notable, even if true. We could just as easily say, "True enjoyed no significant successes in selling running shoes" and it would be true, but it's not necessary to state that in the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've responded to this in the "Running Career" section. Can we continue it there? I'll just say here that 1. It's very difficult to obtain a citation for non-success in some field or endeavor. 2. I chose "significant", hoping that people would understand what that meant in the context of "competitive ultrarunning". That is, he didn't win or place so regularly in ultras, or coach any winners, such that he would be considered a person whose advice should be heeded over that of others. He was just a guy who ran. 3. If his running advice is to be included, readers should be given a basis upon which to judge the merits of that advice and True's qualifications for giving it. Yes, we may all offer advice, but we should not all have that advice published on Wiki.--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look up there and respond in full as soon as I can. I think for now the sentence should stay out until it can be sourced though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of third parties

I'm reluctantly beginning a new section on this, even though I've already dealt with it somewhat above (Who is elegible to survive a deceased person?). I removed a sentence detailing that True had been planning to attend his mother's memorial a few days after he left for his last run. Given the results of the autopsy, I believe that this information is now wholly irrelevant to an article on True.

Somebody appears intent in including one Maria Louisa Walton in this article under any conceivable pretext. As I've said above, unless this woman was legally related to True she doesn't qualify as a "survivor". There are no grounds for attempting to shoehorn this woman's name into this article.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Walton shouldn't be listed as a "survivor" but disagree that she shouldn't be mentioned at all. She seems to have been his girlfriend for the last 2 years of his life, and is featured prominently in this NYTimes piece. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

However, she was his girlfriend (whatever that means) and is, therefore, irrelevant to the part fo True's life for which he became notable. If she is relevant, so is every other "friend" he had. If you can show me HOW she is relevant to the "story" (Did she live with True in the Copper Canyons for that two years? Did she appear at all in Born To Run? Did she play any significant part in the development of the CCUM?), I'll accept her inclusion. As it stands, she's being shoehorned in for no good reason. That the new "journalism" sees fit to produce such reality showesque non-stories is neither here nor there.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading the Times piece I mentioned above. "She was as reliably even-tempered as True was mercurial. The Mas Locos generally agreed: Maria was an infusion of love and serenity into Caballo’s life." ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

She'd known him for no more than two years. She didn't live with him full time (or even regularly part time). She didn't maintain her residence in either of the places (1. a foreign country, and 2. a different state) that True did. She doesn't know his birth date. She hasn't provided any information re his past - all of which has been provided by Born To Run). Again, the Times piece is not a news report and, therefore, is not a reliable source. Where do you suppose the Times got its information? Walton? The Mas Locos, who lived in the same house as the couple how many days in that two years? It's shoehorning for no good reason. This is not a eulogy or a Mills and Boon romance novel.--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait...did you just say that The New York Times isn't a reliable source? ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't. Wiki says that a reliable source is a newspaper news report. It doesn't include feature articles. As I've said before, perhaps Wiki came up with its ideas of what constitutes a reliable source prior to the media turning into something entirely unreliable. If the MSM can print "A source who didn't want to be identified said "Blah....", it is no longer a reliable source. Under Wiki rules, what that "source" said has become verifiable and, therefore, "knowledge" for Wiki purposes. That's just nonsense. The rules require an overhaul.--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're walking on very thin ice calling the NY Times unreliable and calling for an overhaul of Wikipedia rules. I could just dismiss your argument on that basis and move on, but I feel that there's an underlying problem that you haven't mentioned yet: something you feel strongly enough about that you'd be willing to venture into the dangerous territory of ignoring the sources and edit warring for. I'm not certain what this is yet, but based on your comments here and your edits, I'd like to venture a couple of guesses, if you don't mind.

1. You're a runner and you think the book Born to Run is a bunch of hogwash, so you're trying to discredit a character from the book.
2. You have taken a disliking to True because he became a famous runner for no good reason. He didn't even win any races.
3. You think True's running advice is bad and will injure runners if they try it. You're trying to either suppress that advice or discredit its source, to prevent people from hurting themselves.
4. You don't have any particular feelings about True, but you have seen other editors who really like the guy trying to burnish his image. Your fight is not against True, but them.

I hope you'll let me know if a combination of these is true. Of course, I may be completely on the wrong track, in which case, I hope you'll set me straight. Also, please let me know what the ideal article would look like in your opinion. I'm trying to get a handle on what your objections are so I can avoid them in my writing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I do mind, and I resent your thinly-veiled (by couching it in terms of a multiple choice question) accusation that my motives for making the edits I have made were not wholesome. None of what you suggest is the case. I have never discredited True. He always was a nonentity. I have never suggested that his inclusion in Born To Run did not make him Wikinotable. I believe True's "running advice" is laughable, vague and, to all intents and purposes, useless. Why would any runner take advice from True... especially since it didn't seem to do him much lasting physical good? Perhaps, he shouldn't have run so smooooooothly. However, yes, I would be dead against any "image burnishing" on Wiki. It sounds unobjective, partial, dishonest and corrupt.

I arrived at this page and noticed that it was a sentimental mess; a eulogy masquerading as a Wiki article. I set out to remedy that. I continue to do so, as a personal project. It would appear that it is you who lacks objectivity here. Why are YOU so intent on "burnishing his image" (while, paradoxically, highlighting his less-than-notable, and emminently irrelevant, work career)? Can that be a healthy goal here? Are you a Mas Loco? Are you a friend, or any kind of associate, of Maria Walton? I put it to you that you come across as being far from emotionally detached enough from this issue to function as an objective editor (See the part of the NY Times article that you chose to quote above). Meanwhile, I'm not going to be drawn into a personal brawl. I believe your Wiki editing philosophy is lacking, in that you appear to believe that anything that has a source, of whatever kind, is elegible for inclusion, no matter how irrelevant, or off topic in the section at hand. Once again, I urge you to no longer include chaff due to its being reliably-sourced chaff.

As for your "walking on thin ice", where do you get that from? What thin ice? I feel I am well within my rights as a contributor here to a) call for an overhaul of the rules (albeit not on this page), b) call whatever source I choose unreliable, and c) to call whatever part of whatever source I choose unreliable. Others may disagree. There's no thin ice.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No accusation was intended, and I apologize if it came across that way. I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from. It sometimes helps in situations like these where I can't understand what you're trying to get at, to dig a little and try to find what it is that's bugging you so I can avoid it in the future.

As for me, I'm no friend or associate of True, Walton, or anyone. I didn't even know True's name until I read the article in the New York Times a couple weeks ago. After reading the article, I looked him up on Wikipedia and read that article. It seemed to me that the Times article was much better than the Wikipedia article, so I decided to improve this one.

You are absolutely free to call for an overhaul of Wikipedia rules if you want to. But until you rewrite the rules, I don't think you should expect me or anybody else to follow your version. I'll respond to the reliable source issue below. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Some reasons why the New York Times article is not a reliable source

Quote (from article): "To keep himself in pocket money, Hickman often chose unusual labor for a peaceable soul: prizefighting. A middleweight, he called himself the Gypsy Cowboy. His record in the ring, according to boxrec.com, was 9-11. He was knocked out nine times, although some of those defeats were dives taken for an easy payday, he said."

This is not true. The "Gypsy Cowboy" (aka True, aka Hickman) does not have a ring record according to boxrec.com. Michael Hickman (aka True, aka, the Gypsy Cowboy) does have such a record. The Gypsy Cowboy fought for prize money in informal bouts. Hickman was a licensed professional middleweight boxer. I wonder if the article's author is badly quoting Wikipedia here? If so, has anyone considered that many "reliable sources" may be quoting or misquoting or otherwise getting their "facts" from Wikipedia articles, which are later bolstered by information published by those "reliable sources", as one big circular argument? How does that square with Wikipedia not being considered a reliable source by Wikipedia? Or is that just too uncomfortable a question?

Quote (from article): "Running was essential to the human experience, he had decided. Most people undervalued its importance. Running was not merely a sound cardiovascular choice in a fitness craze; it was an ancient art, part of mankind’s genetic imprint. Humans had survived across geological time because they could chase animals until the prey dropped from exhaustion.

The Rarámuri, then, did not possess any locomotive secrets. They simply retained the “genetic cellular memory” most human beings had forgotten.

“Every one of us used to be a long-distance runner,” True said."

He had decided? Based on what knowledge of what was essential for 7 billion people on the planet? Based on what knowledge of the science of "genetic imprints"? Who says humans had either ever chased prey until it had dropped from exhaustion, or that they survived across "geological time" (whatever that is) because they could? What science says the Raramuri simply retained the "genetic cellular memory" (and why is that presented in quotes, is it made-up?) most humans had forgotten (or ever possessed)?

Shouldn't someone hurry over to the "Genetic Imprint" and "Genetic Cellular Memory" Wikis and include True's (or the article's author's) findings, reliably sourced in this NY Times article?--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what the contradiction is in your first example. It doesn't say that he didn't also fight informally (though it doesn't distinguish clearly between the two). I highly doubt the New York Times would use Wikipedia as a source, and if they did I'd expect them to do some good research to verify what they found here.

As for the second quote, notice that the genetic cellular memory and ancient art opinions are attributed to True. They're just reporting his point of view. We should do the same here, being careful to attribute True's opinions to True.

If you really think that the NY Times is not a reliable source, I'd advise you to take it to WP:RS/N. I'm certain they'd be able to offer some pretty good second opinions on the matter, and I'm perfectly willing to abide by any decision they offer. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the boxing record quote is that it says Hickman took dives for an easy payday while boxing under license. He didn't. He did that while boxing informally as a prizefighter. The problem then is that it's erroneous. I believe the error could have occurred due to the author using this Wiki page as a source of information. If he'd researched Hickman's record, he wouldn't have found any mention of "Gypsy Cowboy". The most likely reason for him having confused these separate items is that they can be found contiguous in one place (only) here on Wiki.

As I've said, Wiki may hold New York Times NEWS REPORTS to be reliable sources, but the article in question isn't a news report. It has more in common with the romantic Born To Run than a news report. It appears to be a piece based on a true story. Are we really to believe that the author knows verbatim what individual searchers thought. Quote: "The other was Tim Puetz, 33, who had been a captain in the Army infantry in Afghanistan. “Never leave a comrade behind, dead or alive,” he was thinking." The author writes from the persepective of one who was there, in all relevant places, all the time. He wasn't there at all. He doesn't make proper attributions. I suspect he has used a lot of poetic license. It's not a reliable source of anything. Read it again. I wonder if you have been laboring under the Born To Run spell that so many others have. What we are experiencing here is legend being made. People, professionals and bloggers lazily quoting and misquoting that book, some exaggerating a little (more) here, some erroneously creating a new facet of the legend there. Did you know, for example, that it was True who began the modern practice of running barefoot, and others only began to copy him after the publication of Born To Run? That no modern runner ran barefoot until 2009? Except, he didn't run barefoot at all. Did you know that he was a "Marathon King"? Google that along with Micah True and see CBS News claim he was. Except, as far as anyone knows, he never ran a marathon in his life. Did you know he was a legend among ultrarunners? Except, few outside of Boulder, Colorado knew him as such before BTR. Do you know that True has a "legacy", that his disciples hope to continue, and that that legacy ran, seemingly, to much more than (illegally) organizing one relatively unorganized ultra a year in Mexico, which provided a few Tarahumara with a total of about 10 tons of corn (in exchange for potentially good local PR for the foreign mining company sponsor)? The book created a legend out of a bum (see "Meet John Doe") to excite jaded American suburbanites; the NY Times article details how the Roundtable knights of the Mas Locos sought for his body and laid it to rest, vowing to continue his "work". Perhaps, this explains the New Testament. And that is my reason for being here. To create a little island of sanity and truth in the Quixotic morass of Born To Run romanticism, before it's too late. Please take a few minutes to search for and read some of the articles on this issue. Examine how they are written. How many romantic angles they contain. Do they provide the facts, or somewhat more than that. Is it too much to ask that the Wiki article provide a counterbalance to that "somewhat more"?--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your desire not to have an article of romanticized fiction, and I assure you I'm in the same boat there. That said, this is not the right venue for questioning whether the Times article is a good source, and I suggest taking it to WP:RS/N if you want to keep pushing that argument. Also, I'd recommend that you read the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, particularly the section about Editors not being truth finders. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That I deny that the New York Times is ALWAYS a reliable source is a side issue that we needn't pursue here further. Basically, I'm saying that verifiability only informs what MAY be included, not what SHOULD be included. My argument here is that information regarding True's employment, whether well-sourced or not, does not belong in the "Running" section. As I've said, put it in "Life" if you want.--Hypesmasher (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit War

Note: I originally made an error and did not count the 31st, thus this was a slow edit war, not a 4RR violation.

I apologize for the error. I have made corrections below. --Guy Macon

Adjwilley: Material introduced 14:55, 22 May 2012 [1]

Hypesmasher 1RR 02:28, 30 May 2012 [2]

Adjwilley 1RR 16:40, 30 May 2012 [3]

Hypesmasher 2RR 23:26, 30 May 2012 [4]

Adjwilley 2RR 23:39, 30 May 2012 [5]

24 hours since Hypesmasher's first revert 02:28, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's first revert 16:40, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Hypesmasher's second revert 23:26, 31 May 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's second revert 23:39, 31 May 2012

Hypesmasher 1RR (3rd revert) 00:22, 1 June 2012 [6]

Adjwilley 1RR (3rd revert)00:35, 1 June 2012 [7]

Hypesmasher 2RR (4th revert) 01:05, 1 June 2012 [8]

Adjwilley 2RR (4th revert) 03:36, 1 June 2012 [9]

Hypesmasher 3RR (5th revert) 20:05, 1 June 2012 [10]

24 hours since Hypesmasher's 1RR (3rd revert) 00:22, 2 June 2012

24 hours since Adjwilley's 1RR (3rd revert) 00:35, 2 June 2012

Hypesmasher 2RR (6th revert) 05:58, 2 June 2012 [11]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Hypesmasher and Adjwilley, reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Protected)

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2012

I would like to request that this article be reverted to my last (20:55, 1 June 2012‎) edit, which I created by starting with the the last stable version before the edit war and then folding in the typo fixes made since then. (Actually, the edit following mine (21:04, 1 June 2012) is slightly better, it adds a space I missed).

Note that my attempt to bring the article back to a stable pre-edit-war version before filing 3RR complaints was my only edit to this page - I am otherwise uninvolved.

And yes, I have read The Wrong Version... ;P --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: I'm not sure there's a "right" version of the article yet, but if this revert is to be made, the word "Partner" should not be capitalized. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The current version does not contain the word "partner". The version I suggested reverting to has it capitalized in several places, all of which should be made lower case before saving the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have laid out my reasons (above) for making the edits and reverts I made. True had no legally-recognized "partner". One should not be included here. True had a long distance relationship with a person who apparently never lived with him on more than a visitor basis (she lived and worked in another country and state). That person qualifies neither to "survive" True, nor to be granted specific recognition over his other friends. As it stands, this article's subject is himself a borderline notable person. Since the girlfriend in question played no part in the notability that has entitled True to an article on Wiki (they met after, and, perhaps, due to, the publication of Born To Run), and since she played no material part in any of the specific incidents described in the article, there is no good reason for including her name in it.--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to have noted that Guy Macon eventually followed me to this article, after I abandoned a dispute that (s)he and I had become involved in on another entirely unrelated one. I don't suspect coincidence. That is, I doubt the veracity of his/her claim that (s)he is "otherwise uninvolved". I would urge the editor in charge of the protection not to permit Guy Macon to use a superior knowledge of the dispute process to attempt to control the editing process on this article. I would also urge that editor to disregard Guy Macon's claims re "the last stable edit before the edit wars". This article is a work in progress, as may be seen from the content of this Talk page. Guy Macon has figured very little in that progress.--Hypesmasher (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Although Hypesmasher's accusations are without merit, he is correct about my knowledge of the dispute process (I am a volunteer mediator at WP:DRN) and Wikipedia policy is that edit request templates should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. Hypesmasher's objections, whether valid or not, meet the definition of "controversial", and on that basis I withdraw my request. That being said, I am uninvolved and I did do my best to find the last stable version before Hypesmasher started his edit war. If other editors choose, they can weigh in about which version is supported by consensus; mine or his. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think there are many editors watching the discussion here. Before I stumbled upon the article, nobody was responding to Hypesmasher's comments on the talk page, and as far as I can tell we've been the only two using the talk page in the past month and a half. (I'm not sure Mariposa knows what the talk page is yet.) I'd thought about going to WP:3rd opinion, but I wanted to see if I could resolve the conflict using good old-fashioned logic mixed with a little BRD.

As for this edit request, It would probably be a good idea to mark it as answered, since any admin attracted to the discussion would have to step out of their admin shoes to weigh in and establish consensus. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with everything Adjwilley last wrote. Guy Macon is a newcomer to this editorial venture and is, I would suggest obviously, here for personal reasons (it would appear self-evident that the chances of his just stumbling onto an article where I was involved in a dispute after having just - about one week ago - abandoned a dispute that we were both involved in, on an article of an entirely different subject are extremely high). What those personal reasons and motives are I can't even begin to guess at. I'm sure (s)he will attempt to use all Wiki policy means at his or her disposal simply to attempt to thwart my attempts to have my edits accepted. Meanwhile, Guy Macon has no claim on having presented a "stable version". Adjwilley and I have never agreed on a version.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that Adjwilley would agree with me that this article is more or less satisfactory (at least, to us two), except for two sticking points: 1. The parts re employment included in the "Running" section, and the inclusion, in various places of the "Death" section, of a specific reference to True's girlfriend by name. I would be willing to accept the decision (as final) of an impartial arbiter on both points. If Adjwilley agrees to that, we should easily be able to resolve this issue. We could present one concise argument each, and the arbiter could decide whose has the most merit. To expedite the process, and in the interests of exhibiting good faith, I am also willing to accept an (impartial) arbiter proposed by Adjwilley. I don't think the process would benefit from any further intervention by Guy Macon.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the editor Apache Mariposa is, in fact, one and the same as Maria Walton, i.e., the girlfriend in question. She has been making edits in order to include herself in the list of people who survived True, and in other places where a specific mention of her is not merited, in my opinion. If that's true, I don't think she may be held to be totally objective.--Hypesmasher (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not unusual for an editor who has exhibited questionable behavior in the past to be monitored after that. Rather than making up some grand conspiracy theory about the amazing coincidence that I am watching your actions, you could have simply asked me. I would have told you that yes, I am watching your actions and that no, you do not have a right not to be watched. (Note that it is possible to improperly hound someone - following them from place to place challenging everything they do - but silently monitoring your behavior and only responding when you misbehave (carrying on a slow-motion edit war, for example) is not the same thing.) If you don't violate Wikipedia policies, you will never know that I am watching. Follow policies long enough and I will grow bored and silently stop watching you. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

@Hypesmasher, I also believe that Apache Mariposa and Maria Walton are one in the same (she's said so herself) and in light of that I warned her about conflict of interest editing. Guy Macon has volunteered to help steer her through the process, and could possibly end up making future edits on her behalf.

I appreciate your willingness to accept the decision of an impartial arbiter. I think this would be a good way to solve our problems in the short term. (Also, please note that I have not taken a stand on the inclusion of Walton's name as a survivor. My only fight with you has been the employment.)

In the long term, however, I think there are better solutions. I've been planning for a while to try to improve this article significantly, and I've started a draft here in my sandbox. If you care to look there, you'll see that I've gotten rid of the "Running" section entirely, merging it with the "Life" section, which should take care of your concern with having material about employment included in a section about running. I'd invite you to look at the changes I've made so far, and let me know if you have any concerns. You're even welcome to make edits if you like. I'm sure nobody will accuse you of edit warring there :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon wrote: "It is not unusual for an editor who has exhibited questionable behavior in the past to be monitored after that. Rather than making up some grand conspiracy theory about the amazing coincidence that I am watching your actions, you could have simply asked me. I would have told you that yes, I am watching your actions and that no, you do not have a right not to be watched."

Do I have the right, though, not to be accused of "exhibiting questionable behavior", without that charge having first been found to have merit by either a Wiki authority or the concensus, and where that charge is being personally levelled by an editor peer who could be seen as less than impartial due to the fact that he or she was until recently embroiled in a dispute with the party being charged? It seems to me that the more you try to deny your disinterest and bias, the more you exhibit it. I feel stalked. In any event, given that you have now levelled such a charge, I submit that you have disqualified yourself from taking any further part in the "mediation" of any dispute involving me. I suggest that since Adjwilley apparently asked for your assistance in that regard (after your arrival here, but obviously unaware of our past), it is incumbent upon Adjwilley to ask you to now withdraw and, if he or she finds it expedient, to appoint another in your stead. It is obvious that your continued input here will not help matters.--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley. I apologise for having included you in the "survivor" dispute. I withdraw all such comment. I am confident that we can simultaneously settle our differences of opinion and improve what is rather a lacking article (I believe True was a bigger and more colorful character than the article presently suggests - the problem is how to separate that actual character from the BTR legend). I'll join you in your sandbox. Perhaps, you would see fit to take another look at the "survivor" and "specific inclusion" issues and give me your opinion on them, bearing in mind Wiki's "normal" handling of such casual relationships, the article improvement value (or lack thereof - will readers be being deprived of something important by their exclusion?) of their inclusion, and their potential effect on Wiki precedent. My view is that ANY specific inclusion of Walton's name should be based on her first being found to be a bona fide survivor of True. Since "survivor" is a legal term, based on legal relationships, I don't expect that that will be found to be the case.--Hypesmasher (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My opinion on Walton is that she should not be listed as a "survivor" but that she should be mentioned in paragraphs yet-to-be-written dealing with True's post-BTR life. She was, after-all, the closest person to him during those years, and has apparently made a few statements to the press. Her statement, for instance, about True not ever being comfortable with his fame is insightful, and should be included in my opinion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be averse to Walton's inclusion FOR CAUSE, and to provide context, etc. What I'm against is her inclusion based solely on some imagined (in society's eyes) status she supposes her casual relationship with True grants her. I would be more interested, however, to see more input from Luis Escobar and, perhaps, Dusty Rhodes, than from Walton. I don't automatically grant that she was the closest person to him for the last two years (for this article's purposes). It would be my guess that nobody could really claim that title. Perhaps the dog could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypesmasher (talk • contribs) 01:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@Hypesmasher: This may be a little premature, but if we were to get the article unlocked, would you allow me to paste in the current revision from my sandbox and use that as a starting point for future edits? I feel it completely resolves our current disagreement over employment, and provides a better context for discussing the inclusion/exclusion of Walton's name. I'm sure we'll have more to disagree about in the future, but I think we understand each other much better than we did yesterday. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ready to unprotect?

If there are no objections, I'd like to request that the page be unprotected. The conflict seems to have been resolved, and there are a number of improvements ready to be made to the article. Also, since none of the warring parties had violated 3RR (contrary to what the AN3 report initially implied) I think indefinite protection is a little extreme. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the article to the version that I had created in my sandbox a couple days ago. Discussion on these changes can be found here if anybody is interested. I updated the article one section at a time so that I could leave clear and detailed edit summaries and so people could tell exactly what I was doing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)