Talk:Daniela Silivaș

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

origin[edit]

Is she of hungarian origin? Silivas=Szilvás? as some sources indicates. Many csangó-hungarians in Romania can´t even speak a word of hungarian, since it was de facto prohibited! — Preceding unsigned comment added by László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk • contribs) 17:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Clarification of the vault scores issue in the 1988 all around vault judging: Silivas needed a perfect 10 to take the title outright, as she was ahead before the final event (vault). She scored a 9.950, as this was the score she got on her first vault, and the higher score is the one that is taken forward. In Olympic competition at this time, there were six form judges for each apparatus. The highest and lowest scores would be dropped, and the other four averaged to give a final score for the gymnast. At this point, judges were only allowed to mark in increments of one tenth- that is, they could give a 9.9 or a 10, but not a 9.95- this later changed. The NBC coverage of the event, which can be downloaded at http://tigermilk74.spacepur.de/, shows that the scores for Daniela's first vault were as follows: 9.8- USSR (this was Nelli Kim) 10- Holland 10- Italy 10- GDR 9.9- FRG 9.9- Australia

So one of the 10s was dropped, as was Kim's 9.800. The four counting scores for the first vault were 9.9, 9.9, 10, 10- this gave an average of 9.950 which is what Silivas carried forward, as her second vault scored lower (she hopped on the landing). That said Nelli Kim marked it as a 9.9, as did every other judge. Kim was the only judge to give a higher mark to the second vault. Elena Shushunova scored a ten for both her vaults, which was enough to take her into the lead. Miss zara 03/04/06

I knew this, I requested for citation of FIG's official decision in the case. There is said "she was disciplined". I personally find nothing unusual in her scoring - two judges didn't "go in the line" with those, who gave 10, Nellie Kim didn't "go in the line" with those, who gave 9.9 and 10.0. Instead, suspicious for me is when all marks are equal. Credibility of such judges should be questioned first of all IMHO. So, please, provide such a citation or the sentence should be reworded. Cmapm 22:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, in that coverage, e.g. Aurelia Dobre's (Romania) scores on vault were HOL-9.9, URS - 9.8, FRG-9.8, GDR-9.7, ITA-9.9, AUS-9.8. From this scoring it can be seen, that 1. the situation with GDR judge's mark here is similar to that with URS judge's mark in Silivas's case - it's "not in line" with other judges, but should we call this "unfair judging" too? 2. we also see, that judges from HOL and ITA tend to give higher marks, than other judges, may be they were wrong to give 10s to Silivas? Cmapm 23:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in
OK. Cmapm, I hope you don't mind my jumping in here! I've tried to do some detective work here to see if I can get to the bottom of this. You know how much I love and respect Soviet gymnastics and gymnasts like Kim, so I'm not biased here. :)
I've found a few articles...this one: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/1388/IG.html is a reprint from International Gymnast--that describe the situation during Seoul. From what I have been able to find out, it seems to me that the judging was weird all the way around, not specifically with Kim. There was the neutral deduction with the US WAG team in team finals, the Romanian judge who marked down Shush; the GDR judge who marked down Dobre, 10.0's being given out left and right, etc. In the specific case of Silivas, she actually scored higher than Shushunova in the AA, but lost the gold due to her scores that had been carried over from the team competition. If it had been a New Life meet, she would have won, regardless of Kim's score.
I'm guessing that in this case, people have just picked up on Kim's score because it was lower and the difference between Silivas and Shushunova was so narrow. I think whenever it's that close there can always be controversy, Kim was a very famous gymnast, a more public figure than the other judges, and easy to blame. As mentioned before, Kim's score was dropped; it didn't even count toward Silivas' total. There were no score protests filed and apparently Silivas and her coaches never blamed Kim for anything.
I also looked into the sentence "Kim was later disciplined for her judging." Apparently she was disciplined, yes--but not because of Seoul. She was suspended after the 1990 World Cup for a little while. I've found references to it here: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:GHgSijhKTmkJ:espn.go.com/abcsports/wwos/milestones/1970s.html+%22Nellie+Kim%22+suspended&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 (it's the very last thing on the page) and here: http://www.gymnpics.com/gymnasticgreats/wag/kim_nelli.htm There isn't a heck of a lot of information on it, though. The World Cup wouldn't have garnered a lot of press coverage, it was between Worlds and Olympics years and it sounds as if it were a very short suspension, since Kim was in Barcelona.
So...what I propose...perhaps the section could be reworded to acknowledge the controversy (a lot of people do feel strongly that Silivas should have won) but empahsize the New Life issue and remove the statements implicating Kim? Like so:
Silivaş was in the lead entering the final rotation, but a score of 9.950 on the vault dropped her to second place behind Shushanova by only 0.025. The contest is widely acknowledged to have been one of the finest in the history of the sport, not to mention most hotly debated. If the competition had been held under the New Life format Silivas would have won; her all-around scores were actually higher than those of Shushunova but her combined AA and team scores were not. While there were rumours of improper judging during the session, no score protests or disciplinary measures were ever filed against any of the judges.
Would this compromise work? Namaste! Mademoiselle Sabina 03:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: All right, I've gone in and tried to reword that paragraph. I took out all mention of Kim, indicated that there was a controversy, but tried to spell out the facts about it. I hope that compromise works for all. Mademoiselle Sabina 19:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification! Nice work! Although I personally still think, that 10.0 marks by HOL and ITA for Silivas and 9.9 their marks for Dobre are more suspicious, than 9.8 for Silivas, I accept your proposed compromise version. Cmapm 22:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, do you know, when was the New Life format used from? I think, this information should be included into the respective section of the artistic gymnastics article. Cmapm 10:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the first year they used New Life was 1989...I think Seoul was the last major competition to use the old format, and 92 was the first Olys with NL.
For the judging...honestly, I think if we were to look at the entire Seoul Olympics, there was a lot of strange judging activity on all sides. There were a lot of things there that could be called into question. In the AA, both Shushunova and Silivas received 10s on two events each, so we can call them even, in that respect. :) Namaste, Mademoiselle Sabina 15:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. I've also read somewhere recently, that there were also many strange pre-Olympic activities in some countries, e.g. during the selection to the team process. I suppose, that these Games were one of the most controversial for gymnastics in many aspects. Cmapm 15:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry cmapm, didn't realise. I didn't add the bit about discipline so I don't know where it comes from, though I've heard it before. There's a real problem with writing about gymnastics here because a lot of things are not very well publicised and there isn't the wealth of material available that there is in some sports.

miss zara 04/04/06

General note I hope, that there will be no similar unsupported claims introduced by some people into articles in the future like were introduced here some time ago, in particular unsupported claims, concerning people from the USSR. Once again, citing sources is one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. Cmapm 22:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What happened there, was it a gymnastics thing? It may have been before my time! In general though I do think that gymnastics topics can be quite hard to wikify. By its nature its a subjective sport so even if you state both sides about a controversy (ie the Silivas/ Shushunova debate or the wider difficulty v form issue) there is still sometimes a problem with sources. Obviously a lot of the gymnasts and coaches don't speak about such things, possibly due to concern about not getting penalised by judges maybe. Also there just aren't as many gym sites as football so things like records of itemised judges scores can be lost. This is such a labour of love!

miss zara

I don't understand the question, what did you mean by the word "there", and whom is this question to? Cmapm 19:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It was a reply to the person directly above me. I don't know about the incident to which s/he refers and would like to be told.

miss zara 06/04/06

Ah, sorry, I didn't understand you were talking to me, I thought the comment was directed toward Cmapm and the coversation above. If you mean what happened in Seoul--basically a lot of things were rather suspiscious with the judging. Not enough so to warrant any kind of action, but just weird. There was sentiment that the Bulgarian women were shafted in the team finals, and should have won the bronze medal. The East Germans won the bronze medal, but that was questioned because the East German judge, Ellen Berger, cited a rather obscure rule to take a neutral deduction against the American team (also in contention for the bronze) in compulsories. The US alternate athlete stayed on the podium during another girl's routine, apparently nobody knew it would be an issue, and instead of issuing a warning before taking the deduction (as was done in the 2003 Worlds, when China received a neutral deduction), they just took the penalty. Justifiable, yes, but harsh. The IG article I've linked above talks about that a little. And so on and so forth...
The Nellie Kim/World Cup case I honestly don't know a lot about. I had always heard, as you had, that she had been sanctioned at one point, but until I googled the other day, I didn't know which meet it was for. Probably an old IG would have coverage of the incident, if I ever get to the library to find them and dust them off. :) Namaste Mademoiselle Sabina 21:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok MS, thanks for your help. Sorry to throw a spanner in the works again, but I really would like it mentioned that it was Nelli Kim who gave the vault a low score, or at least that it was a Soviet judge. There are so many accusations of nationalistic bias in Seoul- Berger, as you mention, and I heard the Romanian judge in the AA gave out some suspicious scores too, though I don't konw the details. So we could tie it in with that. (before anyone accuses me of bias, I prefer Silivas but for my money Shush deserved the win, and I concur with the person who says the 10s for Daniela's vault were no less dubious than the 9.8). I don't necessarily accuse Berger, Kim and Grigoras of nationalistic bias, but do feel it ought to be noted that their controversial decisions favoured gymnasts from their own nations. That could of course be coincedence, but I'd like the reader to have all the information to decide.

miss zara 08/04/06

Hmmm. I'm torn on this issue. I don't think adding Kim to the article would be worth it just because in the final analysis, it didn't affect Silivas' score at all. Even though it was lower than the other marks, it was thrown out, and she lost the gold based on her own performance in the qualification round and the combined scores of the other judges.
On the other hand, as we've all been mentioning, there were a lot of judging problems and questionable scores in Seoul. Perhaps the place to mention this all would be an article specifically about gymnastics at the 88 Olympics, where it could all be written up, "well, there were a lot of 10s and low scores and these were the major scandals, etc. etc. etc...." That way it wouldn't be targeting anyone in particular (I think Berger's actions were much more suspect than Kim's IMHO). Or we could open the floor here and see what the consensus comes up with?
FWIW, I agree with you: I absolutely think Shushunova deserved to win the gold, but I personally preferred Silivas' gymnastics. Even though I'm normally a fan of the Soviets gymnasts and don't care much for the ROM team, Silivas has to be one of my all-time favorites. :)Mademoiselle Sabina 13:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Mademoiselle Sabina and Miss zara. Well, the third person, I am, involved in the dispute and I state my objection to the "tie" proposed by Miss zara. I want to comment claims of "nationalistic biases". This is a heavy accusation and I am amazed, how easily so many judges (at least 3) are labelled with it. First of all you should cite official decisions in their cases, before claiming that they were wrong to score their marks. Even no protests were filed, i.e. the validity of the scores was not even questioned by interested parts. Second, how do you decide, that lower or higher scores were namely due to "nationalistic bias"? While we can speak between ourselves, that certain decisions were strange, we can't introduce our own suspicions into the article. I personally see media's, e.g. NBC's, immediate attention to Kim's decision to be the most nationalistic and biased. As I remember, commentators even didn't say, that 9.8 mark was dropped, just laughed at "that Soviet judge" who scored it. Potentially all scores there are questionable, but the basis of fans' opinions only I see to be too weak, as a compromise it's acceptable, if no further signs of relying on fans' opinions are shown. So, I support article's current state and reject Miss zara's proposal. Cmapm 17:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring 1988 Olympics[edit]

I see that others have already tackled this issue here, and I've used their links and comments to try to rewrite the section of the page. I've not taken any particular side of the issue, I've tried to keep the text down to the facts and Silivas' personal reactions. I've included Kim's name as "the Soviet judge" because it does come up in articles about the meet: International Gymnast, various Western networks and others have addressed the issue so it is more than fan speculation. IG in particular has a lot of links with the gymnastics community so they wouldn't print idle gossip or theory. Kim herself has addressed the issue of judging bias, and has admitted that there's no way to make it completely ojective. [1] I've also made a point of saying that officially Kim did nothing wrong and that her other score was in line with the rest of the judges.

I took this part out:

However, had the vault been scored higher by the Soviet judge then one of the higher scores would have been dropped, so even the highest and lowest scores which are dropped do have a bearing on the eventual result).

I don't care for Kim (namely for her COP involvement and her more recent judging) but it's not fair to put the blame on her here. If she'd given Silivas a 9.9, in line with two others on the panel, it would have mathematically made NO difference to the score. They'd still have been averaging two 10.0s and two 9.9s.

If she'd given Silivas a 10, yes, it would have made a difference. However, we could also argue that one of the two judges who gave 9.9s could have ALSO given Silivas a 10.0 and it would have had the same effect. Two other judges had the chance to score Silivas at a 10, and they didn't. In addition, the same six judges scored both Silivas and Shushunova; vault was Silivas' weakest event and unlike Shushunova, she did have a visible form break on her first vault, even though she stuck it. A deduction was justifiable there. I think it's a POV angle to just single out Kim. DanielEng 10:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

photo?[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Daniela Silivaș. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniela Silivaș. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniela Silivaș. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniela_Silivaș&oldid=1204212506"