Talk:Adelina Sotnikova

No mention yet of being awarded a dubious Olympic gold medal?

For starters: Sochi scandal as Putin blamed for bias judging.

"one of the nine members of the judges panel was Alla Shekhovtseva, who is the wife of Valentin Piseev. He is the president and general director of the Russian Skating Federation." 86.182.42.172 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, read twice: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/20/sports/olympics/womens-figure-skating.html 188.255.34.200 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How the fact that one of the judges is somebody's wife relates to her qualification as a judge? It is a trivial fact that FS judges are not taken from the street but are deeply rooted to the figure skating world. Every judge represents a country and potentially can promote its interests and it is why the team of judges is always international. In other words how any of her relatives make her more "Pro-Russian" than just the fact of her Russian nationality? The free skating event was evaluated by 9 judges with only one Russian among them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asterno (talk • contribs) 11:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy over gold medal

1) "Sotnikova's win is considered the most controversial decision in figure skating history" - by whom? It's no more controversial than win of Evan Lysacek or even win of Meryl Davis/Charlie White and definitely less controversial than win of Sarah Hughes; 2) Where are opposite opinions, I mean, for example, opinions of Tara Lipinski, Elvis Stojko, Irina Rodnina, Alexei Urmanov?--91.122.112.96 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. Hughes' victory, while unexpected (and even flukeish), was not a gift. She delivered a flawless free skate (which Slutskaya did not) and due to the oddities of the old ordinal system, placed first fair and square. The only ones who had a problem with it were the Russians who predictably filed a protest. Lycasek's victory provoked a discussion about the merits of the new code, but no one was accused of any dodgy judging. Lycasek knew how to work the code, that's all. Davis and White were unbeaten the entire season, there was NO controversy there. Alexei Urmanov? Who only one who had a problem with that was the perennial sore loser, Plushenko.

Sotnikova was definitely gifted and it's an embarrassment to the sport. Notice how she hasn't been seen much since? At least the baby ballerinas Russia has now (Rodionova et al.) are actually good skaters. 208.185.94.10 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014

Аделина Дмитриевна Сотникова does not deserve what she got(the gold medal). Even in the gala show for 2014 Sochi Olympics, she could not jump well. 112.144.243.42 (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: We just convey encyclopedic facts as reported by independent reliable sources. The best way for you to change what is on this page because you don't think she deserved what she got (the gold medal) is to have that medal taken away from her and get all of the sources that reported on it to change their story. Other than that, have a nice day. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2014

The Koreans did protest the results. Also the technical base scores, which are only a part of the total, were only 2 points higher than Yuna Kim's. The PCS and GOE scores are where Sotniskova's scores dominate, hence the controversy.

216.59.118.157 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Shortening the controversy paragraph in 2013–2014 season

Could we shorten this paragraph? I was thinking of removing all the individual opinions, (Hamilton, Wagner and Stojko) they can go to the Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles#Controversy article. Only the information reported by the newspapers should stay? Or, we keep them, but only list one person per side of the argument, because Hamilton and Stojko are basically saying the same thing. We could also find a better quote for Wagner, or find somebody else to endorse the other side of the argument. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No reply, so I went ahead and removed the skaters' opinions. This is to keep that paragraph shorter so as to not apply undue weight. Also, there is a "main article" at Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles#Response, where all those opinions are already stated. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh the irony....

All the fuss about how Sotnikova's performance was not a gold winning display and how it is clear her marks were at best generous and at worst manipulated. And yet it clear Aiki editors are doing the same thing the Russians are accused of!

No one else bask in the irony. Many of you should get a job in Putin's Russia. :-P 82.132.244.26 (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We're just reporting what the sources said. There is a balanced point of view here, with both sides of the story being reported. The Wagner quote could be improved though. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"journalistic controversy" in the sub-section header and the text

To LawrencePrincipe and all other editors, I'd like to hear your comments about the inclusion of 'journalistic controversy' in the sub-section header and the text. In my opinion there is no doubt that there is journalistic controversy from newspapers and journalists, but it would be narrow-minded to say that there is only journalistic controversy. Firstly, South Korea has written a letter of protest. Secondly, many former skaters have weighed in on the 'debate', they should not be counted as journalists. Thirdly, in what I deem 'public' controversy, a petition on change.org calling for an investigation into the judging has earned 2 million signatures to date. Therefore I propose that we... remove 'journalistic' from the sub-section header, leaving it as just 'controversy' or 'judging controversy'. In the text itself, I propose that we either a) remove journalistic or b) add 'public' as in 'journalistic and public controversy'. This keeps the sub-section header short. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of "journalistic." Unless a controversy directly involves journalists and their work, methods, rights, etc, it's not "journalistic," it's just covered by journalists who have opinions, like all controversies. "Judging controversy" might be better if more clarification for the sub-sec/sub-sec header is needed. INeverCry 23:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How about in the paragraph itself? Would you prefer just "controversy", just "public controversy" or "journalistic and public controversy" to cover the newspapers, skaters and wider public? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I would think just controversy is enough. INeverCry 18:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Talk page discussion on selection of best wording/description for Gold medal debate in the press. The definition of an Official Controversy is usually in 3-parts: (a) a formal protest is filed with the Olympics oversight committee, (b) the protest is acknowledged and a panel in assigned to investigate the matter and gather relevant data of the competition, (c) the assigned panel recommends corrective action to the senior Olympics administration for judgment and action. These three phases are normally required for an Official protest to be acknowledged as a controversy. Any re-write done should also note that the ISU has as of 26 February not acknowledged receipt of any letter of protest from Korea, even though a report was made last week that such a letter may or may not be sent. On 21 February 2014 the International Skating Union (ISU) issued the following statement: The ISU is strongly committed to conducting performance evaluations strictly and fairly and has adequate procedures in place to ensure the proper running of the sporting competitions. The officiating judges were selected by random drawing from a pool of 13 potential judges. All judges in an event represent different ISU member federations. The Ladies free skating panel included judges from Canada, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine. To avoid exaggerated markings the highest and the lowest scores entered by the judges are excluded to produce the final score. The technical panel determines the elements of each performed program. The judges add a mark, grading the quality of the skater’s execution of the elements so identified. The technical marks and the artistic presentation marks are added together to produce the final score of the skater./ The ISU has not received any official protest with regard to the Ladies’ Free Skating event or any other event held during the Sochi 2014 Olympic Games and is confident in the high quality and integrity of the ISU judging system. (ISU Statement on the ISU Judging System |date=21 February 2014 |publisher=International Skating Union). Media reports on 22 February 2014 stated that the South Korean Olympic Committee had planned to lodge an official inquiry request to the International Skating Union though nothing has been acknowledged by the ISU as of 27 February. (newspaper=Toronto Star |first=Barry |last=Wilner |agency=Associated Press |date=22 February 2014). No coverage at all of the event was placed on 26 or 27 February in either NY Times, Chicago Tribune, or the LA Times. As of the close of the Sochi Olympics on 23 February 2014, no formal protest of the competition had been made to the Sochi Olympics committee. If one of you does the re-write then the terms "Formal controversy" or "Judges controversy" should not be used since these are technical terms as defined above, and some alternative might be more neutral. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

LawrencePrincipe - not sure why you brought in the definition of "Official Controversy" or later mentioned "Formal controversy", nobody has mentioned that here in this discussion or in the article? Controversies don't have to be "official", in this case even if South Korea didn't file the protest, you have newspapers, skaters and the public being involved. "Judging controversy" is not used a technical term but simply a description, because the controversy was not Sotnikova's performance, but how her performance was judged. If "Judging controversy" still offends you, then we're just going to put simply "controversy", as it already is in the section header. Nothing in front of that.

So - LawrencePrincipe would you prefer for the text, not the header, to state "journalistic and public controversy", or just simply "controversy"? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

If it is still unclear, then I am still siding with the NY Times which has declined to acknowledge this as a "controversy" at all, and the NY Times prefers to describe this event as an "Upset Victory" with many criticisms made in the press (see link below). Now that one week has passed and no-one, not one single country has filed a formal complaint, then there is no real reason for Wikipedia to continue to taint this Gold medal by calling it a controversy of any type and risk possible BLP violations. Editing should follow the NY Times standard for reporting an "Upset Victory" and the criticisms which followed it. Blaming a young athlete who has won and been awarded a Gold medal which no-one has formally contested after a full week (now a full 7 days) as being a part of a controversy is not what Wikipedia normally does or endorses. The NY Times approach of identifying an "Upset Victory" with many criticisms reported (but no language of controversy) is preferable for rewrites. NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/sports/olympics/adelina-sotnikovas-upset-victory-is-hard-to-figure.html?action=click&contentCollection=Olympics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article&_r=0 LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

LawrencePrincipe there was no need to include the whole official response! See WP:Undue, my whole point of starting this section on the talk page was to trim the paragraph down, not to expand it. All that information you just added can go to the main article Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles#Response instead of Sotnikova's article. I will be trimming the information down to only what is really needed.

Also, just because the New York Times doesn't say it's a controversy in one article, doesn't mean it's not a controversy. There doesn't need to be an official protest for a controversy to happen in sport, if there is a dubious decision or rule-breaking then controversy can happen. See Hand of God by Diego Maradona in football, no protest is listed in the main article of the match, yet Maradona's page called it an "international fiasco" and the disambiguation page calls it a controversial goal.

As long as multiple reliable sources call it a controversy, it's a controversy. See another New York Times article, ABC, USA Today, Reuters and the Assoicated Press. However, to move forward, I'm going to remove the word controversy from the sub-section header. That will lessen conflict. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reorganized / trimmed / summarized the content in the article, picked a neutral name for the sub-section (which does not mention controversy), replaced "controversy" within the text to with "win ... was described as controversial and an upset by the media", and backed up with even more sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

(Reset tab for readability)

The normal Wikipedia approach to documenting any debate is to first list the Official decisions governing the debate followed by the pro-and-contra discussions concerning the debate, in that order. Your second paragraph in the new subsection appears to get this in reverse order and I have replaced it with the text of the only Official document available in this matter which is the ISU statement. If you insist on augmenting once again, it should be noted that you are more or less alone at this point. No country has opposed the ISU statement. None. Also, virtually the entire mainstream press has abandoned covering this story for the last three, even four days (for example, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, LA Times). Given these realities, there is no reason that Sotnikova should be associated with any BLP controversy or anything BLP controversial. As far as the start of this new month and as far as all relevant parties are concerned at the ISU this is now an uncontested Gold medal award. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, from my point of view, I'm trying to do it chronologically. That whole statement that you inserted was only written in response to the controversy and widespread debate. It makes no sense that a response (even an official one) comes before the thing that it is supposed to respond to. And having the whole response is WP:UNDUE weight. Lastly, as long as multiple reliable sources (New York Times, Chicago Tribute, [1]) call it a controversy, it is a controversy. I don't know why you can't understand that. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources write. It also seems to me that right now, you're as alone as I am. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Does it make sense to allow things to stand for a day or so to allow others to get involved prior to further edits. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to let it stand... after I re-add back your removal of the word "controversial", which you claimed that you were simplifying (but how does "controversial" simplify to "upset"?) which was already reliably sourced by the Chicago Tribune (USA), and I am going to add even more sources that say it is controversial, such as the Telegraph (UK) and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Who are you to contradict reliable sources all over the world? But yes, it can stand now. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Journalistic 2: Non-effect of original press flurry (section break for ease of access for users)

It has become apparent that after an initial press flurry for 2-3 days regarding Sotnikova's Gold medal, that during the Last 2-3 days the press coverage has virtually disappeared from the entire mainstream press with no further mainstream coverage. The reason is that the ISU did not acknowledge receiving one single protest about the Gold medal from any nation. In the absence of any formal protest, the initial press flurry was abandoned in the press and is presently receiving no coverage in the mainstream press. User:Starship has reverted my edit to clarify the new current status 3 times. Should the current version of the Sochi Olympics subsection be modified to note that this issue is no longer covered in the mainstream press because the ISU presently (as of 1 March 2014) considers it as officially an uncontested Gold medal? @User:Starship, You may confirm that there has been no press coverage in the last 72 hours (3 days) in either the NY Times, Chicago Tribune, or LA Times. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove your info out of spite, it was because there was no source cited. We don't post "real-time" updates at Wikipedia with no sources. So what are you trying to get at here? I get it, for the past three days, there has been only a little follow-up. That doesn't mean the controversy didn't previously exist. That's no excuse to remove information that the controversy ever existed. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The section on the "controversy" is much too long and detailed. We should give the result of her competing and a short summary/detail on the supposed contoversy. Also, Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles#Response should perhaps be linked in the short summary, rather than directly under the header as if the controversy were the main thing about her participation at the Olympics. That takes attention away from the proper focus which is that she won the gold medal. INeverCry 19:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the section is way too long. We need to trim it down. The first paragraph is fine (except for whether to use "anger", but that can be settled later).

The second paragraph of the ISU statement is a big problem to me. There is no need for the full official statement to be present in Sotnikova's article. We should trim it down to the relevant points. The International Skating Union claimed on 21 February that they had not received any official protest with regard to Sotnikova's event. is the first point and is already present in the third paragraph. The second point can be that the ISU defended the integrity of its judges and judging process. That's it. Which summarizes to In response, the International Skating Union on 21 February defended the integrity of its judges and judging process, and also claimed that they had not received any official protest with regard to Sotnikova's event.

The third paragraph is also too long for me. I propose deleting the information that the New York Times and Reuters reported. Those can go to Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. Meanwhile, the In response sentence I mentioned above replaces the NYT and Reuters info. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: remove all the text regarding the controversy

If athlete is caught doping then the controversy is about the athlete. If scoring is questionable then the controversy is about the event. The controversy is not about Sotnikova, it's about the event's judging. This issue was a good section on the ladies' singles page, where this issue belongs. Having it here doesn't add anything to Sotnikova's article. Also, it makes it harder to update this issue when there are five wiki articles with a dozen paragraphs on the issue. Thoughts? Kirin13 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose removing all mentions of a controversy. But the article in its current edition is fine with me. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur, with Starship.paint to leave article in current form - mention controversy, but leave it's discussion on ladies' page. Kirin13 (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adelina Sotnikova. 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/20090610032406/http://goldskate.ru:80/schedule/RusJuniors2009.html to http://www.goldskate.ru/schedule/RusJuniors2009.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 10:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Doping at Sochi Olympics by Russians

The TV show "60 Minutes" will have interviews this Sunday, May 8, 2016 with Russian doping officials (Vitaly Stepananov, Grigory Rodchenko) who will testify that doping of Russian athletes at the Sochi Winter Olympics actually occurred and that four gold medal winning Russian athletes at Sochi were on steroids. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adelina Sotnikova. 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/20140324103145/http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00010832.htm to http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00010832.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-olympics-figureskating-russia-sotniko-idUSBREA1K18T20140221

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Adelina Sotnikova. 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/20140305142408/http://en.itar-tass.com/sochi-2014-winter-olympics-and-paralympics/720678 to http://en.itar-tass.com/sochi-2014-winter-olympics-and-paralympics/720678
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140722053510/http://isuprod.blob.core.windows.net/media/156252/gp_ladies_updated-july-18.pdf to http://isuprod.blob.core.windows.net/media/156252/gp_ladies_updated-july-18.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903023855/http://www.ifsmagazine.com/articles/474-girl-power-a-russian-uprising to http://www.ifsmagazine.com/articles/474-girl-power-a-russian-uprising
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/us-olympics-figureskating-russia-sotniko-idUSBREA1K18T20140221

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)