Talk:Age requirements in gymnastics

Yang Yun Competing while Underage Is NOT Verified

None of the media speculation cited shown any IOC/FIG investigation making such conclusion final. As of October 1 2008 Yang is still being investigated. Yang herself also stated she misspoke at the interview. Where's mentioning of that? Where's the NPOV?

Per BLP the claim of "verified" should be removed. I mean do you want your daughter/sister put thru the ringer like this? Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless some editors can come up with the fact that shows it is "verified" that Yang Yun has falsified her age, eg. decision by the FIG or IOC, this will be removed per BLP over the weekend. Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

rm per BLP; the allegation of age falsification against Yang has not been verified. FIG/IOC investigation is still on-going.

Feel free to update and reinsert once governing body has verified and announced its decision (rm text attached also available in history):

Yang Yun (China): Yang competed at the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney and won an individual bronze on the uneven bars. At the time she competed under documents listing birthdate as December 2 1984, which would have made her 15 years, 9 months old during the Olympic opening ceremonies. She later revealed in a television interview for CCTV that she had been 14 years old in Sydney; clips of the interview were removed from YouTube in August 2008. Her competition of age of 14 was confirmed by sports officials in Hunan province.

References

Exonerated Section

This section does not belong here...are we going to list everyone who was of the correct age? If anything, there should be an "unproven charges" section which lists these athletes.LedRush (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not about listing everyone who was of the correct age, only those who were accused and exonorated.

It is a fact the gymnasts listed in this section were accused of age falsification and subsquently exonorated of the charge by governing international bodies. It is also relevant to the subject of age falsefication. To removed this section in order to push the POV that anyone accused is guilty, is unwiki. Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the word exonerated when referring to a controversy is POV. They have been found by a governing body to have done no wrong, but the controversy lives on. And, quite honestly, this looks like a vehicle for people to say "gotcha" to skeptics. I really don't think it belongs...but let's wait to see how others feel about this.LedRush (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to change it to "accused and cleared" or any other words that improve the description that FIG, the final arbirtor, has decided the underage allegation levied against these gymnast, is not true.

Supposed we change it to "accused then cleared" - how different would it be? isn't that the definition of exonorated?

I disagree with your opinion the controversy live on. It is incontrovertible that the international governing body with the final say has, exonorated these gymnast of the underage allegation.

This is not the vehicle for people to say "gotcha" one way or the other - only the facts.

And it is a fact age falsification was made against these gymnast, and two investigations have exonorated/accused & cleared/<any factual description> them of the charge.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

LedRush asked for a nuetral opinion. I'm not entirely nuetral in outlook because I suspect the girls were underage, but I think I'm not emotionally attached enough to the issue to have that cloud my judgement.

Did the FIG rule that the charges were false, or just not provan? If the FIG determined the charges were false, then there should be no problem with "exonerated". If the FIG determined their wasn't enough evidence to prove the charges, then that should be stated.

Either way, the statement should be clear that it was the FIG that did exonerating or clearing of charges. To just say they were "exonerated" without saying "by who" is too broad.

As for mentioning continuing controvery, that should depend on finding a reliable source to say that the the controversy continues, and preferably to say what credible people (for example maybe the former US/Romanian coach whose name I won't try to spell) still think the girls were underage. A credible source also needs to be found for pointing out the huge conflict of interest the FIG has in the case.Readin (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A better way to write the section would be to outline the controversy and the events surrounding these gymnasts (and change the section title to something like "2008 Beijing Olympics controversy"), rather than just list them. Like LedRush says above, the fact that this section is nothing but a list of the four gymnasts—and really a "list" of only one incident—it really does look like someone trying to say "gotcha." Anyway, rewriting the section in this way should be very easy; most of the work has already been done for you at Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics#Allegation of underage gymnasts. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 13:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent change.LedRush (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This edit made changed that is POV; it removed mentioning of exonoration(a fact) that used to be clearly stated. Instead "controversy", something unwiki, is inserted. 4.2 is related to 4.1 - if one is not a gotcha then neither is the other. Also it is inconsistent to format verifieed cases, then format exonorated case another way that is POV, considering BLP this is not acceptable. Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing POV about the wording I put. The thing was a major controversy, talked about at length in many periodicals, and most sources say that there is still an ongoing related controversy even though the gymnasts have been exonerated. Also, the writing of the section still clearly states that they have been exonerated.

This may be a nitpicky aside, but in your edit you misspelled "exonerate" in the section heading. You accuse me of being un-encyclopedic by using the word "controversy," and yet you introduce gross misspellings to prominent section headings? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 22:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This controversy has been settled by the FIG. Feel free to correct the spelling, but to change the title from a fact to something that lacks notable source is unwiki; there has been no notable challange to the Oct 1st FIG announcement. Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here. The very first paragraph of the article states that there is controversy. I'm not saying that people are challenging the FIG finding; i'm saying that people still see this event in light of a broader ongoing controversy.

And regardless of whether or not the controversy is ongoing, the rewriting of that section is still not POV and you have no grounds for claiming that it is. I could write an article about a controversy from 1950 if I wanted to, and still call it the "_____ controversy." What matters is not whether it is still controversial, but whether it was a notable controversy that attracted widespread attention—and that is what this was. So it doesn't matter what the ruling was now; the section is about the controversy that happened in late August, when it actually was a controversy. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 22:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding your comments about how this section should follow the same format as section 4.1 (Major verified cases of age falsification): that is not a problem with the way I've edited the section, but rather an underlying problem in the structure of the article. There's no good reason that the article should consist of a list of verified cases and then a list of exonerated cases. What would be much more encyclopedic would be a discussion of age falsification in general (in fact, the section "reasons for age falsification" really should come before the list), followed by lists of some significant examples, meant mostly to illustrate. The list should not take the place of the article. Your reverts are, in essence, trying to turn a section of prose (2008 Beijing Olympics age controversy) into a relatively useless list (useless in the sense that all four items in the list—the four Chinese gymnasts—are really part of the same controversy and investigation...so it's really a "list" with only one item). If you don't like what's happening, the solution is not to keep reverting my edits to 2008 Beijing Olympics age controversy, but rather to fix the underlying problem: to restructure what is essentially a poorly organized article. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Can you provide notable citation for "people still see this event in light of a broader ongoing controversy", eg. who exactely?

2) The NYT article is not talking about He Kexin. Regarding He Kexin it said "the case is closed". If you want to mention "broader ongoing controversy" please create another section - muddle it in with He Kexin, which the original edit did not, changed a NPOV statement of He being exonorated to POV implication that She is still involved in the age controversy contrary to BLP. It is also tenuious editing.

3) There's no good reason that the article should consist of a list of verified cases and then a list of exonerated cases." - there's no good reason it shouldn't. And the original edit stated facts on an individual basese has been altered to soemthing else. If you want a section about the now settled controversy, add another section. BLP indicates the fact He et al were exonorated should not be blanked because of this.

4) I reverted your change because it blaned out a very important fact that should be clearly called out due to BLP. In stead your edit continued to implicate a BLP eventhough your notable citation says case closed regarding He Kexin.

Perhaps the solution is to move the exonorated gymnast section under verified case section, and add another section on any controversy past and present.

Is that agreeable? Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

1) The notable citation is the one I just gave you. The first paragraph of it says exactly what I said here.

2) It said "though the case is closed, the age controversy in gymnastics is still far from over." That though is crucial. Please don't try to change the meaning of a source by picking and choosing what to quote; that is far more "unwiki" than everything you are accusing me of doing.

3) I did add a section on the now-settled controversy, that's what my edits have been doing. You are the one who's been reverting them to remove the section title I created.

4) All due respect, but you are misinterpreting WP:BLP. There is no slander of He and the other gymnasts in what I wrote; it clearly states that they were found eligible. I never "blanked" the fact that the gymnasts were exonerated. Rather, the fact that you are trying to make a section title "Exonerated gymnasts" with nothing but those four, is quite obviously an attempt to get in peoples' faces and say "Ha!" to anyone who had disputed their age. That is very unencyclopaedic.

The solution you propose, having one section listing the four gymnasts and another section describing the controversy, would be redundant and unnecessary, and would not really alleviate any of the problems you perceive. The way the article is written now is fine. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 00:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Move?

It seems a little strange to me that, for an article on "age falsification," we don't get around to a section that's actually on that until near the end of the article. (Not to mention the fact that it's weird for an article to need a subsection of the same name.) But I understand that it's necessary to explain the specifics of the age policy before going into the details of actual cases of age falsification. That being said, I think there are two things we can do to clean that up:

1. Change the Age falsification in gymnastics#Age falsification section to something like "Cases of age falsification" or something. (Although then some editors may point out that such a title is POV, especially if the case of the Chinese gymnasts is included in that section.)
2. Move the article to a more appropriate title, such as Age requirements in gymnastics or Age policies in gymnastics, and with a subsection dedicated to age falsification.

My vote is for the second option. Does anyone else have any thoughts? —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 22:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the second choice: it should make Bobby happier because the entire title will seem more NPOV (even if the current one isn't POV). Within that article we could have an age falsification section in which all the controversies are named (breaking out the sections into categories as they are currently).LedRush (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

All right. I was gonna wait a day or so to see what people have to say, but it looks like the only other regular contributors to this article are Bobby and a user who recently retired, so I'm just gonna go ahead and do it. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 23:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. The lead-in will have to be rewritten, as I just hastily threw something together to allow for the move. Someone who's more knowledgeable than me in the subject can work on putting together a new intro. Other than that, I think the move should settle a lot of the dispute that's going on right now, since the focus of the article is now ostensibly on the age requirements rather than on cases of falsification. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 23:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. However I have noticed, once again, reference to gymnasts being cleared/exonorated of age falsification has bee removed. I am curious if there's any compelling reason to note verified case but yet verified cases of exonoration are habitually removed.

If there's no compelling reason to leave out this category of fact. I will add it.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning was discussed ad nauseum above, and the majority agreed that your way was incorrect. Please don't reopen this dead issue.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobby, I repeat, nothing has been removed. The version of that section after the move is the same as I left it before the move. I don't know how many times I need to say the same thing. If you make the same kinds of edits that you were making yesterday, they will be reverted again. If you continue making such edits, this will have to be brought to the attention of an administrator. You have already received one warning about edit warring from LedRush. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 21:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Age requirements in gymnastics. 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/20060524213018/http://www.la84foundation.org/OlympicInformationCenter/OlympicReview/1980/ore155/ORE155p.pdf to http://www.la84foundation.org/OlympicInformationCenter/OlympicReview/1980/ore155/ORE155p.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.intlgymnast.com/legends/latynina.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820082941/http://www.intlgymnast.com/Online-Features/News/399.html to http://www.intlgymnast.com/Online-Features/News/399.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101111092441/http://www.gymn.ca:80/gymnasticgreats/wag/agache.htm to http://www.gymn.ca/gymnasticgreats/wag/agache.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.internationalgymnast.com/news2000/dec.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Track/7635/mostepanova-int.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Age requirements in gymnastics. 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/20080603193852/http://www.gymn.ca/athletes/women/kelsall.shtml to http://www.gymn.ca/athletes/women/kelsall.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821201538/http://209.20.80.25/vsite/vcontent/content/news/0%2C10869%2C5195-191062-208285-45462-288055-news-item%2C00.html to http://209.20.80.25/vsite/vcontent/content/news/0%2C10869%2C5195-191062-208285-45462-288055-news-item%2C00.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)