Talk:He Kexin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"He"

The "He" used to refer to her throughout the article is kind of confusing (as it as identical to the pronoun referring to males). Would it be possible to use more "she"'s? I can't help thinking, "PRONOUN ERROR" whenever I skim this.  Esper  ^rant  19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

He is her surname, and I agree, it reads strangely, but using her full name in every sentence of the article seems to be a bit awkward too. DanielEng (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Would referring to her as "Kexin" work? 地炎風水闇陽 ^(Talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

While not following convention I think we have to practical about it, there is already a note at the top that explains that He is her surname (a pronunciation note would be nice as well).--Crossmr (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, definitely. For the pronunciation, according to NBC the name is spoken as something close to "huh kuhSHEEN," but I have no idea how to write that out with the little squiggly orthographic things. :) DanielEng (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Anglicized version: something like hɜ: kɜ:ʃi:n (see Wikipedia:IPA for English). Using the full IPA: xɤ kʰɤ ɕin (see Standard Mandarin). See how Beijing does it. Juzhong (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. When my head hurts a little less (see below) I'm going to look at this and see what I can do. Thank you for adding the photo and the pinyin translation, Juzhong! DanielEng (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation hasn't been active for a while, but I would like to point out that it is inappropriate to refer to her as Kexin throughout the article. Even though she's a minor, it's still un-encyclopedic to refer to her with her with her first name; it's the same as if you went to the Sarah Palin article (sorry, that's the first notable woman article that popped into my head) and referred to her as Sarah through the whole thing. I'm going to go back through and replace instances of Kexin with He. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 01:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gold Medal

"obscure" is a weasel word that should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.106.161 (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Age

Obviously, some jealousy-filled people started this malicious rumor on a teenage girl. If she were really a whole 3 years younger than average lacking three years' training in comparison to the others,yet she still achieved that high score, that says she deserves more than just a gold medal.

No, her medal should be taken back. This is scandalous, if she is so good, then why not just wait 4 more years? According to you she will only have more training, and she will actually be over the legal age limit then!!!!!! Also she only won because of the judges..... Oh ya they are great......—Preceding unsigned comment added by Durial4321 (talk • contribs)

In Women's Gymnastics there is a minimum age requirement of 16 years in the year of competition. If He Kexin did not fulfil that requirement then she broke the rules, and the person who came 2nd, who no doubt has trained all her life for this event, was cheated. Simple as that - nothing to do with jealousy, everything to do with honesty and obeying the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.245.57 (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The US didn't do very well in comparison, should think how to do some self-improvements in the future instead of trying to shift the blame. Can't afford a lose and the "face", that just says a lot about a country as a whole.

Should age be listed as the day she was born, or her issued birthday? I'd say the day she was born, since that is the definition of a birthdate. Maddie ^talk 04:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The FIG passed a law 11 years ago, prohibiting women younger than 16 competing in Olympic games events. It is determined by the age a person turns during the year of competition. So to compete in the Beijing 2008 Olympics women gymnasts must have been born on or before 31/12/1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.245.57 (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

please refrain from changing this page. this nytimes article documents the controversy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/sports/olympics/27gymnasts.html?hp Paperclip47 (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Maddie's edit of this page--there is no reason the age controversy needs a separate section, and saying the documents were forged is a very strong OR statement which is not directly in the NYT article. For the age, I took out the year on the infobox altogether, which is what has been done in other cases where there has been major debate over the correct year, such as Kim Gwang Suk. DanielEng (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I was an Asian Studies major and, although it was a long time ago, I do seem to remember something about how Chinese 'age' themselves. My understanding is that a child is considered 1 as soon as he/she is born, and everyone gains another year on the Chinese New Year (I think). I could definitely be wrong, but this might be why there's such a discrepancy. Any thoughts? Frances —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narf24018 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's true that Chinese children are sometimes (I would think it depends on the traditions followed by the family these days) considered to be 1 when they are born. However, if a child is physically born in 2008, that will be the year of birth listed on his or her birth certificate, and that will be the year used to verify his or her age. Also, Kexin is reputed to be two years below the age minimum required for the Olympics (to compete in the Olympics this year, a gymnast has to be born before January 1, 1993).DanielEng (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is irrelevant. And it sounds like you are just trying to obfuscate the issue. If He Kexin was born after 31/12/1992 (regardless of how you count years og age), then she was not eligible to compete in Beijing 2008. According to evidence found on the internet she was born on 1/1/1994, so she does appear to have been ineligible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.245.57 (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I was just watching the Chinese against USA and I told my Dad that I thought they looked very young...and I thought it was unfair that the Americans were older than them (not knowing there was an age restriction) and then the commentator mentioned this argument. I couldn't imagine her being 16. I don't think it's that easy to "misquote" as a person in an article in the NY Times said. But then again when you think of how strict the Chinese are ... how would they get an incorrect passport without a birth cert Nisior (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC) noooo more medal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.75.95 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add links to an analysis of the General Administration of Sport of China's reporting of He Kexin's age, comparing Google and Baidu searches and cache reported here: http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2008/08/hack-olympics.html 141.214.17.5 (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, this analysis is indeed strong evidence that He Kexin is 14. 192.115.21.134 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For those interested, the relevant line is about 1/4 of the way down the page, and reads 618,"何可欣","女","1994.1.1","湖北" --12.217.165.9 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Without reasonable objection this should be added to the page as it is an official government document showing her true age to be 14. ----Rodzilla (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've linked the actual saved screenshots of the lists rather than the blog because I don't know if the blog is considered a reliable source. DanielEng (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Another reference http://www.smh.com.au/news/gymnastics/underaged-gold-winner-claims-grow/2008/08/21/1219262374664.html 141.214.17.5 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just want to tell you Maddie, and anyone else who is wondering why this is important, it is a serious allegation and if proven correct that she is in fact 14 years old, she will be stripped of all her medals. the rules state you MUST turn 16 during the year that you are competing Superbowlbound (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are documents found over the internet considered as "strong evidence"? According to IOC, her Passport and identity documents were examined which proves she is at least in the year of the Olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.163.32 (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

More info on the internet search evidence. The short short version is that official Chinese sport agencies had published He's year of birth on their own website as 1994, and then removed it. At least that much appears to be undenied. http://www.smh.com.au/news/off-the-field/how-hacker-found-he-kexins-age/2008/08/23/1219262576251.html 141.214.17.5 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. As a self-published source, nothing on blogspot can be used as a reference for anything on wikipedia. See WP:V and WP:RS.--Crossmr (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

who did start all these contraversies and rumors? "US", well, that explains every thing.

USOC exec Jim Scherr actually wrote a letter asking for a 2nd investigation. Now that He Kexin et al has again exonorated, doesn't Scherr owe He an apology? But from the look of it many here still wish to POV this article against He Kexin. What happened to BLP??? Would you like to see your daughter/sister thorwn under the bus like this on Wikipedia, even after TWO investigation by government international bodies? Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to calm down. The FIG investigation didn't actually provide any new information. It's conclusion has been properly noted in the article already. Whether Jim Scherr should apologize or not is completely unrelated to Wikipedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

IOC investigation / Times story

I expanded the sentence at the end of the lead because I think this is a notable new development to say the least. Up to this point the IOC has dismissed any questioning of the age by referring everyone to her passport. I think I sourced it properly but feel free to edit as needed for WP standards; please discuss here before reverting if you don't think this belongs in the lead. - PhilipR (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.82.97 (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 

Parrellel investigations

Due to mistrust by some members of the public and interested stake holders specifically athletes who suspect they may have been denied the gold standing, private investigators were hired to persue this story including interviewing fellow students who had attended school with He. Other avenues include photography and witness statements with one witness who completed an authorized biography of He - in the biography He is stating her true age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.10.0 (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Wikipedia

When I read the NYT article about the He age controversy, and saw it mention the Wikipedia article, I came here expecting to see the article in a mess. Instead, the age question has been dealt with evenly and fairly. Putting (disputed year) in the infobox is perfect because it acknowledges the legitimate controversy without taking sides. And the controversy is explained in the article without undue emphasis. WP often stumbles on controversial current topics, but this time it's been done right. --JaGa (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I was talking about this revision. --JaGa (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) DanielEng (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I second that JaGa, I also came here after reading that article. Nisior (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC) China will be forever tarnished with this embarrassing stunt they pulled with underage gymastic athletes. The rules are clear and it is very apparent to me after watching her (and most of the others from China) that there is no way she is 16 y/o. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.242.96 (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Forever" is a long time. :-) Lots of people cheat in sports. What I was hoping was that China would take the opportunity to rise above that. That would have been something to remember "forever". Northwestgnome (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

When it is this definite that she is not 16, I think we should change "Age Controversy" to something more like "Age Discrepancy". 71.174.233.240 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know if the medalist from 2000 that admitted she was only 14 will also have her medals stripped. People make the argument that others have cheated from the US, etc., but it wasn't condoned and forced by the friggin' government! Aside from the immense shame that China has brought on herself and her people, it is ridiculous to see the chanting hoards of Chinese citizens who can't self-criticize in the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.149.9 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the thing. If FIG does find Chinese gymnasts have cheated, you people will say: 'Oh, how filthy the Chinese are. They only know cheating.'. If FIG does NOT find Chinese gymnasts have cheated, you people will say: 'Oh, how filthy the Chinese are. They only know cheating and manage to cover it."--128.122.53.20 (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are "you people?" To be completely fair, there's been a lot of criticism and anger about age falsification from other countries too. The USA-China rivalry aside, other countries (UK, Singapore, etc.) are saying the same things, and would be, regardless of the gymnasts suspected of doing this. If you read articles from 1981 about European gymnasts, for instance, you'll notice very similar language and sentiments. And in those cases, the gymnasts specifically accused--Lavinia Agache and Olga Bicherova--did turn out to be underage so the accusations were valid, but unfortunately it wasn't found out until it was way too late to do anything about it. DanielEng (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

United States medal winners have been stripped of their medals for cheating (usually drugs) as well. I wish the Chinese had been more strict about their programs. East Germany also won lots of medals, but now that is no longer a source of national pride when the abuses of their program have been exposed. It would be so much better for China if they were absolutely honest, more so than the USA or anyone else, even if that meant winning fewer medals. I was hoping that that was what was happening. I hope that no other abuses exist, especially steroids and other drugs. I, like many Americans, wish the best for the Chinese people and their great future. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Help on other pages please

It has been a long time since I edited. There is some help needed with this controversy on the pages of other Chinese gymnasts. Would someone please investigate and ensure this is dealt with fairly? Jiang Yuyuan and Yang Yilin are the other two, as far as I can tell. Thanks Shagmaestro (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

JYY is sourced and edited now; I'll go have a look at YYL. It will help to have as many people as possible watching these pages, though, because people will likely keep arguing about it. DanielEng (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit needed

This text: "However, her age as of 2008 was reported by the Chinese press, including the state news service, Xinhua, as 13 in 2007 and 14 in 2008 in news articles..."

should be: "However, her age was reported by the Chinese press, including the state news service, Xinhua, as 13 in 2007 and 14 in 2008 in news articles" (deleting redundant "as of 2008"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.24.155 (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching that. DanielEng (talk) 04:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ETA: This comment appears to have been changed. Xinhua originally reported her age as 14 in 2008, as recently as May, which is in the article. 16 was not reported. DanielEng (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my comment was changed by 219.77.163.32. I changed it back.67.169.24.155 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Resources

There is another, possibly more reliable, references for:

"On August 21, the IOC announced that, in light of the new evidence, they had asked the FIG to reopen the investigation into He and her teammates' ages."

HERE:http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi4rzBxgMTM92A9p57rUG_iBvQXAD92N1DKO0 (Associated Press)

Please add this to the References List, Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo93 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

While the article appears fine for now, I just want to remind editors that it is WP:OR for them to add any information they gather from independently research. If you claim to uncover documents, whether showing her DOB as either 1994 or 1992 or something else, these documents should only be listed if they have been refered to if they are discussed in a reliable secondary source (and this doesn't include blogs). As I mentioned, as it stands it appears all the contradicting evidence has been discussed in reliable secondary sources but if anything new emerges then we have to wait until or if this new 'evidence' is discussed in reliable secondary sources Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe No Result Forever

FIG has removed the August 23rd's news about investigation into Chinese gymnasts' age. I think there might be two reason. First, they cannot confirm the gymnasts' age given official documents from Chinese government but they can neither drill into the gymnasts' bone to scientifically check the age since this method has a 2-year error which is just the difference between 14 and 16 for He Kexin and this method is too harmful. Second, they have signed some deal with Chinese government to forever put this to controversy.--Haofangjia (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They haven't removed it, it's right here: [1] Nobody knows what's going on right now, but the last we know is that the investigation is still open. If it will ever close is open to debate, but it hasn't faded out yet. DanielEng (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Daniel please review your rm in He Kexin article

(ref: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=He_Kexin&diff=235781291&oldid=235781101) I don't see Minister Cui's statement, nor IOC president Rogge's statement as "already in the article". After your rm neither citation exists in the article. Please put them back, as they are relevant fact from notable and reliable source. Bobby fletcher (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Recently removed information

As per a request, I'm reviewing the IP edits removed from the article.

Edit #1: On August 24th, USA Today reported China's deputy sports minister, Cui said the gymnast changed teams and in so doing, "during registration, there were discrepancies that led to other misunderstandings."

Information already in the article: On August 24, a Chinese official addressed the registration lists found online, stating that the discrepancy was due to an administrative error which took place when He was transferred between teams while participating in the InterCity Games in 2007.

Edit #2: According to St. Louis Dispatch IOC's president Jacques Rogge said "The international federation has required the delivery of birth certificates and all the documents like family books, entries in schools and things like that,"; "They have received the documents, and at first sight it seems to be OK."

Information already in the article:

On Friday August 22, 2008, the IOC said they had not uncovered any evidence of wrongdoing "so far" and expressed confidence that the Chinese Federation's documents were correct. However, the FIG held an emergency meeting about the situation on August 23 and requested additional documentation for every gymnast on the Chinese team, with the sole exception of team captain Cheng Fei.

If you look at the articles removed, you'll notice they're actually reprints/reposts of AP or other wire service articles which are already listed in the article. The USA Today article linked as reference #33 has these quotes, as do the ones in the footnotes here. There's no need to link the same articles/material seventeen times.

Also, the IP editor's edits slant the article to one side, rather than stating all facts objectively. The Rogge quote attributed to August 24, when placed last, makes it seem as though the investigation is over and everything's fine, when in fact it is still actively underway, as per the FIG and the IOC's statements on Thursday. Also, the quote has been pulled completely out of context. If you read the entire statement by Rogge, he goes on to say: "FIG tells us, however, they want to examine them thoroughly because they are established in Chinese, of course, and they will report to us as soon as possible." [2] which makes it clear that Rogge really doesn't have any verification of the "okay" status of the documents, and that the IP editor's quote is out of context. The latest information, cited in the article as the next-to-last ref, backs this up:

August 28: Giselle Davies, a spokeswoman for the I.O.C., said in a phone interview Thursday that the federation had not yet completed its inquiry. She would not go into details about the documents involved in the analysis.

Federation officials said last week that they had asked the Chinese Gymnastics Federation for passports, birth papers, national identity cards and family residence permits for five of the six members of the Chinese women’s team. Four Olympic medals, including the team gold in women’s gymnastics, are at stake.

“I don’t think there’s any update just yet because they got documents that were in Chinese and they were seeking to verify them,” Davies said of the international federation’s investigation of the Chinese women’s team. “We don’t have a specific time limit or timeline set for it.”[3]

The quote attributed to Cui on its own, again, is taken out of context, whereas the information already in the article gives a clarification of the quote.

This is a contentious issue as it is; let's not make it more difficult and keep it WP:NPOV. DanielEng (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, if you feel the Rogge quote was out of place/order, wouldn't the corrective action be placing it in a place you fee as appropriate? But you removed it.

Also, He Kexin is a living person, I'm suprised that presumption of innocence and her own testamony that "she is certain that she is 16" isn't prominently displayed. Instead we see some bad translation of "my real age", blah, blah. That all seems to insinuate the POV that she is guilty.

Doesn't wikipedia have some rules about living person?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For the Rogge quote, no. It doesn't add anything to the article, and it's misleading. As I've already explained, as well, all the quote in context says is that the investigation is underway, which is noted several times in the article already.

For the WP:BLP issue, I will repeat what I said in the Jiang Yuyuan article. He Kexin isn't on trial here. She's not being presumed either innocent or guilty, and if you look back through the edits, you will notice that I, and other editors, are diligently pulling out edits that say she's 14 as well as the ones that say she's 16. We work with reliable sources here, and we have reliable sources that give valid arguments for both the 1992 and 1994 years. So at the moment, all we can do, in the interest in preserving a neutral POV, is to report both sides clearly and objectively. If you read through the article, you will note that the text doesn't actually support either side, it simply says "Party A reported this;" "Party B responded this way." We can't "prominently display" Kexin's remarks. For one thing, it's not official testimony; for another, it would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to that side of the argument; for a third, that's all she's really said. As to the argument that "my real age is 16" is a bad translation, I Googled that phrase in Google News, and interestingly, even when other parts of the interview differ slightly, that one is consistent, so it appears to be the accepted English translation of the phrase. [4]

Hopefully eventually this will be sorted out, one way or the other. DanielEng (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He Kexin is misquoted in the article

1) source 21 no long exists 2) source 22 had no mention of He Kexin saying "my real age" 3) that is a very poor translation of what He Kexin really said. Here's the original text:

http://2008.sina.com.cn/cn/gym/2008-08-14/0743202662.shtml

"何可欣：别人怎么说无所谓 我确定自己今年16岁" - "He Kexin: Doesn't matter what others say; I'm certain that I'm 16 years old" Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is English language Wikipedia; we can't use an unverifiable Chinese-language source or sources translated by editors, because there's no way for anyone else to verify them. Note that all the other Chinese sources in the article are verified by English translations in the news media. Please see the Google search above, which proves that "my real age..." is the accepted English language translation of the quote. DanielEng (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then please remove the "my real age" quote, as it is unsourced. Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. Look at the Google search above and you'll notice about 100 English-language news articles with the quote. I'm in the process right now of replacing the dead links you have mentioned. DanielEng (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobby fletcher is right that it's not a good translation. I guess the English version is what the interpreter said at the time. Juzhong (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That does make sense. The interpreters would have been provided by the Chinese team themselves, or the Olympic staff? Unfortunately the interpreter's quote/the quote in the press is all we have, unless we can come up with a reliable English translation and several sources of the above. DanielEng (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How about we put the Chinese version in a footnote with a more "literal" translation? I think Wikipedia:NONENG#Non-English_sources would approve. Juzhong (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good compromise that would work. :) However someone else will need to do the footnote because I can't read Chinese and can't figure out what the title of the article is, the author, or anything else that I would need to use in the ref tag. DanielEng (talk) 02:07, 3 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:

1. 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.

1. 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:

1. The documentary is Dream Weavers 2008 and He Kexin isn't even in it. It has no relevance whatsoever to her article.
2. 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.
3. The documentary does not have a verifiable English translation. Subtitles don't count. DanielEng (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-English language sources

I'd just like to point out Wikipedia's policy on non-English sources:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that is likely to be challenged, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

Given the subject of the article is Chinese, it is highly likely that there will be an abundance of non-English sources available; however, per the policy on non-English sources, for which I have quoted a fragment above, they should only be used where an English source does not exist, where a reliable translation is provided, along with the original quote form the source and where the source still passes the other criteria for reliable sources. -- ratarsed (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Where a reliable translation is provided" is explicitly not part of the policy you just quoted. Maybe you meant "Where a reliable translation is not available". Juzhong (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Incidentally that appears to be the entire policy on non-English sources, not just a fragment. Is there more somewhere? Juzhong (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the section specific to non-English sources; all the other policies on verifiability and reliability still hold for non-English sources as well (therefore that is a subset of the policies). Regarding the issue of translation, I'd personally like to see something like "<ref>{{cite web|url=...|ttile=...|accessdate=...}} Excerpt: 北方話 translated as "North words"</ref>" -- This then includes the original text fragment to satisfy WP:NONENG, as well as including the translation used to back the statement up in the article, and a link to allow that translation to be verified. -- ratarsed (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Over?

Though FIG ruled that Kexin is old enough, should she be listed as being born in 1992 instead of 1994?--216.165.95.70 (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked exactly the same, over at WT:WikiProject Gymnastics#Helpers needed at high-profile articles the other day... (Personnally, I'm neutral on the issue - the original issue of there being multiple reliable conflicting sources is still the case, all that has happened is that FIG have come ou and said that they trust the sources from China, and were happy that the conflicting dates were down to administrative error) -- ratarsed (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is not over, but the investigation is. Nothing new will come of the allegations unless there is a confession/mistake (like the girl in 2000). I think the best thing to do is to list everything as Kexin claims it to be, but then note the controversy in the article: that is how the article now reads.LedRush (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has only been like that since the edit of 189.71.216.243 which was basically vandalism. The age is still not certain. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that can you give any possible situation when the age can be certain? What I want to say is that by your standard, the 16-year-old age will forever be uncertain but the 14-year-old one might sometimes be certain which in my opinion is unfair. --216.165.95.70 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it vandalism to make a change based on new information? Please try to engage in constructive discussions.LedRush (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is exactly what I mean. --216.165.95.70 (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, IP 216. At a certain point we have to accept what the person says about their own age and then note any controveries about this in the article itself. Seeing as this is mentioned both in the lead and takes up about half of the article, I don't see the need to clutter up the infobox with unproven allegations.LedRush (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As the age is seriously disputed it is wrong of us to state it as a fact. Yes, it is very unlikely that we will ever know her age for sure. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We have a sentence in the lead and a whole section about the controversy.LedRush (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia's rule on living person demonstrates the conclusion of two investigation by international bodies should stand. I mean would you want to see your daughter or sister slandered like this? The controversy is OVER.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says that we must not make unsources claims about living persons. This controversy is well documented. Stating birth year as 1992 is not neutral, and you both know that. If you think the age controversy section is too big part of the article, then trim redundant parts or write more about other things. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Apoc2400, in addition to the lead, the controversy is already mentioned in the body, and IOC/FIG has conclusively found she is 16. He Kexin has also stated she is 16 during interviews. This makes the 1992 birth year clearly incontrovertabl. The bio, as a summary, should saty 1992, as the controversy (now ended) has a sizable dedication in the main body already.

My understanding of BLP indicates He Kexin's own declaration of her age, and the conclusion from two investigation by international bodies should have prepondrance over media speculation that is based on a blog.

Another fact that is marginalized in this article to enforce a POV is the fact Chinese sports administration has addressed the discrepency found in search engine cache.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the way that Politizer edited the remarks to make them less non-notable and less POV than they were. On a side note, Bobby Fletcher is now engaged in disruptive posting, has violated the 3RR, and is edit warring. Please consider this a warning.LedRush (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add the fact USOC exec Jim Shurr asked for the 2nd age investigation

I believe it is relevant to document what prompted the 2nd IOC investigation. It appears USOC exec Jim Shurr had written a letter to the IOC asking for another investigation:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=5632928

"U.S. Olympic Committee Chief Executive Jim Scherr said his organization sent a letter to the IOC and the FIG asking them to "the review the matter"" Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

since no one has object for 6 days, it appears there are no objection to add this notable, relevant fact to the article.

Once more feel free to improve my edit by moving/reorganizing, but PLEASE do not BLANK this important fact from the article.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been 3 weeks and no objection, let's see if this fact get blanked too 8-)'

Bobby fletcher (talk) 09:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposing Edit to "Age Controversy" Title

Now that He Kexin is again exhonorated of the underage charge, and the controversy is over - shouldn't there be a change in the title to state this fact? Something like (Disproven)? Right now the section opens with a link to age falsefication, which is very POV and the insinuation contrary to facts violates BLP. Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While the investigations are over, and I think that we should state her age in the info box without the "dubious" tags as Apoc insists on, I don't think that the FIG investigation has ended any controversy at all. Also, the FIG investigation has proven nothing, it is just a decision by an athletic organization. There is plenty of proof that she is 14, and the article should reflect that fact.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is over. The governing body, FIG, who has the final say, has stated the underage allegation is not true. She is clear of the allegation, which makes the allegation unreliable, and should be dealt with per BLP. Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

FIG is not the ultimate court of deciding truth. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

unfortunately Wikipedia is not about the truth. And I am fairly certain neither you nor I know what the truth is. What we have are facts - FIG IS the final arbitor of this issue, and it has investigated and announced the result. Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course the controversy is not over. Wikipedia should reflect facts that are known and when they aren't known, should present the information available. The Fig ruling is notable as a fact of how an arbitor rules. Yet other reliable, verifiable, and notable evidence exists, and as an enyclopedia we have a duty to present it in a fair and neutral manner. That doesn't mean white washing the situation, and that doesn't mean trying to score "gotcha" points. I understand why people would want to put the "dubious" tags on her age or give an alternative age in the info box, but I think this controversy has played out about as much as it can. She can't do anything more to prove her age than she's done, so let's at least not call her a liar in the info box but be content to present all the evidence in the controversy section.LedRush (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar any verifiable evidence with the same prepondrance as the FIG investigation result. As to any media speculation of a blogger, facts should be recorded that it is unverifiable - as Mike Walker/Stryde Hax stated so in his blog.

He Kexin is under no obligation to do more, as the FIG, as the FINAL arbitor, has exonorated her. This is a fact.

Please look at treatment of controversy in the Lance Armastrong wiki - after Armstrong was exonorated, according to the talk archive such language was removed per BLP, and neutural language to mention investigation and result of investigaton was noted.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose to remove hacker reference

Now that 2nd investigation by international body has again exhonorated He Kexin, doesn't that disprove the hacker Mike Walker's unverified accusation? Shouldn't that be removed per BLP? Just think if this is your daughter or sisiter being slandered...

Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no slander (verbal) or libel (written) at all. There is proof that He is 14, and nothing involved in the controversy should be removed. Soon after the FIG released their findings I advocated for the change (and made the changes) to her age and included that the investigation had cleared these girls. But the controversy is still around, and there is no need to white wash it.LedRush (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The supposed "proof" that He is 14 has been disproven by the FIG investigation, who verified documentation additional to passport. Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I and several others have responded to this several times, but you keep saying the same thing over and over. The FIG investigation has not proven or disproven anything. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't prove anything? That's just your opinion isn't it? The FIG is the international body with the final say on the matter - this is a fact. What is also factual is the FIG, according to mainstream media reaports, have access to old passport, family registry, birth certificate that you and I don't have access to due to privacy concerns. I would like to see you prove you claim factually according to wikipedia rules.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LedRush asked for a nuetral opinion. I'm not entirely nuetral in outlook because I suspect the girls were underage, but I think I'm not emotionally attached enough to the issue to have that cloud my judgement.

Clearly the FIG decision doesn't prove anything, but that decision needs to be noted clearly in the first sentence that mentions the controversy. At no point in the article should the controversy have been mentioned without the FIG decision having also been mentioned. Also, the decision needs to be attributed. You can't just say the charges were proven false, that the gymnasts were exonerated, etc. without saying who made that decision.

The details of the scandal should not be deleted simply because of the FIG decision. The controversy existed; it is part of history. It cannot be erased.

As for mentioning continuing controvery, that should depend on finding a reliable source to say that the the controversy continues, and preferably to say what credible people (for example maybe the former US/Romanian coach whose name I won't try to spell) still think the girls were underage. A credible source also needs to be found for pointing out the huge conflict of interest the FIG has in the case.Readin (talk) 07:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Before we go any further, let's get some facts nailed down, as these girls are BLP and are essentially voiceless in our world:

- "Clearly the FIG decision doesn't prove anything" Is there notable source to substantiage this claim? I am dubious of this claim, as I am unable to verify it.

- "huge conflict of interest the FIG has" Does the allegation have any merit? Is there notable source? Again I am dubious of this allgation, as I am unable to verify it.

- FIG is THE highest international sports governing body on this dispute. This is a fact that is substantiated by the IOC.

- The FIG also stated "It is considered that the case is now concluded."[5]

- From above and according to media report the FIG asked for, received, and evaluated original copies of old passports, family registers, things that are not available to the public, and based its decision on these additional evidence.

- From two above notables, the FIG's final decision is He, et al, are innocent of the age falsification charge, and are old enough to compete.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The FIG made a decision. All that proves is that they made a decision. Decision making bodies make mistakes frequently. Even in courts of law we usually say someone was "found guilty" rather than "proven guilty" even where high standards of proof (like "beyond a reasonable doubt") are required for a guilty verdict.
• "huge conflict of interest the FIG has" Does the allegation of conflict of interest have any merit? The conflict is obvious, and so is the fact that I distinctly wrote A credible source also needs to be found for pointing out the huge conflict of interest the FIG has in the case.
• FIG is THE highest international sports governing body on this dispute. This is a fact that can be backed up. And that is why I say that their decision needs to be mentioned very prominantly. However, being highest international sports governing body does not make one infallible. The FIG has the power to enforce its decision, but might does not make right. A decision can be enforced and still be incorrect.
• the FIG asked for, received, and evaluated original copies of old passports, family registers, things that are not available to the public(due to privacy), and based its decision on these additional evidence. So the decision was made based on secret evidence in a secret trial? That hardly sounds convincing unless one trusts the FIG to be incorruptable. Trusting the FIG to be incorruptable is a POV. Again, this comes down to the fact that the FIG decision should be mentioned prominantly, but should not be automatically accepted as infallible. The decision shouldn't be questioned unless reliable sources for the questioning are found, nor should the decision be treated as final infallible truth. Readin (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Decision making bodies make mistakes frequently - Is there any notable source to substantiate this claim? I am dubous of this claim, as I am unable to verify it. I am also unable to verify how does this cliam, if true, substantiates the fact FIG has made a mistake in it's 2nd investigation? The logical inference lacks notable, reliable verification.

• The conflict is obvious - Is this state of perception a fact? Because I am, again, left unable to verify it, and am dubious of it. If in fact no credible source exists, then it must be left out of the article, until said credible source is found, and agreed upon as notable, reliable, according to wikipedia's rule. Until then, BLP applies to the FIG as well.

• highest international sports governing body does not make one infallible - I am, again, unable to verify the claim that all highest international sports governing body are either fallible or infallible. And I am unable to substantiate the logical inference that the FIG is either fallible or iinfallible. Nor am I able to substantiate the logical inference that the FIG is either fallible or infallabile in it's Oct 1st decision. Until the claim of fallibility of international governing bodies, and two logical inferences leading to the FIG being fallible in it's Oct 1st decision is notabley, reliably verified, BLP dictates the Oct 2nd decision is not fallible.

• secret evidence in a secret trial?" Is this a question, or is it a claim? If it is a claim I am dubious of it (unveriable). Documents of intensely personal nature such as passport and familiy registry, are sensitive to public disclosure, thus give cause to protection of privacy. As to the of claim FIG's fallibility, please see above.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Test proposed by Readin

Editor Readin stated:

As for mentioning continuing controvery, that should depend on finding a reliable source to say that the the controversy continues, and preferably to say what credible people (for example maybe the former US/Romanian coach whose name I won't try to spell) still think the girls were underage.

I belive Readin is refering to Bela Karolyi. I proposed we adopt this as a test. The question posed is:

Has Bela Karolyi notably, or any agreed upon similarly authorative notable source, challanged the 2nd FIG decision since it was announced on October 1st, 2008?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Negative - This parameterized query performed on Oct 6 against Google News indicates Bela Karolyi has not disputed the 2nd FIG decision since September 31. Bobby fletcher (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Negative - This modified sarch performed on Oct 6 against Google News also indicates Bela Karolyi has not disputed the 2nd FIG decision since September 31 (while other reportings on Bela Karolyi, unrealted to the FIG Oct 1st decision, exist.)

I am trying hard to assume Bobby Fletcher's good faith, but I hope that he can spend a little more time actually discussing the issues at hand and not beating strawman or invoking emotional arguments. The following are some of my thoughts on the discussion so far. We all agree that there was a controversy, right. Therefore all the relevent and properly sourced facts of the controversy must make it into the article.

Also, I don't think it's helpful to ask people source things that they say on the talk page and then refuse to address the real issues. Why would someone need a source that says that their is a difference between a court ruling on a piece of evidence and whether or not that piece of evidence actually exists? That's crazy to me. It's like if I shut down talking about Bobby's actually points but repeatedly asked him to provide a reliabe source that Kexin is an innocent, voiceless person in our society. It's irrelevent to his point, and therefore I shouldn't spend time refuting the odd and incorrect claim.

To help focus our discussion, perhaps we can take a step back and ask this question: What exactly do you want to change in the article, being as specific as possible?LedRush (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LedRush, I believe now the highest governing body has judicated this issue, the controversy is over. Per test suggested by Readin there's no further dispute of the 2nd FIG investigation since Oct 1st by notable source. Based on this and BLP, the controvery language should be replaced by more neutural, NPOV language to indicate there was a dispute, investigations took place, and what the results are, per Lance Armstrong precedence.

I agree with you that no editor should be dealing with straw man. I apologize for going down this path, but it seems that's the only way to illustrate how I have been forced to deal with "Clearly the FIG decision doesn't prove anything" type statement. The FIG is the highest authority regarding this dispute, for goodness sake.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

While I thought it would be universally accepted that any decision by a governing body is never treated as true independent of facts and evidence, clearly you don't, but let's not discuss that now. What precise changes to the article(s) would you propose?LedRush (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: Even you admit that there was a controversy, so do you believe that we shouldn't describe the controversy and the facts on both sides?LedRush (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LedRush, "any decision by a governing body is never treated as true independent of facts and evidence" is a straw man. I thought you agree to stop this.

The fact is 1) FIG is THE highest governing body on this matter, 2) FIG has made a final judication, 3) any controversy over the age claim is settled by this. I am proposing to remove the "controversy" language only, nothing else. Let me clarify - I am not talking about removing notable sources refencing facts.

The title, for one, should say "Age Dispute" instead of "Age Controversy".

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But it was a controversy (and I have sources that say it still is, but leave that for another day) and should be described as such. Dispute sounds more acrimonious and seems not to capture the public nature of the event.

On another not, I don't think that the word "controversy" is POV or even negative...it merely means that there was public disagreement about something. Perhaps it's time to just put this to a vote/request for comment?LedRush (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Led, if you believe this controversy is in the past, would you object to rewording the sentences to reflect such? For example the first sentence says "has been" - indicating He Kexin is somehow still involved in an on-going dispute. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Change the word "controversy" with "dispute" throughout the article.

• disagree Controversy is a public disagreement, and therefore more accurately reflects what happened (is happening) than "dispute" would.LedRush (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• agree This controversy has been settled by the 2nd FIB investigation. Per predence in Lance Armstrong article more neutural and factual language should be adopted per BLP Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarity, the Lance Armstrong article does describe the allegations of drug use as a "controversy".LedRush (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• disagree TI believe Bobby Fletcher is not understanding implications of the two words correctly. A dispute is usually between a small number of specific parties - usually just 2. Often it describes a specific action - even a legal action. A controversy, on the other hand, is more of a free-for-all with many people, often not directly involved, offering various opinions and getting angry. A "dispute", if one occurred, was when specific parties like the IOC president and the US Olympic Committee chair complained to the FIG and asked the FIG to investigate. That dispute, if it existed, was resolved when the FIG ruled and the IOC and US Olympic Committee agreed to abide by the ruling. However, I'm not sure what happened actually qualifies as a dispute. Did anyone in official capacity say they believed the girls were underage, or did they just request an investigation? The controversy, however, was when people like reporters, Bela Karolyi, and others made a stink. The controversy clearly occurred. Readin (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Can we all agree to discuss this section and the contents on one of the gymnist's talk pages? I suggest that we use He Kexin's talk page because the debate there had more than just two people and is farther evolved than the others.

Hopefully we can stop the edit wars and just freeze the pages until consensus is reached, and then we can implement the solution on all three pages. OK?LedRush (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the date of birth should still say "disputed year." Of the three sources cited, one says 1994, two say 1992. That sounds like it's still in dispute. Placing 1992 sounds like that's the final word. The IOC's ruling is basicaly "despite the fact that the Chinese govt. has said elsewhere that she was born in 1994, they now say 1992 and we trust them." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.2.34 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The one source that gives 1994 is about a month older than the other sources, and is less official (it's from NYT, not from IOC or FIG), so for the infobox at least it makes sense to go with the most recent and most "official" consensus. The age controversy, and the possibility that the FIG ruling is wrong, is noted in the Age Controversy section. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

At the moment we don't have sources saying that the age controversy continues after the FIG ruling. Until we do we have to treat the matter as closed. If we do get information that the controversy continues, perhaps a notable person stating they still don't believe the girl was old enough, then we can say the controversy continues. In that case, it would be proper to put an asterisk or some other foot-note indicator to include a note calling attention to the controversy. But the "official" date should remain. Readin (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a citation from the USA Today that says that much of the world still believes the athletes were underage. For the record, I think the info box should put the date as 1992, but the controversy section should remain largely as it now is (meaning, no need to delete the word controversy...it's controversial.LedRush (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with keeping language implying that the ruling is still controversial (somewhere in one of these articles there is a Juliet Macur article from NYT that says something like that, and is from October 2, after the ruling...but I can't find it right now), but I have toned down the language a little bit (from "many feel the conclusion was reached in error" down to "some feel the conclusion was reached in error"). The columnist cited right now does imply that the "international sports community" and "the world" (ie, everyone other than China) think the ruling was a farce, but she doesn't give any real information or numbers to back that up, and this is only a column after all, so I think it would be risky to assume that she really speaks for "many" rather than "some" (of course, those terms are all relative). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think I'd have trouble getting more cites, but I don't see the value in showing that many people disagree with the result: this is something most people will already have an opinion on. I just wanted to insert a citation that says that showed the FIG ruling wasn't the end of the public opinion on the issue.LedRush (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it will be good to leave the section somewhat open-ended for now, while giving both sides fair coverage. Hopefully that will keep certain editors from coming here and saying "gaaaaaaah this article is POV". —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One person is not "some". I think we need more cites to keep that last sentence. Or we need a cite that actually says there are more than just the one person. Or we should just quote the person (if that person is notable). Readin (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The current cite says that it is more than one person (as does this talk page). I actually just included it as a way to demonstrate that the FIG ruling is not the end of the controversy.LedRush (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to Gymnasts Exonerated of Underage Accusation

Bobby Fletcher a link to put "Gymnasts Exonerated of Underage Accusation" in all the articles, even though it links to the exact same thing as "Age Falsification in Gymnastics" (now "Age Requirements in Gymnastics". I believe that this is done to get the word exonerated right at the top. However, it is against wiki-policy on links and is unnecessary. One link should do it, and links are not a vehicle to make statements.LedRush (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this earlier, but anyway, I have deleted all of those links (which were improperly formatted anyway) and replaced them with {{seealso}} templates linking to a section with a more NPOV title. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 01:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputing Editor LedRush's Removal of He Kexin's Parent's Reaction

I believe MSNBC's reporting of reaction by He Kexin's parents is notable, reliable, relevant fact. It is not a non-notable non-non-sequitor. Here's the diff:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=He_Kexin&diff=242768007&oldid=242684727

LedRush, please respect the dispute and do not remove it again.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobby fletcher, the sentence you added is not notable. Of course the parents were indignant; all of China was indignant. That's not a fact that's notable to the investigation, however. Besides, the source you are putting in is a month and a half old, and thus is not as relevant as other sources anymore. If you want the source to be in that article, integrate it somewhere else in a paragraph; don't add a completely useless sentence about how the parents were indignant. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 23:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. It is notable 1) from a notable source MSNBC; 2) from He Kexin's coach. But once again you have removed it.

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=He_Kexin&diff=243773587&oldid=243768978

please do not remove it until the dispute is reolved. Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the source was not notable. I said the information was not notable. How many times do we have to go over this? —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion the information is not notable. He Kexin is a minor, and her parents are involved in this (they had to supply original family document such as family registry and birth certificate).

you have once again removed this notable, relevant fact. Please stop:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=He_Kexin&diff=243776473&oldid=243775481

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The information is not notable because it has no bearing on the investigation. Saying "her coach said her parents are mad," while true, doesn't make any difference to anything that belongs in this article! You have reverted the information twice already; if you restore this information again without first reaching a consensus here, you will be reported. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 00:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This section is not solely about the investigation. Per definition of controversy offered previousely, He's parents are part of it, and their reaction is notable.

You have removed this again, please stop:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=He_Kexin&diff=243778081&oldid=243777408

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You broke 3RR before I did, and I am going to list you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR now. On a side note, since you insist on adding this information, I have moved it to a place where it's actually integrated with the article; the place you were inserting it before was, frankly, a ridiculous place to insert such a comment. Please do not touch that information again, or I will be forced to file an RfC or do something more drastic than just mentioning you at Wikiquette alerts. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove He Kexin's parents reaction to the allegation, as it is relevant to the controversy, and is from a notalbe source. Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Fletcher, I just asked you to stop editing that as per 3RR. Since you have reinstated the "indignation" thing I am leaving it there until some other user removes it, as I have already reverted your edits enough today.

Regarding the notability of the source: there is no need to keep bringing that up. The notability of the source has absolutely nothing to do with why this information is being removed. It's about whether or not the parents' feelings are relevant to the controversy. If a "notable source" published an article saying that He Kexin's favorite color is blue, would you include it in the article? No, because it's not relevant. And her parents' reaction is not notable to the investigation because it doesn't tell us anything new (of course they were indignant, they're her parents) that isn't already expressed in the fact that her parents denied the allegations. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 00:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Again I disagree with your opinion. Again this section is not just about the investigation is it? The title clearly sates "controversy", which includes much more than just the investigation that is part of it.

He Kexin's parents reaction is not merely "blue", but as affected party reacting to important element of the controversy, is both notable and relevant.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss this anymore; the information and the source are both in the article now. If you do want to continue arguing, at least make your arguments constructive by saying why you think this is notable. If you merely continue to repeat "it's a notable fact" over and over again, nobody is going to get anywhere. Really, though, because there is already a 3RR report filed against you, the safest thing for you to do is just to leave this alone for now. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 00:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I did explain to you why the information is notable 1) He Kexin's parents are affected by this controversy; 2) Their reaction to the investigation, which is part of the controversy, is by definition relevant.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia policies, He's parents aren't notable (by which I mean WP-notable) just by virtue of being her parents. What that means for this article, then, is this: how they affect the controversy is relevant. How the controversy affects them is not. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 01:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He's parents are affected party that also affected the controversy. According to notable reports they had to respond to the investigation by reliniquishing originals of the family registry, birth certificate. They affected the investigation, which is part of the controversy, when the document they provided contributed to the FIG decision to exonorate He Kein. Therefor, their reaction, as commentary to the investigation and the controversy, is notable and relevant.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're admitting there that it was their producing of documents that affected the investigation, not their personal feelings. That is why there is no need to mention their personal feelings in the article.

And please stop bringing up how it's "notable reports" and "notable sources"; for the reasons I described above, the notability of the sources is completely irrelevant to this discussion and your insistence on mentioning it over and over again is nothing but a distraction. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 01:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you opinion. Their feeling and reaction, as affected party of this investigation and controversy, is relevant to the investigation and controversy, and since it is reported by a major media, it is from a notable source. Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I will do it again to see if it helps: "Something's having been reported in major media doesn't automatically make it notable for this article." Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines before continuing this argument any further. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 01:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, He Kexin's parents, as both affected party and party affected the investigation, part of the controversy, is notable and relevant to the very investigation and controversy, at hand.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You have yet, once again, blanked this fact:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=He_Kexin&diff=244595428&oldid=244525342

Please stop, as you have offered no compelling reason at all.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 09:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have given my reasons here over and over again. I don't want to get involved in this with you again, so I'm just going to wait for someone else to remove that unnecessary information from the article. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 13:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Has this not been resolved? Someone who doesn't really care about this situation should just call this. I think I know what they'd say: the inclusion of the remark that the parents expressed their indignation is strange, unnecessary, inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If we were writing a newspaper article I think it would be normal, but when we're constructing a sober reference work, things are different. I say simply drop it. 2 cents.--Asdfg12345 13:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a much needed half-break from Wikipedia and missed this tedious discussion. Politizer and ASDFG have said everything that could be said about this, and I agree wholely with them. The information (not the source!) is not notable and is quite frankly embarrassing to have in the article. Also, Bobby Fletcher, I'd like to warn you that you don't need to revert 4 times in 24 hours to be blocked for edit warring. Please try and respect the editorial process, even when you disagree with the other editors.LedRush (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a curious feature of wikipedia is revealed in these exchanges. Only if you really cared about the article or the subject would you bother to go the distance in arguing about it. --Asdfg12345 18:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Wait. There could be other motivations, but definitely, I would say that they would have to be even more unfathomable.--Asdfg12345 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputing Politizer's remval of link description

Politizer, in your edit noted "replacing instances of Kexin with He as per talk: inappropriate to refer to article subject on a first-name basis":

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=He_Kexin&diff=243792560&oldid=243785373

You have removed the following fact "2nd FIG investigation again found He Kexin innocent of the underage accusation", which is inconsistent with your notation. Now the link remains without any description, and has become less distinguishable from "1st investigation..." link beore it.

I disagree with removal of this factual description of the link.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything; I fixed the title in a ref that was inappropriately formatted. Go look at the ref, you will see that the title is there. "2nd FIG investigation again found He Kexin innocent of the underage accusation" was never the title of the article, and you can't just make up titles for articles when you reference them in the article. The new version now contains the real article title. Please learn how to use <ref> and the {{cite}} templates, because you have consistently been adding these kinds of inappropriate refs to articles, and I just finished spending a good 10 or 15 minutes cleaning up after you. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just in case anyone cares, Politizer is correct about this Wikipedia policy. It is not right to editorialize in a citation.LedRush (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wording about people disputing FIG decision

I reverted this edit because specifying that "many believe the FIG decision was valid" is, I think, redundant. As the official decision, the FIG decision is already the standard to which other opinions (ie, the "some in the media and sports communities" cited in the article) should be compared. The "some in the media and sports communities" is included because it's a contradiction to the general consensus; as for people believing the decision is valid, there is no need to reiterate that there is consensus about the consensus. I can see why the editor was concerned about POV issues in the original wording there (since it seemed to give the "last word" to the people who doubt the FIG decision), so I have tweaked it slightly to give the last word back to the FIG and make it more prominent that the FIG decision is the official consensus.

If anyone disagrees with this choice, please mention your opinion here before reverting more edits...this and the other Chinese gymnast articles have attracted a lot of edit wars before so we should all be careful to avoid that and remain civil with one another. Thanks! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

continuing controversy

I know this won't make me very popular, but I couldn't in good consciense leave the statement about "some members of the American media and sports communities" remaining unconvinced by the FIG decision.

Personally, I believe, or rather strongly suspect, that quite a few members of the American media and sports communities, perhaps even most, are unconvinced. But my belief runs like this: The evidence for her being underage is strong, the credibility of the Chinese government practically non-existent, and the motives of the FIG questionable, and I can't be the only person who sees that so surely most other people do too and while the controversy was going on people like Bela made very strong statements about the obviousness of their underage so surely people cannot be convinced.

Unfortunately that's all my opinion and logic and I have no evidence at all to back it up.

The relevant quotes from the citation are "So the Chinese are celebrating today, their team gold medal and their other gymnastics medals safe and secure — and worth about as much in the world's eyes as all those East German swimming medals from the 1970s and 1980s, the ones earned through what was later learned to be state-sponsored steroid use by its young female athletes." and "The Olympic record books still list the East Germans with their medals, but the international sports community knows that's a shame."

The columnist cited, when refering to "the world" and the "international sports community" doesn't provide any evidence or name any names. As best we can tell, she used the exact same logic I did in coming to her conclusion. That's not good enough for Wikipedia in general, and especially not good enough for a biography of a living person.

I've keep the text that I removed below, so it can be examined and for the record:

Though some members of American media and sports communities have remained unconvinced about the FIG's decision,^[1] the gymnasts have been officially cleared of any wrongdoing. 1. Brennan, Christine (October 1, 2008). "Maybe now China will quit cheating". USA Today. Retrieved 2008-10-22.

Readin (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with that. I agree with you that this side of the controversy should be mentioned in the article somewhere, but I also agree that this source is not the best source for doing it--as I said above somewhere, her statements are too general to be the only evidence we use for citing an ongoing controversy. Once a better source has been dug up, we can reinstate this sentence and this ref, but the ref we have now probably shouldn't be the only one. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The author is a member of the media, one who has covered the story, and her opinion alone is enough to prove that "some" still question the outcome. However, as a journalist she has stated that others hold this opinion. The cite is verifiable, reliable, especially in relation to the subject. Anyway, it is easy to get other citations, though I am leaving on a 7 day trip in the morning, so let's see if I can do this quickly (if not, I guess it'll have to wait.)

Also, as a general rule, you don't delete cited statements because you want more citations...you look for more.LedRush (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was an NYT article in early October that said some similar things at this citation; I haven't been able to track it down again, but anyway, if anyone can find it then that would be another good ref to add here. It's probably by Juliet Macur, she seems to have done a bunch of articles on this controversy. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This one says that despite the ruling, there's been no adequate explanation for the recrds that say the gymasts were younger. (also we shouldn't say "american" media, it's just the media). http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/other/display.var.2455873.0.china_cleared_of_age_concerns_but_questions_left_over_sydney_squad.php

LedRush (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. I'll add the stuff back into the article, with the original ref and this as well, and mentioning that both the media and the FIG still have some questions. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops--I didn't mention the part about FIG's remaining questions, because when I looked at the article again I realized the FIG's statement said they had questions left over about the 2000 squad, not the 2008 squad. But the article does still count (I think) as a decent reference for the fact that there are unanswered questions about the 2008 squad (whether or not the FIG acknowledges them as unanswered). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, as a general rule, you don't delete cited statements because you want more citations...you look for more. Normally I don't. Normally I look for more, ask for more, or slap a dubious tag on it. But this is different because the reference is exceptionally weak, and because it is a biography of a living person where the standards are much higher than for other articles.

The author is a member of the media, one who has covered the story, and her opinion alone is enough to prove that "some" still question the outcome. Her opinion alone is enough to prove that one still questions the outcome. However, as a journalist she has stated that others hold this opinion. A journalist writing facts would not be so general as to say "the world...", she would have provided names or at least specific groups of people. In this instance she was acting not as a journalist but as an opinion writer as is clear from the entirety of the article.

Unfortunately I can't get the Herald page to load, but assuming it's good, we have two people who still doubt. The sentence could read something like, Sports Writer for the USA Today "Christine Brennan" has said ... about the ruling, while ... for the Herald pointed out that..."

What would be best is to find a quote like "Sports writers from ... to ... have cricizied the ruling...". Then we could make a more generic statement rather than listing individual writers. Readin (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like it's been reworded. Thanks. Readin (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to understand where I was coming from, please be sure you've read the first box at the top of the page or, even better, read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The citation standards for living peole are preety high. Readin (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too picky on the wording. I just wanted the references in there as a shield against those who wanted to completely remove the controversy section because it was over. If I sounded annoyed because of the deletion, it's because I feel that the statement was so obviously cited and was of such an uncontroversial nature that I was surprised to have it questioned. Anyway, I am fine with the current language or anything else that leaves in the citations.LedRush (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one talking about wide skepticism http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news;_ylt=AlwQy2pLP.xXbUe.AXmWdu2de5p4?slug=ap-timdahlberg-092708&prov=ap&type=lgns

LedRush (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He's DOB

Archaic d00d (talk · contribs) has reverted the article multiple times to list both 1992 and 1994 as He's date of birth (see here, here, and here). My impression was the consensus was to leave 1992 listed as the official date, and mention in the Controversy section that some think it's 1994. This user has ignored my polite request that he discuss at Talk before changing, and I have already reverted his edits twice and have no desire to get into an edit war, so I would appreciate it if anyone else watching could give some input here about how her DOB should be listed in the article. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this discussion page there is a statement that reads This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.. Saying that He Kexin lied about her age to participate in an international sports competition is potentially libelous. Anyplace we provide an age that contradicts her statements, government paperwork, and a formal investigation by a sport governing body, we need to make sure we include who is claiming the alternate age rather than making it appear the Wikipedia is doing so. For that reason the alternate was placed in the controversy section where there is room to provide context. If the revert happens again, we should contact report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard or an admin and ask for page protection and/or adjudication. Readin (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the two above posters have properly and completely discussed the issues. Reverting the date of birth is simply not acceptable, and if done repeatedly we should consider taking appropriate action.LedRush (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus about He Kexin's age. However the following are facts -

1. Neither FIG nor Chinese passports are to be considered wikipedia reliable sources, numerous sources that are considered reliable such as NY times etc has called them into question. FIG does not have a reputation for fact checking, trustworthiness nor accuracy. Therefore including 1992 at all in the information box is generous since there are no reliable sources for it.

2. Edits putting both birthdates do not violate biographies of living persons policy because the claims that they are make are sourced. Also my understanding of "Libel" is that it's not libellious to source an accusation, though this is an entirely irrelevent point.

In conclusion, FIG is not a reliable source and sourced accusations from reliable sources do not violate wikipedia policies.Archaic d00d (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to a person's personal information, we don't use the Wikipedia reliable sources standard; the fact of the matter is 1992 is her official date of birth in the real world. No policy on WP:RS can override that; the only thing we can do is point out that other reliable sources have doubted her official date of birth. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to a person's personal information, we must be extra sure to use reliable sources. Read Biographies of Living Persons, the policy is clear that information from dubious sources should not be used. Obviously reliable sources have made claims to the effect that FIG and Chinese documents are not reliable, strict enforcement of wikipedia's policy would have the 1992 date removed.

There's no proviso for "official" information to be included in wikipedia, if that official information does not have a reputation for reliability. Archaic d00d (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not intend to be offensive with this or anything, but I believe you may be misunderstanding BLP. BLP says that you must have extra-robust sources if you're going to say anything negative, libelous, or potentially harmful about the person. In this case, the stuff in your sources is the potentially libelous or negative information; for the 1992 DOB, how "reliable" those sources are for WP is irrelevant, because 1992 is the status quo, not a negative claim we're trying to make. No matter how reliable Wikipedia considers those organizations (and, for the record, the fact that you believe the FIG is full of crap doesn't mean they're a non-reliable source; there are lots of people who believe NYT is biased and full of crap as well), the birthdate they have put forth is still official, until/unless an equally official body overturns it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not libel to source an allegation. BLP states that extra care should be taken to find reliable sources for living people, taking extra care with reliable sources does not mean that we should get use an unreliable source to avoid "libel".

You are also confused about reliable sources and keep talking about my opinion. My opinion is iirelevant, but my arguements and sources aren't. I have read that FIG does not have a general reputation for scrutiny and accuracy. That means that FIG is not a reliable source. You can not make FIG a reliable source by talking about libel. NYT may be thought of by some people as being full of crap, but NYT has a general reputation for fact checking and accuracy and that is what makes it a reliable source.

"Official" and "status quo" are not substitutes for citations from reliable sources either.Archaic d00d (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did you "read that FIG does not have a general reputation for scrutiny and accuracy"? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Supposing we accept that the NYT is reliable source, has the NYT times ever said it considers 1994 to be the correct birthday? You've said that regarding some of our sources, the NYT "has called them into question". To use the 1992 date, with it's official status and no danger of libel, we have sources reliable enough to be used. However, what reliable sources do we have to say that the 1994 date is in fact the correct date as opposed to reliable sources that just say the 1992 date is questionable and that 1994 may be the correct date? Readin (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Readin, you are correct, however your conclusion doesn't match the current article. There aren't reliable sources for 1992, and 1994 "may" be the correct date according to more reliable sources. However, from that conclusion 1992 certainly shouldn't be listed at the beginning of the article without qualification in preference to 1994. Archaic d00d (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at the discussion going on in the section below this. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 12:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not realize that birth was given in two places at the beginning of the article. I've now copied the note from the infobox over to the DOB given in parentheses in the first sentence. Readin (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good catch! Thanks for fixing that. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Media commentators in Age Controversy section

In this edit, the "though some in the media have questioned the decision" bit was removed, with the rationale that these rantings can be "ignored." While I do agree that a lot of the media ranting over the age controversy may not be necessary, the fact of the matter still is that this was a controversial decision and this article, while stating unequivocally that He and teammates have been cleared of wrongdoing and found innocent and all that, still should express that the decision was controversial; we don't have to beat a dead horse about it, but there should at least be a little bit mentioning that not everyone is satisfied. There was a discussion about this above and I believe the consensus was to have that one little phrase in the article; from what I remember, we also tried to carefully pick some sources that aren't just one person's ranting, but also mention something about how lots of other people have doubts as well. I've added a third source (a link that was posted in that previous discussion but never added) which also questions the gymnast's age but ultimately is not as critical of China as the others (the main message in that Dahlberg article is "so maybe they were underage, but there's no way to be 100% sure either way, and who cares anyway?") and might help balance the others out. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read that discussion. My opinion is firm - this is not a debate or a guessing game. Here in Wikipedia, especially in biographical articles, we take great care that our statements, especially potentially offensive ones, are factual and backed up by reliable sources. Alleging that the girls are underage despite all evidence to the contrary is called sticking your head in the sand, and fortunately, the three articles cited are completely unrepresentative of the media worldwide as a whole. Moreover, one of those articles did not doubt the official investigation - it simply said that some may. Another article was written before the investigations concluded and is irrelevant in this context. That leaves one xenophobic ranting of a whiny commentator, which should have no place on Wikipedia. Again, we take extraordinary care in Wikipedia that we do not negatively influence the image of a living person, or a group of people, via unreliable claims. I have removed the statement and hope that the potentially offensive statement would not be reinstated unless there is a concrete reason to do so. Naur (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I checked and the other articles related to the controversy, such as Jiang Yuyuan and Yang Yilin, have not included such a statement. Naur (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Also, the sources are reliable and verifiable, and we are reporting only on the controvery, so your BLP concerns are not warranted here. Finally, your tone is not really appropriate...saying things like "My opinion is firm - this is not a debate" doesn't make it appear that you are capable of compromise and consensus. Please read WP policy on consensus and try to bring a more constructive attitude. I am sure it was just a slip, and it's not a big deal, so I'm sure we can discuss this politely in the future.LedRush (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Again, we take extraordinary care in Wikipedia that we do not negatively influence the image of a living person, or a group of people, via unreliable claims". I think we've covered this. Wikipedia is not claiming her age is anything other than what she claims. Wikipedia is saying that others have questioned it, and continued to question it after the FIG decision, and Wikipedia documents that in a verifiable way. Readin (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Readin's addition to the info box and article

Now it is my turn to argue for He :)

I know this also might not be popular, and my personal belief is that He has probably lied about her age, but if He's date of birth is officially in 1992, is it appropriate to tell people to look at the age controversy section? To me, that is as good as saying that "He's 'official' birthdate is in 1992, but if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you."

We have the age controversy section to discuss this, so why do we need to let the doubts creep into the first line of the infobox? Isn't that against the spirit of saying that we have an official date and this is a BLP so we're going to report that first and then talk about the controversy later?

Also, don't you think that this language will invite more He defender's to question the article and its presentation (perhaps rightly so)?

Anyway, I am not really broken up about this, so I just thought I would point this out. Also, I see that I was less than polite (i.e. rude) to Readin' above (sorry Readin') and I think s/he's a great editor, so I don't want this question to sound more gruff than it may...just an honest question...LedRush (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm...I dunno. When I first saw the edit I thought it was a great way to compromise, but actually I think your concerns have some merit as well...I'll have to think about this for a bit. How complicated this all is! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 16:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Visitors to the page are going to be looking at the page only. They won't be reading it with an awareness of our discussions, and in most cases they won't ever be aware of the WP:BLP policy we need to follow. So when they see "born January 1, 1992 but see Age controversy below" they will conclude that Wikipedia says the 1992 date is the better date, but that there is enough doubt to warrant mentioning the controversy. The doubt is well documented so we should be fine mentioning it. There is no indication that the editors are saying about the 1992 date, "if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you". Readin (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't really be saying anything...it should merely be a reflection of reliable resources. Her official birthdate is 1992 and this is backed by reliable resources and is now widely accepted as fact. However, some doubt this to be true, even after the FIG announcement (see above when we came out on opposite sides of the issue regarding reporting that) and so we have a controversy section.

Just to be clear, I will not revert your edit. I just wanted to restate my reasoning.LedRush (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for holding off on a revert. I hope we can still reach consensus. Is the 1992 date "now widely accepted as fact"? The continuation of doubt is backed up by reliable sources as explained above by references to the NYT and other sources. I don't know of any reliable sources that say the date provided by the PRC and accepted by the FIG is now widely accepted. Readin (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that it's either widely accepted as fact, or widely accepted as the official lie...either way, it's official, which is why we've all agreed to have it the only date listed in the lead and the infobox...as for whether or not there should be a link to the controversy section, I'm not totally sure...although I'm leaning towards yes. I think having that link there will pre-empt people who want to add 1994 to the lead and infobox (people who think, "ah, WP messed up, let me fix this error!") and will keep us from looking too much like a government mouthpiece. As LedRush pointed out, it might lead some to think we're biased...but leaving it out will do the same thing. It's just a matter of whether the pro-He people call us biased China-bashers because we put that in, or whether the anti-He people call us a brainwashed government mouthpiece because we leave that out. Either way, someone is gonna be mad at us...but I think having "but see Controversy" will allow us to wiggle out of more edit warring than any other solutions would, and it's enough of a middle-of-the-road compromise that anyone trying to change it unilaterally would be more easily blockable for POV-pushing. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I trust you guys and respect your opinions. If you think it's ok, I won't stand in the way.LedRush (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over?

so its now almost may and no one is contesting the official dates anymore. We are not following what seems to be working on the Jiang Yuyuan page which simply has an npov chapter section on the age dispute and uses the official dates ONLY in infobox and lede. I will make the rounds for the 2008 team and clean up any discrepancies left over from this hilarious little edit war. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason no one is talking about it anymore is that the event is over, the judges with the power to award medals have ruled, and continuing to argue about it serves little purpose now. That doesn't mean it's no longer controversial or that agreement has broken out. It just means people are talking about other things. Do you have sources to say that the people who disagreed with the judges rulings have changed their minds? Do you have sources that say that everyone now agrees the little girls were old enough to compete under the rules? It remains a topic about which there is widespread disagreement. Readin (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

if the event is over, as you say, then our section titles need to reflect that and not keep it open-ended. That is pov editing for sure. (also using parentheses with non-standard dispute tags in them- that is a stylistic problem as well as pov). This is why i chose "dispute" because there WAS a dispute, and it WAS resolved. Just because there are some people unsatisfied by the legal process, does not mean the issue is still open. We have a related date (2008 olypmics) with related pages, so being exact when able, is incumbent upon us as AGF editors. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The event is over, the medals have been awarded. The awarding of the medals will not change. The dispute is over because a dispute is a formal process of attempting to get a decision changed. However, the fact that the group with the power to grant or take the medals made a decision does not mean that he age of the gymnasts has been agreed to by the entire world. The awarding of the medals has been accepted, and that's all. The age is still a subject of disagreement even if that disagreement is no longer being talked about regularly. It is one thing to abide by a court's decision, and another thing to agree with a court's decision. In this case, most people seem to be abiding by the decision that the medals will go to the girls. But there is evidence (documented by reliable source) that there was notable disagreement with the decision. Thus we cannot abide by NPOV unless we point out the doubts about the ages of the girls. Readin (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

ec ... so thanks to the two editors who rolled me back without using ANY of the three talk pages AT ALL and barely used edit summaries. I can't decide if I will report you for AGF among other things (like tendentious editing etc) but anyways really I am just trying to build a better WP and in this case I was trying to standardize the language across the pages. MORE IMPORTANTLY, using loaded terms like "controversy" or "criticism" is not recommend by MOS among other WP guidances. So again I realize how vital it is to the defense of Guam, to continue making sure teenaged chinese gymnasts are reflected as poorly as possible here, but really we shouldn't cross the line of ignoring MOS. Right? Considering the section text in every case already had properly npov info, the title needs to reflect that and not use deliberately inflammatory language. You can see more on ALL that by others editors who actually USE talk, here... [[6]]and here [[7]]... 72.0.187.239 (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. On the subject of the word "controversy" it says:

A controversy is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views", but is often used in place of the words scandal and affair, and often by editors with a strong disposition against the article subject. The term should be used carefully and only when it is interchangeable with the words debate or dispute (e.g., the AACS encryption key controversy). When using words such as controversy or conflict, make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict. Consider using the term incident or other neutral wording when there is no dispute.

While dispute would not be correct for reasons we've discussed above, debate would be an acceptable alternative. Incident would not. If you don't like the word "controversy", change it to "debate". I think "controversy" is slightly better because "debate" in my mind implies a discussion between equals. However in this case the FIG were in a superior position of power. Other people could only complain or argue but did not have the power to grant or deny the medals. Readin (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Echoing Readin here. "Debate" is not really accurate, as it's not necessarily a reasoned discussion between two sides where people take turns. It was a controversy, and that is the most accurate way to describe it. Whether it is still relevant or discussed now, that doesn't change what it was last fall, and "controversy" is still the best descriptor. (One of the differences between the terms is that controversy implies something that a large number of people were paying attention to and talking about, whereas dispute implies something that just happened between two parties.) If you are concerned, you can change the section title to "2008 age controversy". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually like debate, I think it removes the pov I was worried about. And honestly I do think the issue was close to an interaction between equals or close to that. Controversy just does not meet the standards (like careful use) which mos obligates. Also please remember that blp articles have even higher standards against using loaded terms which judge or imply. I haven't looked at the blp rules in a while but I do think debate satisfies them even if controversy does not. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because you say debate is better doesn't mean everyone agrees with you yet. Please don't make large-scale edits like [8][9][10][11] claiming "per talk" until consensus has actually been reached. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry I didn't realize that the two regular editors of these pages, who had found a compromise, should listen to someone who has just started editing on this topic, and is not advocating the consensus. lol kinda. you need to respond to my factual arguments (like mos, wta, etc) before you complain about my being bold. I hope you don't make me go and clean up this mess again... I also hope you were smart enough to notice that two of the entries were already using alternate prefered language, so I hope you didn't blanket rvt. Anyways I'll probably submit this to the BLP watchlist because it looks like you are going to continue in fighting this. Too bad when there was sort of consensus too... 72.0.187.239 (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no "consensus", there is you saying you like one wording better and assuming that gives you the right to do whatever you want. I'm not going to revert you again because I'm sick of it and there is no lack of other editors to revert you. But, like I said, you can't just make up consensus wherever you want.

As for factual arguments, I already said my piece—"controversy" is a perfectly accurate and neutral term to describe what happened. One can recognize that there was a controversy without having to take sides in it, and this certainly was a controversy. The fact that you care so much about it is evidence of that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: there is now a thread at WP:BLP/N on this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Chinese_gymnasts. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

so about MOS and WTA...? 72.0.187.239 (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, MoS is a style guideline, not a content guideline, and is not relevant here. MoS mostly applies to things like how to format images, where to put commas, stuff like that. As for the links you gave above, those are guidelines, not policies, and they are little more than rules of thumb; they can't be applied to everything in a blanket fashion. That "words to avoid" section is in place because most articles' "controversy" sections are inappropriate (often original reseach and junk thrown together by some editor with a mission; for a good example of what's bad, see IGN#Criticisms of IGN). In reality, though, things need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, and as I said above, I believe this is an article where the "controversy" label actually is appropriate, since the age issue really was the center of an international controversy.

Anyway, now that you have started a thread at BLP/N, I would appreciate it if you could keep the discussion there, rather than spreading it across multiple pages. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that controversy is clearly the correct word for what happened. It is still controversial to this day. Debate is not appropriate for the reasons articulated above, and I think question is also inferior. Question has all the doubt of controversy, but doesn't suggest the hightened feelings associated with the issue. I have argued against Rjanag and Reading in favor of He before (as with putting her official birthdate) but controversy is clearly the correct the word to describe this situation.LedRush (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Floor Routine

In the unsourced skills section it lists quite a difficult floor routine, yet I have yet to see her do any of the difficult tumbling passes in this routine. I looked at extensive clips of here floor routines on youtube and found nothing more difficult than a 2.5 twisting straight salto. This article claims she throws a full front out of that pass. It also claims she does a double Arabian (the only double saltos Ive seen her do are double backs in the piked and tucked positions). In addition I have never seen her do a triple full. This whole routine needs to be deleted or it needs to be sourced. (Granted her double yurchenko on vault suggests that she should have the power to do difficult tumbling, I just have never seen it). MATThematical (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpmaXtflPHI&feature=related Well, there's the 5/2 front 1/1. You can't have looked hard enough for the routines because she performs it in all but one of her routines from last year's China Games. I don't know where the double Arabian is from, though (perhaps someone mistook Deng Linlin for Kexin?), and maybe someone miscounted twists. Her third pass is definitely a 2/1.Triplefull368 (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

proven innocent?

The documents are still being disputed by some reliable media sources, so we should be careful in stating that she has been cleared of wrongdoing. Especially in light of recent events with that other Chinese cheat Dong whatever, who it took ten years to prove that she did exactly what He Kexin did. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The article already incorporates your concern: "Though some international media outlets have voiced doubts about the decision,[38][39][40] the gymnasts have been cleared by the FIG of any wrongdoing."LedRush (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You claim that the FIG can't clear any of these gymnasts of wrongdoing because "the FIG is not a legal body". Well, this issue is not a legal one, it's about the Olympics' rules, and the FIG is the Olympics' governing body; if the FIG says they were ok, then as far as the Olympics are concerned they are considered ok until the FIG changes its mind. As LedRush has said, there are already other sources addressing the fact that people disagree with the FIG's ruling, but it is still the FIG's ruling and you can't change that.

And I don't think I like your tone here. "the other Chinese cheat Dong whatever"...are you sure you're a neutral commenter here? rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rjang, Dong has nothing to do with He Kexing, feel free to update the Dong article, thou. What may or may not happen 10 years in the future also has no bearing on what this article should contain TODAY; feel free to come back in 10 years and update this article, when your prediction materializes. As of now He is proven innocent by two official investigations by the international governing body. Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The lead should reflect that there are still doubts, the fact that there are still doubts should be in the lead - not hidden elsewhere in the article.

I'm sorry you don't like my tone, but that is your problem not mine. Dong whatever was proven to have cheated and is Chinese - which part of that do you dislike? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think people don't like that when you have one example of something from a certain ethnic group that you then use that as evidence against another, different individual from the ethnic group. Also, it seems odd that you call her "Dong whatever". Anyway, whatever happened with Dong should belong in the Dong article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs)

I too disagree with Sennen's "there are still doubts" claim. Sennen can you come up with multiple current articles (less than one week old) that directly offer doubts? Are they media commentary/opinin or supported by more recent facts that's actually relevant to He Kexin? AFAIK the fact should be reflected in He's article is there were two official investigations by the relevant governing body, and He Kexin is exhonorated of age charge. Sennen's "[someone else] cheated and is Chinese" amounts to guilt by association, which is POV and not relevant to He Kexing.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

While I don't care for Sennen's tone either, I do agree that there are still doubts. The general tone I've seen in reports is that FIG basically had to take an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, especially in such a high-profile and politically sensitive case. In such circumstances, they had to accept Chinese officials' explanation that the reports that He and others were underage were 'errors' and rely on official documents provided. That doesn't mean that those official documents couldn't have been faked, but that unless they had good proof that they had been faked then they had to assume they were genuine. Some articles reflecting this continued suspicion:

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2010/03/china-leaves-underage-gymnast-in-the-cold/

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/news/article/-/7125204/china-stripped-2000-gymnastics-medal-underage-athlete

The Wall Street Journal article (sorry, pay only) quotes four different people (Steve Penny, President of USA Gymnastics, Bela Karolyi, former US Olympic gymnastics coach, David Wallechinsky, Olympic historian, and Kelli Hill, another former US gymnastics coach) who all mention how the proof against Dong casts further doubt on Chinese officials' claims that He and her teammates were all old enough to compete.

While Dong's case doesn't prove anything about He, it does show how Chinese gymnastics officials have falsified the age of its gymnasts in the past, which is relevant to the controversy over the possible falsification of He's age.Spinner145 (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you suggest some possible edits so we can discuss something specific?LedRush (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, maybe just revise the final paragraph under "Age Controversy" as follows:

"On October 1, 2008, the FIG ended their second investigation and concluded that He and her teammates from the 2008 Olympic games were old enough to compete and cleared of any wrongdoing.[6] Nevertheless, some media outlets continued to voice skepticism over He's eligilibility to compete in the 2008 games,[38][39][40], and these suspicions were renewed when the IOC ruled in April 2010 that the age of Chinese gymnast Dong Fangxiao had been falsified to allow her to compete in the 2000 Olympics in Sydney."

Any suggestions? Spinner145 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

what is important is that the lead should not give the impression that the FIG's ruling means an end to all of the skepticism regarding He's age. If the FIG ruling is mentioned in the lead, it should be done with care and should be balanced with comments relating to the continued suspicion and the fact that the FIG's ruling was based on documents provided by China, which they had no choice but to accept, despite China having supplied documents in the past that were less than honest. The lead is the most important part of the article, some readers do not read past it and should not give any impression that is contradicted later in the article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I Disagree. FIG and OIC are the relevant international body, and they have investigated and He and exhonorated her. This article is about He, not about "China having supplied documents in the past that were less than honest".

BTW, China Digital Times is a blog, therefor not a reliable source (and the cited blogpost had no mention of He Kexin at all.) Same thing with the Yahoo AU article, no mention of He Kexin at all. Where's the date, page & paragraph number for the WSJ article?

Even if true, there're other WP articles where these cites are relevant, but not here.

Where is the current articles that factually and continually casting doubt about He Kexin's age controversy? Has Bela Karolyi, David Wallechinsky, Kelli Hill, offered factual proof, or offered speculation?

This article is about a living person, remember that.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The evidence about He's age and the explanations for the numerous inconsistencies in the reporting of He's age were all supplied by the Chinese Olympic Committee. The fact that they have apparently falsified gymnasts' ages in the past relates directly to their credibility in this case.

As to the Yahoo source, the following clearly references He even though it doesn't give her name: "The action comes 20 months after China was accused of doctoring the ages of at least two of its gymnasts at the Beijing Games. Those allegations became a focal point of the 2008 Games but were quickly hushed up by the IOC after it cleared China following a sham investigation which basically consisted of the Olympic governing body asking China if they were really, really sure that the gymnasts were of age. When China said "yes" and produced passports and ID cards, the IOC dropped the matter, seemingly content to let the controversy pass and not risk offending its Olympic hosts."

As to whether a blog can be a reliable source, from the relevant page on the matter: ""Blogs" in this context (i.e., generally not considered reliable) refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Yahoo Sport, while not a traditional print paper, is an important and reliable sports reporting organization that exercises editorial control over its bloggers. I'd add that this was the lead story on the Yahoo home page for a time, further suggesting Yahoo's editorial control over its content. The following blog, also expressing doubts about FIG's investigations, also meets these guidelines: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2008/10/yep-he-kexin-is.html.

As to the WSJ article, it's found in the April 28 Asia edition; I read the online version so I can't provide a page number at the moment. The authors are Kevin Helliker And Geoffrey A. Fowler. I'll get you the page on Monday when I return to work. Here's the link so you can at least see the teaser. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212053805495856.html.

Given all of the above, the skepticism over the findings of the FIG investigation (which relied on documentation provided by the China Olympic committee as proof of He's age in the investigation), particularly in light of Dong's case, does bear mention. Spinner145 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the following bears mentioning: "As a result of that controversy (over the age of He and other members of the 2008 Olympics Chinese gymnastics team), the FIG introduced a system by which all gymnasts taking part in any major event must apply for a licence." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article7111129.ece Spinner145 (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

WP is clear on use of blog. If these edit on He is triggered by Dong, than it is appearant to me WP rule on living person isn't being respected; go update Dong's page if the FACTS is about Dong, not He. More than two people were implicated, so which two were reference by the Yahoo article? Without facts being clear it is very unfair to He. What if this is your daughter?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear and I quoted the relevant portion. Blogs published by well-established media outlets and written by professional journalists are reliable sources.[12] (Also Cris Chase's blog is quoted elsewhere in this article, see cite #32.) As I stated before, Dong's case matters because the lack of creditibility of the Chinese Olympic Committee is a major issue in this controversy. This is not about hurting He's parents' feelings, it's about reporting the controversy accurately. And are you really questioning whether the Yahoo article is a reference to He? (Inidentally, the other gymnast referenced is Yang Yilin http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/aug/18/olympics2008.olympicsgymnastics) Spinner145 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Beg to differ, China Digital Times is not a well-established media outlet. It is a blog ran by a Chinese dissident who is not a journalist. "lack of credibility" is your characterization, not a fact (where's the citation?) Given this is a WP article about a living person, the facts must be clear. Cris Chase is a journalist, while the CDT guy is not. If Chase is not on Yahoo News, just some blogger his article should be removed. I absolutely question the clarity of fact in the Yahoo article. Three athelets were implicated (He, Yang, and Jiang), cite the passage that states which two was the Yahoo article refering to? Without specific names it is not factually clear, and let me remind you again this WP article is about a living person. Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll grant that CDT probably doesn't belong. Chase, on the other hand, is a regular contributor to Yahoo Sports, and is credible. He Kexin is clearly the most prominent and widely reported of the gymnasts, and it was He and Yang who were specifically investigated. Furthermore, Chase names He specifically in the fourth paragraph as one of the gymnasts likely to have been underage. I think it's abundantly clear Chase is talking about He. And furthermore the same is all reiterated in the Wall Street Journal article I mentioned earlier, and I don't think anybody would question whether the WSJ is a reliable source. Remember, we're not talking here about whether the allegations are true, only about whether the controversy still exists.Spinner145 (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

As Bobbyfletcher and I seem to be at an impasse here, I invite other editors to weigh in on whether (i) Dong's case bears mention in relation to the controversy over He's age, (ii) whether Cris Chase, blogger for Yahoo Sports should be considered a reliable source, (iii) whether the change of rules for verification of gymnasts age following the controversy over He's and others' age should be mentioned. Thanks. Spinner145 (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please bear in mind I did not question Cris Chase, but reliability of China Digital Time blog not run by a journalist. I also did not dispute (iii). Facts about Dong should be updated in the Dong article, as well as other gymnast age controversy article this article already linked to.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputing "international media sources continue to voice their doubts" Edit

There is no citiations demonstrating development of the age accusation for nearly two years, I really wonder on what bases is there a continued doubt? What "international meda"? I only see Western media citations, leading me to conclude the description of "international media" is not accurate.

There are other issue I have with this edit: 1) press doubt was already stated in the lead, IMHO there's no need to repeat it, as this "A, B, A" typ of edit unfairly pushes POV. Given this is a WP article about a living person, such edits must be made carefully to not seen as an attack on the living person. 2) It last sedion added has grammer problem. Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

OK, I have added a source which expresses doubt made after the FIG ruling. I hope that calms things down a little. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The source you added was useless and didn't say what you claim it says. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Read it again, before you make useless comments and useless reverts. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The only thing it says about He is "News media reports, gymnastics fans and USA Gymnastics had questioned if He Kexin, of China, who took the gold, was younger than 16" (emph. added). It doesn't say those people are still questioning it. I don't doubt that they are, but this is not a sufficient source for that. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to forget the last little bit of text after that ""Well, we'll find out in 2018, I guess," Marchenko said with a laugh." カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The athlete voiced doubts. That is different than what the language said. But why aren't the sources we have in the main article good enough for the sentence?LedRush (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points here: (1) concluding that because there hasn't been coverage of the age issue for two years means that there is no longer doubt over the question is a non sequitur. FIG issued its report and subsequently there has been no new information, so no new reporting has been done. But that doesn't prove that the doubt about her reported age that many still expressed at that time has subsequently gone away. (2) Could you please explain why "Western media" is more appropriate than "international media"? What exactly do you mean by "Western media" and how does that differ from "international media"? Have you checked sources in languages other than English to make sure that it is, in fact, only Western media reporting this issue? Unless there is a good reason to distinguish the geography of the media sources, saying "Western media" seems like an attempt to imply bias.Spinner145 (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit of yours looks to me like an acceptable compromise. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If there were two investigations then I agree that this edit might be a good way to calm things down. If there was only one investigation, then the article is good in the current form. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputing Removal of "two investigations" in lead

Spinner please read last paragraph of age controversy section (emphasis mine):

"On October 1, 2008, the FIG ended their second investigation and concluded that He and her teammates from the 2008 Olympic games were old enough to compete." Bobby fletcher (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. I can't find any source that says there were two investigations. The final paragraph seems to be in error. Every source I can find suggests the following sequence of events: (i) issues raised about the age, (ii) IOC declines to conduct an investigation, (iii) more issues raised, (iv) IOC agrees to investigation and (v) IOC concludes investigation in He's favor. Please let me know if you can find anything that contradicts this version of events, otherwise I suggest correcting the final paragraph. Spinner145 (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There were two investigations. First one ended with FIG stating current passport will be accepted as proof of age. 2nd one ended with expanded documentation (old passport, birth certificate, residence registry, school registration) proving He's age. Bobby fletcher (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Source? I've never seen any claims of "two investigations" and the article currently says "On August 2, the International Olympic Committee stated that they would not investigate the discrepancy in He's reported age, stating that the FIG's own verification system would be acceptable proof of eligibility. The FIG, in responding to the situation, stated that they would not ask for additional proof of age beyond the passport already supplied by Chinese officials.[27][28]" They said, in effect, the passport already provided was sufficient and no investigation was necessary. Spinner145 (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The 1st investigation was by the FIG itself. Here's a report from Yahoo Sport on 8/14, showing FIG's first conclusion prior to announcment of 2nd investigation ("no investigation was neceaary" is your characterization not supported by any factual citation):

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/gymnastics/news?slug=dw-gymnastsage081408

"“The FIG has received confirmation from the International Olympic Committee that all passports are valid for all gymnasts competing in the Beijing Olympic Games,” FIG said in a statement."

Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually this proves my point. It says that FIG and the IOC simply followed their normal age-verification procedures in the first instance. That is not the same thing as conducting an investigation. "The FIG has received confirmation from the International Olympic Committee that all passports are valid for all gymnasts competing in the Beijing Olympic Games... Stringent control measures are taken at the time of athlete accreditation for all official FIG competitions. Further, all athlete ages for the Beijing Olympic Games are consistent with the FIG records for all past FIG competitions." There was no 'first investigation' of He and others, only the normal procedures that all athletes undergo.Spinner145 (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, having read dozens of articles on this, I have not seen any that talk about "two investigations" into He's age. I don't think that we want the Wikipedia article to be making an apparently unique characterization of the initial FIG/IOC record checking as an "investigation" when other sources don't call it that.Spinner145 (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Spinner is right. The article that Bobby cites says nothing about an investigation.LedRush (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)