Talk:2012 Summer Olympics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Controversy regarding Dow Chemicals sponsorship

Hey, I propose that we make a mention of the controversy regarding Dow Chemicals sponsorship of the Olympics, in addition to those regarding the cost overruns in the beginning of the article. Here are some articles from prominent media sources regarding the row,

From the BBC (UK): "A commissioner for a body monitoring the London 2012 Olympics has resigned over its links with Dow Chemical. Meredith Alexander said she was quitting the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012. Some politicians in the UK and India say Dow is liable for the ongoing fallout of the 1984 chemical gas leak in Bhopal, which campaigners say has killed some 25,000 people. Dow - a top-tier Olympic sponsor until 2020 - denies any liability." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16721838

"Bhopal campaigners, though, insist that by buying Union Carbide, Dow is liable to pay more compensation. Activist Rachna Dhingra says they will keep up the pressure on the Indian government "to do the right thing" and boycott the games. They jumped at the opportunity to publicise their cause when it emerged Dow was sponsoring the "wrap" around the main stadium. For their part, both the London organisers and the powerful International Olympic Committee behind them have stood firmly with the company. It has been an embarrassment for London, though, and privately some British officials wish Dow had never been taken on as a sponsor." www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18254334

From The Telegraph (UK): "The London Assembly, an elected body that investigates issues of importance in the Capital, has criticised the International Olympic Committee and Locog for entering into the partnership and called on them to rethink their relationship with Dow Chemical." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9392569/London-2012-Olympics-Dow-Chemical-partnership-has-damaged-reputation-of-London-Games.html

From The Hindu (India): "Faced with global ridicule for its attempts at greenwashing through a ten-year Olympics sponsorship, Dow has disingenuously described its critics as "irresponsible"." http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article3405294.ece

"Dow Chemical has agreed to drop its logo from London's Olympic stadium, but the Indian Olympic Association has said it is not satisfied and wants the U.S. firm to remove its sponsorship for the 2012 Games. Dow said it agreed to the “vision” of the Games by waiving its sponsorship rights to place its brand on a controversial fabric wrap for the stadium, after campaigners protested, furious as they were at the company's links to the Bhopal gas disaster." http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2726683.ece

From The Daily Express (UK): "Senior sources have admitted a “mistake” was made this summer when Dow Chemical Company was awarded sponsorship of the £500million main stadium in east London." http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/277735/Olympics-boycott-fear-over-Bhopal-firm-sponsor-deal

I will prepare a draft of the additions needed to mention this row in the article head, and post it on the talk page soon. Please let me know if there are any issues with this inclusion. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following text as the last paragraph of the intro, The London Olympics have attracted controversy due to the sponsorship of the games by Dow Chemicals<ref1><ref2>, with the London Assembly criticizing the International Olympic Committee and LOCOG for entering into a partnership with Dow Chemicals<ref3>, which is involved in litigation relating to the Bhopal Disaster<ref2>.

ref1 = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16721838, ref2 = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18254334, ref3 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9392569/London-2012-Olympics-Dow-Chemical-partnership-has-damaged-reputation-of-London-Games.html

Please reply in 48 hours if there is disagreement regarding these changes. I will incorporate them if there is agreement. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the article? If so It is already there, in fact is the first item, under the controversy where it belongs. Any lengthening of what it is there now would be WP:UNDUE though. Ravendrop 02:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Then again, did I read your comment? Are you proposing that the text be introduced into the lead? If so, I have to disagree. There is no where near signifcant coverage for it be anywhere near the lead. The financial stuff is different as that had been reported on constantly, from various angles, and has been a major contention. The Dow sponsorship has been relatively minor. Ravendrop 02:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Ravendrop. Additionally, per WP:NPOV, the article should summarize the controversy/dispute, but not engage in it. The current summary just describes activist side. The other side of the dispute is Dow's response to the activists. From Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/20/us-dowchemical-olympics-idUSTRE81J10D20120220

The company said it was surprised by the controversy at what it considers a large amount of misinformation surrounding its link to Bhopal. "Dow was never there. We did not acquire any of the connection with Bhopal," said George Hamilton, Dow's vice president of Olympic operations. Bhopal tragedy occurred in a Union Carbide plant in 1984, Union Carbide paid a $470 million compensation package through the Government of India in 1989. Dow bought Union Carbide in 2001.

While WP:AGF should suffice, fwiw, I am not a DOW employee, executive, shareholder, someone from media relations for DOW, or in any way related to DOW or its affiliates. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ravendrop and ApostleVonColorado, the counter claim seems to be that adding the sentence I am proposing would violate WP:UNDUE. In that context, please see the article about the 2010 Commonwealth Games, there is a line about mismanagement regarding the games in the lead paragraph. So one would say that there was substantial attention paid to mismanagement issues in the lead up to those games. Now, if we agree that Google search hits over a certain time period can be used to measure coverage, the following analysis makes the case for including the row regarding Dow in the lead of the article.

I compared the number of hits from Google for two search queries, "2010 commonwealth games corruption" and "2012 olympics dow bhopal". The time period from which the hits were collected was Oct 3, 2009–Oct 3, 2010 for the CW games,and Jul 27, 2011–Jul 27, 2012 for the London Olympics. I got 91,300 results for the CW games query, and 27,900 results for the Olympics query. Note that there are still more than 2 weeks to go for the Olympics to start, when the media coverage becomes more and more intense.

The London Olympics have been pulled by the London Assembly, which is an "is an elected body, part of the Greater London Authority, that scrutinises the activities of the Mayor of London and has the power, with a two-thirds majority, to amend the mayor's annual budget and to reject the Mayor's draft statutory strategies" for the Dow sponsorship. This is quite notable.

So as per WP:Precedents and WP:IMPORTANT, I would claim that the proposed text should be added to the lead. Of course, to adhere to WP:NPOV, there should be a line with Dow's response as well. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Google hits are not an indication of notability. Again, like the financial aspect of the London Games, the "mismanagement/financial" aspect of the 2010 Commonwealth games was a very significant aspect. It was something that was reported on constantly, by numerous media organizations. It had very large wide ranging implications (firing of construction companies, politicians, inquiries, possibility of venues not being ready, games cancellation etc.) The two are no where near on the same level or comparable. Again, there is a place for mentioning the Dow sponsorship thing, but that place is in the controversy section only. To place it in the lead you would need much wider newspaper and media coverage, and much wider games implications (i.e. boycotts based on the issue; other companies pulling their sponsorship of the games, etc.). Note that not even the financial controversy is not in the lead at this point, and this has been a much greater focus. Further still, the human rights issue during the 2008 Olympics received even far greater coverage and it only elicits one sentence in the lead of that article, which is the, besides 1896 Olympics, arguably the closest Wiki page of a major multi-sport event that is near WP:FA status. Also note that WP:IMPORTANT is no longer policy, being replaced by WP:NOTABILITY. In any case though the guiding policy you should be looking at is WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. The Dow chemical scandal simply does not qualify as a significant enough controversy to overcome the "summarize the most important points" guideline. To say that the Dow controversy is one the major points, i.e. the top 2 or 3 things/stories about the olympics, and along the lines in importance of where they were hosted, when they were, what venues (in terms of construction of v. use of existing) were used (and to come, which country won the most medals, and anything else notable that happens), etc. is simply ridiculous and not backed by reliable sources.

And RE:ApostleVonColorado, I agree, in part with you. I edited, with your link, to make it clearer that DOW didn't own the plant or Union Carbide at the time of the disaster. The controversy is more about the selection of the sponsor, so I think that LOCOG's response is more approriate. Details like compensation paid, etc. can be, and are, covered adequetly on the specific page, which is linked.Ravendrop 20:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Our edits crossed. Let us take out comp amounts and non-Olympic related stuff. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ravendrop, I used Google hits because they give an objective, quantitative measure. And that is only part of my evidence. Your claim, that the row was not "something that was reported on constantly, by numerous media organizations" is subjective. What one feels is being reported on constantly depends on one's own media sources. This kind of subjective refutation is inadmissible, and at this point we should probably ask for some kind of arbitration, and take a vote on the matter.

Also, very importantly, you have not responded to the point about the London Assembly. I would also like to mention at this point that the London Olympics have been criticized for the Dow Sponsorship by Amnesty International, a very notable and widely-known human rights organization. Here is Amnesty statement on Dow and the Olympics: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20224 One of the two citations in the line in the Beijing Olympics article regarding the human rights record in China is essentially a statement by Amnesty International. Here is the link to that reference, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/29/world/main4302232.shtml, the title of that link is "Amnesty:China Tarnishing Olympics". I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:Google test and from Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability." They are in no way an "objective, quantitative measure." Secondly, while the London Assembly criticism is appropriate to add to controversy subsection, it, nor the Amnesty International criticism, in no way make the scandal notable for mentioning in the lead. It is simply a far too specific thing to put in the lead and simply fails WP:UNDUE by placing far too much emphasis on something that is not that notable in the grand scheme of things. That is my opinion, and my reasoning, and we're obviously not in agreement, so lets see what others have to think so consensus is achieved. Ravendrop 22:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ravendrop, the Google hit count was only part of the evidence I presented. I feel the matter should be evaluated on the weight of the entire evidence. I respect your disagreement and like you, I am waiting for the opinions of others. 70.113.83.189 (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to log in. Can some one remove my IP address location ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Theresa May's Husband Owns Most of G4S?

The 'security' section should mention that the Home Secretary's husband owns most of G4S, who are in charge of security for 2012,who were advertising for staff as late as 12 July 2012 as they had failed to secure free labour from 'Workfare' schemes - and that taxpayer's are in effect paying twice as much, by honoring the bill sent in by G4S, and paying troops just back from a war zone for the loss of their well earned vacation.212.139.100.127 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.100.127 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan

Apparently, South Sudan has a football team and is in the Olympics too. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/newest-nation-south-sudan-proud-debut-draw-220413104--sow.html

Shouldn't they be listed in the countries participating in the Olympics or am I missing something? If they are, it's worth noting too that it is it's first time having a team in the Olympics since their secession of Sudan. Srsrox (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention the Olympics, and I would be surprised if they had managed to get a Committee together since the secession. Another source could prove me wrong. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

True point. Sorry. How about this one then? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8632832/London-2012-Olympics-South-Sudan-can-compete-at-Games.html Srsrox (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Much better, but it appears that there's still some uncertainty surrounding it. I say wait a few days and something else will probably come out about it. Thanks for bringing it up, though; it's definitely something of which editors at this article should be aware. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That Telegraph story is from 2011, and in any case, the draws for the football competition have been made, and South Sudan is not there. doktorb _words^deeds 04:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I misread the date for the Telegraph story as being 2012. Taking that into account, I'd say the odds are close to zero for South Sudan competing, and precisely zero for them competing in the football events. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

G4S Security controversy

I wonder if this article should mention the recent controversy over the security contract for the games with G4S. It was announced this week, just two weeks before the games, that they won't be able to provide all the necessary personnel and the army have had to be called in instead: [1] That might belong in the sub-article Security for the 2012 Summer Olympics rather than this one, but it seems worth noting somewhere. Robofish (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable facts missing from the article

So, why is there no mention on this page of any of the quite overzealous measures taken by the Olympics?

For example, how they tried to limit selling chips solely to McDonalds, then expanded it to those who also sell fish, which MUST be sold with the chips?^Source
or the fact linking to the Olympic's website somehow violates their terms of use, and you're not allowed to use any iconography of the Olympics?^Source
Or how shops in England aren't even allowed to hang rings in heir front windows as it "confuses" people as to who they support, and only sponsors can display their iconography?^Source
Perhaps censoring parody twitter accounts is also something that deserves notification, again due to "misrepresentation" issues?^Source

This is Wikipedia. This should be noted, much like last year. So, while I understand the TOS and chips being absent due to being relatively new, why has the other half not been added?

If these are actively being removed (or not added, as the article's protected), then there's something seriously wrong with the neutrality of this article, as others above me have stated.
Some of these facts have been out for months. These deserve a place in the controversy section, even if it's a mere sentence. Two of these are long overdue to be noted.
--Kizzycocoa (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The McDonald's thing has been added (though I'm still skeptical its anything but WP:RECENTISM, but I'm willing to wait a few days to see if anything more happens. The second is a blog post, so not really WP:RS and like the third and fourth as well simply hasn't received enough coverage to be included. This could change, but that's my opinion of the situation at the moment. And no one is preventing this things from being added. They just haven't been suggested for inclusion until now. Ravendrop 06:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Kizzy - because Wikipedia is not a news ticker, that's why, and as Ravendrop says, there's WP:RECENTISM to contend with too. This article may well, in time, have reference to some/all the issues you raise. It may have no mention of them at all. What we shouldn't do is confuse Wikipedia with Tumblr, on which anything can be posted as and when it happens. The Wikipedia community decides amongst itself whether something is notable enough for inclusion. doktorb _words^deeds 07:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change from

The IOC has drawn critizism on how McDonalds sponsorship fits into the promise to promote locally grown food in general, and for allowing McDonalds the exclusive rights to sell chips in particular. As McDonalds is not known for producing particularly healthy food, IOC's Jaques Rogge stated that talks with McDonalds were held about measures against increasing obeseness were held.

to

The IOC has drawn criticism on how McDonalds' sponsorship fits into the promise of promoting locally grown food in general, and in particular for allowing McDonalds the exclusive rights to sell chips. As McDonalds is not known for producing particularly healthy food, IOC's President Jacques Rogge stated that talks with McDonalds were being held about measures against increasing obesity.

If I'm allowed an extra comment, this is the quality you get if you semi-protect articles. What horror. 58.153.76.35 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Also "chips" should link to French_fries#United_Kingdom for clarity. 58.153.76.35 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not even in the article, so what are you going on about? But it is known news though, and the volunteers are going bonkers over it all, and have nicknamed the scandal "chip-gate". Oh and on the note of semi-protection, the reason the article got protected is because of the extreme vandalism to the article from IP addresses. So to protect it reduces that problem, and helps to maintain the article as accurate as possible. Wesley Mouse 15:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done While, for the most part - IOC was already linked higher up in the article - your suggested edits are appropriate, the entire section has been removed due to lack of consensus for inclusion. If you think it should be included, suggest this (though not as an edit request) in a new section. Ravendrop 20:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC) 20:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Line in the introduction in context of the Dow-Olympics controversy

From WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

Hey all, I propose that we add a line in the introduction of this article in reference to the criticism the organizers have faced due to Dow Chemical's sponsorship, especially in the light of the latter's involvement in the row around the Bhopal Disaster. I believe that adding such a line is inline with, WP:LEAD, WP:Notable and WP:Precedents for the following reasons:

1) The London Assembly "is an elected body, part of the Greater London Authority, that scrutinises the activities of the Mayor of London and has the power, with a two-thirds majority, to amend the mayor's annual budget and to reject the Mayor's draft statutory strategies". The Assembly has criticized the "has criticised the International Olympic Committee and Locog for entering into the partnership and called on them to rethink their relationship with Dow Chemical." This is a serious, very notable fact about the games. An elected, representative body of the city where the Games are being held have criticized the organizing committee of the games.

2) The resignation of a commissioner for a body monitoring the Olympics. "A commissioner for a body monitoring the London 2012 Olympics has resigned over its links with Dow Chemical. Meredith Alexander said she was quitting the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012. Some politicians in the UK and India say Dow is liable for the ongoing fallout of the 1984 chemical gas leak in Bhopal, which campaigners say has killed some 25,000 people. Dow - a top-tier Olympic sponsor until 2020 - denies any liability." This is a serious, notable fact related to the same issue.

3) Sustained criticism by Amnesty International, a very prominent human rights organization. Here is the latest Amnesty statement on Dow and the Olympics: 'Dow has caused damage to reputation of London 2012' http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20224. This is again very notable. The last time Amnesty criticized an Olympic Games (Beijing 2008), it was featured in the intro paragraph of the relevant wikipedia article.

4) Dows involvement has received substantial coverage in the media, and Dow has even responded to the criticisms. Please see the links in the Talk section:Controversy regarding Dow Chemicals sponsorship.

Fellow contributors Ravendrop and ApostleVonColorado have claimed that this issue is not notable since it has not "something that was reported on constantly, by numerous media organizations". I think this is a particular point of view. For example, from the point of view an average Chinese person, the criticism of China's human rights during the Beijing Olympics was not notable, since in the media organizations they can rely on (the Chinese state media), there was probably zero coverage of the human rights concerns. In the same vein, perhaps the British and American media have not reported much on the Dow-Olympics controversy but the issue has been covered constantly and with great intensity by the Indian media.

Not having the criticism of Dow's sponsorship and the response by Dow, when indeed there has been so much controversy around it, condemnation by the elected body of the host city, resignation of Games commissioners and sustained criticism by a very prominent human rights organization would be against the principles of WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, WP:Precedents, WP:Notable and Wikipedia's commitment to providing a worldwide point of view. Thus I propose that we add the following line to the intro about this issue,

"The London Olympics have attracted controversy due to the sponsorship of the games by Dow Chemicals<ref1><ref2>, with the London Assembly criticizing the International Olympic Committee and LOCOG for entering into a partnership with Dow Chemicals<ref3>, which is involved in litigation relating to the Bhopal Disaster<ref2>. Dow chemicals has claimed that the controversy is the result of misinformation surrounding its link to Bhopal<ref4>." ref1 = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16721838, ref2 = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18254334, ref3 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9392569/London-2012-Olympics-Dow-Chemical-partnership-has-damaged-reputation-of-London-Games.html ref4 = http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/20/us-dowchemical-olympics-idUSTRE81J10D20120220

While evaluating my proposal, please keep in mind that events like the Olympic Games are not just sporting competitions. They contain important political and economic undercurrents.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry but I think adding anything on this issue specifically to the lead section would be giving it undue weight. However if the lead is to properly summarise the article then perhaps a general mention of the controversies should be present. I'd also suggest we're getting to the stage where the controversies section can form a seperate Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics article and just summarised here as was done for 2008 Summer Olympics#Concerns and controversies. This would allow more detail to be added to the new article - Basement12 (T.C) 22:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• This has already been (partially) discussed above. See: Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#Controversy regarding Dow Chemicals sponsorship. Though, I also agree that it is time to create Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics. Ravendrop 00:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Basement 12, we should definitely include the other prominent controversies as well. I hope my evidence above is sufficient to prove that the Dow controversy is prominent. We can have a summarizing line or two about the controversies as follows,"The London Olympics have attracted controversy for various reasons. Prominent among these have been the sponsorship of the games by Dow Chemicals<ref1><ref2>, which is involved in litigation regarding the Bhopal disaster<ref3>, the invitation to Prince Nasser of Bahrain, due to allegations of torture against him<ref4>, and security concerns<ref5>." Does this work for everyone ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked the cited references, and could not find support for 'Dow Chemicals is involved in litigation'. The only support in that reference is: the current Indian government wants to reopen and re-litigate the case. Further, if litigation is not discussed in the main text, it should not be inserted into the lead (see WP:LEAD).

I also checked the google hits, global and India separately, for the following: 2012 summer olympics dow bhopal, and 2012 summer olympics. The ratio is a small fraction of 1% globally, and less than 5% within India. Is it really prominent?

I do not believe google hits matter though. Notability of a topic is not same as notability of an aspect of a topic. It is notable enough to be a separate article within wikipedia, not notable aspect of 2012 Summer Olympics, yet, to be included in the lead. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado, we can remove the reference to the litigation. I believe that the matter is notable enough to be included in the lead. I have not seen an argument in the discussion so far that shows that the matter is not notable, while I have presented a lot of evidence to back my assertion that it is indeed notable and prominent.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I will argue that while this controversy is notable enough for the article, I do not believe that it is prominent enough for the lead of the article. I do not want to get into a pointless "my controversy is bigger than yours", but I would certainly say that both the budget and the ticket arrangements have had a lot more coverage, and criticism from eminent organisations than the DOW issue. (That being said, the ticket controversy is UK-specific, so I would argue against including it in the lead, and in fact I believe that it is too prominent in this page for a single-country issue.) Bluap (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bluap, is the London Assembly not an eminent organization ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

London Assembly has criticized ticket arrangements too. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9098320/London-2012-Olympics-ticket-sales-the-cruel-engine-of-disappointment-as-Boris-Johnson-demands-transparency.html ApostleVonColorado (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate that I am not against other controversies in the lead. The Dow sponsorship has been criticized by both the London Assembly and Amnesty International. Also, the Indian Olympic Association had outright demanded that Dow be dropped as a sponsor. Dow also dropped its logo from the Olympics, allegedly due to the Indian OA's objections. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/events-tournaments/london-olympics/Dow-Chemical-to-drop-its-logo-from-London-Olympics-IOA-not-happy/articleshow/11158258.cmsI am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the above discussions, will this line work, The London Olympics have attracted controversy in some quarters for issues related to ticketing<ref1>, security<ref2> and sponsorship agreements with Dow Chemicals<ref3>.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you actually read the above conversations, there is actually a very clear consensus against adding any mention of this particular controversy to the lead. You are the only person who explicitly thinks it should be in the lead. Any other comments near your position have only been vague comments about the possibility of needing to summarize the major controversy in the lead. And, if that were to be done now, would clearly be the security issues, it would be something very general and would not include a mention of DOW. Please do not add it. Ravendrop 08:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ravendrop, five people participated in the conversations. Me, you, ApostleVonColorado, Bluap and Basement12. I am strongly in favor of mentioning the controversies and Dow. Basement12 is in favor of mentionin g controversies but its not clear if he/she is comfortable with mentioning Dow. Bluap seems to be in not favor of including Dow, but not sure what his view about a more general statement is. You and AVC seem to be dead against it. So there is no clear consensus. I had given folks ample time to respond after my last post. They did not, so I assumed that the line was okay. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I support a controversies section on the article, but i do not believe these are notable enough for inclusion in the lead, even if it is just a sentence or two. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics should be renamed

The official name for athletes competing under the Olympic flag has now been announced here as Independent Olympic Athletes.130.88.141.34 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing! And there's clearly both Kuwaiti and ex-Antillies athletes there so Kuwait should be removed from the list of participants doktorb _words^deeds 20:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait is being permitted to participate under their own nation flag and national anthem now. Which just leaves Netherlands Antilles, but there has been several discussion about this. Please look at the above threads and in the archives and have a read at what has been said so far on the matter. Wesley Mouse 20:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Official statement from Olympic.org stating Kuwait is no longer suspended and have been granted their NOC status again. And they now have their country page restored. Wesley Mouse 20:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a question before renaming. According to the London 2012 official website, the Dutch Antillean athletes will compete as "Independent Olympic Athletes" (IOA). The code IOA was used in 2000 for East Timorese athletes under the name "Individual Olympic Athletes". "Independent" and "Individual" in this case means the same thing? Jonas kam (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I came here to inform about a change to the listing as the internal documents have been changed from IOP to IOA and that LOCOG was going to publish the announcement. But it seems Jonas has found the publication before I got chance, well done my friend. It is true, IOP (Independent Olympic Participants) was the listing as at the time there were suppose to be 3 countries without an official NOC (Netherlands Antilles, Kuwait, and talks of Kosovo too). Subsequently the Kosovo decision was rejected, and thus left two nations, which were still listed on the internal documents as IOPs. Then websites started to list Kuwait as IOAs (see previous threads above about this). But now that Kuwait have their NOC status back, it has now meant only one nation will be "Independent Olympians", and thus changing the status for Antilles from IOP to IOA. See, I did state that if we waited a little longer that the problem would have sorted itself out. Patience is a virtue. Anyhow, I'm off to London on 20 July, ready to start the hands-on volunteering shifts during the games. Have fun folks, and speak soon (if I manage to find some spare time in-between all the chaotic workload). Wesley Mouse 00:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The article should be moved. I have tried to get it moved earlier as the word athlete has been used in every source I have seen, including the one given in the article ("independent athletes under the Olympic flag"). As far as the re-use of the IOA code is concerned, there is no problem for the IOC as there were no medal winners or records for the old IOAs, thus they don't use it in their database. 88.88.164.233 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"The article should be moved" - well this is on of the reasons why this particular thread has been created, in order to build a consensus in regards to an article move. As I have mentioned several times in several threads though, there was an element of confusion in regards to IOP/IOA. This was purely because sources had started to list IOA, while official LOCOG documents to which I am able to view as part of my Games Maker role, were using IOP. As there were conflicting information, I had suggested that we were best waiting until nearer the time to decide whether we should be using IOA or IOP, as more accurate details would have been released as we drew closer to the games to clarify which of the two codes we should be using - this I have also mentioned in my post on this very thread. 3 nations were suppose to be Independent Olympians (IO), and due to that factor IOP code had been planned for usage. However, internal discussion between NOCs, IOC, and LOCOG decided that only 2 nations would be permitted to be Independent Olympics, and that one of them (Kuwait) may still regain their NOC status. In the internal discussion it had been noted that if Kuwait were not being granted their NOC back, then IOP would be the code - however in the event that Kuwait did regain NOC status, then Antilles would become an IOA. According to the IOC, if one nation becomes IOs then the code is IOA - if more than one nation are IOs then the code is IOP. Wesley Mouse 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is still a small chance that a South Sudanese marathon runner could compete as an Indepedent Olympic Participant/Athlete according to this article http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/south-sudan-runner-bids-for-independent-olympic-place The IOC have not responded yet, but I'm not holding my breath on this. It's something to watch out for in the next few days and note accordingly should the bid succeed. Moldovanmickey (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to the move? Post-move someone will need to fix the infobox in the article, because with the IOC code IOA as input the output is Individual Olympic Athletes, not Independent Olympic Athletes. 88.88.164.233 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Slow down there, there are processes to go through in case you didn't know - such as submitting the request at WP:RM first, and then allow a !vote to be decided upon, which normally takes 7-days unless there is a snowball consensus. I'd suggest we go about things the proper way and avoid cutting corners. Wesley Mouse 22:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Official requested move available here, though I think common sense would be to move the article according to the official designation. 88.88.160.158 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is fixing inaccurate information, not debatable information. JoshMartini007 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is my opinion too. Obviously, the article would not have been created with, or moved to, its current title today, and there is no reason to keep it there when it seems to be incorrect. Because the IOA country code will become ambigous we will need someone to look at the templates used. 88.88.160.158 (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Andrwsc the templates can now handle the situation.85.167.109.186 (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversy: Minute of Silence for murdered Israeli athletes

I am adding a section under controversies discussing the campaign for an official minute of silence for the Israeli athletes murdered by Palestinian terrorists in 1972. Given that the President of the United States as well as many European parliamentarians have added their support, it is worth inclusion. Drmikeh49 (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is it controversial? To hold a minutes silence on the 40th anniversary would surely be a mark of respect to those athletes' who lost their lives as a result of the tragedy!? Wesley Mouse 04:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's controversial because the IOC has refused to allow it as part of the official ceremony. Drmikeh49 (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can see this being one of the talking point tomorrow during my first volunteering shift at the games. Oh the joys! Wesley Mouse 05:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also support the inclusion of this, it is notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No way!!!! I hate the simple existence of a controversy section at all, including this item. Every Olympics provides a wonderful platform for narrow interest groups to push particular political or social issues. It happens every four years (every two if you include the Winter Games). We must not get caught up in this unfortunate sub-game. To include it would require us to decide which "controversies" are more important than others. With all due respect, that's not our job. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We do not decide what are the controversies, the sources determine that. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you have checked all quality reliable sources from all over the world in order to find balance. And while news sources thrive on controversy, it rarely helps to make better articles here. A good rule for deciding on inclusion of content is to think about whether it will still be seen as important in 20 years time. This won't be. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You could delete 1000s of wikipedia articles on such a criteria of being important in 20 years time. This is notable and a controversy, so justified for inclusion. It hardly takes up a lot of space in the article, its not given undue weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. Can you give reasons for them, as I have attempted to do? HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and why do we need to record every controversy? What do they add to the article? A platform for whingers? HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CRITICISM: "Wikipedia's neutral point of view (POV) policy requires that all viewpoints of any topic be represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That article tells us to Avoid sections...focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies". Thank you for drawing our attention to it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. If you read beyond the section titles, though, you might see this: "When the sources indicate that a section should be devoted to third-party opinions on a topic, avoid using the term 'criticism' in the section title." "Avoid" does not mean "seek out and eradicate", nor does NPOV mean "no negative material, ever". If you can come up with a better way to incorporate the material into the article outside the framework of a dedicated section, that would be great. But policy the essay in question does not disallow said dedicated section; it merely discourages it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You say "If you can come up with a better way to incorporate the material into the article outside the framework of a dedicated section, that would be great." I have no intention of seeking a better place. I don't think it belongs at all. The mere existence of a Controversy section is the problem. It attracts, well, controversy, which is inevitably non-neutral POV. You and others were attracted to it to add this material. It doesn't provide balance. It inevitably provides imbalance. If we shouldn't have a Controversy section, and there's nowhere else to put this content, then it doesn't belong. The same probably applies to everything in that Controversies section. All very unhealthy for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, very few of my edits to this article have been to the Controversy section. I didn't add anything to that section either, contrary to what you said. I added refs to support material that was already there and fixed some grammatical errors. That's it. Am I reading you right, that you want to remove the material from the article completely? If so, that's a far larger WP:NPOV violation than any we might currently have. You can't say that the article is non-neutral with referenced information on criticism but would suddenly become neutral once all the negative material is expunged. If you want to remove sourced and relevant material, you need to have a far better policy-based justification than vague statements that it "attracts ... controversy". I might recommend an argument based on WP:UNDUE, but even that is shaky at best. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going to trawl through all the edits to see who added precisely what to the article, so sorry for any misunderstanding, but you obviously support this material. I'm still not convinced that a Controversy section should exist, in almost any article. Being sourced doesn't justify inclusion. Every Olympic Games attracts political and social campaigners. There is nothing notable about the fact that these Games have too. It would be notable if they hadn't. I am targeting this material as part of expressing my bigger concern about the whole existence of this section. IMHO, none of it belongs. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries about the misunderstanding. You are right in assuming that I support the material being in the article. Policy supports, and site-wide consensus has long supported having dedicated sections for controversies and criticism of a given topic. We even have a dedicated series of "Concerns and controversies" articles for each Summer Olympics. That, in my opinion, is a little bit excessive. It really ought to be folded into the main article rather than forked off. In this case, there is not yet a "Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics" article yet. So, per longstanding consensus, information on controversies will remain in this article. Unless you want to start an RFC or something on the very principle of there being dedicated Controversy section in articles, which you are more than welcome to do.

You also mentioned notability, as someone inevitably does in conversations like this. I, then, am forced to point out that WP:N states that, "Notability does not gauge the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Once the article exists, any sourced material that is relevant to the topic, and that does not violate any additional Wikipedia policies, can be included; notability does not enter into that equation. Your welcome to your opinion as to whether or not Controversy sections should exist, but it would probably help if you made a policy-based argument for that opinion if you intend to impose it on articles. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I will acknowledge that you're better equipped with knowledge for Wikilawyering than I am. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems like an unnecessary accusation to make. I'm just pointing out that present policy and consensus cannot be construed to forbid the mention of any negative press unless it is a clear BLP violation, which this clearly isn't. In addition, I don't think my statements fit any of the four criteria listed at WP:WL (but maybe pointing that out is itself Wikilawyering...). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent me. I'm not asking that we "forbid the mention of any negative press". It's the concentration of it in a single section that's the biggest problem. But there's also the broader problem that, with the Olympics being an ideal platform for protests of all kinds, we must not get sucked into playing the games of the protesters. I say again, every Olympic Games leads to the emergent of protests, many only slightly relevant to the Games themselves. There is nothing unique about what's happening in London. It would need to be a very major issue in my mind to justify inclusion, and then it should only be in the section of the article relating to the part of the Games being protested. General protests just using the Games as an ideal protest platform do not belong. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Colombia Delegation

There is a mistake with the number of athletes that Colombia will send to the Olympics. The official number of participants is going to be 104 and not 105, this because Alejandra Idrobo was initially to take part in the women realy but she will replaced with an athlete who is already classificated in another event. Please corret that.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.116.45.111 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Independent Olympic Athletes/Participants: South Sudan

The IOC have agreed to Guor Marial, from South Sudan competing in the Marathon as an independent under the Olympic Flag according to Reuters. The Chicago Tribune is reporting that he may have problems getting the necessary documentation to travel to London, however. The Participants part of the article will need to be altered, accordingly to reflect the fact that the Individual Olympic Participants may include this gentleman from South Sudan as well as the former Netherlands Antilles athletes Moldovanmickey (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This has now appeared on the AP wire here No mention of him not being able to make it to London, just that currently he is from a country with no NOC. Sport and politics (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The IOC has now let the runner compete under the Olympic flag. JoshMartini007 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

IOC has two NOC names reserved for these situations.Independent Participants was used for a NOC in a state of transition, suspension (Yugoslavia in 1992) or dissolution (Netherlands Antilles,last year)).Individual Olympic Athletes is used for a country wich was recognized by the international community,but don´t has a National Olympic Committee,because was turning independent on middle of Olympic cycle.This is the same situation wich East Timor,was on 2000 Summer Games,IOC see this and give to they a special permission to compete as Individual Olympic Athletes.South Sudan,enter on this situation.The country is recognized by the UN, but they had time to form their National Committee on time for current Summer Olympics.The Netherlands Antilles and South Sudan has on different political situations.

Daniel Callegaro (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Then why are athletes from Netherlands Antilles listed as IOAs rather than IOPs? This may be what was done in the past, but it does not seem like they are going to be doing that. JoshMartini007 (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• The IOC hadn't made any decision on the code for 2012, and so Netherlands Antilles had assumed that the IOC were going to be using the code IOA, based on the fact that was the code used last time a situation like this occurred (back in 2000). This false assumption also lead to media outlets starting to use IOA when they too didn't even know what code would actually be used. Official documentation however, has the IOs (Independent Olympians) listed as IOP for 2012 - thus meaning the media (including online sources) and Antilles had assumed incorrectly. Wesley Mouse 10:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that the "Independent Olympians" link currently goes to a disambiguation page. I was going to fix this but couldn't figure out how. It also lists 7 athletes competing independently, but there are actually only 4. Tad Lincoln (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Now fixed to 4. I too am unsure how to fix the disambiguation. Sport and politics (talk) 10:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Figured out how to disambiguate and it now links to the correct article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is really confusing

Can I get someone to chime in on this bit of confusion regarding the distinction between "Independent Olympic Athletes" and "Independent Olympic Participants"? As far as I can tell, they are all IOA's, but I could be wrong on that. Anyway, I believe it's very relevant to this article and needs to be resolved soonest. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Follow the example at the 2000 Summer Olympics wiki page, in which it had IOA on it. Just combine the former Netherlands Antilles and South Sudan athletes as "one." Rockies77 (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this one has been settled, finally. It appears that IOA is the country code currently in use for all independent athletes, contrary to what others said. You can read all the sordid details here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion still active. Input welcome. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 July 2012

Torch section, photo of torch in Newport, Wales. Please change from Newport, Wales to Newport, Isle of Wight. because I live in Newport, Wales and this is not from there and the author of photo is from Isle of Wight. This needs clarification and changing

Proud to be Welsh (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed - Indeed it is Newport, Isle of Wight. Wesley Mouse 20:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Policy on Advertising?

As the 2012 Olympics is being run by a public company, much of the content of this page should be viewed as an 'advertisment' - could someone explain which sections need to be removed to make the article compliant with Wiki policy on advertising? Perhaps the organisers should pay for it by making a donation ????212.139.100.244 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.100.244 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, soliciting a donation in exchange for coverage... whether real or perceived... is just about the worst thing that Wikipedia could do. It's simply a major event of international interest and will receive appropriate coverage, no differently than the World Cup or World Series. -- Alyas Grey : talk 08:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This whole article reads as an advertisement for the London Organisation running the Olympic Games. I believe it is a good candidate for Speedy Deletion ( I would support the article, if an major and extensive, critism section is included, Otherwise, Deleat away). Magnum Serpentine (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC) do you know the logo was invented by John midrib

Housing Controversy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17986383

The BBC have reported on a shelter investigation showing Landlords are evicting tenants and raising rents in some cases from £350 a week to £6000

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 May 2012‎ (UTC) What's up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.139.73 (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Hi everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.139.73 (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A note on bare URLs

Just a note that the refs currently in place which do not cite publishers, access dates, etc. are not bare URLs, but are, rather, "plain links". The Bare URL template is for use only on articles which use bare URLs, so doesn't belong here. However, I intend to go through and format each and every one of those plain links using the cite web template. I'm going to get started right now; I'm not sure how long it will take me, but I will get it done. If anyone wants to help, feel free, but don't feel that you absolutely have to. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done, finally. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Tag was wrong, (didn't realize there was a plain link tag) but I'm glad someone picked up on what I was trying to point out. Ravendrop 08:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Logo comments

A bloggerat the BBC said that "London 2012's new logo has got the country talking [although] not in the manner the organisers would have hoped." One employee at a design firm described it as "well thought out" and anticipated it would "become a source of pride for London and the Games."

The above statement in the section on the logo has a number of errors as pointed out above. I also think that citing one person from a design company is undue weight and an attempt to give a positive comment on the logo, just for the sake of it. Sport and politics (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I will take it from the lack of comments that there is not arguments for this and that it is undue weight and should be removed. Sport and politics (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Athlete numbers

Over the past couple of days I have noticed people editing the "Participants" section and changing the number of athletes for a given country code, particularly IOA/IOP (independent Olympians) and KUW (Kuwait). Without fail, every one of these changes has not been supported by the sources currently cited in the article. Please do not do this. If you are going to change information that is currently cited to either the London 2012 site, or Olympic.org, or both, you must include sources that back up your revised version of the numbers. The only way a given reader can be reasonably expected to verify the information in this article is by clicking on the citations in the body of the text. If the citations which are linked to do not back up what is stated in the article, then this contravenes our policy on verifiability.

If you have a reliable source which backs up the numbers you want to revise, by all means you are welcome to add it to the article. But if you are going to change information which is currently sourced to reliable parties, you must add a new ref to the article which backs up your changes. Thanks for your understanding! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This site backs up the claim that Kuwait is sending eleven athletes rather than seven. As far as I can tell, London 2012 are not keeping their site properly updated. I still don't know what's up with the IOP's, or the Kuwaiti nationals who are for some reason listed as IOPs. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Vote on controversy line in the introduction

All, can we please have a final vote on the line in the introduction about the controversies ? The discussion was here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#Line_in_the_introduction_in_context_of_the_Dow-Olympics_controversy. Please vote yes or no for the following, 1) Do we want a line in the intro mentioning controversies ? 2) Do we want to mention Dow in that line ?

Please don't split the topic by starting a new section here. BTW there is no such thing as a "final vote" on WP. Roger (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger, I created this separate article because I wanted more participation. I will remove the call for votes in the other section. Sorry about this.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I support a controversies section on the article, but i do not believe these are notable enough for inclusion in the lead, even if it is just a sentence or two. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, consensus is, and always been, against inclusion of DOW specifically, and, to a lesser extent, any mention of any controversy in the lead. The reason why your "suggestion" wasn't replied to before was because you were simply repeating your initial argument and those who had previously responded did not see any significant enough change to justify replying. Additionally, as Roger has pointed out, any and all discussion counts as "votes". If there is dramatic change in the future regarding this issue, it can be revisited, but I think that is extremely unlikely. I can tell you are passionate about the issue, but, again, consensus is clearly against you. Please gracefully accept this and stop trying to push your opinion/point of view by creating new sections and simply repeating your argument over and over again. Ravendrop 08:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And any mention can be extremely brief. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2012

The change concerns a sentence in the section Medals.

Please change " The obverse, as is traditional, features Nike, the Greek goddess of victory, stepping from the Parthenon" to "The obverse, as is traditional, features Nike, the Greek goddess of victory, stepping from the Panathenaic Stadium that hosted the first modern Olympic Games in 1896, with Parthenon in the background" as a more accurate description is required (indeed, Nike doesn't step from the Parthenon but from the Panathenaic Stadium).

Neosmyrnian (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Though, I used Panathinaiko Stadium instead of Panathenaic Stadium to avoid the redirect. Ravendrop 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Medal table. Leave it out!

This article doesn't have a medal table yet, but it will, and for most of the period of the Games it will be wrong. Enthusiastic but parochial editors will make random additions to the medal count as soon as their country or their favourite athlete wins a medal. They won't bother with medals won by others. There will be duplicate additions by fans with similar interests. In that inaccurate form the table will serve little purpose apart from short term jingoism, which doesn't belong here. Any chance we can leave out the medal table completely until the Games are over? HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, medal tables don't usually turn into edit wars and by the end of the day the table is made sure to be accurate and besides the medal table is one of the most looked for pieces of information during the games, it would be unwise to not have it. JoshMartini007 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you from watching previous Games articles that the resemblance of the Medal table to reality during the Games will be negligible, for the reasons I gave above. I'd be happy to have it included if someone can guarantee a way of keeping in accurate. Edit warring isn't the problem, It's parochial, incomplete and inaccurate updates. There's no point in having garbage in the article, which is what it has been during previous Games. How would you make sure it remains accurate? HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as the main editors remain smart and not just edit blindly everything will be fine. Should a country get its first medal random people will edit to make it accurate, not just randomly give themselves a medal and thus we end up with 5 gold medals from a 1 medal win and like I said there are people that will have it accurate, or at the very least have it accurate by the end of the day. JoshMartini007 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The medal table in the article will only include the top ten NOCs, and it is possible to solve by transcluding the top ten from 2012 Summer Olympics medal table, see 2010 Summer Youth Olympics#Medal table and 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table. This will ensure that the two medal tables are equal and prevent frequent edits on the main article on the Games. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your link to 2012 Summer Olympics medal table is simply a redirect back to this article. That's no solution. Even if a separate article is created, what will keep it accurate? HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume a separate article will be created based on precedent. It would keep the table in the main article more accurate because that would only include the top ten. An appropiate level of protection on the medal table article would prevent excessive non-constructive edits. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, an appropriate level of protection on this as yet non-existent article WOULD, by definition, prevent excessive non-constructive edits, but I find it hard to visualise what that level of protection could be. As I said above, the table has been a mess during previous Games. Your enthusiasm to include a medal table, and impressive faith in the system, don't convince me yet that this can work. 07:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your concerns are justified. From previous experience, there are far more people willing to keep the table correct and as up to date as possible than there are those who try to vandalize it. The only real dispute that occurs every year (despite clear and established consensus) is the ranking by gold or by total medal, which the IOC's model of gold then silver then bronze and not total (the American way) is the method used. To not include the medal table would make the article woefully incomplete and as a highly viewed page, it is for the benefit of the project as a whole to have the table. Ravendrop 08:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

↑ This. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 13:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say that my concerns are NOT about vandalism? That others have failed to comprehend that point removes NONE of my concerns. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of McDonald's and Coca-Cola as sponsors

I was surprised the material on the criticism of McDonald's and others, as fast food purveyors sponsoring the Olympics, was removed. There has been extensive coverage of the issue, more than of the Dow sponsorship that is still in the article. Can we re-visit this? I attach a selection of articles showing sustained and widespread, international media coverage from various perspectives, including actions and reactions from significant figures (London Assembly, Jacques Rogge):

• London 2012 Olympics: McDonald's 'the wrong choice' for athletes, says Team GB sport science head, by Tom Rowley, Daily Telegraph, 19 July 2012.

• So Coca-Cola and McDonald's are paying for the Olympics..., by Martha Gill, New Statesman, 16 July 2012. Criticism and the corporate response. Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken also mentioned.

• McDonald’s launches Olympics ad campaign, by Roger Blitz, Financial Times, 15 July 2012. Criticism and the corporate response. Coca-Cola and Cadbury also mentioned.

• Olympics sponsorship: supporting sport or funding fat?, by Prof. Mike Daube, The Conversation, 21 July 2012. Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken also mentioned. Australian coverage.

• McDonald's, supersized: First pictures inside the world's biggest fast food restaurant. . . yards from Olympic stadium, by Louise Eccles, Daily Mail, 3 July 2012, including critical quotes from Jenny Jones (London Assembly Member). Coca-Cola and Cadbury also mentioned. Also criticises corporate ticket allocations.

• McDonald’s Olympics sponsorship queried, by Roger Blitz, Financial Times, 8 July 2012. Jacques Rogge, IOC President, responds and admit concerns. Coca-Cola also mentioned.

• IOC chief Jacques Rogge admits 'question mark' over McDonald's and Coca-Cola sponsoring Olympics, Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2012. More from Rogge.

• McDonald’s, Coke defend Olympic choice, by Lara O'Reilly, Marketing Week. Senior people at McDonald's and Coca-Cola respond.

• Cardiologist: Ban junk food from sponsoring Olympics, BBC News, 10 July 2012. Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken also mentioned.

• Olympics McDonald's, Coca-Cola Support: Selling Out for a Financial Fix?, by Sami K Martin, The Christian Post, 10 Jul 2012. Coca-Cola also mentioned. US coverage.

• Should a Fast Food Company Be Sponsoring the Olympics?, by Feargus O'Sullivan, The Atlantic Cities. US coverage.

• McDonald’s Olympian achievement in London: A French fry monopoly and largest fast-food restaurant, by Tim Carman, Washington Post, 18 July 2012. US coverage.

• London 2012 Olympics: Assembly calls for ban on junk food sponsors, Daily Telegraph, 21 Jun 2012. London Assembly vote through motion calling on Locog to exclude certain food sponsorship; article mentions McDonald's and Coca-Cola.

• McDonald's and Coca Cola should have no place in Olympics, says Wales' top doctor, by Julia McWatt, WalesOnline, 11 July 2012. Chief Medical Officer of Wales Dr Tony Jewell criticises McDonald's and Coca-Cola.

And a bit more on chip-gate:

• McDonald's force Olympics bosses to ban all other restaurants from selling chips... unless they're served with fish, by Emma Clark, Daily Mail, 12 July 2012.

• Chip-hungry Olympic workers celebrate freedom from McDonald's monopoly, by Robert Booth, The Guardian, 11 July 2012.

Surely there's enough there to re-instate this section? Bondegezou (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

These criticisms arise at every Olympic Games. They are not unique to London. In fact, they're not unique to the Olympic Games. These two organisations (and many others involved with the Games) are widely criticised in many places and quite frequently. The Games simply provide a global platform for protesters about anything to shout their many complaints. If you really want to get something published, try the Olympic Games article, because this isn't really about London. But I don't like your chances. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that these two companies are widely criticised in many places does not make that criticism less pertinent or relevant here. I really don't follow your logic there. These articles do not reflect the same old protesters: we have a motion passed in the London Assembly (how much more London specific can you get?), we have comments by key figures (Chief Medical Officer of one of the UK nations, Team GB Sports Science head), we have reaction from Jacques Rogge and senior company figures. Yes, the Olympics does act as a focal point for broader protest, but that's part of the story, so we should cover it, not decide what's in and out of the article based on what we think about such protests. Anyway, let's see what other editors think. Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is widely covered in the media (thank you, HiLo48 for the research) so it does merit inclusion. The fact that the issue is not limited to the 2012 games is not a good reason for omitting it, and leaving out widely-discussed issues looks a bit odd to say the least. However, it should not be a greatly detailed account and should include a balanced view to comply with WP:NPOV. Having said that, a quick look at the offending section reveals that it was pretty biased and weasel-worded so I wouldn't want to re-instate the deleted material. I favour a re-write - happy to have a go.7ofclubs (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Another cite is in the British Medical Journal: Coombes R (2010). "Richard Budgett: Olympic challenge", BMJ, 2010;340:c2904. Budgett is the chief medical officer of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The article is behind a paywall, but the key section is:

This doesn’t mean to say that there aren’t tensions between health promotion and sport. The organising committee has needed to raise £2bn (€2.3bn; $2.9bn) to stage the 2012 games (this is in addition to the £9bn from the public purse that is largely funding the infrastructure). The drive for sponsorship has led to partnerships with fast food giants and fizzy drinks manufacturers. Public health experts have said it is hard to reconcile the fact that McDonald’s and Coca Cola are the leading sponsors of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), although Budgett is sanguine.

“We have to accept the IOC sponsors, which includes McDonald’s,” says Budgett. “There will be choice, some people do eat McDonald’s and that is fine. It doesn’t matter if you eat McDonald’s in moderation.”[/blockquote]

Let me know if more needed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is needed on a separate page on non-sporting controversies on the Olympics, this would include the security shambles currently occurring. I also think a sporting controversies page is needed as well. This is because there have been a number of controversies surrounding have unified GB football teams, Rhythmic Gymnastic qualification, having athletes acquire UK citizenship to participate for GB in sports such as wrestling and the controversy over the Taekwondo selection policy, to name a few. Sport and politics (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversies specific to the UK team, of which I agree there are several, should probably go in the Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics article, whereas the G4S issue does warrant coverage here. Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Given comments in this sub-section and the earlier one on this topic, it appears to me that most support re-instating this in the article. I have added something based on some of the citations above, but there are lots more citations available. See what you all think and, obviously, edit further as you see fit. I was uncertain how to title the section and how much to focus on McDonalds versus other sponsors. I've put this above the Dow section on the grounds of more coverage.

Thanks - I think that seems all OK, though I took the liberty of taking out the word "unhealthy" from the title as it might make it seem biased, and healthy eating isn't the only criticism about the sponsors. Otherwise I think the issue is covered without going overboard, and there is coverage of the Locog & sponsors' views.7ofclubs (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about chip-gate, although there's a fair few citations on that subject too. Bondegezou (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't call it "Chip-gate" it is just sensationalising nonsense made up by the media call it what it actually is. Sport and politics (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A-ha the media didn't come up with the name "chip-gate", I'm sorry to say. A few of the volunteers (of which I am one of them) was discussing the scandal, one comically laughed and said "oh chip-gate", and the name stuck as a private joke between the volunteers. I can only assume that the media have overheard the nickname the volunteers have given the scandal and have used it themselves. Wesley Mouse 15:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's too obvious a joke for anyone to claim origination! Whichever, no-one is currently suggesting using the term on the article itself and surely, on a Talk page, we are allowed somewhat freer reign. Let us instead focus on the question of whether we should add anything to the article about press coverage of McDonalds chip monopoly. There are some citations, it's part of the whole criticism of McDonalds thing, but is it notable enough? Bondegezou (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly its true, we were informed about the chip ban as early as May, well before the media started to report it. We received letters advising us that due to the sponsorship obligations between the IOC and McDonald's that chips are banned on the OPK (Olympic Park) unless they are served with fish. GMs (games makers) were outraged at the news and but jokingly started to nickname it chip-gate, in light of other scandals that tend to end in "gate". Then the media got wind of the scandal 6 weeks later and they also started to refer to it as chip-gate. Wesley Mouse 16:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but that doesn't mean the media got the nickname from the volunteers. It's such a tediously obvious name, it is almost certainly a case of independent invention. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 19:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said the media got the name from the volunteers. However I did say the volunteers came up with the name following other scandals that tend to end in -gate; kinda like taking the kicky out of previous -gate scandals. I did also state that one could only assume the media heard it through conversation, but again I am not 100% certain. Wesley Mouse 20:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Including information on controversy around the sponsorships of Coca Cola and McDonald's is illogical. Both have been sponsors for many years. Just because the British press says something is controversial, does not mean it is. The british press will call just about anything controversial. Including this section makes no logical sense in my opinion. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to us as editors to decide what is controversial: we should report what reliable sources say. If there is extensive press debate on some matter, then it is a controversy! Sure, if it's only a couple of articles, then we shouldn't include it, but when we have sustained coverage, international coverage and actions by relevant bodies/people (the London Assembly voted on the matter, Jacques Rogge specifically responded), then it seems to me important to include the issue. Yes, some of these sponsorships are long-running, but the controversy, the actions by politicians and the IOC, the details of the issues, are specific to these Games. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've not long since finished a shift. But what Bondegezou has pointed out is very plausible in all sense. We as editors don't decide what is and isn't classified as controversial, and we must remember that wikipedia isn't censored either. The fact that one of the sponsors has banned a certain type of food does have a greater impact on the games as a whole. The ban isn't just for specific people, but for the games as a whole. Spectators, athletes' delegations, volunteers - they've all been told that they are not allowed to eat chips because McDonald's have instructed the IOC to ban them, even from the canteen areas for Olympic staff/volunteers. The fact of the matter is that several media outlets have now reported this, and therefore it should get some sort of a mention in the article, especially when there are calls (reported by the media) for the IOC to review their sponsorship deals with companies such as McDonald's and Cocoa-Cola, which as the media portray it, are promoting unhealthy food consumption at an event that is suppose to promote healthier lifestyle by taking up sports/exercise. Wesley Mouse 12:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Leaving out controversy around the sponsorships is illogical to me - in fact, if I came to this article and found that all media discussion of the events was missing, I might begin to suspect something was being suppressed. I don't doubt this comment is made in good faith, but I must caution against removal of real and current public discussions which are of direct concern to the Games.7ofclubs (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

These issues have now been migrated to a separate article, Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics which is probably a good thing and will give it a bit more focus without cluttering up the main article too much.7ofclubs (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

controversies section

move to its own article? we all know it will only get longer as the Games roll on. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, with a short paragraph here, linking to the new article that would have interest spanning many Olympics. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There are some issues of a broader nature (spanning many Olympics), and there are other issues specific to this Olympics or with aspects specific to this Olympics, so I'm not convinced that it's as simple as suggested above. For now, I don't see the need for a separate article myself. Bondegezou (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Article size it should be cut quick as this is a massive article and takes time to load. This is going to be highly visible for a month (sometime after too, i guess) and needs to be accessible.Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics or Controversies during the 2012 Summer Olympics should fit.Lihaas (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done WP:BoldlyLihaas (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the new page should be at Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics (currently a redirect) see discussion here - Basement12 (T.C) 00:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks all. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's fair enough - it's inevitable that it will grow, and it shouldn't dominate the main article. Personally I'd prefer a short section within this article but I know that's not going to be realistic so I back this move.7ofclubs (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests

Remove soccer as football is unambigous at the Olympics. Add something on the Osaka rule (and on the BOA bye-law possibly). 88.88.162.69 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Football (soccer) has been discussed many times. It is not unambiguous because it cannot be assumed that a casual (North American) reader knows that Association Football is an Olympic sport while American Football isn't. Secondly, some context and references would be nice for your second request. Ravendrop 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. --John (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Osaka Rule added to controversies article. Soccer is gone; if disambiguation is neccessery (I disagree), "association football" could be used for the first mention. "football (soccer)" looks odd in a sentence. 88.88.162.69 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Korean flag controversy

The section about the NK flag controversy refers to the 25th as the opening day. While this is the first day of events, the 27th is the actual opening day. Refer to it as the first round of women's football matches instead, perhaps? 21:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The section is waaaay too long for a minor gaffe. This will not be a lasting and major theme to the Games.

Your point on semantics seems reasonable, however. Cbradshaw (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And a lobbying campaign for Munich will be a "lasting and major theme"? Or [possily] Bahrain and Argentina?

nyways, section moved (see above)Lihaas (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Should there be a name change as well? Instead of saying North Korea or South Korea, it should be Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Republic of Korea respectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.18.118.84 (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAMELihaas (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd consider deleting all references to it as per RECENTISM and NOTNEWS. We've already mentioned it in the 2012 timeline, do we really need such duplication? Wiki is not a news ticker. doktorb _words^deeds 14:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Participants section

The participants section is really hard to read due to the source being listed right after the number of participants.

Ex:

•  Aruba (4)^[131]
•  Australia (410)^[132]
•  Austria (70)^[133]

I'd prefer a table or something to make the amount of participants more easily readable, that would also allow for a sorting based on number of participants. Any comments/ideas?Lejman (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Be WP:BoldLihaas (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree the rearrangement, preferably clean and manageable to eyes. Sort of country flag and references should have supervise with table. Jonas'VM ☼ 18:30 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't be too hasty in changing it. The data is best kept in list format (or in a template like 2008 Summer Olympics#Participation) as it is for every other Olympic Games article but the references shouldn't remain there as they are, particularly as the Official site they all link to requires you to count athletes to confirm the numbers anyway . What is needed is one source for all the numbers, eventually this will come from the Official Olympic Report, but for now something else could be found or alternatively one link at the top of the list to the official site could suffice - Basement12 (T.C) 12:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Don't be bold for we would be forced to change every single Olympics (x2). No need. doktorb _words^deeds 14:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Spain

Spain 294 athletes, not 283... Alonsoring (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You need a source for your post/request to have any validity/chance of not being ignored. Ravendrop 21:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In the same source of this page, Spain have 294 athletes. See the source. Greetings. Alonsoring (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The same happens with others countries, for example with Great Britain, not 541, 554 athletes... http://www.london2012.com/countries/ Alonsoring (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor prose of controversies section

The current wording in the prose of the controversies section doesn't make any sense and reads like a 10-year old has written it (no offence to whoever wrote it). As it looks at the moment:

"There were several controversies at or in the lead-up to the games, including: sponsorship issues (including the suitability of and actions by certain sponsors, including McDonald's and Coca-Cola), local housing, social media and political issues such as the Falkland Islands dispute, the Korean conflict and the Bahraini uprising, as well as campaigns to commemorate the Munich massacre."

The word "including" used three times in short succession of each other, makes no grammatical sense. "Controversies at or in the lead-up to..." again makes no sense whatsoever. I know the short piece needs to be precise, but it also could do with reading better. Such as:

"There were several controversial issues in the lead-up to the games, such as suitability and actions surrounding some sponsors; including McDonald's and Coca-Cola. Other issues include, local housing, social media and political indifferences between the Falkland Islands and Argentina, the Korean conflict, the Bahrain uprising, and campaigns to commemorate the Munich massacre."

In the event other controversies arise during the games, then we could also expand the paragraph as follows: "During the games other controversies arose " I would improve the prose myself on the article, but I wouldn't want to upset those who may perceive it as a conflict of interest due to my position as a volunteer at the games. Wesley Mouse 14:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think all issues in the section have been cleared up by myself and others. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

sports fans or logistics fans?

Sporting events are the purpose of the Olympics, but they aren't even discussed until about 5000 words into the article! First there's the Bidding process, the Development and preparation, Venues and infrastructure, Public transport, Financing, Unpaid volunteers, Ticketing, Security, the Logo, the Mascots, the Opening ceremony...it's as if the article's writers are techocrats and roadies. The Games need to be brought to the forefront here. The SPORTS, the calendar and the participants are what readers are wanting to read. Food for thought. Kingturtle = (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, you don't have to start with the most important thing. For example in a book or movie you don't start with the climax of the story. Personally I think the current organization is fine and all you have to do is use the table of contents to get to the section you want. JoshMartini007 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The sports will obviously become more prominent as the event actually happens. It's obviously not possible to say much about stuff that hasn't happened yet. This article would inevitable look quite different a few weeks from now when it's all over, you really can't compare the state of the article today to articles of past Olympic games. Roger (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

CDI

Were there some talks about CDI zelda games there also on a news station?184.98.114.65 (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Participants list

I think the list should contain the NOCs with over 100 athletes, and the remaining ones should be put in a hidden table. Any thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 23:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Amount of US Participants

Shown is 530. The correct number is 529 as seen on the official US Page for the 2012 Summer Olympics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodie1600 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Link, please. We can't change anything without a link. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Under the sports section

A tagger has gone and slapped a request for a reference:

There is a special dispensation to allow the various shooting events to go ahead, which would otherwise be illegal under UK gun law.[citation needed]

To clarify, this statement is ambiguously wrong. The only special dispensation is in regard to pistols, even match single-shot pistols are outlawed in the UK. For the Olympic shooting to be allowed, the government had to allow a special dispensation otherwise all the competitors taking part would be arrested. So why does it need a tag for the obvious?? I hate tags that are added by people who are too lazy or stupid to see that one is not needed. As noted, all pistols are outlawed in the UK. For the shooting to happen, something had have changed in regard to the law. Derrr. Why do I even need to come to this page and explain it???109.155.73.111 (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Because I didn't know that. Nor, I'm certain, do a lot of other people. Surely there is something written about it somewhere that can be referenced from here. Our goal is to educate people who don't know stuff. You knowing something doesn't change the rules here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan in map of participants

The current map shows South Sudan as part of Sudan - this is not so for over a year now. Please make it a blank spot in the map, as they have no NOC as of yet. Thank you. --... there's more than what can be linked. 09:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

They can participate under "Indipendent Olympic Participants". Highlight it. Userboxer 09:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Athlete number sourcing

Is anyone aware of a single source, preferably as far removed from LOCOG and the London 2012 site as possible, that gives a complete listing of how many athletes each NOC has? NBC and London 2012 (the latter of which is, I will say again, useless) are giving wildly differing numbers. The BBC's count seems to be accurate, but I'd like to be able to get definitive numbers from a single source without having to click through dozens of pages of mugshots and hoping I don't lose count. I'd prefer a single page, but I don't mind going through and formatting refs for 200+ pages, as long as it means we would have reliable numbers. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

start date

Is it correct to state: The 2012 Summer Olympic Games, officially the Games of the XXX Olympiad, will take place in London, England, United Kingdom, from 27 July to 12 August 2012., as first matches in football will be played in July 25? Actually the games take place from 25 July to 12 August... 82.141.117.194 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The opening line is correct. As the games don't start until the opening ceremony on 27 July. The football matches are an exception, as they will take longer. Wesley☀Mouse 18:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The football tournament is part of the games, so the games start in 25 July. The Olympic Games start before the opening ceremony. Or those matches which are played before opening ceremony are not part of the games? 82.141.66.248 (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

U.S. media are reporting that the games were officially opened after midnight; thus, on 28 July, by Her Majesty the Queen. I cannot personally reconcile the math here. Notwithstanding disagreements over which moment actually constitutes the start of the games, can anybody corroborate the timing of this formality? http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetorch/2012/07/27/157501561/live-blog-the-opening-ceremony — Preceding unsigned comment added by ESRoads (talk • contribs) 02:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Dates with days of the week

In the introductory section, I added days of the week to the dates. I think it is helpful for casual readers to know that the games start on a Friday and end on a Sunday. But user “Sport and politics” undid the edit, adding the comment, “Good faith poor pros edits”. I don’t understand the comment – please be clearer, Sport and politics – and I don’t understand why there would be any objection to fuller date references. — Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is bad pros to add the days of the week. These are not a relevant part of the date. When a letter is being dated in long hand the date does not include the day of the week. The day of the weeks is not good prose in formatting a date. If you believe the days of the week are an essential part of the article which adds to its quality then add it in a separate sentence. Please though leave the dates as standard. If I was writing today's date I would write 22 July 2012 not Sunday 22 July 2012. Equally I wouldn't write 22^nd July 2012 and I wouldn't write Sunday 22^nd July 2012. The day of the week in not used in dates in standard British English. Sport and politics (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me if I’m being ignorant, but what is “pros”??—Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see here for a full and complete definition and explanation. Sport and politics (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In accordance to MOS:DATE the version that sport's has pointed out is correct. The actual day of the week isn't used. Just the date, month, year. Wesley Mouse 10:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Doping information

In which article can I find information on doping at the 2012 Olympic Games, like the number of competitors suspended? Thank you! --186.52.160.133 (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Here, it is being updated regularly. Use of performance-enhancing drugs in the Olympic Games#2012 London Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Records line edit request

The Korean Im Dong-Hyun set a new WR in archery with 699 rings, not 696. 696 was the old record held by the same athlete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.18.244 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Women's weightlifter CHINSHANLO Zulfiya from Kazakhstan set a new WR in C&J with 131 KGs in the 56 KGs category (Happend before Dana Vollmer's by the way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.18.244 (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The WR of Chinshanlo was set on 29th of July not on the 28th. Still not fixed.

Medal table vs NOCs

What is the point of listing all the 200+ participating NOCs and listing only the top 10 that win medals??? Nergaal (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We're trying to reduce the size of the page, you can find the entire list at the medal's main page. JoshMartini007 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Do why aren't you hiding the NOCs with less than 100 participants? they would still be listed, but only for those that click an unhide button. Nergaal (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And if you are worried about the actual size of this page then try:

{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" style="text-align:center;" 
|+ Top Ten
{{:2012 Summer Olympics medal table}}
|}

There you go, fixed that for you.  thayts t  16:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is 'Citation Needed' in the introductory line about using existing venues?

I think the question above speaks for itself. It is common knowledge that existing venues such as Lord's Cricket Ground and Wembley Arena are to be used for certain sports. If a citation really is needed, surely we could just link to the London 2012 website, which has a list of venues for each sport? 91.125.143.147 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. It seems like overly pedantic fact-checking. Would agree with tag removal. GiollaUidir (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because something is "common knowledge" doesn't mean the information can be included without a reliable source. Without a reliable source the information could easily be considered original research and deleted. That is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia18:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sport and politics (talk • contribs)

Contrary to what Sports and politics has stated, sometimes specific rules can be bent a little at the discretion of an editor. Take for example Paris is in France, a fact that is common knowledge, and doesn't need to be cited with reliable sources. Full details on how common knowledge facts may be implemented without citing them can be found at WP:CK. Hope that helps clear this grey area. Wesley Mouse 18:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me some proof though the statement is actually true. Sport and politics (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Did you read what I posted lol? I provided links to help pages as there are circumstances when content can be added without the need of a citation. Please check the guidance on this at WP:PARIS and WP:CK. Sometimes no proof is needed on a description(s) that is obvious common fact/knowledge, and its the guidance on those two links that I have provided that give examples on how to get around the issue. Wesley Mouse 19:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

However, if it is proof that you need to show some existing buildings are being "re-used" to host events, then you only need to check the articles on them to notice they are not new buildings: [Lord's Cricket Ground]], Wembley Arena, North Greenwich Arena are just a few articles already in existence to show that there are venues that already exist. You would only need to add a citation (if you really wanted to) using the venue pages from London 2012. Wesley Mouse 19:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Add?

• Shaky Start for Romney Overseas Trip; GOP Presidential Contender's Meetings With British Leaders Focus on Global Economy, Middle East July 26, 2012 WSJ excerpt ...

  "I hear there's a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we're ready," Mayor Boris Johnson said in front of a crowd of thousands gathered to watch the Olympic flame lighting a cauldron in Hyde Park.

99.181.134.146 (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No. This is not a Newspaper nor is it that notable. Who will remember it after the Olympics a year from now? 2? 3? ViriiK (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Anything that comes out of Boris Johnson's mouth is always remembered years down the line. Are the more reliable sources though? But then saying that, were would we assign this piece to on the article? Controversies? Idol gossip? Joking banter? I suppose a line has to be drawn somewhere. Could always add it to Boris' article as yet another memorable quote from his reportage. Wesley Mouse 23:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Currently there is Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#London_2012_Olympic_Games. 108.73.112.195 (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So what an American politician made some comments about the Olympics when he was in London. It doesn't make those comments noteworthy or relevant to the Olympics being held in London. Do not add as the information is not notable.Sport and politics (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Erm, I didn't explicitly state it should be included onto this very article. All I pointed out was anything that Boris says is always memorable just because he tends to come out with quirky comments anyhow; and that if it were to be included somewhere, that perhaps Boris Johnson's article would be more appropriate place. Wesley Mouse 12:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

North Korean man 3x his weight

Didn't the North Korean man who lifted three times his weight set a world record? --InformationContributor11 (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Broadcasting

The BBC is not the host broadcaster for the Games - Olympic Broadcasting Services (OBS) is. I dont think Channel 4 is for the Paralympics either. Can this be changed or is this going to cause far too much confusion? --Bradleyspencer1983 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Equal Positions

I am just wondering what the convention should be for joint positions. I ask because some articles display for example =32 but others do not include an equals sign. Should all joint results be shown with some kind of notation like an equals sign or should they be completely neglected? Airelivre (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No Track and Field in the Calendar

I don't see Track and Field listed on the calendar. I see the calendar table also totals medals. So that count should change too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.226.18 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's listed under athletics - Basement12 (T.C) 13:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I had the same concern, and then I withdrew my objection when I saw that it was listed as "athletics." But that's not a commonplace term. Can't we just say "track and field"? It may be technically accurate but I don't think most casual readers would understand it. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Athletics is a commonplace term in large parts of the world, the sports governing body is the International Association of Athletics Federations and the IOC designation for the sport is athletics so it should stay as it is. Similarly "Football" is not under "Soccer" - Basement12 (T.C) 14:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That may be, but I'm thinking of the casual reader not familiar with sports nomenclature. This article must surely be the most highly trafficked of the wiki and will be so for the next week. Why not have a "mainly track and field" as a parenthesis or footnote? CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That is an americo-centric view, the euro-centric terminology is Athletics and Football. Sport and politics (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Track and field is long and boring. Athletics is correct. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 15:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Why are we being euro-centric? Why not use both terms? CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines requires us to pander to ignorant Americans. The name is what it is. In any case the article is in British English, read WP:ENGVAR. Roger (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it is incumbent upon Wikipedia to make its articles explicable to the largest possible audience. The reluctance to do so here smacks of WP:OWN. The portion of the stylebook you cited refers to variations in spelling, not to terminology that would be confusing to people not resident in the British islands. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how European readers fit in to this discussion. This isn't a debate about how the French or Romansch versions of Wikipedia describe the sports, this is a debate about the English-language version. Given the British location, and the IOC's use of the terms "athletics" and "football", I'm not arguing for changing the names to the US versions, but the reality is that well over half of native English speakers are US residents, and a substantial fraction (probably most) of us will be confused by the use of "athletics" rather than "track and field". Surely we can find a way to communicate clearly to all of the English speakers. As for football, I find the Wikipedia article on football interesting and amusing, and it clearly indicates that this usage is largely limited to British English, and even that is ambiguous. Rks13 (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A simple solution is to break out the "Athletics" competitions much as "Aquatics" is delineated. Otherwise it will be confusing to non-British readers. In America, "Athletics" is not commonly used to signify track and field, its use here is confusing. This isn't a question of using "colour" instead of "color." CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Medal Table- Top Ten

Shouldn't we mention that the medal table shown is only the Top 10? --InformationContributor11 (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No--GoP_T^C_N 15:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 21:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It does not make sense to state this as you can clearly see the number 10 in the cell. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A reader might think only ten countries have won any medals, so please do state it for clarity. Roger (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. GoP, I can't see why you're so keen not to have that caption there? It looks fine, and it does provide clarity. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 12:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ranking table

The ranks for each country in the metals table are by # of gold metals, but the IOC does not endorse any ranking system like we are using. [2] It would make sense to either use amount of metals won, or give points based on which metal (gold=3, silver=2, bronze=1) and the sum determines rank, or better yet, remove the column and let the reader decide the rank for themselves. For example, South Korea is ranked 6th while Japan is 9th. Korea has 2 gold, 2 bronze, 2 silver. Japan has 1 gold, 4 silver, 6 bronze (more in every category except gold). If you add up the "score" (3 for gold, etc) Japan has 30 points while Korea only 14, which is no where near the current ranks of 30 vs 14 respectively. Either way, the ranking column is quite ambiguous and should either be removed or be explained how we are coming up with these ranks. -- penubag  (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While the IOC does not endorse a ranking system they do provide a list of countries and their medal count sorted the way we have listed so it makes sense to follow their procedure even if they don't "endorse" it. Also most countries with the exception of US and Canada list the medals with gold first. I guess we could repeat the paragraph from the medal table page to the main article. JoshMartini007 (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening ceremony James Bond/Queen skit

Do we have a link to see the skit (not just the helicopter part) with the Queen and Daniel Craig?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Who is "we" in that scenario? I'm sure you can find it on Youtube if you look hard enough, but any such links would be copyright violations and shouldn't be posted here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Still not fixed

The WR of Chinshanlo was set on the 29th of July not on the 28th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.18.244 (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Need a source

This statement:

There is a special dispensation to allow the various shooting events to go ahead, which would otherwise be illegal under UK gun law.

is in desperate need of a source. The only one I can find is unreliable, and everything else only mentions dispensations in regard to British shooters training for the Olympics during the period 2007-2012, rather than the events at the Games themselves. If anyone else can track down a reliable source for this statement, that would be fantastic. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to whoever took care of it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Current event tag

Do you think there should be a {{currentevent}} tag on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userboker (talk • contribs)

No. See Template:Current#Guidelines. It is meant more as a warning that there is rapid editing. "Generally it is expected that this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for less than a day", not 2 weeks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Breakdown of Athletics events

I think it would be helpful to break out the Athletics events, as that is the largest and probably most popular category, just as the Acquatics events are broken out. I would do it myself but am not sure how. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the

• Diving (8)
• Swimming (34)
• Synchronized swimming (2)
• Water polo (2)

layout? Generally for athletics that is not separated. The only logical breakout would be non-stadia events like Marathon or Racewalk. Field events happen in the same venue at the same time as track events and are only separated in results. I think the current way is consistent with the way the sports portray themselves. Trackinfo (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Track. Marathon and racewalk are clearly athletic tournaments. It should be also consistent with all other Olympics articles. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 19:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The division is based on Olympic sport hierarchy (sports vs. disciplines vs. events) rather than size or popularity. The sport of "Aquatics" is divided into four disciplines (as shown above). The sport of "Athletics", however, has only a single discipline (athletics). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Then in that case we need to do something to make this understandable for people who don't live on the British Isles and would not be aware that "athletics" refers mainly to track and field. A simple paranthetical would do. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you somehow opposed to readers actually learning something new? It's not only "on the British Isles" that it is properly called "Athletics" - it is called that everywhere except North America. The issue has already been discussed elsewhere on this page. Roger (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be opaque to an entire continent for the purpose of "teaching something new." CheeseStakeholder (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it appears to only be "opaque" to one person, rather than an "entire continent". Pleae just drop the stick. Roger (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. We also don't say football to American football. Same here. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Roger, I doubt very much that an entire continent is going to rise up against any Wikipedia article. Another editor, an IP, also raised this issue. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy about Chinese swimmer taking drugs

There had been a lot of controversy about whether a Chinese swimmer who had won a gold had been taking drugs. I think that this should go in the article somewhere. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There has been a lot of speculation (some of it pretty close to defamation) but no official word, so imho it's premature to say anything about it here (yet) as it would violate BLP. Roger (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is just people complaining about someone who did very well in an event because they were not expecting her to be as good as she was, so beat their athletes. It is nothing more than very unwarranted sour grapes and borderline slander/defamation. Sport and politics (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks as if she has been cleared now, so perhaps it was best to leave out reference to this - I apologise, I know we are not quite Wikinews! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not going to go away

Change the date of the WR of Zulfiya Chinshanlo from 28th to 29th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.18.244 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though you didn't provide a link to verify your request, I went and verified it and you were correct. In the future if you want something edited that badly that you start to get rude about it, think about becoming a registered user and doing the edit yourself. Chris1834 (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Or at least give us a link and don't clutter the talk page with multiple threads on the same topic. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll think about that, but isn`t it kind of rude to give no feedback at all. If all you needed was a little link, why didn't you just asked for it. I would've loved to give it to you in a blink of an eye. The link is on the actual page by the way (just a click on the event-link, posted next the record). But thanks for editing anyway. I guess I got a bit nervous, because I felt overlooked. Stupid, I know, but it kind of bugged me to see it unchangend, don't know why. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.18.244 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"For the video game, see London 2012: The Official Video Game"

Is it really necessary to have this line and link at the top of the page? With this and all the other junk, on my small screen I barely get to see just the first paragraph when loading this page before having to scroll down, which is quite a dissapointment when it takes nearly 20 seconds to just load it in the first place. Wikipedia already looks like a teenage boy's hobby site in so many ways given what it so often prioritises in terms of content, and the Foundation has concerns that it doesn't attract enough female/intelligent/mature readers currently, so does it really improve this image by saying to the half a million daily readers of this article, that the video game is what someone might be looking for if they type in 'London 2012'? Not only is that just a bizarre thought generally, the game's not even mentioned anywhere in the article, which shows that it's of no real importance in the grand scheme of things. If the link is only there because some people are too stupid/lazy/ignorant to realise that they would probably find the article about the video game much faster if they saved that 20 second delay and just searched for 'London 2012 video game' from the outset, and Wikipedia wants to make their lives easier by cluttering up the top of major pages like this, then on the principles of quality and indeed evolutionary biology, I say it's no bad thing removing it. FerrerFour (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a topic—the video game—with the formal name "London 2012". That it is not the primary topic people would look for under that name is the reason why [[London 2012]] redirects here rather than being an article on the game. Nevertheless, the video game is a secondary topic, and in such a case a hatnote is entirely appropriate. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 22:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what a secondary topic is supposed to be, but to describe the placing of that line at the top of this article as entirely appropriate just because lazy (or smart?) marketers of tat called their video game 'London 2012' is nothing short of laughable. I can only wait for the day when someone realises the opportunity this presents and makes a video game called World War II or Jesus, and then we'll see if those articles get the same idiotic adornment. Perhaps then people might give a shit about the impression these pointless video game fanboy links give out to the world. As it is, nobody seems to give a toss, which is a real shame. Wikipedia will never be regarded as a serious project while it has such perverse values. FerrerFour (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you even looked at World War II or Jesus? They have disambig links, which is what happens when multiple folks use the title for other things. Follow them and you can get to things like Jesus (Gackt song). Regardless of your opinion on video games or Japanese singer-songwriters who make music for video games, I think Wikipedia is doing fine. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested change to the section on Medals

The line "Each gold medal is made up of 92.5 percent silver and 1.34 percent gold, with the remainder copper." probably needs changed to "Each gold medal is made up of 92.5 percent gold and 1.34 percent silver, with the remainder copper." I could be wrong, but I assume that Gold medal contains mostly GOLD... 148.134.37.3 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A bit more research on these interwebs has revealed that the gold medals are only gold plated, thus my mis-informed comment above. I'd therefore suggest instead that the section be clarified to state that the gold metals are only gold plated silver. 148.134.37.3 (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

They are basically just plated in gold, according to the sources. Silver is cheaper, and cheaper is very, very good when you're talking about hundreds of medals. If they were 92% gold, LOCOG wouldn't have been able to afford George Lazenby, let alone Daniel Craig. I'll wait for others to chime in on whether or not the prose should be adjusted. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure it's necessary to say they're plated, I understand the confusion though so if a credible source can be found to support it then I wouldn't argue its inclusion. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

First Olympics in history where all countries send women to compete

Why isn't it mentioned anywhere that these are the first Olympic games in history where all the participating countries have sent women to compete? http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/27/opinion/la-ed-olympics-women-20120727 Mbenzdabest (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a good cite why not add this. I believe it was an IOC ambition and participating countries were 'extolled' to achieve this at the 2012 Olympics.Tmol42 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

All countries apparently now allow women to compete in the Olympics, but it seems that Barbados and Nauru have not actually sent any female athletes. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Barbados (2008, at least) and Nauru (2004, at least) both have sent female athletes, but do not have any this year. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It was only this year that I was talking about. The point is, this is not the first year that all participating countries have sent women, because some of them haven't sent women this year. They have all sent women at some point, though, so I suppose it's a wording issue. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In terms of citation, Jacques Rogge certainly made a point of proudly boasting about it in his speech at the Opening Ceremony. There must be zillions of links to that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

How about "This year the last few countries (name them?) that have never before sent female athletes did so." Roger (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a wording issue. My mistake. The link I provided said it better, "These are the first Games in which all of the more than 200 participating countries have sent female athletes to compete." The IOC "pressed" (with the threat of possible non-participation) Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Brunei to send female athletes. These countries explicitly barred women from competing in events before these Olympics. Mbenzdabest (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy

Weren't there new events that had happened overnight about the New Zeland team?184.98.143.25 (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the real controversy was about the British badminton team deliberately trying to lose. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that there is a separate article Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics where most/some/the truly controversial of these incidents are gathered, evaluated and written about. ‎Only the really notable controversies should eventually make it into this article. Roger (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Was Chinese, Indonesian and South Korean teams actually. The British badminton team do not need to actively try to lose, that's just the natural course of events. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Doping

I think it's unfair to say "Albanian weightlifter Hysen Pulaku..." and then ignore country of origins of the other suspended participants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.89.236 (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2012

Dear Wikiperdia, I would like to request that you move USA to the number 1 spot below China for the medal count. Please rectify this mistake as soon as possible because the results are incorrectly displayed on google search for the words "olympics" Thank you, Patriotic Fan Go USA!!!! God Blesss USA!!! 199.245.32.210 (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not doneConvention on Wikipedia, as for most of the world and IOC sources, is to rank by gold (then silver, then bronze in the case of ties) not total medals - Basement12 (T.C) 14:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Team GB Medal Table Entry - Great Britain (GBR)*

Team GB are listed in the medal table as:

Great Britain (GBR)*

someone needs to explain what the * means or remove it. 87.194.4.233 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's now explained in the key above the table but it means the same as the background colour (that GB are hosts); per WP:COLOUR information should not be conveyed purely by colour -Basement12 (T.C) 14:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

New Final WR in 50 m rifle prone

Result 50 m rifle prone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.18.244 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Medal table again

I thought consensus is to transclude only the top ten, not twelve. Having a "Total" row in this partial table also makes no sense at all. Roger (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

New WRs Track Cycling Team Pursuit

Men Women — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.18.244 (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry to bother, but the women's record was set in the final, not in the qualification.the men's record was set a day later, because the qualification was on thursday and the final on friday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.18.244 (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

New WR Women's Trap

New WR for a qualification round - perfect shooting 100% accuracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.18.244 (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2012

Britain now have 6 bronze medals 18 in total could you please change this? thank you 81.103.16.136 (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FloBo A boat that can float! 12:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're editing the 2012 Olympic page you really should be aware of where to find that information. Don't ask an IP to provide that when you should know where to find it. Zarcadia (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I was right though wasn't i?

Sailing tie-breaker rule

Ben Ainslie won the gold in the Finn class. Both he and Jonas Høgh-Christensen had 46 points. I didn't find any explanation why Ainslie won, but I assume it was because he was better placed in the medal race. Another option would be better positions overall but that can't be case since Høgh-Christensen won three races against Ainslie's two. So some link where the confirmation about tie-breaker rules would be welcomed. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympic articles

I made a search for articles containing "2012" and "Olympics" in the title and found 42,341; that's impressing! - Soerfm (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012

Please edit the world record page with Usain Bolt's 100m new world record of 9.63S in London Olumpics 2012.Please update the medal table as well..Latest medal count can be taken from http://www.london2012.com/medals/medal-count/ Pathak.neel (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. This was a new Olympic record but not world record, that currently stands at 9.58 Zarcadia (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012

Possible table mistake???

why has Britain lost a silver??? the table shows us with nine but we defiantly have ten. 81.103.16.136 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like its fixed now. RudolfRed (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Calendar

Please edit the calendar. There is only one equestrian event on 8 August instead of two, another one is on 9 August. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Radiant (talk • contribs) 06:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong date in the calender

Under section 3.3 Calender it states that there will be given out 2 golds in equestrian today (08.08.12) but the correct is one gold today and one gold tomorrow (09.08.12). The gold for individual dressage will not be given out before tomorrow, as it is also correctly stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Individual_dressage

Kind regards Erik Helmersen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.118.14.2 (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Myth of London being only city to host 3 games

Can we stop propagating this myth? The IOC does not have a magic power to determine what is and what isn't a modern Olympiad. Athens held 4 modern Olympics before the IOC was created; these were in 1859, 1870, 1875, and 1889. After the IOC's creation, Athens held the 1896, 1906 and 2004 Olympics. (The IOC no longer "recognizes" the 1906 Games). The total is 7 Games, which is more than double London's. So please, enough of this IOC view of history. Either specify that you're talking about IOC-recognized Games, or don't talk about London's record at all. (And if you do specify that you're talking about IOC Games, you'll have a hard time convincing me that London's record is of any importance, given that the same people who organized and funded the first 4 Athens Olympics also organized and funded the first IOC Athens Olympics.)Nojamus (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it is known that an Olympiad is every four years. So Athens 1906 is rightfully unrecognised as that is out of the 4-year Olympiad cycle. The games that Athens hosts prior to 1896 are known as the Ancient Olympic Games, I know this as I have lived in Greece and learnt some knowledge on Greek history. When they say London has been the host 3 times, they are meaning hosts to the Modern Olympics, which were revived in 1896 and staged in Athens. This I also know, as I have attended several training events since 2011 as part of my London 2012 volunteering role - and we have always had it drilled into our heads that London hosts of the Modern Olympiad for a third time. Learn Olympic History, you'll be surprised what you may find. Wesley Mouse 16:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the wording can recognise that this is an IOC-based view of the world when it comes to the 1906 Games, but at the same time, that is the dominant view that everyone uses, so let's not give undue weight to alternatives. Perhaps a footnote is in order. (What was drilled into Wesley Mouse's head isn't necessarily an unbiased source!) Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olympics are governed by the IOC. So if the governing body does not count games prior to 1896 nor the 1906 games, then no one cares for some privately held Athens games. So London is the first city to host THE games for the third time. Fact. --NeunZehnHundertFünf (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think some of you need to learn the history of the modern Olympics much better.

1)To Wesley Mouse: The fact that Olympiads are held every 4 years is irrelevant to whether the 1906 Games were Olympics. The IOC itself recognized them as Olympics at that time. There was a dispute between the Greek organizers of the first 5 modern Olympics (including 1896) and Coubertin. The Greeks wanted to keep the Olympics in Greece, whereas coubertin wanted to move them around (particularly to his home country of France in 1900). The IOC reached a compromise by which the Olympics would be held every 2 years, alternately in Greece and a different country. This scheme only lasted for one cycle, but that doesn't mean the 1906 Games weren't true Olympics.

2)To Bondegezou: The "common view" is not necessarily the "right view", and Wikipedia does not want us to puppet commonly-held beliefs that are untrue. I agree with you that this shouldn't be turned into a big issue, but we also can't just ignore it.

3) To Neun: Your comment is a bit aggressive, don't you think? The Olympics are **now** governed by the IOC, but the IOC **inherited** an organization that began in Athens in 1859. I'll say it again: The same people that funded and organized the non-IOC Games in 1859, 1870, 1875, and 1889 also funded and organized the first IOC Games in 1896. The fact that the IOC chooses to ignore Games in the pre-IOC days does not mean this is an accurate view, nor that those early games were not Olympics. I also take issue with your rhetoric about some "privately held Athens games". The IOC games are "privately held" too. Did you forget this? The fact that the organization changed over time does not mean the previous one didn't exist. Ultimately, the Olympic Games get their legitimacy from their association with Greek history, not from some private corporation. I insist that we clarify the "3 Games" issue somehow in the article, even if just as a footnote.76.10.147.236 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think its best for someone to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. The fact that all the evidence from reliable sources shows and verifies that the 1906 games were not recognized, and games prior to 1896 were never and have never been a part of the Olympics of the modern era. So just let sleeping dogs lie, and get back to constructive editing. And to say that "Olympiads are held every 4 years is irrelevant to whether the 1906 Games were Olympics" is utter ludicrous in all matters of commonsensical discussion. It is a known fact an Olympiad is every 4 years, 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908... 1906 is not part of the Olympiad cycle, and so isn't an Olympic year - end of story! Wesley Mouse 22:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A footnote seems a sensible idea in my opinion as what qualifies as a "modern Olympic Games" does have an element of subjectivity, as least as regards 1906. I was certainly unaware of the above history. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wesley, don't get aggressive. Clearly you are no expert on this topic, and you're spouting stuff off without taking a moment to consider the details. For example, you say above that the Olympic Games in Athens before 1896 were the Ancient Olympics. Are you serious? The Ancient Olympics never occurred in Athens; they occurred in Olympia. So right away, I am suspicious of your knowledge.

More to the point, you take issue with the 4-year thing. But you ignore that the 1906 games were organized by the ***IOC themselves***. It was the IOC that decided to hold Olympics every 2 years at first, as a concession to Greece (so that games would interchange between Athens and another country each time). If you read some of the history of the early IOC movement, you'll see that the 1906 games are commonly seen to have SAVED the Olympic movement after the poor showings in Paris and St. Louis. Please spare me from your "known facts". The 1906 games were IOC games, even if the IOC no longer recognizes them.

I'm not sure why you find this so threatening.... I'm not asking for anyone to make major changes to the article. I just wanted a footnote inserted that acknowledges the complex history of the early modern Olympics. I see someone has already added that footnote. It's not sufficient, IMO, because it doesn't talk about Zappas' first 4 games (which I re-iterate directly led to the 1896 games, and aroused a lot of European attention). But at least a footnote is present. Seriously, don't get so angry about the fact that 5 modern games occurred that the IOC no longer sanctions...76.10.147.236 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you for real? Seriously!? I haven't been aggressive towards you, just answered your comment without beating around the bush, seeing as others have stated the same answer previously and you got obnoxious back at them. You cannot make an assumption that someone is "clearly not an expert on a topic". It may be of interest to you that I am very passionate about the Olympic Movement, and also about Greek culture/heritage. The fact I followed my ambition to live in Greece is evident of that. I have also read the history pages on the Olympic's very own website - which if you also read them, you would find there why the IOC do not count the games prior to 1896 or 1906. The Ancient Games took place in Olympia, and towards the latter stages in Panathinaiko Stadium in Athens. As for the 1906 Intercalated Games, have your read the article on that? They were a compromise as the Greeks felt they could host a modern international event every four years. As time passed and it became clear the couldn't then the games ceased. "The 1906 games were IOC games, even if the IOC no longer recognizes them. " - talk about a contradicting statement there, sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is contradicting on so many levels. if an organisation doesn't recognise it, then how can anyone say it is 100% categorically an Olympic Game. But the fact they were named the "Intercalated Games" is evidential that they were never going to be seen as official IOC games which were hosted every 4-years (an Olympiad) by a different host country each time - emphasising the main Modern Olympic Movement. And please, I have not found you or anything you have written to be threatening, so I fail to see how you have been able to cast that false accusation. Zappa's first games are not and have never been recognized as games of the modern Olympiad - so why attempt to re-write history by demanding that now must be. All the sources, even official one, do not classify them as Games of the Modern era, so why should we as an encyclopaedia whom published verified information deviate from the official facts. Now please, let it drop before you give yourself a hernia over it. Wesley Mouse 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I don't agree about the Zappas Games, there is a very strong case to argue that the removal of official status for the 1906 Games was just dishonest historical revisionism by the IOC. See this article in the magazine of the International Society of Olympic Historians. http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/JOH/JOH2002SE/JOH2002SEc.pdf Topcardi (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the key point is that, whatever one thinks about the IOC retrospectively removing "official" status from the 1906 games, there is no doubt that when those games were held, and for a period afterwards, they were universally regarded as being an "Olympic Games", including by the IOC. A foot note to briefly explain the issue seems appropriate.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a few days to respond to the above. Wesley Mouse, I am not disputing your interest in the subject, only your knowledge of it. Living in Greece and having an interest in the Olympic movement does not necessarily make you an expert. I think I've touched on a topic that you knew nothing about, a topic that flies in the face of what you've been taught, and you are unable to accept it. For those who dispute the "authenticity" of the pre-IOC Olympics, here is a selection of newsprint from the time:

• New York Times, Jan 28, 1860 - mentions the games happened, and gives general overview of them.
• New York Times, Feb 24, 1860 - mentions that Olympics were revived for the first time since their suppression by Christianity; and that Prince Albert of UK attended one of the events.
• London Review, July 7, 1860 - begins with the sentence, "The Olympian Games, discontinued for centuries, have been recently revived!"

This is just a start. Really, guys, are we going to allow the IOC to decide what was and was not an Olympic Games before the IOC was created? The IOC can only control what it regards as an Olympics, not what actually is or is not. Those who are opposed to my argument are probably debating more from emotion than logic. I have outlined how the pre-IOC Olympics were organized and funded by the same people as the first IOC Olympics. I have now given sources that leave no question as to how those games were viewed by their contemporaries. And STILL someone is going to argue against me? Come on. Let it go. We are only having this argument because the IOC decided that history begins and ends with the IOC.

Perhaps I made a mistake to raise this topic on the London 2012 article instead of the Modern Olympics article. We're spending way too much time here on a point that is very minor to the article. You guys can do with this information whatever you like. Nojamus (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll step in briefly as one of the editors of the Olympic Games article (who has walked down this argument path before) to say that this topic has been discussed ad nauseum in several archived sections. If this is an issue you feel needs more discussion then please start by reviewing those threads and if there are things left to be said I would humbly suggest starting a discussion there. IMO the topic lends itself to the Olympic Games article rather than this specific celebration of the Games. In this I agree with Nojamus. I would also view the revival section in the Olympic Games article and see if that adequately addresses the issue. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the Olympic Games article is pretty well done now. It has a section devoted to the pre-IOC modern Olympics, including those of Zappas and William Penny Brookes. So no, I won't be making changes to that! :) The goal is to find some sort of balance, without totally whitewashing historical events. That article achieves this quite well.Nojamus (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Where's The Reception Section?

I could start one if you like? Twobells (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what your on about please expand and elaborate. Sport and politics (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Reception"? Roger (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What Twobells means is that there should be a section which summarises the critical reaction to the games - the extent to which the event as a whole was a success, failure or whatever. Warden (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What a nonsense. Criticisim is negative reception, the rest is positive, this is the reception. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Media attention

What we do is being noticed - Mossop, Brian (2011-08-10). "How Wikipedia Won Olympic Gold | Playbook". Wired.com. Retrieved 2012-08-11. - can we do something with this? Roger (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

4x100 meter world record incorrect time

Please correct the WR time set by Jamaica. It is 36.84s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.158.36 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It was corrected in [3] an hour before your post. Do you see a wrong time somewhere? PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Number of athletes from each country

The Total Number of Athletes for each country on the London 2012 website is slightly different then the numbers posted under the "Participants" section. Is this because the section is only including "active" participants, or perhaps the numbers on the London 2012 website have been updated. Take the United States for example, it states 530 on Wikipedia and 539 on the London website; Mexico 102 on W, and 106 on London. This is for almost every country... so before I try to edit everything, am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warsilver (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, but am not sure what to do about it. It seems like it would have to be determined how many athletes for each country actually participated and if all of them are correctly listed on their countries' articles. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

One possible reason for that is that there are 23 football players per team on the London 2012 website, but actually only 18 of then took part of the games. The remaining 5 were reserve athletes to eventually take place of athlets injured just before the games. Those 5 didn't even traveled to London. The goalkeeper of tha brazilian team (Rafael) suffered an injured just before the games and the goalkeep on the list of 5 reserves was called to London to take his place. But even taking that into consideration, I still found some different numbers as well. 1 or 2 athlets. That's probably because some athletes was banned because of doping or cutted because of injures close to or during the games. For example, one of the members of the brazilian equestrian jump team didn't take part of the games due to a injure of his horse so tha brazilian team could not descard one of the results (the worst one). Sorry about my english. =P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.161.156.120 (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally broken medal table

It is so amazing that you provide more sorting options without any thinking. If you sort by "total" it gives that you don't see Japan while they have got 38 medals and with this they should be in the 6th position. Just check: 2012 Summer Olympics medal table. If you can't give a dynamic solution, that would list different set of 10 countries then my suggestion is simply disable the sort functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.147.13 (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Rebecca Soni world record

She also set a world record in the qualification! (oops, sorry, this *is* mentioned, and besides someone else said this too) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.35.35 (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2012‎ (UTC)