Jump to content

Talk:Beth Tweddle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I'm very doubtful her weight is 33kg, being a gymnast myself this is unlikely. I think it is somewhat pointless quoting her weight, is it really meaningful information? albeit even necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.90.202 (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says her weight is 33kg. Is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.171.56 (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about gymnastics. So when I see phrases like: "only lost by 0.013", "over three tenths" and "less than half a tenth" I am baffled . What unit of measurement are we talking about here ?

"she had qualified in second place to the all around and was a medal possibility". Huh ?

RASAM 15:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the highest possible mark in artistic gymnastics is a 10.000. "she had qualified in second place to the all around and was a medal possibility". means she qualified for the FINAL in second postion, she came second in the QUALIFIER and there was a good chance she could get a medal in the FINAL. CheeseLover 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Someone wanted a citation for the Nelli Kim score. I've looked on www.gymn-forum.com and www.gymnasticsresults.com and unfortunately they don't have the judges listed mark by mark for this competition- sometimes they do. They just have the final overall score, which is an average of several scores given and doesn't mention which judge gave what. The best I can do is provide a link to a fan messageboard where the scoring was discussed. Try http://www.gymworld.de/gymboard/showthread.php3?s=3978148dc160ddfb53410bc956a35dad&threadid=26970&perpage=15&pagenumber=6 and http://www.gymworld.de/gymboard/showthread.php3?s=3978148dc160ddfb53410bc956a35dad&threadid=26983. Sorry, I know this source isn't perfect, but just ignore the personal opinions on there and look at when people mention the low score. I promise they aren't just making it up about the 9.300! There just don't seem to be fully itemised scores anywhere on the internet, not that I could find at least. Anyway, hope this helps. miss zara, 03/04/06

I looked into those forums. First of all, fan forums are not the reliable source. But even if we take them into account: a). no judge's name is mentioned there b) only is mentioned, that "someone scored 9.3" c) no other marks are mentioned. So, it's absolutely abstract. It's even unclear, which mark gave Nellie Kim! Not speaking, that no official FIG's position in the case is mentioned. If you can't provide anything else, the sentence in question should be reworded or rather deleted. Cmapm 22:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know what you mean about the official FIG position. Sorry if the forums didn't clear it up for you, there is something in that particular section though. Unfortunately there just doesn't seem to exist anywhere an itemised list of judges marks, which is why I had to resort to that forum option. Its not on the FIG site either (not that I'm implying anything suspicious) and the sites that were doing quicklinks at the time apparently aren't there anymore. Best I can suggest is that anyone who's interested downloads coverage. The BBC coverage lists individual judges scores, and it can be found if you join the hub (get to it at www.gymworld.de, and before anyone moans, the forum is the only way to access it!). Again, sorry about this, the problem with gymnastics being a minority sport is that sometimes the archives are a tad lacking! miss zara 04/04/06

By the "FIG's position" I mean, that so far not fans decide, was judge's score right or not. I can't imagine, what would gymnastics be like, if fans would be judges. If she was wrong to score a low value, then, please, cite those, who inspect decisions of judges. If no such citation could be provided, then why should we mention some judge's score? I think, that every judge has a right to score in the way he/she thinks to be appropriate, with no fear of attacks by the media or fans and with no fear of being "not in line with other judges". As concerns fan forums, I myself can post perfect scores for outsiders there and claim, that they are true. I can't imagine encyclopedic source citing forums or chats.
In contrast, citing BBC coverage is good, but you didn't provide its filename on the hub, and I can't check it. And once again, why should we blame somebody for the score, if he/she wasn't found guilty by those, who inspect judges? If all the scores are available, why shouldn't we mention all of them? So, I propose: either we say her scores were a,b,c,d,e,f and she lost due to d score or we mention all the scores and all the judges, who scored them. Cmapm 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok cmapm, now I understand what you mean. Please understand though that I wasn't intending the personal opinions about the validity of the score to be used as encyclopedic source material, just the mentions of the low score. I'm aware that its an imperfect source, it was just an idea, clearly its not ideal and I don't mind that being stated. The usual sites for this kind of thing just aren't specific enough for our purposes. I do think its better to mention a less reliable source with caveats attatched then cut out the whole thing altogether though. Also I agree with you about every judge having a right to score as they see fit (and also think rules about all counting scores having to be within a certain range ought to be universally applied at international level, sometimes they aren't!). I'd be delighted for the article to follow your suggestion of citing the scores from all judges and naming them individually. That sounds ideal.

miss zara 05/04/06

You said, that all the scores are available in the BBC coverage, so, what's the problem - take them from there and provide here or give me exact link, where I can download the coverage from. If it's on the hub, please, provide its filename. Cmapm 19:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok cmapm, from the bbc coverage, just for you!

FIG 9.30 FIG 9.65 FIG 9.75 MEX 9.55 CZE 9.60 ARG 9.65

Now all we need is a list of judges by name, but this is a start. I noted these down from a taped copy as my computer won't let me on the hub at the moment. But I can't imagine that the coverage there can be that difficult to find, in fact I downloaded it myself for a friend last year, and they have everything, ever, on the hub.

miss zara 06/04/06

Wait, but where is the controversy? Both 9.30 and 9.75 (which was more than one tenth higher, than her final score, BTW) scores were dropped, and didn't influence the result at all! And the remaining ones - 9.55, 9.60, 9.65, 9.65 were close to each other and averaged to her final score 9.612. Now, if we look at the initial sentence: "At the World Cup, Tweddle lost the bars gold by only 0.013 after Nellie Kim gave her a score more than three tenths of a point lower than the other judges." we see, that the dropped score was proclaimed the most important one for her final result! Therefore, I leave only its first part:"At the World Cup, Tweddle lost the bars gold by only 0.013" and don't see any need in listing all the scores and all the judges. Cmapm 11:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It is controversial because the 9.30 was MUCH further out of line with the other judges average than the 9.750 was (three tenths lower than the average compared to one and a half tenths, BTW!). I think I'll also put in that there was debate by fans about the validity of the 9.30 score when I re-edit this following our discussion here (and of course will cite sources for the fan debate too). I intend to put all the judges scores on the page, as you suggested. If anyone else other than cmapm would like to make some more suggestions, please do so. It would be better if it wasn't just the two of us! So I'll leave it a couple of days, time for anyone else to provide us with more information, and then make an edit.

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to make comparisons with what judges were giving other routines, ie to check whether the 9.75 judge was being consistently generous to everyone or just Tweddle? And whether Nelli Kim was equally harsh too all? I'm happy to check up on this if it would help the article.

miss zara 08/04/06

Well, before you add something into the article, I believe, I should inform you, which additions I'll remove immediately according to Wikipedia policy:
  1. According to Wikipedia's policy, Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources, you should like to read the article Wikipedia:Reliable sources to get an idea, which sources are considered to be reliable and which are not. So, any references to forums or similar things shall be deleted by me from the article.
  2. Wikipedia is not the place for original research (see Wikipedia:No original research for more on this), i.e. you can't just say, that "it was controversial among fans" with no reliable sources cited. Hence, I'll remove all unsourced additions into the article. Please, read Wikipedia:Citing_sources for a hint how to add sourced statements into articles.
I also inform you, if it isn't clear from my previous comment, that I had taken back my suggestion on the addition of scores after I have known, that the score was dropped and didn't influence the result at all. And yet you didn't prove me, that all the dropped scores should be "in line" with other judges' average and didn't provide any generally accepted criteria on how far should they be from the average to be considered controversial (with citations).
If you can cite reliable sources, in which the score was considered controversial, and Tweddle's results/judge marks in other competitions (e.g. 2005 one, where she lost even closer - by 0.012 points) were not considered controversial, feel free to cite them and add additional inf. on this one issue, including judges' scores. If not, I don't see, why this issue and judges' marks in it should be considered more important, than other Tweddle's scores and judges' decisions in other competitions. In this case I'll remove all superfluous additions on the issue.
NB This article seems not to be actively edited and I don't think, that you'll get a reply from another person, than me, in a short time. If you want to get the "third opinion" on our dispute, then one of the ways to do that in Wikipedia is to post a request for it into Wikipedia:Third opinion. Cmapm 18:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caps

[edit]

Is there some reason why the names of cities she won medals in are in all capital letters? Reywas92Talk 23:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Beth Tweddle. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beth Tweddle. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beth Tweddle. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Beth Tweddle. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beth_Tweddle&oldid=1225650529"