Talk:Lochtegate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name of article

I"m not sure of the most appropriate name for this article, currently "Lochtegate." The sections within the four respective swimmer articles seem to be in constant flux and dispute. Let's discuss. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not completely opposed to Lochtegate, but I think it it a little bit inflammatory. Perhaps Ryan Lochte robbery allegations during the 2016 Olympics??? Open to other ideas as well... Not sure about "allegations " versus "accusations." Peace, MPS (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:FuriouslySerene suggested 2016 alleged robbery of U.S. Swimmers in Rio de Janeiro on the AfD page. That is another option. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

A title with the term "scandal" could be appropriate. Note that Lochtegate was used in several news sources and throughout social media to refer to this incident. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Currently, "Lochtegate" returns over a million results on Google. A Google News search alone returns 242,000 results, and many reliable sources (too numerous to list here) are using the term. For better or worse, it seems like the name is going to stick. I'm confident it's the correct name for the article. ArchieOof (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• As per MPS, I propose using a more widely known name. While I don't dispute that reliable sources have used the name "Lochtegate", the vast majority of reliable media sources do not use it (a quick search of Lochte or one of the other swimmers on Google News should demonstrate that). It also is inaccurate as it implies that Lochte is the only person involved in the incident. These are not the most succinct names, but they follow WP:CRITERIA better, as they are more recognizable to the average reader (Lochtegate, while having been used in many sources, is not likely to be the name used by the typical Wikipedian) is consistent with how we name articles like this:

1. 2016 U.S. Olympics Swimmers gas station incident
2. 2016 alleged robbery of U.S. Swimmers
3. U.S. Olympics swimmers robbery incident'

Or some combination of the above. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Off the top of my head. In Suggestion #1, the word "incident" seems to trivialize the matter. In Suggestion #2, there is no mention of the 2016 Olympics (which is central to the story). In Suggestion #3, the wording implies that there was a robbery, but there was no robbery. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, we already have the articles named Deflategate, Nannygate, Debategate, Coingate, Corngate, Koreagate, Muldergate, Piggate, Strippergate, Thulegate, Fajitagate, Pastagate, Troopergate, Tunagate, Bloodgate, Grannygate, GamerGate…. to name a few. My point is, Lochtegate is consistent with how we name articles like this when the term is being used in online write-ups and on television tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of times. ArchieOof (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Explicitly, this is a difficult task due to the littany of topics encompassed within the article. I dislike "incident" as there are many more elements in the article beyond "the gas station," with "scandal" being a well-sourced keyword and speaking to scope and ongoing fallout. I don't immediately see how to gracefully sever the four from the "US men's swimming team." So I'm somewhere around the literal 2016 U.S. men's Olympic swimming team scandal and immediately recognize many associated deficiencies. Which takes me back to "Lochtegate" per ArchieOof and leads to WP:NPOVTITLE. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the current name either, but I understand that the other possible titles don't seem to be the best either. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you've cherry picked a bit there. Even of the ones you've named here, at least 4 of those redirect to longer named articles and a few use parentheses. Obviously some articles use the "x-gate" format. But many more times we don't. WP has an entire page on it: List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. You'll see the majority of the articles that were sometimes referred to as "gate" aren't used for the page title, including even these fairly well used ones: iCloud leaks of celebrity photos and not Celebgate, or Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime-show controversy for Nipplegate (even though it has 122,000 hits on Google), or News International phone hacking scandal for Hackgate, Fort Lee lane closure scandal for Bridgegate etc. It's up to the reliable sources, which I've argued are not regularly using the term, and the familiarity of readers. I don't think Lochtegate is recognizable enough now, and I think in a few years it'll be even less recognizable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I actually like something close to 2016 U.S. Olympics Swimmers gas station incident. Reasoning: (1) I think it should have a date of 2016 in the title (2) I think that it should have something to do with US Olympics swimmers (3) I like that the article is about "whatever happened at the gas station" without injecting too much point of view into which if any side is right. what if, instead of "gas station incident" we said something like Arrest of U.S. swimmers at the 2016 Summer Olympics because the arrest is one part of the incident that almost nobody can deny. Seeing as there has not been a conviction of Lochte or anyone else, we should not presume guilt. You could also say Crime accusations involving U.S. swimmers at the 2016 Summer Olympics or Gas station scandal involving U.S. swimmers at the 2016 Summer Olympics Thoughts? Peace, MPS (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I like "2016 U.S. Olympics swimmers gas station incident" to cover numerous aspects, because legally, it might entail kidnapping because the Rio Police Chief Veloso said the gunmen used a gun to "contain" (kidnap) the swimmers when some of them started to wander off (and used a gun to compel payment). The Portuguese/English translator (the DJ) said when he saw the gunmen draw a weapon on the swimmers, then that was when he offered to translate to de-escalate, but the negotiated amount was "100 monies" as likely 100 reals (US$33) but another swimmer gave US$20 dollars (without refund) which perhaps constitutes "armed robbery" under Brazilian law as taking more than fair compensation at gunpoint; in fact taking money at gunpoint is rarely legal in Brazil. Another report claims the gunmen said they would "call the police" if not paid, which is considered "extortion" in the U.S. I suspect the framed poster was a Shell Oil advert, provided for free, to the gas station, and so the value would seem very low, with a small pitance to re-hang the corporate poster as merely separated from frame as seen in CCTV video. Plus the gunmen delayed the taxi travel, which cost the swimmers more $$$ plus the "pain and suffering" of a traumatic robbery, as confirmed by the translator who noted the swimmers "were terrified" even after payment, unsure what else the gunmen would demand. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS which the security guards (the article's existing citations support that characterization) as "gunmen?" re the translator, I did glance at that story and think those statements should be reviewed and incorporated. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Saw the note at the top of the page, so I came here. I've heard of the incident referred to as Lochtegate multiple times on TV, and going by the 668,000 mentions of the term on Google, which can only refer to one thing, I think it's the best title for the article. Rockypedia (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• comment besides the 668,000 mentions, I see GQ magazine used it in an article well after the Olympics were over, on Aug 31. Rockypedia (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Let Us be Grown-ups and Not Erase the Truth

Telling lies about what was said in the articles which sources is not all mature or okay. The truth may hurt, but you got to suck it up.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you are suggesting here, sir. I am just trying to write a good encyclopedia article. Assume Good Faith on behalf of your fellow wikipedia editors. Cheers, MPS (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

USA Today investigation

As there's been one article detailing the USA Today investigation, an entire long section dedicated to that seems to be too much, at least at the moment. I agree that there should be some mention of it, but in its current form, as written by JoetheMoe25 (talk), there's so much original research and half-truth in it that it's not usable. I'm removing it, and per WP:CYCLE, we should discuss here what an acceptable sentence or two summarizing it should be. ArchieOof (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are lying and don't want to accept the truth. CBS News and Jimmy Feigan have also backed the story that the swimmers didn't enter the bathroom. Be a grown-up for a change. JoetheMoe25 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would respectfully suggest to ArchieOof that there is a significant difference between the two accounts of the night-time arrest, that is highlighted by the USAToday investigation. On the one hand, Brazilian police suggested that the US swimmers drunkenly broke down a bathroom door and trashed it... On the other hand, a reputable news organization is saying the there was no damage to the door, there was no damage to the bathroom, and there is no evidence that the video or the police could produce that point to a vandalism crime being committed (beyond a ripped poster and urinating in the bushes). If indeed bathroom was locked, then there is an interesting tension between the two sides of the story. For this reason, I would suggest keeping the as much of the USA Today report as contradicts police "evidence." Peace, MPS (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems that it'd be ridiculous to suppress the only investigation done by a reputable news source. Stuff like this is why so many people don't trust wikipedia.Ceresly (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Against Article I believe that the principle of impartiality should be followed to keep the Wikipedia values. Recent editions of JoetheMoe25 (talk) has caused many problems in the page related to the main swimmer, Lochte. Just see his argument to justify the insertion and removal of texts. Wikipedia can not, and will not, be auxiliary column of USA Today. I don't see the biggest reasons for this article exist, since even today (24/08), one of the swimmers involved in the case admitted, through his lawyer, that the whole story of the assault was a lie. Jimmy Feigen says that omitted the Brazilian police "essential details" because "I was trying to protect my teammates, and I apologize for that" Feigen said. (Font: G1/Reuters; UOL; iG/Estadão; Extra). --LeoLavish (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry liar, but Feigen also claimed in the article that “We pulled over to a gas station to use the bathroom but the door was locked.” JoetheMoe25 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

First, I ask you to measure your words. I do not know who you are, and I'm not even here to be insulted by you. Wikipedia is a diplomatic environment for contributions if you're not in the level of dialogue, then this place is not yours. I have not seen at any time, aggression or offensive words to his person. So I ask you to be careful with how you treat other people here. Second, what you say has no connection in relation to the context. And does not explain or justify anything.--LeoLavish (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The so-called "essential details" omitted by Jimmy Feigen to the police were that Lochte touched a loose-hanging poster and it fell, as when a drunk man leans against a wall for support but slips. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Of our two substantially identical existing WP:RSs, the ESPN citation says "After arriving at the gas station and finding the bathroom door locked, Feigen said he and his teammates made "the regrettable decision to urinate in the grass behind the building" before Lochte 'pulled a poster in a metal frame off a wall.'" Is there a RS which differs? UW Dawgs (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I translated article 2 to English and it's propaganda. They remove all parts that corroborate the swimmers story and they attribute false quotes to Lochte and say the whole thing was staged. He never said Fake police pulled him over. He said they had a police badge but no flashing lights. USA Today said the police admitted they were, in fact, police officers, allegedly off duty, as guards. I don't feel like translating all your articles right now. I suspect they are all propaganda. (Opmeto (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC))

Here is a related meta story re the USA Today investigation. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was talking to LeoLavish about his Feigen article. It does not mention his actual quotes, just implied that he lied about everything instead of saying the truth that he just omitted urinating outside and damage to a sign. The USA Today investigation is sound.(Opmeto (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC))

• CBS News report after USA TODAY investigation: There is an independent report by CBS News (the 2016 Olympics were covered by NBC not CBS), which mentions the USA TODAY Sports investigation of interviewing other witnesses and the translator, disc jockey Fernando Deluz; see "Doubt cast on Brazil's version of U.S. swimmers' Rio incident" (10am, 24 Aug 2016). -Wikid77 (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

story with timeline

This story with a timeline may be helpful to editors wishing to help flush out this article. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --LeoLavish (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

addressing undue on Ryan Lochte

The current scandal coverage section on Ryan Lochte of five paragraphs seems WP:UNDUE, and is substantially duplicated in other articles including within sections on the three other swimmer articles. So we're maintaining nearly identical content in four locations. Can we agree on centralizing and improving this article with all of the global coverage? UW Dawgs (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that Lochte was the most famous swimmer (with the most to lose, sponsorships-wise) and that his involvement in reporting the "robbery" could suggest that Lochte paragraphs could/should be longer. Also, if we are looking for balance, why not INCREASE paragraphs addressing other swimmers and their statements? Peace, MPS (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Further merge discussion below, at Talk:Lochtegate#Merge_content_from_Ryan_Lochte.23False_robbery_report_during_2016_Olympics section MPS (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Lochte enjoined

This edit on Ryan Lochte surfaced today's news from ESPN Brazil that Lockte was enjoined (article in Portugese, h/t to @LeoLavish:).

WP:NONENG explicitly allows citing this ESPN article, but presume english versions of this content will appear at some point. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple reports are now surfacing (in English) around this. Some have been added to article, while avoiding WP:CRYSTAL. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Lochtegate

Why is the "armed robbers" in quotes but not "security guards"? It suggests that it is factually wrong and that security guards are correct. Security guards and police can rob and extort too, and Lochte reported that they had a police badge which suggests that he did not lie, as Bentz also said a badge was shown and USA Today reports that Rio Police have admitted they were actually police officers, allegedly working off duty as security guards. Rio Police have tried to downplay and omit this fact. As such I've added quotes to "security guards" to add more balance to the over simplification of the details and demonstrating that these are allegations on both sides. (Opmeto (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC))

Category:Lochtegate

Is the category necessary? It seems to be not defining for anyone except Ryan Lochte -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:EPONYMOUS. Two other swimmers provided formal testimony to Brazilian police in context to Lochte's statements and all four swimmers were involved with the original gas station incident as the hub of the story. Note, we should rename the category if/as appropriate pending the article title discussion, above. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:EPONYMOUS does not mean it gets and exception to WP:NOTDEFINING -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Is any of this true?

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/22/looks-like-rio-police-were-the-biggest-liars-in-the-lochte-drama-if-anyone-still-cares-about-the-truth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.6.142 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
From everything I've read, it would appear so. You might not like the author's political leanings, but I think he's got his facts straight regarding the incident in Rio. It's laughable to me that the authors of this wikipedia article have such an axe to grind that they have to cover their eyes and ignore the facts of this case. Ceresly (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

See Lochtegate#Criticism of the police investigation and WP:RS. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Historically Brazil has been a modern nation averse to armed robbery: @Ceresly: the whole tone of the incident has created an illusion of Brazil as a fascist place where people must be forced at gunpoint to pay for leaning against a wall and dropping a loose-hanging poster. However, please remember that, for many decades, Brazil has been a modernized nation (now overpopulated) with electricity and laws against demanding payment at gunpoint. The legal opinions repeat that payment-at-gunpoint in Brazil is "rarely legal" and in fact, flashing a police badge during off-duty moonlighting is also against the rules, so if the 2 law-enforcement gunmen who worked as "security men" would be identified by the police, then the U.S. swimmers could file charges against them for improper use of a law-enforcement badge, armed robbery, kidnapping, and extortion if the discussion included, "pay first and the police will not come". The pro-gunmen spin seems to be "holding suspects at gunpoint until the police arrive" but there must be an obvious criminal charge to detain suspects. I thought "Lochtegate" meant the swimmers reported part of what happened and then the press condemned them as, "They made the whole thing up" & then major sponsors dropped them, when in fact, witnesses confirmed what the swimmers had said, confirmed they were told to sit at gunpoint, and commanded to pay at gunpoint, and there was no "vandalism" of the bathroom, and explain why some swimmers would take a leak in the bushes if they had access to a bathroom to vandalize (bingo). The whole police report makes no sense, while the press condemned the swimmers, they were refused to leave the country, some major sponsors dropped them, and that is the actual SCANDAL. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Wikid77: how this impacts the image people have of Brazil is frankly irrelevant here. Seriously, does anyone care about facts anymore? Or is this just an exercise in signaling how sensitive and politically correct we are? Ceresly (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge content from Ryan_Lochte#False_robbery_report_during_2016_Olympics

(copied from Talk: Ryan Lochte) ... Now that Wikipedia consensus is to keep (and possibly rename) the Lochtegate article, I think it is important to mention that the bulk of the content on that scandal topic can be housed and updated at the Lochtegate article to prevent UNDUE imbalance of coverage on Ryan_Lochte#False_robbery_report_during_2016_Olympics. Agreed? Peace, MPS (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Need help with copyright information on photo

Y'all.. I am not a lawyer, so I found it difficult to navigate the copyright information tagging function on wikimedia... would sure love to have help attributing it correctly so it does not get deleted. here is the link to the wikimedia commons. HELP! Peace, MPS (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Phelps

Why is there a photo of Michael Phelps in this Lochtegate article? He had nothing whatsoever to do with the scandal. It is unfair (and biased) to group him together with the four involved, as if Phelps is guilty by association. Phelps has nothing at all to do with the scandal. There is no reason to display his photo on this page. Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

And, ironically, there is a photo of Phelps, yet there are no photos of Jimmy Feigen, Gunnar Bentz, or Jack Conger (the three involved with the scandal and with Lochte). Come on, now. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No participation for 1+ week since relisting. Latest comments don't seem to be in favor of renaming, citing the large number of Google hits for the current name. Unable to gauge a consensus for the move (at least for now). (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Lochtegate → ? – Per the talkpage discussion above and at the recent AfD discussion; the name of this article may be problematic and should be discussed to see if a different one should be used. Thus, I have opened this process to discuss that. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging participants in the earlier discussion, and those that discussed the name at the AfD: @UW Dawgs, MPS, SomeoneNamedDerek, ArchieOof, FuriouslySerene, Joseph A. Spadaro, Muboshgu, and Wikid77: @NickCT, Frietjes, and Smartyllama: -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• 2016 U.S. Olympics swimmers gas station incident I suggested this previously and there was some support for this. I'm suggesting this name for now, unless someone comes up with a better one. Also favourable to U.S. swimmers incident at 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• "2016 U.S. Olympic swimmers gas station incident" as the new title, similar to above but with adjective "Olympic" not noun "Olympics". By omitting the word "robbery" that allows the page to cover "extortion" or possibly "kidnapping" or also "impersonating a police officer" along with claims of "vandalism". -Wikid77 (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Lochtegate returns 89,400 results on Google News, while the search query "2016 U.S. Olympic swimmers gas station incident" returns 135,000 results. To generalize the incident, "2016 Rio Olympics gas station incident" returns 2,070,000 results on Google News. Lochtegate is the most used term to refer to the incident on social media (actually as a hashtag #Lochtegate), although the incident isn't only about Lochte. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  2016 Rio Olympics gas station incident as you suggest. It does not follow the standard form 2016 Summer Olympics but mentioning the city is relevant here, given the crime context of this incident. "Rio de Janeiro" in full may make the title unnecessarily long. The sport and nationality of the people involved is not of primary importance, I think, and can be left out for brevity. Gap9551 (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think it would have to be "2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics gas station incident." If you want brevity then 2016 Summer Olympics works. Just using Rio is too informal. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• See WP:NAMINGCRITERIA for title documentaiton as helpful. And there is no need to rush, as the AfD clearly dissuaded other editors from engaging here. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The AfD closure recommended that editors discuss the title here (instead of on the AfD page). -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the confusion, yes, Talk is here. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• re "incident" vs "scandal," the lead sentence has been relatively stable and cited with "scandal" throughout and this article is categorized accordingly. Would need to compare recent WP:RS articles (not google counts) as the story obviously evolved over the weeks and became more reasonable for news orgs to describe it in this manner, and clearly most of the article content is about the consequences ("scandal" broadly) rather than 6am at that gas station ("incident" narrowly). re "gas station," that encompasses more of where the story originated than what the story is, but what would users type in search to locate this article (ignoring what redirects and aliases we might correct)? All of these issues make the titling very difficult in my view and caused the first Talk discussion at article creation. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  I see what you mean, but 'incident' can also have a broader meaning, like in international incident, and is more neutral. Gap9551 (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Rio Olympics gas station incident. Brevity is important in these sorts of titles (which are inherently unwieldy, a necessary evil in avoiding sensationalized names). "Rio Olympics" is easily understandable. Adding "2016" would be redundant, and given the ubiquity of the phrase "Rio Olympics," I don't see the need to write out the city's full name. So that covers the adjective portion of the title. As for choosing a term for the event itself, I agree with others that "gas station incident" is the simplest way to describe it. "Alleged robbery" would be shorter, but there were other newsworthy robberies as the Games, whereas this was the only newsworthy incident that took place at a gas station. The only problem with this is that it omits the "U.S. swimmers" element, which is what has made this event so notable. But we don't always need to include an event's claim to fame in its title. For instance, the Murder of Odin Lloyd only received widespread coverage because it was perpetrated by Aaron Hernandez, but the article's title nonetheless only refers to Lloyd. If we do want to focus this article purely on the swimmers' involvement, then we should take the title in a totally different direction, say, U.S. men's swim team alleged robbery controversy. But I think it makes more sense to title the article after the event, not after the controversy it caused. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  I think the event would still have been notable if the people involved had been French gymnasts for example, all else being equal, so I don't think the "U.S. swimmers" element is essential (nor their gender). What matters is that they were part of the Olympics, and that the main person involved is quite famous. As for the year 2016, I agree it is well known, but stillnot everyone will know the Rio Olympics were in 2016, especially a few years from now, and it is common start names of events with the year (or month plus year of needed). Gap9551 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  I agree with your point about the "U.S. swimmers" element. As to the inclusion of a date, if someone doesn't remember what year the Rio Olympics were, that's what the article's lede is for. A title doesn't need to tell a reader every important detail. It just needs to give them enough information that they know they're at the article they were looking for. And to that end, I think "Rio" is sufficient. But I do see your case for inclusion of "2016"; it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world by any means. I just have a personal stylistic bias against using dates in article titles except when absolutely necessary. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest 2016 Summer Olympics gas station incident by reason of the 20 Year Test -- does anyone remember what year the "Sydney olympics" were? I had to look it up, because I did not remember. I think we need the date, and the words "Summer Olympics". Peace, MPS (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Leave as is Lochtegate returns 668,000 results on Google. The other searches, if you use quotation marks around the terms, return far less. GQ Magazine used the term in an artcle as recently as August 31, long after the Olympics were over. Rockypedia (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Even more recently, today Esquire used it in their headline as Lochte was suspended 10 months. Rockypedia (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• A direct comparison on Google is impossible. It's the same reason a Google search isn't one of the WP:CRITERIA used for deciding on a name of an article. If you look at major reliable sources reporting on the latest in the incident, you'll see that none use Lochtegate: CNN, USA Today, Yahoo, ABC News, Washington Post etc. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

*Actually ----

Here's CNN using the term

Here's USA Today using the term

Here's Yahoo using the term

Here's the WaPost using the term

etc. Rockypedia (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I said "reliable sources reporting on the latest in the incident." All of those are from August 18. Both Washington Post and Yahoo used Lochtegate explicitly in the context as a Twitter hashtag. Go search all the latest reporting about the incident, virtually none of them are using "Lochtegate." It was a Twitter hashtag that trended for a few days immediate following the incident and is not being used by reliable sources nor is it widely used by the public. I know it's catchy and all but take a look at WP:CRITERIA for relevant considerations. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I maintain that 664,000 Google results on the word "lochtegate" is not "virtually none", no matter what one thinks of using Google results as criteria for article names. It's clearly used a lot. Rockypedia (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep "Lochtegate" - I said this before but wanted to add to this final discussion. Also, Rocky makes a good point - if you just search the words 'Rio gas station incident', you get all the pages on Google that mention all those words, regardless of order or placement in page. But if I search - Rio "gas station incident" with the last three words in quotes, I get 211,000 results. olympics "gas station incident" gets me 194,000 results. I personally get 635,000 results for Lochtegate. That's a lot more. So I still think Lochtegate, because of its widespread usage, is the best title. ArchieOof (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - The currently offered alternatives are worse, as was also seen in the prior loose consensus in the original discussion (above). UW Dawgs (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Lochtegate, as there is nothing wrong with the current name and I see no good reason to change it. Keiiri (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - it is appropriate as this is the name used by most media. close.BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

how the swimmers are related

Was reviewing in context to better photos, ideally of the four swimmers as a group. Swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's 4 × 200 metre freestyle relay gives us three of four in that event in the preliminary heat, but only Lochte swam in the finals. All three are therefore 4x200 gold medalists (swimming in the finals isn't a requirement).

Heats

• Clark Smith (1:47.20)
• Jack Conger (1:45.73)
• Gunnar Bentz (1:48.01)
• Ryan Lochte (1:45.80)

Finals

• Conor Dwyer (1:45.23)
• Townley Haas (1:44.14)
• Ryan Lochte (1:46.03)
• Michael Phelps (1:45.26)

And Jimmy Feigen appears to be a 100m specialist and there isn't photo overlap in that event.

You can see at least 3 picts of that 4x200 team in Category:Michael Phelps in 2016 from the finals, but you would end up with an awkward caption, ala "Member of the 4x200 gold medal team. Lochte 2nd from left, Conger and Bentz not pictured" which doesn't work well.

Not arguing for significant coverage (a new section), but a single sentence would be nice to tie them (or the three) together if done correctly in the appropriate section for basic context. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Current edit war

As I am involved, I will give an explaination. As George Ho already mentioned on your talk page, these 2 topics have NOTHING to do with eachother. I would suggest that you stop reverting.

Regards, -- » Shadowowl | talk 16:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

undue

"U.S. Soccer is obviously not in charge of Lochte's punishment. But someone is. And if Solo can get kicked off a team and potentially never play for the U.S. again, then Lochte should get more than a stern talking to, some lost endorsements, and a new reality TV show deal."

Sarah Rense, Esquire.com

Does this quote (copied here from the article) from this non-notable author (without her own WP page) deserve a special box for itself? Isn't this WP:UNDUE?  Seagull123  Φ  22:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Agreed. In fact, most of that entire section seems UNDUE. Toddst1 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lochtegate. 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/20160817221533/http://gothamist.com/2016/08/15/ryan_lochte_fake_rio_cop_cocked_gun.php to http://gothamist.com/2016/08/15/ryan_lochte_fake_rio_cop_cocked_gun.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

changes to lede

@Wikid77: I reverted your recent edits, re WP:LEDE ("RioGate" isn't established in the article body) and MOS (newspaper titles in italics). No intent to hassle you and happy to stand corrected on any of the above. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree that "Riogate" isn't a thing, and the edits seemed designed to absolve the swimmers, as much as possible, of any negative publicity that they received as a result of their actions. I reverted the article to its last stable state. ArchieOof (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wikid77: I did not revert the most recent reintroduction of similar/same text,[1] but could you explicitly clarify what is meant by "dual scandal" which now present in the very first sentence of the lede? This is a significant change and it is unclear to me which two scandals are being referenced. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: The dual-scandal is indeed confusing, and needs more sources. I am still expanding the page and trying to clarify. The basic issue is that scandal#1 seemed to be exaggeration as "robbery" of security guards asking for restitution after damages, but scandal#2 was investigation found no damages yet CCTV video was cropped & omitted (3 minutes) for the time witnesses noted guns were drawn quickly on swimmers, as even police admitted guns were used, but there is no video of guns, just swimmers hands-up-don't-shoot, and the appearance of a Brazilian cover-up. The taxi driver was never located, the guards were never identified, and the translator said if he hadn't assisted, the event could have been tragic. Now, what I'm finding is NBC live telecasts biased viewers by talking "no pull-over; no robbery; no gun drawn"[2] to insinuate all swimmers lied, while everyone knows Olympic athletes are not typical freshman student boys-will-be-boys goof-offs. The page needs to be expanded to explain how witnesses confirmed guns were drawn on swimmers to pay money, but bathroom was not vandalized, which constitutes excessive payment as robbery under Brazilian law, but media coverage led to fake news that swimmers were not forced from taxi or not forced at gunpoint to give money when evidence confirms they were, but video film is missing as if deliberate cover-up of events possibly hiding illegal use of police badges, while media coverage implied swimmers lied, as "made the whole thing up" (when swimmers told the truth as matching evidence). More wp:RS secondary sources are needed. -Wikid77 (talk)

Per above, I've partially reverted the first sentence until the "dual" aspect is established via RS. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The "dual" was just the tip of the iceberg. Among other things, Wikid77 changed the part about Lochte apologizing for lying about the incident - even though "lying" was the exact word used in the source. He added "allegedly" vandalized a framed poster, but Lochte himself admitted to vandalizing the poster in an interview on Good Morning America (watch it yourself here). There's a laundry list of these edits; suffice to say I don't see a single one that isn't designed to convince a reader to be more sympathetic to Lochte and a lot of them that flat-out contradict the sources, so the POV and inaccuracy aspects has led me to remove those edits entirely. ArchieOof (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Social commentary section

As it was written, the entire social commentary is nothing but a highly POV soapbox. It should be rewritten or scrapped as I have done. Wikipedia is not a gossip column to list who said what about what affair. State the facts and their impact, rather than using Wikipedia to further WP:AGENDAs. Toddst1 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Reverted to current consensus per WP:BRD, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SOFIXIT. This characterization (soapbox, gossip column, agenda) does not reconcile with the well-cited section. It was a months-long scandal and generated enormous, international coverage. Suppressing that attributed coverage (including the point vs counterpoint citations reflecting disagreement within the media coverage) is a gross breach of WP:NPOV which requires inclusion of significant views published by WP:RS. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus, just the status quo of including your biased edits - Big difference. The entire section is awful so I had fixed it. Those citations are opinion pieces not WP:RS and that section is and pure WP:SYN. Since your desire to report on gossip is clear to further your agenda, you can play that WP:GAME. Toddst1 (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)