Talk:Jiang Yuyuan

Challenging Other editors irresponsible edits

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.' According to the above rules, chinese sources can be used if relevant portions from orginal text are added to the footnotes. Also it was discussed with the editor DanielEng and he AGREED that chinese can be used before the chiese sources are added. So it is not what you called edit-war. I am being treated unfair and I request senior members of wikipedia to reslove this problem. Tinbin2 (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You're neglecting to mention that the articles could be used only within the constraints of WP:RS, that other editors have pointed out why your sources are unacceptable, that other editors have pointed out that the translations don't match what you have in the article, and that valid concerns have been raised about WP:BLP issues within the content you have posted. You have not addressed any of this; you've just kept reverting.

I'll also add that you are currently blocked. Using other accounts and IPs to get around the block on your original account really isn't going to help your case here. DanielEng (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why deletig materials using chinese sources? It was discussed and agreed by the editor before I used them

I removed that part about Jiang borrowing 40 yuans because I think it is not important to the whole Personal Life Section and actually agree with wikipedia's BLP regulation. Tinbin (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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. I can "quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article" if you want to, but of course I don't prefer this because it is very difficult and need a lot of effort and time. Why can't you just use babelfish or google to translate? Tinbin (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I raised the question here about using chinese sources. After discussion, it was agreed that chinese sources can be used, why are you deleting them now? Tinbin (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

See the very bottom of the page. Another editor brought up concerns about these sources and content, which have not been addressed. When it was said that it was acceptable to use Chinese sources, reliable translation was part of the deal. Also, as Rastared mentioned, a lot of the personal information you are adding--such as Yuyuan's phone conversation with her mother and owing 400 RM--really toe the line for BLP. Please address these concerns in the appropriate talk section (not here). Also please be aware of the WP:3RR rule, which you're very close to breaking right now. DanielEng (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, it was not a phone conversation. It is an interview with Jiang's parents and they described something interesting aboit her past. You can always using babelfish to check the translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbin (talk • contribs) 21:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

With material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, the Buden of proof lies with the editor restoring the material -- ratarsed (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC):

Yes, it was challenged by you, but after you gave the example about translation on Jiang's family is poor ("家庭经济条件的拮据" "Home economics condition in straitened circumstances"). I am questioning that whether your challenge is valid. Don't you have any editor here who can read Chinese?

the Google translation of http://2008.eastday.com/o/20080822/u1a3821580.html does not say her family were poor, even though it is used as a citation for that statement.

Please check carefully, I used babelfish to translate "家庭经济条件的拮据" to English is "Home economics condition in straitened circumstances" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinbin (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the English-language Wikipedia, so we do not expect editors to be able to read Chinese here. Nor is the opinion of an editor who can speak Chinese considered to be acceptable proof, because there's no way for the rest to check it. As explained to you already, if you have a Chinese-language source it has to be able to be verified and verifiable in some way for English editors. DanielEng (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Given there already has been some quite vigorous editing, and it appears that the editors involved have passionate views, I believe it would be best to reach a consensus of opinion, and take it from there -- if no consensus can be reached, then a third opinion should be sought.

I don't have any passionate view, it was a direct translation. I can't help it if it was emotional or something like that form the source Tinbin (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2008 (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

References

Adding chinese citation

NO body ignore my questions? YOU just ignored them again. Now I know what kind of a person you are, that you are biased and afraid to answer questions when you don't have the right answers that serve your purpose. Nice knowing that anyway. So I can stop wasting my time talking to a person that does not worth talking to.Tinbin (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"you've been answered" What about question 2? About Denng's page that only information that against her is included but no a single piece of information support her when there are actually plenty? What a joke.Tinbin (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am the one who are done arguing with you. You answered the questions you want to answer and ignore the questions you don't want. You just keep giving the same answers and think that if you keep giving the same answers and that will make everyone believe your logic. You ACCUSE me AGAIN of something I didn't do and never intend to do. OK, let me present the questions to you again one by one. Tinbin (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "If you want to introduce unsourced material and continue to argue, it's just going to be reverted and ignored" Since when you saw me using unsourced material? Didn't I explain to you over and over and over again that I never intend to threaten and vandalise Please show me the evidence that I used unsourced materials. Why did you accuse me of something that I didn't and never intend to do over and over again? I am again very offended by your accusation. OK, I know you won't apologise, no matter what how wrong and biased you areTinbin (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

2. There was only information that accusing DENG's underage because of her small size, when there are also information from reliable sources that explain her size is not unusual for a female gymnast. But the information supporting Deng wasn't in her article before I added them. Please explain why?.Tinbin (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

3. "he actually does not work for the US team in any capacity". why you provided this information? Are you saying that bela's comments is neutral and without prejudice because he "does not work for the US team in any capacity"? I think you do realise that his wife is the Team Coordinator of U.S. women's gymnastics team in the 2008 Olympics. And that make him so not biased. Tinbin (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

4. So comments on US gymmasts are unsourced and peronsal so they cannot be included. But Bela's and all the other comments on Deng's size are also unsourced and personal and without support, then why those comments could be included? Tinbin (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't ignore the questions again and answer them one by one. Tinbin (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has ignored your questions; you've been answered fully and pointed toward the appropriate Wiki policies. You just haven't liked the answers, so you've kept repeating, hoping you'll get a different answer next time. I'll also point out that Wiki articles are open to everyone and a lot of other editors have looked them over; if there was a valid objection to the material it would have been raised by others. You're a single-purpose account and you don't seem to understand how Wiki works and how we use sources here. If you don't care to learn and understand how Wiki policies work, that's not my problem. I'm not wasting any more time on this. DanielEng (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the discussion here so that I won't "intentionally" delete your comments when I edit my comments.Tinbin (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, explanation about deleting comments accepted but not the part about accusing me of threatening. I told you before that the discussion page interface is the worst interface I have ever seen, so I would admit that I have accidentally deleted your comments without knowing. But you didn't politely remind me of that , you just "told me" to not delete other people's comments. And I EXPLAINED that I was mis-understood and I had no intention to disrupt or threaten or vandalise after you warned me not to do so. But AFTER my explanation, you still warned me not to disrupt other article. Why did you do it? Please explain. And the comments on the US gymnasts are NOT unsourced material, they are from a very reliable source, the NEW YORK Times, the same source that provides Bela Karolyi's comments on Deng. Two pieces of information from one reliable source, but one is unsourced and one is sourced? That is a classic example of being biased. Why do you always do this? If that is not biased, I don't know what is. Tinbin (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And let me explain to you that why I think the article on Deng is unfair and misleading. First, there was only information that accusing DENG's underage because of her small size, when there are also information from reliable sources that explain her size is not unusual for a female gymnast. But the information supporting Deng wasn't in her article before I added them. Please explain why?. When there is only one-way information (accusing Deng's underage for her size) presented in the article, the readers will be misled to believe that her size is really too small for a female gymnast of her age.Tinbin (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the chinese coach Lu Shanzhen DID defend his team on the accusation of being underage, he said “It’s unfair that people keep saying the Chinese are too young to compete. If they think they can tell someone’s age just by looking at them, well, if you look at the foreign athletes, they have so much more muscles than the Chinese. They are so strong. Do you then say that they are doping?” His defending speech is from a reliable source, the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/sports/olympics/14gymnastics.html?scp=3&sq=%22Deng%20linlin%22&st=cse), but once again, this crucial information (that Lu defended his team) is not in any articles of the Chinese gymnasts who are accused of underage. So please explain to me why? And how can I consider that all those articles are fair and not biased? Tinbin (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You said that "Stryde is already employed by a firm where he makes a lot of money". Please, come to the real world. By doing this, he'd be more famous and get the publicity he wanted and he could make even more money (I have never heard of him before. I assume that you haven't either) Tinbin (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"he actually does not work for the US team in any capacity". why you provided this information? Are you saying that bela's comments is neutral and without prejudice because he "does not work for the US team in any capacity"? I think you do realise that his wife is the Team Coordinator of U.S. women's gymnastics team in the 2008 Olympics. And that make him so not biased. Wow!! I am really amazed by you again and again!!! Tinbin (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We're going in circles here. Of course Lu defended them. It is clearly said in the article that the Chinese have denied the allegations. Lu's second comment does not specifically mention any country's athletes. It's unsubstantiated. It's a comment of opinion that has no place in any article. I've explained to you several times already that we also consider relevance and if something can be substantiated by other material. The facts on the Chinese gymnasts: there has been information that has been located, read, verified and reported in the press. The so-called fact on the Americans: there has been no information, no information, no cause to believe, and nothing reported in the press.

The mere fact that something is printed in the NYT does not make it reliable. The NYT is a reliable source and can be used for fact. However, an opinion expressed in the NYT is just that. Without basis, it has no relevance. If one actor made a comment in the NYT that another actor was an idiot, would we be putting a passage in their article that they were an idiot? No. As per WP:BLP: Great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact...Special care needs to taken in including material reported upon and labeled as rumor. The reporting of rumors has a news value. Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should only include information verified by reliable sources and not merely pass along rumors which they believe might be of immediate interest to their consumers before they can be confirmed or denied.

So let's look at that. Do we have verification and RS that there is information and there have been claims made aganst the Chinese athletes? Check. Do we have verification and RS that there have been comments about Deng's appearance, other than Bela? Check. This made news all over the globe and was reported all over the globe. And all that is said in Deng's article is that there were a lot of comments. We can pull hundreds of articles about it. Do we have verification and RS that there have been rumors or investigations against other gymnasts at the Games? No. We've got one comment. As I mentioned, there have also been people in the press who say the Americans are fat; that's not fact or commentary that goes, or should go, into their articles either. Only one gymnast at the Olympics was doping, that was Do Thi Ngan Thuong, and it was properly investigated, confirmed and sourced.

I'm not going to keep explaining the same things to you over and over again. I have the feeling you keep going with this to try to see if you will eventually get the answer you want. Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. If you want to take umbrage to what Wiki does, that's fine. If you want to introduce unsourced material and continue to argue, it's just going to be reverted and ignored. It's been explained to you. The policies have been put before you. Unless you have specific information other than what you have already argued, I'm done arguing with you. You've made good contributions about the gymnasts' backgrounds to these articles so I know you can be productive, and can be a good editor, if you want to be. DanielEng (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Please Don't BLANK Jiang's Official Profile From Chinese Olympic Committee

Please, this is the ONLY reference to Jiang's official Olympic profile. The sentence is written neuturally and notable source is cited. If you feel this is a repeate, please show me where else in the articles is 2008teamchina.olympic.cn link cited? Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't format the reference properly, even though it's been repeatedly requested that you do so, or that you give information here so that others can format the refs properly (again, you need to be providing a name, author, title of article and a date, not just slapping down the link and expecting everyone to either read Chinese or sit there with Babelfish to figure it out). Second, when the first paragraph of the article says the 11/1/91 DOB, common sense would say that you don't need to add it again to a separate paragraph at the end. You could have simply added the information and ref to the appropriate place in the text, as I have done. One of the reasons I'm getting very weary of discussions with you, Bobby, is because you don't seem to read or understand; you just seem to add information and expect other editors to clean up for you. I'm doing my best to assume good faith but you're really trying my patience here. You've been around Wiki long enough to know you don't just add stuff to articles without making an attempt to fit it in somewhere. I'm also unsure as to why we would possibly care about the Chinese Olympic Committee or consider that relevant, since they have the same exact data as the FIG, but that's neither here nor there. DanielEng (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, that was a link from Chinese Olympic Committee's ENGLISH site.

BTW how many of your Mike Walker/Stryde Hax blog reprots/links have the same thing? But that's okay? Of course Chinese Olympic Committee is relevant, as it is the official source of Jaing's bio as an Olympic athelet. It's relevant and more factual than a blog. Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said before: your personal beef with Mike Walker does not belong here. The sources are not "mine." Nor are any of the references in this article blogs; they're all major media, and it's already been explained to you that they predate Stryde's research. If you refuse to understand that, if you refuse to accept that they are WP:RS, and haven't read them to see that they are all original articles and not repeats of the same exact data that is your choice, but it's your personal opinion and agenda, and it again has no place here. Leave it for your own blog or keep commenting on Stryde's.

The link you provided is half in Chinese and half in English, which really doesn't give one a way to verify everything it says. It also repeats the exact same information in the FIG profile with no variation. Taking away a sentence that repeats information that is already in the article, with an unexplained and improperly formatted and identified link as a reference, is not blanking.

I also notice you haven't responded to anything else mentioned here. Again, please don't make extra work for other editors. Identify your sources and don't leave the links for others to figure out and format, if you want them taken seriously. Common sense, common courtesy, etc. will go a long way here. If you add stuff to an article willy-nilly, and don't take the time to figure out where it belongs, if it belongs, etc. don't be surprised if it's considered disruptive and reverted because editors don't want to waste time figuring it out. DanielEng (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, the page referenced, http://2008teamchina.olympic.cn/index.php/personview/personsen/2727, is an English page (upper right corner indicates so, page title is 100% English, the main body of the bio page is 100% english). Only 8 links and half of an advert is Chinese, significantly less than 50% as you have claimed.

Here's the text from the page, where's the "half in Chinese" you claimed?

name：Jiang Yuyuan Gender： female Date of birth：1991-11-01 Place of birth：Liuzhou, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Height：143CM Weight：30KG Sport：Rhythmic Gymnastics Events entered：Rhythmic Gymnastics Personal best：2008 Beijing Olympic Games - 1st teamStatus: AthleteCoach: Xiong Jingbin/Zhang XiaRegistered with： ZhejiangHobby： Music, Reading magazinesSports career: 1994 Liuzhou Sports Training Base (Gymnastics); 1996 Guangxi Regional Sports School; 1997 Guangxi Regional Sports Team; 1999 Zhejiang Provincial Sports Team; 2004 National TeamHigh performances： 2007 World Cup Shanghai - 1st uneven bars/floor exercise; 2007 World Championships - 2nd team, 4th floor exercise; 2008 National Championships and Olympic Selective Trials - 1st all-around; 2008 Beijing Olympic Games - 1st team

I'm really not going to go around in circles with you because you feel like arguing. I'm sure you can see the Chinese characters on that page as much as I can, you know very well that 'half' is a figure of speech, and you're well aware it's not unique information. The bloody source is in the article right now, so I'm not sure exactly why you're still complaining. I'll repeat what I said before: put in unreliable or unverifiable sources and continue to make a mess on the page, and don't be surprised if nobody wants to take the time to clean up after you. Instead of arguing with other editors, why not try formatting and identifying your sources correctly and adding content in appropriate context for a change? Would be a better use of energy. DanielEng (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-English 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.

I bring this to attention as I notice a lot of Chinese language sources have been added recently, and their content and verifiability could be called into question; for instance, the Google translation of http://2008.eastday.com/o/20080822/u1a3821580.html does not say her family were poor, even though it is used as a citation for that statement. My interpretation of Wikipedia's policy for biographies of living persons would be that these statements should be removed, or a reliable translation provided that makes these claims be provided. I would also question the relevance of the statement that she owed someone else 400 yuan (about 60 USD?), WP:BLP has a principle of preserving basic human dignity, and I'd suggest this goes against this? Given there already has been some quite vigorous editing, and it appears that the editors involved have passionate views, I believe it would be best to reach a consensus of opinion, and take it from there -- if no consensus can be reached, then a third opinion should be sought. -- ratarsed (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Ratarsed. I'll be honest enough to say that I'm at the end of my rope with the above bickering so I'm ignoring the new personal life edits to the page. It all needs to go, but someone else can battle that. DanielEng (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Untranslated sources will be removed on sight, as they go against policy on this. To illustrate this point, as a non Chinese speaker (let alone reader), for all I know, "出生日期" translates as "Date of first competition"; therefore the sources are unverifiable to the casual reader. -- ratarsed (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"出生日期" is "Date of birth". That you are unable to verify something does not make it unverifiable. If that is the case, anything highly technical or behind a paywall would be unverifiable for the "casual reader". While the quote doesn't say the family is poor, it states that money is a concern, only the father works, and after 1996 (there's some words here I don't understand) his monthly wages was only 100 yuan(14.6 USD).

ETA:If there is anything that needs to be verified, I'm sure the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject China would be happy to help. --Dodo bird (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NONENG and do not restore those paragraphs until consensus has been reached. As per NONENG, sources without a verifiable translation cannot be used here. It's great that you speak Chinese, but not everyone on the English-language Wiki does, and every source used must be able to be verified by English-speaking editors. Translations made by editors are not considered to be reliable. There have also been some concerns about the data added as per WP:BLP. In addition, the text do have to match the sources--if the text doesn't say she's poor, we can't say she's poor or we're doing original research. ALSO: The original author of these blocks of text is coming off a block in a few days. I've suggested that everyone wait on this until he gets back, so we can work out what is to be done, if there's any way to reconcile the sources with WP:NONENG and if there might be any English-language sources with comparable information that can be used instead. DanielEng (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read WP:NONENG more clearly before pulling non-existent policy out of thin air. There is no need for a translation, just a quote of the original text. I repeat again. That you are unable to verify something does not make it unverifiable. If that is the case, anything highly technical, behind a paywall or not online would be unverifiable for the "casual reader". If there is BLP issues with particular statements, remove those, not the whole section.--Dodo bird (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not non-existent, and it's been now quoted to you by two different editors.

As a reminder, the burden is on the editor adding or restoring material to justify its existence, to comply with Wiki rules for it, and to provide appropriate sources. In other words, if you or any other editor want this in the article, it is your responsibility to take out any BLP issues, provide appropriate sources, etc. It's not my job to make sure they are there for you.

The entire section is one huge WP:BLP bio, and chief among this is the point that the given references and articles don't even match the Wiki text. For instance,a passage in the article reads At the beginning of her career at the national team, Jiang would use little tricks to take breaks during training, and the most effective way to make her train honestly was nothing else but to confiscate her prize money. The quote given in the footnote is 江钰源是个平时训练爱耍些小聪明，偷些小懒的队员. When we run that through Babelfish we get Jiang Yuyuan is usually trains likes playing a cleverness in trivial matters, steals a young lazy member. That's almost unintelligible and we can't figure out anything from that, and it obviously doesn't match the text in any way, shape or form. Another: 江钰源的父亲江涛是柳州市一名普通的出租车司机，母亲欧凤珍没有固定收入. In the article it is written as At one time, Jiang could not stand the hardship of the training and called her mother saying that she wants to quit gymnastics. Her mother jokingly asked Jiang to come home and go begging with her. This made Jiang gave up the idea and promised to keep on training as begging would be "losing face. But Babelfish says: Jiang Yuyuan father Jiang Tao is a Liuzhou ordinary taxi driver, mother Ou Fengzhen does not have the fixed income.

The references need to be verifiable in a way that is appropriate for English Wiki editors. We're not going to sit there and sift through Chinese articles to figure out what is supposed to be there. NONENG clearly states that translations by Wiki editors are not preferred. Again, if you want all this in the article, it's your responsibility to sift through all the BLP issues, make sure it is all accurate and accurately footnoted (in other words, not saying Jiang is "poor" because her father drives taxis, and making sure the footnotes actually match the text for which it is serving as a citation) BEFORE this stuff goes back in.

Please stop being disruptive and reverting against consensus. This section does not belong here until the concerns can be addressed. If you feel this strongly, I suggest you argue it out with the WP:BLP noticeboard. ETA:I notice you have again reverted, without addressing the OR and the verification of all other sources. EVERY SINGLE CHINESE SOURCE NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED. ORIGINAL RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. OTHERWISE IT WILL BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY. DanielEng (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP issues spelled out

Original text:Jiang Yuyuan came from a poor family in Guangxi.[4] Her father is a taxi driver and her mother is unemployed with no regular income.[5]

Jiang has a keen interest in digital gadgets, especially digital cameras. She also loves sport cars, reading magazines on fashions, cosmetics and digital gadgets, listening to western pop music and taking photographs of the others.[6][7][8] In an interview with Jiang's team members, Cheng Fei and Yang Yilin, they were asked who the most beauty-conscious and trendy member in the national women team was, and both answered "Jiang Yuyuan". Jiang is also responsible for teaching other female members of the national team about make-up technique.[6] Jiang said in one of her interviews that she is sometimes "a little bit of a rebel". Her coach, Lu Shanzen, agreed that she would become rebellious occasionally and said that Jiang has the "most unique character" among the girl gymnasts in the national team.[9] Jiang is also famous for her weird ideas among her team mates. For instance, when every member of the national team would take the bus to travel between their dormitory and the training stadium, Jiang would ride a bicycle instead because she feels that taking the bus is boring.[10] Jiang's idol is her fellow gymnast, Cheng Fei.[11]

At one time, Jiang could not stand the hardship of the training and wanted to quit gymnastics. Her mother told Jiang jokingly that if she quit training, she would have to go begging for food with her. This made Jiang promise to keep training as she didn't want her mother to bear the embarrassment.[5]

At the beginning of her career at the national team, Jiang would find ways to skive during training, and the most effective way to make her train honestly was not verbal or physical punishment but to deduct her prize money.[12] Her coach at the Zhejiang Provincial Team also commented that Jiang was very clever but well-known for her laziness, and that Jiang could learn a skill much faster than the other young gymnasts but if told to perform 25 times of the "Hanging Leg Raise", Jiang would certainly do less if you didn't keep an eye on her.[11][13] Jiang has a nickname "Monkey" because she likes the feeling of practising on the apparatuses but would not persuade others to start a career in gymnastics.[8] When Jiang was five, she fell from the Balance Beam when she saw her parents watching her from the grandstand at a junior gymnastics competition. After that, she never let her parents watch her compete.[11]

BLP VIO LINE BY LINE ALL of this will need to be addressed BEFORE this information goes back in.

1. "Jiang Yuyuan came from a poor family in Guangxi.[4]" No sources support this; the fact that her father is a taxi driver does not necessarily mean she is poor. Unsourced BLP must be deleted.

2. "Jiang is also famous for her weird ideas among her team mates." "weird" = POV. In addition, it's irrelevant. Provided a source can be found, the entire paragraph can be pared down to something along the lines of "Jiang is known for her rebellious nature. Her coach considers her to be "the most unique character" on the Chinese national team. Her hobbies are (whatever)"

3. "At one time, Jiang could not stand the hardship of the training and wanted to quit gymnastics. Her mother told Jiang jokingly that if she quit training, she would have to go begging for food with her. This made Jiang promise to keep training as she didn't want her mother to bear the embarrassment.[5]" BLP vio. Should not be there.

4. At the beginning of her career at the national team, Jiang would find ways to skive during training, and the most effective way to make her train honestly was not verbal or physical punishment but to deduct her prize money.[12] Her coach at the Zhejiang Provincial Team also commented that Jiang was very clever but well-known for her laziness, and that Jiang could learn a skill much faster than the other young gymnasts but if told to perform 25 times of the "Hanging Leg Raise", Jiang would certainly do less if you didn't keep an eye on her.[11][13] Jiang has a nickname "Monkey" because she likes the feeling of practising on the apparatuses but would not persuade others to start a career in gymnastics.[8] When Jiang was five, she fell from the Balance Beam when she saw her parents watching her from the grandstand at a junior gymnastics competition. After that, she never let her parents watch her compete.[11] --More commentary and POV; unverified as per the rest; and should be edited down. DanielEng (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted the editor User Talk:Dodo bird and instructed him or her to explain the reliability of the sources provided and seek a consensus before re-adding material to the articles. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 06:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any BLP issues. And what's wrong with news portal?--Dodo bird (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, everyone, I am tinbin, the guy who added those chinese-sourced info. Anyway, I have decided to stop editing any Wikipedia articles but I think, to be responsible, I should really answered the questions asked here before going: Tinbin (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here we go.

Question: "江钰源是个平时训练爱耍些小聪明，偷些小懒的队员. When we run that through Babelfish we get Jiang Yuyuan is usually trains likes playing a cleverness in trivial matters, steals a young lazy member. That's pretty confusing and doesn't seem to match the English content."

爱耍些小聪明 babelfish translated to "playing a cleverness in trivial matters". Actually, in Chinese "play a little cleverness" means play a little trick

偷些小懒的队员 babelfish translated to "steals a young lazy member". 偷些小懒的队员 should be translated to "a member stealing a little laziness". 偷些 = steal something. 小懒 = little lazy or laziness. 队员 = team member. So, the whole sentence means Jiang like playing little tricks and is the team member who stealing a little laziness during normal training. (The little tricks she play is for "stealing the little laziness)

Question: "There's also a passage about Jiang being from a poor family, and the quote given is: 但经济压力是个不可回避的问题。一家人只有江涛有工作，而他在1996年下岗后，每月只有100多元的工资 but Babelfish translates that to But the economic pressures are an unevadable question. The whole family only then Jiang Taoyou works, but he came off sentry duty after 1996, every month had more than 100 Yuan wages."

但经济压力是个不可回避的问题. In here, 经济压力 = economical pressure. 是个不可回避 = is a unavoidable. 问题 = problem or question. So the whole sentence means "economical pressure is an unavoidable problem."

一家人只有江涛有工作，而他在1996年下岗后，每月只有100多元的工资: 一家人 = the whole family. 江涛 = Jiang Taoyou, Jiang's father chinese name. 有工作 = have work. 下岗 bablefish translated to "came off sentry duty", which really means unemployed ( a chinese slang or special term, don't think babelfish know how to translate it.) So the whole sentence means Only Jiang's father has work in the whole family. After he was unemployed in 1996. He had only about 100 yuan wages per month.

Also, there is a sentence that I forgot to put in the footnote but have mentioned in Jiang's talk page, which is "家庭经济条件的拮据" in babelfish translation is equal to "Home economics condition in straitened circumstances" I think that one is very clear. The family's economical condition is in straitened condition, meaning that the family "is poor" Tinbin (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that those relevant Chinese sentences from the original texts are added in "a hurry". So they are not really completed and needed to be looked into again. Thanks. Tinbin (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions and mistakes on Jiang Yuyuan

Hi if any Wikipedia editors see this, please take note on the following:

Mistakes: The gymnast who replaced Jiang in the vault rotation in Women Team Final is Deng Linlin, not Yang Yinlin.

Suggestions: From the NBC Olympics website http://www.nbcolympics.com/athletes/athlete=686/bio/index.html (citation [7]), it has the following info on Jiang:

Downtime: When she's not in the gym, Jiang enjoys listening to American and European pop music, reading magazines and watching tennis. She's also an avid photographer and a fan of Chinese hurdler Liu Xiang.

Early years in gymnastics: Jiang began her gymnatics training at age four and was taken to Guangxi Sports Training School a few years later. After one year training in that school, Jiang was picked for the Guangxi Gymnastics Team. However, the coaches there sent her back to the training school one month later because they didn't think Jiang was strong enough.

I suggest that you may add the Downtime info to Jiang's page for a new Personal Life Section and Early years in gymnastics to her Gymnastics Career Section. The info in Early years in gymnastics' explains why she was born in Guangxi but represents Zhejiang.

Please consider to add and revise the info if you think they are OK, thanks. Tinbin (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Stryde

I removed the section about his discovery. The documents he found are the exact ones that NYT found way earlier. If it is to be added, maybe it could be framed as something which caused renewed interest in the controversy. Dodo bird (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Jiang Yuyuan has been EXHONORATED of underage accusation

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/sports/chinese+gymnast+declared+old+enough/2484522 (emphasis is mine)

"Originals of official documents received from the Chinese Gymnastics Association, specifically passports, identity cards and family booklets or 'Household Registers', confirm the ages of the ***athletes***," the FIG said."

Please observe Wikipedia's rule on living person and make appropriate changes, such as Jiang's DOB being in dispute. Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:06, 2 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) 18:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would we add this sentence? It makes it sound like only one guy wanted the investigation when, in fact, most of the western media (and global, for that matter) suspected (and still suspects) these girls of being under age.LedRush (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can writ the fact x/y/z media opinioned suspecion, or they called for investigation. Is "most of the western media" factual? I'd like to see you prove it. And does that factually prove Jiang is guilty of age falsification? The fact is FIG, the final arbitor of this issue, has conclusively exonorated her of the charge.

What is also factual is USOC exec Jim Scherr wrote a letter to asked for further investigatin of Jiang, this is fact noted by mainstream media and is relevant to the suject of Jiang's investigation. That is why this sentence should be added - it is a fact relevant to the topic at hand. Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose to amend "Age controversy" title

Now that two investigation by international body has exhonorated Jiang, shouldn't the title reflect the fact the controversy is over? Shouldn't BLP allow prepondrance of fact over medis speculation that's based on a blog?

I propose to amend the title like (settled), or clearly state the fact Jiang has been found innocent of the charge in the beginning. Right now the first thing in the section is link to general article on underage cheating, when the fact is Jiang has been exhonorated.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The controversy is not over just because the investigation is. People can read that she was cleared in the article.LedRush (talk) 15:43, 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 charge, which makes the allegation unreliable, and should be dealt with per BLP. Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy means "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion". Because much of the public still disagrees on this matter, it remains controversial. Just look at Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, or Mark McGuire: just because they've never had the allegations about them proven doesn't mean their athletic accomplisments aren't still controversial (and yes, Armstrong was cleared by every investigation done on him).LedRush (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

LedRush, thank you for citing Lance Armstrong - if you read the talk archive you'll see the "controversy" language was removed from his article after the investigation exonorated him. Now there's only factual recording of investigation and result, no POV injection with words like "controversy", per BLP.

The contention re He Kexin's age was settled when FIG conducted 2nd, and what it considers, final investigation. It's result is clear, authoratative, and not subject to opinion.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Armstrong article has a huge section on the allegations and presents all the facts, both for and against his cause. Of course, the FIG investigation is only one part of the controversy, and that part needs to be accurately reflected, as does all NPOV evidence. Inserting POV by attributing more weight to a FIG investigation than it deserves will not serve the article well.

Also, check out the other athlete examples I've given. And in the doping questions there is a moderately objective way to tell if someone is truthful or not, yet these subjects have remained unproven and murky. The articles have retained sections on the controversy presenting all relevent evidence. This is even more important to do here, because it is far more difficult to assess whether someone is a certain age rather than a drug test. It's not like we can cut open her legs and count the rings. The article must retain a fair and complete description of the controversy, which is, of course, not over just because the FIG says they are forced to believe that government documents are valid.LedRush (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The armstrong article used to have "controversy" verbage, but was removed after the governing sports body exonorated him, opted for more neutural and NPOV verbage such as factually describe there was an investigation, and the result (per BLP). I see a precedence here.

BTW, can you cite where did the FIG stated they were "forced to believe" anything? Please show some facts rather than pretending your opinion that can be backed up.

The fact is Jiang's age is not murky or unproven, as the international governing body has definitively judicated the matter.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We are getting no where. I felt that I already brokered a good compromise (assuming their age for the article but fairly depicting the controversy in the article) but you obvioustly don't accept this. I have asked some neutral observers from the wikiproject China page to comment.LedRush (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LedRush, can you cite any facts?

Do you have a link to this "wikipedia China page"?

Do you have any notable source to back up your claim the FIG was "forced to believe" anything? Or is this your opinion?

Do you have any notable source to back up you claim Jiang et al's age remain "murky", "unproven"? Or is this your opinion, which is contrary to the FIC decision (FIG is THE HIGHEST international sports governing body regarding this dispute.)

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you've turned hostile, except maybe that you believe by getting the last word you'll somehow "win". Anyway, the facts are already in the article and my position is simple: don't whitewash the controversy. Just present the facts. One of those facts, that the FIG cleared them, is the last thing stated (and I put it in), but it shouldn't be the only thing stated.LedRush (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no hostility in my inquery for facts relevant to the discussion. You made claims and I asked you to produce the notable source because I can not find it. It's not about winning or losing, it's about facts at hand, and being fair to a living person that is basically voiceless in our society. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:53, 6 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) 07:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Translating quotes from Chinese sources

I see that Chinese sources have been discussed at length above; I just wanted to add that the many Chinese quotes given in the footnotes should be translated for the benefit of readers (most of whom are not Chinese-speaking). I haven't had a chance to read through the whole discussion, but I would assume that there is still a need to translate those sentences (if there was some sort of consensus not to translate them, though I can't imagine why that would happen, please let me know before I start doing any translating). I might be able to start working on that sometime during the week, but if anyone else wants to get to work on it before then it would be greatly appreciated. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 13:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your comment on Jiang Yuyuan's talk page. Since you have read the previous discussion on Jiang's talk page, you should know that I am the one who provided all the original Chinese-sourced information and argued heatedly with the other editors on why those chinese-sourced materials should be kept. The other editors disagreed to keep the Chinese-sourced materials because they considered chinese-sourced materials unreliable and unverifiable. I even got banned for it. That is why I stopped doing the editing all together because I thought that my life is more important than arguing with the other non-chinese-speaking editors who only trust Bablefish (If Babelfish can translate everything accurately, then all the translators on the planet earth can just retire). I am actually very surprised that all my Chinese-sourced materials are now kept in the article.

Before I stopped doing editing on Jiang Yuyuan's article, I was actually starting something about Jiang's post-Olympics fame such as how she travelled to Hong Kong and appeared with local pop-stars on TV shows (I stole the idea from Shawn Johnson's article). But all this information has to be relied on Chinese sources, so I don't think I will finish it off now because I don't want my hard work to be wiped out by some senior editors who don't trust chinese-sourced materials. Anyway, good luck to you and if you need any help, I am happy to provide assistance. Please go to your or my talk page if you would like further discussion. Tinbin (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think that Chinese language sources would be considered inferior to English ones in terms of reliability and verifiability for Wikipedia purposes, but that doesn't mean they can't be used. I think there are two important things to remember:

1. When there are sources both in English and Chinese, the English ones will be more useful to the readers of an English Encyclopedia, and therefore be used.

2. Citations should be used which are reliable in relation to the topic at hand. Perhaps a citation that would not meet Wikipedia standards for an international Olympic controversy would meet the standard for whether a person has gotten endorsements or is dating Jackie Chan's son or something.

Just some things to think about.LedRush (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

However, do you find that the English sources are nearly all biased or even racist? Or you want to show us that Chinese themselves are "inferior" to White, such as Lukin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.122.127.91 (talk • contribs)

As you should know that English media hardly have any coverages on people like Jiang Yuyuan apart from the Underage issue. I actually raised the question about using chinese-sources on the talk page and get the consensus from the other editor before I started. But at the end all the chinese-sources were still wiped from Jiang's article. I have been told by other editors that this is "English Wikipedia", so they don't encourage chinese sources to be used. I am very surprised that all the Chinese sources provided by me are now kept. And it makes all my previous arguments seem even more worthless and pointless. May be things have changed since then. Tinbin (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

section about Yang Yun violates BLP?

The 1st para of the controversy section seems to be unrelated to Jiang and pushes a guilty POV. IMHO this violates BLP since it flies in the fact official investigation had cleared Jiang of any age controversy. There is no controversy at the official level. Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829034201/http://209.20.80.25:80/vsite/vcontent/content/news/0,10869,5195-191062-208285-45462-288924-news-item,00.html to http://209.20.80.25/vsite/vcontent/content/news/0,10869,5195-191062-208285-45462-288924-news-item,00.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jiang Yuyuan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123012506/http://www.fedintgym.com/microsites/Rotterdam/results/files/WAGTEAMFIN.pdf to http://www.fedintgym.com/microsites/Rotterdam/results/files/WAGTEAMFIN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827213328/http://www.asianweek.com/2008/08/26/asianweek%E2%80%99s-most-memorable-moments-of-the-2008-beijing-olympics/ to http://www.asianweek.com/2008/08/26/asianweek%E2%80%99s-most-memorable-moments-of-the-2008-beijing-olympics/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://209.20.80.25/vsite/vcontent/content/news/0%2C10869%2C5195-191062-208285-45462-288924-news-item%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)