Talk:Oksana Baiul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Figure Skating, a WikiProject dedicated to improving coverage of figure skating-related articles on Wikipedia.
Figure Skating Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

http://www.webwinds.com/womenskate/oksana77432.jpg

I don't recall Baiul ever being called "the greatest female skater of all time" or "the greatest artistic skater". --Fang Aili 19:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

AntonioConstantine: No offense Fang, but you must be really stupid? If someone wins 1st Place in both World Skate Championships and 1st place in the Olympics within the same year, for that 2 years or so if no one has accomplished that goal thereof, then YES that person is the best female skater of all time from the point of view of those two years.

I thought her maternal grandmother was dead.

AntonioConstantine, I ask you to mind WP:CIVIL. The sentence I was refering to was, "Following her win at the 1994 Winter Olympics, Baiul was called the greatest female skater of all time by many skating commentators and critics." (this was sometime back in February.) The key words are was called. By who? I was asking for a source for this statement. And no, just because someone wins the worlds and the olympics does not make that person "the greatest female skater of all time". --Fang Aili 說嗎? 16:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fang. Yet again, I will re-iterate the point being. A World Olympic event is to determine who is the best at that moment. It does not have to be sourced. The event speaks for itself. Atheletes go through grueling training and competition all for what? A medallion only? No for the title of the best. Hence in 1994 Baiul is the greatest skater of all time :) agreed?

1) No, winning Olympic gold only proves that competitor was the best for that particular competition. Not for that year, much less "for all time." Sarah Hughes won in 2002 because she delivered when Slutaskaya and Kwan didn't, but no one would ever say overall she's better than those two--she was simply the best for that competition, prestigious as it is. How can someone be the "greatest skater of all time" for just 1994? Do you not see that's a contradiction in terms?
2) In addition, there has never been any one skater deemed the greatest of all time, much less a teenager whose career has barely begun.
3) "World Olympic" is contradictory. World Championships and the Olympic Games are two completely separate competitions.
4) And yes, everything on Wikipedia has to be sourced. If you want to argue your point, go to a skating forum. 68.161.128.140 (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] chicken suit

uhm did the chicken suit she wore for a joke consist of a mask, I mean did she have a chicken mask on???

[edit] This is not an Oksana Baiul fan site

I don't know what the heck happened to this article, but its tone is now completely non-encyclopedic. --Fang Aili talk 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Had a look at the article Fang and it looked okay to me. Yes, the writer expressed an opinion but their points were well argued and well made. The article you put back in place is just as opinionated (almost an Anti Oksana Baiul artilce) as the one you removed. Unlike the one you removed however, the opinions expressed are not supported - almost baseless assertions. I have therefore put the new article back (its removal is vandalism). If you feel that there is a problem with the article, then you should edit it (not remove it) in a manner which is fair and balanced (being neither an overly pro or anti subject account of the person in question). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.38 (talk • contribs) .
Reformatted to make discussion flow easier to follow. No comments edited. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Pretending you are another user will fool no one. Also, please assume good faith and do not call my edits vandalism. This version is full of unsubstatiated opinions and is not encyclopedic. If you wish the article to be "fair and balanced", it cannot contain statements like, "Quad and triple jumps are all very well but if the rest of package is a load of rubbish, then what is the point of watching?" I am reverting the article to its NPOV version. --Fang Aili talk 22:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

From manutdforever: I spent about an hour making a contribution to this page last night adding a substantial amount of new content only to see the original which contains far less content put back. Most of the content from the original format which has been put back in place plus the content contributed by 7g7em7ini was preserved (about 95%). Are people like myself allowed to make a contribution? What is it about this original version which seems to have been reinstated numerous times (removing contributions from several sources in the process) that is so good that nobody else can have a look in? The extra content I added I am sure others would have appreciated. As it was by and large factual information, there was nothing controversial about it whatsoever. What is the point of bothering? I thought anybody was allowed to contribute. I am new to Wikipedia and my experience has been totally spoilt by this. I have put my page back. I would be grateful if it could be left up for others to assess and add to/amend as they see fit. I note from the above discussion and the history that a Fang Ali and a 7g7em7ini had alternate versions of the page. I went out of my way to preserve 95% of both versions and I feel that my version is a good compromise between the two. So come on Fang Ali and 7g7em7ini, let others have a look in like myself!!! Don't just go and put back versions which contain far less detailed factual information. You don't own the page! Others, please provide us with your coments. What do you think? Please make your own contributions to the page. Nobody has a monopoly on it. As Wikipedia editorial policy states, the more people contribute the better it will be. It should not just be limited to just one or two people who believe that there contribution should be the one and only one. As for my own contribution, I have endeavoured to keep it bias/opinion free. If anybody believes that there is an element which does not meet this criteria, then please amend it. Please do not do what the last person did and go and remove the whole lot and degrade the page in the process. As I am sure the vast majority of people would agree, that is just an abuse of process. If the page is completely removed again, then quite frankly I shall not bother with Wikipedia again. For me, it will have lost its status as an encyclopedia which anyone can contribute to and become nothing more than a kind of newspaper where a minority of diehard contributors have a monopoly on editorial control.

These edits were a violation of WP:POV and WP:VERIFY. Please review these policies. Everything on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view and be verifiable. Statements akin to "Oksana Baiul was the best skater ever" are not neutral, encyclopedic, and certainly are not verifiable. You will not be able to push your point of view here, and any editor who understands what Wikipedia is will support me on this point. --Fang Aili talk 16:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

From: manutdforever: All and sundry take note. Fang Ali believes that he has a monopoly on the page. How sad. I give up and will not be contributing to Wikipedia again. It is a waste of my time. What is the point when one is up against a tiny number of diehard editors who monopolise it. Look at the content of Fang Ali's article and note the bias. Look at AntonioConstantines views on Fang Ali's contributions above. They speak for themselves. Please note that my contribution did not say "Oksana Baiul was the best skater ever". It said that it is the opinion of some that she was. For the actual wording, please use the comparison tool to compare my version with the current version. Neutral observers will note that my contribution was very fair and balanced. Goodbye. As I said, my time will be better spent elsewhere. Not on this site.

Dear manutdforever, don't be put by this experience. This kind of thing is very rare. In this particular instance, you should bring the matter to the attention of Wikipedia through there complaints/resolution process. There decision is binding. I think given the history of the matter and whats been going on that they would rule in your favour. Henry

Complaint

Will bring it myself when I get the time. Too busy with work at the moment to make the effort. I was the person who compiled the original alternate article which I note manutdforever added to considerably. I note manutdforever said that Baiul rediscovered her Jewish heritage from her paternal grandmother whereas Fang Aili (the all knowing one who believes he has a divine right to the article!!) says it was her maternal grandmother. Does anyone know who is correct? I know one of them died when Baiul was 10. 7g7em7ini

You can complain to whoever if you wish, but I can guarantee you that established editors here will tell you the same thing: Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view. The versions I have reverted have been in that interest. I do not know if it was her paternal or maternal grandmother, and I encourage anyone to add/confirm the information with proper citations, and without adding biased opinions like "Oksana Baiul is the best skater of all time". --Fang Aili talk 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

It was her paternal grandmother whom she met in 2003. Stating that Kerrigan delivered a almost clean skate and Baiul made mistakes at the olympics are subjective statements (i.e. opinion related) and therefore inconsistent with a NPOV. That is why I removed the remarks. If your going to remove other peoples contributions on the grounds of bias inconsistent with a NPOV, then you must ensure that your own contributions are not equally biased and subject to the same kind of criticism. To do otherwise would be hypocritical. Henry

Thanks for correcting the grandmother point. Yes, thank you for reminding me about NPOV; it is always something to keep in mind. However I disagree that the section you removed is an opinion; it is a fact that Kerrigan skated a "clean skate", that is, she landed all her jumps cleanly and was otherwise error-free, whereas Baiul two-footed one landing (and had another small mistake, but I don't recall exactly what it was). It is also a fact that the outcome was controversial. I think it's encyclopedic to at least note the controversy. I'll try to find some sources. Thanks for showing an interest in the article. --Fang Aili talk 13:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Kerrigan did make mistakes. Her first jump was to be a triple flip, and she doubled it. She doubled another jump 2:11 into her performance. I'm not sure if that was meant to be a combination triple-triple, and was instead a tripe-double. She also reacts early to music at 3:15 that hasn't started playing yet. Scoring also includes artistic interpretations, which is the judge's opinions and not something that can be technically proven, and the judges may have believed that Baiul gave a more solid artistic interpretation which allowed her to edge Kerrigan out of the gold. Artistic marks are the tie-breakers.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.154.34 (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Fang, thank you for your comments. I will locate my video of the event and have a look at the two performances. Like you, its been a while since I last saw it. Kind regards, Henry