Talk:Suzy Favor Hamilton

Untitled
Needs wikification rather than cleanup (table at bottom). Tamarkot 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Recentism tag.
I've added the recentism tag to the last section of this article. This is an article on a living person and I am quite undecided as to the extent to which the current dust-up about this person and certain aspects of her personal life need to be discussed in a WP article on her life. If asked to vote, I would vote to tone down the details as being irrelevant and inappropriate. I think that hindsight will bear this out. I have noticed that one editor has already excised mention of the name of the article subject's Las Vegas employer. NorthCoastReader (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that a good measure of the relevance of such details are this: if the subject had instead confessed that she had a secret life as a bookkeeper for a local department store, to what degree would we publish the details?   Ravenswing   07:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to support the notion of recentism, but this isn't one of those cases. Her public profile has been fairly low in the past few years and it became news again over this. I'd say that if we do more than mention it with the sentence or two that is already there, we'd be treading on UNDUE area, but a minimal mention doesn't seem out of place. BTW, I removed a line about her husband knowing. Although correct, this is her bio and it should focus on her. I see that added line as salacious detail more focused on another living person. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot the other part. Although you are correct, the media would ignore the bookkeeper example, that's because it's uninteresting. If she were to be outed as an undercover DEA agent, that would be covered and likely put into her bio too. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of us disagree. If I understand the purpose of the recentism tag, it is to encourage us all to keep in mind (in general terms) how we will view the contents of the section once we gain the benefit of some distance from the event in question, in terms of time, and the consequent improvement in the acuity of our hindsight.

I would say that relevance is determined with respect to the context supplied by the person's life both before and after the event in question. It is too early to tell the extent to which these recent disclosures will be relevant given the overall context of Ms. Hamilton's life. On the one hand, it may well be that subsequent events, and/or future revelations about past events, mean that editors will choose to allow the section to remain in one form or another (or take the information and work it into other portions of the article) given the overall context of her life. On the other hand, it may come to pass that editors will determine that, in their opinion, the section is not relevant given that context and will remove it.

The "interest value" of one tidbit of news or another may be an appropriate measure of worthiness for inclusion in a news article but Wikipedia requires that we keep "historical perspective" in mind, focusing not on the sensational elements of news reportage but on the ways in which an article or section illuminates or helps to describe the life of the subject.

Assuming, arguendo, that the subject's part-time employment is both relevant and material and fit for inclusion in the article, I think it behooves us to refrain from "piling on" during this time of personal challenge for Ms. Hamilton and to maintain as objective and neutral a point of view as possible. 'Indeed, I think  all of those editing this article '' should review and thoughtfully consider WP:BLP (Wikipedia:biographies of living persons) and refer to it for guidance on how to proceed with this matter. Of special concern, in my view, given some of the comments on this page, is the following quote from ¶ 3 of WP:BLP:''' '''Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...''' While consulting WP:BLP, I have been reminded that, to quote: The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced, because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. [Emphasis added] In addition, at the very start of the article, we find that we are enjoined to strict adherence to the law, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. NorthCoastReader (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong in the lead, but it does belong in the article. It's properly source, sufficiently notable and she has admitted it very publicly, so there issue there. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Favor-Hamilton Fan Club, she is an admitted prostitute
Wikipedia is here to write an article, not be a cheerleader of the person.

Someone removed material and left the explanation: Remove reference to prostitution from lede per WP:UNDUE. Subject's notability stems from her athletics career

President Jimmy Carter's notability stems from his presidency, not being a peanut farmer. Yet the peanut farmer is in the lede. Similarly, Favor-Hamilton is an admitted prostitute. If someone unreliable just accused her of it, I would fully support not mentioning it but it is fact. I also favor mentioning her as a runner first.

Gravelocator (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * She may well be an admitted prostitute but does that mean editors' handling of this fact is undeserving of careful treatment under WP:BLP? Please read my expanded comment at the bottom of the Recentism section, above.  NorthCoastReader (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Her revelation that she has been working as a prostitute is not a "tidbit" and can certainly be factually stated in the article about her. 68.187.69.29 (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We have to be careful in articles to not end up slanting the article by tone and word choice. This person is primarily noted for her sports career, which is woefully lacking in the article. Adding additional information about the escort tidbit is undue weight. I also don't think escort is as vague a description as you make it out to be. The main sources use escort, and finding some local sports source using the more strong language doesn't make that more strong language more appropriate for the article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move
Suzy Favor-Hamilton → Suzy Favor – She has divorced and changed her name back to Suzy Favor. None of the sources cited in the article have her surname hyphenated. Formerip (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, as it seems to be how Hamilton spells her own name, as well as how the media has been spelling it.  Belch fire - TALK  20:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. NorthCoastReader (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per COMMONNAME. GiantSnowman 13:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. DreamGuy (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Price issue
Numerous well-respected, mainstream media sources like the NY Times, LA Times and Vancouver Sun all see mention the fact that she charged $600 dollars an hour. Some seem to think this is a problem to put into the article and remove it either without reason of with "reasons" like 'we don't do it for other professions'. Actually, it puts it in perspective. It shows that she was working a high end escort agency versus hustling street corners or bars. I'd like to hear an actual valid reason why this well-sourced, widely reported fact should be excluded. Claiming UNDUE doesn't seem to cut it in this case. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I'm not sure how UNDUE got into the conversation, but it does not belong there. Due and undue weight is a sub-heading under WP:NPV and deals with the ways in which editors might handle competing theories/views/viewpoints/opinions in order to bring an article into compliance with WP policy with regard to Neutral Point of View.  Here we are talking about a fact -  the standard rate charged by the article subject for services rendered.  There seems not to be a question as to whether or not this is a fact.  The subject allegedly either gave or confirmed that information when talking with one or more reporters.  The fact is multiple-sourced.  There doesn't seem to be any competing viewpoint or opinion on the matter.  There was once a saying in the old "personal growth and development" movement to the effect that "obviously, the truth is what's so.  Not so obviously, it's also so what?"  I do believe that mention in the section to the effect that the subject worked for a Las Vegas escort service is adequate to establish that the subject was not an entry-level sex worker (let's assume that makes any kind of difference).  What good does it do to add the customary fee charged other than to pile stuff on?  Let's be honest and admit that there is more than one point made in the article which could lead a reader to come to a less than entirely favorable opinion of the subject.  Why hammer the point home?  Is this "fact" not rather inflammatory?  NorthCoastReader (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How on earth is it inflammatory? It's uncontested, accurate and reported all over the place by top tier media sources. She admits it and the rate was advertised, not some secret. Niteshift36 (talk)
 * It's undue weight, unquestionably. Doesn't belong.   Belch fire - TALK  03:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See above. Aside from your declaration that it is undue, could you explain why an uncontested, well documented, advertised rate being mentioned in a single sentence suddenly becomes undue weight?Niteshift36 (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Start over. Since you want it included, you need to justify it.   Belch fire - TALK  04:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * First, why do we "start over" and I have to justify it? Because you said so? It is sourced, accurate and non-controversial information. It is presented in a neutral manner. The onus is on you to explain why it doesn't belong. I've already given reasons why it belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see Niteshift36's argument, but I have to agree with the others. Quoting the rate she charged is tabloidy, not encyclopedic. It doesn't seem necessary or appropriate to the article, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless, a call girl is a far cry from a prostitute. Apteva (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! Dude, cut it out with the jokes, OK?   Belch fire - TALK  07:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
Timeline This is edit warring. Can I recommend the essay WP:BRD to Nightshift36? It isn't policy but it describes usual behaviour here. Since you may be unaware of the norms here, I should also point out that discussion can range over some time, to allow for as much interested input as possible. This is especially the case over holiday periods. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Recommend what you want......and ignore youw own part in it. First off, someone removed sourced, accurate, non-controversial info with no explaination. It was reverted with reasoning and an invitation to discuss it. The editor did not discuss. Then someone else removed sourced, accurate, non-controversial information without citing a policy based reason. AGAIN, I invited discussion. No discussion. Then you removed removed sourced, accurate, non-controversial information without citing a policy based reason. Again, you were invited to dicuss it and failed to do so. Then I start a discussion since none of you "model editors" seem willing to dicsuss it. Now you removed sourced, accurate, non-controversial information without citing a policy based reason and tell me to discuss it. Guess what?!?!? I AM discussing it. I started the discussion. I've been asking for a discussion all along. Then you come in and start bitching about "edit warring" and telling me about BRD? Which one of you 3 that removed the removed sourced, accurate, non-controversial information without citing a policy based reason took up the D part of BRD? Then, on top of it all, you tell me I might be unaware of the norms here? Are you kidding me? Yeah, after 22,000+ edits, I have no clue what goes on here. It's not like I didn't invite discussion multiple times. No, I have no idea what the norms are. That sentence alone borders on insulting. Or maybe you just make a habit of shooting your mouth off without bothering to look at who you're insulting. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony, since you've reverted TWICE now and are a fan of BRD, I'd like you to provide the diff of where YOU discussed the issue. Did you follow BRD? Obviously not. Have you even discussed the issue about why you think it doesn't belong? Again, no. Instead, you choose to use your time to make ridiculous comments. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Niteshift36. I apologise for not checking your edit history before commenting. I assumed from your edit warring that you must be new, but I see from your block log now that you are aware of WP:EW. Please don't edit war. It is disruptive, creates an unpleasant atmosphere and interferes with consensus-forming. My thoughts on the point of this discussion are these, for now. You don't need to prove to me, or anyone else, that the content you want to add is sourced, accurate and non-controversial. I tried to make that clear in my edit summary when I said: "No one is disputing the veracity of the claim." If there was something about that that was unclear, again I apologise. Let me know if you have any more confusion on that point and I'll explain it to you in simpler terms.

I'm still clarifying my thoughts about excluding the price, and will get back to you. But I have to go out now. Kindest regards, and wishing you and yours happiness in this festive season, Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 3 blocks in about 5 years.....horribly rampant, isn't it. Still, you fail to realize your part in this so-called edit war. You made your first reversion with no reasoning at all. As the experienced editor you are, you should have seen that the removal had already been disputed at at least given some sort of reason, but you failed to. Of course, you may not have noticed, since you've demonstrated your observation skills are sub-par. Actually, showing that it is accurate and non-controversial is something I should be showing and have done so. What you've failed to show is a reason to not include it. What is still unclear, my smug friend, is WHY it doesn't belong. The fact that you need time to formulate your answer is very revealing......it shows you've removed it out of reaction, rather than policy, and is probably a good reason why you've concentrated on talking about me and not actually discussing the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just pointing out that you know what edit-warring is, not making a point about your block log (mine's bigger than yours). Since this discussion is also happening at BLP/N, I've responded there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I LOLed when I saw this thread. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Time to choose
It's been some time since I paid much attention to this article. I came back to it when I noticed that somebody has chosen, once again, to focus on some of the details of Ms. Hamilton's recent brush with controversy. At this point, it is clear to me that any justification for having WP host an article on Ms. Hamilton must be centered on her athletic career. Anybody who wants to, and is able to find appropriate cites, is more than welcome to add other things like endeavors in the ares of business, motivational speaking, or coaching (or whatever) in which she may be involved.

As it stands, right now, the article, as a whole, has been effectively gutted. It is devoid of information of a quality and quantity that would make the article worthwhile. By any measure we might want to use, there is nothing much left except material which tends to cast her in a bad light and a "slow-walked" edit war which sees material of that sort come and go from time to time. That is unacceptable.

While it might, theoretically (I say that because I am not currently willing to concede the point), be possible to keep a section on the escort controversy, that only makes sense within the context of a fully developed article covering much more than is covered here. As it is, what we've got is a "hit piece." A "tabloid-y" piece of gossip. A public condemnation. The identity of her L.V. employer and details of her term of employment there, her "nom d'amour", her rate of pay, her client list (if that becomes available - somebody's already blabbed the fact of her work), and most other details of that nature are all irrelevant, potentially damaging, more than a small sign of small-mindedness and ill-will (remember, this is the element which allows even a "public figure" to haul Wikipedia into court for the defamation jackpot round), and unworthy of Wikipedia.

I invite someone with the requisite knowledge and interest in sports and business to fill in the blanks. Soon. Otherwise, why keep any of the article at all? I am not ready to do so at this moment, but I would think that if something is not done soon, this article might make a good candidate for deletion. NorthCoastReader (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Articles about notable people aren't deleted just because someone hasn't yet gotten around to expanding the article. Favor Hamilton meets our WP:GNG rules to have an encyclopedia article quite easily, so there's no way a deletion attempt would fly. If you think that the part of the article about her sports career needs to be expanded, and I would agree, then great! Either expand it yourself or wait for someone else to do it. Content problems are fixed by editing, not by deleting the whole thing. DreamGuy (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do see your point and I want to emphasize that my concern is not the issue of notability and if that was the only consideration, I would, indeed, wait for someone to come along and get it done (I am sometimes bemused by what I see as the "delete the stub"-happy approach taken by some on WP). I apologize if I gave the impression that I mentioned deletion simply because of the bare-bones nature of the article.  I would suggest that one read my comment in the context of the way the whole article appears at this point.  There is what I consider undue emphasis placed on her escort work.  Notability is not the only consideration here and I submit that WP:BLP overrides WP:Eventualism (and so states in the section Due weight).  Also see the section, on the same policy page, People who are relatively unknown which one could argue applies here as well.  NorthCoastReader (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There are definitely BLP issues, and those need to be handled aggressively. Expanding the escort section without a dramatic increase in the section on sports in a huge WP:UNDUE weight issue. Calling her outright a prostitute, and giving her popularity rankings on same escort ranking site are both over the top. We should be striving to be as objective and fair as possible. Unnecessary extra trivial details being added seem to have the end result (and potentially the intended purpose) of trying to shame the subject of the article. That cannot stand. DreamGuy (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Notability shouldn't even be discussed at this point. She was on 3 Olympic teams. That fact alone gets here past WP:ATHLETE. I still disagree that mentioning the price, which was well sourced and well covered by very well respected sources was not undue at all. The ratings etc, however, do not belong. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, notability was not being discussed at that point. What I was trying to say (and I do believe that I was able to convey this thought to DreamGuy [and, I would hope, others as well]) was that the article, as it recently stood, was basically a hit piece tending (and, indeed, meant?) to bring shame and disrepute to the subject of the article and should be considered a candidate for deletion if all that was going to be done was provide a few sentences vaguely referring to past athletic efforts followed by a paragraph, no matter how short, detailing the subject's failings in the way of finding "wholesome" or "worthwhile" part-time employment.  Notability is assumed by all reasonable individuals however vaguely or remotely familiar with the subject's history as an athlete.  It is not an issue.  What is an issue is the failure of this article to meet the standards imposed by WP:BLP.
 * I really am having a difficult time understanding why it is so hard to comprehend that:
 * The subject of the article is a living person.
 * Notability is fairly inferred and, thus, assumed, based on the subject's athletic career.
 * Wikipedia policy, i.e., WP:BLP, as well as traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice absolutely demand that all other considerations be weighed against the constraints imposed by law (interestingly enough, mentioned first in the BLP lead paragraph), WP:BLP, Wikipedia core content policies, and tradition.
 * Somebody puhleeze fill out the subject's athletic career. Then we can get about the business of figuring out just how much of the part-time employment question can be included in the article.  And those who insist on including material on the subject's part-time employment had darn well better consider WP:NPOV (section: Due and undue weight - one of those pesky Wikipedia core content policies).   NorthCoastReader (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This person is better known as a prostitute than a runner. That is the sad fact of life.

Not all escorts are prostitutes, but she is. Some people are constantly removing it. It is a sad fact of life that she was a prostitute, at least according to her husband, but she was what she was.

There are reliable sources that state that she was a prostitute, not a non-prostituting escort. [Material deleted.]

Gravelocator (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sad? If the sex trade is what by choice, she wants to do, then its not sad.  Sad is subjective opinion.   Wikipedia is no place for subjective personal opinion, including any personal opinion of what is sad or not sad.  MS 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This post, immediately above, is most amazing. I am going to deal with the most important issue here and manually edit it (being forced to do so by multiple intervening edits since the point at which the offending material first appeared). I direct your attention to ¶ 3 of WP:BLP which states: Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages . The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.[cite removed by me - simply click on the link and go to the policy page to get the paragraph in its original form including cite. Emphasis added by me.]

I humbly submit that the material deleted was a direct violation of both the letter and the spirit of WP:BLP (and not simply because the deleted material was unsourced. Sourcing it ain't gonna be able to put enough lipstick on this one to make it pretty.  Everything about that material is wrong.). NorthCoastReader (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks "This person is better known as a prostitute than a runner." is accurate should stop editing this article completely, because they simply lack the knowledge and common sense required to make reasonable contributions to this topic. She was in the Olympics, she was well known enough to be in a Nike commercial, and she was famous enough to be hired by Disney for events. It's laughable to think something that happened decades after her prime is the only thing worth mentioning. DreamGuy (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since she achieved notability as an athlete long before her employment (and public outing) as a prostitute, of course her primary notability will be as an athlete. And I understand where you're coming from NorthCoast. However, we can't and shouldn't withhold well source, well documented, widely covered information from the article solely because the rest isn't beefed up enough yet. We should (and are) putting it into the article in an appropriate amount. there is no requirement that we wait until there is positive info to balance it out. THAT isn't what NPOV is about. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suzy Favor Hamilton. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610234449/http://www.usatf.org/statistics/champions/USAOutdoorTF/women/w1500m.asp to http://www.usatf.org/statistics/champions/USAOutdoorTF/women/w1500m.asp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Rmv unsourced & unreliably sourced text
I came to this article because a record the subject set over three decades ago by her was more recently broken. I must say I was appalled by the article's content. Much seems clearly in violation of WP:BLP and undue weight, and recentism. This person had an extraordinary, world class athletic career that lasted more than two decades, yet there's only a bare minimum of material relating to that, considerably less than is given to her very brief experience with a Las Vegas escort service. None of us have the ability to determine whether or not her attribution of her behavior to ineffective treatment of bipolar disorder, is accurate, but if she suffers from such a disability, it is even further reason for deletions. I notice that one editor rationalizing the inclusion of such shameful text, who assiduously scrubs well-sourced and relevant negative content from many articles on corporate executives, corporations and conservative politicians, seems determined to assure that this woman's article contains copious salacious material. Wikipedia is no place for such editorial misbehavior. I will augment the athletics section of the article (which I have done for many current and historic competitors, and expanding stubs, as well as having created many such articles) to better reflect the reason she is famous, rather than very briefly infamous. I have removed the following text for the above reasons and the blatant sourcing issues."She had started with Haley Heston Private Collection in December 2011, using the name 'Kelly' (sometimes identified as 'Kelly Lundy'). The investigative report also noted the Hamilton household did not appear to be experiencing any financial difficulties." The name Favor used with escort service, is de minimus to her life. The name of the escort service is immaterial, and "tenminuteinterviews.com" and "radaronline.com/exclusives" are not reliable sources but rather bottom-of-the-barrel tabloidism. Activist (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight tag removed.
I have removed the undue weight tag from the prostitution section, as I don't see any undue weight issue, and I see no discussion of this tag here on the talk page. If you believe this tag is appropriate, please use this talk page to explain why. 71.216.250.182 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)