Talk:Robert Garside

Copyright Violations

As it stands, most of this article directly plagiarizes a Yahoo news story. Below the editing window, there is a note that "content that violates any copyright will be deleted." Well, here goes. A10brown 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to give the link. copyrighted source A10brown 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The text no longer comes from Yahoo News. The problem is that someone keeps erasing material that is unfavorable to Robert Garside. It is clear that there are two sides to this story, and it is only fair that both the claim and the disputation of the claim should be given as long as they are accurate and sourced. Credible sources cited, such as Sports Illustrated, National Geographic Adventure and other publications, show that Garside began his run in London in 1996 and fabricated much of the early stages. I see no reason why these well-sourced facts should not be included, especially since Garside's Guinness award is being questioned by the media ('Running the world -- or a flight of fancy?' The Guardian, March 28, 2007 copyrighted source Surely readers can be given both sides of the story and make up their own minds if they care to investigate further. Houndog50 13:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted this article and recreated it as a basic stub. Unreferenced negative material is NOT allowed on wikipedia. Please read our policy on biographies before continuing to edit.--Doc^g 13:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever keeps eliminating the references to Garside's well-documented and referenced confessions of cheating is doing no service to readers of Wikipedia. Articles in Sports Illustrated, The Guardian, National Geographic Adventure, The Independent and other bona fide publications are being edited out, apparently because they paint a less flattering picture of Garside's round-the-world run. Wikipedia should not be used to denigrate individuals with unsubstantiated comment, but neither should it be filled with puff-pieces where uncomplimentary facts are air-brushed out.Houndog50 12:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to discuss this entry with the person who insists on editing out all media reports related to Garside. Please state your reasons for expunging the reports in Sports Illustrated, The Guardian, National Geographic Adventure, The Independent and Ultramarathon World. If you believe these sources are mistakenly entered or erroneous then I will be happy to discuss it and come to an agreement on how the entry for Robert Garside should be worded. Simply editing them out because they are not flattering is puerile and misleading.Houndog50 12:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I also tried to add some information regarding doubts about Garside claims, but they were removed very quickly. I added it again, let's see how long it takes before it is also removed.Vmsdf3048 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the prisoner categories as there is no verifiable information to support these claims. I've also re-added the controversy section and included some referenced information there - this section needs to be left in. I'm not sure how much of the whole article should really be allowed to stand, very little of the main story is verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.217.186 (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

My controversy section was quickly suppressed as seems to have repeatedly occur with this page. This information is both verifiable and important for this article and should not be removed without discussion here. This is not a propaganda page and both sides of the story should be given here. Whoever is removing this information, please do not do so without discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.217.186 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the continued removal without discussion on the living person biographies noticeboard WP:BLPN - hopefully this may lead to some sort of resolution without getting into an editwar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.217.186 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the anecdotes in this biography are supported by nothing more than Garside's word. Given his track record of fabrication (we know that he invented dramatic encounters in Afghanistan and Pakistan, for example) should any of this information be allowed to stand unchallenged? How might it best be written to make clear that it is essentially Garside's account of his adventures rather than verified information? BarryNL (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There are an enormous number of sources listed but not cited inline in the text. Doing that would help clarify a bit what is verified and what isn't. Rd232 ^talk 12:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with most of those references is that they are also simply what Garside has said to the press - we would simply have one copy of Garside's story being used to support another.BarryNL (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

NB: WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTATORS please note that BarryNL is attempting to vadalise all positive coverage of Robert Garside in all sections of Wikipedia.

Media List

I removed a number of the items under the media list, which were simply the names of media and a date but with no link or other information to verify the claim. I assume most of these citations are probably correct but simply listing a name and date on the page with no further information or ability to follow up seems pointless and there are already more than enough links there. Also, I've added some links there to less favourable reports as it's important to balance the article - this is a biography, not a hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.217.186 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)