Talk:Ye Shiwen/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Controversy" section

AS this is a BLP I know there needs to be extra care given to whats added but virtually every major news outlet globally (outside of china) is suggesting doping may be an issue with her performance. What do other editors think as to how we should handle this? 206.108.31.34 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If virtually every major news outlet thinks this then why is this the first I have heard of this? Produce some sources, and remember that suspicion is not evidence? Do I detect a combination of racism, sexism and ageism, as with Hou Yifan, another Chinese teenager who pulled off a remarkable victory in Gibraltar recently? PatGallacher (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

try typing her name in to Google News: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&gl=ca&tbm=nws&q=YE+SHIWEN&oq=YE+SHIWEN&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j0i3l2j43i400.2336.2336.0.3278.1.1.0.0.0.0.218.218.2-1.1.0...0.0...1ac.MlF9K3gaUFU there are 859 sources discussing her and doping. 206.108.31.34 (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for assuming good faith and immediately accusing me of being a sexist, racists and agist...good job adhering to wiki policies! 206.108.31.34 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

based on the number of highly reputable sources (including the head of the swimming federation) questioning this performance i think its going tobe difficult to continue to line the article with apparent explanations as to her remarkable performance while not mentioning the well documented suspicions and commentary that have been leveled regarding potential doping. It's trending very pov at the moment with these details beng kept out. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

corection, it was the head of the coaches association that has questioned the result ans speculated as to doping, not the headof the federation. Still a highly reputable source on the subject 108.172.114.141 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

True, there is a large number of reliable sources reporting on the doping allegation. But, all of the sources are essentially reporting what John Leonard, executive director of the USA Swimming Coaches Association, said about Ye. Contrary to your claim, hardly any sources question Ye's performance: they report Leonard's suspicion, but also the sayings of those who came to Ye's defence: Ryan Atkinson, a biomechanist with Canadian Sport Centre Pacific [1], and Arne Ljungqvist, the International Olympic Committee medical chief [2]. In other words, most sources do not take sides. Given that Leonard has no evidence for his suspicion, his statement may very well constitute libel. Bear in mind that BLPs should be written conservatively, my view is that the doping allegation should not be mentioned in order to comply with WP:libel.

If you feel strongly about mentioning the allegation, it would be necessary for you to identify Leonard as the accuser in order to comply with WP:SUBSTANTIATE. It would also be necessary to mention those who dismissed the allegation, in order to comply with WP:NPOV. Craddocktm (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the Controversy section is quite problematic. All these articles are reporting speculations and suspicions, and that's about it. And for Biographies of Living Persons, its un-encyclopedic to write this solely based on claims of suspicion. Also echoing the Wikipedia:Libel. I would say the section is not suitable without prominence and evidence. I'm waiting for more editors' input.--Sevilledade (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The controversy is widely reported all over the world, so it is quite notable and I believe deserves a mention in the article. I think it is fine as long as it is made clear that the accusations are not supported by any evidence, and there are respectable voices coming to her defence. -Zanhe (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

More comments on the controversy:

• http://livesrunning.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/you-dont-need-to-be-a-racist-to-believe-in-a-chinese-drugs-conspiracy-but-it-helps/
• http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/chinese-swimmers-flippers-and-blowhole-suspicious-says-top-official-2012073136323

And what about Rūta Meilutytė? PatGallacher (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It was all just bs cooked up by jealous losers because she rose to the occassion. So far they are baseless and already confirmed to be disproven. The big issue was that she beat her best by 7 seconds and was faster than Lochte. They just need to grow up and take this controversy section off the Chinese athletes. Enough is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.213.212 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There had certainly been suspicions of this, but she was quite quickly cleared. As this article stands as at August 2 2012, it seems to cover the situation both fairly and accurately. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To even HINT at doping is PURE RACISM. We should militantly adhere to the noble social ideals of political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, inclusion, democracy, and peace, and thus NOT BREATH A WORD about possible doping. Just because the Chinese have a long and terrible history of Olympic doping, as do all the other competing dictatorships, doesn't mean we should abandon our heroic Western ideals of dishonesty, cowardice, deliberate blindness, and general sleaze. KyZan (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)KyZan

ridiculous libelous propaganda is not notable comment.
also there is no "controversy". controversy is two different view points. this is one ridiculous view point vs a clean drugs test. thats not controversy, thats libel.
this story could just as easily be about american bad sportsmanship and racism.
there is absolutely no evidence beyond a good performance.
citing "western media" and implicitly discounting chinese media is ridiculous.just as many western and indeed american media outlets have been attacking the accusations themselves, as attacking the swimmer.
all of this is besides the point though.
its simple, obvious racism to put an unfounded allegation in one article when it would never see the light of day in the other.
or to put it another way...cue righteous indignation "To even HINT at doping is PURE RACISM. We should militantly adhere to the noble social ideals of political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, inclusion, democracy, and peace, and thus NOT BREATH A WORD about possible doping. Just because the AMERICA have a long and terrible history of Olympic doping, and drugs scandlas in every sport they ever competed in since jesus was a boy, doesn't mean we should abandon our polite Eastern silence.(talk)

Ye Shiwen passed drug test according to IOC

http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/swimming/story/ioc-defends-china-ye-shiwen-amid-doping-speculation-says-she-passed-drug-test-073112 Not sure if this is in wikipedia already, but all winners are subjected to doping test, and Ye passed? Please enlighten me on WP standards on living person, thank you. Bobby fletcher (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

media backpeddling shows there's no controversy

http://www.latimes.com/sports/olympics/olympicsnow/la-sp-on-ye-shiwen-doping-20120731,0,6458163.story I think per Living Person, we should be exteremly careful - ye is also a minor and a voiceless foreigner in English wikipedia. Bobby fletcher (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012

Please add the following facts: During Ryan Lochte's gold winning race in the 400m medley, 4 other men swam faster than Ye Shiwen during the last 50m split. They are: Yuya Horihata (27.87), Thomas Fraser-Holmes (28.35), Michael Phelps (28.44), Kosuke Hagino (28.52)

Reference: http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event=swimming-men-400m-individual-medley/ Fosshildex (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Not really necessary for the article. Mdann52 (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ye Shiwen's Australian coaches react to doping allegation

http://www.news.com.au/sport/london-olympics/chinese-schoolgirl-shiwen-ye-swimming-faster-than-men/story-fndpu6dv-1226438946789

According to above article, Ken Wood and Denis Cotterell defended their student. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

editprotected

Please add the protection icon template to the page -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 Already done by bot. -Zanhe (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ye wins 200 IM gold medal - edit request on 31 July 2012

Please add: On 31 July 2012, Ye won her second gold medal of the 2012 Olympic Games in the 200m Individual Medley with an Olympic Record time of 2:07.57.

Reference: http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-200m-individual-medley/index.html

Damon Mah (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 Already done by Harro5. --Makecat_Talk 00:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

{{Footer Olympic Champions 200 m Individual Medley Women}}

Please add it. --Makecat_Talk 00:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Article now changed to semi-protected. -Zanhe (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

"speculated" should be changed to alleged. and the word "media commentators" should be removed because that american guy is the only guy who has alleged such a stupid and jealous charge.--174.2.8.221 (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done -Zanhe (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually "allegation" is not technically correct here. "Alleged" would mean the U.S. Coach stated that it is true, even without evidence. The coach's comment is not direct like that.--Sevilledade (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

there are a couple issues here: it wasnt just a single american, there were allegations made by americans, austrailians, new zealanders etc. This should be capture to attribute those accordingly. As well, the first line claims leonard is the usa swimming coah and later it claims he is not part of the olympic team. He is actually executive director of the international association of swimming coaches. This needs to be corrected. And lastly, seeing as the rebuttle defense statments made in ye's support provide the actual quotes from those persons so should leonards statement be quoted exactly as it appeared in the media. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, Lord Colin Moynihan did not state that Shiwen passed her drug test. He said that all faiures are published and they he was not going to comment on Ye's test which many read between the lines to suggest she passed, but factually Moynihan did not state she passed her test. To do so in the article would be OR. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC) - correction: it appears Monynihan in a follow up press conference specifically stated she is clean so I retract that last edit request. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the quote that needs to be attributed to Leonard: "History in our sport will tell you that every time we see something, and I put quotation marks around this, 'unbelievable,' history shows us that it turns out later on there was doping involved," 108.172.114.141 (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please add "Genetic Manipulation" allegation by John Leonard

The primary source for most of the doping media reports, John Leonard of ASCA, coach certification arm of USA Swimming, has further made a "genetic manipulation" allegation against Ye:

• https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=John+Leonard+genetic+manipulation
  "...in vitro genetic manipulation, as U.S. swimming coach John Leonard suggested Ye might have done..."

And I have a question - does "in vitro" in this case means the genetic manipulation was done 16-17 years ago, prior or after the cytoplasmic maturation? Prior or after formation of Ye's fetus? By Ye herself or 3rd party? I hope someone knowledgeable can clarify. Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Leonard's comment in this regard is vague, "If there is something unusual going on in terms of genetic manipulation or something else....." That's not an allegation.--Sevilledade (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional citations from notable mainstream media on the "genetic manipulation" *claim*/*suggestion* - I'm okay with any description of this fact.

• UK Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2181553/Ye-Shiwen-Olympic-committee-chief-sticking-Chinese-swimmer.html
  "Mr Leonard also called for an investigation into the Chinese, saying they could be using genetic manipulation."
• UK Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/30/ye-shiwen-world-record-olympics-2012?newsfeed=true
  "Leonard said. "The sample will be tested and available for testing for the next eight years. And over eight years, if there is something unusual going on in terms of genetic manipulation or something else, I would suspect over eight years' science will move fast enough to catch it."
• The Boston Post: http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/07/31/china-teenager-is-worlds-fastest-swimmer-but-face-controversy/
  "[Leonard] also made the extraordinary suggestion that the Chinese could be using genetic manipulation to enhance performances."

I personally feel this fact is relevant to the controversy subject by definition. While BLP must be observed, we could be among the first in the world to document existence of artificially created humanoid (which begs the question does BLP apply to humanoids/subhumans/extrahumans?)
Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It really should go without saying, but this is Wikipedia: No, I, for one, am not going to support in any way the truly ludicrous idea of making a Wikipedia biography assert that a living person is an "artificially created humanoid" based upon a vague quotation in a few newspapers and a selective quotation of one newspaper article that actually includes the very important negation "don't" that has miraculously been omitted from the cherrypicked partial quote at the top of this section. This is an utterly wrongheaded suggestion, and a large dose of common sense and clue is in order. Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We should never be "among the first in the world to document" anything. We're an encyclopedia. We organize, reproduce, and document the world's knowledge. We don't create it. --GRuban (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, was simply trying to make a point the vague doping allegation in a few newspapers, where most include a very important negation, is about as ridiculous as the in-vitro genetic manipulation from the same person being quoted.

Please observe BLP on the doping accusation that flies in the face of the established fact IOC mandatory drug test had cleared Ye (BTW she's never failed a drug test), or add the fact genetic manipulation was suggested.

In addition to BLP, is there any concern for notability or reliability of the person who's making the doping allegation? He's widely quoted but again almost invariably include important negation this allegation has been disproven by the highest governing bodies, the IOC and FINA.

I don't care how esteemed editors whom are more elegant than I decide, as long as it's consistent. Thanks!

Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability of allegation

I am looking at the sourcing, the comments, etc, and this being a BLP, I really see no reason to include this information AT ALL in here.

It belongs - if at all - either is the article on the actual competition, or in the BLP of the accuser.

I find it extremely worrying that we allow any spurious, unofficial, and unsupported allegation or accusation made in the media by a bitter rival be given any airing in an encyclopedia.

I am removing all mentions after I post this. We are not a tabloid.

IF the accusation adquires a formal, procedural character, then we can reconsider, until then it is a violation of the spirit and letter of BLP to include this information.

Has BLP become really that worthless? --Cerejota (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A good point, but I'd leave some info in rather than take it all out, considering the amount of coverage that had come out of it, and the Ye being the subject of this coverage, quantitatively its quite notable. Maybe a much shorter (3 lines max) summary with a link to a more comprehensive writeup elsewhere? Zhanzhao (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate what you seek to do, and its a good spirit, but I disagree. The BLP is clear: libelous or even potentially libelous information should be removed completely. There is exactly zero evidence as of now that his "controversy" is about Ye and not about Leonard (as I said, that would be a place to put any info, if at all). There is nearly universal condemnation to Leonard on the part even of the authorities in charge of anti-doping in the olympics. I believe we are contributing to a libelous, bad faith effort if we include even one iota of information here. Now, Leonard is speaking his mind, and there has been significant coverage in RS. Just no here - there is exactly zero merit - as of now - to any implication of foul play. To taint someone's BLP with such nasty crap is to go against the spirit of BLP, period.--Cerejota (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I just realized Leonard doesn't even have an article, and is in fact not notable enough for one. So we are to join into a tabloid/media circus on the word of a guy who sole claim to fame is being a sore loser?--Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yah its an odd situation, where the controversy is much more famous than the accuser, yet threads the line on BLP. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to wikilawyer, but for example, we routinely omit sexual orientation in BLPs unless the person makes a point of establishing it. This is because often unfounded claims about notable people are made, even by other notable people, that are reported in RS. There are other kinds of information that is omitted in BLPs of this very nature. Its actually for cases like this very case that BLP rules emerged. I am saying that unlike other rules, BLP is harshly enforceable and has an objective basis: nothing negative is said unless it is a significant fact in the BLP. This is a couple of days old, next week, there might not even be news, so lets not taint this BLP for now. If there is a change, we can put the info then. I always prefer inclusion over exclusion, except in BLPs. --Cerejota (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worsen verifiability in the name of "spurious news stories", Cerejota. You removed source citations of sources that were directly supporting article content. That's a backwards step, not a forwards one. Take more care with your edits. Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Than you everyone. I learned something. So how do editors walk the line on the issue of media sensationalism? Sensationalism in by nature not factual. Facts in this case wrt Ye is that the final arbiters, IOC and FINA, has stated Ye is clean after the mandatory anti-doping testing. Everything else is media sensationalism to sell paper.
BTW, I encountered the same thing during Beijing Olympics with He Kexin, where even after two investigations by the highest governing bodies verified she was old enough to compete, some editors still ignored BLP and pushed the "age controversy", "doubt" POV in her wiki.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I thought the widely reported disavowing of the allegation and the distancing of the ACTUAL authorities from the persons making the allegations makes the accuser look bad instead of Ye, as it makes her the victim. My take is that if absolutely nothing is written about the allegation and subsequent reporting of her name being cleared, the average reader in Wikipedia may in fact think some form of coverup is happeneing. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A difference with He Kexin is that there were formal allegations, not just loud-mouths bullshit. There is a difference, in terms of BLP, between a fabricated controversy in sensationalism, and an a real actual controversy - even if it is covered in RS in sensationalist terms. --Cerejota (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

let it be said that if ANY mention of the disproven (not that they have to be) allegations of drugs cheating are found within 100 miles of this article, EVERY ALLEGATION OF DRUGS CHEATING ever reported about an american athlete will also be on their page.
the western media, while local, should not be presumed to be a reliable source or a homogeneous entity. theoretically the chinese media talks to a billion people. i fail to see how unregulated american news channels should carry weight over olympic tests in notable comment. i fail to see how american popular gossip or team sour grapes should hold any more weight than a chinese public and doctor.
all we have is evidence,. and there is literally no evidence past sour grapes here.
frankly the idea of a swimmer training their whole life to pull of a performance they should be proud of and then reading they are on wiki as part of a drugs controversy, is disgusting. the exact same standards should also indict half the great athletes that did great things for america or any other country and lets not forget how many of the american athletes have actually been caught cheating over the years.
the whole thing is ridiculous and unless you want to live in a world where every american athlete has a drugs asterisk on their article, i suggest you desist with the obvious, inexcusable sour grapes and racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.133.57 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Censorship?

I came here wishing to learn more about the seemingly false allegations of doping made against this athlete. Why can I not find any information? I will have to look elsewhere it seems. Francium12 (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

this is wikipedia. not a conspiracy theory site.
its not censorship to report the facts of what happened and omit the racist, bigot viewpoint of what happened.
just facts.
"the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" didnt turn out to well in the last decade. maybe this decade people might concentrate on what we do actually know.
they are false allegations, based on the fact she tested clean and has presumption of innocence. its all bs.
doing well in an event is a good thing, not a bad thing.
morally and ethically this could easily be a story about any one of 100 chinese doctors accusing a 1000 american athletes and could be on each of their pages. unless you think your western location makes you more important than the 1000000000 people who live in china and like to gossip about american athletes.
morally and ethically this could easily be a story about americas nasty double standards and hateful attempted and thwarted corruption of a beautiful olympic moment. in fact it is as we actually do know far closer to the truth to make this an anti america story, all things considered.
the reality though, is this is a flat earther saying the world aint round. great. il read all about it on conspiracy theories website. but if i wind up clicking google earth tomorrow and find out the pacific ocean is missing, then theres going to be an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.133.57 (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You can google the tabloid press. This is a non-controversy at the formal level of sports authorities. If it ever becomes a formal accusation, the issue can be revisited. So far, its bullshit defaming a living person, and as such, should be banned.--Cerejota (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

im a stranger here an il leave it to you, whilst taking a passing interest in how wiki deals with these kind of things. my issue with this story is the idea of an innocent competitor training their whole life for that amazing moment they smash a world record, getting gold for their nation and their years of blood sweat and tears pay off. they make their whole world proud of them, only to wake up the next day and read in wikipedia that they are "part of a drug controversy". this is not a controversy. its a conspiracy theory. there has been a strong backlash in the western media against this and frankly wiki has a justified reputation for accuracy and an unjustified (for the most part) reputation for inaccuracy.
it is of course also a striking example of double standards that many of the same people who are happy to defame others, would be livid at waking up tomorrow and seeing each and every one of the american athletes at these games, featuring a section on their articles where they were defamed by the chinese olympic doctor, who has been reported in the daily mail as saying phelps is a drugs cheat, but he is without evidence.
if any athlete is found to have cheated, they will get exactly what they deserve. but an innocent person who achieves true excellence in this world, honouring their nation, family and the incalculable investment of energy and perseverance they have put forth, not to mention honouring the human race itself quite literally (when we are talking about world records), should also get exactly what they deserve. and that isnt waking up the next day and finding they are part of a drugs controversy on wikipedia.
i am stating the obvious when i say that the world comes to wiki for facts. and i am absolutely serious when i say that my faith in the veracity and virtue of our media rests in the hands of people like you Cerejota.
so cheers for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.133.57 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did you come here expecting to learn something that you knew ahead of time to be false? Why do you think that an encyclopaedia is the place for that? Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

wiki needs a policy for this

This project's name is Wikipedia, not wiki.

26 events and 39 disciplines.
wiki doesnt need to be politically correct, just literally correct.
it is obvious these stories will happen in the press, where sensationalism, speculation and endorsed blind patriotism right now, are all rampant. the other day a major american media source had usa over china in the medal table because though tied for golds, and lacking in silvers, america had won more bronzes and therefore more medals. everywhere else had china number one. it was laughable. the very next day america were behind in medals but were winning on golds and were of course still ahead of china in the medal table on american press sites. this will happen. the reasons are obvious. and whether it is the presses job to report the truth or bend it, it is certainly wikipedias job to do one thing. give the public the facts.
it is obvious in a situation like this, akin in many ways to a mini world war, with all against all, and a lot of "face", not to mention blood, sweat and tears on the line, involving 1000s of athletes and literally billions of fans, that these things will happen.
impartiality is a ridiculously naive ideal to pin your reputation on. we are all slaves to contexts that arent easy to understand at first. its not easy to look at your favourite swimmer in the same was as the other teams party spoiling unknown who just destroyed the world record ,.. and your favourite swimmer. indeed the entrys are different slightly for the chinese athlete and the american one mentioned above. one could almost conclude there is an attempt to explain the controversy by the back door going on here.
on the otherhand, assuming it was legal, it is a note worthy achievement that ye has made and that too seems like something that would inspire notes and explanations in the same way a lunar landing has diagrams.
so...to conclude, for all the right and the wrong reasons, impartiality and contextual correctness are very thin lines to thread,
i think what is needed is a cast iron policy from wikipedia that affects everyone. regardless of their colour or their flag.
accuracy should be the standard.
therefore the baseless allegations against "whoever" arent reported here. not because of political correctness, but because there simply is no evidence. even without the clear test, presumption of innocence has to be paramount.
anything else is basically just libelous gossip.
the last point is, that as in war or breaking news, you are dealing with changing circumstances. also, very much like the occasionally good "the newsroom" episode chronicling the shooting of the american senator recently, who turned out to be injured from a bullet in the head and not quite as badly as reported everywhere, you are dealing with changing circumstances in our very understanding of stories themselves. the fact the swimmer is clean, is a fact until proven otherwise. the fact she actually was proven clean by the tests further underline this.
it is the business of newspapers to sell paper to the public with words written on them that people want to read. these words can be anything related to news. they can be information, opinion, spin, speculation, patriotism, populist propaganda, ... lies, gossip and hate campaigns.
wikipedia on the other hand has to be accurate, because wikipedia is not where people come for news and gossip. wikipedias reputation lies on the fact that it is where the world comes for facts.
so even in the somewhat less than "war serious" topic of sport, it is a good test of the system itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.133.57 (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a policy: WP:BLP. --Cerejota (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Similar to Katie Ledecky

The improvements by Katie Ledecky has been tremendous and even greater than Ye Shiwen's improvements. A small note here if anyone wants to mention it in the article or whatnot.

Article for consideration: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1284263-2012-summer-olympics-katie-ledeckys-performance-should-help-ye-shiwens-case

--LLTimes (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Four men, or more men?

Can someoone fix this? It says in the article " Lochte's overall time was 23.25 seconds faster, 4:05.18, than Ye's, as were the times of three other competitors in the men's 400m IM." That's not true. Swimming at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metre individual medley. Every (all 8) men's time in the men's 400 IM final was at least 10 seconds faster. Also, regarding the Katie Ledecky thing. Not only did she improve by 5 seconds from the Olympic trials, but she improved by 6 seconds from before the Olympic trials, so her personal best essentially increased by 11 seconds within a month. http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/USA/31095.asp. Maybe this isn't the best place to put that, but if you are going to reference Ledecky, I think that would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.81.38 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

See #Edit request on 31 July 2012 above. We need to re-check what the sources have to say about this, but it might just be the time over the final leg that they're talking about for those four, in which case the article needs some slight clarification on that point. Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.133.57 (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

90% of the 2012 section is speculation over whether she took drugs.

wikipedia is a joke.
phelps was also accused of taking drugs by the chinese team doctor and thats a much better source than a bbc presenters passing thoughts.
where is that on his page?
this whole thing is ridiculous. wikipedia is basically corrupt as long as it shows double standards over western media v eastern media and allows the usa contingent to shoe horn a ridiculous assault on the character of a 15 year old girl that won a medal.
they were incorrect after all. conspiracy theories on ye, belong in the tin foil hat bin.
this site is basically crapping all over objectivity and impartiality and showing favouritism and bias in favour of american butt hurt.
well done wikipedia for becoming a site that used to be trustworthy and has now become the online arm of american media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.133.57 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you propose to fix it then? -- Luke (Talk) 17:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

get rid of the gossip section. she raced hard and acheived glory. and she has to deal with a gossip section? chinese people gossip about phelps and so did the team doctor, and yet no gossip section for phelps. its bullshit.
double standards are double standards. there is a place for speculation. speculation v a clean drugs test or presumption of innocence is not valid. it is not controversy. its a conspiracy theory.

why are you putting conspiracy theories in a biography.
this is not even like the jfk example. not only do we not have a smoking gun, we dont have a crime in the first place. its ridiculous.
have a separate section over conspiracy theories about this swimmer and a separate link to that.
thats how id fix it. accuracy is all there is. and relevancy needs to be determined by FACT, not by erroneous speculation that didnt even come from a uniform or hard source. there was no hard accusation and there was no uniformity in the gossip.
1 she is a 15 year old girl
2 there was no hard accusation only the manufactured weasal fox esque "people may question".
3 there is obvious bias given she beat americans
4 there were valid sourced counter allegations about the american team that wikipedia has ignored.
5 the cultural context of china leading the medal table and overtaking americas economy in the next decade has completely been ignored.
6 the olympics are not a western context, but a world one and the west is in disagreement mostly about whether the question should ever have been asked at all.
7 there are 1000s of reports that dont mention drugs. guess what. they arent featured in her article.
this article is basically wikipedia signing off as a relevant independent objective entity. it needs to be fixed and with an ABSOLUTELY even had with regards to if it was phelps or an american athlete.
you want the acid test.
if north korea accused phelps of taking drugs would it be featured. if the north korean doctor and media accused phelps by "one has to question" would it be relevant? of course not.
as for the bbc source, theres a reason she phrased it like that, precisely so it couldnt be legally used against her. if she had made the accusation she would have lost her job and been vulnerable to libel cases.
once again this weight is missing and that is ignored by wikipedia, as are the socres of bbc reports that report this in the hard context of american paranoia over china and rivalry with china.
why arent they here? would it annoy the americans? truth hurts. and this article has 90% nothing to do with reality.
its a bloody conspiracy theory. what happened to this place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.133.57 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Chill, there's already a discussion above by editors with general consensus to keep it out as per BLP. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

BBC

bbc just reported the ye conspiracy theory as an example of american paranoia and sibbering rivalry with china.

why isnt this quoted here? bbc just provided a hard context on the story. david bond, 1820, bbc news. bbc1. an american team doctor accused ye of doping, exposing the simmering rivalry between the two nations. and yet even though this is now the bbcs context for the story, we have one presenter thinking out loud, without even making any accusation. you know why she didnt directly make an accusation. because she would get sued and sacked. and again, this is not part of the article. the daily mail accused the steven lawrence killers of being murderers. "if we are wrong, let them sue us." the bbc presenter in this story didnt even make an accusation or even ask a question, the weasal device of "people will question" was used. again, this article is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.133.57 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

See above. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you even finish reading the whole paragraph? It presents the controversy by quoting the exact words of people making the allegations, then cites other respectable voices stating that the allegations are ludicrous and baseless. Overall I think it is a fair and balanced treatment of this very notable issue. -Zanhe (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP concerns

I understand the sentiment that the allegations against Ye were unfair and should be kept out of the article, with WP:BLP being repeatedly cited. However, that's based on a misunderstanding of the BLP policy. BLP says contentious material may be included if reliable sources are cited, and that the writing is balanced and tone neutral. The removed section meets both requirements. Besides, whether we like it or not, the doping allegation is extremely notable and many people come to Wikipedia in search for neutral and well-balanced information about it, as opposed to many uninformed or biased media reports. Removing the section robs people of the chance to get a balanced picture of the whole deal. -Zanhe (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In which case the allegations should be moved to the later part of that section, or have a separate section made. As of now, its overshadowing the subject of the heading and what is definitely non controversial/debatable, which is the writeup regarding her performance in the games. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, this is not BLP. A very simple test IMHO would be "how should this wiki be written if it was my daughter?"

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah bro, source fetishism is allowed in other areas, but not BLPs. BLP explicitly says that even when sourced, there should be care to evaluate the validity of

You are confusing the general principle and policy of verifiability with the spirit and the letter of WP:BLP - while for most articles the simple criteria of verification is enough to debate and seek consensus for inclusion, WP:BLP in fact creates a special kind of article, called a Biography of a Living Person, in which this criteria is not enough.

Just because a fake controversy exists, it doesn't mean an athletes' biography, in particular when the athlete is living, is the place for it. I have removed the violation of BLP. --Cerejota (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this looks like a nine-day wonder which should not be included unless more happens. PatGallacher (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I do share the sentiment that the accusations are baseless, and totally understand the desire to wipe the whole episode out of Wikipedia as if it hadn't happened. However, I firmly believe that such desire is misguided and against the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. Nothing in WP:BLP says widely reported, well-sourced controversies about living people are to be excluded from Wikipedia. For far more fringe-y conspiracy theories about another living person, see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. And there is nearly unanimous support to keep such notable controversies on Wikipedia, see WP:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (2nd nomination). A quote from that discussion: "Like any conspiracy theories article which documents idiotic nonsense spewed by morons who choose to ignore facts/logic/reason, there is a proper way to go about writing the article while carefully avoiding the promotion of said theories." I think the deleted paragraph does a decent job at that. -Zanhe (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I know it can sometimes be annoying when people just say "no consensus" but I think in this case it is justified. The controversy surrounding Barack Obama has been rumbling for a few years, a different situation. PatGallacher (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't find your reasoning very sound. The key factor is not the length of the controversy, but the notability; otherwise we'd have to purge all recent events from Wikipedia. And the Ye Shiwen controversy is doubtless highly notable. If you google her name, almost every resulting link mentions the controversy. The main objection to its inclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the WP:BLP policy. As the debate on the Obama citizenship controversy has shown, including such notable controversies does not violate BLP. On the contrary, deliberately excluding such well-known controversies reeks of censorship. -Zanhe (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There were similar unsubstantiated rumours of blood changing in relation to Lasse Viren, where it has been decided not to mention this in his biography. Admittedly there were some oddities in his performance over the years, but there was likely an inoccent explanation for this. Another case of Americans being bad losers? PatGallacher (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the two cases are not similar at all. The content about the blood doping suspicion on Lasse Viren was completely unsourced and therefore in clear violation of BLP. It was summarily removed without any discussion, as no discussion is necessary for such a clear-cut case. -Zanhe (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so, but you only need to do a yahoo search for "lasse viren blood" to find a significant amount of material which could be added, whether it should be added is another matter. PatGallacher (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to take a position on whether the accusations should be included or exluded, but I just wanted to note that at the moment this article (the 2012 section) reads like a defensive justification of her 2012 results WITHOUT stating exactly why they are controversial. If there is no mention of the allegations at all, then the whole following paragraphs (explaining how the results are legitimately comparable to other athletes, not out of the ordinary compared to male swimmers, etc) doesn't seem to have a real purpose. Depending on the conclusion that is reached, I suggest this be addressed in the revisions.

(159.18.26.14 (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

The section about those claims seems overly long compared to the rest of that section. It basically takes up about 1/3 of that whole section. Its not just a question of BLP, but also UNDUE. I note that there is a 4 to 1 for removing it, not counting me which would have made it 5 to 1. I've tagged the page to invite additional feedback on this issue. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

800m race?

Why must there be information about another swimmer in the 800 meter race? Ye Shiwen hasn't raced there yet, and the olympics are already over. I wonder if this comparison is necessary to be included. Should it be removed due to its lack of necessity? --George Ho (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it was put in because the 800M winner also had doping rumors. (Dumarest (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

It was added because American coach John Leonard made high-profile doping accusation against Ye Shiwen, saying her extraordinary improvement "unbelievable", but a few days later the American swimmer Ledecky won the 800m race with even more dramatic improvement on her personal best, discrediting Leonard's remarks. However, since many editors were against including Leonard's accusation on BLP concerns (see discussion above), the controversy has been downplayed and the connection between Ye and Ledecky's performances is less clear in the current version. -Zanhe (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Just found out that the article was nominated for DYK more than two weeks ago. You're welcome to add your review or comment to the nomination template below. -Zanhe (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is now closed but still viewable at Template:Did you know nominations/Ye Shiwen. -Zanhe (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Article is obviously bias

This article is obviously bias. It was probably written by some Chinese person whose sense of ethnic or national pride is getting in the way of an objective analysis.

Let me explain.

First of all, it is true the article mentions Ryan Lochte's last 100m being basically the same as Ye Shiwen. And the article (to its credit) mentions that this is one reason that people are suspicious of her swim. The article then goes on, however, to basically try and explain this away by saying that Locthe had a big lead at the 300m whereas Ye Shiwen did not, so Ye Shiwen was motivated whereas Lochte was not, and that explains their same times on the last 100m. This isn't convincing. The article ignores the fact that it is not simply that Ye Shiwen's last 100m was essentially the same time as Lochte's, but that it was amazingly close (about .5 second) to Phelps last 100m, who was, by the way, behind at the 300m mark. Ye Shiwen's last 100m is freakish not so much because of Lochte's time, but because of her time relative to the best male swimmers in the world. Not only that, her last 100m is freakishly faster compared to anything that has ever been swum by a woman in the last 100m of the 400IM. The fact that her time was essentially the same as Lochte's on the last 100m was repeated over and over again because it was an easy way to point out the freakishness of the swim, but the freakishness of her swim does not hinge on Lochte's last 100m.

Second of all, the article fails to mention the history of Chinese female swimmers doping. It fails to mention the girls in 2009 that were found doping. It fails to mention the 16 year old teammate -- I forget her name -- of Ye Shiwen that was found doping earlier this year. This was a key reason why people are suspicious of Ye Shiwen, and I think an objective analysis of her swim mentions this history.

Third of all, for every reason that people had for thinking Ye Shiwen is doping, the article provides minimal or no support (quotes or otherwise) to back this up. But it goes on and on providing support to discredit it. You call that balanced? Please.

Wikpedia is not supposed to be a place for making argument on one side or the other. It's a place for reporting. Lay out the facts, in a balanced way, and let the readers decide for themselves what to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.141.21 (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Answers to your points:

1. Ye Shiwen's performance in her last 100 meters, while extraordinary, was not "freakish". It was actually slower than Rebecca Adlington's time in the 2011 World Championships.

2. There are always dopers in sports, but no athlete should be judged by the behavior of other athletes. It's now widely known that Lance Armstrong and Floyd Landis have doped; do you think we should mention them and cast suspicion on all other American cyclists?

3. I agree that the highly notable (though without evidence) accusations against Ye Shiwen should be covered in more detail, but most people were against it due to WP:BLP concerns (see "BLP concerns" discussion above). And as far as I can tell, those against including it are mostly not Chinese, while the Chinese Wikipedia actually covers the controversy in greater detail. So your suspicion that the article was "written by some Chinese person whose sense of ethnic or national pride is getting in the way of an objective analysis" is unwarranted. -Zanhe (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)