Talk:Jiang Yuyuan/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Age dispute
Recently a YouTube Video has been discovered (Uploaded previous to the initial age dispute articles by the US media) that interviews Jiang YuYuan in 2003 -- in which she indicates that she is 12 years old at the time (Which would in turn mean she is indeed 16 going on 17 this year). Should this be added into the entry in some manner for objectivity?
This video has been removed by the user. Does this suggest anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.158.116 (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQVotOIAajw
Age dispute
Recently a YouTube Video has been discovered (Uploaded previous to the initial age dispute articles by the US media) that interviews Jiang YuYuan in 2003 -- in which she indicates that she is 12 years old at the time (Which would in turn mean she is indeed 16 going on 17 this year). Should this be added into the entry in some manner for objectivity?
This video has been removed by the user. Does this suggest anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.158.116 (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQVotOIAajw
My editing is NOT disruptive. Here is my reason why Nov 1, 1991 should be used. The 1991 birth year has official documents such as passport for support. The 1993 birth year is still under FIG investigation. So Official birth date should be used until the FIG investigation is finished. And we already have a Age Controversy Section to show that Jiang Yuyan's age is in dispute. Signed by Tinbin (I don't know how to sign it, sorry) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbin (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- First off, to sign your post, just put for tildes (~) in a row after your comment, and you'll have signed. :)
- For the 1991 DOB: Sorry, but it cannot be used. This was already discussed at the NPOV noticeboard; you can see the discussion there. [1] The consensus was that the only way to preserve neutrality is to use the "unknown" or "disputed" tag. Also, the following Wiki policies apply.
- WP:UNDUE; WP:NPOV : When there are two conflicting reliable sources, one cannot be given more weight than the other. To use the 1991 DOB would be to give that source undue weight and side with that POV.
The source about the 1993 birth year is not so reliable as they are just information found on the Internet, but the 1991 birth year has offical documents to support it and recognized by FIG (so far).~
- WP:RS: Reliable sources are not weighted. Reliable and verifiable sources for both the 1991 and 1993 birthdates exist. The FIG profile does not outrank all other sources. [{Deng Linlin]]'s FIG profile doesn't have a date at all; does that mean that officially she doesn't have a birthday?
We are talking about Jiang Yuyan here. We can start discussing Deng Linlin later. OK? And No. The 1993 birthdate does not exist. it is just information found from the Internet, It has no substantial support and that is why FIG need to investigate. If the 1993 birth year did exist, then FIG would not have to investigate.~
- In addition, this page has been edit-warred about since August. Change it to either 1991 or 1993 and I can guarantee you that someone else will come along and change it to the other date in a few hours. And frankly, editors like me have better things to do than to sit here and referee ongoing edit wars. It's now been explained to you why the date cannot be changed. DanielEng (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Good. Now that you see why the birthdate has to be changed to 1991.~
- Nope. I've already explained to you why the 1991 DOB violates several Wiki policies. You're attempting to introduce your own POV here--if you believe the FIG source is the definitive one and you don't like all the other sources, that's fine, but it's not how we operate here. If you took the time to actually read the policies linked above, you'd understand that Wiki works on verifiability, not truth as believed by one user. If you continue to revert, you will be blocked for disruptive editing and vandalism. You're a new user; I'd suggest you take the time to look around, read the policies and learn how things work here before jumping in and making lots of POV edits that will just be undone, if not by me, by others. DanielEng (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"When there are two conflicting reliable sources, one cannot be given more weight than the other" - Please explain why the 1993 birth date is a reliable one? The support for the 1993 birth date is only info found from the Internet whereas the 1991 birth date has official documents for support and recognised by FIG. So you are telling me that you trust guys like Stryde (you let the info about Stryde appears in the Jiang Yuyan article) but not the FIG? I don't know whether FIG source is definitive or not, but until further proven information surfaces, FIG source is the most reliable one.
And sorry. Still cannot sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbin (talk • contribs) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, first, to sign, you need to put four tildes in a row. Here are the instructions from Wiki, because it's easiest:
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you.
- For the confusion with RS: You're still believing that the FIG can be a "more" reliable source, and that's just not the case. When we have two sources that are reliable, we can't just pick the one we want or personally believe.
- It's about the source reporting the date, not the date itself. If you look at the article, you will see that the citations for the 1993 date, as footnoted, do not come from Stryde. They come from government documents viewed and confirmed by major media organizations such as the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press, and in most cases they predate Stryde's work. Also note that the article doesn't say that the 1993 date is true, it just says it was reported and sources with the information were verified by those news organizations. Similarly, the 1991 date has been reported by the FIG. So, in this case, we have two different sources, both of whom are considered reliable as per Wiki, reporting conflicting years. We can't weight either source more than the other. Yes, we know the Chinese government has the 1991 date, but again, they're not weighted as a more reliable source (and that goes for any government; if this were an American gymnast you'd hear the same thing).
- The "unknown" tag, with footnotes to sources that detail both possible dates, is a way of showing that we side with neither source, but are reporting both. Neither the FIG nor the AP can be trusted; neither gets the preference. [User:DanielEng|DanielEng]] (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
First, I didn't pick the one that I want to believe. All my claims are based on official evidence. You seem to not fully understand the case. The info found by all those media organisations are NOT official documents. They are just files, webpages or spread sheets found from the government websites as claimed by the news organisations. As you have already said, even those media organisations didn't say that 1993 date is true, then how come you still say that these sources are reliable? FIG at least admits that its believes 1991 birth date is true. If you still think that all these info can be considered as reliable even when those media organisations didn't say that it is true , I really have nothing to say. Anyway, you appear to be a nice person, so I would not try to change the birth date of Jiang Yuyan just for now (Doesn't mean that I agree with your "reasons"). But could you at least tell me that under what situation you would let people to put back the birth date on Jiang Yuyan's page, whether it is 1991 or 1993?Tinbin (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I can finally sign. THANK YOU!!Tinbin (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yay, you can sign. :)
- What is official evidence and what is not official evidence is not up to use to decide. We're not the investigators, we don't have any of the original documents in front of us, and we can't say which are true and which are not. Our job here isn't to synthesize what the media says or to decide if the claims are correct. That's original research. We report. We don't take a side. Mind you, we're not saying the 1993 date is true; we're just reporting it as a possibility. We give a link for the 1991 date in the infobox too, so that readers can see both possibilities. But we can't say the 1991 date is true either because we can't prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and we can't override the fact that there are other sources that contradict it.
- For choosing one birthdate over the other: well, I think that will depend on what happens in the coming weeks and months with the investigation, and what information appears. If all the RS start to point to one date or the other, that would decide it I think. We do have at least one case of age falsification on Wiki--Kim Gwang Suk--where we have never been able to come up with a RS for a birth year, but that is an extreme example. DanielEng (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Rename to Jiang Yuyuan?
FIG uses Jiang Yuyan[2][3], but there are a lot of articles that use Yuyuan[4] vs. Yuyan[5], and significantly higher google hits for Yuyuan[6]. The only case where google gives more for "Yuyan" is when using the personal-name-first order instead of family-name-first. I'm undecided which counts as "most common name", or, in this case, "most common English version of her name". FIG seems to be official, but we're also using Nastia Liukin instead of the Anastasia Liukin[7][8] of her FIG profile, but that's also a different case because she clearly uses "Nastia" professionally. I'm leaning towards Jiang Yuyuan on this one, if only because that's the spelling I'm seeing most commonly. Thoughts? Kolindigo (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- The "most commonly used name" rule trumps all, especially when it comes to transliterations. I'm tempted to agree with you that it should be moved to "Jiang Yuyuan" because that is the transliteration that is coming up in all of our credible references: the official Beijing roster [9], as well as all the English-language news sources (NYT, the Associated Press, International Gymnast, etc.) that matter. A lot of the FIG's transliterations are from French so they're not the most commonly used English verions. DanielEng (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm hesitant to use the Official Beijing Website (beijing.cn) in this because it doesn't seem to be perfectly internally consistent regarding names. But that is the official site. I don't see her listed in the Chinese Olympic Committee profile page, so I guess beijing.cn should trump it. Kolindigo (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
NBC (US television) announces age investigation is fully concluded and no further action taken, on Mon. night broadcast...
this is according to IOC as well as FIG... if anyone has subsequent info that the investigation is still open, they need to post that... otherwise, the ONE user who seems to be supporting the use of 'disputed' as the age, needs to stop. WP does not support rumor-mongering, and until I see something from the IOC or the FIG that contradicts what the "news channel of record" in the USA is reporting, WP cannot keep posting FALSE info just for the purported sake of preventing edit-warring, which I am not seeing in the first place. I have changed it back again, and I expect to see a justification HERE, on talk, before the same user with the western-style name, makes the same inaccurate edit, with the same false justification, for the third time...72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- The tag is there by consensus; if registered, established users had a consensus to change it, it would change. Other registered users besides me are editing this page every day, and every one has left the tag in place. The only ones with the issue seem to be anonymous IP vandals. In addition, if you look back at the edit history, from, say, the end of July through the beginning of August, when there was a year, it was continually changed back and forth from 1991 to 1993 over and over and over again. The page has had 500 edits since July and frankly, most of them have been completely nonconstructive. And we have better things to do here than to arbitrate IP editors fighting it out back and forth.
- This is the official Wikipedia policy on the issue, as per WP:NPOV:
- The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.
- WP works on reliable sources. If we were working with, say, the National Enquirer vs. the FIG, there would be no question as to which date we'd use. It would be 1991. However, all of the sources in the article, including Western and Chinese news sources and the FIG, are considered to be reliable by Wiki. However, one is not considered to be more reliable or definitive than another. We therefore have reliable sources for both birth dates, or, at the least, reliable information that calls the validity of the 1991 date into question, and these are not just perpetuated by the American media but by international sources and China's own records. As per the cited guideline above and WP:UNDUE, we cannot call either source "the truth." If we use either the 1991 or the 1993 date, we would be expressing agreement with that side of the debate and expressing it as "the truth," and violating WP:NPOV. Therefore, we can't. The 'disputed' tag is not false because the date is disputed, whether or not the IOC chooses to look at it. "Dispute" is not synonymous with "currently under investigation by the IOC". Also, the IOC didn't actually conduct any independent investigation, nor did the FIG; they simply said they were not going to require additional verification from the Chinese. If you have a problem with the 'disputed' tag, I suggest you register and take it to WP:3O.
- In addition, there's been a concerted effort, not just on my part but on the part of other editors, to keep this article as NPOV as possible. If you care to look back through the other edits, you'll notice that we are pulling out negative vandalism comments about Yuyuan and her teammates too. I'm also not sure what the comment about the "western-style name" is all about, but I'll remind you to avoid personal attacks in your comments. I'm half-Chinese anyway, so if you're implying there's some sort of anti-Asian bias in my edits, you're dead wrong. DanielEng (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- glad to see your justifications finally Danieleng- I'm sorry I had to needle you to produce them, too (sorry for you). If there has truly been 500+ non-constructive edits since july, I would have liked to see a lot more on the talk page but oh well. Thats was a pretty good explanation you finally gave, so why you felt the need to edit war since July over this, with a pretty limited discussion history, is beyond me. Thats the whole point, is you explain your interpretation of WP policy, along with your edits. But instead you chose to edit without oversight, thinking that IP's weren't worth the trouble. So I don't care that you maintain the class-ist WP hierarchy, but don't expect me to shed many tears on your behalf. Disputed is a highly loaded term and there are alternatives with less POV baggage. But you're not interested in that, right?
- Glad you submitted it to those watchlists... what they will probably tell you, as I am re-iterating here, is that the word "dispute" in fact implies a truth/non-truth based dualism. That is why I have been such a bitch about it lately. My reason was, as convoluted as it may be, that "if disputed is a POV word" and if IOC and FIG were satisfied with a 1991 DOB, then why on earth were we using it? You say that the RS cites for each interpretation are strong enough to avoid the use of an actual date. I will take your word for that currently, even though both governing bodies of international gymnastics agreeing, strikes me as an even higher level of RS. Regardless, assuming we are equally balanced in terms of sourcing here, we still need to use more appropriate language. "Disputed" ain't going to cut it. I will suggest "unknown," "varies," or perhaps publishing both dates, and surely other editors have better suggestions than that. But "disputed" is a POV term, especially considering the alternatives, and there's no disputing that (lol).
- On another level, I would like you to consider the legal tradition of innocent until proven guilty, and its (limited) applicability here. Clearly according to you, YuYuan has yet to be proven innocent... but has she concurrently been proven guilty to the point of losing her right to a specific birthday on WP?? I feel that disputed is possibly the worst-case scenario for YuYuan's BLP, and if so we should only implement that option upon clear recognition of that hypothetical "guilty" judgement. Think of it this way... we have encyclopedic sources supporting the 1991 DOB, we have encyclopedic sources condradicting that 1991 DOB, but we do not have (yet) a set of sources which would support the encyclopedic use of 1993 as her DOB. In fact, ask yourself if we will ever be using 1993 as the "official" DOB?? Even if a large amount of further info emerges, that will only balance the already strong concurrency of Passport, IOC, and FIG opinion... so even if further "guilty" info comes out, it will still leave us in the position if using "unknown" or the like (until they change her passport). And, if we are using a word from the "unknown" spectrum, clearly "disputed" is a term more negative than other conceivable alternatives, save the ludicrous "falsified" or its ilk.
- So on many levels, please accept my changing of the word to "unknown"... until such time as the other-other investigtions (where-ever they might be) are closed and I mean closed... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, you're not needling me, if that is what you are attempting to do--I'll warn you again about WP:NPA. It isn't edit warring to revert incorrect information or restore cited material that has been deleted repeatedly without explanation--as was the case with the IP edits. And registration on Wiki is open to everyone, so there's no elitist attitude. If an objection is raised to cited information in the article and it is changed or deleted repeatedly, without explanation on the talk page, it is considered disruptive and can be reverted. If there's personal analysis or opinion interjected into an article, it can be reverted without explanation. Period. In addition, it is up to the editor adding material to prove his or her edits--everything here has citations, so if anyone wants to change it, the burden of proof is on them, not me, to justify that their changes are NPOV and correct, or to ask about it on the Talk Page. And as I've explained before, the changes here were reverted and endorsed by several editors, not just me. I wasn't even really involved in this page until recently when another editor asked for my help. Anyway--
- To answer your question, Yuyuan is not on trial here at Wikipedia. You've described exactly why we cannot use either 1991 or 1993--neither birthdate can be completely verified. To use one or the other would be to break NPOV. Also, if you look at the actual statements by the IOC--the IOC didn't actually exonerate the Chinese Federation, they just refused to touch the case, saying that it was FIG's responsibility to handle it. And, as of today, the IOC has actually asked the FIG to look into this again. The FIG, in confirming the birthdate, simply refused to ask for more proof than the passport, and also declined to further authenticate the document. The validity of the passport is what is being called into question. And while I have no issue with the use of the word 'unknown,' there's no indication whatsoever that 'disputed' is a POV term. Nor has anyone at NPOV come forward and said that it is; they did in fact support the use of the word 'disputed' with footnotes.
- As to when and if the 1993 birthdate will be used--well, if Yuyuan ever comes forward, as Yang Yun did, and admits she was underage (and I'm not saying Yuyuan is or isn't; I am reserving opinion there), we will be able to use the 1993 DOB. If on the other hand it turns out that all the talk of the 1993 birthdates is proven to be a giant hoax, we can add 1991 and note in the article that there was a hoax. That has been the precedent already with many confirmed cases of gymnasts with falsified passports, such as Daniela Silivas--the confirmed date (1972, in Silivas' case) is what is used; the DOB with which she competed (1970) is noted in the body of the article. If not--we can always leave the DOB as "unknown" indefinitely, as in the case of Kim Gwang Suk. DanielEng (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Blog is not Reliable Source
According to Wikipedia rule blog is not considered reliable source. Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- As soon as there's a news story, that link will be replaced. Right now the article isn't basing any information on the blog; it' merely reporting what the blog did. And since this particular blog spurred the second round of inquiry, as per the London Times, it would seem to be notable enough. DanielEng (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Just to show you why Wikipedia have ruled blogs are not reliable source, Mike Walker's strydex blog is a perfect example. What Mike didn't mention is the search results and caches also contain information exhonorating Jiang. Read the comment section where netters like myself have provided the links.
- Here's a 2007 report from Liaozhou government website reporting Jiang with 11/1/1991 DOB:
- http://www.lznews.gov.cn/rwpd/wtmx/20070808/122003.shtml
- Also, in Chinese television's Olympics documentary "Dream Weaver", Jiang was interviewed in 2003 where she mentioned her age. The narrator of the documentary stated the gymnastics tryout took place in 2003(9:25), and Jiang identified herself(9:39) as 12 years old(9:45) then.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk8ZwHd2GA8
- Bobby fletcher (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Further Question On Mike Walker's Stryde Hax Blog
Please read the blog cited, Mr. Walker attributed the document from an anonymous tip that is unverfied. The link is broken on the blog even. If we want to cite this broken blog link, should we cite the other broken blog links showing Jiang to be of age?
This really is in the realm of unreliable OR. Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The Dream Weavers documentary
Can anyone find a reliable English translation of the Dream Weavers documentary? It's the video mentioned above in the top section, where it's claimed that Jiang Yuyuan, speaking in 2003, says that she is 12. I can't find any reliable translations or articles about this and I can't link the YouTube video (copyright rules as per WP). Anyone? DanielEng (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- The narrator of the documentary stated the gymnastics tryout took place in 2003(9:25), and Jiang identified herself(9:39) as 12 years old(9:45) then. It's subtitled:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk8ZwHd2GA8
- Bobby fletcher (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
That pesky YouTube documentary
In the interest of preventing edit warring, here is a list of reasons why the passage on the YouTube documentary is not appropriate here.
Most important:
- Wikipedia:Reliable source examples: YouTube: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are not reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website.
- The documentary is copyrighted material. As per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.
Also:
- The documentary is Dream Weavers 2008. It is already noted in the article that she appears in the documentary but as per the below, there's nothing more that can be verified or said about it. There's no verification of her comment or when it was made.
- The documentary was filmed over a period of 8 years and there is no verification of the actual time in which segments were filmed; deducing it was a certain month or year is WP:OR.
- The documentary does not have a verifiable English translation. Subtitles don't count. DanielEng (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
splitting section for readability
".......other major media outlets have verified that other 'official documents' within China, including a list of junior competitors in Zhejiang Province, indicate that her date of birth is October 1, 1993." Does an excel file, a list or a webpage consider to be "official document" even if it is from a government website? Even the NYT doesn't say that it was "official document" but "a list of junior competitors". Well, I really don't know..... Tinbin (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I now know why you said that Stryde the hacker's most recent findings about Jiang have been verified by the medias because it was NOTHING NEW. The list uncovered by Stryde is the same file found by the NYT. I don't really know what is all the fuss about? Tinbin (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. In the States and Europe at least, information found on government websites are generally considered to be official documents. The fact that it's Internet vs. a paper file really doesn't matter; it's assumed that the government sites are databases which faithfully record the information on the paper files. And the only people who have access to add data to those sites are the government officials who view and verify the paper documents. For example if someone dies in the United States there will be a paper death certificate, but their data also goes into the Social Security Death Index online. You would almost never find a fraudulent record in the SSDI because it comes from official offline sources, it's recorded and entered by government employees and the public can't touch that database to enter information.
- Which is why there was all the fuss about this; the data on these gymnasts comes from a source considered to be reliable, and the FIG and IOC really didn't look at it the first time it was presented. If the information on Jiang had come from some little gymnastics school in a village somewhere, it would have been ignored, but having it on a governmental site...that's the rub. I honestly think that if there weren't the government documents and there hadn't been a lot of media about them, this never would have been investigated. People might have thought what they thought and whispered about it, but nothing official would have come of it. DanielEng (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean making the fuss about the uncovered information. I am talking about Stryde. He told the public that he uncovered the file through an ANONYMOUS SOURCE, which is actually the exact same file that was found by NYT days ago. But he treated it like something entirely new and used it to catch the media's attention. Call me biased, but don't tell me that he didn't know the file was nothing new. I think this guy is just someone having his own agenda, trying to get famous for personal benefit. Some of his comments on his blog are so stupid, for example, He calls a random anonymous poster "insiders within the Chinese gymnastics team" for posting a simple comment about the gymnasts' ages on the baidu message board. Tinbin (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- No, I know what you mean. Stryde did spin it. However, I think a lot of people were very upset that the IOC and the FIG blew this off when it was presented to them the first time, and when it stayed in the press, it gave Stryde the inspiration to bring it out again. With his blog, I think what he has been trying to do is put the information out there in such a way that the IOC and FIG couldn't ignore it. Which is what happened. Stryde is a hacker and he's already said that he didn't even follow the gymnastics; he just wanted to see what he could find. And notice he's stayed away from the gymnasts like Deng Linlin who have absolutely nothing tangible. Remember that Stryde might have in keeping insiders anonymous regardless of what he might know about them behind the scenes. DanielEng (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there is no point to discuss about Stryde anymore. we have different opinions on this guy. You think he did it because he wanted to bring IOC and FIG's attention to the matter and brought up old information and "treated it as new" was nothing wrong. I think he did it just for his personal benefit and ignore any evidence that contracts his findings. You totally ignore his "insiders within the Chinese gymnastics team" evidence. Again, don't you think the "insiders within the Chinese gymnastics team" part is biased and stupid? Tinbin (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- For the "insiders on the Chinese team," I don't give it any credence because we have no idea what it means or doesn't mean. Stryde is already employed by a firm where he makes a lot of money, he did his hacking in his free time, and he really has nothing personal to gain from all of this. It isn't as though he's going to get a medal. But let's agree to disagree on this one. DanielEng (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"Stryde is already employed by a firm where he makes a lot of money, he did his hacking in his free time, and he really has nothing personal to gain from all of this. It isn't as though he's going to get a medal. But let's agree to disagree on this one.". This is your opinion, so I will just ignore it. Again third party for judgement 22:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And for the wikipedia info about Jiang Yuyuan and Deng Linlin, I also think they are biased and misleading. They only has information that leads the readers to believe that they are underage, but in fact there are also evidence proving they are not. But this evidence is never shown on Wikipedia. When I found out that the Italian women gymnasts' coach, Enrico Casella, commented “By looks, you could say that the United States is using doping. They are so muscular. My gymnasts in Italy aren’t that big. You begin to wonder how they got that way.” (NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/sports/olympics/10age.html?_r=2&scp=15&sq=%22Deng%20linlin%22&st=cse&oref=slogin&oref=slogin). I started to wonder may be there is something fishy about the US team too. It is very tempting to add Enrico Casella's comments, which is from reliable source, to the US gymnasts' wikipedia pages. Tinbin (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if you say precisely what you feel is misleading about them, we can talk about it here. The pages have to present all the evidence reported by the press. With the other evidence, again, we go back to the problem of reliable sources. As defined by Wiki, those are sources in a major media (such as the New York Times, Xinhua, etc.) which are considered to have some integrity and reliability in what they report. If we had reliable sources that could conflict the evidence in the articles, we could absolutely add it. If Lu Shanzen or someone else stands up and gives a better explanation (for instance, if the coaches were to explain exactly what happened with Deng Linlin's tooth and say she fell or something), we could add it. If the NYT or another media outlet chose to review and write about that conflicting information, we could add it. But right now, there isn't a reliable source at all for any conflicting information. All we have are the Chinese coaches saying it's not true and that they're angry about it.
- In terms of Deng Linlin, the article doesn't report that there was any actual evidence about her. It does say that her appearance was a matter of major scrutiny because that was the case--unfortunately she was used as an example and a symbol of the entire controversy, and I've seen articles in newspapers everywhere from India to Australia that mention "the girl losing baby teeth." It doesn't make any judgments about that, though, and you will notice there's also a sentence in the article which states that nobody really knows how she lost that tooth or if it was a baby tooth.
"the girl losing baby teeth.". Have they verified it? How do they know it is a baby tooth? Did they ask her? Or Did Deng tell them herself that it is a baby tooth? Tinbin (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- That's the point. Notice we don't say that in Deng's article, we just make the point that here have been a lot of remarks about the tooth. Deng's said nothing, the coach has said nothing, but it's become the visual symbol of the entire conflict and an illustration of the overall international public opinion on the case. DanielEng (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- As for the comment by the Italian coach about the Americans, we go back to the question on whether comments in reliable sources are relevant and can be supported. If 10 different coaches and analysts had said something--as they did with Deng Linlin--it could be brought up. But one person's comment without any other evidence or supporting opinion doesn't mean anything. There's been no evidence of doping on the American team reported anywhere, and the comment, like Andrea Bieger's, was made hypothetically in relation to the questions about size, not the other documents about age. If the only evidence we had of age falsification was, say, Marta Karolyi's ranting about how tiny the Chinese gymnasts were, we'd ignore that. We'd completely and totally ignore that. Unfortunately though, there's other evidence that has been reported and verified in reliable sources in the media and there is an active open investigation. DanielEng (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
No sorry, even you agreed that there are no evidence from any reliable sources that indicate Deng Linlin's underage. Please show me the evidence that Deng is underage from any reliable sources if you have any on hand. And when people could not find any evidence that prove Deng's underage, they started using her size and "missing tooth" to accuse her and Bela Karolyi's comments can appear on Deng's page. Enrico Casella's comments (from NYT) are just like tBela Karolyi's comments on Deng that there are no evidence to back them (again, if you have any on Deng, please show me). But Bela Karolyi's comments still appear on Deng's page, so why can't Enrico Casella's comments apppears on all the US gymnasts' pages who participate the 2008 Olympics? Remember, Enrico Casella's comments are also from a reliable source, the New York Times. I wanted to put Enrico Casella's comments (from the NYT) on the US gymnasts' wikipedia pages, but couldn't bring myself to do it (for now), because I think it is unfair to the US gymnasts since there is no substantial evidence to support Enrico Casella's comments on US gymnasts, just like there is no substantial evidence to support Bela Karolyi's comments on Deng (but Bela Karolyi's comments still appears on Deng's page). Well, I might change my mind later if the unfairness keep happening to these Chinese gymnasts on Wikipedia. Tinbin (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't make threats about vandalizing other articles to 'retaliate.' It won't work: a) the quote is out of context; b) the quote is unverified; c) there aren't any other resources anywhere that would back it up. And also, if you don't know a lot about how the dynamics between the USA and Euro press, there's a constant stereotype that the Americans are fat. That comment about them being "so big" was probably just that again. I've explained to you before that reporting opinion is not the same as reporting facts. If something is a reported fact in a RS--for instance, the fact that information was found and verified--it is reported. If something is an opinion in a reliable source, we go into issues of relevance, if the opinion has any basis, etc.
No, I am not threatening and vandalizing, please don't accuse me of something that based on your own opinion and with no substantial proof. I need an apology here. I am saying that the italian coach's comments and the chinese coach's comments could also be included in the US gymnasts pages because they are just like the comments on Deng's size and tooth, opinions without proof. But the comments about Deng can be included and the comments about the US gymnansts cannot. They are all from reliable sources, they are verified, and the media are reporting fact that the chinese and italian coaches made comments about foreign and US gymnasts could be doping because they are muscular. Just tell me the difference between the comments between on Deng and the US gymnasts? They both based on opinions, not evidence but one can be included and the other cannot. I asked for evidence to support the comments made on Deng, but again you ignore it. You are really biased here. Do we have third party here to do the judgement? Or do I have tolerate your biased view and your accusation on me? Tinbin (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's what it sounds like--that if you don't like the way the Chinese articles are handled, you will disrupt others. The comments on Deng and the American gymnasts differ in the following ways:
- The comment about the Americans was made by one coach, in one article. It was never suspected, substantiated or brought up anywhere else.
- The comments about Deng were made by many coaches and commentators in many articles across the international press. In addition, many people didn't even know which gymnast on the Chinese team had the missing tooth, but brought it up. In this case, it was a symbol of a larger issue. The issue of the Chinese falsifications was major news at the Olympics. It was in the press every single day. The missing tooth was one of the things brought up over and over again. For instance, here's something from Ireland: [11] Australia: [12] We could go on.
- One of the other points is that because there has been so much international attention to this, if we don't bring up the tooth issue in the article, someone else will. If you look back through the edit history, you will notice that before the article was rewritten and cited, there were sentences that were clearly biased that were removed. DanielEng (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
So now all of a sudden, it is not about evidence, not about reporting facts but the numbers and MAJOR NEWS. Where goes all that "Reporting facts" talk go?. Again. I DEMAND AN APOLOGY. And AGAIN, you ignore my demand of evidence that support comments on Deng. I say here again, I need a third party to judge what could be included and what cannot. Tinbin (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're obviously getting angry and aren't listening to what is being said to you. I believe I've addressed all of your points, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be ignoring here. There are no facts or substantiated allegations of US doping. There is an official investigation and major press coverage of Chinese age falsification. I'd advise you to step back from this page and take a break if you're this angry about it. DanielEng (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not angry. And you are IGNORING my question again. I disgree with your logic and I think that you are biased and I need a THIRD PARTY to judge what could be included and what could not. There should be some kind of regulation in Wikipedia addressing when people don't agree with each other. You don't OWN the webpages here. (And you are ignoring my request for an apology.) Tinbin (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And once again you ACCUSE me that I would disrupt other articles based on your own opinion. I need an apology and a third party for judgement (I am not angry, OK)Tinbin (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring your request for an apology: I don't owe you one. You stated that you wish to disrupt other articles and that you would decide to do so based on "unfairness" here, you also admitted there was no basis for the information you wanted to add; I warned you not to do it. If you want to take this to WP:EA you are more than welcome. I'm going to warn you in advance that you're not likely to get them to agree with you here, though. There's a difference between agreeing and adhering to Wiki's policies on NPOV and BLP. The policies will be adhered to whether or not you agree with them. DanielEng (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you owe me an apology because you still accused me of wanting to disrupt other articles AFTER I explained to you that you misundertood me and I have no intention to do it. And yes, I admitted that those comments have no evidence to support them, but I also pointed out that the those comments on DENG also have no evidence for support. When I said fairness, I mean applying the same logic to the comments on Deng and US gymnasts Tinbin (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not apologizing to you. Nor am I going to address that again. If you don't want to be warned not to vandalize, don't threaten to do it. And again, as I've explained to you over and over again, the logic being applied to Deng and the US Gymnasts IS identical. We work on verifiability, relevance, NPOV, etc. We can verify there have been questions on Deng's teeth. We cannot verify that there have been questions on the US and drugs. We have hundreds of articles, literally, for Deng. We have one person's ambiguous remark, which is not investigated, for the Americans. Deng is observed not to have a tooth. The US gymnasts have never been seen taking drugs, nor have they been observed to fail drug tests at the Olympics. The article does not make any assumptions on WHY Deng does not have a tooth; it simply reports that it was a major point of comment and controversy. Again, if you can't see the difference, that's not my concern. It's been explained. DanielEng (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, no apology. But no explanation on why still accusing me of wanting to disrupting other article and threatening AFTER I explained that I am not threatening and have no intention to disrupt other articles, and that my previous comments are just trying to prove a point here. Tinbin (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I checked the history page, and you once again accusing me of deleting other people's comments. Well, could you kindly tell me that what people's comments have I deleted? Tinbin (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you DELETED my comments! How do you explain that? Tinbin (talk) 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:POINT: Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. For the comments page; you deleted my remarks in this edit, and did not restore them. [13] In reverting you, I accidentally wiped your comments, but I immediately undid my own edit and fixed it. [14] DanielEng (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
That is what I call double standards. When you deleted my comments, it was accidental. When I accidentally deleted your comments, it was intentional. Now I see more and more of the high standard of the wikipedia editors Tinbin (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
And after I already explained that you mis-understood my meaning and I did not mean to do any kind of disruption, but you still accusing me of wanting to disrupt. How do you explain that? Tinbin (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you're doing a simple 'undo,' there's no way to delete someone else's entire comment paragraph accidentally. If you look at the timestamp on my edit, there's less than a minute between my revert and undo; I realized what I'd done and switched it back at once. You, on the other hand, took out an entire paragraph and then didn't replace it, even after making an additional edit. It's not a double standard; it's an observation. I also didn't accuse you of doing anything, I politely told you not to do it, in case you hadn't realized what you had done. In addition, your comments about adding unsourced material were an intent to disrupt to prove a point; there's no way to misinterpret that. DanielEng (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, the chinese coach Lu Shanzhen DID defend his team on the accusation of being underage, he said “It’s unfair that people keep saying the Chinese are too young to compete. If they think they can tell someone’s age just by looking at them, well, if you look at the foreign athletes, they have so much more muscles than the Chinese. They are so strong. Do you then say that they are doping?” His defending speech is from a reliable source, the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/sports/olympics/14gymnastics.html?scp=3&sq=%22Deng%20linlin%22&st=cse), but once again, this crucial information (that Lu defended his team) is not in any articles of the Chinese gymnasts who are accused of underage. So please explain to me why? And how can I consider that all those articles are fair and not biased? Tinbin (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You said that "Stryde is already employed by a firm where he makes a lot of money". Please, come to the real world. By doing this, he'd be more famous and get the publicity he wanted and he could make even more money (I have never heard of him before. I assume that you haven't either) Tinbin (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- His motives really don't matter; if his information is true, it's true. And his motives are really irrelevant to this article. I can guarantee you that if a hacker wanted publicity, there are a lot of other things they could do that would make much more of a name for them. DanielEng (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that I was NOT angry. But I was clearly offended by your comments that accused me of threatening and vandalising even after I explained I didn't mean to do any of those things. Tinbin (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- For instance: there have been a lot of people screaming about the uneven bars final He Kexin vs. Nastia Liukin result, along the lines that Nastia was cheated, that the Australian judge lowballed her, etc. It's all opinion. It's in the press. We don't report it because there's absolutely no concrete evidence anywhere that Nastia was cheated or that He Kexin was favored, and the opinions aren't backed up by anything with substance. It wouldn't be fair to either He Kexin or Nastia to imply that there was anything other than a fair contest.
- Bela Karolyi's comments do not actually appear on Deng's page, it's just mentioned that he was one of the people who spoke out. The investigation vs. the Chinese gymnast has nothing to do with Bela--he actually does not work for the US team in any capacity and he had nothing to do with the investigation. And as has been mentioned, there have been a lot of other media reports, not by Bela, that comment on the same tooth issue. If it will make you feel better, you can take out his name. The point though is that a lot of people, not just Bela, commented about the tooth and that it was seem as a visual symbol. It's not saying anything about the truth of it; just that it was widely reported. DanielEng (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Same here. I am not saying that the comments on US gymnasts is true. But it was reported from reliable resources. Again I would like a third party to do the judgement here. Because you are obviously biased. Tinbin (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've gone to great lengths to explain the difference to you. If you don't want to understand it, and you want to get angry, that's your choice, but if you disrupt other articles, I can guarantee you will be reverted, and probably by editors with less patience. Look at the Deng article before I edited it, and tell me again that I am biased. DanielEng (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I am not angry. And you are IGNORING my question again. I disgree with your logic and I think that you are biased and I need a THIRD PARTY to judge what could be included and what could not. There should be some kind of regulation in Wikipedia addressing when people don't agree with each other. You don't OWN the webpages here. And once again, you accuse me of something purely base on your own opinion and that I didn't do (And you are ignoring my request for an apology.) Tinbin (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- The active open investigation on Deng is not initiated by Bela Karolyi's comments or Deng being too small for a female gymnast. The investigation is initiated because the other chinese gymnasts' ages are in question and Deng has been caught up on it. Again, show me evidence that the FIG investigation on Deng is due to the fact that Deng is considered too small for a female gymnast.Tinbin (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying it is. And that's not said in the article. All that it is saying is that the FIG asked for data on 5 gymnasts, and that she is one of them. That is true. In fact, there's something in the article that pretty clearly says that the controversy was about her teammates, and that the evidence was requested after evidence on them' came out in the press again. DanielEng (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I am preparing some information on Jiang Yuyuan's early life and family background using data from the chinese media. Tinbin (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Please help edit citations:- Citation [7] Title: Coach explains reason of Jiang Yuyuan's defeat : Elbow injury, it is fatal. Date: Aug 16,08. Author: 王玲 Citation [8] Title: Gymnast replaced 20 minutes before final, Scene behind team women's gold Date: Aug 14, 2008 Author: unknown Tinbin (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I know my grammar is poor :) Tinbin (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
One suggestion: How about changing the date of birth from "unknown" to "In Dispute" since the birth date is not really unknown. It is either Oct 1, 1993 or Nov 1, 1991 until further evidence appears that can confirm Jiang's actual birth date. And how do I add image to the personal information? Tinbin (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- For the image: in the infobox, the third line down is: |image =
- Take the name of the image and add it into that field.
- The fourth line is for the size of the image--it it's too big you can add 300px or 250px to this field, otherwise you can leave it empty.
- The fifth line is for the description of the image, so you can add a caption if you wish.
- For instance, for the Nastia Liukin article, the image is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nastia_Liukin.jpg
- This is the name we add to the third line: Nastia Liukin.jpg
- So we have |image= Nastia Liukin.jpg in the infobox.
I want to add some information to Jiang Yuyuan's Gymnastics career Section, like the year she transferred to the National Team and how her elbow injury affecting her performance in the Vault competition as claimed by her coach. The sources are all in Chinese. Does Wikipedia accept Chinese sources? Tinbin (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I answered this on my Talk Page too, but to repeat--we prefer English language sources but the short answer is yes, a Chinese source is fine, provided that it passes the test as reliable sources and can be checked by others. So, a written source would be okay, because we can run that through Babelfish or another online translator, but a video or TV interview would not be okay because most English Wiki editors will have no way to check and verify what's said. If your sources are from any of the major Chinese newspapers, Xinhua news service, etc. they should be completely fine.
- They will need to be formatted to be footnoted, though. The template for formatting can be found in the article. If you can't do it, I can format the refs for you. You'll need to let me know the article's name, the title of the source, the author of the article, and the date it was published (in Chinese is fine, just as long as I know which information is which). DanielEng (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The Dream Weavers documentary
Can anyone find a reliable English translation of the Dream Weavers documentary? It's the video mentioned above in the top section, where it's claimed that Jiang Yuyuan, speaking in 2003, says that she is 12. I can't find any reliable translations or articles about this and I can't link the YouTube video (copyright rules as per WP). Anyone? DanielEng (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- The narrator of the documentary stated the gymnastics tryout took place in 2003(9:25), and Jiang identified herself(9:39) as 12 years old(9:45) then. It's subtitled:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk8ZwHd2GA8
- Bobby fletcher (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what kind of prove do you need. But I can tell you that anyone who speak Mandarin can verify that Jiang Yuyan did say she is 12 when speaking in 2003 in the documentary. Tinbin (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- The sort of RS that Wiki would expect in this case would probably be an official transcript of some sort, like for instance if CNN or China Daily transcribed the interview in English. Or if a news organization wrote about it with verification of what was said. Do you happen to know if Xinhua or any of the Chinese-language print sources have written about Dream Weavers at all, and specifically this? Or if the documentary has a website that might have a transcript or information on the interview subjects or something? I wouldn't even know how to find that in Mandarin, and it might work if it could be run through Babelfish. It has nothing to do with Wiki, but personally, I wish I could understand it myself--it makes me very much regret not getting past baby-level Mandarin (I think I remember about two phrases, LOL). DanielEng (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments about recent edits
However, comments on stryde's blog indicate that not everyone believes his claims and provide information showing all the Chinese Olympic gymnasts are indeed over 16.
Points of concern:
- "Not everyone believes his claims." So? It's the Internet, there are differing opinions on everything; some random Internet posters' personal opinions shouldn't be relevant here. If we had someone like, say, the head of the British Gymnastics Federation or a sports expert saying he or she didn't believe that would be different.
In one place, you told me that FIG source is not definitive. But here, you said that you trust "the British Gymnastics Federation or a sports expert". I am really amazed by your way of thinking!! Tinbin (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's two different situations, Tinbin. FIG/NYT birth years = reporting on conflicting information. "Some people..." = reporting on opinions. I'm not saying I trust a sports expert. I'm saying that if we're reporting the opinions of someone, rather than reporting on events, they have to have some relevance to the case. For instance, in the article, we report on the IOC's opinions on the preliminary data. The IOC is obviously important in this case, and their opinion here has relevance. If we stopped a random person walking by the Bird's Nest and asked their opinion on the case, would it be relevant?
- May be my English is really that bad so that I mis-interpret the true meaning of "If we had someone like, say, the head of the British Gymnastics Federation or a sports expert saying he or she didn't believe that would be different." May be this really means you don't trust "the British Gymnastics Federation or a sports expert". Time for me to get my Oxford Advanced English Dictionary. Have I ever mentioned asking a random person?? I think I said ask "FIG" and use their information as a reliable source. Well, may be I did say that if you consider FIG is a random person. Tinbin (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're still not understanding the difference. There are three steps here:
- Is the information from a reliable source?
- Are the reliable sources given equal weight, so that there isn't WP:UNDUE emphasis on one or the other?
- Is the information relevant to the article?
- You're still not understanding the difference. There are three steps here:
- The information from the FIG is used as a reliable source here. However, it is not the only source, nor is it the definitive source, nor does it override the fact that there are other reliable sources that completely negate the information it has. This has already been explained to you.
- When we report opinion, we have an obligation to ensure that the content is relevant to the article. This is where the British GF head comes in. In a gymnastics-related article, when we are discussing people's opinions, and not fact, relevance does come into play. I've already given you an example; the IOC's opinion is reported here because they have a stake in the case. But we really couldn't care less about an unidentified person online with no relevance to the case. In another example, if you look in the Andreea Raducan article--which I'm citing because it's another Olympic controversy--you will see that the opinions given are from people directly or peripherally involved in the case.
- You also seem to be confusing reporting with trust again. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral site. We report on all sides of an event; we don't TAKE a side. It's not about truth; it's about verifiability and relevance. When a source is used in an article, it's not because it's trusted or not; it's because it's accepted as a reliable source of information.
- In the "not everyone believes"
- The bit in the article says "some people don't believe the evidence." The people on Stryde's blog are all screen names, which, as we all know, aren't even necessarily real. So? "Some people don't believe." Which people? Why are their opinions important, and why should anyone care about them? I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster, but stating that doesn't really matter to the article. Whereas if a top expert on the LNM turned around and said "it's a hoax," it would be relevant to that article. DanielEng (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are contradicting with what you have previously said that "We're not the investigators, we don't have any of the original documents in front of us, and we can't say which are true and which are not. Our job here isn't to synthesize what the media says or to decide if the claims are correct." and "We report. We don't take a side." How do you know that the NYT didn't verify with the "some people don't believe the evidence." part? Have you ask them? No, you haven't because "We're not the investigators" and "Our job here isn't to synthesize what the media says or to decide if the claims are correct". But now you decided that "some people don't believe the evidence." is not reliable but the information about Stryde is (By the way, both info is from the same NYT article). So you are not reporting. You take side. You chose to believe the Stryde part but not the "some people don't believe the evidence." part. You shouldn't as your "job here isn't to synthesize what the media says or to decide if the claims are correct".
- How do I know the NYT didn't verify? That's pretty easy: because they didn't say so. If you happen to check other articles cited in the footnotes, you will notice that there's always something in the article that confirms that the NYT, the Associated Press or whoever, verified the claims put before them. In this case, we don't have names. We don't have any sort of descriptions of the information found. In Stryde's case, we have his real name, we have detailed information about what he found and how he found it.
- Nobody is taking Stryde's side here. The fact, though, is that several major news organizations around the world have verified Stryde's information and activities. They've also reported on it. Can you find one, just ONE more major news story about the conflicting information supposedly found by "some people"? Can you find anything that is less vague than "not everyone believes..." such as an interview in a reliable news outlet that gives names of these anonymous posters? If you can't, that means it hasn't been verified or reported. DanielEng (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see air, so there is no air. I don't see electricity, so there is no electricity. The NYT didn't mention that they have done the verification, so there was no verification ever taken place (It is like a poem, I am impressed by myself :) ). Well, let me try this logic. The NYT didn't mention that they "haven't done" the verification (double negative? I don't know. Sorry for my poor English), therefore they must have verified it! The truth is the NYT have never mentioned whether they have verified this piece of information or not, so it could be either ways, they have done the verification or they haven't. But somehow you choose to believe that the NYT haven't done any verification when it could be either ways. Tinbin (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The part that really bugs me is that from all those sources containing information about Stryde the hacker and his findings on Jiang Yuyuan, there are also information, from the same reliable sources, indicating that there are also evidence out there that contradicts with Stryde's findings and he conceded that he cannot verify the authenticity of the document he found. But these data are not even in the Jiang Yuyuan's webpage, so the readers are not seeing the full picture and it would lead them to perceive this whole matter from a very biased angle. Tinbin (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well, when other news organizations actually verify those other sources, they can be added. Until then, there's no verification. Maybe this is a cultural thing, or a difference in how the news is reported in China and the States, but here, unless the news organization explicitly says it has verified something, it hasn't been verified. Even when someone is anonymous, there will always be something either saying "we could not find the identity of this person" or "the person wishes to remain anonymous for his own safety" or something along those lines, if verification has taken place. Right now there's a vague sentence or two that something else was found. That's not good enough for Wiki. I'm sorry if you disagree with this, but it's how we report here. DanielEng (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- "...his claims." Actually, they're not Stryde's claims; he's re-posting information he's found elsewhere that has also been confirmed by other sources. As he mentions in his blog, Diane Pucin of the Los Angeles Times and other press agencies had the same information back in July.
For his latest findings on Jiang Yuyan, it is "his claims". As mentioned on his blog, he found that information on Jiang Yuyan by a tip from an anonymous source. The funny thing is that how he assumed that the excel file could not be fake because "There are over ten thousand names and hand entered details. How could anyone ever forge something like that? It would take an army to gather that amount of detail and make it stand up to scrutiny." But it never come to his mind that someone could just take a genuine excel file with over ten thousand names and hand entered details and changed just one row, Jiang Yuyan's row, to forge that excel file? What a "computer expert" he is. Tinbin (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry wrong again. His latest findings about Jiang Yuyuan has never been recovered by the media. He found it by an anonymous tip from the internet, which according to you, should be considered as "a random person walking by the Bird's Nest or completely random, anonymous people on the web". Tinbin (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- "...provide information showing all the gymnasts are indeed over 16..." Except that unlike Stryde's info, which was confirmed as shown above, the information hasn't been verified by anyone, is in Chinese and hasn't been translated, and has never been recognized by any news organization whatsoever. In addition the Chinese Federation hasn't referred to it. I suppose that if I wanted to, I could go into Excel and whip up a fake spreadsheet myself that would be "evidence." The point is that it hasn't been confirmed by anyone outside of a few random Internet users. DanielEng (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC) (That's me, I don't know why Tinbin signed here)
You are being bias here. The internet users' claims against Stryde are indeed confirmed by The New York Times. And that is why the New York Times put those sentences in the article. If you suspect that, you should not trust Stryde's claims too because they both appear in the same New York Times article. Tinbin (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- The internet users are completely random, anonymous people on the web. They're not identified by the New York Times; they're called "some people." The NYT never verifies or describes the information these people claim to have found. They simply say "some people disagree and they came up with something." They never say what, and they never confirm it. Whereas Stryde's information is information the paper had itself back in July. DanielEng (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Again how do you know that NYT didn't verify? If you have ever visited Stryde's blog, you'd find that, just like Stryde, the internet users posted all the evidence in the form of URLs leading to information that counters Stryde's findings. The NYT might have gone through all these information and verify them. But again you don't know because according to you it is not your job to investigate. Please also see my previous comments that begin with "You are contradicting with what you have previously said....". Tinbin (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well if the NYT had actually said that--if, for instance, they'd written an article where they said "John X from North Carolina found a spreadsheet on this particular Chinese Gymnastics Federation website that says Jiang was born in 1991" we certainly could report that. But they didn't. Vague statements about "hey, some people we don't know found some stuff!" with no verification and no description are not the same. DanielEng (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Some side issue - the discussion page's user interface is really the worst one I have ever seen. Would you guys enchance it? Tinbin (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- "all the gymnasts are over 16..." Not really. There hasn't been anything contradicting Stryde's documents pulled up for Yang Yilin or He Kexin at all; all the evidence in Stryde's blog is for Jiang. Commenters in Stryde's blog are actually saying they believe Jiang is 1991, but that the other two are underage. Deng Linlin and Li Shanshan are not even mentioned; and Cheng Fei isn't a suspect. So that's not "all". DanielEng (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, if you don't trust that, you should not trust the info on Stryde too. Tinbin (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- See below. You're ignoring the point above. You wanted to say something in the article that said that information has been found that exonerates every single one of these gymnasts, which is misleading because there's been NOTHING said about four of the five gymnasts under suspicion. And the information on its own has not exonerated the gymnasts or proved anything, any more than the information on the other spreadsheets proves they are underage. DanielEng (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about trust; it's about reportage. Something that has been confirmed by several media outlets is much different than a vague, one-paragraph statement in a news story. Also, please check the footnotes; there are a lot of other articles, from papers in the USA, UK and Australia, that have looked into Stryde's information. It also doesn't change that saying "all the gymnasts" are definitively over 16 based on these comments is completely wrong and misleading--Stryde hasn't even looked up "all the gymnasts" and there hasn't been conflicting information about all of them. There's been conflicting information about one, and that is Jiang. DanielEng (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- I believe all the journalists refering to Mike Walker's stryde hax blog does not say it's definitive evidence. Wikipedia also have rules that blogs are not reliable source. The neutural statement would be journalists have reported on this.
- Also, just to show you how biased that blog is. I for one have repeatedly pointed out the search and cache also contain evidence that prove the gymnasts are of age, but Mike Walker ignores them.
- Here's the latest - it is widely reported Jiang Yuyuan entered the Liozhou Gymnastics Academy in 1994, when she was 4 years old. For Jiang to be born in 1993, she must have entered the local atheletics incubation program at AGE OF ONE.
- Here's the Google searh engine results:
- Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, they don't say it's definitive evidence, and neither do we. There's absolutely nothing in the Wiki article that claims it's the truth or not the truth. We report that the data was found and that its presence, and what it says, have been confirmed by reliable news sources. As for the Google cache you've linked: One more time, when the conflicting evidence is viewed and confirmed by the Times or another news organization, we can report it. Your comments and original research don't count as a reliable source any more than mine do. Nothing has been printed in the press that would discredit Stryde. This also isn't your place to air your complaints with the blog--if you have a problem with what Stryde does, take it up with him. Until then there's absolutely nothing that qualifies as a reliable source that can be reported as per Wiki rules. Please read WP:RS. DanielEng (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Jiang's DOB is not unknown
There are many official BGOC, IOC, FIG record on Jiang's age. It is disputed, and disputed by USOC according to the MSNBC report cited in the article. Please remember Jiang is still a living person, and there are Wiki rules regarding living person. Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the archives and above, this has already been discussed ad nauseaum and has been taken to the NPOV noticeboard as well. The consensus both here and at NPOV is that in light of the conflicting sources, 'unknown' or 'disputed' with citations for both possible dates is the only way to maintain NPOV on this article. The 1991 date is not definitively known, nor is the 1993 one, and the FIG and Chinese gymnastics association are not the final authorities that override other evidence. I'm sorry if you don't believe this article should be neutral, but that's how it is. DanielEng (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please look at how DOB is treated in He Kexin's bio section. To say Jiang's DOB is "unknown" when in fact only the birth year is in dispute, is not neutural, as IMHO it imparts a negative connotation.
- Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I wrote the He Kexin article so I am well aware of what is there. However in this case it's not only the year but the month that is in dispute. Again, I'm well aware that you have a very strong pro-China opinion in this case, but that is your opinion, not fact. I'll repeat that this issue has already been discussed on this page over and over and has been run past the NPOV folks. DanielEng (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- One other thing, Bobby, since I see you're adding Chinese-language references to the article. As I told Tinbin, that is fine, but it would be helpful if you could provide the information on the reference so it can be placed into the appropriate ref template, like all the other references in the article. If you could leave a comment here with the article's name, the publication's name, the author if there is one, and the date it was published, it would be most helpful. DanielEng (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Daniel, it's not about being pro-China, but observing Wikipedia's rule on living person.
- Also, can you show me any media report besides the birth year in disput? No OR or blog please.
- Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen your comments on Stryde's blog and elsewhere, and it's clear that you don't like people who are critical of the Chinese government. That's fine if that is your opinion, but it's just that.
- Wikipedia's rules on BLP state that information must be drawn from sources; if there are two sources with conflicting information they must both be reported. As to showing you the RS for this: they're right in front of you in the article. There are footnotes right next to the sentence about the 10/1/93 DOB in the body of the article; if you click those little numbers they will take you to links to several major news articles, which predate Stryde, which clearly note the 10/1/93 DOB. It's all sourced. You don't honestly think this conflict would be reported on Wiki if we didn't have sources for it? For instance:
- Ref # 2/12, New York Times, 7/27: Jiang’s national card number as it appears on this list shows her birth date as Oct. 1, 1993 NYT confirms they looked up the data on their own. [15]
- Ref # 13, Associated Press, 8/13: A list of competitors at a 2007 provincial competition shows Jiang with an Oct. 1, 1993, birthdate. AP confirms they looked this up themselves. [16]
DanielEng (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't look like October 1st is in dispute; only the year is in dispute. Can you show a report where October 1st is in dispute? Bobby fletcher (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I get the feeling you're intentionally trying to be difficult at this point. I gave you two links to sources above. Right there. I'm sure you know how to click and read them. If you actually read them, you will see the 11/1/91 and the 10/1/93 dates clearly given in the text of both articles. If you click on the little footnotes in the article, you will also find sources with both dates. I am sure you understand that October and November are different months, right?
- Please check the given sources. The entire article is sourced and you can click on the footnotes at any time. It's our responsibility to provide the sources; it's not my job to spoon-feed you the relevant passages because you don't feel like checking them out yourself. Please actually check the sources before assuming something isn't there. DanielEng (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, all the official source says November, the October month is from Mike Walker's unconfirmed source. The day is not in dispute, please put that in. Bobby fletcher (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, you are being difficult. Both dates are clearly given in the text already which again, I would invite you to read. The sources for the 10/1/93 date are from media outlets who did confirm the information, and if you would actually READ the articles and the dates for them, given right above this, you would see that they predate Mike Walker's blog. He wasn't around in July and the articles clearly state they verified the info on their own. Again, this has already been pointed out to you. Repeatedly. We can't put "1" or "the first of the month" in the infobox. 1 what? That would be completely ridiculous. The infobox already has the footnotes to both possible dates. Consensus has already agreed with the 'in dispute' or 'unknown' listing; the NPOV noticeboard agreed. Even Tinbin above, who shares your POV on the age dispute, thinks the current listing is fine. There's absolutely no consensus for a lone, incomprehensible "1". DanielEng (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's not about being difficult, rather Jiang is a living person. Is the day in dispute or not? Is the day known or not? This is a very simple question. Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- And it's already been answered. You're trying to wear me, or this site, down until you get your POV on the article, from where I'm standing. You have already been told why this is not feasible. It has been explained to you that the NPOV noticeboard have found the current state of the page and the 'unknown/disputed' tags are appropriate. You've seen other editors here agree that the current tag is acceptable, which means that there is a consensus for it. You have already been told that both DOBs are indicated both in the footnotes and the article itself. A DOB entails either a month/day/year or month/day. We have neither. Adding a single number as a date of birth is beyond ludicrous. You want to do it, you go ahead and try to get consensus, but right now, you don't have it. Nor have you given any rational justification for a change. DanielEng (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've reverted your latest edit because, again, it's already in the text. The 11/1/91 DOB is already given at the appropriate point in the article. Please, I'm asking as nicely as I can here, read the text before you add information. When you add information that is already in the text, or add it to the wrong place, or use sloppy refs, you make more work for other editors. In regards to your source, foreign-language sources are acceptable but generally when we don't have an English-language substitute. The only thing we're getting from the source you gave is the DOB, and there are already several English language sources given for that, which means the Chinese Olympic one is inappropriate here. DanielEng (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)