Talk:Kamila Valieva/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• FFS p6DWUAUxojx.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ndhfnvn.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

selective interpretation of trimetazidine effects

as of now, locked article says "trimetazidine, a heart medication which can help endurance and increase blood flow efficiency". that is not in line with details in trimetazidine article. remove the selective interpretation of trimetazidine effects. instead amend the article to say "trimetazidine, which is in World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited substances list under the category of “hormone and metabolic modulators”, or part of that. which is in line with trimetazidine article.2402:4000:2081:A720:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Doping Rumors

Kamila Valieva's page should be locked for the time being while the rumors of her doping scandal die down/get sorted out. 2601:244:280:C810:F1D6:A3C:571C:D0C1 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I've put in a request. -Riley1012 (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

as of now article says "she tested positive for the banned drug trimetazidine, a heart medication which can help endurance and increase blood flow efficiency". sources cited say no such thing . there are only rumors of a positive test. neither IOC or ISU has confirmed any positive test. it is significant that this page was locked after someone posted that misinformation. is wikipedia being used to slander this child? 2402:4000:2081:A720:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not true, multiple RS have confirmed the positive test. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

if so, cite sources with such confirmation. current AP citation does not confirm any such test. nor does Reuters - Tétrault-Farber, Gabrielle; Axon, Iain; Grohmann, Karolos (10 February 2022). "Russian teen skater Valieva trains after reports of failed drug test". Reuters. Retrieved 9 February 2022. according to all citable sources , 1/ both IOC and ISU were very clear they are not confirming a positive test. 2/ unconfirmed allegations are about a test that took place in December 2021. Currently this article is misinformation. and it was locked just after posting of that misinformation. don't use wikipedia for a slanderous campaign. 2402:4000:2081:A720:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Without weighing in on the content concern (I'm not up-to-date enough on the news to know what's correct), IP, please see WP:Wrong Version. In essence, people will ALWAYS say that administrators have protected the "wrong version." But page protection isn't a means of locking the "right version" of a page in place; rather, its sole purpose is to make you stop edit warring and start discussing the issue on the talk page. And several editors here are actively working to make sure the article is as accurate and reliable as possible. No one is us[ing] wikipedia for a slanderous campaign, I promise. Aerin17 (t • c) 15:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

reports are not the same thing as "rumors", plus NBC confirmed. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

seems from reports that olympic officials actually confirmed her positive test yesterday. we should update cites though. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

administrators did protect the "wrong version.". cited AP source directly contradicted statement in article (quoted above in the discussion). as facts stand now statement is still misleading - test, held in December 2021, and positive results of which were privately released after a delay of 2 months, (more than the 20 day deadline as per WADA rules), on February 8, after she won on 7th, was publicly confirmed only on February 11. There was no media "reports" of any confirmed test before February 11, all the media, including "NBC", qualified their reports with lack of confirmation. this article failed to do that, and misinformation was locked. also all her tests after December (released according to rules) including tests at Winter 2022 games, have been negative. Even "reports" of the "rumors"/unconfirmed allegations, in period between 8th and 11th, were clear, that referred test was in December 2021. I have also pointed out the articles's current selective interpretation of trimetazidine effects separately, with a suitable amendment taken from trimetazidine article, if more than a link to that article is needed. that biased selective interpretation was also locked, even though it was not inline with trimetazidine article. 2402:4000:2081:A720:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

i suggest instead for continuing with current locked misinformation due to an obvious slandering campaign against this child, based on latest verified reports, current mostly false statement: "She is also a 2022 Olympic champion in the team event pending investigation into reports that she tested positive for the banned drug trimetazidine, a heart medication that increases endurance and blood flow efficiency". be amended to, "She is also a 2022 Olympic champion in the team event pending investigation into reports that she tested positive for the banned drug trimetazidine, in December 2021. Provisional suspension imposed on her after delayed results of that test was released on February 8th (day after the team event), was lifted on appeal by RUSADA's independent Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DAC) on 9 February. That decision was upheld by Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on February 14. That ruling, deciding that preventing her from competing "would cause her irreparable harm in the circumstances", would allow her to compete in the women’s single events at Olympic games. The favorable decision from the court was made on three grounds. 1/ Due to her age, she is a "Protected Person" as per WADA Code, subject to different rules than adult athletes. 2/ Athlete "did not test positive during the Olympic Games in Beijing. 3/ "there were serious issues of untimely notification of the results, ... which impinged upon the Athlete’s ability to establish certain legal requirements for her benefit". sources https://apnews.com/article/winter-olympics-kamila-valieva-doping-decision-0dd063b5092681697525b69cd0c7212d https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Ad_Hoc_Media_Release_Beijing_8.pdf 2402:4000:2381:7D3:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

it is telling about "editing standards" here, that two of the grounds on which lifting of suspension was upheld (no positive tests after December 2021, including at Beijing, and unexplained delay in release of December 2021 results by a Swedish lab till end of team event), were not posted in to locked article. even though i pointed out valid sources mentioning both. instead current mostly false statement, with its implication she tested positive at Beijing (which was posted initially based on unconfirmed reports/rumor before test results were even confirmed on 11th), was allowed to stand unamended. still including a very selective interpretation of effects of trimetazidine (again disregarding a proposed amendment to that based on WADA section of trimetazidine article here). unbiased! "as accurate and reliable as possible"! who are you kidding? 2402:4000:2381:7D3:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see that the Russian propaganda mill has managed to "correct" this article. Good work boys, now, go figure out how claim the Ukraine was a threat! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.45.166.161 (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! It's hard work but I'm proud to say we earn every ruble. By the way, did you know that Ukraine was actually planning a sneak attack on the US city of Bangor Maine, seeking a warm weather beach vacation location, but Russia bravely stood up to such aggression to defend even a distrusted rival. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Please correct the typo. It is not Carnatine, it is Carnitine

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/14/sports/olympics/valieva-drug-test-heart-medications.html The article is locked so I am unable to make correction to wikipedia. Wiki now says Carnatine.

"Valieva had declared three products on a doping control form that was submitted with the now-failed test. Those products, the document said, were L-carnitine, Hypoxen and Supradyn, an immunity boosting supplement".

--91.159.188.74 (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixed! Aerin17 (t • c) 00:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Carnitine and hypoxen

Both of these agents are dubious dietary supplements, not heart drugs, justifying this revision. There are no WP:MEDRS reviews to support calling either one a drug; they are basically useless to take, according to publicly available evidence. This NIH article for carnitine has a section on "cardiovascular diseases" for which there is insufficient clinical evidence that it has any effect on cardiovascular function in a healthy teenager or adult, an athlete, or in treating any cardiovascular disease. See further description at the carnitine article and this 2019 scientific review. Hypoxen is just a trade name invention (many Russian supplement websites) for a supplement with ferric oxide ingredients, also having no scientific evidence of any benefit. In a NY Times article today, a cardiologist and two exercise physiologists described carnitine and hypoxen as having no effect for enhancing athletic performance. Zefr (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We have to follow the what sources say, and the sources we have cited, two New York Times articles refer to them as drugs, and heart medication. The New York Times article you linked here begins: "The test that detected three drugs in the blood of the 15-year-old Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva...". We also have to be sure that we're avoiding Original Research. Also in the article previously linked L-carnitine is described as being less than useful, but Hypoxen is not described that way, with Hypoxen their cardiologist simply states: "I don't know whether it works or doesn't work." It's also pointed out in the article that the interaction of these three drugs leads to unknown effects. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Also in regards to WP:MEDRS, it would be relevant to an article about one of the drugs in question which would discuss them in detail, with side effects and studies and the like, but not in this article which is mentioning in passing an athlete testing positive for them and what they are, but here's a study from the Biology bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 2010 v.37 no.4 pp. 346-350 titled The drug hypoxen: A new inhibitor of mitochondrial respiration and dehydrogenases. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyhow scholarly sources referring to hypoxen as a drug:

• Gastroprotective properties of mexidol and hypoxen: "The gastroprotective properties of drugs are probably related to their antioxidant and antihypoxant effects." Eksp Klin Farmakol here
• Possibilities of the pharmacological correction of adaptive reactions of human organism in short-term moving from middle to high altitude: "It was assessed the efficacy of drugs belonging to the class of actoprotectors and antihypoxants... the adaptation upon taking 0.5 g hypoxen was observed on the 3rd day..." Eksp Klin Farmakol here
• Protective effect of activators of biological oxidation in nitrite intoxication in rats: "The purpose of the study was to asses the effect of mexidol, cudesan, hypoxen and essenciale on the functions of the immune system, liver and muscular tissue in nitrite intoxication... Both the combinations increased the rate of the drug biotransformation in the liver." Antibiot Khimioter here
• Effects of hypoxen on morphological and functional state of the liver under of exogenous intoxication conditions: "The effects of hypoxen on the metabolic processes in the liver tissue have been investigated on experimental animals (rats) with model tetrachloromethane (CCl4) induced toxic liver damage. It is established that the drug decreases the activity of transaminases and lactate dehydrogenase" Eksp Klin Farmakol here
• The effect of hypoxen on the stress-induced ulcerogenesis in rats: "Prophylactic treatment with hypoxen in a daily dose of 50 mg/kg over a 5-day period decreased the number of ulcers and the total area of erosive injury in the mucous membrane, decreased the lipid peroxidation rate, and reduced the involution of thymus gland. This drug action can be classified as gastroprotective." Eksp Klin Farmakol here
• Antihypoxants in emergency medicine: "Presents the results of many-year experimental studies, clinical trials, and medical use of drugs of a new pharmacological class: antihypoxants" Anesteziol Reanimatol here
• The drug hypoxen: A new inhibitor of mitochondrial respiration and dehydrogenases. Biology bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences here

There are an overwhelming number of sources referring to hypoxen as a drug, both in the scholarly realm, and the journalistic realm. There is just zero basis for referring to it as a dietary supplement. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Alcibiades979 - you are mistaken in your interpretation of this Russian research, which is not "scholarly" and not accepted anywhere else in the world, as defining hypoxen as a drug. The literature you cite above is all low-quality lab research published in obscure Russian journals that are not sufficiently recognized to be listed in Medline, and would never be acceptable as sources for use in Wikipedia per WP:MEDRS. The article prescription drug defines what a drug is. Hypoxen does not qualify for that definition, as it has never been subjected to high-quality clinical trials and no regulatory authority, such as the FDA or European Medicines Agency, has approved it as safe or effective for treating heart conditions or improving athletic performance. In the news today, such as here by USA Today, hypoxen and carnitine are now being called "oxygen boosters" (they are not, as there is no scientific proof of anything being an "oxygen booster").

For this article, we are caught up in the news cycle with a lot of misinformation - even among reputable sources like the New York Times (not a MEDRS source) calling carnitine and hypoxen "drugs". Carnitine is used for some emergency clinical conditions (discussed in the Oregon State review), but not for cardiac support or athletic performance enhancement. According to Russian supplement websites, hypoxen appears to be a ferric oxide-based agent with no good proof in humans of having any effect. The USA Today report stated the situation accurately: "the combination of those two substances and trimetazidine, which improves blood flow, creates the appearance of an athlete seeking to increase endurance and performance." Stated simply: Valieva's nutrition and clinical support team is/was giving her substances they felt might improve her cardiovascular performance and endurance, i.e., deliberate doping.

As we are in a cloud of misinformation about these agents, the article's accuracy is subject to WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, i.e., we should not be commenting in the encyclopedia about uncertain events and substances with no rigorous scientific sources. Accordingly, I will not further edit the doping content of the article unless better sources than non-expert news reports about these substances become available. Zefr (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually two of the Russian references on PubMed about Hypoxen (PMID 22293870 and PMID 23156041) are for human clinical trials of this substance and refer to patients who are precribed Hypoxen. So even if these references are deemed not to meet WP:MEDRS standards, it seems pretty clear that this substance can be legitimately described as a "drug" rather than a "dietary supplement". Meodipt (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Both of those articles are preliminary studies published in obscure low-quality Polish or Russian journals not compliant with WP:MEDRS. We shouldn't trust that Russian information per WP:V - there are no reliable publications on hypoxen in worldwide scientific journals or books. Reputable clinical research and the drug development process through to regulatory approval are normally visible through public disclosure and international peer-review, which for hypoxen appears not to exist. Its history is also outdated, WP:MEDDATE, as the majority of the 42 listings on PubMed are more than a decade old, with no new publications in reputable journals in recent years, indicating a "dead" research topic. By WP:RS, we should hold article sources and those for the stub at Hypoxen to the standard expected for the encyclopedia, and not bend to media mistakes about describing carnitine and hypoxen as "heart drugs", which they are not. Zefr (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of misunderstandings going on. First, my concern is that a failed doping test gets white washed in to her having tested positive and this is how the lede was written 'for trimetazidine and two other dietary supplements.' A. No source that I have seen is calling hypoxen a dietary supplement B. dietary supplement is what I take after I go to the gym and outside of specialty articles that's how it reads. C. That seems to imply that trimetazidine is also a dietary supplement. By that same token when I use the word drug I'm not referring necessarily to prescription medication. I would also call L.S.D. and Trenbolone acetate drugs even though they do not fit the prescription drug definition, but also it's not my intent to communicate hypoxen's efficacy or lack there of on athletic performance. Zefr described the journalistic articles as obscure russian publications of questionable quality, that's probably a pretty apt description of hypoxen as well: an obscure substance of russian origin with questionable effect, the only thing I can say for sure about it is that I certainly would never take it. I learned how to edit from current events articles mainly about South America which can be surprisingly contentious and thus emphasize a rigorous adherence for sources mainly journalistic because there's a lot of POV including in sources, I understand Zefr comes from the Prescription Med boards and is concerned about not publishing misleading information or making unverifiable claims. I would be fine with trying to work out a way to not white wash testing positive for three chemicals before an athletic competition, whilst respecting Zefr's point of view by not making misleading/unverifiable claims. Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Kamila Valieva's Beijing results

Kamila Valieva's results in team event and singles will be counted as preliminary according to IOC Director of Communications 2001:4451:AFF:F100:59AE:CD7F:C008:D36 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Valiyeva

Why isn't her name transscripted with a y as for instance the name Yeltsin? --Stephphie (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

We just use whatever is in common usage, in her case, the BBC, New York Times, all of them print Valieva. I do agree though, drives me crazy with the transliteration of Djokovic's name in English for instance. In English the D is already included in the pronunciation of J, unlike in French or Russian, so why add the D? It's just redundant. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Accent seems to be on 2nd syllable 'и', so the 'y' isn't heard/used, it seems, when listening to Russians pronounce it, although the vowel 'е' normally connotes it. Brett Alexander Hunter (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Change to lead

Due to concerns about WP:recentism and WP:BLP, and also because this is a 15-yo kid, I've made a fairly major change to the lead. I think it both clarifies and improves blp neutrality and recentism concerns, but let's discuss if anyone objects. valereee (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I messed with the grammar some, technically it was missing an additional that or which between 'test' and 'she' to introduce the further subordinate clause, but the participial phrase in particular seemed to decrease readability whilst not adding much in terms of context. Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No objection. If people wonder why the testing was delayed so long, they can read the section. valereee (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems that this should probably be given greater weight on a different page but unfortunately it seems that this unlikely to happen. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the lead, please change "Her competing in the 2022 Winter Olympics sparked controversy after it was confirmed that she had tested positive for trimetazidine" to "Her competing in the 2022 Winter Olympics sparked controversy after it was confirmed that she had tested positive seven weeks previously' for trimetazidine". As it stands, it looks like she tested positive at the Olympics. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:D40A:A0E3:4BE7:BCBE (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This subject is contentious, please discuss. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, this looks like a reasonable edit request to me? If someone with experience had made that edit, would we have even questioned it? valereee (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The protection on the article is due to this information, and there is plenty of active discussion related to it. I don't think advising someone to take part in the discussion of a contentious section of a contentious article is out of line or unexpected. And as I've explained in the past, anyone watching the talk page is more than welcome to make the edit on their own. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Then can't we point people to the appropriate discussion instead of using a canned response that they likely won't even be able to understand? I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound snippy. If there is already a discussion, explain that it's currently being discussed and point people at that discussion. Edit requests come from (ostensibly) mostly complete newbs. Answering an edit request from someone who probably has zero idea what consensus even is...it just feels really unfriendly. valereee (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If you'd like to discuss my edit request closures specifically, I'd prefer to have that discussion on my talk page. If you want to discuss the templates, then WT:Edit Requests is probably the right spot. If you want to make the edit that was requested, or reopen the request, then go for it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Beyond the rest, not to pettifog the issue but technically she did test positive at the Olympics its just that the sample was given on 25 December. The body section definitely does go in to detail, and explain how all of this came about. I guess by my calculation and how I've read the articles, and how the articles have continued to progress the scandal is not that she was trying to gain a competitive edge in the olympics or the Russian Figure Skating Championships. She is arguably the greatest female figure skater in the world, I would say rather that the scandal is how she has been treated. Ie somehow alot of sketchy chemicals got in to the system of a fifteen year old, and the IOC is now launching an investigation in to her entourage. Going off of that we have articles like this about the damage that the training takes on young Skaters, why it is that she's so young and the health of former skaters of Eteri, this about how the Olympics almost obliges disregard for bodily health, and this about the treatment of Valieva by those around her. Lede space is always valuable, if anything I'd be more in favor of adding a tidbit about the IOC investigation launched in to her entourage. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Alcibiades979, she did not "technically" test positive at the Olympics. The Olympics took place in Beijing and the testing was carried out in Stockholm. The fact is – and as far as I can see on this talk page or in edit summaries nobody is disputing it – that she took the drug test on 25 December 2021 and competed in the Olympics on 14 February 2022. The lead as it stands gives the misleading impression that she took the test after her performance on 14 February. Now, I have taken part in a discussion as requested. I am not demanding that my precise wording be added, but there clearly needs to be an edit to make the facts clear in the lead. valereee, you say that it seems to be a reasonable edit request. Would you be willing to do the edit now that it's been discussed? Scolaire (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're logged in, as you appear to be, you have all the user rights necessary to make the edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Strictly speaking she didn't test positive weeks previously, or else we wouldn't be here. The actual test was done during (if not physically at) the Olympics, even though the sample was older. BSMRD (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I initiated the request when I was logged out because I didn't want to get involved in this. I mistakenly replied when logged in, but I still want somebody else to do the edit to avoid any suspicion of sockpuppetry. Scolaire (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I do accept that as a reasonable edit, but I do not feel I am the one to insert it in the text (this is admittedly not my area of expertise). Dunutubble (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Woman or female

An editor has changed various instances of "woman" to "female".^[1] But the events that Kamila Valieva was competing in were described as Women Single Skating.^[2] That someone of 15 is allowed to compete in adult events is not unique to skating; for example, in tennis players can compete in adult events from the age of 14. Since the events that Valieva achieved her records in were women's events, it is more correct to describe her as the "second woman to land the quadruple" etc. If she had been playing in junior events when she had achieved these records then it would have been correct to have used the term "girl".-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree it should be woman. Masterhatch (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Moving According to the Cyrillic Spellings

Should we move it to one of the following:

• Kamila Valerevna Valieva

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions | block) 19:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please show evidence that it is normal for reliable English-language sources to refer to her as such. WP:COMMONNAME says that In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Tatar

I don't how it's relevant of mentioning her being Tatar in the lead? Ethnicities have no value in such instances and belong in the early life or personal life sections as per MOS:LS#Biographies' first sentence. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no dog in this hunt. I only originally reverted the removal of Russian. If the MOS says Tatar doesn't belong in the lead, let's take it out. Simple. Masterhatch (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Picture

Um, I don't think that Kamila Valieva's picture should be of her and her dog. That is like the picture on Tom Brady, where the picture is him in the National Anthem. Valieva's picture should probably change.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand why you object to either picture. I know that some people object to photographs in the infobox that shows more than one person. But surely no one would be confused about which was Kamila and which was Leva? A Wikipedia biography is not meant to look a CV or a police record; so the photograph does not need to look like a police "mugshot". To my way of thinking, the photograph is fit for purpose. I assume that if she were sitting opposite you on the bus or train, you might recognise her from the photograph.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I too don't see a problem with the picture of her and her dog. Masterhatch (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox should be one reflecting Kamila as an individual, not within her athletic field (as the previous image was). As User:Toddy1 nicely put it, it functions, and causes no confusion. In fact I believe the dog being in the picture could have its own benefit in humanizing Kamila. EVaDiSh (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The primary image

I have reverted the image to the one used before User:Pcaocn changed it. Kamila, while having gained notoriety through figure skating, is still an individual, and the first image a user sees should be one that reflects her as an individual. The image that was used in replacement was not only outdated (2020, which is before she became a common household name), but also showed her performing within her professional field. The image can be used in historical context, in a subcategory relating to her junior season, but should not be used as an overall descriptor to her person. User:Pcaocn also seemingly had personal reasons for the image change. In his revision on March 27, he used the following note. "Please use a decent photo of her. Why keep linking her to her dog? She is a figure skating, not dog breeder". Define "decent?" The photo you replaced it with was improper for the reasons listed above, and you believe that the dog is a negative? It is a part of her person, and can be linked to her. EVaDiSh (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Personal Best

2022 Russian Nationals scored combined 283.48, more than 2021 Rostelecom Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.27 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The ISU bases personal best scores are based off of international competitions, so Russian Nationals doesn't count as her personal best. See the record of personal bests here -Riley1012 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Anti-Doping Agency decision in Jan 2023

As far as I understand

As such, the tribunal imposed no sanction except for the disqualification of her results on the date of the sample collection (25 December 2021).

this sentence published by wada she lost her 2022 Russian Figure Skating Championships title because of disqualification. So the results should be changed here and for all other skaters (they all gain a place). But I would like to have a more explicit source for the 2022 Russian Championships. Kallichore (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Drug banned for endurance?

I removed the unsubstantiated claim that trimetazidine is being officially banned for increasing Endurance. Because the drug trimetazidine was never ever proven to enhance endurance in athletes due to a lack of hard proof. That doesn't mean it is also proven to not enhance endurance, but just that there is no hard proof that it helps athletes. It may help those with already weak hearts. But for Olympians with a healthy heart, sport scientists state that they do not believe it provides any real advantages. According to Popular Science, experts state the drug is banned more out of precautions and doubts, rather than conclusive proof.[3] Hence it is unprofessional to claim the drug is proven to enhance endurance when no study has even published that as a confirmed fact. ArrowSake (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion at the time of the Olympics was that the other substances were being used as catalysts alongside the banned substance. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)