Talk:2002 Winter Olympics figure skating scandal

Minor annoyance
Shouldn't this article link to ISU ? I had to do a search to confirm it means what I though it does. I'm not really sure how to best do this so I'll leave it to more experienced editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.23.191.33 (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

More info
Fairly obvious to note, but much more info should be given about the new judging system set up after this scandal. It's only briefly mentioned and deserves more attention.


 * I've added some more Wikilinks to the article to address this. Dr.frog 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

POV
The statement "The North American media was quick to take the side of the Canadian pair, and played up the controversy until it threatened to overwhelm the entire Games" is pure POV and needs to be accurately sourced in order to merit inclusion. CanadianMist 18:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The press treatment of the controversy is covered in gory detail in the book The Second Mark which is already cited as a reference in the article. Dr.frog 21:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't change the fact it's a point of view statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.80.212 (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

more POV issues
While the new material that details the reactions of the Canadian and US media is factually accurate, it leaves the article unbalanced because it omits any similar description of other viewpoints. IIRC, in Russia, the general reaction was a sense that Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze had earned the gold, and outrage that the North American media succeeded in overturning the result decided on the field of play. Even in the U.S., some reporters such as Phil Hersh of the Chicago Tribune (very experienced in covering the sport) also went on record as saying they thought Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze deserved to win regardless of any monkey business over the judging. We need to track down some specific citations for other points of view. Dr.frog 23:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the article is too emotional. No serious facts were give. The alleged mastermind fixer was not extradited but released. He was not charged with anything. Canadian pair was prepped to win and when they lost, pushed to get them awarded. Built up bigger audience for their sinking ratings. I used to love watching olympics for the pure spirit of it, and now it became tainted by the media that can push the decision in either direction.

It should also be noted that chinese pair refused to participate in second award ceremony and called the whole thing disgusting media spectacle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.75.142 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the article is written objectively. Lots of facts were given.  Russian skating fans were prepped to believe they were entitled to the gold because of past dominance and when their skaters messed up (both in pairs and in ladies) and the French judge cheated, sulked and threatened to file a protest.  Built up bigger Potemkin village for their fading athletic legacy.

See how that works both ways? The result was as fair as it could be, considering one judge admitted to cheating. 68.161.128.140 (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reason given?
"On February 15, Cinquanta and IOC President Jacques Rogge, in a joint press conference, announced that Salé and Pelletier's silver medal would be upgraded to a gold."

Was any reason given for this? There have been questionable judgments and crowd favorites in the Olympics before, and I don't recall these ever resulting in a second gold being awarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.170.62 (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The new IOC president was very vocal about wanting to clean up the Olympics--he had his eye on figure skating especially, after the 1998 ice dancing nonsense. Since the French judge admitted she had cheated, the results were clearly tainted, hence the double gold. 68.161.128.140 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage, revisited
I'm not sure that deleting all mention of the North American TV commentators' remarks from the article based on NPOV reasons is a good idea. I won't dispute that their remarks were biased, but the fact that they stated these things with such great authority during the live television coverage greatly stirred up the public outrage against the judging in North America. Most folks who watch figure skating on TV don't really know much about the judging or technical side of the sport beyond what the TV commentators say. Part of the story here is that one judge (out of the nine on the panel, and out of the five who voted for the Russians) cheated; but there was also a huge media and public opinion backlash against the judging before the cheating allegations became public that was observed at the time to be overwhelming actual competition in other sports at the Games. Dr.frog (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mentioning this is enough. ("Public reaction to the competition results in North America was strongly influenced by the television coverage of the event.[1] During the live broadcast, both the American and Canadian commentators covering the competition proclaimed that Salé and Pelletier would win as they finished their routine, and expressed outrage when the judges' marks were announced.") Extensive quoting is too emotional, unacceptable and doesn't add any information to the page.

212.192.251.48 (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, is there any other reason to leave the comments? I'll delete them back, then. Adamax (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, I think the biased television coverage was important to the scandal, as it whipped up public opinion against the judging before there was evidence of wrongdoing by Le Gougne. These quotes from Hamilton, Bezic, Underhill, and Martini were widely repeated in subsequent media coverage as coming from (supposedly) expert authorities.  Why do you think this material is inappropriate?  There are brief quotes from other media sources further down in the article; why pick on the ones from the TV commentators, who had the most influence of all?  Dr.frog (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I named the reasons already:
 * It doesn't add any new information. The quote above with footnotes is enough, like this one, below: "Some in the United States and many in Russia, however, felt that Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze had deserved their win, and that it should not be marred by the alleged dishonesty of a single judge.[12][13][14][15]".
 * It is too emotional and is inconsistent with Wikipedia style.
 * Do you disagree with them? They apply to sections "The competition" and "Immediate aftermath" as well, by the way. Is that what you mean by 'other media sources'?
 * Adamax (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing the information, text and references from the article will definitely invite fact-itis in the future. Better to present the information as it was reported on other sources and let the reader make their own interpretation. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 06:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The references were not removed. By the way, there are 24 of them. Why not quote each one in the text of the article? Adamax (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I really don't get it. People seem to revert the changes without a reason and not having read the talk page. I'll repeat my point in brief: The quotes in question add emotions rather than information to the page. If you think that there is something useful in them, it would be fair to explain what it is. To be more specific, take the following paragraph: "The reaction in Canada was extremely hostile. The American press and public were quick to take up the cause of the Canadian pair. NBC continued to play up the story and advocate the Canadians' cause until it became a media circus dominating the Olympic news. (References follow)" and describe exactly what piece of information is missing in this paragraph but is present in quotes from tabloids. Thank you. Adamax (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about the Canadian newspapers, but USA Today and the New York Times are reputable and well-regarded American newspapers, not "tabloids". If your justification for removing the quotes is that the sources are not reliable, that argument clearly doesn't apply to those two. Dr.frog (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My justification is expressed on this page several times and even marked in bold. Should I repeat it once more? Adamax (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

YEAH YOU SHOULD. These pages are supposed to be unbaised, you are clearing making an arguement, not presenting, nor attempting to present an impartial account of the events. Someone needs to fix this page. As a professor of history I tell my students not to read wikipedia because it's not a valid source. This is just another example why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.173.128.38 (talk) 06:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of figure skater Infobox is inappropriate in this case
It seems inappropriate to use the figure skater infobox for this article, featuring only Salé/Pelletier, and all their competitive history, when the scoring issue was related to the top two teams. Maybe it would be better simply to use photos of the top two teams if editors are looking for an image for the page, and no competitive history. This article is not about either team, per se, anyway.Parkwells (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)