Jump to content

Talk:Doping in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WADA statement should stay

[edit]

I addressed this before.[1] The WADA statement in intro is essential and yet it's repeatedly deleted. Without it, the previous version makes most readers think the swimmers were confirmed to be doping. And Wada was just slow on issuing suspensions and so those swimmers went on and won medals in the Olympics. But then the tests became public years later but WADA was too late to suspend them. Except that's not what happened at all. The WADA statement explains they aren't proven dopers and it was due to contamination and also the levels in their system was not capable of performance enhancement. The WADA statement (https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-publishes-media-conference-recording-regarding-environmental-contamination-case-swimmers) is essential context that avoids misleading, and why I re-added it as there was no good reason to hide that.[2] 49.186.88.247 (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the article makes a number of outright false claims - including that no stand was taken by world aquatics and WADA on Chinese doping allegations. On the contrary, WADA and World Aquatics have rejected the claims levelled by the NY Times against them and have maintained that they assessed CHINADA's claims in accordance with the Anti-Doping Code and without any favoritism whatsoever. MingScribe1368 (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pizzigs@Johannesvdp@Normchou I do not wish to get involved in your edit disputes with others. If you want to argue about the intro, please go ahead and edit the intro only. I don't understand why the information from the TMZ chapter now needs to be deleted. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_China#Trimetazidine_allegations_in_Chinese_swimming) That chapter is neutral and simply states what WADA, the IOC, and athletes have said. For example, when WADA appointed Eric Cottier as an independent prosecutor to review its handling of the case, I added the investigation results that came out a few months later. But several of you have constantly removed it, effectively erasing the last two months of the matter's updates with careless, impulsive edits, without looking at what you're deleting. I urge you three, who keep deleting it, to minimally read the entire chapter as it is in this version.[3] Tell me what part is problematic. I highly doubt you can find anything problematic. If you don't have any issues then please remember to leave that chapter alone. Please, don't just delete content without reading it first. Thank you.

49.179.43.130 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WADA has also officially described the New York Times article as "inaccurate", "sensationalist" and "misleading". These are the words of a respectable international institution with both expertise and authority on its side. Surely if NY Times is allowed to launch claims of bias against WADA, then WADA"s own defense, including its own assessment of the charges levelled against it by that journalistic rag. MingScribe1368 (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MingScribe1368, the community found that WP:NYTIMES is a WP:GREL source. If you think otherwise, then you are always free to head over to WP:RSN and propose a RfC to make your case. - Amigao (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source may on occasion produce an inaccurate, sensationalist and misleading article. WADA is reliable as far as doping is concerned. NYTimes is not. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede NPOV violation

[edit]

I have lately been interested in the topic of state-sanctioned sports doping and have relied on Wikipedia to inform me, and have read this whole article.

The lede currently looks like this:

China conducted a state-sanctioned doping operation in the 1980s and 1990s, according to former General Administration of Sport of China physician Xue Yinxian. Allegations of doping have focused on swimmers and track and field athletes, such as those taught by Ma Junren (the Ma Family Army). Three Chinese weightlifters were stripped of their gold Olympic medals at the 2008 Summer Olympics. China's doping has been attributed to a number of factors, such as the exchange of culture and technology with foreign countries. Some commentators have compared it to doping in East Germany. Discussion of doping scandals involving Chinese athletes in international sports is widely censored in China.

It's striking in what ways this is biased anti-China, compared with the article as a whole:

  • Manipulated phrase order within sentence states unproven allegation as fact: "China conducted a state-sanctioned doping operation";
  • Gives supporting evidence (state physician claimed) and no refuting evidence (IOC and WADA found no evidence, with a whole 5 citations);
  • "China's doping" phrase has no reference to alleged nature of allegations;
  • Last two sentences have spurious secondary commentaries based on unproven basis of "China's doping" – "exchange of culture", "comparable to East Germany" (this is an obvious lie because no evidence, no Stasi, no court case etc.), "some commentators" (weasel word, I'm guessing to disguise irrelevance of source).

My recommendations for what should be in the lede:

  • Primary focus on who has had medals stripped, and the relative abundance of that vs other countries.
  • Secondary focus on allegations, with accusing party, official investigations and how they ended.
  • Mention of Chinese censorship (needs elaboration beyond one sentence in article body). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMasic (talk • contribs) 11:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of alleged causes of unconfirmed state-sanctioned doping from external commentators.

The user who's most recently been responsible for introducing these edits is @Amigao, whose user page talks about "state-backed information warfare efforts", has one edit summary baselessly accusing the following (neutral) statement of whitewashing:

This represents less than 2% of the 154 Olympic medals that were stripped from all nations by the IOC for doping from 1968 to 2022

I'm pretty suspicious of this itself being manipulated editing to serve USA information interests, so would like to see some sort of consensus lede, edit protection, and warning/restriction for this user. There seem to be several people interested in the neutrality of this article so I don't understand how this is standing and am disgusted by the manipulated message the lede is putting out to interested readers. FMasic (talk) 11:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider first reviewing WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and also reviewing the WP:RSes cited for the lede statements in question. - Amigao (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, and I think the lead is written with a blatant and obvious anti-China bias that causes Wikipedia to lose completely its encyclopedic tone. I am not sure why allegations are still allowed to occur in the lead. MingScribe1368 (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MingScribe1368, your proposed edits introduce WP:SYNTH and you still have not attempted to gain consensus here on talk. - Amigao (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not WP:SYNTH, they are a simple arithmetic calculation and by definition not original research nor synthesis. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to elaborate on what exactly you find to be a synth issue, Amigao, since simple arithmetic is allowed per WP:CALC. I support the suggestions of FMasic, especially the "medals stripped and the relative abundance of that vs other countries" but I'm always ready for a compromise. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CALC is about "routine calculations" and not statistical comparisons around politically-charged issues. For contentious topics, it is always best to stick to what WP:RSes directly state (and preferably WP:GREL and academic WP:BESTSOURCES). - Amigao (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This, and more importantly, if we do include these statistics, we run the risk of introducing whataboutism in wikivoice. This article should follow other "doping in (Country)" articles when doing these sorts of comparisons, and I'm not sure if articles on other countries include these sorts of comparisons. It might be a good idea to start a general RfC as to whether this type of information should be included in all articles on doping in a country. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we should introduce a comparison on all "doping in.." pages. The statistic is relevant. Doping is about obtaining unfair advantage, and what is unfair also depends on what other parties are doing. MingScribe1368 (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not necessarily a a bad idea, an RfC on whether doping articles should include context about their scope might be a good idea. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the tally of stripped medals from the Asian Games should also be mentioned. This article is not simply about the Olympics but rather "doping in China" in general. - Amigao (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CurryCity @Donkey Hot-day @IP-49XX
Please refer to the above. MingScribe1368 (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you to avoid WP:CANVASSING. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you have read up on some Wikipedia policies, Allan Nonymous, I would also advise you to avoid stonewalling since you've only made one post here 24 days ago opposing the addition of doping figures in China relative to the world on the basis of "undue". And you still have not addressed my response that the figures are not undue since they are reported in mainstream RS. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I was stonewalling (which is frankly a dubious claim), this reply is a pretty blatant example of whataboutism (in this case, the o'l Tu quoque) (for an illustrative example of see the old soviet retort "And you are lynching Negroes"). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a case of whataboutism, but entirely necessary to give context when discussing a global phenomenon and to avoid bias, a fortiori when the mainstream media and putatively reliable sources like NY Times and BBC seem bent on portraying this as primarily a Chinese problem. MingScribe1368 (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. In the context of doping by a country in international sport competitions, what percentage of medals stripped in international sport were from that nation is not just highly relevant, but necessaryto give context and meaning , and central to the subject matter.
2. Proportion involves a single, very simple arithmetic operation and cannot be regarded as original research or as WP:SYNTH. It is not performing a Laplace transform or a Riemann integral. MingScribe1368 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about doping in China in general, not just at the Olympics. As such, we should not focus the lede on the Olympics in an undue and unbalanced fashion. - Amigao (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have this on watch as one of the editors who contributed to the relevant sections some time ago but did not have time to get more involved. CurryCity (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the allegations by Xue have been found by WADA to be unsubstantiated and old samples were retested and found negative, then this should be reflected in the leading section as well. Either that, or the whole unsubstantiated and uncorroborated allegation should be removed. MingScribe1368 (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times

[edit]

David Pierson (3 July 2024) When China’s most famous swimmer, Sun Yang, was accused of doping in 2018, state media scrutinized the fairness of the investigation with extensive coverage, and social media users were allowed to leave hundreds of thousands of comments voicing support for Mr. Sun. By comparison, state media coverage of the 23 swimmers has been largely limited to official remarks. As recently as 2022, internet censors allowed Weibo users to rally around Lyu Xiaojun, an Olympic gold medal-winning weight lifter who was suspended for doping. More notably in 2012, Chinese state media came to the defense of the teenage sensation Ye Shiwen, a swimmer whose record-shattering victory in the 400-meter individual medley at the London Games was met with suggestions that she might have used performance-enhancing drugs. He noted that this also appeared to be the first time censors have imposed a blanket ban on online comments criticizing athletes accused of doping. CurryCity (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryCity Sorry but what exactly are you suggesting to add here? Not sure what you are getting at there. I should remind that in a controversial way, WADA is the one defending the 23 swimmers by saying there is no evidence that they ever done anything wrong. So you can't possibly compare it as an equal matter to an actual guilty weightlifter and a swimmer who never even tested positive to anything. It's just speculations and tabloid papers playing it up. Honestly, such speculations shouldn't even be mentioned on this page at such lengths when it's not even proven. Only the more authoritative and relevant parties should be mentioned and much less speculations otherwise you just turn the site into a cheap gossip rag. IP49XX (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was for another matter with another editor and has been resolved. CurryCity (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doping_in_China&oldid=1244792408"