The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Athletics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of athletics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and join the discussion.AthleticsWikipedia:WikiProject AthleticsTemplate:WikiProject AthleticsAthletics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Running, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of running on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RunningWikipedia:WikiProject RunningTemplate:WikiProject RunningRunning articles
This article was created or improved during the Olympics & Paralympics edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project from July to September 2021. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
And all the English sources say "enter", but "force to run in" is not incorrect. Also note that the source isn't Russian, so who knows where that phrase to be translated came from! Not us, because WDIFSG never cites his edits! Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a WP:BLP, uncited should probably be removed.
As I did, and now WDIFSG has left me a message saying he will continue to change the article and that I need to prove to him that I am constructive. Dear -. Kingsif (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are editors' thoughts on splitting off the Olympics incident and all the fallout to its own article? While Tsimanouskaya is primarily notable for this (with the barely-mentioned Universiade win a distant second), as the situation develops it seems to be out of scope to contain it all within a biography. There is also the argument that the information could have been entirely contained at either the Belarus at the 2020 Summer Olympics or Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics articles, and is only here effectively by chance of where the first users started adding more. Also, suggestions for what the split article would be called are welcome. Hopefully taking into account the political scope that is appearing between Belarus and the rest of Europe. So far I can think of the pretty-weak Belarus incident at the 2020 Summer Olympics. I'll probably boldly split it soon (with a summary here) if there aren't objections. Kingsif (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a split would duplicate about 95% of the information already in this article. I suppose a question to ask would be: Is there enough coverage on the other Belarusian athletes/people to warrant a split? From looking at the sources, it doesn't look like there are. --MuZemike11:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment but none of it seems relevant. Splitting means removing the information from this article, not duplicating. The other coverage to warrant the split is about the political position of Belarus vs the EU, and Belarus Olympic Committee vs the IOC, not other athletes. Kingsif (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: a split or something should be done. I am the editor of the change Kingsif mentioned about information related to the incident but not to Tsimanouskaya being removed. I thought at the time it was good information but did not fall under the scope of the article. Perhaps instead of splitting the article, we can rename this article so it focuses more on the incident. (I'm still relatively new to editing; can articles be renamed like that?) As both editors above me pointed out, nearly the entire article covers the incident already, so the essence of the article would barely change at all. If we do rename it, I think the only other modification needed would be to remove the awards table in the international competitions section. We could even leave Tsimanouskaya's picture since she is the centerpiece of the incident. (I believe a picture of her after this incident began, possibly at Narita airport or in Poland, would be a better choice, if one exists). ~ JDCAce (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Er... it is possible to move the article, but Tsimanouskaya warrants a biography so we're not going to and never will. The article wasn't created to cover this incident just with a poor title, it already existed about a notable topic (here, person) whose life and career otherwise warrant coverage. Let's firmly shoot down that idea never, ever, to respawn. Also, any photos would need to be appropriate fair use or commons, of which none related to the incident so far are. Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have made your point abundantly clear. I will not argue for a renaming, though I want to make one point clear: while Tsimanouskaya's notability under Wikipedia's notability guidelines for athletesjustifies a biography, it certainly does not necessitate one. As I see it, then, there are two options:
Split the article into a biography of a living person and an event. As I mentioned above, Tsimanouskaya's status as an Olympian causes her to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, as we all agree, if this split were to occur, the biography page would become little more than a stub. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a short article, but I believe it should be mentioned and used to weigh any options.
Discuss the event and person in detail on the same page. This runs counter to my previous edit removing tangential information; if the article is about both, the information I removed (which discussed the apparent conflict of interest of the Belorussian NOC) would then be considered relevant. Personally, I would like to re-add this information, as I feel it adds a great deal of context to the event (but not the person). I have been unable to find any guidelines on Wikipedia about a single article with two related topics, so I don't have much to say about this suggestion other than my personal feelings.
I am not strongly in favor of either of these options over the other, but I am strongly in favor of one of these options over nothing. If it came down to a vote, I would side with Option 1: Split. EDIT: See my vote below. ~ JDCAce (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so that's a !vote for splitting, made abundantly clear ;) Those are the two options I presented in the opening comment. Given the rest of the comments, I feel the need to point out that while no WP:N policies necessitate articles, it concerned me that someone would suggest deletion of a pre-existing article when a related topic became more known to the public. And if you're concerned about the level of detail at the bio without the incident, well, that's how the article was for two years, like many other athletes from more obscure countries - just waiting for a good editor to come along and expand. Some of the other language Wikipedias have more detail, though unsourced so I didn't copy anything over. Maybe I'll do some research and add, maybe you could. Kingsif (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose split. @Kingsif: This is unnecessary, given the length of coverage we currently have, and calling it a "scandal" on the new page makes it look like a WP:POVFORK, as that is a loaded term. Far better to do JDCAce's suggestion #2 of "Discuss the event and person in detail on the same page", unless the scope widens to other athletes, or the coverage becomes so long that we can't host it on a single page. — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I took the "scandal" title from the most recent news coverage; I have no objections (per WP:BRD) if you want to change the title or re-merge and continue discussion, but I think what should at least be considered is how sources discuss it. And on that front, many don't even bother to name her anymore, but use the incident as a jumping-off point to discuss the repression in Belarus and how the "scandal" of the Olympics incident making this more widely-known has caused Lukashenko to crack down even further. It started with Tsimanouskaya, but the scope appears to me to have grown beyond what is directly relevant to contain within a BLP of her, especially since she's not directly involved with some of the matters happening now. We can start with using "incident" in the title there, and continue to discuss here? Kingsif (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incident may be a better word, but only because scandal makes me think of celebrity gossip magazines and I think Wikipedia should keep as much distance from those as possible. (That's not a great rationale, I admit.) Then again, incident sounds a bit generic. Belarus 2020 Summer Olympics incident. Well, that could refer to pretty much anything. In an effort to keep the title somewhat short, I'll steal some detail-space from the "when and where" of the title and move it to the "what": Belarus Olympics repatriation incident. Does that imply is was voluntary or successfully? Belarus Olympics attempted forced repatriation incident is certainly a mouthful (or fingerful/eyeful, as it were). Here are some of my suggestions:
Belarus Olympics repatriation incident
Belarus Olympics forced repatriation incident
NOC RB forced repatriation incident – I don't like this one much; I don't think a title should have a little-known abbreviation.
Spirit Away? Not Today! – Okay, this one may be a joke.
For Split: Looking at the other article, it appears it is already a pretty good length, and I imagine it isn't done growing. Based on its current length, the content definitely needs to be split out of the Tsimanouskaya biography. I suppose it could be put back in the biography, but then I would argue it would need to be trimmed. One section that takes up over 50% of an article is a pretty good candidate for splitting. (That figure is just eyeballing it, no measurement involved.)
That said, I'll discuss to where it should be split. The article as Kingsif made is a reasonable length for a standalone article. And like I said before, I doubt it will remain this size for long. If we decide to put the content within an existing article, such as Belarus at the 2020 Summer Olympics, then we will likely need to revisit this discussion on splitting on that article's talk page in a month or two! I admit the same argument could be made about creating a new article: "We'll just have to discuss merging it in a month or two!" To which I don't have a great response other than "I think it's a good length for a standalone article now."
PS – I'm not too sure how this whole voting issue works, so I'll just follow Amakuru's lead.
PPS – I realized this may appear to be a double-vote. I don't intend it to be. Consider this my "formal" vote and disregard my other (now struck out).
A source shouldn't be disregarded simply because it is behind a paywall. I was able to find another (far less known) source[1] with the same statement. This DUK News article, which contains an interview of Tsimanouskaya, says the following:
“
[Tsimanouskaya said] "In Belarus, many athletes are officially employed by law enforcement departments, such as the armed forces or border forces. I was in the Ministry of Internal Affairs." Surely she didn’t have a rank? "Yes, I did." It turns out I am talking to a lieutenant, licensed to carry a lethal weapon.
”
— Magdalena Miecznicka, in her article "Olympic defector Krystsina Tsimanouskaya: 'Eventually, we will win'"[1]
It has the exact same title/headline as the Financial Times article, so it's possible DUK News just ripped it off the Financial Times site. However, the former does properly attribute the piece to the author, and it also includes links to both her Financial Times profile and the source article itself. I'm a little hesitant to add it as a source on the Wikipedia article page, both because I've never heard of DUK News and because the article could be plagiarized. (But, man, I'd love to put DUK News on a Wikipedia article. Quack!) Perhaps someone with a Financial Times subscription can help us out by verifying Condo951795's statement.
One last note: If somebody adds this information to the article page, take note of the ambiguous and possibly contradictory statements. Tsimanouskaya says "[she] did" hold a rank, implying she does not anymore, while the author implies she retains that rank. ~ JDCAce (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
User(s) blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)