Talk:Vlasta Děkanová

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vlasta Děkanová. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Georges Miez to 1936 Berlin Olympic subheading

In retrospect, I realized that I forgot to add Georges Miez, 1928 Olympic AA Champion from Switzerland, to the 1936 Berlin Summer Olympics subsection. The accidental omission of him is a significant one that should be changed. There are a few other minor corrections (technical ones) that should be made, as well. However, not just writing it, but dealing with the coding, making sure all of the references are correct, making other corrections, etc, is something I don't have time to struggle with right now. My mother and I are dealing with the death of the 2nd of her 3 brothers who has died this year - the other brother died just a few months ago. So, between stress and preparations for the trip, I don't have the time or wherewithal to do this right now. QuakerIlK (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done.QuakerIlK (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of pages 5 and 6 of 8 June 1934 edition of Sokolski Glasnik

There have been recent discussions regarding the degree to which individual gymnasts were recognized at earlier editions of the World Championships. One administrator, FOARP seemed particularly concerned, although there were well over a dozen other editors (one prominent among them was GauchoDude) who participated in relevant discussions, including numerous involved/related AfDs. I am mentioning both of them on here so that they will be notified of this newly included pertinent information (the edit I just made a few minutes ago) as, in addition to helping provide clarity on the history of Děkanová's individual recognition, it might further inform their perceptions on part of the overall matter, as well as inform future and previous edits that they and others might make and have made on this and/or related subjects. QuakerIlK (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This 1934 coverage of an all-round individual medal first awarded (for men) in 1922 does not address, at all, my concerns about articles claiming that pre-1922 competitors won individual medals at the tournaments they attended or would have received significant coverage for the decades-later retrospective recognition of their scores. The fact remains that no individual medal at all was awarded pre-1922, and that individual apparatus medals were only awarded some years after that, and so claims that they won individual medals at these events are obviously incorrect and not a sound basis for notability. Additionally, Sokolski Glasnik is not independent of the Sokol gymnastics movement and its members (it was the official gazette of the Yugoslav Sokol movement - see page 265 of the pagination/6 of the PDF here), and so anyway not representative of what independent, reliable sources would have said. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns have not been strictly limited to pre-1922 events whereas this subject is concerned. They have extended to these 1934 World Championships, as is evidenced by at least one edit you made on the article for the World Championships where you quoted Abie Grossfeld, writing in the Science of Gymnastics Journal, as having said “Similarly the first women's championship in 1934 only had medals being awarded to teams, not individuals.” I am shedding further light on them and on contemporaneous attention paid to individuals in them, which should inform your concerns that seem to generally rest on the "team only" aspect upon which you position your edits. If you want to say that this is not independent because it is a Slavic Sokol publication, fine, however the concern of dependency issues, whereas the subject of Dekanova is concerned, yields that this publication was not owned by Dekanova or her country. Here's some clarity for you - Your concern is not of dependency, your concern is if bias. If you are claiming a broader Sokol/Slavic bias, fine, however those claims might prove very contentious and potentially ethnically prejudicial – you’re saying that the Sokol movement, which was/is a Slavic movement, is biased and that their publications should be dismissed. The fact remains that Dekanova is recognized by both the FIG and USAG as the World All-Around Champion of these games, so that should dispense of any claims of strictly Sokol or Slavic bias whereas the history of this era in the sport is concerned.
Additionally, your preoccupation with whether someone was individually awarded a piece of metal only a few inches in diameter could be said to be trivial because even today, or at least as recently as the 2020/2021 Tokyo Olympics, the intrinsic value of an Olympic Bronze Medal was literally only about $5. A Bronze medal from a lesser championship would probably not be worth much, if any, more than that. Are you really going to say that an individual's notability should rest on whether or not they are awarded something that literally has an intrinsic value of only about $5? The historical record recognizes Gold, Silver, AND BRONZE medalists. Are you concerned with actual merit and history or only a cheap chunk of metal? As it is, I have previously introduced evidence suggesting that individual medals were awarded at at least one of these games, however your initial response was to categorically dismiss the source, showing absolutely no interest in considering or studying the evidence I gave you before you dismissed it. You showed no interest, for example, that the medals presented on Ferdinand Steiner's bio on his Alma Master's webpage were for a competition that was the same year and locale for the games; moreover, the articulation on the medals were not for a "World Championships" in any language, they were for "Concorso Ginnastico Internazionale", suggesting that they were awarded before such games were retroactively recognized as a World Championships, further suggesting that they were awarded AT THE TIME, and that this was not somehow prefabricated or arbitrary. You weren’t interested in discussing or investigating or questioning any of that, at first – you were only dismissive. Furthermore, his Alma Mater’s presentation of those metals on that page is not, per your words, “some Czech school bigging up their alumni” as the presentation of those medals on the page make no claims above or beyond what the FIG (and, to an extent, the USAG) recognizes. You weren’t interested in any of these facts or suggestions at all. Just like you also have ignored that the Sokolski Glasnik publication pictorially featured, not only for the women, Dekanova, a Czech, but, for the men, Mack and Miez – both Swiss. They didn’t focus only on Slavic interests. They showed photos of BOTH World All-Around Champions – Slavic/Sokol or not - and they listed all teams and team total points, as well as the top 10 individuals in each contest, and included their nationalities and points awarded. It was objective and balanced reporting. QuakerIlK (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, your citing of Abie Grossfeld’s writings in the Science of Gymnastics Journal brings up another set of issues – the reliability of some of his writings. In Volume 6, number 2, page 7 of the SoG Journal, Grossfeld wrote “Only European nations took part in all WC up until 1950 when Egypt participated with a full team of eight gymnasts (which were the first gymnasts from the African continent).”, however the Sokolski Glasnik publication and coverage of these 1934 Worlds mentions a full Mexican team at the 1934 Worlds, plus it has been documented by other sources that the individuals now retroactively recognized as the 1903 (Joseph Martinez) and 1909 & 1913 (Marco Torres) World All-Around Champions were both French-Algerian. And, yes, Grossfeld included those pre-WWI editions of the games as Championships in this writing, because earlier on, in page 6 of that publication, in that article, he states “The first two WC, 1903 and 1905, had four teams”. I know about this because over 4 years ago, I made this discovery and edited the relevant part of the narrative of the leader for the World Championships article. QuakerIlK (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have discussed more than once the fact that wall-of-text comments are not conducive to discussion. FOARP (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just jumping in here. Not much to add, but continue to find it personally amusing that such incredibly detailed responses on this topic continue to be met with "lol too long, I can't be bothered to read that".
In any event, and not sure this is the proper place for this conversation since no one will find it again (I'm only here because I was @'ed), but I think we're getting too hung up on "omg, this was a real, physical medal hung around someone's neck at the games". Whether someone got a medal or not, whether while standing on a podium during the event or retroactively awarded years later, or maybe never got a physical medal at all, is irrelevant in the context of Wikipedia notabilty. WP:NGYMNAST, and the greater WP:ATHLETE, is just a quick and dirty measuring stick of "yeah this person probably makes it" or "nah, this person probably doesn't". A gymnast could be dead last in every competition they ever compete in and still be "notable" if they meet WP:GNG. Continuing these deep dives into historical medals is missing the point on both sides.
I continue to believe, per WP:GOODFAITH, that those users with valid concerns regarding our very small wiki gymnastics community are well within their right to do so while simultaneously questioning to what level others are getting this similar treatment at larger communities. It's certainly quieted a bit recently, but with the amount of "lug stubs" or whatever they're called (short sports biographies) almost exponentially more pervasive around other sports like baseball, association football, basketball, gridiron/American football, etc., one can't help to start thinking about WP:HOUNDING.
I won't be commenting further on this nor checking this for responses (I guess unless you feel compelled to @ me or direct reply). If you'd like to expand upon this conversation, it probably makes more sense to move to WikiProject Gymnastics or somewhere else more suitable for a larger conversation (and not a random gymnast bio).
tl;dr for those of you that need it: Medals are pointless, stop arguing about it, find WP:GNG regardless of how "good" someone is. GauchoDude (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, GauchoDude. Keeping it brief here, but the recent history of these discussions and related articles, AfDs, etc, should show that the actual, documented knowledge we have of the further-back history of the sport has not been made thoroughly transparent, and there are significant inconsistencies among different sources and even within sources. It is better, I think, to try to display that this has been the case, rather than to use only one or two sources, especially questionable ones, and go on a crusade of equivocation, minimalization, and deletionism of all related information due to a few statements of questionable reliability. Some editors should do a better job of admitting what they don't know and form their edits accordingly, especially if they are an administrator, which comes with additional power and responsibility. QuakerIlK (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting issues especially in the Vlasta Děkanová#1936 Berlin Summer Olympics section

For anybody who might be looking on and curious, I wanted to articulate the following about some of the particularities whereas the references and reference formatting issues within this wiki-dense section are concerned. These particularities are relevant not only to this section within this Děkanová article but, really, any time anyone cites any Official Olympic Reports from the la84.org cite, which should apply many times as they are a highly important and often applicable resource whereas the history of modern sporting is concerned.

One problem with citing Official Olympic Reports from the la84.org website is that the navigability of their online offerings presents challenges. This is something that has created a problem for me for a few years now, since I have consciously and deliberately tried to become more skilled in Wikipedia protocol, especially whereas supplying "best practice" referencing is concerned. I have found that whereas the supplied references on the articles I work on, and related articles, are concerned, many/most pre-existing examples, not supplied by me, were certainly not "best practice" examples, even when they might have linked to the Official Olympic Reports (which is certainly not always). Since the LA84.org site includes things like covers (both front and back and outside and inside) within their digital reproductions and since that site also has a separate URL for each page, the page numbers of the digital copy do not completely and exactly correspond with the page numbers of the original document, and this is certainly understandable from a digitizing technician's standpoint as well as from a completist's standpoint. However, this poses a problem with how to cite the digital copies of these reports on the LA84.org site without confusing readers and editors. There are a number of issues that could be brought up for clarification on this. One of them is that I don't want to create a completely new reference tag (which generates a completely new reference listing) for each page number cited within each Olympic report. One reason for that, especially in this instance, is that it could make the References section unnecessarily unwieldly.

I don't want to split hairs on all of the technical issues that could be discussed. To keep things simply stated, what I ultimately decided to do was to simply make sure that each time I cited an Official Olympic report, I supplied 1) a URL that will at least get to the proper report for the concerned Olympiad on the LA84.org website and 2) the relevant page number using the "{ { rp | page number=xx } }" tag. That way, if anybody is really interested enough, at least they will be directed to the proper report for the proper Olympiad and they will know the page number to look for, as they are not only generated in the References section, but also within the relevant part of the body of the article, itself.

I hope this helps! QuakerIlK (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vlasta_D%C4%9Bkanov%C3%A1