Talk:Mary Decker

message: Mary Decker did not run 2:26 for 1000m ever and certainly not when she was running 2:01.8 perhaps 2:36 but I did not know where to look for this info.
CoachDale
74.123.230.98 20:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mary Decker did not run 2:26 for 1000m ever and certainly not when she was running 2:01.8 

message: It is not fair or accurate to portray the Budd-Decker incident as being Budd's fault. If you look at it on youtube you can see clearly that Budd did not know what she was doing. I have also heard her saying in interview that she could not see Decker. If you look at the incident the problem is more about Decker being unable to deal with being in that tight spot - which she later admitted - than Budd's actions. To start portraying Budd as the villain of the piece is pretty biased and very much slanted in the american woman's favour. These type of incidents happen all the time in track. To be quite honest, Decker's behaviour was pretty poor, crying like a spoilt child on the side, publicly blaming Budd after the race and never apologising. Bad sportsmanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.198.119 (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read about original research and reliable sources. Also this is an encyclopedia.. there should not be inline youtube clips. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: that quote is biased and it is being included? Fair enough I won't put in youtube, tho I thought anyone interested in the race would find it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.76.41 (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the second pillar here - Five pillars of Wikipedia. I'm not saying that there's not other original reserach already in there, but I was examining the new content. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The long quotation should be edited out or at least cropped. It's blatantly biased and aiming to convince readers that Budd was the guilty one. Paper sports journalism in general is often about creating heroes and villains, catering to what the readers are supposed to wish to hear, plus it's often very charged with emotions and wishful thinking, and so it should be very cautiously used as a source of knowledge. I saw that race and while they qere close, Budd was clearly not forcing Decker out to the rail or unduly impeding her running. / Strausszek (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The budd Incident 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Long Reuters article, just published --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref for future use 

message: I see this subject was opened above with no resolution.
I placed the dubious marker next to the 2:26.7 time for 1000 meters.  Granted this is old and has been repeated many times by other sources but, lets look at some facts:  Decker was a 2:02+ 800 metres runner at the time.  To run an extra 200 metres in 24 seconds?  The mark does not show up in the IAAF youth bests, no marks for the event do.  I have not found actual race results.  Lets get an actual newspaper account from the day.  Many of Deckers records were set indoors on Imperial tracks.  Most of her 800 marks were converted from 880 yards.  1000 yards would be much more likely a distance to have run and practical to have run in 2:26.7 at her level of the time. Trackinfo (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  1000 meters 

message: In the section on the 1984 Olympics Incident is the phrase "Decker stood on Budd...".  I don't know too much about this incident, but this seems such an odd wording choice.  One does not "stand on" things while running. Certainly "stepped on" would make more sense, and a more detailed description (e.g., something like "Decker's right foot hit Budd's left calf") would be even better.  If someone more familiar with this incident could at least change "stood" to something more accurate, that would be awesome.  Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "stood on" doesn't seem to make sense. I wasn't able to find a running term by that name, and since no one has objected to your request, I have removed the term altogether.Chillowack (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stood on"?