Talk:Arthur Lydiard

WOW!

This is probably the worst article I ever read on wikipedia in terms of neutrality. This could be a text from lydiardfanboys.com Just a very few examples:

• "Lydiard's ground-breaking impact on distance running"
• "despite his unmatched achievements"
• "apart from his tremendous charisma and extraordinary ability to inspire and motivate athletes"
• "Nearly every successful athletics coach or athlete active in the world today consciously or unconsciously emulates Lydiard's training system"
• "These post-Lydiard training systems are unavoidably indebted to Lydiard's coaching philosophy as much as they may attempt to distance themselves from Lydiard's powerful and pervasive influence on the training of distance athletes"

This article really needs to tone down the fanboy talk and get more neutral and especially more fact based. There is only 1 reference for the whole article. The whole comparison with Horwill and Daniels, while very interesting in itself, is destroyed by the fanboy talk (secretly both seem to teach the great great perfect Lydiard system) and start backing up all the claims with references. Besides that: the comparising with other coaches and their differences in training philosophies should get their own section, in my opinion. Maybe there is something objective enough who has the necessary knowledge to improve this article --78.54.18.153 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Still excoriatingly awful

This article is still embarrassingly hideously bad. As mentioned above nearly a year ago, it is a joke, and terribly unworthy of inclusion. It would be better to delete it than leaving just an abomination out there. Really, it is so bad, it would be better to start over. Hooverdan (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the article history, it is essentially stagnant. As it appears to have stabilized in such an embarrassingly bad state, I went ahead and "was bold" and nominated it for deletion. Hooverdan (talk)

If you think it has so many problems, please make a start on fixing them yourself. Poor quality on its own is not a reason for deletion. --NSH001 (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with any suggestion that the article should be deleted. Although I tend to side with Horwill and Daniels rather than Lydiard on their areas of disagreement, I think that Lydiard was definitely of sufficient importance as a coach to merit a Wikipedia article. With regard to the very old 'citations needed' tag at the start of the article, most of what is in the article could be referenced to the biography on http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/6l3/lydiard-arthur-leslie (which is cited as an external link) AlanD1956 (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arthur Lydiard. 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/20070620012504/http://lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/al_training.pdf to http://lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/al_training.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928185234/http://www.athletics.org.nz/Article.aspx?Id=1536 to http://www.athletics.org.nz/Article.aspx?Id=1536

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arthur Lydiard. 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/20050201114654/http://lydiard.co.nz/ to http://www.olympic.org.nz/nzolympic/athlete/arthur-lydiard
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.athletics.org.nz/Article.aspx?Id=1536

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) 21:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Why

...are the longstanding, and textually long sections of this article allowed to remain, long devoid of a single citation? Is it not immediately clear to editors—though not necessarily our naive readers—that this violates core principles of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and/or WP:VERIFY? To speak plainly, why does Wikipedia serve as a ready example of WP:PLAGIARISM, to all of the English-speaking, education-seeking world? 2601:246:C700:2:412F:EEB2:43D2:4349 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)