Talk:2023 London Marathon

Controversy over trans runner?
What of the controversy over a trans runner:


 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12011983/Transgender-athlete-ran-female-category-London-Marathon-defends-taking-part.html
 * https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/26/transgender-runner-apologises-for-competing-in-london-marathon-as-a-female-18676254/
 * https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/trans-marathoner-defeats-14-000-193311948.html

Should there be a mention in the article? TuckerResearch (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Nice collection of tabloid rags you have there, 2 of which have been deemed unreliable at perennial sources. My answer would be no. --Mika1h (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The other two sources are just quoting the Daily Mail, which itself is not allowed as a source on Wiki. If some reasonable, reliable sources mentioned it, then maybe. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So, unless it is covered in more reasonable, and reliable sources, it shouldn't be mentioned. Historyday01 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Many others are mentioning that the articles reference a deprecated source, but I'd add that maybe inclusion of the topic would go better on figures who shared or spoke about the topic in a measurably impactful way? Idk, that would have to happen if/when more reliable sources report on the topic, or assuming that impact actually exists. Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. "Nice collection of tabloid rags you have there" is kinda snarky, though, huh? For no reason. How about The Telegraph? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2023/04/25/transgender-athlete-sorry-for-running-marathon-as-woman/ TuckerResearch (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily snarky, but its the reality. The Daily Mail is known for being a tabloid rag with bad and false reporting, which is why it was depreciated, as noted at DAILYMAIL. Trying to shoehorn in this content by using The Telegraph isn't gonna fly. Historyday01 (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't know about the Daily Mail's deprecation, as I am not a big reader of it. As to the Telegraph, I used the list provided above at Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources to see that another British paper, The Telegraph, was considered generally reliable.  Since you seemingly have no problem with snark: Sorry for using the list provided to try and find a reliable source.  How was I to know that the list was good list when it fits your beliefs, but not a good list when it doesn't fit your beliefs?  Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! TuckerResearch (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been in other discussions where people have tried to use the Telegraph to bring in bad content... and The Telegraph should be reassessed at some point. It really isn't about my beliefs, its just about the quality of the source used. Historyday01 (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The Telegraph gets far too much of a free pass because it is a broadsheet. It cheerfully prints untruths that would get a tabloid called out. At some point we are going to have to revisit its status as reliable but that is not an issue for this page. DanielRigal (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've had people try and shoehorn stuff in by using the Telegraph before, so I have to agree that someday we definitely should revisit its status. Historyday01 (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion. I am not sure if this counts as an RfC but I think this is trivial nonsense that demeans everybody involved by its utter foolishness. The notion that who finished 6160th in a race is worthy of inclusion in an article is blatantly ridiculous. Are we expected too believe that 6161st finisher feels cheated of the coveted 6160th place? No, of course not. This whole thing is just the British press finding yet another spurious coatrack for their spiteful and discriminatory invective. While we may have to cover this aspect, in a limited and proportional way, should they succeed in confecting a notable "controversy" around it (i.e. something comparable to the recent idiotic media circus around the M&Ms mascots), this is not yet the case and it is not our job to assist them in this ignoble endeavour. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not my intention to spread invective or be discriminatory or add useless trivia. It's a new story circulating, whether we like it or not, and I was merely asking if it was well worth a slight NPOV mention on Wikipedia.  Of course, it is up to consensus to decide.  But, I wouldn't be shocked if someone (probably an IP user) adds it to the article at some point in the coming days. TuckerResearch (talk)
 * My apologies. I didn't mean that you were. I meant that the "journalists" who wrote that nonsense were. I should have been clearer about that. When stuff like that gets published in actual newspapers it is quite understandable that people are going to ask whether it is valid. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The Daily Mail is not a reliable source. The Telegraph generally, but the British media's obsession with non-stories about trans people is well-known, and the fact that one normally reliable source with a clear axe to grind is reporting on something does not make it due weight for inclusion in an article on as widely-covered an event as the London Marathon. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Calling the Daily Mail unreliable stinks of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT 148.64.30.90 (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's a clear consensus that has been discussed multiple times: WP:DAILYMAIL. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is documented that is very unreliable. Historyday01 (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "opinions that the woke don't like" is not the same thing as untrue.  But I'm not surprised that the 'consensus' of woke-e-pedia then bans it.  148.64.30.90 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Careful. That's beginning to sound a lot like trolling. DanielRigal (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm relatively new to Wikipedia (this is my first discussion post!), but after bouncing around certain parts of the guidelines, I found a page which lists reliable and unreliable sources, as well as appropriate ways to handle them in articles. I understand you're probably oriented towards conservative politics, seeing as these two posts you made are your only contributions to Wikipedia from your IP, but these topics are thoroughly discussed before conclusions like that are made. Hope this helps to prevent this discussion becoming off topic! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)