Jump to content

Talk:Nadia Comăneci

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DanielEng (talk | contribs) at 09:29, 1 November 2006 (combining two sections). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I have edited the Nadia Comaneci information in this WIKIPEDIA, to make it more updated, and also deleted the rumours that should not be shown in a responsible encyclopedia web site. All the informations provided have proof and evidents, to make them more relivent to readers about this remarkable lady.

Ah! The voice of a censor. Look around Wikipedia, and any responsible encyclopedia, and you will find rumors (e.g. Mariette Hartley was rumored to be married to James Garner, which is included in the article, even though the rumor is false!). Rumors are part of the identity and significance of many events and people. It is inaccurate and unhelpful to censor the rumors. Rather, to be useful as an encyclopedia, significant rumors should be included and identified as such.

I agree with the first writer. When a rumour is proven to be false, I believe it should be discarded from public memory. For example, the singer Britney Spears was once rumoured to have hit the bottle. She was photographed with a bottle of a green liquid which was thought to be an alcoholic spirit. This was later found to be harmless Ginseng herbs. Would it be fair to the public who rely on Wikiepdia for FACTS to include this story in the Britney page? Would it be fair to write "Britney was rumoured to be a drinker of strong alcoholic spirits" or would it be equally valid or useless rather to then write "The rumour was found to be untrue". Rumours are useless pieces of information which are later deemed untrue. They are fuelled by the greedy media in order to get a quick buck and this sort of carry on should, in my view, be kept well away from a wonderful, USEFUL, website such as this. Nadia Comaneci was a true hero, one which has been unequalled in strength of character and determination, will and pure excellence. Who cares if some silly journalist decided to make a sleezy scandal about her. Long live a world free from useless information and filled with Olympic champions such as Nadia Comaneci! User:Jaw101ie 02:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor or Fact?

Hi. I've heard over the years that one of the main reasons for Comaneci's defection was "the fact" that she was being sexually harassed by some big shot in the Romanian government. Is that true or just another dumb story some tabloid threw at us? IF there's any shread of truth in this, it should be included in the article. Does anyone know anything about that? Redux 00:25, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"It was even rumoured that Nadia's fingernails had been torn out by Nicu Ceausescu when she refused to comply with his sexual fantasies. All of these rumours were untrue, she insists. 'This is not my life. I knew Nicu Ceausescu, yes. But if you work with someone in a building, does this mean you're romantically attached to them?' And there was no suicide attempt, and no drinking bleach.'" (from "The perfect ten" in the Observer) --Closeapple 05:40, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

movie of 1976 olympic success

does anybody knows if there is on the web the way to see the 10/10 peformance of Nadia Comaneci in 1976? That would be interesting to add as external link. Thanks --Sailko 13:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

I have added a link to a Google Video movie of the 1976 performance. Razvan Socol 10:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia's first child

I couldn't believe it. It's really terrific for her and Bart.

Isn't she a bit old to be having a baby at 45 years of age?

--EuropracBHIT 05:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Politics

This article is not the place for it, but I want to make a little remark for the following political statement:"She recieved this award while the country was under the brutal, Stalinist reign of Nicolae Ceauşescu."

My remark is: under the same "brutal, Stalinist reign of Nicolae Ceauşescu" Romania was the only ally of the USSR to go to 1984 Summer Olympics in the USA, while others boycotted the event. Heh? :) Cmapm 00:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

I find the following quote to be doubtful: "She is widely considered to be perhaps the greatest gymnast of all time". Please, provide citations for this. I personally think, that e.g. Larisa Latynina overall performed better, at least by Olympic medal count. And unlike Latynina Comaneci didn't win the World AA title. I think, that Comaneci perhaps received the greatest media attention of all time among all female gymnasts, but this doesn't necessarily imply, that she is "widely considered the greatest gymnast of all time". Cmapm 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is an "illness test" and is there a source for this information? Vesperholly 09:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overweight

Isn't "overweight and out of shape" redundant? And doesn't "out of shape" need hyphens? 68.215.209.144 21:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First 10.0

It seems that Nellie Kim also got a 10.0 in the same Montreal '76 Olympics. If Nadia Comaneci was first, that is just because uneven beams was before vault. IMHO both should be credited as the firsts in getting a 10.0, not just Comaneci. VbrotoVbroto 23:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Comaneci's 10.0 was legitimately the first.
There were four separate days of competition in gymnastics at the Montreal Olympics: Team prelims, team finals (Competition I); all-around (Competition II); event finals (Competition III). Both gymnasts competed in all rounds of competition, so it is not as if Comaneci had any kind of head start or was simply lucky enough to "go first" on the apparatus.
Comaneci earned her first 10.0 on July 18th during CI; Kim did not win her first 10.0 until July 21st during CII...several days later.
Kim is correctly credited as the first gymnast to achieve 10.0s on the vault and floor exercise; however, Comaneci was technically the first to achieve the score at all.
http://www.gymn-forum.com/results/Olympics/1976_Montreal/1976_women_team_1-3.html --Scores for CI, July 18-19
http://www.gymn-forum.com/results/Olympics/1976_Montreal/1976_women_aa.html --Scores for CII, July 21

Mademoiselle Sabina 11:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted information from the article

I've noticed that several passages have been repeatedly deleted from this article, most notably the ones concerning the scoring biases at the 1980 Olympics and the 1981 University Games.

  • Since all the information in those passages is factual and is backed up with citations, I don't see why it continues to be removed. The quote "Yelena performed better that day" is from Nadia herself. Leaving the passage simply as "they debated for 30 minutes" doesn't tell the reader about the result of the conflict, how people saw it, etc. It simply infers something was wrong, without saying what. Either a) both sides should be shown or b) the entire passage must be removed.
  • Many people, including ROM supporters, have considered the 1981 UG a joke. The fact that Comaneci's vault was only worth a 9.9. but still received a score of 10 is a recorded fact. Nor are the ages of the other ROM team members, or the makeup of the judging panel, fiction.

I don't think this article should be a fan page; the bad must be shown along with the good. The entire tone of the article is very complimentary to Ms. Comaneci and since these issues do come up frequently in discussion, I see no reason why they should not be included, objectively, here. DanielEng 07:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]