Talk:Alysa Liu

Tags on this article

Despite the fact that this article was created just three weeks ago, it has had 2 tags posted on it: the first one on August 3 diff {{tone|date=}}, and the 2nd one on August 7 [1] {{overly detailed|date=}}. Neither tag is legit. I began to wonder if articles about other figure skaters had tags put on them in the early stages of their articles, especially those who were up-and-coming and just starting their careers like Liu. The most obvious article to look at was Nathan Chen. His article was initially created in 2004, when he was five years old, and it was nominated for deletion, and understandably, was deleted. It returned in 2010, shortly after he won his first Novice championships. I did find one notability template, in February 2010, but it was removed one day later, after references were added and its notability was proven.[2] It was the only template ever placed on the article. Chen's article didn't start becoming detailed, with information about his jumps, until about 2015 [3], when he was 16, his first season as a senior. I contend that the reason such detail wasn't included was the lack of experience of the editors involved. Later, editors came along and added the details, and when it did, no tags were put on it like the tags on Liu's article.

When you look at articles of older skaters, they're incredibly detailed, with lots of figure skating jargon. The only two figure skating GAs are good examples: Evan Lysacek, which is ridiculously detailed, and Kimmie Meisner. Lysacek's article has never had a tag put on it, not even once; neither does Meisner's. Claiming that this article is too detailed or unencylopedic in its tone, when you compare it to Lysacek and Meisner's articles, depends upon weak arguments. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of sports-related articles. When I reviewed Tommy Amaker for FA, I remember feeling out of my depth because I know almost nothing about basketball and its jargon-rich language was new to me. Despite that, it successfully passed FAC.

My point is that there's going to be a great deal of language and terms that these kinds of articles use. That's why we have wikilinks. If a reader new to the topic wants to know what a triple axle is, they can find it. I've been around long enough for me to suspect that this is gender-gap related, and the articles about male athletes like Lysacek, Chen, and Amaker wouldn't have the same controversies. At least Liu's notability was never in question. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

Guys, I've just reverted a series of edits made in the past 10 days or so, mostly because they're weren't supported by reliable sources; for example, the new information about Liu's most recent competition. Technically, the 2019-20 season didn't start until July 1, and the Broadmore Open is a minor competition held by U.S. Figure Skating. Most other articles about major skaters don't include those kinds of competitions. All that to say that I think with Liu's prestige, we need to be more diligent about what we include here. Certainly, everything needs to be supported by reliable sources. Another rule of thumb is to not be in such a hurry about adding new content. Eventually, a source will note Liu's triple axels, perhaps later on in the season, especially if she's consistent. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Really, adding what pronouns people use to a Wikipedia article? Isn't that too juvenile and leftist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is something about the subject. 24.4.136.172 (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Hey, why did you revert my editing? The statement "Liu is the second female skater (and first American female) to land the quadruple Lutz, behind Alexandra Trusova and the first to land the jump with positive grade of execution." is inaccurate. Anna Shcherbakova did quad lutz before Alysa Liu on an ISU competition but with a small negative GOE. So in the current formulation Alysa Liu if the 3rd female who did that. And before Alysa Liu Alexandra Trusova and Anna Shcherbakova made plenty of quad lutz jumps in general. That positive GOE of Alysa Liu looked questionable being like slightly underrotated whereas I saw a quad luts of Alexandra Trusova being quite full. Explanations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamandra85 (talk • contribs)

I'm happy to answer your questions. However, it's a good idea to sign your talk page posts, which I've just done for you. Also, although you correctly made your post beneath all previous discussions, it's also a good idea to start a new section, even if the question is directed towards the author of the previous posts, to keep discussions separate and easily found; again, I've done that for you as well. Actually, my response is similar to the above post, which explained why I made those reverts: lack of reliable sources. I didn't come here to explain those reverts because I explained them in the edit summary. Your statement, quoted above, may be accurate, but it shouldn't be included in this article until reliable sources are found for them. Your statements about Shcherbakova and Trusova are also true, but again, unsourced. Finally, your observations of the quads of all three skaters are valid for conversations with other well-informed figure skating fans, but on Wikipedia, they're original research, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article unless supported by reliable sources, which they're not. I hope that I answered your questions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There were no need to tell about this organizing stuff which I didn't do mainly because I had a lack of time and that was like my nearly the first advanced formatting in wikipedia.
The general editing policy states: "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. <...> Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary." (Try_to_fix_problems)
According to the wikipedia rule on sources wikipedia pages are just not encouraged to be used as sources and "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources." (Wikipedia_sources). The wikipedia page rule is in the section "Sources that are usually not reliable". So in a part of cases they can be considered reliable.
There is no deadlines in wikipedia, and exception are for personal/private information which might need an urgent response, but not for public events.
Nearly with the lawyer-grade precision I can explain what these rules mean. That all generally means you rather either rewrite the page having links on wikipedia pages as sources or make other corrections (like to tag with "citation needed" because you should make the article better and to respect others contributions), checking the reliable backing up sources there to not make an irresponsible premature judgment, OR you revert the changes (say, you are confident enough) IF the specified wikipedia pages as sources, including the version(s) valid on the date of the source added and the possibly reverted edits there of the user, were NOT backed up with reliable sources in which case you also better address the problem of those latter sources and/or related content there (to be consistent). In other words, the wikipedia pages can be used as reliable sources backed up with corresponding reliable sources, e. g., as a temporary measure (which can last a long time though) or even because it sometimes may be more convenient (say, when it is about something not much important and you don't want to inflate content or especially its source).
Also you use the good faith rule not properly. It is difficult to operate with it actually because it definitely should be obvious, otherwise you assume good faith. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). <...> Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such. <...> When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible." (Assume_good_faith) So it is like you called me a vandal.
Now closer to your assertions. My statement quoted above? The first edits about Trusova and Scherbakova including the quoted one don't belong to me, and after them you made several edits, left the mentioned statements intact and then reverted my version with two wikipedia pages as sources to the version yet with one wikipedia page as source (on Trusova), what you call unreliable source or even no source (lie!). Double standards? And those two wikipedia pages were backed up with reliable sources. You removed the text with reliable sources! And that Trusova made the quad lutz first is known almost like Paris is the capital of France in the sense of doubtlessness, so it could work even without a specified source according to the wikipedia rule (No_original_research). However the sources not only exist but were also provided there. My observations about quads? There were sources provided! There was also "behind (so-and-so)" in the statement which could also be understood as "without regard whether Trusova really did it first", if there no source for the latter. Now I also add "at least" to the "third" (like maybe Alysa Liu was the fourth one), which directly follows from the sources provided. Also I add the direct link to the ISU site for Scherbakova. If you wish, you can do the same for Trusova yourself. I hope you will stop violating wikipedia rules systematically. --Salamandra85 (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Why not "her"?

Why is the strange formulation "Liu is the youngest-ever U.S. women's national champion, having won their first title at age 13," used?Kdammers (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Liu uses both she and they personal pronouns according to their instagram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.227.47 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

So she is in two minds about usage? 24.4.136.172 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it even that important to have a paragraph about this (pronouns) in the article? The sources seem non-encyclopedic (WP:VERIFY?) and I don't think it is that noteworthy to include in a Wikipedia article. Etnguyen03 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Negative comments

She says she gave up on social media because of lots of negative comments. What on earth could there be negative comments about? More info needed. 24.4.136.172 (talk)