# Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics

Hi @IP49XX, I believe the following content in this article is a BLP violation per the reasoning given by @AndyTheGrump in our very long argument:
Pan Zhanle was the only swimmer from the Chinese team, to have won an individual gold in Paris 2024 and also breaking his own world record. Despite not being one of the 23 swimmers who had tested positive to TMZ, he has however received allegations of doping notably from Australian coach Brett Hawke and an article in Sports Illustrated.[42][43] Kyle Chalmers who came in second to him at the 100 freestyle final, however defended Pan and stated that he was confident that Pan wasn’t doping and that also he “deserves that gold medal" in [100 free].[44][45] David Popovici also came to Pan's defense by stating that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and adding in that, “This is only motivation for us. I mean, we can’t be mad, we can only congratulate him. This is what sports is.”
The reasoning given for it being a BLP violation (lack of formal investigation and not enough coverage in RS) stands regardless of what article it is in, and we all agreed with that reasoning at the time. IAWW (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I have removed it, along with the rest of the 'controversy section'. If it is restored without prior consensus (which seems highly unlikely to be found) I will report the matter at WP:ANI. It is grossly inappropriate to use this article as a WP:COATRACK in this manner, even ignoring the obvious WP:BLP issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump@It is a wonderful world I originally compromised on keeping the section about the Chinese swimmers last year, despite it wasn't even that strong in terms of proof, but because it was widely covered in reliable sources and arguably met the threshold for due weight. I let it stay a year back and also last week too, even if I had reservations, precisely to avoid edit wars and in good faith toward balance. IAWW argued for it to be included in a much more specific race article and I assumed they wanted it in here but only removed it for my sake due to a thread I created. That said, if you both now want to remove it, I def won’t oppose. It wasn't even originally my choice to let it on and you are singing to the choir. Though bear in mind that if this does violate BLP policy, you should theoretically also be able to delete the speculative information in Doping in China and controversy section in Wada but guarantee a lot of editors (not me) will oppose that and why I don't bother.IP49XX (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
However ironically what is not due weight is what you added in -  an entire odd dedicated chapter for just one swimmer (marchland wins 4 events) particularly when the article is only meant to summarize the broad and global scope of Olympic swimming. Also it used to say - In a poll on the SwimSwam website, readers voted it the most significant storyline of swimming at the Paris Olympics. But firstly, SwimSwam poll is not a reliable or encyclopedic source of significance. And polls relying on website readers, especially informal ones like SwimSwam, are not considered either reliable or authoritative measures of significance in Wikipedia. It is just subjective puff piece, not encyclopedic content. The Olympics swimming is not about one athlete only especially when that athlete hasn't broken a single world record and others have. Note that even in 2008, Michael Phelps won eight golds (double his medals and many world records) and yet never got a standalone chapter in the swimming article despite he arguably earned it more than anyone else ever has. What we did do is give him a BRIEF mention in the lede while also mentioning the other commendable historic firsts achievements of others. So I have done that here where I removed chapter that was just singling out Léon Marchand but placed a brief mention of him in the lede while also adding in all 4 parties (not him) breaking world records, and also the notable historic firsts. As these other achievements are also worthy for mention in the lede. As highlighting just one swimmer while excluding all others creates a clear imbalance, violating both WP:DUE and the Manual of Style, which discourages such DISPROPORTIONATE coverage. A broad article like Olympic swimming - is a collective and international showcase of elite performances. So coverage should reflect that and not disproportionately elevate only one athlete at the expense of the rest.IP49XX (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @IP49XX, I included the information about Marchand winning four events for two reasons:
Because of the two sources on this topic which discuss that storyline as a priority
Because that story can't really be contained in one of the event articles like all the others swimmers achievements can
I think the website poll is alright to include, as the information is not written in wikivoice and SwimSwam is a reliable source. Therefore I would like to add back that section.
I wouldn't be oppose to adding more information about other swimmers' achievements in summary style as you have done in the lead. It would definitely be due I think. It shouldn't be just in the lead though, as the lead is where the article is meant to be summarised, not the sole source of the information (MOS:LEAD). Perhaps it could be included in a section next to the Marchand and slow pool sections? And then of course it would be summarised in the lead. IAWW (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
No, I really don't understand you sometimes. Do me a favour and talk to AndytheGrump or someone far more experienced than myself. I am not going to spend days arguing on this.They will tell you that adding an entire chapter dedicated to just one person for an article as broad as Olympic swimming, and nobody else, is unusual to say the least. Nobody except for you does this. Meanwhile it's perfectly okay to add in the major top performers in lede like in 2008 Olympics swimming. Look at the 2008 swimming article and learn from it. The issue is favoritism and double standards. Every Olympics had one swimmer who won the most golds. Yet we never create an entire chapter just for them and ignore all the other great performers who btw broke world records unlike marchland. Also my issue with swimswam polls is that it's informal. A person can literally vote many times - it's not high quality nor is it authoritive. A BBC survey has far more credibility as it's designed by experts who ensure accuracy but swimswam polls are literally whoever happened to be on the website at the time. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, especially for content affecting notability or rankings. While SwimSwam is respected in swimming, its user polls are based on unverified public opinion and lack editorial oversight. Per WP:RS, only scientifically conducted polls like BBC, Gallup, Pew etc are generally acceptable but fan polls typically aren’t RS. It's not hard to understand this and please don't reply to me but ask someone else. As I will be busy on vacation these next 4 days. IP49XX (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Also one last thing, who determines fan sentiment? Wikipedia is international and you can't be misrepresenting with such a small non inclusive viewpoint. If you were to look at informal polls done in China, they will claim Pan zhanle final 100 free swim was the most significant in the games. But that may not be true if polls were done in America or France. That's why we rely on professionally broad studies. Per WP:RS (Reliable Sources): Opinion polls can be used if conducted scientifically and widely reported by secondary sources. What you can do however is use FINA swimmer of the year recognition etc - these tend to be widely reported by secondary reliable sources all over the world. But informal user generated content is neither that and is unverified public opinion, not editorial judgment of professional writers or analysts. For all you know, there could be only 25 people voting and all of them are in USA and France. Generally it’s best to leave out informal polls that lack professional oversight for accuracy. IP49XX (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
That's a fair point. If you are aware of any Chinese polls, I think it would be great to include them too. I don't think there is an issue only including the SwimSwam poll though, because all the context is stated in the article. The reader can judge what to make of the information. Regardless of whether we include that poll or not though, I think the Marchand section is warranted due to the reasons stated above. IAWW (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I requested a third opinion and will defer to whatever they think. IAWW (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world
If there were any Chinese polls that were also informal, we wouldn't include them either. Unless they are professionally made with high editorial standards. You don't need to waste volunteers time at third opinion as fan polls, which are user-generated and lack such oversight, generally do not qualify as editorial content for Wikipedia. And the issue is that you are creating an undue favoritism to Marchland as if only his swim matters this much that it gets an entire chapter just for him and nobody else. Don't you realise how wrong that is? It would had been acceptable to create a chapter and include his information in as long as you also add in the other great performers who btw broke world records unlike Marchland. Otherwise it's disproportionate and overshadow the rest as if only one swimmer count and the others don't warrant getting dedicated chapter all just for them alone. IP49XX (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
To be honest I could go either way with the poll. I see both sides and won't repeat myself. With including the Marchand information, it's a bit different from all the other swimmers because their achievements can and have been included in the separate event articles. Marchand's is not within the scope of one of the individual event articles, so it has to be included here. As stated before, I support adding information about other swimmers' achievements, but that would be in summary style and would therefore be less detailed than the information on Marchand. I assure you I have no favouritism, I am trying to bring this up to the broadness requirement for GA. I see requesting a third opinion as the only way to progress and will defer to what they think. IAWW (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Just so you know, this isn't the first time. We had drawn out talks with your undue content before on two occasions and it took third opinion (not me) for you to finally agree on both counts. But at least the last 2 occasions was arguable. This goes beyond this. Maybe I am not explaining it right but not only is a swim swam poll is generally not a reliable source, but it definitely doesn't warrant an entire dedicated chapter as if a swim swam poll is what proves this Olympics is mostly about one swimmer and not so much the others. To state the obvious, this is a broad topic with many different great swimmers . And swim swam poll is not really a reliable source for public opinion. And if we create a dedicated chapter for marchland. Why not for the world record holders or those who also made big history? If You only have one dedicated chapter for just one swimmer, you are just setting off more future issues of unfairness where others can argue that other swimmers also deserve it even more so. Ie, Pan zhanle won the 100 free not just by breaking his world record (marchland broke no world records in Olympic) but also by a large historical margin over second place winner at a level not seen in decades. Technically if I add that in, it would undeniably be disproportionate weight as it overshadows others in a broad article covering many great performances. it will violate WP:DUE (Due Weight) as giving a dedicated focus or quote like this implies undue prominence to one swimmer or one narrative when the Olympic event was broad, with many athletes setting records or making history. Wikipedia articles must represent topics in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Will you really be okay in having Just one dedicated chapter for just one swimmer for the entire Olympic swimming article? If you do then it's good to ask others but at some point, you shouldn't be relying on asking others but learned to know instinctively what's WP:MOS for these Broad topics and what's not for good reason. You simply can't give one swimmer a whole dedicated chapter in the  swimming Olympics article. If him, then you should be doing it with others and then the article would be too full. IP49XX (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
It is in proportion to prominence in reliable sources. I think responding to everything else would cause me to repeat myself. I would hope you would set aside our past arguments which are irrelevant and less one-sided than you make them seem. IAWW (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I wrote Wikipedia articles must represent topics in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Will you really be okay in having Just one dedicated chapter for just one swimmer for the entire Olympic swimming article? If you do then it's good to ask others but at some point, you shouldn't be relying on asking others but learned to know instinctively what's WP:MOS for these Broad topics and what's not for good reason. - Olympic events are inherently broad and inclusive, with many athletes achieving notable success. So singling out just one swimmer for an entire chapter may give the false impression that their achievements have eclipsed all others  when in reality - other swimmers unlike him, have actually broken world records, achieved historic firsts plus Relay teams or lesser-known nations have had standout moments deserving as much recognition. Making an entire chapter for one swimmer, just lead to an imbalance in representation, especially if the Olympic discipline had widespread global participation. It's not just undue but goes beyond to implying others performance are not important. Also this should be said - But Marchland performance isn't even that unprecedented. No world records and only half the golds that Michael Phelps won in 2008. And yet I see no dedicated section for Michael in the 2008 Olympic swimming article. So it does not even seem like MOS. And one can claim Pan Zhanle should have an entire section just for them because they had an unprecedented record and lead winning performance unlike marchland. Yet we don't do that as the Olympics isn't about one person. IP49XX (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
We can only go off how much the reliable sources prioritise each story, and Marchand's was discussed the most. Would you be alright with a section for "Achievements", where all the achievements are discussed. Marchand's achievement would be in more detail per the reasoning above, but everything would be in the same section? IAWW (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Again you are not understanding. Ugh. We don't mirror exactly what newspapers prioritise. This is Wikipedia where we act like an encyclopaedia. If we acted exactly like newspapers, by that logic, we can do multiple sections on pan zhanle alone both for his unprecedented swimming performance and allegations because of the sheer extraordinary frequency that mainstream media reports on. Also there is no mainstream media that claims only one swimmer matters and the rest are arbitrary. Which is practically what you are doing by only  giving an entire dedicated chapter (section) for a single swimmer in such a general article like "Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics - despite that's UNDUE. IP49XX (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I understand your concerns with due weight. What do you think about the proposal in my previous message? IAWW (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
If you understand "concern" then why are we still talking? And what proposal? - again, that online poll is generally not reliable for info and I already said I think having one dedicated chapter for just one swimmer is not good. It's fine to mention their achievements but along with other top athletes and in a chapter that's not dedicated to any one swimmer. I am only okay with that. Also there's already a third person in this thread. I am sure they know about undue weight too. @AndyTheGrump: Would you be willing to weigh in on a content balance question? Specifically: should there be a dedicated section for just one swimmer in the general Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics article, or would that give undue weught? IP49XX (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Would you be alright with a section for "Achievements", where all the achievements are discussed. Marchand's achievement would be in more detail per the reasoning above, but everything would be in the same section? If you are happy with that, then we have reached agreement and can stop arguing. IAWW (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Um, Pretty sure I already proposed that idea/option days ago. I said alternatively we could just create a dedicated chapter labelled "notable achievments".[1] Obviously I would support it as I myself already offered that same option and not just days ago but literally even in my reply just above only minutes ago.[2] 🙄. And yeah - either as currently now in lede or in a dedicated chapter in body - I am good either way. What I am not good is adding stuff like a certain newspaper says it was impressive or Amazing. Every swimmer out there who broke world records have had nice words said about them like insane swim etc. So don't do that as it isn't fitting of a neutral encyclopaedia and becomes a tabloid. Just add in the neutral facts without promotional language. Also no dedicated chapter for any one swimmer. If you arw happy with this then we can end this discussion and go with that. IP49XX (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I did as I said I would. I merged yours and my versions and then made some copyedits. It's quite normal to include the media reception quotes to achievements like this in the articles. If you have any issues with what I wrote, could you discuss it here first to prevent edit warring? IAWW (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
What you did is fine. What NBC said was solidly factual. Your edit won't be disputed by me in its current state. What I was however referring to I'm terms of media is that swimswam magazine poll in giving him nice but debatable words as having the most significant storyline. I noticed you haven't put it in. SimplyI don’t believe this poll reflects a major viewpoint. If it’s not a major view, then per WP:UNDUE, including it already risks giving it disproportionate weight. My core concern is that the poll is neither representative nor particularly reliable and it reflects the opinions of a self-selecting group of online users - not a broad or balanced sample. Most readers won’t realize this nuance, and when such a poll is presented in a Wikipedia article, it can create the false impression that its result reflects some objective fact or widely held belief. In reality, it’s just a snapshot of subjective opinion from a narrow, possibly biased group. Via the principles of WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, I think it’s best to avoid including such a poll. Wikipedia aims to represent all significant views with appropriate weight - and if this one isn’t even a major view, it doesn’t merit inclusion. I hope that settles our discussion. IP49XX (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
It does <3 IAWW (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)