Talk:Suzy Favor Hamilton

message: Needs wikification rather than cleanup (table at bottom). Tamarkot 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've added the recentism tag to the last section of this article.  This is an article on a living person and I am quite undecided as to the extent to which the current dust-up about this person and certain aspects of her personal life need to be discussed in a WP article on her life.  If asked to vote, I would vote to tone down the details as being irrelevant and inappropriate.  I think that hindsight will bear this out.  I have noticed that one editor has already excised mention of the name of the article subject's Las Vegas employer.  NorthCoastReader (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *I tend to support the notion of recentism, but this isn't one of those cases. Her public profile has been fairly low in the past few years and it became news again over this. I'd say that if we do more than mention it with the sentence or two that is already there, we'd be treading on UNDUE area, but a minimal mention doesn't seem out of place. BTW, I removed a line about her husband knowing. Although correct, this is her bio and it should focus on her. I see that added line as salacious detail more focused on another living person. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry, I forgot the other part. Although you are correct, the media would ignore the bookkeeper example, that's because it's uninteresting. If she were to be outed as an undercover DEA agent, that would be covered and likely put into her bio too. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recentism tag. 

message: Wikipedia is here to write an article, not be a cheerleader of the person.
Someone removed material and left the explanation: Remove reference to prostitution from lede per WP:UNDUE. Subject's notability stems from her athletics career
President Jimmy Carter's notability stems from his presidency, not being a peanut farmer.  Yet the peanut farmer is in the lede.  Similarly, Favor-Hamilton is an admitted prostitute.  If someone unreliable just accused her of it, I would fully support not mentioning it but it is fact.  I also favor mentioning her as a runner first.
Gravelocator (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: She may well be an admitted prostitute but does that mean editors' handling of this fact is undeserving of careful treatment under WP:BLP?  Please read my expanded comment at the bottom of the Recentism section, above.  NorthCoastReader (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

text: We have to be careful in articles to not end up slanting the article by tone and word choice. This person is primarily noted for her sports career, which is woefully lacking in the article. Adding additional information about the escort tidbit is undue weight. I also don't think escort is as vague a description as you make it out to be. The main sources use escort, and finding some local sports source using the more strong language doesn't make that more strong language more appropriate for the article.  DreamGuy (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a Favor-Hamilton Fan Club, she is an admitted prostitute 

message: :Suzy Favor-Hamilton →  – She has divorced and changed her name back to Suzy Favor. None of the sources cited in the article have her surname hyphenated. Formerip (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. DreamGuy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Timeline
Timestamp              	Editor      	Description      	Edit summary
21:07, 20 December 2012	            	adds price       	
13:56, 21 December 2012‎	            	removes it       	Removed her hourly rate
14:45, 21 December 2012‎	Niteshift36 	restores his edit	I'm restoring it because the rate is being brought up in most sources, including the LA Times and NY Times. We're not talking National Enquirer. Feel free to discuss on the talk page
02:45, 22 December 2012	            	removes it       	Removed statement as to hourly charge for services rendered as unnecessary
05:24, 22 December 2012‎	Niteshift36 	restores his edit	Again, feel free to discuss
16:40, 22 December 2012‎	            	removes it       	In how many other professions do we say how much the subject charges?
12:31, 26 December 2012	Niteshift36 	restores his edit	there is valid reasoning for including it. Try actually discussing it
08:07, 27 December 2012‎	Anthonyhcole	removes it       	This, like most Wikipedia content, only requires one reliable source. I and others disagree with including the price. Please discuss on the talk page. No one is disputing the veracity of the claim. The question is, is it appropriate for an encyclopedia?
This is edit warring. Can I recommend the essay WP:BRD to Nightshift36? It isn't policy but it describes usual behaviour here. Since you may be unaware of the norms here, I should also point out that discussion can range over some time, to allow for as much interested input as possible. This is especially the case over holiday periods. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Anthony, since you've reverted TWICE now and are a fan of BRD, I'd like you to provide the diff of where YOU discussed the issue. Did you follow BRD? Obviously not. Have you even discussed the issue about why you think it doesn't belong? Again, no. Instead, you choose to use your time to make ridiculous comments. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yeah, 3 blocks in about 5 years.....horribly rampant, isn't it. Still, you fail to realize your part in this so-called edit war. You made your first reversion with no reasoning at all. As the experienced editor you are, you should have seen that the removal had already been disputed at at least given some sort of reason, but you failed to. Of course, you may not have noticed, since you've demonstrated your observation skills are sub-par. Actually, showing that it is accurate and non-controversial is something I should be showing and have done so. What you've failed to show is a reason to not include it. What is still unclear, my smug friend, is WHY it doesn't belong. The fact that you need time to formulate your answer is very revealing......it shows you've removed it out of reaction, rather than policy, and is probably a good reason why you've concentrated on talking about me and not actually discussing the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just pointing out that you know what edit-warring is, not making a point about your block log (mine's bigger than yours). Since this discussion is also happening at BLP/N, I've responded there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I LOLed when I saw this thread. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Suzy Favor Hamilton. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610234449/http://www.usatf.org/statistics/champions/USAOutdoorTF/women/w1500m.asp to http://www.usatf.org/statistics/champions/USAOutdoorTF/women/w1500m.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came to this article because a record the subject set over three decades ago by her was more recently broken. I must say I was appalled by the article's content. Much seems clearly in violation of WP:BLP and undue weight, and recentism. This person had an extraordinary, world class athletic career that lasted more than two decades, yet there's only a bare minimum of material relating to that, considerably less than is given to her very brief experience with a Las Vegas escort service. None of us have the ability to determine whether or not her attribution of her behavior to ineffective treatment of bipolar disorder, is accurate, but if she suffers from such a disability, it is even further reason for deletions. I notice that one editor rationalizing the inclusion of such shameful text, who assiduously scrubs well-sourced and relevant negative content from many articles on corporate executives, corporations and conservative politicians, seems determined to assure that this woman's article contains copious salacious material. Wikipedia is no place for such editorial misbehavior. I will augment the athletics section of the article (which I have done for many current and historic competitors, and expanding stubs, as well as having created many such articles) to better reflect the reason she is famous, rather than very briefly infamous. I have removed the following text for the above reasons and the blatant sourcing issues. She had started with Haley Heston Private Collection in December 2011,  using the name "Kelly" (sometimes identified as "Kelly Lundy"). The investigative report also noted the Hamilton household did not appear to be experiencing any financial difficulties. The name Favor used with escort service, is de minimus to her life. The name of the escort service is immaterial, and "tenminuteinterviews.com" and "radaronline.com/exclusives" are not reliable sources but rather bottom-of-the-barrel tabloidism. Activist (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Rmv unsourced & unreliably sourced text

message: I have removed the undue weight tag from the prostitution section, as I don't see any undue weight issue, and I see no discussion of this tag here on the talk page. If you believe this tag is appropriate, please use this talk page to explain why. 71.216.250.182 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight tag removed.