Talk:Paula Radcliffe

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

The old Olympics thing[edit]

Paula Radcliffe is not only a good sportsman but have a good personality which makes her herself. Paula is both extrovert and introvert, this is supported by the Trait Theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispenfold16 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a couple of "Many people thought that what was disappointing was..." edits about the 2004 Olympics. Regardless of how they're dressed up, they're still not NPOV. --Mpk 16:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like someone to clarify what happened with the bathroom break thing during the 2005 London Marathon. It is a confusing issue to me.

She took a pee by the side of the road. That's all. Running well when you badly need to go is almost impossible, and being an old cross-country runner Paula had no qualms about going by the road - it would have taken a long time to get to any of the portapotties by the course, and would probably have cost a couple of minutes after getting through the crowds. While the BBC director figured out what was going on pretty fast and cut away to give her a little privacy, evidently at least one tabloid photographer didn't. --Mike 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure, after seeing the tape of her interview after the race that she did not pee by the side of the road. It was more likely a BM such as she suffered in the Athens Marathon due to her diet, medicine or something. Also, the BBC did not cut away while she was squatting down. The camera shot was from a helicopter when she squatted down. They cut to a replay from a camera on one of the motorcycles ahead of her to find out why she stopped. The commentator thought she might have a cramp. The video showed her stopping, doing her business and standing up again. The replay on the BBC later that evening cut out the bathroom break but the live (or nearly live) footage showed it. The fact that she went to the bathroom on the side of the street is included in this article not because she went to the bathroom (everyone goes right) but the way she went to the bathroom, "al fresco" as the articles used to say, and in full view of cameras and everyone. If she hadn't been in the middle of a race and had done that she would have been ticketed for public indecency. The amazing thing to me is that there aren't more pictures of her than that same tired old picture. More than a year later no other more revealing pics have surfaced. Please do not try to rewrite history, I've seen the video. This article does not clearly state what happened in my opinion.
She "went to the bathroom"? I thought the big deal was that she *didn't* go to the bathroom. --Mike 08:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remember it well. She took a dump at the side of the road (it wasn't just "a pee") and at the time, outside the UK, that what she is best known for. No one was really interested in the world record thing, the news kept playing the bit where she was squatted down laying a cable. I think the article should mention it. Her own website does, obviously she is proud of it http://www.paularadcliffe.com/book/41.php "I tried to empty my bowels as best I could while running and for a while it did feel better. But after a bit the cramp returned, got worse and I had to do it again." 86.169.180.177 (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For most ordinary people (i.e. not running enthusiasts) she is unfortunately best known for having a dump in the middle of a race rather than being a record breaking marathon runner. This is true even in her native UK. To remove this info from her WP page is airbrushing history. --Ef80 (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words[edit]

I am sorry Mpk, I thought my edit summary was enough without necessitating a discussion on the talk page. Phrases like 'most informed commentators would think...' or similar are, to my mind, the very definition of weasel words. I wonder if most athletes world-wide (rather than just her UK friends and colleagues) really would support her actions. I wonder if, had she been American or Australian, her compatriots would have supported her at all. I am mindful of a similar case involving an Australian rower who gave up during a race and was subsequently villified. Are foreigners therefore not informed commentators? Nevertheless, since neither you nor I can possibly a) canvass enough opinions to know viewpoints for sure; b) define objectively who is and who isn't an informed commentator, then it really is a moot point. Can we agree by consensus what would be a decent compromise wording? I must confess, I thought my previous edit was OK in this regard, but I will go along with the majority. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, with the exception of one former Olympian on the BBC (who wasn't a marathoner anyway) people who knew what they were talking about were indeed broadly supportive, especially when the reasons became clear a bit later. The marathon being the event it is, occasions do arise when it becomes simply physically impossible to continue, especially when already running on a not-quite-healed injury -- at the elite end of the scale, that can be a career-ender. I wrestled with those words for a bit and the best I could come up with was "informed commentators" - those informed commentators being fellow marathon runners and people who are familiar with the event. While there are always going to be a few macho "Huh! Quitter!" types out there, my observation of the aftermath was that while tabloid journalists and a few American college kids on letsrun.com considered her a quitter/loser/whatever, fellow elite marathoners certainly didn't. (I'm not an elite marathoner, by the way. I'm a lousy 3:40 marathoner, bah.)
Ultimately, she'd basically been absorbing nothing from her food for the last few days, and just ran flat out of energy - on top of the remains of the injury and the heat in Athens she only got as far as she did out of sheer bloody-mindedness. --Mike 06:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what we think as individuals, or what we think the 'truth' actually is, one ought to avoid weasel words, and statements should be verified (or at least, be verifable). That's wikipedia policy. If altered suitably, the exposition you just gave above would be OK in the article itself as a beginning. Instead of phrases like 'most informed comentators...'or 'people who knew what they were talking about..' (which are totally subjective statements, in a number of ways) we would then have a more exact retelling of what was a fairly important (i.e. notable) event in Radcliffe's career. If there were dissenters within Auntie's commentary team (was it Michael Johnson? I forget to be honest) then that can go in as a specific; if the tabloid press labelled her a quitter, then we should try and find those stories and link to them. If subsequent editorials were favourable, then we ought to try and find those too. The beauty of Wiki is that there are no space restrictions- if the info is relevant, then there is no reason to exclude it. Whether or not she was hard done by isn't really the issue here- I am not pro- or anti- Radcliffe. I am however pro- writing a good, NPOV article. Cheers for the response, Badgerpatrol 14:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean about writing an NPOV article. Part of my problem here is that paragraph was originally excessively POV in the other direction. I'll admit now I don't have time to cite references other than my memory, so I've attempted to deweasel it a bit - see what you think. As far as space limits are concerned I'm not sure that it's actually a good thing to have a rambling, reference-heavy article - it's also possible to put the facts in far fewer words, but you have to be more careful about how you choose those words. I think this might be what we're running into here... --Mike 20:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mommybloggery[edit]

While I am sure Isla is a beautiful baby, I'm not sure her health, precise hour and minute of birth, and birth weight are relevant to an encyclopedia article, especially as she is not yet (at least in the eyes of the public) the most notable thing to have issued from Paula Radcliffe's nether regions during her career. A Sheep 13:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro needs a rewrite...[edit]

...in order to give an overview of her sports career, not an analysis of her marathon world record. GregorB 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the intro author figured the marathon time is comparable with the world record at 100m. He states her time of 2h15m25s over a distance of 42195 meters breaks down to 9.75 - 9.76 per 100m. However, that's a total of 8125 seconds over the marathon distance, or about 19.25 seconds per 100m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.207.101.112 (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was done using IAAF Scoring Tables (see http://www.iaaf.org/news/newsId=20021,printer.html), not by directly comparing running speed, of course. GregorB 11:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layout/Intro.[edit]

Intro is better now, although I still think this marathon world record thing should be analyzed in the body of the article... GregorB 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Where do you think the paragraph would be best suited? btw, I had a go at changing the layout, but not 100% sure about it, is it easier to read through now? Sue Wallace 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that would be the 2003 London Marathon section... I was thinking about tweaking the intro myself (as I did recently on the Haile Gebreselassie article), but I'm a bit less familiar with her career. Note that Haile's intro had a similar problem: it pushed a single fact to the front, while failing to give a more complete career overview. GregorB 19:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good neat article. I've moved the paragraph, but article still needs a lot of work. I'm not familiar with her career either tbh, I only really wanted to add cites originally, because that's my bugbear. Sue Wallace 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up - she's in the AP today (11-9-07)[edit]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMBqOUODY7FxOY0jkYcdvW0pu4vAD8SPNU380 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.57.50 (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medals table[edit]

Not sure about the Marathon section. There's no indication in the World Marathon Majors article that they actually give out medals in these events.Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ahievments table[edit]

the link in the list of achievments for grand prix final links to some ice skating thing that im pretty sure paula radcliffe didnt come 3rd in 82.3.127.57 (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired that. Sideways713 (talk) 09:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical interest - or coprophilia?[edit]

Looking at the editing history of the Paula Radcliffe page, I noticed that when Philadelphia 2009 deleted the part about Radcliffe's toilet break during the London 2005 marathon as "irrelevant info", Montell 74 reinstated it, commenting: "irrelevant?... interesting i think". Yes, interesting to those with a genuine interest in athletics - but far more to those whose interest in athletics doesn't go far beyond the "funny outtakes" type of television programme. The link is to a website for those who voted it as more important than Bannister's four-minute mile. Should the Wikipedia page, as it does, give it twice as much space as any other episode in Radcliffe's career? I'd be inclined to delete. Any other opinions? --Mabzilla (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(...) WP:BLP-violating comments deleted. GregorB (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref are a mess[edit]

The references and formatting of references are a mess. --BweeB (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is becoming a mess, if you ask me. User Globalwheels is going way too far in describing all the numerous details on Paula Radcliffe's career. It is almost becoming an encyclopaedia in itself. It makes it unreadable, especially if you want to do some editing yourself. Regards, Piet.Wijker (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Happily the user has been blocked indefinitely (a sock puppet). There's blocks of information from 2010-11 that needs to be restored, including the IAAF withdrawal of the record GerixAu (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. user Globalwheels went over the top and that some information could be restored; such as that her great aunt was an olypmic swimmer I believe. But I can't find the edit which refers to this. --Silverjools (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was more worried about the article than the references! Part of writing an article is knowing how to condense (and contextualise) material and what material it is OK to leave out in terms of creating a broad article that is still readable. This article will be a big one in the end anyway because we're essentially covering a twenty-year-long career. I think there is quite a bit of material which can and should be brought back. However, the biggest problem is the quality and direction of the prose:

Examples

  • "Starting 2002 Radcliffe won her opening race of the year at the Campaccio Internazionale. Radcliffe defeated Margaret Okayo by nine seconds and days later confirmed her participation in the London Marathon.[104] Radcliffe had pulled out of the Great North Cross Country run, which was due to be her first race of the year, with the same knee injury from late 2001"
  • "For the European Cup, Radcliffe joined a host of other British athletes by pulled out injured.[51] However, Radcliffe soon returned to the track for the first time since March after a virus, a knee operation and a calf muscle tear had kept her out; to race over 1,500 metres in Barcelona"
The basic ideas are there, but the construction makes things very hard to understand. Pretty much an entire prose overhaul would be needed. I don't mean to completely maul the original writer (in fact, I appreciate their efforts in this respect), but the problems of the text are a prime example of quantity spoiling quality. Next time, it might be better to leave out: the exact number of inches of snow at the 2000 Edinburgh Cross Country, the type of socks Radcliffe wore during the 5000m UK Trial event, the fact that she got tyre marks on her socks during training in April 2002, how long she took over a non-competitive jog in 2004, and the fact that Liz McColgan was angry at being mis-qouted in the media in August 2005. SFB 17:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 18 March 2012[edit]

Didn't Paula win the New York Marathon 3 times (2004, 2007, 2008)?

Also, Marion Jones is spelled incorrectly

Alutes (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please express your request in a 'please chaneg X to Y' manner and supply reliable sources for any factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Further world records[edit]

Under the "Further world records" section it says "Of the seven marathons Radcliffe has run so far, she has won six and set a record in five." It should say "Of the seven marathons Radcliffe had run up to that point, she had won six and set a record in five." 176.27.237.184 (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Norman quote[edit]

The recent addition on doping allegations will need to be checked carefully, with more refs added. I think in particular you will need to find the precise section of the evidence session it was said in. Given this only happened yesterday it may be a while, but you will almost certainly want to link to the UK Parliament site with that sentence. The wording at present I think perhaps stretches what the apparent quote says. I suspect he was mentioning British athletes as it was a Parliamentary session. Politicians use this kind of wording in almost every context. Jkmaskell (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Lough[edit]

Can anyone explain to me, why this article has become a redirect of Gary Lough? Piet.Wijker (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there nobody in a position to pick this up? Piet.Wijker (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Lough is not notable enough for his own article, but he is mentioned in the "personal life" section of this article. That is the reason for the redirect.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Piet.Wijker: Poor old Gary. Reach a world final and coach someone to a world record and your legacy is just a redirect! Sorted now. SFB 21:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK SFB, it took a while, but you have sorted this out very neatly. Thanks for that! Piet.Wijker (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paula Radcliffe. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Paula Radcliffe. 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) 09:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paula Radcliffe. 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) 22:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paula Radcliffe. 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) 00:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


"Ninth best ever" 10k[edit]

Or 8th best, as described on the linked 10,000m entry? 2A00:23A8:831:2700:5463:78C4:8009:5606 (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paula_Radcliffe&oldid=1197514795"