Talk:Camille Herron

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 2017tunnelhill100pic1.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2017tunnelhill100pic1.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Picture

We gotta find a better picture for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC0:B84:8300:C48C:743C:7C50:7925 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Uncited biographical information removal

Some obviously well intentioned tidbits in this otherwise well-sourced article still need to be sourced, as they reference a living person.

I checked for birthdate, tornado, but couldn't find anything that passed wiki.

Any help would help, and thanks! SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

more vandalism needs to be cleaned up

There is some obvious vandalism in the infobox still, however the sources are all going to need to be checked to get these right again. I'm going to comment out some that appear to be blatantly incorrect for now. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Xaosflux, FYI, related issue: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it seems this article has been linked from some media which has drawn out additional vandals. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to add "Controversy section" as follows:

Controversy

Wikipedia Editing Scandal

In 2024, Camille Herron and her husband, Conor Holt, were involved in a controversy regarding Wikipedia edits related to Herron’s athletic achievements and those of her competitors. The controversy began when it was discovered that multiple edits made to the Wikipedia pages of prominent ultrarunners such as Kilian Jornet and Courtney Dauwalter appeared to downplay their accomplishments, while simultaneously enhancing Herron’s own page. Edits traced back to Herron’s accounts—first under the name "Temporun73" and later "Rundbowie"—included removing phrases like "widely regarded as one of the best trail runners" from Jornet and Dauwalter’s profiles. However, similar accolades were added to Herron’s page, positioning her as "one of the greatest ultramarathon runners of all time"​ (Canadian Running Magazine 1)​(Athletics Illustrated 2).

The accounts linked to Herron and Holt were banned from Wikipedia for violating the platform’s conflict-of-interest policies. Despite warnings from Wikipedia administrators about the promotional nature of these edits, the couple continued making similar changes under new usernames​(Endurance Sportswire 3).

Accusations Against Competitors

Herron has also faced criticism for her conduct toward competitors who surpass her records. In September 2024, following Danish ultrarunner Stine Rex's performance, which surpassed Herron’s 48-hour and six-day world records, Herron publicly cast doubt on the validity of Rex’s achievements. She accused Rex of benefiting from "pacing," a practice that can be considered an unfair advantage under certain circumstances. Trishul Cherns, President of the Global Organization of Multi-day Ultramarathoners (GOMU), condemned Herron’s actions, stating: "Camille Herron is a good athlete, there is no doubt about that. But she uses unsportsmanlike methods when she tries to create rumours, accuse and confuse, and thus cast doubt on Stine's performance"​(Canadian Running Magazine 1)​(Athletics Illustrated 2)(TV2 4).

References: 1 https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/u-s-ultrarunner-camille-herron-involved-in-wikipedia-controversy/ 2 https://athleticsillustrated.com/camille-herron-caught-manipulating-wikipedia-information-on-herself-and-editing-killian-jornets-profile/ 3 https://www.endurancesportswire.com/u-s-ultrarunner-camille-herron-involved-in-wikipedia-controversy/ 4 https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2024-09-03-nu-svarer-stine-rex-paa-anklager-om-snyd-med-verdensrekord 2A05:F6C2:3C0C:0:4918:2BCC:323B:FE6A (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, we require strong sourcing for these sorts of allegations; WP:WEIGHT would also be a concern. In this case, the athleticsillustrated and endurancesportswire references are simply repeating runningmagazine.ca's story about the Wikipedia editing. Running Magazine CA likely meets WP:RS, as would the Tv2.dk source, though it doesn't mention the Wikipedia editing, just the criticism of Stine by Herron. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe stronger sourcing will come out at a later point, maybe not. I did find a TV2 story about the Wiki edits, but it just references Runningmagazine.ca (https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2024-09-24-beskyldte-stine-rex-for-snyd-nu-beskyldes-hun-selv-for-klam-opfoersel) 2A05:F6C2:3C0C:0:4918:2BCC:323B:FE6A (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"Maybe stronger sourcing will come out at a later point"

I certainly hope so. Accountability matters, especially when the edits were protracted and cartoonishly juvenile. Poemisaglock (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me that with the runningmagazine and TV2.dk articles there's enough reliable sources to add a controversy section to this article -- especially as it involves misuse of Wikipedia. Beware, vanity editors! Smallchief (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The news has been featured in most relevant Spanish media outlets, both sports and general. Here are some examples: 1 2 3 4 Sergeant Batou (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The proposed section is relatively long and perhaps overly detailed, but there has been additional sources picking up the news. Runners World, Mens Journal but they're not really adding any new information. If we add something, I would keep it to like, one paragraph about the conflict of interest editing. Steven Walling • talk 15:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Steven Walling highly recommend this approach. It's worth mentioning, but her article is pretty short, and it doesn't make sense to make a quarter of it about her vandalism. Iisgray (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTNEWS matters. [2] is not about the WP-thing, but related. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

How about a one-paragraph version of the proposed language as follows: "In 2024, Camille Herron and her husband, Conor Holt, were involved in a controversy regarding Wikipedia edits related to Herron’s athletic achievements and those of her competitors. Multiple edits made to the Wikipedia pages of prominent ultrarunners such as Kilian Jornet and Courtney Dauwalter appeared to downplay their accomplishments, while simultaneously enhancing Herron’s own page. Edits traced to Herron’s accounts—first under the name "Temporun73" and later "Rundbowie"—included removing phrases like "widely regarded as one of the best trail runners" from Jornet and Dauwalter’s profiles. However, similar accolades were added to Herron’s page, describing her as "one of the greatest ultramarathon runners of all time"​(Canadian Running Magazine 1)​(Athletics Illustrated 2). The accounts linked to Herron and Holt were banned from Wikipedia for violating the platform’s conflict-of-interest policies. ​(Endurance Sportswire 3)." Smallchief (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Added a single sentence about the issue. Though would not be opposed to a paragraph in the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Doc James Do you think linking Running Magazine [3] (or any of the coverage I've seen so far) is problematic per WP:OUTING, since they state "this username is this person"? Or have you seen on-WP "this is me" comments I haven't? Related comments have recently been struck at WP:COIN, see edit history on September 23.[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Xaosflux if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, this [5] report doesn't seem to name usernames, though it does link the original. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Noting also that I removed the "This article has been mentioned by a media organization:" talkpage template earlier per WP:OUTING, but it has been re-added. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I would also support adding a single sentence summary. There doesn't seem to a potential OUTING issue now as Camille's husband appears to have admitted to running the accounts [6]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I would include this as a brief section titled 'Controversy,' where the essential points of the case are outlined. While it's true that the actions in question were unethical and lacked integrity, they should not overshadow an otherwise remarkable athletic career. The incident has garnered enough international media attention to be worth mentioning. Human beings can, at times, be astonishingly unpredictable... Sergeant Batou (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a 'Controversy' section. This is not nearly sufficient controversy to merit any such section, and we need to get over ourselves. So someone with a COI edited an article for COI reasons: that is a reason to fix the problem, not to punish them by immortalising their misdemeanour in a controversy section. We have a conflict of interest when we start talking about ourselves. I would say leave it out entirely except that it has generated a small amount of ephemeral news. So okay, let's integrate it with the article in a single sentence, but let's be very aware that any undue weight given to this would look like us doing exactly the kind of thing she was accused of doing. We can be better than that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Support a section on this controversy. This has received specific and detailed coverage and thus justifies inclusion. Do not see out as an issue here as we are just summarizing reliable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Except those are primary sources. The caution of WP:BLPPRIMARY pertains. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

How are any of these media "trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Per "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event.". This article in Canadian Running[7] provides a review of edits to Wikipedia (the primary source) as well as other documents (also primary sources), and is published by a reputable not associated source, so would be a secondary source. Ie it "provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event"

This[8] is a primary source but we are using it cautiously so it is permitted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY (the policy): For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. See also note d of WP:PRIMARY. What we have is a news story about the page subject. The fact that the only outlet publishing the news is Canadian Running also indicates the level of notability here (not so much). This matter of news reporting being primary is also dealt with in WP:PRIMARYNEWS. These are not secondary sources, and yes, they are very close to an event. Or, if you want to go beyond Wikipedia's P&G, see text books on historiography, e.g.: Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources..

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly breaking news, but rather investigative journalism. Also you asked why this is more notable then her stating she has autism, autism spectrum affects 2.5% of people, while athletes who remove positive information about their competitors and get popular press articles written about it are far less. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's another primary source: Camille Herron Press Release by Conor Holt Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Investigative journalism is also usually treated as a primary source. Again, see WP:PRIMARYNEWS. And, of course, what really matter is what question are we asking of the source? Here we are suggesting putting in something about the athlete because of a news report. I mean, how is this not breaking news? Is it only breaking news if the news falls into a journalist's lap without them having to do any investigating at all? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

As to your question about why I think autism is more leadworthy than an ephemeral issue of minor wrongdoing unrelated to why she is notable, I would just say that autism is part of someone's identity. And, of course, I also mentioned the health issues, which are more relevant to the subject of the article. But ultimately, if secondary sources are written in the future about, say, athletes who modified wikipedia pages, then sure - it will be leadworthy. If we think such secondary sources are unlikely, we have our answer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This discussion on if the source in question is primary or secondary is sort of mute as the question is should we use this source for the current text and I am not hearing anyone arguing that we should not. By the way the source can be used regardless of if it is primary or secondary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The specific question is whether we should have a whole controversy section in this BLP. Using a primary source to justify that is not moot, it is plain wrong. Primary sources never establish notability of anything. It is an event, but it is likely an ephemeral event. Someone edited their own article on the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. Gosh, that never happened before. Well actually it did. Of course it did. Just like authors write nasty reviews about other authors's books and nice ones about their own on Goodreads and Amazon. And sometimes they get caught. And a sentence about it is probably not amiss, but it is hardly a major element of what an encyclopaedic article should or would say about such people. Not unless it led to something truly controversial (like a suicide, or an assault and arrest or something). Then it might merit a section (not called "controversy" but labelled for whatever happened). But no, we don't write a whole big section based on just the primary source, the initial news report. Not unless we want to punish the subject for their effrontery. Do we want to punish her? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It's getting harder to ignore this story. Her sponsor has dropped Herron. That's pretty serious. [9] Plus, The Guardian (without mentioning Herron) has just published a story which says a target of Herron's account, Courtney Dauwalter, is often considered the GOAT of trail running. [10]. As rational (?) Wikipedians, I suppose we have to accept that as coincidence. Smallchief (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

We haven't ignored it. There is a sentence in personal life. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There does appear to be an effort to downplay the significance of this. In the sport of ultrarunning, efforts to try to cut down other athletes is uncommon and unusual. This is not her personal but her professional life. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed I had already moved the text to the career section to join it up with the dropping by the sponsor. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If a news story that has made headlines worldwide, published by dozens of media outlets in multiple languages, isn’t considered notable, I’m not sure what would be. Speaking from personal experience, in Spain where i come from, the story even aired during prime time on the evening news... Sergeant Batou (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Media coverage now in Daily Mail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2024

Delete "Track" and "Road" from descriptions of GOMU records. GOMU records do not distinguish by surface. I am the GOMU records officer. See https://www.gomu.org/results-records

Bob Hearn Bobhearn (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Bobhearn What are you suggesting it be changed to? Here it does mention the surfaces.[11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"Track" and "Road" should be omitted from those table cells. "Track Open" record suggests it is a record for track, separate from the record for road. Some records (e.g. USATF records) are surface-specific. GOMU records are not. Yes the GOMU records table does record the surface the performance was run on. But it's not a "road record" or a "track record". Bobhearn (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. PianoDan (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2024

Omit "and W40-44" from most of the GOMU records. For all but 72-hour, GOMU only recognizes overall, not age-group, records. I am the GOMU records officer. See https://www.gomu.org/results-records . 73.231.200.102 (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Bump. Again, there are no age-group records for most of the GOMU marks. Only the 72-hour. Table is currently incorrect, more record padding. 2601:483:5581:A824:AD36:25D6:2FE1:817B (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done - I have removed the table for now as there is a legitimate concern that the information is incorrect, and because the table is constructed entirely from the primary source. Although the GOMU site is a reliable primary source, the question over what exactly it shows, and whether it is due is not answered by that source. A secondary source would be needed here, I think, to show which records are due for a mention. No idea if the page subject or friends are still watching this page, but I note that you are still welcome to contribute to the talk page. If there are secondary sources speaking about the records, please post a link here and we can see what may be due for inclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Controversy controversy

Hi, I was just random editing this article, and added a controversy sub header to her career, then came here and saw the kerfuffle. read this please: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/dec/16/the-anti-sports-personality-of-the-year-awards-2024 This article deserves the word controversy in a header, and it would be controversial if it didn't remain.

By the way, the article's shortness is no excuse for no controversy section. If you find it short, make the rest longer. The article is also really bad. Can somebody please write the list of achievements into the story of her career? The personal section is full of medical info. Total mess. I'm just a bit tired to do more. Sorry, gnite. Billyshiverstick (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree there is a lot to do on the article, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. The Guardian piece is a review of the year's "dark, devious and downright dumb" sports news stories. We are not going to use a source like that for neutral point of view. There should not be a controversy section because those are discouraged, and because having her husband edit Wikipedia to fluff up her page is not exactly crime of the century. The correct and neutral response to that is to remove the puffery and focus on creating an article that describes the subject without any kind of bias. That includes any bias against the the villainous wikipedia editor. Meanwhile it appears that sources for what we do say about her on all other matters may be unchecked. I just found three sources that did not verify the information they were cited against. So yes, plenty of work to do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what NPOV means, as you think it means all sources must be from a NPOV rather than the wikipedia content being from a NPOV.

Furthermore, it's not for you to decide unilaterally what all wikipedia editors believe is an appropriate sources, that's for consensus to decide.

Controversy sections are discouraged, but there is no official wikipedia policy on it and the guideline is itself confusing, poorly written, and irrational: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies

You seem to think a neutral point of view (and un biased description) is one that has as little content that could deemed negative about the subject as possible, despite NPOV about balancing conflicting information from sources and not injecting your own editorial bias.

I would genuinely recommend you spend some time refreshing yourself with the core policies of wikipedia editing as it seems you have misinterpreted all of the ones you referred to here. 2A02:8086:C97:4680:CD77:1D0B:26EE:4D44 (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, well this is coming from someone who has a history of trying to write in controversy sections [12] and has been reverted by other editors on the matter. Note, however, that I did not remove any content about the controversy, I merely removed a new heading that was the single word, controversy. It is not required. It did not change the substance of what we say, and I don't think it is me who needs to review the policies. BLPs are not attack pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Source-text integrity

The sentence: Herron was born with central auditory processing disorder and hearing loss and had a near-drowning incident at the age of three had four citations. Three do not verify either of those statements (and the way they are conjoined is odd). I moved one ref, and removed two. The two removed refs may be useful elsewhere so I am placing them here for review. The name on the first is clearly an error.

• admin (June 27, 2022). "Camille Herron: Crushing World Records, Narrowing The Gender Gap, And The Power of Happiness - Rich Roll". Retrieved February 23, 2024.
• Hoppe, Stephanie (March 2, 2022). "Camille Herron is Doing What She Was Born to Do". Women's Running. Retrieved February 23, 2024.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)