Talk:Short-track speed skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Men's 1000 metres

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Speed Skating, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of speed skating-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Speed SkatingWikipedia:WikiProject Speed SkatingTemplate:WikiProject Speed SkatingSpeed skating
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Olympics

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Orphaned references in Short track speed skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Men's 1000 metres

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Short track speed skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Men's 1000 metres's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto2":

From 2022 Winter Olympics: Young, Jin Yu; Draper, Kevin (8 February 2022). "South Korea appeals the disqualification of two short-track speedskaters" – via NYTimes.com.
From South Korea: "Population by Census (2016)". Korean Statistical Information Service. Archived from the original on 28 February 2018. Retrieved 11 March 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested for discussion of controversy

Another editor and I have had a disagreement about whether to only describe two of the skaters who advanced because of a penalty or all three skaters. This seems to be a good faith disagreement and I might be misunderstanding something. If possible, I would like to discuss it here, especially to avoid edit waring. My perspective is that if the penalty resulted in some skaters advancing who may not have otherwise advanced, shouldn't we describe them all? I don't think it is even necessary to discuss any of the other athletes, because it seems tangental to the issue, but if we think it is worthy of mentioning any, why not mention all? Dhawk790 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should describe whatever reliable sources describe. One such source is in the article, others can be added. The general sentiment is that Koreans, who had medal chances, were disqualified to promote Chinese to the semifinals/Final A. The sources are pretty explicit about this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are three sources cited (one link appears to be broken). The ISU statement makes no reference to China. One is just a listing of the results. The final is an article that quotes politicians from South Korea as claiming that there was some effort to intentionally disqualify the South Korea. I do not think that this perspective is necessary to include, but if you disagree, I think that it should be quoted directly from the sources. I do not think it is your intention, but when it is just worded as listing selected athletes who advanced and not all athletes who advanced because of the ruling, it has the affect of seeming like innuendo. Dhawk790 (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times: "But the calls at these Olympics have received particular scrutiny, because a number of them have seemingly benefited the home nation, allowing it to win three medals, two of them gold, so far"

AP News: "A series of South Korean editorials accused China of abusing its home advantage, while one newspaper temporarily published an online article that repeated the same sentence: “Just let host China take all the medals, just let host China take all the medals.”

Fox Sports Australia: "China has shot down “irresponsible” suggestions Winter Olympics judges wrongly disqualified South Korean speed skaters to give Chinese competitors a better shot at the podium."

Do you need more, or would this be sufficient? The source cited in the article (Insidethegames) makes a similar statement, which I have pointed out to you already twice today, but you pretended not to hear.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think these are good sources to cite, but the claim should be stately explicitly. Just saying that some athletes advanced is sort of a roundabout way of making the point. The claims should also be attributed to who is making them. Dhawk790 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we have many media making the claim, so I believe saying "claim made in some media" or "noticed in some media" would be sufficient. I will add these sources to the article later.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]