Talk:Adam Peaty

4 x 100m Mixed Medley Relay Record

I have changed the usual link to the World Record Progression for this because there is no World Record Progression for this event, when one is created it should be changed back to that. For the mean time it directs to the page about the individual occurrence of the event at which the record was achieved (The 2014 European Aquatic Champs). Matthewm192 (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

2016 World Record

2016 World Record in the Rio olympics #WrongMustResign--71.15.235.159 (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Scared of water as a child

A nice anecdote, given his recent success: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-37008465 and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/adam-peaty-rio-2016-swimming-gold-medal-winner-olympics-scared-water-a7178456.html 83.104.249.240 (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

These family anecdotes may have an element of truth, but are very likely embellished for effect, possibly on media prompting. I wouldn't personally place great credence in them. I think they should have an "according to ..." qualification at least, rather than being presented as pure fact. 109.145.27.215 (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Physical Stats

The physical stats in the article are wrong. FINA's own website state Peatys hight as 191cm and weight as 85cm. See http://www.fina.org/athletes/adam-peaty

The article should be corrected for factual inaccuracy

Removal of information

Will the IP editor stop removing information simply because they don't like them? It is sourced and relevant to him. Hzh (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

As someone who has come across this on WP:RFPP first thing: you both need to stop edit warring. Second, I don't see the justification for keeping this in. This information isn't relevant to Peaty and there is a presumption in favour of privacy particularly when this doesn't involve the subject of the article. Woody (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've semi-protected the page as there isn't a stable IP and they aren't responding to any requests to discuss. This is not an excuse to revert back when the WP:3RR time limit expires. I hope the IP will come and discuss their concerns. Woody (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not unusual to give basic information about the person the subject is related to (e.g. the occupation of the parents, spouses or siblings), so I don't see how it has anything to do with the presumption of privacy you linked to, which is about the private lives of the person concerned (e.g details of allegations or personal data). Simply stating who that person is does not violate any privacy of the person. In this case, it is simply to make clear that she is not some random person but a student of the same university. Hzh (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Information about the subject yes, not tangentially linked people. I don't see that it is that common across articles (though other stuff exists of course). Looking in particular at WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. It isn't sourced very well, certainly not to a reliable secondary source. SwimSwam article doesn't seem to be that strong a source (I can't find any editorial policy?) and it has copied an article from The Sun which is a tabloid generally considered unreliable (and The Sun article has been removed). That combined with WP:BLPNAME shows we should be exercising restraint here. It adds nothing to an encyclopaedic article about Adam Peaty to discuss the activities of his partner as they have no bearing on him. Woody (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you said it is not common, since I can see it easily enough in multiple articles, for example I just randomly picked a few articles, Lady Gaga, Joe DiMaggio, Paul McCartney or Barrack Obama (which give information about their parents and other people associated with them, who may or may be individually notable). This is pretty much standard and in no way violate the privacy of the individuals concerned. If your complaint is about the source, then that is a different issue, and a different source can always be found. Hzh (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It is a combination of sourcing and relevance and I did say that other stuff exists. Those cases are all subtly different: eg DI maggio isn't living; Obama's history/family life is a matter of public discussion and has been openly discussed by Obama; the same goes for the others there. Those articles also tend to say girlfriend x is an actress etc rather than the specific university course. A good compromise would be to say a "fellow student" rather than the specific course. (This would of course need a good source that also discusses it). Woody (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That is hardly other stuff exists when I'm showing that it is the standard practice for biographies, be it of a living or dead person - I did not go through any other articles apart from those I listed, that they all did it shows that it is pretty much the standard, whether these relations are the subject of public discussion or not. If you want Adam Peaty discussing his girlfriend, there are sources for that as well, so I'm not sure what your point is. If you want want to remove the course she took, that this not a reason for removing the entire part about her being a student there. Hzh (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It is standard practice where relevant to the subject of the article and where appropriately sourced. As I said above it would be a good compromise to say she is a fellow student if you can source it IAW WP:BLPRS. This article discusses the relationship but doesn't go into detail about her education. Woody (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The SwimSwam article is fine. The mention of The Sun in SwimSwam is Peaty saying that what's reported in the tabloid is unreliable, and all the quotes are by Peaty, so I'm not sure why you bring The Sun up (and I was misled into believing that it copied from The Sun because you said so, when it was mostly quoting Peaty). Hzh (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

It is mainly his instagram quote expect the bit talking about his girlfriend The Sun report indicated that the pair met via the dating app Tinder and had been on two dates. So that information isn't reliable as it is using a tabloid article that has since been removed (most likely as a result of complaints from Peaty). Woody (talk) 17:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That information is not mentioned in the article and would not used, and so it is irrelevant (as is trying to connect SwimSwam with The Sun). You can ask the RS board whether SwimSwam is a RS, otherwise it stays. More important now is that I have been informed by MediaWiki that someone has been trying to do something they should not be doing with my account, my suspicion is that it is someone annoyed at not being able to edit this article. So to whoever that is doing this, your IP address is logged whenever you are trying to do this, and your locations can be determined from your IP address. Hzh (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As Requested: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#SwimSwam. Woody (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I see no one has denied that SwimSwa is a RS, therefore the brief info about his girlfriend can be added. Hzh (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

For posterity here is the archive link. That discussion had one editor comment on it which isn't a rousing support and it isn't listed at WP:RSP just yet. That said, this edit looks to be a good compromise as discussed above. Woody (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Adam peaty parents

It doesn’t show Adam Peatys parents plz can u add them by 8:50 16/1/22 84.68.135.117 (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)