Talk:Doping in China/Archive 1

Does this make sense?

In 1992 the number of Chinese swimmers in the top 25 world rankings soared from a plateau of less than 30 to 98, with all but 4 of the 98 swimmers female.

Should this be 'top 250'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.45.52.8 (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Chinese doping in speed skating in 1988

According to these two sources :

• Hersh, Phil (1992-02-11). "Chinese Skater: Medal, No Shame". Chicago Tribune.
• "China: Alles erlaubt". Der Spiegel (in German). 1992-08-03.

The two chinese female speed skaters Ye Qiaobo and Wang Xiuli tested positive and were punished with 18 months suspension and therefore couldn't participate in the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary, Canada. Best regards Migrant (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

protect page

this page has become politically very sensitive, there seems to be a lot of activity of chinese trolls, vandalising pages that are critical of china. Please protect and only let correct edits happen to the page. Johannesvdp (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

What you really shouldn't be doing is mass undoing a vast number of edits all at once and making aggressive accusations towards others. You need to give valid reasoning and address each edit individually if you disagree and give valid reasoning. And smearing others like this, isn't a valid reason. Even if you disagree with right reasoning, you should not edit war as that isn't constructive. Instead both of you should remain calm and go discuss it on talk with valid reasoning instead of doing character attacks. If you have genuine reason to oppose certain info, address that and give reason why you think it's "fake" instead of giving no acceptable reasoning but just ad hominems. [1] 49.195.14.60 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. You don't seem to be a random IP based on your editing style and familiarity with the Wikipedia community guidelines and policies. Do you have another username or ID? Normchou ^💬 04:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I simply reverted to a more neutral version. If you don't agree, please make it correct yourself, now it reads like it was written by the Chinese Government or their propaganda newspaper the Global Times.. The whole page was more of an attack on the USA than anything else. While many doping organisations are countries accused China of doping, but the whole page was written to make it seem like it was a conspiracy by the USA, which is absurd. I'm not American btw, but I read by accident when reading an article about the Chinese swimmer than just won, I couldn't believe how horribly written it was. Pure propaganda, this not about being against someone's reasoning, jezus christ. So either you are muddying the field here, and you are part of the chinese propaganda, or you didn't actually read the edits they made. Johannesvdp (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The statements were neutral, objective, and supported by the WADA and IOC, which are neutral, international bodies. Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy by the WADA and IOC? MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, wrote my reply so quickly, it's full of spelling mistakes. But I guess it does convey my message. And no ad hominems here, just objective observations. Johannesvdp (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Also I requested admin protection for the page, just fyi Johannesvdp (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Admin ought to take immediate action against you for edit-warring and unwarranted deletion of technically correct and relevant information from respectable international bodies. As well as for making false, slanderous attacks on other users - calling them "five cent propagandists" amongst other things. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Please familiarise yourself with WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV. Changing or deleting content just because you don't like it is not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I simply reverted to a more neutral version. If you don't agree, please make it correct yourself, now it reads like it was written by the Chinese Government or their propaganda newspaper the Global Times.. The whole page was more of an attack on the USA than anything else. While many doping organisations are countries accused China of doping, but the whole page was written to make it seem like it was a conspiracy by the USA, which is absurd. I'm not American btw, but I read by accident when reading an article about the Chinese swimmer than just won, I couldn't believe how horribly written it was. Pure propaganda, this not about being against someone's reasoning, jezus christ. So either you are muddying the field here, and you are part of the chinese propaganda, or you didn't actually read the edits they made. Johannesvdp (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You deleted objective statements of fact from WADA 2022 and information about medal-stripping from the IOC. These are highly relevant to the topic matter, even if they paint a picture that does not support the highly biased and accusatory tone of your text. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, wrote my reply so quickly, it's full of spelling mistakes. But I guess it does convey my message. Johannesvdp (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day: Was the following what you added to the lead before @Johannesvdp reverted it? China has been stripped of a total of four Olympic medals due to a doping violations, which is lower than the ten Olympic medals the U.S. has been stripped of for violations over the same period. Why would you mention specifically the United States in this context if it has nothing to do with doping in China? You seem to be lecturing others about WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV, but I find it curious that you yourself seem to be pushing a certain POV other than what the article warrants. Normchou ^💬 20:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You do know I'm trying to compromise between editors warring with different viewpoints, like here? My revisions are all verifiable and in line with WP:FULLCITE, unlike some of the material restored and added by the warring editors. Anyway, I'm curious how you yourself would assess NPOV when the article Doping in the United States is presented so differently compared to this one... Donkey Hot-day (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Having a citation does not mean WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, or even just inclusion, especially when it comes to the lead. Conversations on this talk page are intended to improve the "Doping in China" article, not to compare different viewpoints between articles. If you feel that other articles are inadequate, feel free to improve them there. Normchou ^💬 21:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

And your point is? So you have a problem with me adding the U.S. content in the lede; I'm taking a look at it again & it is probably unnecessary. So delete it then...I won't revert your deletion of that portion if that is what you are insinuating. Accusing me of pushing a POV and even edit warring is quite bad faith behaviour on your part. It is interesting you nitpick this part of my edit while completely turning a blind eye to Johannesvdp's edits calling others 'chinese trolls' and part of 'China's 50cent propaganda army'. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

And yet there has been a deletion of pertinent data from WADA and the IOC, in order to produced a highly distorted picture. Facts are simply that, facts, regardless of whether or not they produce a conclusion you favor.

Secondly, opinion pieces from the New York Times and DW are nowhere near as authoritative as objective data from international bodies like WADA, nor as solid as information about actual actions taken by the IOC to strip countries of medals. MingScribe1368 (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The information is relevant because it indicates the prevalence of doping among major sporting powers, thus enabling us to ascertain the extent and degree of doping in China - this context is useful and essential, otherwise the article becomes a platform for hostile discrimination - with very real impact on the lives of Chinese people, and purveying falsehoods and the mongering of rumors. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

1. You have deleted objective statements of fact by WADA and the IOC - both credible and neutral international organizations, whenever these statements happen to cast doubt on your narrative. Whether these statements happen to support a pro-US or pro-China position is completely incidental and irrelevant. What matters is that the statements are relevant, neutral, and supported by evidence. WADA and IOC data are pertinent and cannot be omitted. You have done so not merely once, but many times - what you did is politics-driven edit-warring, plain and simple.

2. You have destroyed the encyclopedic tone of the article by turning it into a laundry list of random accusations fired in a shot gun like manner in order to smear an entire group of people. The entire introductory paragraph completely lacks coherence and does not proceed from the general to the particular, and contains information that is either pure allegation, or even if true, belongs to the history section.

4. You have abused users as five cent propagandists and Chinese trolls, instead of directly addressing the material written. You are destroying the cordial atmosphere of wikipedia and introduced an element of hostility and even discrimination. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Another swimmer scandal that may warrant inclusion

See The New York Times article, "China, Citing Tainted Burgers, Cleared Swimmers in a New Doping Dispute", below. In it, CHINADA said that the source of the banned drug (anabolic steroid) was from hamburgers the athletes consumed. Normchou ^💬 05:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Since when is New York Times to be treated as gospel authority over and above WADA and since when has Wikipedia become a mill to enshrine non-neutral points of view? MingScribe1368 (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Edit dispute between Johannesvdp, MingScribe1368, GaussianTW, me & IPs etc.

Johannesvdp, you are about to break the three-revert rule in an edit war. Please make your case on this talk page if you wish to avoid repercussions in this dispute. Remember that content added or changed must be verifiable or it can challenged or removed. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day: You yourself have engaged in the edit-warring and POV-pushing behavior you just described. For example, you added an entire section about CHINADA and how good it sounds without a proportional number of sources to support those claims. You should list what you want to add to the article, with sufficient sources to support its WP:DUE inclusion, as I did above for the recent swimming scandal. Then editors can discuss and reach a consensus. I have reverted your very substantial changes to the previous version, and look forward to working with everyone to improve this article. Normchou ^💬 01:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's see...the lede section has massive issues regarding WP:LEADDD where content there is not even repeated or covered later in the body. Huge problems with failed verification and phrasing not even supported in the citations such as: "conducted a state-sanctioned doping programme on athletes in the 1980s and 1990s" not mentioned in the Reuters citation which only mentions "a spate of doping cases in the 1990s" & "a series of scandals, most notably when one female swimmer was caught with 13 vials..." The source for "doping is reported to also occur for fitness tests as part of the zhongkao" is only cited to a SCMP article that references a WeChat group (the Foreign Policy citation merely adds: "Unsurprisingly, the stress of the exams has led to some innovative cheating by parents, such as doping their children..." with a link to the same SCMP article). Either way, a SCMP piece on a WeChat incident does not belong in the lead so I moved it to the body. "Some commentators have compared it to the doping programme in East Germany." -This violates MOS:WEASEL and should be modified to reflect what the source says, which is "China has replaced East Germany as the target of Western condemnation of state-sponsored doping". And that is already mentioned in the Reactions section. For "China's doping has been attributed to a number of factors, such as the exchange of culture and technology with foreign countries", this is not really supported by the book source and in fact page 151 of the book disputes that China had a program similar to East Germany. The section 'Chinese swimming performances in the 1990s' is text with 'citation needed' tags everywhere & dead urls like for the Colwin ref & the Mitchell Hunt ref. The part starting from "China improved in swimming until 1998 when four more positive tests and the discovery of human growth hormone (HGH)..." is sourced to the same 2009 Mehlman book above but for page 126 which is not available in the archive preview. The whole section needs to be rewritten and that is what I did by adding an open-access WaPo reference.

I also do not see an issue with the wording of "Xue Yinxian, a former doctor who sought political asylum in Germany..."; it is supported by both the DW and CBS News refs (the latter of which notes that she has already been 'granted' asylum) as well as other refs in the paragraph like The Guardian, Reuters etc. Anyway, this is unverified by anyone else and is a mere claim/allegation. It is wholly inappropriate to be put in the lead esp. without attributing it to the person making the allegation. I also do not see an issue with the CHINADA section sourced to the International Testing Agency & this paper. It is published by a Hong Kong Baptist University author in Taylor & Francis & reposted by the research repository of Northumbria University. The currently cited Jinxia Dong source also covers anti-doping efforts by China so if you have an issue with the section, you should specify what exactly in the CHINADA section is not supported by the sources.

The reversion of my initial edit led to several WP:RSP accepted sources being removed. Aside from WaPo, editors deleted the Reuters/ESPN ref I added on Ma Junren, the Reuters ref I added on World Aquatics, the BBC ref I added on Cottier, the University of Málaga study I added on steroid prevalence between different countries etc. Anyway, you should familiarise yourself with the definition of edit-warring and POV-pushing. Linking my edit in a post to Administrators'noticeboard where you complain that "some editors do not contribute directly to improving the article, but instead seem to be doing some kind of public relations for the Chinese athletes/teams/government" while turning a blind eye to the issues I listed does not reflect well on your POV in this dispute. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day@Johannesvdp@Normchou I agree there should be some compromises to ensure neutrality and consensus. Specifically the info in intro stating China's doping being less than America, seems to be written bit emotionally tho technically correct. But it can be seen as pushing a narrative so I am not wanting to dispute on adding that. But outside of the introduction, Johannesvdp have given zero fair reasoning for removing the other stuff that is hardly debatable, like mass undoing all the latest info in TMZ chapter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_China#Trimetazidine_allegations_in_Chinese_swimming), which is merely documenting what major parties are saying. They still haven't provided any specific reason to remove it. Instead they just claim it's not neutral. Then delete all of it without any minimum discussion. Look, I have restored only the TMZ chapter back to before and going to assume good faith here, and the final state of that chapter is now this. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doping_in_China&diff=prev&oldid=1238480468) Do please review it and and read it carefully and tell me specifically which parts of that entire chapter you have any problems with. If there's no problems and it's just a misunderstanding then please stop undoing edits for that chapter or it may be seen as wrongful edit warring. But I hope we can agree that the info in that chapter is all neutral and well sourced and to stop changing it. Don't use issues with the intro as an excuse to also mass undo edits in other different chapters. 49.186.88.247 (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

it's become a huge propaganda page, it's basically a defense of China getting caught with doping, "but but but X and Y also got caught". And they start doing to you, what they accuse you doing, adhominem attacks. This is not a page about doping in china, this is some weird comparison page about what countries used the most doping. This is not objective at all. And china's 50 cent army is a very real thing, it even has a wikipedia page, and has been documented from the new york times, to having been published by harvard "How the chinese government fabricate social media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument", [2]https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/50c.pdf , that is exactly what is happening here. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party (please don't vandalise this page either..)

I can only say, I respect wikipedia mods/admins even more now, to have to deal with these kind of things, damn, nothing but respect. But these pages are so important to learn from, for our youth, the ones that are not yet adapted to the current media landscape, that is manipulated by foreign powers, and are not able to see who is muddying the waters.

I ask the mods reading this, just to protect this page, and let people with shown objectivity edit the page, and not these 2 emotional guys, whom seem to be either emotional patriotic chinese, or the 50 cent army I was referring to, which is a very real thing, and not racist, as they accuse me of, with their ad hominem attacks (of which they by the way accused me off, they accuse you of something, while they are doing it sigh..)

Johannesvdp (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

China has not yet been charged with doping violations - only the New York Times and USADA makes such a claim. WADA, the IOC and World Aquatics have upheld CHINADA's findings.

WADA and the IOC have both condemned the New York Times and USADA findings as "sensationalist", "inaccurate" and "misleading". WADA and World Aquatics conducted independent investigations of CHINADA's findings and were unable to find fault with it or evidence of a doping violation. WADA actually commissioned an independent investigation twice. MingScribe1368 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Johannesvdp has been deleting statements that he perceives as pro-China. However, these statements are objective statements of fact, well-supported by evidence and credible sources. These include the 2022 WADA report and IOC information on medal-stripping. Worse still, he has poisoned the atmosphere by verbally abusing other users - calling them propagandists and the like. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Johannesdvp has deleted objective statements of fact by WADA and the IOC - both credible and neutral international organizations, whenever these statements happen to cast doubt on his narrative. Whether these statements happen to support a pro-US or pro-China position is completely incidental and irrelevant. What matters is that the statements are relevant, neutral, and supported by evidence. WADA and IOC data are pertinent and cannot be omitted. He has done so not merely once, but many times - what he has done is politics-driven edit-warring, plain and simple.

2. He has destroyed the encyclopedic tone of the article by turning it into a laundry list of random accusations fired in a shot gun like manner in order to smear an entire group of people. The entire introductory paragraph completely lacks coherence and does not proceed from the general to the particular, and contains information that is either pure allegation, or even if true, belongs to the history section.

4. He has abused users as five cent propagandists and Chinese trolls, instead of directly addressing the material written. He is destroying the cordial atmosphere of wikipedia and introduced an element of hostility and even discrimination. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

it's become a huge propaganda page, it's basically a defense of China getting caught with doping, "but but but X and Y also got caught". And they start doing to you, what they accuse you doing, adhominem attacks. This is not a page about doping in china, this is some weird comparison page about what countries used the most doping. This is not objective at all. And china's 50 cent army is a very real thing, it even has a wikipedia page, and has been documented from the new york times, to having been published by harvard "How the chinese government fabricate social media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument", [2]https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/50c.pdf , that is exactly what is happening here. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party (please don't vandalise this page either..)

I can only say, I respect wikipedia mods/admins even more now, to have to deal with these kind of things, damn, nothing but respect. But these pages are so important to learn from, for our youth, the ones that are not yet adapted to the current media landscape, that is manipulated by foreign powers, and are not able to see who is muddying the waters.

I ask the mods reading this, just to protect this page, and let people with shown objectivity edit the page, and not these 2 emotional guys, whom seem to be either emotional patriotic chinese, or the 50 cent army I was referring to, which is a very real thing, and not racist, as they accuse me of, with their ad hominem attacks (of which they by the way accused me off, they accuse you of something, while they are doing it sigh..) Johannesvdp (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

WADA and IOC information are not Chinese propaganda and data on the relative frequency of doping is absolutely necessary to understand the international context and magnitude of the problem. That you constantly remove objective sources calls into question your own neutrality. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure if 50cent armies do exist, but I am bloody sure that I am not one of those, and that the term is unfairly used to describe many people of Chinese descent who want more objective and impartial coverage of China. Your abuse of my person is therefore simply just that - abuse, without any excuse whatsoever, and outright defamation. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You are the only one using ad hominem attacks. The 50 cent army's existence and presence on western platforms are a fact. I am not saying you are part of it, but I am raising the concern you and the other pro-china editors might be part of it. You are reverting purely to whataboutism and ad hominem attacks, are part of their strategy. Comparing to the US and Australia are exactly their modus operandi. If you have an article about Russian war crimes, you don't make the article about USA war crimes and visa versa. All your additions have been purely ways to censor the genuine cases of doping and genuine cases of concern. The fact that other major countries have higher rates of doping (which is probably true) is neither here nor there. This is not a comparison page. This page is about doping in china! But you are editing this wikipedia in a way, that it is only about USA and Australian doping rates, which is absurd. Johannesvdp (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If you go, for example, to the "Russian war crimes" page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_war_crimes, you don't read about how they compare to USA war crimes, or other countries war crimes, because it's completely irrelevant. You are trying to make this page into total whataboutism. It's no longer about chinese doping, it's about how chinese doping cases compare to USA or Australian doping cases, which again is a typical 50 cent army tactic! Read the harvard case or the wikipedia page, USA and australia are the most common used whataboutism examples in their strategy.

But I divert, my point is, that this page is no longer about doping in china, but a defence of chinese doping based on whataboutism. Perhaps you can make a doping comparison wikipedia page, but stop vandalising this one.. Johannesvdp (talk) 14:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the only one guilty of whataboutism here is you. An article about Chinese doping would obviously contain all information about Chinese doping - good or bad. It would separate allegations from fact, and include all material, whether inculpatory or exculpatory. That is what objectivity is about. MingScribe1368 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Terribly biased article

Several editors such as Pizzigs , Johannesvdp , and Normchou have removed neutral, objectively verifiable data by credible third party sources such as WADA and the IOC that quantify and qualify the extent of the problem of doping in China and actually put China in a relatively favorable light. The data is relevant because it enables us to understand the magnitude of the problem in China and is necessary for context. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight to opinions and allegations, which are treated as fact

The entire article from head to tail is problematic. Objective information from WADA and the IOC have been removed, producing a completely one-sided, non-neutral article that focuses only on the information by journalists from the NY Times, which is not an objective news source by the way. Furthermore, opinions about the performance of Chinese athletes growth and development are merely that - opinions of journalists and complete hearsay, rather than facts ascertainable through scientific consensus. The entire article is ruined by hearsay, introduced mainly by @Pinzzig, @Normchou and @Johannesvdp, who has been abusing editors by calling them "50cent propagandists". MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

You are the only one using ad hominem attacks. The 50 cent army's existence and presence on western platforms are a fact. I am not saying you are part of it, but I am raising the concern you and the other pro-china editors might be part of it. You are reverting purely to whataboutism and ad hominem attacks, are part of their strategy. Comparing to the US and Australia are exactly their modus operandi. If you have an article about Russian war crimes, you don't make the article about USA war crimes and visa versa. All your additions have been purely ways to censor the genuine cases of doping and genuine cases of concern. The fact that other major countries have higher rates of doping (which is probably true) is neither here nor there. This is not a comparison page. This page is about doping in china! But you are editing this wikipedia in a way, that it is only about USA and Australian doping rates, which is absurd. Johannesvdp (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I do see your argument that a lot of sources and content for maintaining a NPOV have been removed. The 2024 Chinese swimmers section has a lot of loaded terms like 'leaked' and 'verified', which needs an inline citation to warrant their inclusions. I think the previous version before the most recent revert was an improvement to what the article currently is now. Nonetheless, both versions lack inline citations...esp. from sources outside of the dispute between USA & WADA. I also think the Eric Cottier investigation sourced to something like BBC or similar, along with the ASOIF reaction (which is reported by sources as notable as AFP) should be restored; there is definitely enough due weight for the two additions. Also The Conversation (an accepted source on Wikipedia) has a fairly objective article covering the scandal.

Anyway what's more important to me is a section on statistics or anti-doping efforts taken by CHINADA. There are sources available (which I have already referenced above). Content on Olympic medals stripped from China relative to other countries has been removed despite being covered by solid sources like Deccan Herald and Raymond Stefani. And the Brussels Times article on the number of Chinese doping cases relative to world numbers has been removed; what's up with that? (That report is also referenced by WP:RSP accepted sources like The Hindu & AFP.) And as usual, no one has addressed the dead urls in the 1990s Chinese swimming performances section.Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, when sources and content maintaining a neutral NPOV are removed merely because they are perceived to be pro-China, and good faith editors are being defamed as "50 cent propagandists" - a phenomenon that has not been proven to exist by any standard that would pass muster in a court of law, say, then you know that bias permeates the process. Relevant data should not be suppressed. MingScribe1368 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

WADA, IOC, World Aquatics, CHINADA v New York Times and USADA

I do not see why allegations from the New York Times and USADA are given free rein on this article, while corresponding statements and evidence from WADA, IOC, World Aquatics and CHINADA are suppressed and deleted.

Secondly, world doping figures are extremely relevant in an article about Chinese doping, in order to give a sense of magnitude and international context to the problem. Thus far, these comparisons have been concise, thereby illuminating rather than detracting from the subject matter. MingScribe1368 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, both sides here seem to be cited. Comparing to other countries is a classic case of whataboutism, and would probably be WP:UNDUE. The big problem here seems to be that content from both sides is jam packed into a large section, making it hard to see who is responding to who or really clearly see any party's position in the matter. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Allan NonymousAs far as I can tell, the intro only shows one side. The US response and not WADA's. And it has loaded statements like It presents Xue as if her claim is proven. And then goes on to subtly say, "it's unclear whether systematic doping has continued to modern day", giving the loaded impression that it's been proven beyond doubt that it occured in the past. And information like China losing a total of three Olympic medals to doping. Yes, only 3 total. That part is not mentioned clear enough. Instead it casually mention that three weightlifters were stripped of medals straight after mention of allegations of systematic doping, and makes it appear that they are also proven cases of systematic doping. While neglecting to inform readers that they are the ONLY three cases of China's Olympic medals stripped for Doping and also there's no sources provided to even state that they were proven examples of systematic doping. So it needs to be rewritten better than that. *Btw, I was anon IP editor with address; 49.179.43.130

and 49.186.88.247 in two threads above. IP49XX (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The irony is that for an article about doping in China. It is surprisingly light on details on proven cases of doping. Instead it's almost entirely about allegations. Which aren't even proven. What the article really needs now is a chapter to explain how China compares to other countries in doping rates. How many Olympic medals they lost to doping. And give finer details about the three Olympic weightlifters who actually were tested positive for doping. Which I have read the article and found virtually nothing about them except briefly in the intro. Maybe the comparative stats are not needed in the intro, but it's definitely okay for a dedicated chapter of its own to give readers better comparative understanding of how it compares to other nations. IP49XX (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There should be a separate section for proven cases of doping violations and another section for allegations.

Prominence and weight should be given to international bodies like WADA and the IOC, and the actions these have taken (for e.g. medal stripping). International comparisons should be provided to give a sense of the magnitude of the problem of Chinese doping.

Secondly, allegations should not be represented as fact or expatiated about at length on this article until they are proven. Perhaps a separate page for NY Times allegations is warranted. Where allegations from a source are included, then a defense against those allegations and an assessment of the credibility of the allegation-makers must also be included for reasons of neutrality. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

International comparisons are not whataboutism but provide information on the extent of the problem.

Otherwise this statement would also need to be removed:

"Between 1990 and 1998, 28 Chinese swimmers tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs, almost half the world total of drug offenders in sport"

You cannot include only inculpatory comparisons whilst excluding exculpatory ones. Comparisons are relevant precisely because they introduce a point of reference and enable us to gauge the extent of a problem. This is pure common sense.

1. The article as it currently stands already includes such a comparison such as "almost half of the world total of drug offenders in sport". If it can make such a claim, it should also include a mention of doping in 2022 and 2021, im which Chinese athletes form the minority of doping cases, and also in IOC medals stripped in totality, of which Chinese represent a very small fraction.

2. Many media articles on doping focusing on a particular country, say India or Belgium, make such comparisons. It would be impossible to get a sense of the magnitude of the problem without it.

3. WADA itself sees such comparisons as relevant, publishing statistics at a national level.

4. Doping confers an unfair advantage in sports, and the concept of "unfair advantage" being a term of relation requiring a comparison with other nation's doping practices.

5. The clear motivation of many participants (I hestitate to call them editors - they do not deserve the term) is not to describe Chinese doping impartially, but rather to paint as bleak a picture of China as possible, as is clear by their removal of content on the grounds of it being "pro-China", implying that they are not so much concerned with the logical weight and credibility of arguments, but rather with their effects in augmenting or diminishing a particular position (in this case, an anti-China position).

What I say is simply common sense, and unless the people can address these points specifically and individually, I would say their removal of content from the WADA and IOC, and comparisons with doping internationally, are unwarranted and impair the objectivity and neutrality of the article. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you on the ""Between 1990 and 1998, 28 Chinese swimmers tested positive..." claim. It seems to be a violation of the WP:FULLCITE guideline as it is sourced to a dead citation url. An editor in good faith cannot argue that this constitutes due weight while claiming that the additions we both support which is easily verified by articles from The Hindu, The Brussels Times, AFP News etc. is "WP:UNDUE". Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Please remove any contentious assertion that has no verifiable citation. MingScribe1368 (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Another issue is the sentence of "The International Association of Athletics Federations confirmed it had reach out to the Chinese Athletics Association for verification and would investigate the matter, but the latter did not respond." The latter not responding is not supported by Daily Telegraph citation. The closest thing suggesting this is found in the Reuters citation which says: "An official from the Chinese Athletics Association declined to comment [to Reuters]." So it should be changed to: "The International Association of Athletics Federations confirmed they had launched a probe into the claims and asked the Chinese Athletics Association to assist it in verifying whether the letter is genuine.(cited to Daily Telegraph) An official from the Chinese Athletics Association declined to comment to Reuters on the matter. (sourced to Reuters)"

On another note, I found a couple more reports of China issuing bans/suspensions on coaches and swimmers following cases of doping (articles from Swimming World and The Independent). They can be included in the 1990s swimming section and perhaps cited to support inclusion for the anti-doping measures/efforts section (Swimming World interviewed Swimming Australia president Terry Gathercole who said news that Wu had been caught by Chinese authorities and reported to FINA was a sign that China was trying to clean up its act. "If the tests were conducted by China itself, it's significant because it shows they are really trying to overcome the problem," Gathercole said.) A 2010 report by AFP News reposted by The Hindu also covers more recent anti-doping measures including increased testing and bans on top sprinter Wang Jing and judo champion Tong Wen. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Correction needed

This is an article about doping. Not about disqualifications due to being under-age. When I read this article, I wrongfully assumed that China lost 4 Olympic medals due to doping because it has a chapter showing how many Olympic medals were stripped for disqualification. That is misleading. China has only 4 medals stripped, however one of them was for Dong Fangxiao, who was a different situation (she was just underage at the time of competition and wasn't caught doping). I suggest the chapter table to be renamed as "Athletes losing medals for doping" and correctly list only 3 and not 4, to not mislead others. IP49XX (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a valid concern but a source is needed to support the claim that Dong Fangxiao is counted as the fourth athlete. For instance, Calstate University Professor Raymond Stefani & Deccan Herald both say 4 medals were stripped due to doping & not anything else. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day There is no fourth athlete whose Olympic medal was stripped due to doping. The confusion might stem from the case of Dong Fangxiao, whose team was disqualified because she was underage, not for doping. This could be a journalistic error without specific details. I also believed it was four until I double-checked this morning. It's nonetheless misleading to mention Dong Fangxiao in an article dedicated to doping in China, as it implies doping when there was none. Only three Chinese athletes have lost Olympic medals due to doping: Lei Cao, Xiexia Chen, and Chunhong Liu, all from the 2008 Beijing Olympics. If there is a fourth athlete, they are extremely difficult to find, and the Wikipedia page for stripped Olympic medals does not mention them. So, it's safe to say it's just three, unless someone can identify this "fourth" person.[3] IP49XX (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Donkey Hot-day After reading your reply, it is a bit confusing and think you may have misunderstood my first post. Just to be sure, are you actually agreeing with me that only 3 athletes lost Olympic medals due to doping? Or were you trying to say I am wrong to state that? Regardless I made the correction myself.[4] IP49XX (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@IP49XX I'm neither agreeing or disagreeing. I'm simply saying that the claim of 3 athletes' medals being stripped for doping needs a source, because other notable reports say it is 4 athletes. The most important rule in Wikipedia is following what the sources say, not conducting original research or speculation. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Article Violates Neutral POV requirement by stating opinions as facts

The article states the following opinions as if they were facts;

1. "Their improvement rate was much better than could have been expected as a result of normal growth and development."

2. "China improved in swimming until 1998 when four more positive tests and the discovery of human growth hormone (HGH) in the swimmer Yuan Yuan's luggage at the 1998 World Aquatics Championships in Perth, Australia".

Sentence 1 attempts to make a bold and irresponsible claim without relevant citations from credible scientific papers representing scientific consensus. Sentence 2 attributes the improvement in swimming to HGH, again violating the same rule. Both are opinions of the editor unsupported by citations but are represented as statements of fact. Moderators should remove these statements. MingScribe1368 (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

#1 can be removed as it is unsourced. #2 is mostly supported by Reuters except for the "China improved in swimming until 1998" part, so #2 should be changed to "Yuan Yuan was caught with 13 vials of human growth hormone in her luggage at Sydney airport ahead of the 1998 world championships in Perth." The mains issues I have with the 1990s Chinese swimming section are that contentious statements like "Chinese leaders initially blamed racist sports officials in Japan for manufacturing test results" are sourced to dead urls. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Please proceed to remove unsourced statements of opinion and non-verifiable information (such as those linked to dead urls). MingScribe1368 (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to include impact on Ye Shiwen in the 1990s section

Sources covering the 2012 swimming performance by Ye Shiwen tend to reference the 1990s scandals as context for some of the unsubstantiated doping allegations levelled against her. Several sources also reference sporting figures who defend her, like former British swimming star Adrian Moorhouse who said "I think it’s sour grapes...I understand it’s about China’s system. But we saw the Chinese swimmers in the 1990s. They were the size of houses. They looked like they had huge muscle growth. This girl is quite small...she’s just in good shape." (sourced to Al Jazeera's repost of an AFP article, Belfast Telegraph, Saudi Gazette etc.) Moorhouse's statement I think should be included in the 1990s section to compare the differences between 30 years ago to just 10 years ago. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)