Talk:Alexandre Bilodeau

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World Cup and World Championships Results Section[edit]

Please see other GA rate BLPs such as Apolo Anton Ohno, Dwain Chambers, Tyson Gay. list of near 50 victories that would rival the length of the article itself. At the very least it is my belief that the tables need to be cleaned up into one uniform honours box in line with other linked WikiProject Olympics GA articles.Krazytea (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a few GAs don't include results - that doesn't really matter here, does it (by the way, Tyson Gay and Dwain Chambers both include a competition record, which include WC results)? His world cup victories and World Championship results are important and are of interest to anyone that would check the article. -- Scorpion0422 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never disputed their interest to anyone checking the article and as I mentioned if we are to include the results section that it be cleaned up in line with the other articles that have been nominated as GA. The danger in including world cup victories is that in due time it will lead to clutter on the page. By the end of Bilodeau's career he could list some 20+ world cup victories alone that will oversize the page alone. Prioritizing the appropriate results and adding them to a single uniform list as per the good articles listed would be fine from my point of view. Complete results list are on the FIS site for a reason, so that people who are interested can have an in-depth look at a particular athletes results. If the results list competes with the actual written biography on the article in my opinion this is clutter and this is why I petition for its removal.
One other issue I have is that I'm starting to think that you believe there is some kind of editing war going on, in the article on your behalf. I understand that you have created this article and may not approve of all the data being entered into this biography. First and foremost a good article must be broad in its coverage. Although much of the initial data entered is often far from well written, it is the first step in a broad well written according to Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Once you have a large biographical section and have it split into appropriate sections it can be added to and removed from accordingly similar to what we have seen with the personal section. Removing sections completely (specifically re-occurring within the career section) during a high editing and high interest period not only stalls the article but threatens to hinder its future development as a good article.
The reason why I link good articles are because these are the basis for how articles are supposed to be written for Wikipedia. If they have passed Good Article they are a similar basis for how all articles should be entered into Wikipedia.
Krazytea (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're accusing me of having ownership issues? If I just let users add whatever they like, the page would be a huge mess. I haven't been edit warring at all, I've been trimming unsourced bits, unnecessary sections, non-free images, etc., in hopes of keeping the page going in the right direction. And why do you say I've been trimming everything added to his biography? Do you mean unsourced bits like his girlfriend? Per WP:BLP, we have to be extremely careful about things like that. And unless my eyes deceive me, the article does have a large personal life section right now. -- Scorpion0422 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic controversy[edit]

It seems Scorpion0422 is not a neutral on this page and likes to implement his own point of view when it comes to edits. These are facts based on news articles and events that took place. Does it matter if he does not think it is memorable? Olympic controversy should be its own as this category as it is separate from the current ones listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.120.125.70 (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling me non-neutral? I've just been reverting your POV. I get it, you don't like Mr. Bilodeau, but you don't have to take it out on his article. The "controversy" really is a minor part of his career, and it certainly doesn't need a section for a couple of sentences. However, I added a "2010 Winter Olympics" section. As for the bit about the judge, that goes off-topic for this article, and would be better placed at Freestyle skiing at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Finally, the Juno bit. How can you possibly say that it's neutrally worded when it includes the sentence "To add to the embarrassment Alex’s first language is French and Bublé is a French name"? However, I have re-added the bit about him being a presenter at the Junos, but more neutrally worded. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 19:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Scorpion0422 is Canadian and trying to protect his Canadian Medalist. I agree with 78.120.125.70 who looks to be from the eu; maybe Canada coverage failed to show the controversy, but internationally it was very clear the judging was weighted in Alex’s favor and even Alex said admitted this in his interviews. This and men’s figure skating were very controversial. I understand Scorpion0422 need to try and edit his point of view in, but let’s try to just stick with the facts. I do agree with Scorpion0422 “To add to the embarrassment” was not needed I took that out. Think this should clear up this back and forth you two have going.

WP:UNDUE? While there was some grumbling from the media following the incident, there was ultimately no change in medal standings, let alone a formal appeal filed by the Australian contingent or an investigation by the FIS. We report an incident relative to its historical perspective and the follow-up never bubbled to the point of an actual "controversy". --Madchester (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in this does it say “there was a change in medal standings or a formal appeal filed by the Australian contingent or an investigation by the FIS”. Please define controversy, the fact this is being debated right now show there is one, not to mention the number of media articles on it. Are you also Canadian?

I don't understand why you are so opposed to my edits. The only thing I removed was the section header, and some unnecessary detail about one of the judges. The controversy is still mentioned, it just doesn't have an entire section. -- Scorpion0422 13:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write this in just saw this bickering and tried to be an impartial 3rd party. Now it is getting annoying. Why do you keep taking out the Juno mistake? That was noteworthy. Looking back over the edit is looks like you did not want anything about controversy till the page was locked. Then it was forced in.

Going back a step, why does nationality matter? Not being from Canada or Australia does not automatically make one neutral. If you had checked the other edits, you would see that they were far from being neutral. And, I've never been opposed to mentioning the controversy. What I was removing was deliberate attempts to make him look bad. Going from this edit, for example, did "Alex Bilodeau becomes the first freestyle Olympic gold medalist to fail to win a single world cup in their Olympic gold medal year" need to be repeated three times (without a source I might add)? And how can you possibly say "Montreal’s Alex Bilodeau, may have been undeserving of the gold." is neutrally worded? Or when you include numerous quotes from Australian coaches but nothing from anyone who defends him? Now, how have my edits been in violation of WP:NPOV? All I've been doing is removing questionable edits, I haven't added anything similar to the other edits.
As for the Junos, I did admit that I was wrong to remove it outright. But, adding his mistake would be undue weight and going out of its way to make him look bad. -- Scorpion0422 13:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets call it there

Again WP:UNDUE. We write with proper historical perspective of the follow-up reactions to Bilodeau's win. See the He Kexin article where said medal controversy actually necessitated its own section. That incident was followed by the media months after the Beijing games, and included official investigations/responses by various sports governing bodies. --Madchester (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting free videos[edit]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/balleyne/4361187341/in/photostream/

Please help to transfer the record to the Commons. Captures a historic moment. JukoFF (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Alexandre Bilodeau. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexandre_Bilodeau&oldid=1206301487"