This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Athletics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Athletics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of athletics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and join the discussion.AthleticsWikipedia:WikiProject AthleticsTemplate:WikiProject AthleticsAthletics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted on 11 February 2015 by reviewer Samuell1616 (talk · contribs). Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group.

Thanks for the note. For transparency and to avoid any misunderstanding:

I am not editing on behalf of the subject, nor do I have any paid, professional, or external relationship with her.

My edits were made solely to address policy issues under WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV — specifically the removal or correction of contentious material about a living person where sourcing did not support the claim. This was not promotional editing and not based on personal involvement.

I welcome uninvolved editors to take over any further changes and am happy to continue discussion here on the Talk page per WP:COI and WP:CONSENSUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverado003 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The press-template block added above is not part of an article-improvement discussion. It functions as a clipping gallery of negative press, not as a focused policy discussion about article content.

Per: • WP:TALK — Talk pages are not for general information storage • WP:BLP — heightened caution with negative material about a living person • WP:UNDUE — talk pages should not amplify only negative sources

I am requesting that this block be either: 1. **archived**, or 2. **summarized with only the citations needed for the current content discussion**.

No article content is being removed — this is only a request to remove a non-discussion press clipping block from the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverado003 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1]: 69.

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree strongly that there needs to be a discussion of controversy on this page. Camille Herron’s actions up through 2024 caused her to lose all of her primary sponsors, and that is a major consideration in the discussion of her career. Not including information about her loss of sponsorships and the reason why seems extremely disingenuous. 27.96.193.36 (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This page states that Camille is an ultramarathon runner and scientist. While the former is absolutely true, the latter is far from the truth. A "scientist", according to Wikipedia itself is "a person who researches to advance knowledge in an area of the natural sciences". She does not currently research anything to advance knowledge. Another definition (Merriam Webster) is simply "a person learned in science". In my opinion this definition is too vague because it could include any person that has taken a science class in their entire life (my 5 year old has a science class in preschool once per week - is he a "scientist"?). I suggest removing the title of "scientist" from her page and simply stating that she is an ultramarathon runner. It would be absolutely fine to list her degrees awarded as well. However, if she is not actively "researching to advance knowledge" then this title should not be on her page.

Additionally, there is a PubMed link to "Herron JC" which shows recently published articles by this author. However, the authors on a few of these papers are not Camille Herron - a few are by J Cody Herron or Jon C Herron. According to PubMed, the last paper where she was a co-author was in 2018 and she does not currently work with that research group. 141.218.172.207 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reasonable source saying she worked for years as a research assistant in a university lab. Wikipedia doesn't remove occupations from biographical descriptions if the individual is not currently active in that field. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is she notable for her science, or is that merely a biographical detail? If the latter, I would agree it should be removed from the lead. —Of the universe (say hello) 23:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Pending discussion and consensus. —Of the universe (say hello) 23:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CLEANUP and WP:V, this is a request to remove the "excessive citations" maintenance template.

The template stating that the article contains "an excessive number of citations" appears to be outdated. The article has since been revised, and citations have been consolidated to high-quality, reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS.

Unless there are objections, the template will be removed as the issue appears to be resolved.

Note: Edits since September 2024 significantly reduced or removed multiple citations, creating verifiability gaps. The current revisions restore reliable sourcing and consolidate citations in line with WP:V and WP:RS.

Silverado003 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lot better than it was, but text like and multiple Ultra Performance of the Year has 5 citations, nine-time USATF Athlete of the Week honoree has four. In all there are 27 citations that may be unnecessary. Is there any reason any of these need doubling? None of the claims are especially controversial, are they? Just choose the best source in each case (as long as it does support the claim, of course). See WP:OVERCITE. Incidentally, I have left a note on your talk page. Please could you respond to that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, and I agree that avoiding overcitation per WP:OVERCITE is reasonable.

At the same time, some of these facts have been previously challenged or removed, so per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, each claim needs to remain clearly verifiable. Several accomplishments are covered by multiple independent sources, which is why more than one citation appears on those lines — not to promote them, but to ensure verifiability and accuracy on a BLP.

To find the right balance:

How would you suggest reducing the number of citations while still preserving verifiability of each fact and without removing sourced content?

I’m happy to consolidate to one high-quality source per claim wherever possible — I just want to make sure that trimming citations doesn’t create new verification issues. Silverado003 (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states:

"On September 26, 2024, Lululemon ended its association with Herron after multiple user accounts were found to be inappropriately removing positive information about other athletes from Wikipedia…"

Issues with this sentence:

• It synthesizes multiple sources to imply a causal relationship between Wikipedia edits and sponsorship termination (violates WP:SYNTH). • It presents a contentious and negative claim about a living person without Herron being interviewed or given a chance to respond (violates WP:BLP / WP:BLPVERIFY). • The sentence is now outdated. In September 2025, Herron filed a **defamation lawsuit** disputing the reporting and the claims made about the Wikipedia activity. • Under WP:BLP, contentious or potentially defamatory content must be supported by high-quality sources or removed.

• • New independent RS now exist that supersede the 2024 reporting:**

1. *Athletics Illustrated* – reporting the lawsuit filing:

  "Camille Herron to sue Canadian Running Magazine parent company Gripped Publishing Inc". Athletics Illustrated. October 2025. Retrieved 3 November 2025.

2. Herron's on-record response in a published podcast interview (WP:ABOUTSELF; allowed for statements about herself):

  "Camille Herron Interview – The Next Aid Station Podcast". YouTube / The Next Aid Station. October 2025. Retrieved 3 November 2025.

• • Proposed neutral replacement:**

> “In 2024, media outlets reported that Lululemon ended its sponsorship. In 2025, Herron filed a defamation lawsuit disputing the reporting.”

This maintains verifiability, removes implied causation, reflects newer RS, and complies with WP:BLP.

• It synthesizes multiple sources to imply a causal relationship between Wikipedia edits and sponsorship termination There are three references given. The first one, Canadian Running Magazine, actually doesn't mention the drop of the sponsorship, and I'll take it out from there as it does not verify the statement it is against (and also per WP:OVERCITE ); but it does contain a bit of context we do not carry, and that is not found in the other sources when it says

  Unfortunately, the Wikipedia story is part of a pattern of interference. This couple has a history of trying to disrupt athletes, their reputations, races, and performances by citing World Athletics rules that do not apply to ultrarunning and multi-day running.

  I've consistently made efforts to keep the coverage of this controversy from overwhelming this article, and appropriately due - reverting attempts (e.g. [13]) to create a whole section about it, and I don't think we need to include that quote or coverage of it, but mentioning it here as other editors may take a different view. I do note, however, that this is the magazine named in the forthcoming lawsuit, which might be an additional caution.
  So the next reference is Outside Online, and this one says:

  But the Wikipedia controversy led to swift consequences for Herron—her major sponsor, Lululemon, parted ways with her on Thursday morning.

  So that source is making the connection, and there is no synthesis. It verifies the statement. We also have the third source, Woman's Agenda, which says, under the heading Swift consewquences,

  Due to the backlash she received from Canadian Running’s article, Herron deactivated all of her social media and her major sponsor, Lululemon, parted ways with her on Thursday morning.

  There is no WP:SYNTHesis here. The sources verify the statement.
• On right of response, there is, of course, the information in the articles that show that the writers reached out for a response and got none. But we are over a year on now, and if there is a published response from Herron, we can certainly link it. As you note, we can include that - despite being a primary source - under WP:ABOUTSELF. Is the only response that YouTube video? Although we can use videos for verification, my preference would be a written source or transcript.
• The link you provide about the lawsuit reads like a press release (which would not be independent), but it is bylined "Christopher Kelsall", who also wrote the articles for this publication that covered the controversy itself. As such, I think we can take it as independent and reliable, although it is a type of primary source. It tells us a complaint has been filed, but gives us nothing else. Although we could mention it, we don't have to at this stage. It is certainly not a reason to delete any information as incorrect. The complaint is against coverage in just one magazine, and I just noted that the coverage in that magazine goes beyond the others. The case is pending and has not been heard. Other than its existence, there is nothing more to say on it.
• I am satisfied that what we have here has sourcing that meets WP:BLP, and is in proportion (not excessive). It is notable information covered in independent reliable sources. Should you disagree, and wish to have other editors review this, you can post a message to The BLP noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfurboy (talk • contribs) 08:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response — a few clarifications:

1. Causation is still being stated in Wikipedia’s voice. Even if individual sources assert a causal link, WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH prohibit Wikipedia itself from combining separate facts into a definitive causal claim. The current sentence says “Lululemon ended its association after…” which reads as cause → effect. Under BLP, contentious claims that imply wrongdoing require strong, unambiguous, multiple independent sources confirming both elements together, not separately.

2. Newer reliable sources now dispute the framing. These sources were not available at the time of the initial edits:

Independent journalism reviewing the edit history and disputing the narrative: ^[1]

Herron’s formal press response stating she was never contacted/interviewed and explaining why journalist emails never reached her: ^[2]

Herron’s on-record interview (eligible under ABOUTSELF) explicitly disputing the articles’ claims and describing the situation as retaliation related to whistleblowing in sport: ^[3]

RS noting she has filed a defamation lawsuit over that reporting: ^[4]

Once there are contradictory RS, WP:BLP requires avoiding asserting disputed causation as fact.

3. About “writers reached out and got no response.” According to the press response (RS above), emails from reporters went to spam — meaning Herron was never actually reached. The subject was not interviewed for the original reporting.

4. Proposed neutral wording (already drafted to reflect all sides):

“In 2024, several media outlets reported that Lululemon ended its sponsorship of Herron. Subsequent reporting questioned aspects of that coverage, and in 2025 Herron filed a defamation lawsuit disputing those claims.”

This keeps all content verifiable, avoids implying a causal chain that remains disputed, and complies with BLP/RS/SYNTH/UNDUE.

If there is disagreement, I’m happy to take this to WP:BLPN for uninvolved input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverado003 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]