| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Yang Tae-young be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
POV
edit"Some gymnastics analysts noted that while Yang's Start Value was incorrect, the judges had also missed the fact that he performed four static holds in his routine. Under the Code of Points, this infraction was supposed to incur a mandatory .2 deduction. If Yang's SV had been correct and the deduction had been taken, he still would have finished out of first place. The FIG has never taken an official position on this analysis. [4]"
Who cares what SOME analysts have to say. Can I also include my opinion in the article then? The most important thing is what MOST analysts believe and what the position of the FIG is. Also, the opinion of these analysts is presented as a fact, as if all these other experts don't know what they are talking about or willfully ignore this "fact". Perhaps the FIG doesn't know about these accusations or just doesn't agree and finds them to ridiculous to comment on. Also if none of the key players in this affair has commented on these accusations, it doesn't belong in this article. I you still really want to incorporate it in the article, it should be parafrased in a more objective way, like "some experts believe (who are these experts anyway?) Yang deserved a mandatory .2 deduction".
"The situation was further complicated by the fact that Hamm, the first place winner, performed after Yang, which allowed Hamm to perform a routine that was calculated to put him in first place based on Yang's score. If Yang had scored higher, Hamm would presumably have attempted a more difficult, higher-scoring routine in an effort to surpass Yang's score."
These paragraph also bothers me, because how can one be able to predict what would have happened if circumstances had been different. This also seems to be the opinion of the author, for there's no source cited and the text doesn't seem to indicate that Hamm (or anybody else) has claimed this.
But what I'm really complaining about is the fact I'm not able to remove these paragraphs. That's why this article has a very serious POV problem. Please comment! (213.10.46.8 (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
- Please let me remove the specified paragraphs OR give a (satisfying) reply!(213.10.46.8 (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC))