Talk:Marie Davenport

Could do with some more views on this one
Seems to be a bit of confusion over what happened in 1996. One article (from 2004) says McMahon / Davenport "had taken a cold remedy ... [and] tested [positive] for an anti-inflammatory contained in the cold medicine". Another, from 1996, says it was Neurofen, taken "after sustaining a leg injury". The 2004 article mentions speculation at the time about a four-year ban. The 1996 article says "it is likely that she will be given the minimum suspension of three months", whilst the 2004 one refers to "the Irish newspapers ... running a story that she ... was facing a four-year ban". So a couple of different versions about what she took, for what and whether there was any suggestion of a four-year ban. (She actually was not banned, but reprimanded.) If anyone has any thoughts about how we deal with discrepancies in the sources, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The only source (Irish Times) contradicts itself a number of times - and not just about the positive test. The original Wikipedia post about Marie Davenport was written citing only one article and the summation of the article was damaging to Davenport's reputation. I'm new to Wikipedia...is it common practice to cite only one article when writing about a person? Especially in a manner that, at best, mischaracterizes a situation at the expense of the person? If there are significant discrepancies, as you point out, within the same source, is it fair to publish interpretations of the single source as fact? I don't believe your original post was malicious but you should be aware that it caused her family pain today. Iron1105 (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Iron1105
 * Hi there, I'm honestly not sure which post of mine you are referring to. My original edit on this article was reverting your removal of info, with the comment that your edit was in good faith but "Looks like this was sourced and should remain". You reverted that change. I removed some of your next edit with the comment "Removing editorialising - will add ref". I then added the ref you identified back in with a quote. When you reverted that I backed away from further editing of that section (not wanting to edit war), and made two edits to add more info and refs, here and here.
 * Your post above suggests you may be a friend or family member of the subject of the article. In that case you are strongly discouraged by Wikipedia policy from editing the article, especially in areas which may be contentious. Please have a look at the conflict of interest guidance. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your original post, citied only one article by a newspaper that contradicts itself in subsequent articles. Best case, this seems to be in violation of the Wikipedia rules on citing poor sources about living people.  Note that your later posts also contain factual inaccuracies: wrong places, times, dates.  You cite the correct sources on these later posts and then make mistakes in your summary.  I'm pointing this out because you are writing about a living person and it seems to me that extra care should be given to be accurate but that has not been the case in treatment of this subject. Not trying to be difficult here but I do think accuracy should matter when writing about living people in a public forum.  Iron1105  —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-reading your comments...You didn't publish the original post about the subject? If that is the case then help me correct the page so it is compliant with Wikipedia rules and, most importantly, factually correct. Thanks, Iron1105