Talk:2008 Summer Olympics torch relay/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Photos

I find the photo captions in the article very POV and only show violent protesters. The majority of protester were peaceful and were there to express feelings Oiboy77 (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect to: Image:Almaty Torch Relay.jpg. What is the purpose of this image, and how is it important to the article on the Relay? It strikes me as being an incidence of unwanted (but unintentional) product placement. Where branding is relatively inconspicuous, and part of an important image, I have no problem with the use of the image. However, I do not think that the inclusion of what is essentially a Coca Cola billboard is appropriate, and i think that the image should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.36 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Environmental impact

Are you fucking joking? Change it to "trivia".

-G

I agree, even removing it all together. It's a pointless factoid, one sentence shouldn't justify a brand new section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.206.232.74 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the fact serves no point but to take up spcae, its going AntarticStargate (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely trivia, in case anyone wants to add this again. The impact is the same as any other torch relay. Or else we can talk about the environmental impact of Al Gore's global speaking engagements. --Kvasir (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2008

This is a waste of space. Make a trivia section for this to go into Wizard 109109 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be put into a trivia section. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Image and DYW

I'd like to nominate this article for the main page Did you know section, but an image of the torch would really help. Anyone who can locate a freely licensed image or confirm that the images on the official site are freely licensed, it'd be great. Ichibani 23:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Domestic Route

The Beijing authorities regard Taipei, Hong Kong, and Macau as part of their domestic route. Inclusion of Taipei in this segment is the cause of the opposition in Taiwan and thus should be noted in this article. I will make appropriate edits in a few days if there is no opposition.

ludahai 魯大海 00:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "... Ho Chi Minh City >> Taipei >> Hong Kong >> Macau" were all considered a part of the "International Route", the "Domestic Route" consisted only of places on the mainland. --68.239.64.209 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Taipei, Hong Kong and Macau are all regarded as part of the "international route". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Taipei, Hong Kong and Macau are domestic as regarded by China, which of course is why some among the Taiwan goernment opposed. The "mainland China route" is not the equlivalent of "domestic route". Hong Kong's foreign relations activities are conducted by the mainland Central Government. Herunar (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a mood point now, Taipei is removed from the torch relay altogether. --Kvasir (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced dot in torch relay image

The dot marking Buenos Aires is way off. Maybe the original creator has the image in an easily editable format and cares to correct it? Cheers! ironcito 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: The author (Aleenf1) has posted an updated version of the relay map (as at 14 August 2007) with B.A. in the correct location. — digitaleon • talk @ 06:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The dot marking for New Delhi, India is misplaced. Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.207.23 (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Page title

I would think that the "Torch Relay" part of the title should be lowercase. It seems that it would make more sense. At least until WP:OLYMPICS figures out a standardization for these types of pages. Jared (t) 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Plane

Does anyone know how the fire was trasnported in the flight from greece to beijing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.151.209 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The torch was carried aboard an Air China charter plane. (Photo) --72.75.56.66 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More info on the BBC article here [1]] Paulbrock (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Konnie Huq

Konnie has not spoken out against China publically - she just has not 'condoned' their action on Tibet. Also she chose not to wear a 'Free Tibet' shirt - stating that there is no need to use viduals to make a protest...yea right!

moved to bottom Ged UK (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What he said, but I could not find a quotable media source for that at the time. --Kiz o r 02:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

She spoke out against China on Sky News on 6/04/08 I believe. The reason she did not wear the shirt was because the IOC forbid it, so she wouldn't have been allowed to run. Jetekus (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Has he been to Tibet? Dose he know what the Tibet before and now? I hate the people who just say something without investigation. I don't believe that is the so-called Democracy and Freedom. (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2008 (GMT+8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen0928 (talk • contribs)

Number of times flame was extinguished in Paris.

Since we have current conflicting reports of the number of times it's been extinguished, the current "several times" is sufficient until the matter can be resolved (just making the note, I don't mean to sound like I'm "declaring the matter closed" ;) ). Padillah (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The 8 o'clock news here in France on the France 2 channel showed videos of two occurrences, and earlier news broadcasts had said twice. On both occurrences, it was Chinese officials who extinguished the flame. The first time, a female Chinese athlete in a wheelchair was carrying the flame, when a Chinese official took it, switched it off, and had it carried back into a special bus. The second time, athlete David Douillet was passing the torch to another athlete, when a Chinese official took it (for reasons which aren't really clear) and, again, extinguished it, despite Douillet's protests. Other events and incidents reported in the French news include:

Three people from Reporters Without Borders climbed up the Eiffel Tower (without protective gear!) and hung up a flag showing handcuffs in place of the Olympic rings;
Other people from Reporters Without Borders, including Robert Ménard, got up onto the Notre Dame cathedral, and flew that same flag from it;
Politicians from the Green Party flew the Tibetan flag from a window of the Hôtel de Ville;
Several Members of Parliament (from more or less all parties, including the Socialists, UMP, Greens, Communists and Nouveau Centre) stood outside the National Assembly, holding the Reporters Without Borders "handcuff" flag as the coach with the torch drove by, and held a banner (I can't remember quite what was written on it; something along the lines of "Freedom for Tibet", I think);
There was a gathering of exiled Tibetans and their supporters near the Eiffel Tower; Jane Birkin was there, as was French politician Corine Lepage.

That's what I saw on the news on TV. I'm sure there'll be sources for it in the written press fairly soon. Aridd (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The videos don't really add much evidence, i guess, simply that it was extinguished on camera twice. As this settles down we could edit the 'several times' to include the variety of times reported (and the sources, obviously), if a single number can't be agreed upon. I'm not sure it's hugely important how many times, the notability is in the fact that it was extinguished at all.

The Guardian report the Green Party flying the flag ([2]), and I expect the other stuff will appear soon enough, especially in the French press/web. Ged UK (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

France 24 says the torch was extinguished three times: [3]. Aridd (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's variable at the moment. If we (ie the media) come to a consensus, then I guess we should go with that, otherwise leave it as 'several' or explain the variety of the reportage. 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the line "French security officials canceled the torch relay ceremony after protesters hung a Tibetan flag on City Hall" is misleading. First, I'm fairly sure it was cancelled for a variety of reasons, the sum of the disruptions and protests, plus being severely behind schedule at that point, rather than just the appearance of one flag. Second, from what was said on French news, the ceremony was cancelled at the explicit request of Chinese officials, not on the initiative of French security. Third, I may be wrong but I don't recall a flag being hung from the hall; only one being flown from a window by Green politicians. I'll fix it when I have time to look up the sources. Aridd (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The police in Paris says the torch was extinguished 5 times: [4]. Aridd (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The US Media has agreed with this count. Leobold1 (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Some anti-Olympics torch relay protesters are hired?

I see someone said that some protesters were hired. Is that true? And this should be added to article, the part introducing protest. Please see link below:

火炬过处尽显巴黎魅力(转载)

转一些战法（www.revefrance.com）留学生们的话：　　　　　　　　巴黎火炬熄灭的真相　　　　长话短说,火炬当时正要经过的是法国国会.为了抗议法国国会休会30分钟出来抗议.为了保护这群傻X,或者为了帮助他们抗议,警察决定熄灭火炬. 之后有巴黎市长出来讲话说为了抗议中国取消了市政府这一站. 一切看起来都像是巴黎政府安排好的. 　　　　　　　　推理 ZD 雇佣军的报酬，都是穷的原因，穷山恶水出刁民！　　　　今天本人身先士卒，亲自问了这些人，他们的确是被雇佣的！　　　　　　　　包括失业的法国人阿拉伯人土耳其人 + 地痞流氓　　　　　　　　而我和我的战友们只是一群爱国的努力的孤独的学生　　　　　　　　　　　　估计每个人事前先给500---1000欧元　　　　　　　　如果没有后期费用他们会出工不出力　　　　　　　　看他们如此拼命　　　　　　　　答案只有一个：　　　　　　　　大家看了电视了吧，他们那些闹事的，被警察抓的，上电视的　　　　　　　　都会有重金奖励估计1万欧以上　　　　　　　　冒充什么拼命三郎，去中国试试。。。　　　　　　　　爸爸说得对，穷山恶水出刁民，老萨，有面子吗？　　　　　　　　同意吗？　　　　　　　　　　　　会员回复：　　　　事实如此，法国人一人300欧。　　　　体育场回来的路上求证的。

I hope to verify the above. A reply said that that's true and the pay is Euro 300 per person. -Imachinese (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthurmore, on another post, I see someone said that American CIA funds Dalai Lama. The post:

圣火旧金山传递华人租直升机助威[组图(转载)]

The post cited another link and related information as below:

http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=586331　

　　　　The Role of the CIA: Behind the Dalai Lama’s Holy Cloak 　　Posted: 2008/03/23 　　From: Source 　　　　 The Dalai Lama has been on the CIA payroll since the late 1950s. He is an instrument of US intelligence. 　　　　　　by Michael Backman 　　(Global Research) 　　　　Global Research Editor’s note 　　This incisive article by Michael Backman outlines the relationship of the Dalai Lama and his organization to US intelligence. 　　　　The Dalai Lama has been on the CIA payroll since the late 1950s. He is an instrument of US intelligence.

I'd like to verify them and hear your comments. - Imachinese (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Valuable jokes can be added to article: free Japan! free Japan!

Ok. Noboday give any opinion. Just now I read a joke which was told to be true. During torch relay held in London, a protester (reckoned to be hired) shouted: free Japan! free Japan!. This puzzled people around him. After another protester saying somthing to him, he changed to shout free Tibet, free Tibet. haha. Related post:

伦敦火炬传递惊现“Free Japan”(转载)

伦敦火炬传递惊现“Free Japan”

不知道参加46伦敦火炬**的朋友在去唐宁街的路上，因为警察封路，所以我们和藏独有过一段时间面对面对峙，这是一个衣着邋遢的外国年轻男子突然敲起一面破锅，一蹦三跳，情绪激动的在大喊： “free Japan!free Japan!"(自由日本！自由日本！）因为当时现场环境比较嘈杂，但他身边的人都一楞，大家一时间有点迷惑，怎么又和日本有什么关系？这是有藏独份子赶紧上前和他说了几句，他重新喊才是"free tibet,free tibet!"(自由西藏，自由西藏）也许JAPAN和TIBET的发音比较相近吧，这哥们一时间还没整明白。当时我们有位爱国的中国超市老板给大家送了一些瓶装饮料在路边发，这敲破锅SB哥们看来连自己哪个阵营也没分清，因为人群都交织在一起，就到这边要饮料喝，我们发饮料的问他是不是被雇来的，怎么这么晕呢？不过这SB哥们倒很实诚，承认是被花钱雇来的。

I think such valuable jokes can be added to article. Do you agree? -Imachinese (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. See WP:NOT for things Wikipedia is not. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Which item says cannot? The article is about torch relay, but most pictures are about protest against torch relay. Do you think it's proper? When we introduce protest, surely we need to mention that some protesters are hired and even a hired protester shouted out a wrong slogan if true. -Imachinese (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it deserves to be mentioned objectively. Herunar (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to be joking?? You expect people to believe that pro-Tibetan/Anti-CPC protestors were being paid??!!! Is there no end to the lies you people will speak to deflect attention from this farce?? The Great Veritas (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as there are people who believe pro-China demonstrators are paid. --Kvasir (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

to The Great Veritas, who are joking? who lies? How can you say and assure it's impossible that some pro-Tibetan/Anti-CPC protestors were being paid? Have you investigated it? I'm wondering why most protestors supporting Tibet to get independent are whites in the several countries of Europe and North America instead of Tebitans themselves. Why? -Imachinese (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

To Veritas: To state that there is no reason to add it objectively solely since because of your opinion is not more solid grounds as proof, than say, if someone actually witnessed such things. If the anti-chinese/pro-tibet people (or even some) were paid and ther exists proof, add it. Likewise, if pro-chinese people were paid, add it. Objectivity is key (btw, I think this article is too pro-tibet)Noian (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Truth is in front of you. If you are not a shill or a troll, read it [5] [6].--Jahilia (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. A random guy yelling whatever does not belong to the article talking about Olympics Torch relay. What if I start yelling "China's nationalists vandalize Wikipedia" when the relay comes to my city, will you add it? I am assuming you will think of it as a joke, right?--Jahilia (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the above news listed by Jahilia. I think the western media is almost like anti-China propaganda machine. If you konw China and Chinese including Tibetan Chinese, you'll see what's their ideas about Tibet. No country including USA acknowledges that Tibet is not part of China and is an independent nation. But what I see, I think is that the western media is propagandizing their intention of splitting Tibet from China or use it as a tool to oppose China (e.g., the above listed news of washingtonpost: For Tenzin Tsundue, however, the Games represent both pride and pain for him as a Tibetan exile. "As a child, I, too, had the romance of the Olympics in my eyes. But I would ask myself, 'Where are my Tibetan national heroes? Where is my flag at the Olympics?' " ). Why don't western media hear the voices of most Chinese? And for general western people, as 魏徵 (Wei Zheng), the former Prime Mister of China in about 1400 years ago said: 兼聽則明，偏聽則暗 (Listen to all sides and you will be enlightened, heed only one side and you will be benighted), I advice you to listen to the opinions of more Chinese including more Tibetans, not limited to your media. On the other hand, I have to state the spirit at least I hold, by citing an old Chinese saying from 《詩經》 (Shi Jing) ：“柔亦不茹，剛亦不吐；不侮矜寡，不畏強禦。”(Do not insult the week, do not fear the strong.) -Imachinese (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

London

I'm pretty sure that the torch had to be transported on a bus for some of the way in london as well, alhough this isn't mentioned in the article. TheTrojanHought (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just after the Blind Beggar pub in Whitechapel, I saw them turn tail and run back on the bus after they got pelted with eggs and snow balls, they were running late as well (the schedule said they should have been there by 3.30 but it was more like 4.15 by the time they got there) so I guess that's why they decided to drive the rest of the way - but this is all original material as they say, the IHT report is the nearest I can get to what I actually saw, so I put it up FOARP (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

good pic ...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Paris_2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay.jpg

maybe we could use this somewhere ... it's on the german main page Black Lab (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

In the first title in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.129.150 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be locked in order to stop the vandalism!Aleciampitti (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

After reverting vandalism saying to boycott the Olympics, I did give the culprit a warning on his talk page. Later I received this remark on my talk page. I don't know how much vandalism this page has been getting, but with it being controversial and on the main page, I strongly recommend semi-protecting it. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There has been plenty of major vandelism, as well as some minor stuff. Lines like "police 'rape' a local protestor" rather then the word 'encounter,' 'detain,' 'arrest,' or even 'attack' are offensive/insensitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.254.86 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to WP:RFP. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Falsehood

Someone has written in the article: "However, the police presence was almost unable to stop the protesters attempt to attack two handicapped athletes carrying the torch". The source provided is a link to this video, which shows no such thing. It shows protestors getting in the way, and possibly trying to get at the torch, but there's no evidence whatsoever of an attempted assault against the Chinese athlete. I'm editing the article accordingly. Aridd (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

00:49. One protestor actually raised a leg to kick the handicapped athlete. You should watch it again. Herunar (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone over it several times, freezing the frames, and you may be right. I think he raises his leg a microsecond before being tackled by the anti-riot police. It does seem to be a despicable and cowardly attempt to kick a woman in a wheelchair. I've isolated frozen frames: [7], [8], [9]. However, the initial sentence in the article was erroneous. One attempt by one man on one athlete is not "protestors" (plural) attacking athletes (plural). It's always possible to find one violent idiot if you're looking for one, and an isolated incident in this case, disgusting as it was, doesn't characterise the rest of the protests. Aridd (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I reworded it. Herunar (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found out who the athlete is (and I've added her name to the article). The official torch relay website has a page glorifying her as the "guardian angel" and "two-wheeled smiling angel" of the Olympic torch, "shielding it with her frail young female body", but they don't mention anyone trying to kick her. They just say that the man, "an extremist favourable to the so-called independence of Tibet, rushed at her, attempting to derail the Olympic relay". [10] I would have thought that, if he'd tried to assault her, the Chinese Olympic authorities who wrote the page would have said so (in hyperbolic terms), but they don't. I don't mind it staying in the Wikipedia article, because it does seem to me that he did try to hit her, but I just thought I should point out that it's not mentioned there. Aridd (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The freeze frame you isolated was definite proof. The official news does not always go down to specifics. Herunar (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note: What you're seeing is not a kick. Photographs from the front on (as you would be sitting opposite the woman in the wheel chair) show that the two are not directly in line with one another. What you're seeing is a protester being tackled and his legs moving upwards in response. Unfortunately, due to the angle of the camera it appears that he's trying to kick her when in fact he is not. See the photo here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/07/ntorch607.xml Notice that the wheel chair athlete is not recoiling, as one would expect if she was about to be kicked, and notice, also, that the two are not in line with one another. While I'm not suggesting that it is impossible to kick someone from an angle, a viewing of the video (found various places on the internet) shows the protesters leg moving upwards after he is grabbed. Please remove this obvious NPOV claim from wikipedia. While you may not agree with the nature of the protests, they should at least be represented correctly.

Additionally, if people do continue to put forward the claim that it was an attempted kick I'd very much like to see a source in line with typical wikipedia policy. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.28.9 (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The video clearly shows that he raised the leg before the police tackled him, but was immediately pushed off (see the isolated frames above). As for the recoil, the reaction time of a person is 0.2 second and the time between when he raised his leg and was pushed off is about the same. The image you gave clearly showed him off-balance and the policeman with his full body against his. The first contact, as you can see in the video, was between the policeman's hands and the protestor's body. That the policeman has already, in the image, had his whole body against the protestor means that he has already pushed him off. There is also no reason for the protestor to raise his right leg as he was pushed from the left - if you are pushed from the left, you naturally raise your left leg to try to gain balance. The video clearly showed him raising his right leg, which further decreases his balance. I've replayed the three seconds a few dozen times and I am confident of my analysis compared to your single-frame conclusion. Herunar (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"my analysis" and "your..conclusion"? Isn't this heading towards original research? Paulbrock (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but pretty much everything is original research this way. The primary difference is that my original research is common analysis based on citable sources, while the "research" that OR refers to is simply the user's own speculation, often based on experience. For example, the analysis on what to cite from a source and what to exclude is basically original research - but a minor one, one that allows all readers to decide themselves whether it is true, since there is a source provided. I would say that most people with basic visual processing abilities will arrive at the same "conclusion" that I have made after seeing the cited video and photos. Herunar (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Two people have already questioned what the video shows. OR can also apply to use of primary sources. The issue is about whether what is shown is agreed upon, from WP:OR -

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."

It's not the clearest of videos, and I'd say after seeing both the video and the telegraph picture, I still have a little doubt, and would prefer to temper down the wording to something like "in x video a protestor appears to try and kick the torchbearer". Paulbrock (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Trouble is Paulbrock, you can't even say that much, as it's a point of view on the source. Others (myself being such a person) have a different point of view. One also has to ask, how notable is this supposed attempted kick, and is it the nature of a "supposed attempt" that put the global media, china included, off mentioning it? If they don't consider it even in the slightest bit noteworthy as news (news being a discipline attracting greater degrees of trivia), is it worthy of encyclopedic inclusion anyway? - not least because of the lack of sources that can be used to verify any such positive/accusative supposition based upon the video. He cannot be said to have attempted to kick her with any certainty, nor can it be said that he appeared to attempt it with any certainty barring ones own, which doesn't speak for the views who don't believe so. Crimsone (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Flame attendants

The section about the torch's security team needs some elaboration. --Camptown (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Found some Chinese news source. F (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this section was very one-sided. It is probably why this article's nuetrality has come into question Wizard 109109 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The flame attendants have received advanced training in five languages?

it appears in the article that "According to the China News Service, however, the attendants have received advanced training in five foreign languages (English, French, German, Spanish and Japanese) and the etiquette of various countries before their mission". However, according the given link: [11] , the flame attendants only know basic usages of the five languages :"掌握英語、法語、德語、西班牙語、日語的簡單用語和國際禮儀" and " 懂得多種語言的簡單應對，特別是“前進、後退、快、慢” ". --Snorri23 (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I used "advanced" to mean "before the mission", not "high level". Removed the word as it is confusing. F (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Sebastian Coe and theage are babyish, arrogant and uneducated

I just read the story of Sebastian Coe. Sebastian Coe, the head of 2012 London Summer Olympics said about the attendants, "They are horrible. They did not speak English ... I think they were thugs."[35] and the link:

Torch to be guarded by Australians only

It seems that the report and Sebastian Coe just want to relate not speak English with horrible and even thug. I think Sebastian Coe and the media are babyish, arrogant and uneducated.The attendants are Chinese, why they must speak English? They can hire translators. If in Portugal, Portuguese translators can help them. If in Vietnam, Vietnamese translators can help them. Why do Sebastian Coe and theage relate not speak English with horrible and thug??? -Imachinese (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to give Mr. Sebastian Coe and the Theage media company a classical principle said by Mencius as a present: 愛人者，人恒愛之；敬人者，人恒敬之。 and another classical principle said by Confucius: 愛人者，則人愛之；惡人者，則人惡之。 -Imachinese (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

anti-dictatorial

In the Paris chapter, it s written "Widespread anti-China and free-Tibet protests, including an attempt by more than one demonstrator ..." It s not anti-China protests, but anti-dictatorial protests. Just watch the videos and read the article --77.216.254.117 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Toto

It says anti-China/anti-Chinese, as far as I know. Even if it did say anti-dictatorial, then it is fundamentally mistaken and should not be included in Wikipedia. First off, China is not a dictatorship. It is under the rule of solely one party, the Communist party, but that makes it a one-party leadership that does not recognize democracy, not a dictatorship. Some prefer to call it a totalitarian state, although personally I believe not, giving the immense economic freedom (much more than Hong Kong, a capitalist region). Taiwan (ROC) before 1996 is much more a dictatorship than China, and I don't see people protesting against Taiwan. Herunar (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Errrmmmm . . . that's because 1) Taiwan is now a democracy and 2) Taiwan is not staging a torch relay through cities worldwide. And China most certainly is a dictatorship, as the executive 'dictates' what happens in the country without having to consult anyone. FOARP (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

False. First off, nobody protested against Taiwan before 1996, and that's what I'm referring to. Anyway, this is inconsequential. Second, you display a basic ignorance of the political system in China. China, at worst, can be classified as a one-party dictatorship which is not a dictatorship. A "successful dictatorship" would ensure the political future of the dictator, obviously. That's not the case in China, where leaders are often upset by political maneuvering of others. As a simple example, the "dictatorial" Gang of Four which briefly held power (again, that's four people and not a dictatorship in the strictest sense) was upset by an alliance of Deng Xiaoping, Zhou Enlai and Ye Jianying, who turned out hundreds of thousands of protestors against the Gang of Four. The Gang of Four did not even dare angering the protestors who called for their downing. A pretty impressive democratic movement in a "dictatorial" state, no? Herunar (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Any group or cabal of people may form a dictatorship, and Hu Jintao was most definitely elected in free elections, give me a break!

See dictatorship. According to you, then, all the parties in the world who enjoy supermajority (66% mostly) are dictatorships. The western-supported Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. The U.S. removed the democratically elected government in Iran and enacted a monarchy not long ago. The position of the Dalai Lama itself was created by a bloodthirsty Mongol Khan. The U.S. supported the rule of the absolute dictatorship of Chiang Kai Shek in the ROC, as well as a fascist dictator in Spain (who, during WWII, created a foreign legion just to fight for his dear friend Hitler). Ahh, such hypocrites. Herunar (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See Single-party state which lists china as one. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Unquestionably, the US, the UK and other Western countries hypocritically have supported and do support ruthless dictatorships (and have even toppled a few democracies to replace them with brutal pro-Western dictatorships). Yes, the West supported the ROC when the ROC was a dictatorship. But that's not the issue here. In fact, whether or not the PRC is not a dictatorship is not the issue either. The issue is whether China was perceived to be a dictatorship by protestors, and whether protestors were explicitly "pro-democracy". I don't know whether they were in London, but they were in Paris. There were calls for "freedom of speech in China and Tibet". If there's a source establishing that protestors were pro-democracy, then the issue is settled. Whether or not Wikipedians believe China to be a dictatorship is then beside the point. Aridd (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

True, I've been off-topic. But I insist that, by logic, protestors who perceive China as a dictatorship is not the equlivalent, or represent, anti-dictatorial protestors (I've never even heard of such a thing - sounds more like political framing). Would those who protest the perceived dictatorship in Saudi Arabia go on to protest against China? Rarely. Anti-dictatorial is not a single classification - it should not even be a classification, in my opinion. I would suggest a more lengthy wording - e.g. supporters who call for more individual freedom in China. Herunar (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese language sources

Shouldn't all references be in the English language except where there are no other sources? I note that someone is linking to a blog called '西西河' for their information on the pro-China demonstrations in Trafalgar square - why can't they find an English language source for what they are saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not "they". Go find one yourself if you could - "they" couldn't. Herunar (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How does the torch travel by airplane?

When I was a wee lad, I believed the Olymplic Torch was carried by actual runners all the way from Olympia to the host country. If that were the case, the times and distances traveled wouldn't make sense. The article states "The relay ... will last 130 days and carry the torch 137,000 km (85,100 mi.) — the longest distance of any Olympic torch relay." Indeed!. If we recall that the Earth measures 40,007.86 km (meridional circumference), then the torch will travel almost 3 and a half times around the Earth. Moreover, if the relay "will last 130 days", it means the runners would have to travel close to 1,054 km each day, or 44 km per hour. I wonder, how do they manage to embark a live flame or torch on an airplane??? --AVM (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a special lantern, the same one that is used to relight the torch should it go out. I imagine that the lantern has some sort of dispensation for going on planes. I'll see if i can find anything out. Ged UK (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

More info on the BBC article here [12]] Paulbrock (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This should go into a trivia section Wizard 109109 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"rm nonsense"

User:Camptown just removed my well-referenced additions twice with the edit summary "rm nonsense", this despite the fact that one of the source is provided by himself. I'm attempting to start a discussion with him - let this be the beginning. From User talk:Camptown#2RR and [13], my hopes are not high. Herunar (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is well referenced about a comment that is followed by a citation needed tag or am I missing something? Ged UK (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I already provided a source to him, although I did not include it in the article because this article is about the torch relay and not the media. The assertations are clearly available in the article and it's Chinese version. Here is another source [14] underlining the structure of CNS, proving it to be independent and not "goverment-controlled" as some claimed, confusing it with Xinhua. Herunar (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the source provided did not include critizism against Mr. Coe (that he is not in the position of critizising, has no proficiency in Chinese etc). If there are such critizism, it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources. --Camptown (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that I have been mistaken and cited the wrong source. Nonetheless, you should have given me time to find the source instead of engaging in an edit war. Nothing justifies repeated unexplained removals of referenced additions.

What about the "independent" edit? I have provided a source for that. Do you dispute it or not? Herunar (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Who can help me load this photo: Rob Olympic Torch

A person was robbing Olympic Torch:

您可以在上述圖片中選擇一張或多張。請平衡報導。謝謝！You can choose one or more from the above. Please keep banlanced report. Thanks -Imachinese (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Before we upload it, we need to know its origin. See here for restrictions on uploading. Aridd (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We also need to know the names of people and the situation being depicted. And references to those situations. Remember, WP is not a primary source, as such we can't publish anything first-hand. Padillah (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The torchbearer is Jin Jing. [15] I don't know about the situation, though. Aridd (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The posts said it was in Paris. I'll have a try to find who owns the copyright and get permission. Thanks for your helps. -Imachinese (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the photos in the following posts. Now many Chinese people become very angry with western media.

I have tried posting a message on that bbs last night and I think I can receive no feedback for the above photos. -Imachinese (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Just now I found that the photo of savage action has been added to the article. Thanks. -Imachinese (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Parisian, that's definitely Paris. But we'll need to know a little bit more than that, about the second photo at least. The first one clearly comes from the incident already referred to in the article. (By the way, I gathered that the Chinese are pissed off at the "Western media", as though the Western media were some sort of monolithic bloc, but I'd interested to know why, exactly. Adding more on the Chinese perspective to this article could be interesting.) Aridd (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the CCP government, related businessmen and game players take the Olympic Game as a very and maybe most important event this year. But for most common Chinese people, I think it has little to do with them. Most Chinese including Tibetan Chinese are striving for better life, and what they care is their families and their own life. So not very many people know what western media reported or is reporting. In my observation on several internet forums, many Chinese including me think that most western people are misled by their media. In my opinion, I think foreigners and foreign countries are generally always been praised in Chinese media while Chinese and China may always or often be smeared in western media. So French is a very or sometimes potrayed as the most beautiful language, Paris is a very beautiful city and Frenchmen is very romantic in my mind and the form of these images in my mind are influenced by Chinese media since I have no french friends and also I haven't been to Paris. For Chinese, this kind of modest manner influenced by Confucius philosophy is not always good, I suppose. I think to different kinds of people we need different kinds of attitudes. But I think people in nature is always good and innocent. The reason a person becomes bad or evil is only because that he or she has bad or evil thoughts, believes or religions. -Imachinese (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We do need some balance here. There are seven photos of protest on the page. At least one photo of supporters would be good. F (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking that. It would be good to have an image of people waving Chinese flags as the flame goes by, or something. The protests are a very important aspect of the topic, but they're not the only aspect. By the way, this image seems to have been uploaded without information on its copyright status. If its copyright status can be ascertained, that web page also had an image of Reporters Without Borders' people scaling the Eiffel Tower (with very little protective gear) to hang up a protest banner. It's quite a striking and memorable image, so it would be good to have that too, if possible. In my humble opinion. Aridd (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. I agree with you. And more, I think a positive and bright picture should be placed in the uppest part. -Imachinese (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture which states Free Tibet was captioned as "Two banners hung by protesters who scaled the vertical cables of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California to protest China's human rights abuses in Tibet." Free Tibet doesn't necessarily implies the China's human rights abuses or at least not implied in this picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.160.238 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

The media is obviously supporting the Tibet protesters, some of the pictures which are up on the Chinese website shows a protester assaulting the paralysed torch-bearer. These pictures are the proof for the Tibet protesters disrupted the torch relay,however, this astonishing picture was never shown in any media in the western world. Everyone has a right to show their belief, but is it necessary to use violence to a handicapped person to show his belief? Olympics is about peace, not politics, so is it the right place for Tibet protesters to express themselves even use violence? The media seems only be interested in the Tibet protesters, but did they ever see that hundreds of people with red Chinese flags in both London and Paris, they are the people who try to welcome the Olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.120.219 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No one "assaulted" torch bearers. They just tried to grab the torch and that was it. Stop fabricating and making stuffs up. 216.165.62.194 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

One did assault the torch bearer, as I've discussed above. He attempted to kick the disabled female torachbearer but was stopped a few centimeters away. This is caught in camera and in photos, see above and article. Herunar (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

First things first; if you are going to soapbox, do it correctly: yes, every news source I saw mentioned the people waving the flag of China and supporting the Chinese government. But the torch relay is political, it was made political when China decided to use it to show how much clout they have. It's only been televised two or three times before and one of those was when the games returned to Athens, the other was when the Nazi's used it for the same reason China is now. You can't make a political statement and expect people who oppose that statement to just sit on their hands. Padillah (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP and WP:NPA. The IP user raised legitimate concerns with the article while you wasted a hundred words insulting him. Give me a break. Herunar (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User 71.191.120.219, the Western media (or at least the French and British media that I've seen) did indeed show supporters with Chinese flags. You're mistaken if you believe they didn't. More to the point, however, this is an encyclopedia article's talk page, the purpose of which is to improve the article, not debate its topic. Aridd (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to flag this article as being biased. The documentary is one sided from the views of western media. There were a lot of supporters of the olympics, and indeed sport, who came out support the relay which is not mentioned in any way in this article. I would like to stress that wikipedia is not a forum to spread political or religious views, but to provide an un-biased source of information of the whole event. --A.Cartier (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts on the ground also do show that some of these supporters were also counter-protesters. If they were there to see the torch they should not have responded to heckles by the pro-Tibetan crowd.--Fang Teng (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is biased, particularly in the section labeled "Chinese media". It is clear that both sides of the media are biased, yet the article seems to claim that the Chinese media is "more" biased. Even the title itself is very suggestive. At the very least, the title should be renamed "Media Bias". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.136.203 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, to whoever said that just showing pro-chinese suporters on english media means their not biased:

I live in the US in San Francisco, all of the english media I saw showed relatively no pro-chinese supporters at ALL, while the local chinese media showed 50/50 (compared to english anyway). It doesn't really matter if the media showed like 1 second of pro-olympic supporters if they showed 15 minutes of pro-tibet supporters. Its still biased, no matter. I know that supporters outnumbered the protesters because my immediate relatives/friends went to the torch relay. So why are there practically NO images of supporters? In fact, I found a image of a pro-olympic supporters here (can't verify from where, but still): http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajmiller82/2403754149/ If you would notice, in this one, supporters outnumber the protesters, its all about angle, and what the intent is, and the english media relatively only posts pro-tibet images. In addition, today in the chinese (as in chinese language, not chinese government run, its in AMERICA, KTSF or something) media showed mass rallies in canada that were pro-china (footage would lead me to believe it outnumbers pro-tibet). Did I mention the chinese media (in america) also reported on pro-tibet too, while the english media in america practically didn't report on the pro-olympic at all? the I think the page needs a tag added questioning its POV/neutrality, and maybe split supporter of olympic/tibet images in half. Noian (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Map on Mainland China

I'm currently working on to redo the map on mainland China. So, please keep this first until it done. Thanks! --Aleen f1 06:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese security personnel terminology?

The official term used for the security personnel is "escort runner". So should we call them "flame attendants", "escort runners", "Chinese guards" or some other name? F (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Independent says they are officially "flame attendants", but since the official torch relay website calls them "escort runners", go for "escort runners", I suppose. Aridd (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Media

Video on YouTube Olympic Torch Relay in London - Protester tries to extinguish torch.
Video on YouTube Olympic Torch Relay in London - Protester encounters a Chinese security official.
Video on YouTube Olympic Torch Relay in Paris - Protester getting close to the Olympic Torch.

As regards to this, of course these links are not against WP:EL, as they are frequently used as temporary measures in current event articles. --Camptown (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not when there are more reliable videos from reliable sources around.Herunar (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You should find more "reliable" videos before deleting the above mentioned links. --Camptown (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New Delhi

I wanted to update that Kiran Bedi India's first woman IPS officer has refused to carry the torch on its delhi run as reported in news channels and link [16] Kindly help. Soumitra genpact (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New San Fran news source

-ttp://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=10af13de-e174-4060-acf8-7c69a1b5abde --86.25.55.66 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Organization by Chinese Embassy

The opinion that "Detractors accused these people of belonging to groups organised by the Chinese embassy" found within the section concerning protests in London is not substantiated explicitly in the referenced article. The article mentions that the students "claim to have the support of the Chinese Embassy," but that is a far cry in my opinion from being "organised by the Chinese embassy." Therefore I feel that the current sentence in the Wikipedia article is unsubstantiated and perhaps false unless there is another citation with reference to this opinion.XRedcomet (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I rephrased the whole sentence. Ironically the article of guardian.co.uk states that it was the (Chinese) student organizers received the support from Chinese Embassy. But I assume guardian.co.uk is a citable source so I refrain from using the word "claim". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-London Stops

There were 3 stops before things started getting out of hand in London. Any report on incidents in Istabul, St Petersburg, and Alamaty, if there were any at all? --Kvasir (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Only so called western developped country have pro-tibet protesters, and most of them are not real tibetans. The torch relay in St Petersburg even called as a carnival. And I can bet that there will have no more protests after San Fransisco. (May be Austrilia will have)Tnds (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Protests in Turkey: [17], Video on YouTube (NTDTV, yes I know.)F (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou and kudos to the contributors who reported the coverage in Istanbul and St. Petersburg! --Kvasir (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean India is a western developed country? I have never felt prouder about my origin :D--Jahilia (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps you would be a bit insulted if it was to be taken literally: "western-developed country". Anyway, I don't think Tnds fully grasp the global anti-Chinese sentiment. --Kvasir (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag is coming

I bet the neutrality tag is coming on this page real soon. For example, in SF today there is a huge group of Pro-China demonstrators. Not a single word reflects that in the article. TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

hey it's wikipedia... what do u expect?!~ there are way more pro-china demonstrators than pro-tibet ones in SF today... but it's just wikipedia, live with it.--24.84.48.143 (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You could just fix it although complaining is easier. 71.139.49.29 (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me the source and maybe some pictures? Mgz 01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgz (talk • contribs)

I remove the word "attack" from the San Francisco section per WP:NPOV since "attack" is extremely POV.Chris! _ct 02:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point, most articles having to do with Tibet should probably get a neutrality tag. Even if it may be neutral one minute, you'll never know if some IP editor will come in the next minute and add some POV stuff in them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't blame IP users. I know a specific one who is incredibly helpful, although most are quite annoying. Anyways, I think the San Francisco section is doing fine (except for that Camptown guy who tried to replace my image with...er, what was it? --haha169 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for neutrality based on the concerns of users in this section and other discussions above. The best way to improve the article at this moment, in my opinion, is to add more information about the pro-China protestors and pro-Olympic protestors while shortening the excessively long and repeating quotes from certain individuals. The controversy about biased Western media reporting could also be mentioned since it has already caused responses from many among the media, including CNN. Anti-cnn could be mentioned and linked. Herunar (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a security official

The second YouTube videos links actually is not a protester encountering a security official, but most likely a Beijing supporter. I'm not supportive of this violent action to any extent, but I think it's proper to point out that it is by no means organized by the government. Anthony Gao (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed all three videos. The three videos are exclusively about a small part of the article and should not be in the external links. Moreover, YouTube videos should not be included in general and should never be the only media source in the external links (except where they are part of an internet phenomenon and thus have notability themselves). YouTube videos could be freely uploaded by users and are generally unreliable sources. There are plenty of adequately titled videos from reputuable sources about the event that can be included or are already included. Herunar (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco protests

I can't edit the article so if someone could include that because of security threats route organizers weren't going to disclose the route but were later compelled to by the SF Board of Supervisors. Four different activist groups have collaborated to present organized protests and due to security issues the route has been shortened as well as SF mayor Gavin Newsome announcing the route can still change and will be kept fluid by organizers. Activists have flown in from around the United States to attend the protests. 71.139.14.116 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The route was almost completely scrapped with the flame ultimately being moved to a different part of the city after the opening ceremony. 71.139.4.155 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction, the planned/announced route was completely scrapped after the opening ceremonies and the closing ceremonies at the original location was canceled likely due the large amount of protesters who mostly peacefully coexisted with the pro-Chinese and pro-Olympics supporters. 71.139.4.155 (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone please remove the language that the relay was a "farce". Such a statement is completely POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.12.114 (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that Herunar deleted "demonstrators who had been bussed into the city by the Chinese consulate and other pro-China groups" with rationale that it is unsourced. However, NBC news did report that, "The pro-China demonstrators were bused in from various parts of the Bay Area, including Stanford and UC Berkeley." http://www.nbc11.com/news/15835520/detail.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beidabaozi (talk • contribs) 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I restore the sentence using the ref you provided.Chris! _ct 06:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's only a small part of them. Moreover, in the article when we refer to pro-China protestors at that section, we also included pro-Olympics demonstrators who also clashed with the pro-Tibetans. Many of those are westerners. Herunar (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all three factions should be mentioned at least briefly in the section about the San Francisco leg. Chris! _ct 06:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only bussed in, but apparently, few Chinese actually flew in from China for the sole purpose of attending the torch relay. [18] --Revth (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Plenty more Tibetans from around the world did that for the sole purpose of disrupting the torch relay. Many made the claim themselves. Herunar (talk) 07:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile pro-Tibet protesters, many of which flew in from pro-Tibet organizations, clashed with thousands of pro-China demonstrators, some of who had been bussed into the city.[86][87] It was reported on RTHK that supporters of the Olympics outnumber protesters three to one.[88] Around 2 p.m. PDT (21:00 UTC), the torch resurfaced about two miles (3 km) away from the stadium along Van Ness Avenue, a heavily trafficked thoroughfare that was not on official route plans. Television reports showed the flame flanked by motorcycles and uniformed police officers. Two torchbearers carried the flame running slowly behind a truck and surrounded by Olympic security guards.[89] Th

This needs to be changed. WTF! How dare you people write that"some of whom had been bussed into the city." Then you claim that all the Tibet supporters flew into the city. What bogus garbage is this?

San Francisco has an active protest community and many Tibet sympathizers. Sure, Tibetans flew in, but they were hardly the majority of the protest contigent. Also, its quite well documented in numerous sources that the PRC consulate and CHinese organizations were bussing the Chinese in. Sure, not all, but many, or most. Just read the reports in the Chronicle.

Be fair for once. The world is watching you. Save your lying for when you are in China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.59.55.68 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice in the media when they pick someone to interview, it's always a Western Tibet sympathiser and always a pro-Chinese protester who can barely speak English. --Kvasir (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Any report on the banners on the Golder Gate? The ppl who scaled the bridge were arrested and charged but what about the banners? --Kvasir (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing from pictures, is the article about torch relay or protest against torch relay?!

Seeing from the pictures selected and installed, the title of this article should be changed as Protest activities against 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay!?? Doesn't anyone agree with me? -Imachinese (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

When I first came to see this article, I mistook relay as delay (I did not know the word relay before). I havn't carefully read text content, just see whole layout and pictures. In total 14 pictures 8 are about protest, and in 11 scenic pitures 8 about protest. I think the article need to be balanced and neutralized or the title of the article should be changed to be Protest against 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay . -Imachinese (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

True, it's slightly unbalanced, but only slightly. I removed one image from the lead. We could replace one or two images of pro-Tibet protestors with pro-China supporters, if we could find it. Herunar (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In 11 scenic pitures 8 about protest, I don't think it's slightly. -Imachinese (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea why you have removed the first picture. As "Imachinese" said, this article is about Torch relay, not the protest. Lead picture should be the torch, not the protest. Beidabaozi (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it remains that a large part of the torch relay is disrupted by the protest. The lead image should be about the torch relay - and the violent actions of pro-tibet protestors is part of its concern. Two images from a short lead is unnecessary. I would be glad if you could find another image with the torch and replace one about the protestors, but I feel the current lead image is important enough to remain there. Herunar (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

They are very intertwined... notice there were no protest in Almaty. But protest during the torch relay are very important to note especially when protests in my opinion, get out of control and attack the torch bearers, and/or want to snuff out the torch. I hope they don't cancel the Vancouver relay Moonraker0022 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is about torch relay, but most pictures are about protest against torch relay till now. Do you think it's proper? (copied from above). Please help to slove this issue. Thanks. -Imachinese (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic but there is no protest against the torch relay. The protest is against China and its human rights violations. The relay is the vehicle they are using to protest. Maybe that will help separate some of these notes into "about the relay" (like where the relay runner got hurt) and "about the protest" (like the number and content of signs drapped in various locations). Padillah (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, What protesters protest against is China or Chinese government, on such issues as human rights violations, although what is affected is Olympics torch relay. Readers come to this article to learn Olympics torch relay instead of protest. So please help to slove it. -Imachinese (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

SF protest update

"Thousands of supporters were already there, unloaded from dozens of buses parked across from the ball park." and "told by some supporters that they had been bused into San Francisco from the South Bay, the East Bay and Sacramento by the Chinese Consulate and Chinese American groups." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/MNIG1032A0.DTL So yes, the Chinese government was involved in this Beidabaozi (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Government is government. People is people. But sometimes people and government may stand together. You do not know the feeling of Chinese. E.g, I do not agree China to hold olympic game. The game just wastes money collected from Chinese taxpayers, I think. But for the activities of torch relay and protest agaist torch relay, I stand for torch relay. -Imachinese (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had taken Beidabaozi as a non-Chinese. I saw your self-introduction so you may more likely to be a Chinese since you are a Beida student. OK. I just graduated from Nanda. -Imachinese (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good reference for who was brought by bus and from where. Seems like most came from spots up here in Norcal. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/09/MNDM102Q9B.DTL I was right beneath the Ferry Building and it got way physical for a second, yet can't find anyone writing about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.233.46.148 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Too much information not related to relay

I already shortened some excessively long quotes about the flame attendants but Aridd decided to add some more, as well as the quote from the Mayor of Paris. May I ask, then, why aren't the statements from IOC and Sarkozy condemning the disruptions included? Is the Mayor of Paris any more important than the IOC or Sarkozy? This article has almost no information about those who want the torch relay to be continued peacefully. Until either Sarkozy's or IOC's comment finds a place in the aritcle, I will not agree with including the quote from the Mayor of Paris. The flame attendants is also a minor part of the relay, and so far only the British has ever protested. The British's political comments should not dominate the article. Herunar (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't "dominate the article". Your view on balancing things out seems to be that relevent information should be removed, rather than additional relevent information added. Feel free to add a quote by Sarkozy. Nobody's stopping you, and it would indeed be good to show that there were a variety of positions by political officials. Incidentally, you removed another line ("Chinese and pro-Olympic supporters were present, although it has been suggested that their presence was, in some cases, summoned and organised by the Chinese embassy"), claiming a "false citation". The reference page linked to, however, said this: "Ainsi se termine le périple parisien de la flamme olympique sous de rares applaudissements (ceux de Chinois mobilisés par l'Ambassade) et sous de nombreuses huées." ("Thus ended the Olympic flame's adventure through Paris, with rare instances of applause (by Chinese people mobilised by the embassy), and with many people booing it.") I want to assume good faith on your part, but I can't help but notice that you deleted that (despite the fact that it was sourced), while leaving the sentence that came just after it: "Many of the protestors were organized and flew specially to Paris to disrupt the relay". That looks to me suspiciously like trying to erase half the story and present only the side you favour... Just to be perfectly clear on where I stand, I have mixed feelings about the protests, so I hope that can make me reasonably impartial. You, by contrast, clearly are not impartial. By all means, do add sourced, relevant information to provide more balanced coverage, but stop deleting relevant information, particularly in a one-sided way. Aridd (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of information available which proves that the Chinese are not organized, at least most of them. The above claim is pathetically false and is one of the reasons why the Chinese are so infuriated over the western media. There are plenty of sources, not "reliable", but which provides enough evidence to create doubt to the statement above. Anti-cnn.com is one such website which obviously has a point of view, but is also well-researched and convincing. The pro-Tibet protestors, however, claimed themselves that they were organized and flew in specially to London and to Paris. I intend to take no points of view in the article. You may indeed find me to be deleting more pro-Tibet claims than pro-China claims, but this is due to what I perceive as an immense unbalance in the article. As with many other contributors, my editing style is pro-deletion - I believe that a broken pearl is better than a useless rock. I do not believe that this will present a problem as a whole to the editing. Herunar (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Additionally the flame bearers have their own whole section (which is pretty much all critical... actually totally critical) And then everything stated in their OWN section is repeated in each of the city sections... geez talk about repetitive... no wonder this article is so very slanted195.216.82.210 (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that, in fact. That's ridiculous and completely redundant. I removed it. Herunar (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I still feel the article gives too much weight to the British's views of the events. It has nothing about the Chinese views at all and one sentence about the IOC view. The problem with flame attendants itself has a very minor role in the article. We really don't need the long citations. I will suggest one medium-length quote of the most notable British politican who protested, and add that other British politicans have concurred. Herunar (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Two comments. First, I agree that it would be good to have more about the Chinese perspective. Maybe a section entitled "Chinese media depictions of the Olympic torch relay", or something? The Chinese media don't emphasise the same aspects as the Western media. If there are no objections and no-one beats me to it, I'll see if I can do it when I have time (which may not be today). Second, the article now has two images of the incident around Jin, both with virtually identical comments. That's surely one too many, since we're talking about cutting down on redundency... Aridd (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first proposal. It's definitely needed given the amount of Chinese discontent with the reporting, some that the Western media has responded to. I agree with the second comment too, but I insist on the importance of these two images. How about we include information about pro-Tibet protests as a whole in the first image, while talking about the specific incident in the second image? Something like "In the image is torchbearer Jin Jing protecting the Olympic torch from a violent protestor. The 2008 torch relay has been met with pro-Tibet protests in many cities..." etc., while in the second image we could specifically talk about the assaults in Paris. Herunar (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the first photo should be replaced. The entire Torch Relay is not summed up by that one photo. It has entered St. Petersburg and Almaty very peacefully and still has quite a ways to go. The only precedent we would go on is the '04 torch relay which has the map and a picture of the transport jet, though. --Fang Teng (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet no image could encompass all the events. The assaults against a disabled female on wheelchair certainly gained more media attention than it passing through St. Petersburg. I would say it's a climax of the protests and is well-suited to represent the article. Herunar (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It may have been a "climax", but it was not representative of the protest as a whole. Almost every protester in Paris was peaceful. And yet we have two images of violent protesters, and none of peaceful protesters. That gives a seriously warped and distorted image of what happened. Also, Herunar, I see you've included a reference to a claim by a Chinese media source that a blogger claimed to them that he had been offered money to take part in protests. Several comments:

The source you link to says nothing of the kind, and in fact deals with a completely different topic altogether. Did you get the wrong link?
I find it ironic that you removed a sourced claim about "pro-Chinese" demonstrators having been mobilised by the Chinese embassy, and yet you add this. That seems slightly inconsistent to me.
How is this notable? One individual anonymous blogger. At the very least, if this is to stay in the article, we would need to know who allegedly offered him money. In any case, any random blogger could claim just about anything! I could start a blog claiming to be a Chinese student in Paris and claim that the embassy sent me a Chinese flag and paid me to wave it, for goodness' sake.

The line should, I believe, be removed, unless a) a proper reference is included, b) the claim is made more specific, with a reference to the identity of the alleged source of the money (although even then, a blogger's claim doesn't seem notable), and c) the claim about the Chinese embassy allegedly mobilising Chinese people in Paris is restored for balance. (I don't particularly think it should be there either, unless this other claim remains.) Aridd (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked the source for another statement ("Many of the protestors were organized and flew specially to Paris to disrupt the relay.[75]"). This is the source, and, again, it says no such thing. I'm going to assume good faith and assume that this is an honest mistake, but if a correct reference isn't added, I'm going to remove both erroneously sourced lines. Aridd (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

the word Pro-Tibet protester should be changed as anti-China protester or anti-Chinese Government(CCP) protester

Tibet is part of China. Even Dalai Lama does not deny this. For most Tibetans, they are both Pro-Tibet and Pro-China. Here the words used as Pro-Tibet and Pro-China obviously confuse readers as if Tibet and China are two opposite sides. So, such words as anti-China protester, anti-Chinese Government(CCP) protester, Tibet Liberation Fighters or Tibet Independence Fighters are proper words. -Imachinese (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Many Tibetans actually align with the Chinese in foreign issues against what they perceive as Western meddlers. Pro-Tibet is an unfair classification as it depicts the event as a battle between Tibet and China, which is mostly true, but not completely. Most Tibetans agree that Tibet is part of China, including Dalai Lama; some Tibetans do support the Chinese government in many ways and Pro-Olympic supporters, who want the Olympics not to be influenced by politics, are not necessarily anti-Tibet. I feel anti-Chinese government is the most accurate etymology, as this is necessarily the case - protests against what they perceive as a dictatorial, suppressive Chinese government. But it is not entirely accurate, either. Herunar (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose maybe many westerners especially many western politicians want to see many parts of China to go for independence. But I can say this is not the idea of most Tibetans, although I'm not a Tibetan. I'm a Sichuanese. In Sichuan province there are many Tibetans. In Chengdu, the capital city of Sichuan, there are also many Tibetans. Now in Shanghai where I live, I often see many Tibetans selling Tibetan handicrafts on the street. As a Sichuanese, Tibetan Sichuanese is my 老鄉/Laoxiang here. -Imachinese (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop that unless it helps to improve the article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the clarification of proper words helps to improve the article. Maybe I provided some unnecessary information and opinions, but I think they may be helpful for other people to understand related issues. -Imachinese (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Users may express their own opinions as long as it's related to the article topic. The user's own experience is definitely more reliable than the irresponsible western media who blame everyone but themselves for their own mistakes in reporting. Herunar (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "Pro-Tibet" does not necessarily mean a support for Tibetan independence, nor a complete rejection of China. However, the word 'Anti-China' current leads to the article "Sinophobia" and thus is defined as a hostility towards people of Chinese origin first, before also stating opposition to China on various issues. The article itself has a tag of multiple issues as well. Thus, I would not encourage the use of the word "Anti-China Protester".--Fang Teng (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with "anti-China" as well, but "anti-Chinese government" is well phrased and could answer your concerns. Herunar (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. "anti-Chinese government", I agree. Since there were also protest on Darfur, Falun Gong.... Any different opinions? -Imachinese (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "anti-Chinese governmet", but certainly the article hasn't reflected enough of that. There's mention of pro-Uyghur's protest in Istanbul and pro-democracy protest planned in HK, but mostly the pictures and text is all about the pro-Tibet camp. Sadly there's just alot of causes to protest about on China. --Kvasir (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So please help change Pro-Tibet protest(er) to Anti-Chinese government protest(er). The article is protected and I cannot edit. -Imachinese (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese propaganda

Just one example. --Camptown (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? I hold Canadian passport. What makes you think the Chinese government would recruit me? The incident is reported by the French and the Americans as well as independent Chinese. It's also caught on tape and in high quality photos. In what way is it propaganda? Frankly, I'm insulted by your accusation. If this sort of complete lack of good faith continues, I'll resume discussion with the admins who just blocked you yesterday. Apparently, two blocks and multiple warnings is not enough. Herunar (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are proud of your recent edits, you are per definition one of the worst editors I've ever seen in this project. --Camptown (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Now, regarding your "example", elaborate in what way is it Chinese propaganda and not hard-proven facts. I assume you can read French. Here's the article from the official website of the Olympics, [19]. Herunar (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you are so quick to label well-cited comments as Chinese propaganda, I'm assuming you, in fact, does read Chinese. Here's an article by Sina [20], which has further information about the assault "pro-Tibet protestors...tugged her hair and clothes.." and which I intend to include. But of course, everything in Chinese is Chinese propaganda according to you. Herunar (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Modified it, based on what was said in the Xinhua article.--Fang Teng (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the specific note about Jin Jing as I already added it below. I added a more general comment about the protests. Herunar (talk) 10:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Article split

Can I suggest that information about the protests comes under its own article? There's obviously huge amounts of media coverage, and will probably continue to be, so this will allow an article focusing solely on the protests, following WP:SUMMARY. Otherwise the protest stuff will probably start to be cut down as there's so much of it! It would also pave the way for more information on the relay itself, such as torchbearers, route, 'general public' reaction. Of course the naming of such an article may in itself be controversial - would you want pro-Chinese demonstrations covered in the same article (I think so, but not sure). How about Protests at the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay? Paulbrock (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not needed at the moment. The article is still short and it's a current event. It'll be better if can include all information about the torch relay in one article. Herunar (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need the split tag - can you remove it? This article receives a lot of attention by a lot of users, so we don't need the tag to get people on the talk page. It's a current event and tags that are irrelevant will obstruct the article flow for the common reader. Herunar (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The page is 44Kb, which according to WP:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb is certainly long enough to consider a split. I'd have to disagree with taking the tag off, it should be discussed and there's no harm in alerting people to the issue. Once there's been a few more opinions expressed, I agree it should be taken down, but a few hours is reasonable. Paulbrock (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for haste, at least wait until it is finished.F (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I support an eventual split. This could happen perhaps when the torch enters the domestic leg of the relay where few protests (if any) are expected. I proposed a different name though: how about Reception of the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay which could provide room to present both positive and negative response to the event. --Kvasir (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If we do split, it'll be hard to decide which, or both articles, should we put on the main page as both have notability. I say we split when the event is officially over and every event is covered sufficiently that there will be no big changes. Herunar (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See also my comments below on incorporating controversy organically. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

Are those youtube links necessary? The events are all covered in the article. Also can anyone find more official pages of torch relay in various cities? I only found the Hong Kong one.F (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Necessary...? As a temporary illustration of a developing new story, they are at least interesting. --Camptown (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and standards

File:Violentolympicprotestor.jpg

Police stopping a pro-Tibet protester who attempted to kick ^[1]Jin Jing. Jin Jing protected the torch with her body and suffered scratches on her chin and shoulders after repeated assaults by protesters^[2]

The caption is problematic: The first source is a video clip, the second is from the official Chinese news agency. It certainly needs some copy edits.... and it shouldn't be that hard to find backup sources from truly independent news agencies. --Camptown (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the situation. Simply from the picture, I think we cann't say the Tibet protester attempted to kick Jin Jing. From Jin Jing's motion, I judge that the protester just attempted to rob torch. I can't imagine that the protester would kick Jin Jing in that condition. If we have no furthur telltale, I suggest to remove kick. -Imachinese (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not the first time Herunar (talk · contribs) adds "sources" which do not exactly support the text. Anyway, how about adding a remark about Jin Jing having become a sort of official torch cover girl by official Chinese news agencies such as Peoples Daily etc. --Camptown (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A good and meaningful idea. -Imachinese (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand why ppl would get on the anti-Chinese bandwagon without pictures or report on the Tibetan Unrest as clear as this one, sometimes without ANY picture, while we have this Jin Jing picture and people are still questioning whether she was actually physically attacked. Do we actually need a picture of her being kicked to prove it? Neutrality? Yeah right. --Kvasir (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Either that, or a news report from a 100% reliable source (or at the very least, one from a number of mostly reliable sources). Without such, it does not belong in the article. If all that can be found is a debate over whether someone did in fact try to kick her or not, then the article can opnly mention that the argument exists (without agreeing with one side or the other), and it isn't significant enough for a photo feature. Crimsone (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

But as for sources, I don't agree that western independent news agencies deserve us to trust and rely on more although I hate Communist controling mode which originated in western world and harms China. -Imachinese (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK... I've just watched that videooo... gone over it repeatedly, and studied the photo... There is no way on earth he's trying to kick her. For a start, he's running in the wrong directin for it - he's not actually running directly at her in a way that would allow for a kick. Secondly, it's a pretty lame attempt at a kick if that were what it was!... what's happened is that he's tried to dodge the security person heading straight at him while in mid stride running, and he's been grabbed and pulled back from behind. Fact is, that raised leg is the one furtherst away from her, and even the one closest to her was aligned substantially beside her. There's just no way.

Having searched for english language sources mentioning a kick, well, there aren't any - and being the english wikipedia (and no, this isn't a case of the only sources would be in a foreign language - if it were a kick, it would have been reported as such somewhere in english... and somewhere reputable at that. The video does not definitively claim a kick, and in fact suggests the opposite. As such, the "kick" claim is POV on the basis of the video it links to. The cuts/grazes claim is also POV, as no such thing is evidenced by the video which is claimed as a citation.

An english language chinese news site uses the same photo, but mentions nothing of a kick... http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/olympics/torch/2008-04/09/content_6603977_2.htm

Not even the official torch relay website - again, china based, calles it a kick... http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/en/journey/paris/news/n214297268.shtml

Quite simply, it wasn't a kick, and can only vaguely be imagined to be a kick, and isn't even thought of as a kick by any reputable source - not even the official torch relay organisers themselves. It was someone lunging at her... but then, that's true of anybopdy else trying to grab the flame and getting close enough to attempt it - especially if the torchbearer is in a wheel chair which makes it all the more tricky to do. The chinese language reference cited isn't even a news article - it's a Bulletin Board (also known as a web forum).Crimsone (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Absence of statement is not statement of absence... you can't use "this website didn't say this" to disprove "that website said this".

That said, I haven't seen any evidence of a "kick" - the Xinhua source (official Chinese news agency) talks about the injury in her right leg - which is a pre-existing injury (she doesn't have a right leg, in case anyone didn't notice). The scratches she probably received from that idiot who was trying to wrestle the torch from her. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't do that. I would however say "that chinese BBS is a non-notable source, and even if it were, the complete lack of any other supporting statement from any oteher reliable source on such a high profile event casts significant doubt on the assertion, enough to suggest that a stance either way would be entirely POV.". I think though, in any case, the outcome we've both reached is that the assertion of a "kick" is unevidenced. As to the scratches - I see no evidence for those either... if indeed there were visible scratches shown in the video that I missed, the video doesn't show where they came from. There's certainly no evidence to show they came from the protestor in the photo, and if that wasn't the suggestion, it shouldn't have been captioned for that phot anyway, as they wouldn't have been anything to do with that incident (or at leat, not in the way they were). A few protestors tried to get the torch and so it could be any of them that might have caused scratches (or even a pre-relay icident... or even nothing to do with the realay at all, even if there were scratches there... though, I would argue that idiocy is in the eye of the beholder, as some micht suggest that bearing the torch itself in the knowledge that so many people are so angry about it is none too sensible. Crimsone (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

File:Parisprotests-olympictorch.jpg

Well, have a look at this photo, especially what the grabber is doing with his hands - it's very plausible and highly likely that there were scratches.

Analysing photos, by the way, is original research. The best way to deal with this is to simply say "Xinhua News Agency, the mouthpiece of the Chinese government, claimed that she suffered scratches during the relay".

I use "grabber" guardedly, since a person who by force of arms takes and carries away is a robber, at least here under the common law, so a more accurate description would be "attempted robber".

As for your argument about idiocy... that's like saying rape victims are at fault by wearing skimpy dresses. What's wrong is wrong is wrong - and using violence against an innocent civilian to promote a political agenda is wrong, and you cannot justify it by the (tenuously connected) actions of another. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There's what's wrong, and what can be expected, and the two aren't mutually exclusive... A rape victim is not to blame for wearing a skimpy dress (and I resent the comparison because it doesn't represent what I was saying properly), but if she wore said dress, knowing it to be highly revealing and sexually prvocative, on her own, into a non-public place where she knew she was likely to be in danger, then while not being to blame for the rape, she'd be pretty stupid not to expect it - out your hand in the fire, and while it's still the fire to blame for the burn, you can't say you weren't stupid to do it in the first place... and it could also be argued that allowing yourself to be used as a pawn in a massive chinese propaganda excercise in return for the priviledge of holding the torch is morally dubious too - and not only that, but to do so in the midst of high profile human rights abuses is inviting trouble. The IOC likes to claim that the olympics are non political, but they aren't. As to the use of violence, the flame attendants themselves aren't so innocent if the criteria for "violence" is an attempt to grab something. Indeed, not once has a torchbearer been the target of violence (if they had, they'd have gotten hurt!). Rather, it's possession of the flame that's sought, and igff the bearers simply let it go, there'd be no violence... but of course, the torchbearers are as stubborn about keeping the flame as the protestos are about grabbing it. To use an interesting example from londone - the BBC news 24 reporters, speaking live, one moment were speaking of how the Olympics are about peace, unity, and cooperation (which temselves are political ideal), and the next were talking of how the police knocked down an old lady trying to take a photo earlier, just to be on the safe side of guarding the torch. Crimsone (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

and igff the bearers simply let it go, there'd be no violence...

That sounds almost like the Tibetan government-in-exile's claim that "violence to a Tibetan is killing someone; if you don't kill them, and only beat them up, and they run away, it's not violence" (I'm paraphrasing, but the exact quote is in 2008 Tibetan unrest.) -- but you'd probably resent that comparison.

Let's try an almost exact analogy: "The robbery victim should have just divvied up all the cash to the robber. If she'd just let go, there wouldn't have been any violence". Or: "Britain should have just surrendered. If they had just let go of their country, there wouldn't have been a war". What's wrong is wrong is wrong. A person has the right to defend their person and legally obtained possession, and you can't justify crime (not including political crimes) or violence against a civilian by a political cause.

Yes, the flame attendants themselves are idiots, too, and they are "thugs" when they are pushing the British olympic chief. But they are within their rights as far as violent criminals are concerned. What do you expect them to do? "simply let it go so there'd be no violence"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do resent that comparison, because you automatically assume that I support the Tibetan Government in Exile implicitly, and I'm also a little dissapointed that you would paraphrase a quote to make a point, even if you know where to find the exact quote. Further, you make a coparison which follows absolutely no logic I can discern, presumably because you are more concerned with exact incidents than the issues that have been drawn from them and presented to you. The whole point of what I said was that absolutely nothing is black and white. And the protestors aren't violent criminals - at least not by UK law, and none of the london protestors arrested are locked away now for that reason. The torch procession is and represents wrong-doing, even if the torchbearears within it are naive innocents. Are the protestors not within their rights to fight wrong doing too? That's the funny thing with the law - the law is black and white, which itself sometimes means that the law is wrong - so yes, sometimes crime can be justified... and has been... and laws have been changed as a result. Crimsone (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We clearly have very different conceptions of the law and what is right or wrong. Let's leave it at that. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely :-) Crimsone (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK enough WP:Synthesis, here's the news link of Jin's injury during the relay.

sports.sina.com.cn

法国当地时间4月7日中午12时40分左右，当金晶坐在轮椅上和两名护跑手等待与下一棒火炬手交接时，几名“藏独”分子分批冲击警戒线，其中一人扑向轮椅上的她，欲强夺火炬。面对突如其来的变故，金晶只能弯下身子用全身护住火炬，但暴徒仍不罢休，还试图从她腿上抢夺。为了保护火炬，她不仅下巴被抓破了，肩头还有几道血印，伤残的右腿也磕出几大块伤痕。

-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oooh. WP:Synthesis is a new one on me... quite applicable (not edited for a good while, hence no cause o come across it). Common sense though really. If someone would care to though, a translation of that chinese quote would be welcome. Crimsone (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"At French local time 12:40pm on April 7, when Jin Jing in her wheelchair along with two co-runners were waiting for a transfer with the next torchbearer, several Tibetan separatists clashed with the police line in waves. One of them lunged towards her wheelchair, attempting to grab the torch. Facing the sudden attack, Jin Jing bent down and used her body to shield the torch; however, the attacker did not give up, and attempted to take the torch lying across her leg. While attempting to protect the torch, she received scratches on her chin, bloody marks on her shoulder, and several bruises on her (partially amputated) right leg." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Western media is only biased to sensationalise? The only place I get to see this news on Jin Jing is on wikipedia. The media always sensationalises crime against the weak, but not here. Robbing and assaulting this particular handicap doesn't even get a mention. EVEN with photo evidence some people are still trying to downplay the attack because the attacker happens to be making a political statement that they agree with. It's disgusting. --Kvasir (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No... simply, she wasn't kicked. And if we are to get technical about it, se wasn't attacked. It was the torch that was attacked, and she just happened to be in the way. And if you must know, disabled people are attacked everyday without reporting it. In the West, disabled people in fact generally prefer not to be thought of as weak little handicaps, and rather enjoy being considered just as valuable and no weaker than the rest of us - for that reason, the fact that she was disabled doesn't make her stand out any more than any other torchbearer. As demonstrated, not even the chinese news sources claim that anybody tried to kick her. As the torch did not belong to her, she could not be robbed. As she was not the direct intented target of violence, she could not be assaulted. The photo does not make a political statement, and niether does Wikipedia (NPOV). It is being stated for exactly what it was... nothing more, and nothing less (again, WP:NPOV). The reason it can only be found mentioned on wikipedia, is because it is not an incident of significant noteability. You will note tat the media does not always sensationalise crimes against the weak in the West (but be careful, see the arlier comment about views of disabled people in the west), and in fact, the media generally far prefer to sensationalise issues that hurt the strong (it loves to see people fall from on high). Incidentally, why the focus on the West, when it's not been published by south american, australian, indonesian, or middle eastern reportes either - or japan or korea or Russia. It is in fact only China, out of the whole world, that have found it noteworthy enough to publish information on (and even there, it's only a small snippit of information). It is in fact you that's over-hyping and sensationalising a non-issue.

She had the torch, someone tried to take it from her, and she got some scratches in the process... far worse happens outside (and inside!) pubs across the UK numerous times pretty much every night of the week. Far worse happens in China pretty much every night of the week (but I bet they don't report that in China?). The facts have been posted to the caption, cited, and verified. Apart frm the need to weave the same information into the article itself, the rest is a complete non issue. Crimsone (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No...simply, she wasnt kicked --> so because the police stops the assaultian just in time, there is no crime ? It is like someone points a gun at you and try to shot, but the gun get jammed. Oops sorry guy, let's shake hands and pretend nothing has happened ? Did you even bother to read this excellent wikipedia article on assault at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault ? Mgz 08:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgz (talk • contribs)

Precisely, the police cant arrest you for murder untill you've killed someone - you actually have to commit a crime before a crime has been committed by definition. Though, the example you cite is poor. You might be interested enough to know though tht very few people read every article on Wikipedia, and that article cannot be classified as excellent by any sense of the word.Crimsone (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, just like when someone tries to steal your handbag and you cover your handbag to protect it and the attacker just happen to hit you and grab you while trying to get to the bag. It wasn't you who was attacked, it was the bag, and the police will need to ask the bag if it wishes to file charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.38.52 (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what I wanted to say. Herunar (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

in a mugging, the assault is to personal posessions which counts. If te attacker puches out in orther to free the personal possession, he's attacking the person directly. However, the protestors are wrestling the torch - which is not a personal possession, and are not directly attacking the bearer for it - just attempting to wrestle the torch away. If an assault had been committed, it's a crime serious enough that the protestors would be on their way to court for it - they aren't - they were released. Crimsone (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Crimsone, have you read the article on assault? A robbery (sorry if I refrain from using the technical legal term "mugging") is "assult accompanied by larceny". One part is assault: the intentional creation of apprehension of immediate application of unlawful force on another person; the other part is larceny: the taking and carrying away of a chattel with intention to permanently deprive the rightful holder of the chattel.

Assault is always on a person. You cannot commit assault on a handbag. It's the larceny that is committed with respect to the chattel, but the person aggrieved is nevertheless the person from whom possession was taken.

When a person gets robbed, it's the person who gets robbed, not the handbag. As the anon puts it, the police doesn't go and interview the handbag.

The torchbearer is lawfully in possesion of the torch, having been bailed it by the owner, whoever that may be. When the assailant attempts to take the torch vi et armis (with force of arms), that's at least assult. The photos and press reports clearly show that the assailant was acting with force of arms -- he didn't exactly stand there and politely ask the lady if he could please have the torch to look at for a second. If he had intention also to permanently deprive the rightful owner of the torch -- then that would be robbery. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your argument that "he wasn't jailed so no crime was committed" is bollocks. Perhaps the torchbearer did not press charges; perhaps the prosecuting authority used its discretion on account of it being his first offence or he was under the influence of drugs (more likely) or was insane (maybe) or mentally retarded (quite likely). There are many reasons why an accused never faces court or gets thrown in jail - and you can't even prove that he is not facing court in two week's time. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is appalling. "the police cant arrest you for murder untill you've killed someone" what justice system do you live under Crimsone, on what planet? Because I want to go there. Here on earth we have charges called "attempted murder", "conspiracy to murder", "conspiracy to commit terrorism". Besides, a person is not arrested on a particular charge unless it is dead obvious, they are simply arrested first and a specific charge is to be determined and filed later. --Kvasir (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

minor injuries

Bruises and scratches are the very definition of minor injuries - it's called copyediting. Please don't be pedantic. Minor injuries is in no way POV (and it was the WP:NPOV policy you were looking for by the way, not WP:OR. It is in fact the preferred terminology for such injuries (and many injuries tht are worse) across most of the western media - and being the english wikipedia, this is, primarily, western media. See, for example, this description of what services an NHS "Minor Injuries Unit provides - "less serious injuries, such as sprains, cuts and grazes."

It's a caption. The place to be more specific, if it's felt to be notable enough, is in the article itself.Crimsone (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, NPOV means representing proportionately all opposing views. There are no opposing views here: just one view: she received scratches and bruises. OR means no original research, which includes more-than-trivial interpretation of the facts. Please take another look at those policy pages.

Scratches and bruises are not necessarily "minor". If you claim that this is "preferred terminology", you will need to raise something stronger than "I think that's the preferred term in the 'Western media'". Wikipedia, by the way, is not a Western medium. It is a global project for all English speakers everywhere, whether the said English speakers live in London, Tokyo, or Timbuktu.

The only classification of injuries which can be reliabley and uncontroversially applied are those which are uniform across English-speaking jurisdictions, e.g. "actual bodily harm" (penetration of dermis) and "grievous bodily harm". We are clearly not in either actual or grievous territory, so a subjective judgment such as "minor" or "major" is original research unless you actually cite a source for it, and no source has been cited which say that Jin Jing's injuries were minor. The current version is both faithful to the sources and also more accurate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

She recieved scratches and bruises. There were no further complications. Therefore, buy definition, the injuries were minor, as all occurances of scratches and bruises are in fact minor injuries unless serious infection result (as lesser infections too are classed as minor) or the subject is a haemophiliac and thus the bleeding is not stemmed automatically through clotting. Further - there was mention of blood on the shoulder - however, there was no mention of it's source and so could either be a small cut (another minor injury - and a large one would be obvious), or it could in fact have been from the protestor. As such, scratches and bruises is not faithful, and nor would mention of the blood on the shoulder be appropriate in the contest of her injuries.

Your assertion that only the legal classifications of actual or grevious bodily harm can apply is fallacious, as we are not in a court of law, and those definitions only apply with respect to a legal charge, which has not been made. Perhaps it is your firm belief that the protestors are all violent criminals that causes you to think on such lines? Minor or major is not a subjective judgement - it is in fact a medical judgement, which does apply. The injuries mentioned in the source are of a type that are classified medically, and indeed socially, as minor injuries. That is not saying that they are less than they are, and indeed, allows for the possibility of something more serious (ie, if the shoulder were injured somehw - perhaps even a fracture of the clavicle, which is also classified as "minor" and would be treated on the "minors" section of A&E as opposed to the "majors".) "Minor" in no way trivialises the injuries. It classifies injuries, and many are often suprised just how nasty/painful an injury can be while still being classed as a minor injury. Basically, minor injuries don't pose a threat to life or permenant wellbeing.

Once again, I request.. Stop being pedantic, and if you really are interested in making a genuinely productive contribution wile pointing out the exact nature of the injuries, I suggest you actually write that she was involved in a struggle for the torch from which she recieved bruises and scratches, though blood reported to be on her shoulder could be from any source, and do so in the article itself - in the paris protests section where it belongs. (and that's a contribution to the text - not as a photo caption.)

For your information, I am more than familar with NPOV and OR policies. I would like to familiarise you with the fact that captions are generally supposed to be brief, and should generally refer to things that are contained within the article - and things of note at that (which, it appears, is not the judgement of the world on this issue - even China only gave it a few words). It would be a perfectly legitimate action at this point to remove that section of the caption altogether.

Cuts, grazes, scratches, sprains, and bruises are all classed as minor injuries. That's not my judgement. That's their classification. It doesn't need a source that actually says "minor injuries" to refer to them as such.

As to Wikipedia not being a western encyclopedia, it uses two forms of ENglish - British and Americamns. Most of it's contributors are British or American. Most of it's readers are from the west.Crimsone (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My arugment is not that only legal definitions should apply. My point was that only defined and uncontroversial categories can be used without more. To stretch the NHS minor injuries unit's services to a definition of "minor" seems to me quite controversial and quite short of being "defined". "Minor" is not a term of law or science. It is a term of art, and is by its own nature imprecise. What is minor to one person is major to another. When you use such a term to categorise or summarise source material, that is called Original Research. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, I'm afraid, you're wrong. Minor injuries are a known classification (which though it does vary, always includes basic scratches and bruises), and minor injury is a widely accepted term. Very, very widely actually. From a medical perspective however, a none comprehensive list of minor injuries from the British Medical Association is thus...

(i) lacerations capable of closure by simple techniques (stripping, gluing, suturing)

(ii) bruises

(iii) minor dislocations of phalanges

(iv) foreign bodies

(v) non-penetrating superficial ocular foreign bodies

(vi) following advice to attend specifically given by a general practitioner

(vii) following recent injury of a severity not amenable to simple domestic first aid

(viii) following recent injury where it is suspected stitches may be required

(ix) following blows to the head where there has been no loss of consciousness

(x) recent eye injury

(xi) partial thickness thermal burns or scalds involving broken skin:

(a) not over 1 inch diameter
(b) not involving the hands, feet, face, neck, genital areas

(xii) foreign bodies superficially embedded in tissues

(xiii) minor trauma to hands, limbs or feet.

...which you'll note includes bruises, and small lacerations (significantly worse than scratches.) In Canada, there's ...

"Limitation on liability

113B (1) In this Section,

(a) "minor injury" means a personal injury1 that:

(i) does not result in a permanent serious disfigurement,

(ii) does not result in a permanent serious impairment of an important bodily function caused by a continuing injury which is physical in nature, and

(iii) resolves within twelve months following the accident;

(b) "serious impairment" means an impairment that causes substantial interference with a person's ability to perform their usual daily activities or their regular employment."

...Which defines it legally, and I'm sure you'll agre that scratches and bruises fall into such a classification. If you would like to continue to be pedantic about it, then I can equally continue to be intransigent enopugh to tell you why you're wrong and back it up with further examples. I could do it all day if you like, because I'm currently suffering with intermittant insomnia. Bruises and scratches such as spoken of here are minor injuries. Simple as that. Crimsone (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Crimsone, I think you have just proven my point. The two definitions are very, very differently phrased. They have different contents, which show the way that "minor injuries" is a term of art and not one of science or law. Please do go on and find other sources: I doubt you will find many that agree on a single definition. Unless you can find a largely uniform definition, then categorising certain injuries as "minor" is not a mere trivial fitting of an uncontroversial definition. That would mean that it is WP:Synthesis.

A note about statutory interpretation: when a section says "in this section, "blah" means...", that definition applies only within that section, not even for a whole act. In court, the lawyer would have to say "and this is a minor injury within the meaning of that term under s113B of whatever Act". You can't take a sectional definition out of the context of that section. Does it make sense to you, without context, that "a minor injury is... inter alia... one resolved within twelve months following the accident"? No? So it's not a general definition. Perhaps you can find some more agreement in those other sources you are able to dig up. Happy searching. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we so hung up on the word "kick". I don't care she was kicked, stabbed, twisted, clawed, the fact is she was reported as having injuries from the incident is all we need to mention. --Kvasir (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Kick

Actually, the cited sources above are about another attack (the one in the photo where the Tibetan attempted to grab the torch). The "kick" I mentioned is another attack, so what everyone saying above here is essentially pointless because they're two different incidents. It also shows a pathetic lack of research into this subject before you label others as believers of Chinese propaganda and offer your own twisted, sinister, and ridiculous view of the subject - that you believe the handicapped woman deserves to be kicked and that any rape victim deserves to be raped. Please throw away your computer and learn to respect. Go actually donate a few dollars to rape-victim funds lest you insult humanity here. I commented on this particular topic in a section above. I'll paste the comment. "The video clearly shows that he raised the leg before the police tackled him, but was immediately pushed off (see the isolated frames above). As for the recoil, the reaction time of a person is 0.2 second and the time between when he raised his leg and was pushed off is about the same. The image you gave clearly showed him off-balance and the policeman with his full body against his. The first contact, as you can see in the video, was between the policeman's hands and the protestor's body. That the policeman has already, in the image, had his whole body against the protestor means that he has already pushed him off. There is also no reason for the protestor to raise his right leg as he was pushed from the left - if you are pushed from the left, you naturally raise your left leg to try to gain balance. The video clearly showed him raising his right leg, which further decreases his balance. I've replayed the three seconds a few dozen times and I am confident of my analysis compared to your single-frame conclusion." You could stand up and try it yourself. Imagine being pushed from the left and being off-balance. You, of course, will raise your left leg. The attacker actually raised the right leg, before being pushed off-balance by the policeman. It is also clear that his right leg is closer to Jin Jing before he was pushed away. Your analysis is thus false, Crimsone. If no one doubts my analysis, then it is a viable source. Analysis itself is not OR - when we decide which sources to cite, which quotes from the source to use, that is analysis too. If we analyse a video and found that there is no confusion that it depicts the event, then of course the video itself can be cited as a reliable source. I agree with Crimsone however about the minor injury classifcation. There's a clear definition of minor injury and this case meets the definition. Citation is redundant in this case because it is a definition. Herunar (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read what I said, did you? If you did, you'd note that I didn't reach a "single frame conclusion". The "attacker" was already well to the left of the torchbearer - there's no way he could have kicked her if he tried - especially with the right leg, as that would have thrown him completely off balance. I actually said that the right leg was closer to her - such is the case when you're passing someone to the left from opposite directions. I rather suggest you re-read my words regarding rape and "handicapped" people - I've got too much respect for her to call her handicapped - she's disabled, and that doesn't make her weaker than the rest of us. Nor did I say that rape victims deserve to be raped. In fact, quite the opposite - I actually said that they weren't to blame, whatever the circumstances. I personally would suggest that you learn the rules of wikipedia befre proceeding to make such insidious personal attacks in a bit to win an argument again. Crimsone (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed the rest of this conversation, but all this sounds completely OR to me. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, analysis is not OR. You're given a source, you decide whether or not it is suitable and reliable - that's not OR at all. Let me elaborate - synthesis is when you attempt to make your own judgement on an issue after reading source(s). However, what I did was watching the video source carefully and concluding that it does depict a kick and thus the claim is verifiable - this much is on the video and does not need even the most basic logic process. All that appeared in the article was "kick", which is verified by the video source. Of course, after another user created a doubt on my claim by his apparent logic, then I had to eliminate the doubt by further logic. It is the same thing as a person who, say, told Newton that an apple could not have fallen on his head. Newton had to tell him the fallacy of his argument to convince him, but this argument is not related to Newton's original argument about gravity. Herunar (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, what I see is other people who don't think its a kick, you thinking its a kick and giving good reasons, only we don't look at reasons if the sources don't do the reasoning for us. Verifiability, not truth. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If other people insist that it is not a kick and provide arguments that make sense, then of course I need to reconsider the situation. But if all users agree that they see a kick in the video, that it is truth, then of course we take the truth and of course it is verifiable. The word "verify" literally means "to prove true". Thus a common truth does not need to be proved - for example, that you are alive. Is there a source saying that you are alive? No. But that's common sense. So, my point is, we should actually talk about the video (which is fortunately a very reliable source) and if we do agree that it is, by reasonable arguments, a common truth, then we don't need sources. If there is a dispute, we attempt to find a source. Herunar (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If nobody objects to it being called a kick, it will stay in. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this video repeatedly and it is difficult to work out precisely what the person in question is doing. In my eyes, it doesn't look like a kick, but nor does it look like someone trying to gain balance. If anything, it looks to me like someone trying to step on something not very high (30-40cm) before being tackled by the police officer. To out-and-out call this action a kick merely from the cited video is, in my opinion, original research. Further information and/or citations would be needed. Dancarney (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As per my comments above (under Falsehood) - several users are objecting to it being called a 'kick', meaning that the primary source is ambiguous, and drawing this conclusion from it IS Original Research; support toning down our description. Paulbrock (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no source that said she was kicked, or in threat of being kicked (and if she was, you can guarentee someone or other would have made something of it if only to get a certain demographic of people extremely riled and encourage them to buy into their media organisation). There is no source that says they attacker attempted to kick her. The video at best is ambiguous about it, which suggests there can be no certainty of such an accusation (nor any conclusive proof). Verifiablity is key, and there isn't any - it's because people like to insist on the particular version of the truth they believe in religiously, even if nobody else agrees with it.Crimsone (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't find the video ambiguous. It's actually pretty clear that the protestor rushed forward and raised his leg. This much is not in doubt. Is he simply raising his leg for exercise? I find this discussion insulting. Herunar (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since some users here have a tendency to argue the point, I've changed it to "raised the leg", which is obvious to everyone. Yea, he's just raising a leg, we don't know what he's doing. We're not speculating. He may be kicking, he may be doing yoga. That satisfies everyone. Good luck editing. I won't have time for a lot of discussion in the next few weeks. Herunar (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. He's raising his leg partly for being stopped mid stride, partly for balance while being taken down, and partly in struggle. That he rushed forward is by-th-by - all the people attempting to grab the torch and disrupt the procession have done so - it's the only way to do it. Your issue is that he raised his leg, which is something I do repeatedly everytime I walk or run, and being such a common action is therefore non-notable - it's mention therefore in itself implies tat there was grevious intent behind the action, as automatic, mistaken and harmless, or otherwise meaningless reactions are non-noteable and wouldn't be mentioned.The only thing that is 100% certain and that can actually be said, is what that those chinese newspapers have said (all two of them!) in just a few words - that somebody lunged at her. That, therefor, is all thatc an be said of the incident. With regards to injuries, the only source that mentions injuries attributes them to a single incident, and it isn't the one displayed in this image.

You don't find the video ambiguous. Others do. Therefore, by definition, it's ambiguous. 15:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read "those chinese newspapers"? I can see nothing in your comment but crude original research. How did you know that it was because he was in struggle and was stopped mid-stride? That's original research. So we don't know if it's non-notable - it might very well be notable. He simply raised his leg, which may be notable or not. That's what it is in the article, ~~my dear.~~ Herunar (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhhh... I see. So, it's OK to say that there as a kick, and failing support for thayt, it's OK to say it was attempted, and failing that, it's OK to imply it through mention of a non-noteable action, but anything to the contrary is original reseach? Has it occured to you that if that is your view, then perhaps any such comment is original research and nothing should be mentioned of it at all. For what it's worth, I asked for a translation of one source, and used a crude google translation of the other - so yes, I did read the sources.

Do not call me "my dear", because I'm certainly not yours, nor your dear - especially not after your earlier attacks. Do not patronise me - it doesn't humour me, nor is it appreciated. It is not in the source that raising his leg may or may not mean something, because if it was, there'd be precious little point in mentioning it at all. The mention of him raising his leg implies that there was some malicious action persuant thereof, and there's nothing to support that. Crimsone (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your whole comment is nothing but original research. The very well-cited fact is, he raised his leg. I only changed it to so since you complained that we won't know what he's doing. If you want notability, I can change it back to "kick". Which version do you prefer? Herunar (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There are more than two Chinese newspapers in the world. Here's an interview where Jin Jing clearly stated that she was kicked. Herunar (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just added some information about Jin Ying in the text. Hope you're okay with that. Herunar (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

[1] ttp://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4ztb8_la-flamme-olympique-chahutee-a-pari_news

[2] "Handicapped Jin receives hero's welcome for protecting Olympic torch in Paris".

[1]

[2]