Talk:Emma Weyant

DeSantis

Please add the following line to the current last line of the article, currently ending "swam a 4:33:24".

On 3/22/2022 Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued a proclamation that Emma Weyant is "the rightful winner of the 2022 NCAA Division 1 Women's 500-yard Freestyle".

 Already done by Jkister * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

actually User:Egsan Bacon reverted the change because s/he says DeSantis was "grandstanding" and it was not worth mentioning. Jkister (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the decision to not include the decree by Ron DeSantis should be reconsidered. It does not violate WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP nor WP:MINORASPECT (which are equivocal), and is significant enough to be included in her page, regardless of whether the decree is ineffectual in changing the result. Eritrusia (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

References

BLP issue (also WP:UNDUE)

As previously stated, I do not believe it is fair to Emma Weyant for a statement by an unrelated politician to play such an outsized role (WP:UNDUE) in her very small biography (7 total sentences!) unless and until she chooses to publicly acknowledge it in some way. (I have checked, but not been able to find anything.) The statement by DeSantis is an attempt to drag her into a national public controversy she's given no indication she wants to be in, and it would violate the spirit of WP:BLP to include it. As such, I am explicitly challenging its inclusion on BLP grounds. Despite the edit summary given when it was restored, that a politician said something about her once is most certainly not an "important fact" about Emma Weyant. Egsan Bacon (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems disproportionate for this article and should not be included per WP:MINORASPECT, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. Beccaynr (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Without mention of the surrounding controversy (which is probably primarily about Lia Thomas and not Emma Wayent), do we even need to mention a 2nd place finish in an NCAA championship on an Olympic swimmer's biography? Seems a bit mundane. IMO either both the race and DeSantis's comment should be mentioned or neither. Endwise (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the reference to Lia Thomas should be removed as an undue and disproportionate WP:COAT, so I will remove that as a start. Beccaynr (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree that mentioning Thomas is UNDUE if the NCAAs are to be mentioned at all. The main reason Weyant received coverage about this event is because of the historical significance of Thomas. Kind of like you can't mention Peter Norman winning Olympic silver without mentioning Tommie Smith & John Carlos's salute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on what was just added to the article [1] (and I reverted), it appears to be a WP:COATRACK to add Thomas. The historical significance of Thomas does not appear to be directly related to Weyant, beyond the burst of news related to DeSantis, who without any authority to do, proclaimed Weyant the winner - that news covered in the Thomas article, in the Public debate section, where it is directly related. I think we should be careful with attempts to add WP:COATs across multiple articles, especially to a short article like this, and where as noted above, Weyant does not appear to have involved herself in the debate. Beccaynr (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, in the Peter Norman article, there is sourced information about his direct involvement in the salute, so it does not seem like workable analogy for this situation. Beccaynr (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This is probably the most neutral coverage of Weyant or pro-Virginia focus on Weyant,[2], noting that her finish was a career best, third best in Virginia program history, but still noting second to Lia Thomas and her place in history. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a good find, and I have added it to the article, with the information about her career best. I am still tending to think that a mention of Lia Thomas by this source does not necessarily mean we should add a mention to this article, which is focused on Weyant. Beccaynr (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Without any authority to do" -- Like it or not, there is literally law on the books granting authority for this. "No Authority to do so" = "I think the law doesn't apply here"? or "I didn't know about this law" ?Jkister (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"DeSantis doesn't have the power to declare or disqualify winners in college sports, so Tuesday’s gubernatorial proclamation was largely symbolic." (WaPo, March 23, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That article has no source for the author's claims. We need to question his credentials, too. Jkister (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:WAPO, Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable. Also, the 2021 law (NPR, 2021) is aimed at "barring transgender females from playing on public school teams" and per the NPR article, "the NCAA said it would commit championship games to "locations where hosts can commit to providing an environment that is safe, healthy and free of discrimination."" Beccaynr (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been looking for some reaction from Weyant and so far all I can find is this, ( newsweek-"How Emma Weyant, Other Swimmers Reacted to Lia Thomas Win" which is an 'article' that's totally clutching at straws to find anything in her body language, and even this concludes she appeared to accept Thomas' victory, i.e. there's no 'controversy' to report in the scope of this article. JeffUK (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, per WP:NEWSWEEK, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable. Beccaynr (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Based on this article that is not surprising, and that only reinforces my point that there is no RS for Weyant being an active part of any controversy JeffUK (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)