|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rosie Ruiz article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|A news item involving Rosie Ruiz was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on .|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
I'm concerned about where the "theories" are coming from. It sounds like original research. They're plausible, but the citations don't seem to contain this speculation. --Tysto 22:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's from a TV show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
- Specifically, these theories were stated on the GSN documentary cited on the page. I've edited the article in such a way that I hope it's now more clear where these theories come from. -- MisterHand 03:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Bill Burt piece linked in the article outlines this as well, stating that Bill Rodgers believes this theory. --[[U
ser:Doggie Yum Yums|Doggie Yum Yums]] 15:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I cannot believe that someone thinks a statement like "The only person who still expresses a belief in [her own] theory [of what happened] is Ruiz herself." is appropriate by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you have interviewed everyone else on the planet, you have no grounds for saying that no one else claims what Ruiz claims. No matter how plausible this may be. In any case, when did she last "still [express] a belief in this theory" ??? If it hasn't been for ages, then even saying that she expresss such a belief is inappropriate.Daqu 12:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay -- if there is anyone who cares about keeping that sentence, please provide evidence that Ms. Ruiz herself still "expresses a belief in" her own version of what happened. If none is forthcoming, that sentence will be deleted.
(And there simply cannot be any evidence that no one else on earth agrees with that version.)Daqu 10:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed that saying the "only" person who believes this is Ruiz is a bit of a stretch, but the GSN documentary cited in this article included an interview with Ruiz in late 2005 where she strongly insisted that she ran the entire marathon. Her continued insistence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a well documented fact and if you would have bothered to do a bit of research, you would have found that out. Doggie Yum Yums 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This has been a nice informal collaboration, look at this page before 1/10... it was just a stub that left a lot to be desired. Good work, guys. --W.marsh 15:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed! I went ahead and removed the stub tag, this article doesn't need it anymore. -- MisterHand 16:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Props to MisterHand and others for an outstanding defacto collaboration, and to the GSN documentary that apparently sparked this ;) --Doggie Yum Yums 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I would have liked to see some info on Ruiz herself, before and afterward (I remember reading, circa 1995, that she had become an office secretary someplace far from Boston). 10:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The article states that Ruiz was banned for life from the Boston marathon. It also states she could have run the race in 1981 but did not. There's a disconnect here. Can anybody shed light on this? -- MisterHand 05:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- The David Blaikie piece mentions that Will Cloney, in an apparent attempt to "soften the blow", offered Rosie a chance to compete in the following year's race, regardless of her qualifications. It appears this was an unusual situation where the race organizer gave her "special permission", as it were. I have adjusted that section to reflect this.
To what day?Edit
Is "to this day" proper language? Which day? 126.96.36.199 13:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Should say "as of 2007" which is how we mark stuff that will date quickly, to check back and revise eventually. I changed it in the article. --W.marsh 13:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I see the line has been updated to 2008. But I question whether this belongs in the article. There is no citation, and from what I've been able to gather from the article and this discussion page, it seems that this claim is based on the 2005 GSN documentary. I think including a statement with a date in it requires evidence that she made this claim in the year specified (2008 as of this writing). I guess my argument is based on the principle of "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", in that her not saying that she did not run the entire race is not the same thing as her continuing to claim that she did run the whole thing. I think the line should say something along the lines of "As of her most recent interviews..." would be better. Mantisia (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Another theory, she is plain crazy!Edit
"The remark alluded to what was already being speculated openly as the underlying cause of the whole bizarre episode, the possibility that Ruiz was suffering from a mental disorder and could not distinguish between truth and fantasy. Among the disclosures, as details of her background were unearthed, was the information that Ruiz had twice undergone brain surgery, once for the removal of a benign tumor. No firm medical evidence was presented to support the theory of mental incapacity but it seemed in the minds of many the only plausible explanation."  Mathmo Talk 07:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. Crazy people don't warp in and out of reality like some may claim. They form conspiracy theories that allow them to lie and break the rules so to feel special. Ruiz may be crazy, but its a crazy that say . . . I'll ride the subway and cheat, because I'm really the best runner anyway. Bitch. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I do believe that for a few years at least, they routinely closed subway stations along the route between certain hours of the Marathon, to prevent someone else from pulling Ruiz's NYC trick. OR, of course, until someone or myself can find a source. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The current lead sentence reads Rosie Ruiz Vivas who is related to al grovas (born 1953, Havana, Cuba) is a Cuban American runner who on April 21, 1980 ostensibly came in as the first place female competitor in the 84th Boston Marathon...'. This caught my eye as a technically correct but poor usage of the word "ostensibly", more appropriate for a news piece than an encyclopedia. I did an all-dates google news search to see if anyone else had described Rosie's finish in such a way. Well, it looks like one source did, the Fiji Times. They wrote "Vivas is a Cuban American runner who on April 21, 1980 ostensibly came in as the first place female competitor in the 84th Boston Marathon with a record time of 2:31:56. Look a bit similar? Not to worry... that article was published in November of 2007, our wording was here well before that. So, it looks like the reporter did some friendly lifting from Wikipedia to write that piece. However, how do we protect ourselves in such a case... on the surface, it looks like we are plagiarizing. On the other hand, it seems ridiculous to source to that article now, considering evidence that they used wikipedia as a source last year. Thoughts on how this is handled? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and here is the link to the Fiji Times source. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Are we using it as a source (or were we?). The Fiji times article isn't actually even about her, just the first paragraph (and then a more "general lecture" about the vice of cheating). Even if it wasn't "borrowed" from us, it wouldn't be an appropriate source. My bigger issue is all the BLP/unsourced stuff. Like paragraphs of it. I'm gonna go gut it. Keeper ǀ 76 16:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Also, something I didn't realize, our lead in the Race section reads "However, race officials determined that she had not completed the entire 26.2-mile course, but had registered for the race and later jumped in from the crowd and sprinted to the finish", and a sentence from that same source reads "However, race officials determined that she had not completed the entire 26.2 mile course, but had registered for the race and later jumped in from the crowd and sprinted to the finish." Again, looks like Wikipedia had it first. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I just gutted the article to remove all speculative, unsourced information about this WP:BLP. The "theories behind the hoax section" was also WP:OR, or it read that way, and the only link was to Game show network's "documentary" called "Anything to Win". this is what the gsn.com website has to say about "Anything to Win". I'm not even sure the "documentary" exists at this point. Keeper ǀ 76 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
File:Rosie ruiz.jpg Nominated for speedy DeletionEdit
|An image used in this article, File:Rosie ruiz.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
|Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.|
First paragraph includes this sentence: " She took the subway from Cambridge to Boston (a few miles before the finish line) and ran to the finish line, making it seem as if she had run the whole marathon."
This itinerary doesn't make much sense if you look at a map, it's not consistent with the rest of the article (Harvard students story), and there's no evidence that Ruiz rode a subway in Boston.
If she left the course before Wellesley College (as speculated later in this article) she was a long way from Cambridge, in an area where there are no subways.
Assuming she got a car ride to Cambridge, and rode the subway to Boston from there, then she was on the Red Line (the only subway line in Cambridge). This line passes a mile or so *east* of the finish line. She could have transferred to the Green Line to go west in order to get closer to the course (e.g. Kenmore Square, about a mile west of the finish, or somewhere along the C Branch of the Green Line as far as Cleveland Circle [3.9 miles] ), but it's rather confusing as written. Part of what makes it confusing is that it's unlikely she was in Boston "a few miles before the finish line": if she was more than four miles west of the finish, she was in Newton; from there to about the last mile, the course is in Brookline (as are the closest subway stops).
I can't find any source to support the proposition that Ruiz rode a subway during the Boston marathon, as opposed to New York. It's pretty obvious that she skipped much of the Boston course, but *how* she did it remains unproven. It's fairly clear that she left the course somewhere west of Wellesley, but there is no subway anywhere near the course west of Newton (and if you want to be technical, most of that line [Green Line] is not actually a subway as it's above ground until Kenmore Square). If she started with everyone else, then it's safe to conclude she rode a car or bicycle at some point, but it's unclear whether she rode a subway.
Actually, doing a bit more research, it seems she was not seen *anywhere* on the course except the end. Assuming bibs are handed out in advance, I'm guessing she never started the race, just waited in the crowds near Kenmore Square. So maybe she didn't even need a ride in a car or on a bike either.
The sources I can find mention her jumping in one mile before the finish, not "a few miles".
I think I'd replace the quoted sentence with "Ruiz apparently jumped into the race about one mile before the finish." and remove all reference to subways or Cambridge. Here's a cite for "probably jumped in with a mile to go" and "not appearing in any photographs until the last mile": http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/rosie-ruiz-fakes-boston-marathon-win — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hm, there's some disagreement in the sources as to where on Comm Ave she jumped in - half a mile vs a mile. (Can't be much more or less than that as the course doesn't stay on Comm Ave for long.) I've gone with half a mile for consistency with the rest of the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Since she did not run the Boston and her NY effort has been strongly questioned, shouldn't we see if there is really any evidence that she is a runner at all? Kdammers (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Kdammers: You may have a point. Some quick research I just did says Ruiz qualified for the Boston Marathon by posting a qualifying time in the New York City Marathon. But New York City race officials disqualified her after the Boston Marathon fraud, based on reports that people in New York City had seen Ruiz ride the subway for part of that city's race.
- In addition, stories I checked indicate that she did most of whatever training regimen she followed prior to the New York City Marathon by riding an exercise bike and possibly jogging occasionally at New York City's Central Park.
- Maybe "runner" isn't the right descriptor for Ruiz.
Incorrect hatnote re use of Spanish naming customsEdit
The hatnote claims that "This article uses Spanish naming customs: the first or paternal family name is Ruiz and the second or maternal family name is Vivas." However the NY times obituary says that Vivas was "Ruiz’s name through marriage", and further down that "Her marriage to Aicardo Vivas ended in divorce." So it would seem that in her case, Vivas was not her mother's name but rather her ex-husband's surname (even if she later had a female partner). Dirac66 (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)