Talk:Carl Lewis/Archive 1

Tone
I just added the tone tag...a lot of material under "Athletic Career" does not seem written in an encyclaepedia-like fashion. 74.136.198.204 04:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you be a bit more specific? Canada Jack 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been a while, and nothing specific has appeared, so the tag needs to be removed.Fconaway 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first claim. This whole article is written with a lot of hyperbole and almost bias, and I think it can be toned down to be presented in a more matter-of-fact style. 71.202.212.94 (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will start to do a clean-up, tell me if it helps. Canada Jack (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've completed a major clean-up, tell me if this resolves the above-mentioned issues. Canada Jack (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

various topics
This article is sort of lengthy. It could be made easier on the eyes with some pictures.

Carl Lewis also made a single record. I don't remember year or titel. The single was called "Break It Up" 1987. Was it a hit ?

I don't know much about his music, but I think, or I agree with many sport-fans, that Carl Lewis is the greatest sportsman all the times.

Carl Lewis has been exposed as having taken performance enhancing drugs, as almost every other athlete does, however his medals and records have not been revoked. Why? Why was Ben Johnson hung out to dry while others profited from the same practices? Greatest athlete of all time? I think not.
 * Lewis tested positive for pseudoephedrine, a decongestant and mild stimulant, back when it was first starting to be included as a banned substance. It does not provide an advantage in the sprints or long jump.  There were numerous track and field and swimming athletes who tested positive for this over the counter medication, which stays detectable in urine long after it's effects have passed.  Johnson took anabolic steroids, which can greatly enhance sprinting ability.CharmsDad (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

But than, tell me: who is the greatest? Nine Olympic gold, eight World Championsip's gold (let's remember: ewery 4 years, not ewery 2, like today), he repeat Jesse Owens, he repeat Al Oerter, first man on 100 meters under 10 sec on sea level, best series in long jump, ex world record holder in 100 m, current world record holder in long jump (indoor) and, of course, in 4 × 100 m relay. Nobody before him has not two Olympic gold in 100 m (o.k. second is after Ben Jonhson's drug test in Seoul), nobody before him has not two Olympic gold in long jump (he has four). That' facts! What else we need? About drugs? During four Olympic games ('84-'96), and during four World Championshios ('83-'93) what's result? We have not no one, even little, proof! That's facts! For me, the answer is - yes, only Carl Lewis is the greatest athlete of all time!


 * The "Greatest athlete of all time" is a rather strange title to give anyone. Lewis was certainly remarkable, but there are many others who's achievements are just as remarkable.  Jesse Owens had no 1940 or 1944 Olympics to follow up on his 1936 achievements.  Emile Zatopeck won two medals (gold and silver) in 1948 and then ALL THREE distance races (5,000 m, 10,000 m, and Marathon) in 1952 - the only time this has ever been done.  Erik Heiden won EVERY speed skating event at the 1980 Winter Games - the only time this has happened in any sport.  Abibi Bikila won the Marathon in 1960 and 1964, both in world record times.  Mr. Lewis's accomplishments are certainly impressive, but here are numerous athletes who's achievements were truly remarkable.  Attempting to declaring one of them the "greatest" is meaningless.CharmsDad (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's my two cents' worth...

I'd hesitate to call Lewis the greatest athlete of all time.

Lewis absolutely is ONE of the greatest athletes of our time, as his impressive achievements at the Olympics and World Championships attest.

But, for me, what separates THE greatest from ONE of the greatest is the lack of dominance of his achievements once he retired. Though the numbers of gold medals surely is impressive, none of his athletic achievements have stood as long-standing records. None of his records stood for three years.

Indeed, unlike Jesse Owens, who held world records in the 100m, 200m and long jump, Lewis only held records in the 100m.

True, his indoor long-jump record stands after 20 years, but indoor meets are fewer and fewer these days, and that mark has been exceeded by three others besides Lewis outdoors. As for the relays, that is a reflection of the depth of American sprinting, and not a measure of the greatness of Lewis per se.

Since the argument against Lewis as being "greatest athlete ever" implies that there are more worthy candidates for this title, I'll supply one: Jesse Owens.

Owens' career took place during a time where someone of his race was subjected to routine discrimination; Lewis' achievements came during a time where this factor was much reduced if not completely eliminated.

Not only did Owens set world records in events where Lewis did not, Owens' records stood a long time, a generation in one case:

100 m - Set in 1936, not surpassed (though often tied) until 1956.

200 m - Set in 1936, not surpassed (though twice tied) until 1952.

Long Jump - Set in 1935, not surpassed until 1960.

Further, his achievement on May 25 1935 when he set three world records and tied another in a span of 45 minutes ranks as one of the greatest sports accomplishments in history.

One of the biggest reasons for Lewis' greatness was his longevity in the sport. Winning golds in four successive Olympics is an astounding feat. Owens was unfortunate to live in a time where world events meant there was not another chance to repeat his 1936 Olympic achievements until 1948.

Also, Owens after being famously snubbed by Hitler at the Olympics who refused to shake his hand, returned to an America where Owens later noted "I wasn't invited to the White House to shake hands with the president either." His life was limited by the highly restricted opportunities allowed a black man - even one with such impressive achievements - in stark contrast to Lewis was able to in large measure profit from his achievements.

Of course, Owens can't be given credit for not having had an opportunity to repeat his feats in later Olympics or be given extra marks for being a victim of discrimination, and Lewis' achievements aren't lessened by the fact he wasn't subject to the trials Owens was, but it should be noted that unlike with Lewis, Owens' records were the marks people were aiming for more than a decade later, and in the case of the long jump, for a full quarter century.

Lewis fully deserves to be considered one of the greatest athletes to have graced the world stage.

He falls short, in my opinion, of being the greatest, as his achievements fall short of at least one person I can think of.

Johnny Canuck 16:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See e.g. http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=35325#537195 and the surrounding thread for another view.

88.77.138.97 (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the page to give what I hope is a more balanced view of Lewis, his achievements and his pitfalls.

Compared to the bio of Ben Johnson, for example, Lewis' bio was remarkably thin and tended towards hagiography.

The previous version seemed to want to almost ignore his competitors, despite the fact that he was probably most well-known for his rivallry with Ben Johnson. And, since the legendary duel with Mike Powell in 1991 ranks as arguably one of the greatest ever in track and field, I spent more time describing that competition.

I'm a bit new to this, so I am a bit concerned that I;'ve not properly cited sources here, so I'd appreciate a bit of help in what needs to be sourced and what doesn't, and how to insert those sources where needed.

--Johnny Canuck 16:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Johnny! I hadn't spent the time to review carefully, but it sure seems like you're doing great work. As far as sources go, everything needs to be sourced, ideally. A good start would be to add a == References == section to clarify what sources were actually used in writing the article (as opposed to == External links ==, which means "more stuff you might read"). Inline citations are the next step, and it's just kind of an art form deciding how many of those to have and where. A lot of people say you need one for any fact including a number or time, for example. WP:CITE is our page on the subject.


 * My other suggestions are organizational -- you could probably use a heading or two in there, to provide more structured organization. You also should try to combine paragraphs some: one-sentence paragraphs are too short. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, grapes!

I've done a minor bit of sourcing today, and will endeavour to work to get more of the times etc sourced.

As for your other comments, sounds like a good idea to get some more structure in terms of heading. I kinda prefer to use the one-line paragraghs for emphasis, but I recognize that that probably doesn't conform to neutral encyclopedia style... I will fix...

--Johnny Canuck 18:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I updated the palmares. Bronze medal at the Pan American games of 1979 and a gold medal at 4x100m relay (pan american 1987) were missing.

Michele --88.149.251.209 (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I extended the stimulant use section with some interesting extra information about the case. I fear that the section is a bit tainted by the citations of the Guardian article, which seems poorly written to me. It makes people understand Lewis had multiple positive tests, while it was only one for three different banned stimulants. I'd change it to be more explicit. Sorry for the reference cited multiple times with different index number. Even if I asked the editor to use an existing reference it spawned it multiple times anyway...

comment added by JJCasual (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

 * 1. Please sign comments with four tildes ( ~ )
 * 2. Please limit comments to collaboration on article content and improvement.

- Dystopos 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actor
Apparently he has an acting career shouldn't this be included? See: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0507006/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.48.6 (talk • contribs)
 * I'll add the link under the part containing external links but I really cannot be bothered commenting on it.--Greasysteve13 06:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bulls
I'm assuming he didn't play. A bit of additional clarification about what happened would be nice. 66.93.12.67 21:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my.
Quote: "Lewis, gaining momentum, put in a monster 8.83 m wind-aided leap in the third round, a mark which would have won every long jump competition in history, save two, but which ultimately would not be the winning mark today, nor even Lewis’ best of the day. Powell then put together a massive jump, but one that was never measured as it was a foul. Lewis responded to Powell by putting in yet another huge jump. The wind gauge indicated that it was a wind-aided jump, so it could not be considered a record, but it would still count in the competition. The result: 8.91 m. Lewis had surpassed Bob Beamon’s immortal 8.90 m world record leap with the greatest leap ever under all conditions. In the fifth round, all eyes were on Powell. How would he respond to Lewis, who was putting in the greatest individual long jump performance in history? Powell took his fifth jump, another massive one, this time not a foul, with a wind gauge measuring .3 m/s, well within the legal allowable for a record. The crowd exploded when the distance was revealed: 8.95, a new world record, beating the 23-year-old mark set by Bob Beamon. But Lewis still had two jumps left, and he seemed to be just as calm and resolved as he was before, despite having the daunting task of having to now best a world record to win gold. He leaped 8.87 m, which was a new personal record under legal wind conditions – indeed, it was done with the wind in his face - then he took his final jump and leaped 8.84 m. Despite the enormous pressure of having to best a world record, Lewis achieved the third and fifth greatest legal long jumps in history, and the second and third longest at low altitude, behind only Powell’s record leap. Lewis had put in the greatest series of jumps in history, even surpassing the old world record with a wind-aided jump, but lost the competition. So great was the competition that, 15 years later, Powell’s record still stands, and Lewis’ legal jumps rank as 3rd and 5th all-time, their marks ranked one-two-three all-time at low-altitude. Lewis’ reaction to what was immediately seen to be one of the greatest competitions ever in any sport in part explains why he never was truly appreciated by many for his remarkable athletic achievements. At a time when the public was probably ready to be more sympathetic to Lewis after his vindication in his rivalry with Ben Johnson and his new world record in the 100 m only a few days before, he didn’t seem to want to acknowledge Powell’s achievement, focussing instead on his series of leaps. "He just did it," Lewis said of Powell's winning jump. "It was that close, and it was the best of his life, and he may never do it again." (New York Times, Sept 4, 1991)"

Who wrote this? Reads like a wide-eyed high-schooler fanzine. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a kid's magazine.

I wrote it, but most grown-ups sign their names - why not you?

I'm doing a rewrite of the entire article taking into account the earlier points about headings and clarity.

I'm inclined to keep the detail on the above competition, just as it is one of the greatest track competitions ever taken place. As for the "fanzine" approach, what surprises me is that Lewis' page was so skimpy on details. Love him or hate him he is one of the recognized greats in sports, and this was arguably his greatest duel. If it is not appropriate to spell out the greatest competition by one of the greatest sports figures ever, then I wonder what is the function of this encyclopedia? SImply say Lewis jumped 8.70 four times or whatever but lost to Powell who set a record and leave it at that? Unless you know the sport, you likely would not be aware of the signifigance of what they did.

Any comments?

--Johnny Canuck 22:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Edit Complete
I've added extensive detail which, given the high rank Lewis' biography has been flagged with, is probably necessary.

I'm new here, so there are a host of formatting issues I've not figured out, like how to list or generate references and such, so I'd appreciate any input here.

And, as the "oh my" person points out, the NPOV aspect here is a bit new to me, I tried to back up every opinion with a quote and give a balanced view here. Hope I've succeeded.

This is my first real contribution, don't tear me to shreds.

BTW, as "Johnny Canuck" has been used by someone else and the sockpuppet issue has arisen, I've changed my name here as will soon probably be reflected...

--Johnny Canuck 04:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a lot of tweaking and editing, and I think I've finally sorted out all of the internal links and references, as well as adding a footnotes section to the end of the article. If there is anything that still needs to be worked on, let me know. This is my first time implementing a major edit on a wiki article, thanks. Should you decide to add any more references, here is how they work.

If you're listing a website, simply put it in brackets (sans quotes) such as "[www.reference.com]" If you are getting info from a magazine or news item, it should look like this (with no space between the brackets and ref):

" Reference Magazine, August 2006, Vol. 17 #8 p. 21-22"

JohnnyRuin 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Johnny!

(I am now known as Canada Jack rather than Johnny Canuck)

Canada Jack 16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

I had not included the 2003 drug accusations which were mentioned in the previous version of the bio - so I have added a section on the controversy there. Canada Jack 16:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

GA
Congratulations. If the editors here want to move up to FA, I'd strongly suggest using a wider variety of sources in the citations. Durova 19:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm quite surprised at this. This was my first shot at doing an article and though I don;t feel it's perfect, I thought it showed Lewis in a more balanced light.

Thanks. I'll see what I can do to bump it up to FA considerationCanada Jack 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC).

Bias?
Despite his impressive athletic achievements, the American public never really warmed to him since they perceived him as aloof and egotistical. His self-congratulatory conduct and lack of humility made him unpopular with other track stars, particularly during his rivalry with Ben Johnson.[1]

Isn't this biased?


 * I would argue that the Ben Johnson reference is probably not precise, though the rest is documented. I used an Edwin Moses quote to illustrate the line "His self-congratulatory conduct and lack of humility made him unpopular with other track stars." And the previous line is illustrated most fully in the "Controversies" section with the 1984 long jump final.


 * But I think we should omit the Ben Johnson reference - his aloofness was a factor well before the rivaly, and continued well after Johnson was no longer part of the scene.


 * 159.33.10.92 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn! I sign in and it un-signs me. I wrote the above, and I decided to modify the line somewhat as though I think the tone is defendable, the line about Johnson is not accurate.

Canada Jack 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a pretty casual fan and consider myself unbiased and would definitely consider the article too negative on the whole. Maybe someone went too far in trying to be even handed perhaps, but it's an entirely too negative of a bio overall. Quadzilla99 10:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to redo the article as the way it stood beforehand it was a pretty skimpy and hagiographic account of Lewis' achievements which omitted mention of some like Ben Johnson, a rather glaring omission.

I am a fan of the sport and I feel that Lewis deserved far more acclaim than he has received, particularily in North America. Given his accomplishments, one has to ask why he hasn't been put on the same pedestal as other sporting greats like Michael Jordan have. I believe it was part of the function of the article to answer that basic question.

A lot of people openly disdain Lewis, but instead of dwelling on that I note the controversies and describe the actions or name the quotes which tended to diminish his standing in the media. Otherwise, one is left wondering why Lewis isn't treated as "royalty" the way other retired sporting gods are.

While noting his considerable achievements, I also gave credit where he is generally not given credit - in particular in terms of opening track up professionally. That is one reason that the public didn't warm to him, despite the fact subsequent generations, as Donovan Bailey said, owe Lewis a debt in this regard.

I believe this is a balanced bio of Lewis, but if you have some specific complaints, maybe you should air them to see if there is room for improvement. Canada Jack 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

NBA Draft
This article says that Carl Lewis was drafted in the 10th round on the NBA draft. I could be wrong, but I don't think the draft was ever that big. I think this fact may be erroneous.

Drug Allegations in opening paragraph
An anonymous individual has tried three times to include drug allegations which it is claimed "tarnished" Lewis' career, and we have reverted three times. Besides the POV assertion, this information is included in a section later and, since nothing came of the report, it doesn't, IMHO warrant mention in the lead (as opposed to other athletes who have been the subject of much more scrutiny).

The lead was the consensus. If you feel the need to include this, please state your case. Canada Jack 20:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A non-story that is covered in depth later in the article.--Fizbin 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user is repeatedly re-inserting this line about Lewis' drug-use allegations into the intro - at least 10 times, I believe. Is there a process to block this person as he or she is ignoring our requests to even discuss their rationale here, indeed ignoring what the consensus so far expressed on this matter is? Canada Jack 20:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved to block this person from their repeated changes. Canada Jack 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've invited the user to discuss his changes here once his block expires by leaving a message on his talk page. --Yankees76 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yankees. I hope the user will constructively engage us here, I've invited him to discuss changes with us to make this a better article. Canada Jack 14:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no doubt Lewis was just as guilty as everyone else over taking PED's. The new film 9.79* has some pretty revealing statements, especially those from the person running the IOC testing lab back in the mid-80's. The entire final should probably have an asterisk beside it, lol. Andre Jackson is quoted as saying, when asked about whether he spiked Johnson's beer before going in for testing, "maybe I did, maybe I didn't". Brutal stuff. Now Lewis wants to cast doubt on the Jamaican program? He's a very bitter man, it was hard to watch all of his contributions to the 9.79* documentary given how much I used to idolize him as a youth.Dobyblue (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Behavior Section
For the record, this section is poorly named and poorly written. Rumors of homosexuality are not behaviors, and neither are receiving payments for appearances, performances or endorsements. The gay rumor section overlaps into the amateur/pro section. The amateur/pro section is not at all encyclopedic. The recently removed and brought back 'ambivalence' is contorted in this context at best. The edit without it made more intuitive sense. The article would be better served by removing just about the whole section.--Fizbin (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This was originally part of the career text but some saw fit to put this in a new section. It seemed to me that, for example, the stuff on the 1984 long jump controversy and his behavouir, seemed to flow together better in the original context. Instead, they are in three distinct sections and the flow is ragged. What do you think should be done? Put the stuff back into the career section, or just rewrite this section to make it clearer? Canada Jack (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution here is to reincorporate this into the text proper. It was not my idea to split this off and put a "behaviour" section which, I agree, isn't really germane to the context of rumours of homosexuality, etc. AS for the use of "ambivilance" which is said to be "contorted." The text quite plainly states that so-called "amateurs" were receiving huge fees and endorsements especially in Europe, and part of the hostility towards Lewis stemmed from the perception he was "cashing in," even though there was no similar hostility towards professionals like Michael Jordan or Wayne Gretzky for their "cashing in" activities. The cited article from the New York Times make the specific observation that Lewis likely suffered from that "ambivilance." I just went to double-check that reference and - guess what? - it has somehow been omitted.

The New York Times article where some of these quotes come from says this: "In Europe, where none of this pro-amateur ambivalence prevails and Lewis is wildly popular, he commands appearance fees of $50,000 to $100,000." It goes on to further note the "ambivilance" and how Lewis and amateurs have suffered by stating: "With the participation of an all-star N.B.A. basketball team at Barcelona, a 15-year movement to end the hypocritical division between amateur and professional is complete." Not sure how to cite this properly - could someone help me? - but here is the info from the New York Times which has been omitted: The New York Times "The Runner Stumbles," by Trip Gabriel, July 19, 1992. Here is a link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DA123FF93AA25754C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

I will endeavour to reinsert this text into the text proper unless others think this is not appropriate. Canada Jack (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ...and I will endeavour to do a slight rewrite here so concerns about "ambivilance" are dealt with. I believe it is a correct usage, but since at least two others here DON'T agree with me on this, the passage here has to be redone to either omit the word or rephrase so it is clear and obvious within the context, perhaps making specific reference to the NYT article. Give me a few days on this.


 * The section had always nagged at me, so it is good that some here saw fit to kick the tires and ask the right questions. I'll take a shot at this, but if someone else wants to, be my guest. But I do believe that the issues should be addressed - the intertwining issues of professional/amateur and Lewis' marketability. Canada Jack (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl Lewis in 24???
It has been stated that he will star in the seventh season of 24 and there is a link to the 24 wiki page as a reference. However, there is no mention of him on that page and it is not listed on imdb. Please double check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jko2001 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fastest anchor leg
I've added a "citation" tag for the claim that Carl Lewis has run the fastest officially recorded anchor leg in history, at 8.85s. I've done a bit of digging on this and I found a discussion page from 2003 which includes a list where, indeed, Lewis is at the top of the list, tied with Bernard Williams who matched the time, though not in the anchor position. This doesn't count as a reliable source, so until we find an official source, the citation tag should stay. Canada Jack (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have since determined that Asafa Powell ran 8.84s at the 2007 WC, running the anchor leg. And that mark may have surpassed today at the Olympics, or perhaps Bolt did a faster leg running #3. Again, however, I've found this on a discussion board, I've not seen an official source for this. Canada Jack (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per USATF and IAAF standards (the US and international governing bodies for Track and Field), anchor leg times are kept as unofficial records only. Other than the total time, only the time for the first leg in a relay is considered an official time which can be considered for any type of record.CharmsDad (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Emmiyan and sportsmanship
Why doesn't this article mention Robert Emmiyan? He jumped 8.86. Lewis never even had second best...

(portions of this comment removed per WP:TALK and WP:BLP --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

This article seems to me to give Lewis a LOT more credit than he deserves. 68.200.98.166 (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously you didn't read the article. Emmiyan is mentioned in the "Ben Johnson emerges..." section, the 1987 World championships section (as history's second 29-footer) and the 1988 Olympics section. Canada Jack (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP concerns
I've asked for help on the WP:BLP issues here at WP:BLPN. I'll follow up here with details on the problems I see once I have a bit more time.

Please note that WP:BLP is very important and takes priority over most of the concerns I've seen expressed in edit summaries and the brief comments to date. Please discuss the issues further. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I largely wrote this article and would like to make a few comments here. While I am not surprised that Mr Lewis would not like to see some of the various controversies dredged up here - for example his self-congratulatory conduct which overshadowed for many his remarkable achievements at the 1984 Olympics, and the 1996 relay controversy - I do agree that there is an over-emphasis on the drug issue (a section I did not insert). I have always felt that while it needs to be mentioned, to single out Lewis over all the other athletes who benefited from this at the time, indeed to suggest his achievements, accomplished between 1981 and 1996, are therefore all suspect when that is the published opinion of only a few, is over-reach here. The controversy needs to be mentioned and discussed, but I don't believe this rises to be a representative view that it should be used in the lede to suggest "the validity of his achievements [are put] into question." Canada Jack (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The lede was one of my greatest concerns.  I'm removing it. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The information was added originally added 27 June 2008. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Before we get into an edit war on this, as Jack Rodwell re-inserted the drug stuff into the lede and I took it out, here is why I feel that the drug stuff does not belong in the lede. 1) Given the long career of Lewis (1979-96, 17 years) the lede speaks in general terms about his career, with no references to particular achievements or competitions, so to insert a single controversy is out of place. There are numerous controversies he was involved with and they, like this one, are covered within the text. 2) Since the most notable juxtaposition here in terms of the drug use is the fact that Ben Johnson was stripped of his medal at the very Olympics Lewis might have been otherwise banned at, but Johnson is not mentioned in the lede, we should therefore not mention it here unless Johnson was already referred to. But he wasn't. If one of the most famous sporting stories ever does not rise to the level of being mentioned in the lede, then surely neither does this. 3) If, for the sake of argument, Lewis had been banned for this offence, that still is only two years of his career and the ban itself would deserve only a fleeting mention such as: "...after serving a two-year ban for a drug infraction, Lewis returned to competition in 1991..." IOW, even if he was banned, it would barely rate mention in the lede. And certainly would not call into question his over-all career. Unless, of course, the IOC or the IAAF had moved to strip Lewis of his records/medals. But none of the relevant bodies made any movement to act on these revelations.

Anyway, that's my argument for leaving the drug stuff to the text. It's not like we are ignoring this - but I feel to put it in the lede elevates the controversy beyond its context into a lede which is addressing his overall career. Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with CJ. It's valid content, but it's of apparently small importance. Without WP:RS that his use had major impact on him/his career or on something larger than himself, it gets towards a BLP problem to make a big deal about this beyond what the content later in the article has. And it's WP:UNDUE to highlight it in the lede (excessive based on the amount of content in the article). DMacks (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unable to verify Dillion reference
From what I can tell, the article should be in the the online archives of Daily News (New York). I've searched their archives and have found no such article. Additionally, general Google searches turn up nothing for Nancy Dillion and Carl Lewis other than copies of this Wikipedia article. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

2 + 2 = KFC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.243.43 (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Senate Run
I tried to clarify this in the piece without going overboard. The court is not considering whether Lewis meets the state's residency requirements. It's considering whether those requirements are constitutional. The court allowed him to be placed on the primary ballot, but his right to run and serve is still up in the air. Njsamizdat (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

its clear that nothing is clear about the senate run controversy. After reading the article, the talk page and the provided link to reuters i understand that he tried to run as a democrat in stronghold of republicans. The republicans found out that he voted in california and used this fact to disqualify him. He appealed to court, either because the residency requirement is not constitutional or because he was receiving a non equal treatment, or both. And the most baffling that the court initially granted his appeal and then reversed itself. I think its needed to rewrite this section

Veganism
Another editor placed a several Dubious tags into the article in the section about Lewis' being a vegan. The initial statements are accurate according to sources, that Lewis credits his success in 1991 (the peak of his career) to his switch to a vegan diet. There are other sources like this that argue after 1991 that Lewis was not as good as he was before. Trying to WP:AGF though the source was not mentioned, that might be the nature of the tagging, though all this opinion (and it is opinion) seems more like a POV to push, one side or the other.

OK I'll jump in to remind the POV pusher that 30 is a reasonable age for such an athlete to peak. He had been at the top of the sport for over a decade. He still won the 1992 Olympic Long Jump though his sprinting was not up to the same level. The 4x100 Gold Medal could be attributed to his legacy position rather than his ability in that year, but it was a World Record that lasted 16 years. I would say his inclusion on the. . . unsuccessful 1996 Olympic team, that ultimately left Lewis off, would have been such a courtesy. But Lewis, weakened by the diet or not, successfully returned to the 1996 Olympics to win a fourth Long Jump Gold Medal at age 35. And shadow of his former self or not, that also tied the world record for age 35 athletes and after the Olympics he ran one of the fastest times in the 100 meters ever recorded for a 35 year old.

I don't have a horse in this race. Success or failure in this sport, particularly as one ages, in the sprints no less, is not guaranteed. How much can be attributed to a vegan diet, vs natural aging is, as I have done, arguable. Is this a controversy that merits inclusion in Wikipedia? I don't think so. I think it will open up an invitation to the POV pushers on both sides. So I suggest we leave it with Lewis' own comments and beliefs. That's the way I am leaving it, but I'm opening the discussion here before we end up with a bunch of mainspace edits from the various sides. Trackinfo (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

National representation of Robert Emmiyan in 1986 event
Another editor insists that Robert Emmiyan be referred to by his ethnic group in addition to his national representation in context to a 1986 jump by specifically referring to Emmiyan as an Armenian Soviet. In 1986, Emmiyan represented the Soviet Union only and would not represent Armenia until much later in his career. Additionally, no other athlete in the article is referred to by ethnic group and ethnic groups do not compete against one another in track and field events (nations do), and everyone in this article is referred to by the nation they represented at the time. This proposed edit would go against the established uniformity of the article and would give special treatment to Emmiyan only. I put my vote in sticking to the established formatting and sticking with mentioning the Soviet Union only for this particular 1986 event in order to stay consistent. Bear in mind the official results from this event have Emmiyan listed as representing the Soviet Union only and do not have any addition of Armenia on record and the cited source only lists the Soviet Union as well. I would appreciate the thoughts from other editors in this matter. BearMan998 (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It should stay as is, his Armenian background is irrelevant here.198.228.200.143 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, though there's no voting on Wikipedia. We must reach a consensus so that the edit warring on this article stops. Emmiyan represented the Soviet Union at the time of his jump, and a reliable source, the IAAF, lists him as representing the Soviet Union . Therefore, I've changed it to read "Lewis ended up ranked second behind Robert Emmiyan of the Soviet Union, who had the longest legal jump of the year at 8.61 m." --Yankees 76 Talk 13:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems a reasonable compromise --109.151.232.30 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, Emmiyan was a Soviet jumper at the time. His ethnicity is not of any particular relevance here. Canada Jack (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

On the flip note...

This is not a matter of ethnicity. Robert Emmiyan was an Armenian living in the Armenian SSR. Refering to someone by their ethnicity is more important when they live in a federal subject. Calling someone like Islambek Albiev a Russian would be inappropriate since he is not an ethnic Russian at all and has lived in Chechnya his whole life. It's actually kind of offensive to confuse him with a group his people are at conflict with.

Some of you also seem to think it was a matter of "at the time" of the jump. Emmiyan set the record in a competition Lewis didn't participate in, so there is no reason to only mention Emmiyan was a Soviet because this competition has nothing to do withLewis.

The sentence also isn't refering to one year in their careers...


 * "who had the longest legal jump of the year at 8.61 m"

...but rather one year out of their entire careers. Since Emmiyan also represented the independent Republic of Armenia in his career, and in at least one contest Lewis also took part in (1996 Olympics), there is nothing wrong with mentioning Emmiyan's second nationality. In fact, since he doesn't hold Soviet citizenship anymore (no one does), just calling him "Armenian Robert Emmiyan" may be the most appropriate.

In fact, the International Association of Athletics Federations itself lists his nationality as Armenian, not Soviet.

Proof: http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/country=URS/athcode=796/index.html

So to not mention Emmiyan's Armenian status would be taking away important information. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)--TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And why would this belong in an article about Carl Lewis? And again, the sentence is referring to what happened in 1986 where Emmiyan represented the Soviet Union, not Armenia. The only way you can include Armenia in this sentence is if Emmiyan represented Armenia in 1986. Lastly, the link you posted is listing his current nationality, not his nationality in 1986. BearMan998 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As I told you before, for the same reason we metion Emmiyan is a Soviet or Johnson is Canadian or Powell is American in the first place. "The jump", on the other hand, has nothing to do with Lewis because he wasn't there. It just picks one year out of Lewis' life. If we only had 1986 on this page, than we could just call him a Soviet, but the article goes from 1980-1996, during which time Emmiyan competed against Lewis representing Armenia. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence is explicitly about the year end rankings in 1986 and this clearly shows Emmiyan representing the Soviet Union at the time and again, why would this even need to be on an article on Carl Lewis as opposed to say an article about Robert Emmiyan? BearMan998 (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

... Mr. Bear Man, you just showed me something that has info from 1949 to 2002. You just proved my point, which is what the sentance says: This is just ONE year out of an entire career, during which Lewis faced Emmiyan as a Soviet and as an Armenian. As I just said: why do we even need to mention Canada when talking about Ben Johnson?--TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see the sentence in question is about 1986. Seems quite clear to me. And again, why would this belong on a page about Carl Lewis? Like multiple editors have already stated, his ethnicity is irrelevant in an article about Carl Lewis. As for Ben Johnson, every reference to Ben Johnson as a Canadian in the article was when he was a competitor for Canada. We don't mention that Ben Johnson is Jamaican here. BearMan998 (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If it's talking about one year, why is there need to say "of the year"? Because it's about their entire careers. Stop asking what this has to do with Lewis. If you're going to keep repeating the same excuse, you shouldn't be allowed to stall any longer. And like I have already said, and what other editors are ignorant of, is that this is more than just his ethnicity. He lived in a Federal Subject, something none of Lewis' other rivals did, therefore making Emmiyan's case special and unique. You're right, we won't mention Johnson is Jamaican, BECAUSE CANADA STILL EXISTS (unlike USSR). --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The way I see it you're the only one in support of this change, so who's the one stalling here? Of course I will ask what this has to do with Lewis considering this is an article about Carl Lewis. Also, you may want to stop with the personal attacks. BearMan998 (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it everyone else's opinion is irrelevant at the moment because they gave their opinion before I said why we should put Soviet Armenian. By all means, ask whatever you want, just don't ask the same question three times in 20 minutes. How did I personally attack you? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you answer the question, I and the other editors can see if there is any real reason of including this in the article. As for the personal attacks, I was referring to the rude messages you left on my talk page such as "you're mad you lost"; messages like that aren't going to help your cause. And no, everyone else's opinion is not irrelevant. BearMan998 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have done that if you didn't close the thread before we reached consensus. Answer what question? You actually chnaged the subject. What do you have to say about Emmiyan's unique situation and just saying he represented a no longer existing country being uninformative? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the question is what does this have to do with Carl Lewis? I assume realize you are proposing an edit on Carl Lewis' article as opposed to Robert Emmiyan's. BearMan998 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to completely expand Emmiyan's article later anyway. This is a priority right now. So what does it have to do with Carl Lewis you say? Nothing. Why don't we just not mention anyone else at all, because they aren't Carl Lewis. But we are mentioning them, so we're giving a small amount of info about them.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, there's your answer, his ethnicity has nothing to do with Carl Lewis. BearMan998 (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither does his nationality. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. BearMan998 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's funny because you've pulled the "What does this have to do with Lewis" card four times. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And you spent all this time only to realize this very edit you are pushing for is irrelevant to the Carl Lewis article. Again, review WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as it seems everyone is on the same page but you. I've thoroughly laid out the reasons for you only you are choosing not to hear it. Rather than beat a dead horse, I'll let other editors deal with this. BearMan998 (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I stand by my points. Notice you've never responded to my What do you have to say about Emmiyan's unique situation and just saying he represented a no longer existing country being uninformative? question. I looked at that and I feel it describes you best. No one has really read both our summarys and supported you. 198.228.200.158's comment is pretty pointless. Look, you've asked me what this has to do with Carl Lewis several times. I give you an answer and then you still ask it again. If anyone is beating a dead horse, it is you. I hope a third party will either back me up or answer my question. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And who are you to decide my comment is pointless? By the way things look I could easily say the same for your whole argument.--198.228.200.150 (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Saying something "doesn't sway" you contributes nothing to the debate. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Shadowcrow-I read your reasoning and it doesn't sway me. My original stance that his Armenian bacground is irrelevant still stands. 198.228.200.158 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day, on June 7, 1986 in Moscow, Robert Emmiyan, representing the Soviet Union jumped 8.61m which was the longest legal jump of the 1986 track season. Does the 1986 Goodwill Games article or any other 1986 track article list any medals for Armenia? No. If you want to call Emmiyan an Armenian later on in the article (say in the section for the '96 Olympics) or say "Robert Emmiyan, now competing for Armenia" so that the reader understands the context in an appropriate section of Lewis' career where Emmiyan is notable as representative of Aremenia, then that would be more appropriate. However the truth is after 1987, Emmiyan did little on the international track scene to even warrant inclusion in an article on Carl Lewis, and after the breakup of the Soviet Union only has finishes out of the medals in meets where Lewis was absent to his credit, and when Lewis and Emmiyan did compete against each other at the '96 Olympics, Lewis won and Emmiyan was a mere footnote (didn't qualify for the finals). In other words Emmiyan is not notable enough to appear in this article in any context where he competed for Armenia and not the Soviet Union as after 1987 he's not really on Carl Lewis radar any more than Remmy Limo or Simone Bianchi. My opinion remains unchanged - the edit should stay as is.

It should be noted that numerous other athletes are mentioned in this article without so much as a nod to what country they represented (Calvin Smith, Asafa Powell, Paavo Nurmi, Larisa Latynin just to cite a few of them) - perhaps some energy spent on arguing this one sentence can be redirected to improve the rest of the article. --Yankees 76 Talk 14:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Past practice has been to note the country the athlete represented at the time of the event in question. Which is why we don't see Emmiyan listed as Soviet/Armenian when he won silver to Lewis' gold at the 1987 World Championships. We see his listed as a Soviet athlete. Using the logic above, if we note Emmiyan's Armenian nationality here, while we are at it, we should do the same for all Soviet athletes who later competed under a different nationality. But here at wikipedia, we don't do that unless an athlete's entire career is noted, such as with Sergey Bubka.Canada Jack (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not just Soviet athletes, but also Yugoslavian athletes, East German athletes.... either way after re-reading TheShadowcrow's arguments we may have a difficult time reaching a consensus on this particular sentence.
 * We can:
 * 1) Leave as it is currently - Lewis ended up ranked second behind Robert Emmiyan of the Soviet Union, who had the longest legal jump of the year at 8.61 m.
 * 2) Change to say "Soviet Armenian" - Lewis ended up ranked second behind Soviet Armenian long jumper Robert Emmiyan, who had the longest legal jump of the year at 8.61 m.
 * 3) Change it to say "of the Soviet Union (later Armenia) - Lewis ended up ranked second behind Robert Emmiyan of the Soviet Union (later Armenia), who had the longest legal jump of the year at 8.61 m.
 * 4) Remove the nationality - Lewis ended up ranked second behind Robert Emmiyan, who had the longest legal jump of the year at 8.61 m.
 * 5) Describe him as "Soviet" only - Lewis ended up ranked second behind Soviet Robert Emmiyan, who had the longest legal jump of the year at 8.61 m.
 * 6) Describe him as "Armenian" only (or variation of ) - Lewis ended up ranked second behind Robert Emmiyan of Armenia, who had the longest legal jump of the year at 8.61 m.


 * Consensus wise, #4 is the best option (removing the nationality all together), followed by #1. Are there any other acceptable compromises? --Yankees 76 Talk 18:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer option#1. --198.228.200.155 (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been a huge waste of time. I have said again and again calling Emmiyan an Armenian goes beyond just calling him by his ethnicity and that he is different than the other athletes here because he comes from a federal subject and represented a no longer existing country. But still you cite 4 more other athletes to use as an excuse, 3 of which have nothing to do in anyway with Lewis and the other coming from the same country as him, lessening the need to mention his country. And Jack, that's not the case. Vadim Yemelyanov is just called a Russian on the Joe Frazier article. On wikipedia, many people write the article based on how they see fit. I say #2, or in other words, my version. No one here seems to have anything to say about Emmiyan being in a unique situation compared to every other athlete here. Again, he's from a different kind of country, and that country no longer exists. Just calling him a Soviet is uninformative. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would go with option #1 as well. BearMan998 (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point since there is no consensus, per WP:CON a lack of consensus will result in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal. --Yankees 76 Talk 12:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Page improvements discussion
This article is quite shallow and uninteresting. Also it seems to me ground for controversies that some editors like to highlight according to their bias (mostly adverse to the athlete judging from the revision history). I'd spend a bit of time to improve it but I feel it is something that can't be done without unless a bit of consensus is first gathered between all the other editors genuinely interested in improving this page. So far I've edited the stimulants section which was lacking a lot of information and still has room for improvement. I'd start from this topic as it may well be the most heated. Let me clarify that by proposing a list of edits:

1) It should be more spot on to write the 10ppm stimulant rule was from IOC, as in the referenced source, not really USOC as in the article (I confess this was my bad)

2) Is there any reason why we should say where stimulants can be found or what effects do they produce? There is already a lot of external literature and debate on that. Anybody can check if interested. I think it is enough to mention the incriminated product that introduced them in Lewis' body was a dietary herbal supplement.

3) The IAAF official remarks regarding this controversy are missing and in my opinion are more than worth inclusion as they are an important third opinion beyond the dispute between USOC and Wade Exum.

4) Later in the section there is a statement that repeats where the positive tests occurred. I'd remove that together with the statement that athletes had to declare "over-the-counter medication, prescription drugs and any other substances you have taken by mouth, injection or by suppository.". That is because Lewis wasn't taking medications or prescribed drugs as far as I know and the incriminated product has no relationship with the products in such remark

5) The last sentence generally reports that Lewis tested positive "three times". As per this should mean he had 3 samples of urine that tested positive for combinations of those stimulants (2ppm, 4ppm, 6ppm respectively). In fact Lewis won 100m, long jump and was second in the 200m (thus he had to provide 3 samples). Deloach tested positive once (7ppm) as winner of the 200m. I'd clarify this in the earlier paragraph and remove the last sentence of the section

Last, but not the least, much of the information the editors cite around this case comes from the Guardian articles of Duncan Mackay. One of the statements of the journalist has already given birth to a dispute which remarked that he might have "made up" certain information. A number of other statements that are proved wrongful are: A) his remarks plead that USOC covered the tests up. But this theory has been dismissed by a sentence of the Denver Federal court (as it is documented in the article) and by the IAAF remarks (which are still missing in this article). Duncan Mackay was the journalist following the story for the Guardian by that time. He hasn't written any comment about the IAAF remarks (why?) differently from other journalists of Sports illustrated or the LosAngeles Times etc covering the story B) His remarks that Carl Lewis should have been disqualified due to the rules are completely baseless and dismissed by the LosAngeles Times source, USOC executive Baaron Pittenger words , IAAF official remarks

C) The remark that Lewis was first disqualified and then he got his ban overturned defies logic due to the sources mentioned in point B)

I could also argue about the fact that he sounds biased but the list of fallacious statements already tells enough. I find hard to deny his articles are quite unreliable/weasely sources to discuss the stimulant case. The problem is that they may be used repeatedly by other editors to assert such wrongful statements in this page. On the general picture of the Wikipedia article I noticed that the period between 1992-1996 (1985-1986 also) is not really covered and too few information is also reported for the 1996 season. Also the 100m race at Tokyo isn't really covered and that is one of Lewis' major achievements and arguably one of the most notable 100m races to date. There isn't much about his childhood either (e.g.: It misses Jesse Owens awarding him after a long jump competition at 13 which I feel it is worth inclusion. It misses the point that Jesse Owens was his great inspiration over his career). I understand this athlete is hated by many but this article is so dry (=mere statistics) and short that doesn't credit him for the enormously brilliant athlete/trailblazer he was. For example there aren't technical notes that mention his widely recognized flawless/effortless running and jumping mechanics. There is no mention of the efficiency of his technique in the final stage of his sprints. Why? That was the key of his success and almost is trademark. Anyway I'd discuss the stimulant section first and then the rest of the article if anyone is willing. Before I change anything any suggestion is welcome. JJCasual (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

1996 Olympics 4x100m debacle
I have deleted the following:


 * Olympic team coach Erv Hunt said, "The basis of their [the relay team's] opinion was 'We want to run, we worked our butts off and we deserve to be here.'"

I've looked far and wide for a citation. Many articles were written about Lewis trying to get selected for the relay and Erv Hunt was repeatedly quoted but I haven't found anything with this quote. The article is currently up for good article assessment and all material must be verifiable at the very least. If you find an authoritative article with the quote, please add it back in.

Many thanks, FunkyCanute (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's from Track and Field News, the October 1996 issue where the other cites are from. Canada Jack (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

National Anthem Fiasco???
No mention nor even discussion of Carl Lewis butchering The Star-Spangled Banner in 1993 at a Bulls-Nets game, Brendan Byrne Aren. Is there some criteria it does not meet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benane (talk • contribs) 14:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)