Jump to content

Talk:He Kexin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Is "Chinese Olympic officials falsified records" A Fact?

Where are credible evidence proving this is a fact? Is there evidence proving He Kexin was involved in this? And per BLP does this belong in He Kexin's wiki? Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Do media continue to doubt the fact He Kexin was old enough to compete?

I think it's time to remove this: It was media sensationalism to begin with that flied in the fact the highest governing body had investigate and declared He Kexin was old enough to compete. Facts of the case is investigation cleared her, and nothing has changed since 4 years ago, and He was allowed to compete again in 2012.

BLP is very clear on this matter - media sensationalism is not factual, and WP is not a tabloid. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This should stay. The passage of four years has not altered the highly suspicious facts around her participation in the2008 Olympics. The controversy is a fact and absolutely needs to be reported. Spinner145 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Where are credible citation to support the claim of unaltered suspicion? Here's the official London Olympics bio on the athlete:
http://www.london2012.com/athlete/he-kexin-1069817/
Of the three cources cited, none has "continued" to cast doubt on He's age. Proposed to remove this rather POV and inflammatory verbiage per BLP.
The IOC has cleared her, and she's now competeing again. This is a non-controversy at the formal level of sports authorities. Per BLP how should established fact such her continued exhilaration of the charge be treated? I don't believe the last paragraph of the controversy section factually reflects it.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
To turn your question on its head, where are the creditable citations to support your assertion that there is no longer any doubt that she was old enough to compete in 2008? The official Olympic bio is problematic because it is based on the official documents provided by the Chinese Olympic Committee, which were the very documents that aroused suspicions in 2008. The controversy is not being reported currently simply because nobody doubts she is old enough to compete in 2012. That has no bearing on the controversy of 2008. It is not 'sensationalism' to dispassionately report on a real, and very prominent, controversy involving a living person, and doing so in no way violates the BLP guidlines.Spinner145 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have rule on "proving a negative?" Established facts on official level show there is no doubt He was old enough to compete in 2008.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Official findings are certainly noteworthy and need to be included, but they are not necessarily the final word. I believe North Korea has officially established the fact that Kim Jong Il is a god, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should report that finding as unquestioned fact.
We report what the government of China and the IOC say. If you are someone who takes them at their word, the information is there. We also report the reasons He's age has been questions. If you give credence to those reasons you can weigh them against the findings of the IOC and the government of China. We also say what He said. You can also decide whether you believe her. Due to the nature of this, most of what we say is very well sourced. The sources are there. It is not our job to tell people who to believe. Readin (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Lack of continuous coverage does not make an issue irrelevant. The date of birth should only list the official one (just like in Jiang Yuyuan), but the controversy section should stay. The amount of details could be parred down and moved into the Olympics controversy article. --Dodo bird (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This might be a fair approach - the age controversy should not be removed but I'd be happy with something like a footnote by her age saying "but see age controversy" or the like. Might also be a good ideas for Jiang's bio.Spinner145 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thank you Dodo, I'd support that. Actually I didn't even see that. If WP is only about dispassionate fact, then what is the fact on the Chinese government, the IOC and FIG, the final arbitors of He Kexin's age, say?
Jiang's age never came to head, and there were strong evidence showing her being of age, I'd oppose that edit per BLP.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I support Dodo's suggestion to remove the two birthdates and replacing it with a "but see Age Controversy" note, but I don't think the reporting of the 2008 age controversy should be pared down significantly. Of all the allegedly underage Chinese gymnasts competing in 2008, the evidence that Chinese Olympic officials falsified records is the strongest in He's case, and this seems like the logical place to give the fullest accounting of that controversy as it relates to He. Indeed, if you refer to the other reports of this controversy in WP, none of them approach the level of detail regarding He that this bio provides. We would do a disservice to Wikipedia readers if we were to remove this content.Spinner145 (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree that the age controversy section should stay as is, as I believe there needs to be enough substance to fully understand the situation. 108.225.117.120 (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I disaree both DOB should be removed. If Wikipedia is about the facts, what is the established FACTUAL DOB for He Kexin? WRT BLP should He Kexin's bio display alleged DOB that has since proven to be not factual by the highest governing body?
IMHO a very simple BLP test is "how should this be written if it was my daughter?"
Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't know as a fact what He's age is. We know for a fact that what an organization and a government say. We know organizations and governments are not always infallible nor are they always honest. We know what He says and we know she loses a gold medal if she says anything different. We know there are evidences that contract what He, the organization, and the government say and we know that some notable sources have questioned her age based on those evidences. So we report the facts we know and we leave the judgement of who to believe up to the reader. Using editorial judgement we give more weight to the government and to the IOC by giving their view more prominence. But ultimately we give the reader all the information and let them decide so that we maintain WP:NPOV. Readin (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Tagging the DOB with "but see..." is worse than having two DOB. It's enough that the last sentence in the lead notes the age controversy. WP:WEIGHT would support cutting down the controversy section:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

Right now, the controversy section makes up almost half the text in the body. It ought to be reduced significantly. Nothing needs to be lost. They can be transferred to the Olympics controversy article and linked using Template:Further or Template:Details.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can cut it down much. Maybe a little, bit, but most of what is there is necessary to cover the controversy fairly. Readin (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on He Kexin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on He Kexin. 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) 17:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:He_Kexin/Archive_2&oldid=1027322620"