Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removing items for being 'resolved' / Aboriginal T-Shirt

Regarding this removal, I take issue with the idea this wasn't a controversy, it clearly is/was/will be in future. But I am more concerned about this idea that we can remove items from the page if they're 'resolved'. Does that mean we can remove things like the security guard issue simply because the Army was drafted in to cover? Or maybe once the legal issues are settled? Yes, the guy promised not to do it again. That doesn't resolve the cause of the controversy from where I see it, as he will still cearly feel aggrieved he can't represent his people. I can't see any logic in removing items if they are 'resolved', however that's defined. FerrerFour (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Did he say he was aggrieved? Not as I read it. You cannot speculate about someone's future feelings to justify inclusion. I saw this as a misunderstanding and non-awareness of the rules, resolved by calm discussion. That's NOT a controversy. And yes, the security did become a non-issue because of the army's involvement. I suspect that was a fall back position all along. Good management. Not a controversy. This article is full of similar crap. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious from the sources that he wasn't happy about being told to remove it. While he may have been unaware of just how much of an issue it would be, to suggest it was a simple misunderstanding is far fetched. And he is not the only disputant, just look at all support coming in even now from various places and in various publications, all condemning the IOC for their stance. This was a controversy, this still is a controversy, and the next time someone attempts it, it will be a controversy again, unless you've some reason to believe the IOC is rewriting their rules as we speak. As for the security guard shortage, that dominated the UK press for the entire two weeks before the Games. It led to parliamentary questions, US presidential comment, numerous Prime Ministerial statements, calls for the CEO to quit, a share price drop and a withdrawal by the company from some major future contracts. If you think that's just 'crap', something that's eraseable from history as a non-issue simply because the government thank God actually had a contingency plan, well, words fail me. Infact I'm willing to bet, in the UK at least, the G4S debacle will be the single biggest thing that's remembered as far as London 2012 controversies go. That or the seats issue (which of course also needs to be removed as having been resolved, no?). FerrerFour (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Please drop the anger. I really think this article is quite out of control. Remember that the press and TV have masses of space and time to devote to what they like to call controversies every day. I've seen other Olympics up close (two in my country) and most what the media tells us every day is important and controversial quickly fades from view. You were perhaps always critical of the Olympics in London and/or the organisers. Be careful not to let this article just be a vehicle for your dislike of the event. Heck, if all the stuff in this article was serious in the long term, the Games will be seen as a disaster for all time, and I can guarantee they won't be. Daily media coverage proves very little. We cannot include all media sensationalism. Think long term. What will we still see as having been important in ten years time? HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sure, let's ignore the media, what do they know? Let's go with your own personal experiences eh? Ridiculous. The Cathy Freeman final was 12 years ago, yet here it is being referenced by the media in the context of this controversy. No doubt if Wikipedia had existed then, you'd have been making the same feeble argument. You can take into account bias in the media, you can even filter out the daily trivia, but what makes no sense at all is to pretend that everything they write is just sensationalism born out of a need to fill space. Perhaps the fact you don't live in the UK is the reason why you don't seem to realise what an almighty fuck up the G4S debacle really was. The world's biggest security firm failing to fulfill the world's biggest security contract, in a spectacularly embarassing and high profile manner. Fair enough if they had highlighted the risk well in advance allowing the contingencies to be put into action without fuss or drama or the need for public exhanges between the highest offices and angry debates about compensation and cancelled leave for soldiers etc etc, but they didn't, which funnily enough was all part of the unfolding controversy when it did become public, which saw it dominate the news for weeks, right up to the start of the event. How many daily issues churned through in the news really result in all the fallout of the G4S case? One a month, at best. At least in the UK. The last major issue that dominated the British media before this was probably the LIBOR scandal, and we have a whole article for that. God knows what goes on wherever it is you live each day, if these are the sorts of things that get classed as minor incidents, that would be forgotten after a week. FerrerFour (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no point in discussing this further. You have misrepresented what I said, and completely failed to address the points I actually made. HiLo48 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I get the same feeling reading your posts too. FerrerFour (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And that proves that we're a long way from consensus here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo on this. Wiki is not a newspaper, which can call something a scandal/controversy/evil/wrong/whatever on Monday and then forget about it on Tuesday. NOTNEWS and RECENTISM come into play for an article like this, and UNDUE for that matter. This article is not a timeline for every niggle and question mark as reported by national newspapers, it's for genuine controversies and serious issues of competence. I'd wager that a lot of this article will be edited out in about two month's time, as the bright light of recentism fades and most of the day to day editors move on. doktorb _words^deeds 06:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of this discussion would probably be better continued in the 'Inclusion criteria' section above. The issue of the aboriginal flag seems a non-routine, non-trivial political incident to me, worthy of a mention. Sionk (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

These discussions should address the topic named in the section heading. FerrerFour was right to suggest that a controversy should not be removed from the article because it is resolved. The reliable BBC source did refer to a controversy, so we can accept that there is a controversy. However, the controversy did not occur at the Olympics where every thing was calm and reasonable. A mistake was corrected with no fuss. The BBC referred to Hooper's win as overshadowed by controversy. The controversy, as indicated by Patricia Karvelas in the Australian, was at The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples which uncivilly suggested that the Australian Olympic Committee action in the matter was related to "bureaucratic insanity". Policies change from one Olympics to another and in this one the IOC stresses not using the Olympics as a platform for political statements. That should be accepted by everyone. It is generally accepted by the athletes. The edit summary provided by Martarius did not give the correct reason for removing the edit. The edit should properly have been removed because the controversy referred to did not occur at the 2012 Summer Olympics. - Fartherred (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

7/7

Why has the section on 7/7 been removed, it was a controversey?Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It is covered on the NBC page. Also this has been discussed before. Please contribute to the earlier discussion surrounding the NBC coverage of the Opening Ceremony. Sport and politics (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I an find no mentio of this on the NBC page, perhpas you cpuld help.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion here if you wish to contribute on this topic. Sport and politics (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch

Not sure if this is the place for it, as it's not strictly a controversy involving the Games, more one which occurred against the backdrop of the event, but I feel somewhere we need to mention the Rupert Murdoch controversy. After being invited to the games by Boris Johnson, Murdoch's apparently congenial meeting with Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt attracted some criticism for the latter who has faced previous criticism for his perceived impartiality in News Corp's abandoned bid to take full control of BSkyB. Just a thought anyway, and here's a few links to the story. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not an Olympics controversy and is not even a controversy in its own right. It does not belong on this discussion the above comments are the kinds of comments which are liable to be redacted and removed for being off topic. This article and this talk page is not a newspaper and not a political soapbox. Sport and politics (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not off-topic to suggest something for an article, and in no way am I attempting to make a political statement. In future I suggest you familiarise yourself with the appropriate guidelines, and read up on the definition of off-topic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you understand the topic of this article first. One man being invited by another, no matter who they are, Is in no way related to the running or outcomes of the Olympics. If it belongs anywhere, which is dubious, it is not here. This is not a soapbox for politics or general discussions of things at the Olympics or associated with the Olympics which is one users opinion of a potential controversy. This is for discussing the Olympic Games themselves and not the non-Olypmic personalities and individuals surrounding the Olympics. The Leverson Inquiry has nothing to do with the Olympics and neither does Rupert Murdoch. Sport and politics (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the point. It was a question about whether or not to include a piece of information - not a general discussion on the subject, and definitely not an attempt at political soapboxing, which is what you seem to be implying. I strongly suggest you refrain from making such accusations in any future postings, and maybe you should also familiarise yourself a little more with our policy on civility. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I did answer it and the addition was wholly ff topic the banner at the top clearly states that information added which is wholly off topic is liable to be removed or redacted. Please stop getting over the top by someone simply disagreeing with you and saying what you did was not correct. Sport and politics (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The original post in now way violates WP:FORUM, and if you had tried to remove or redact it, it would have likely been you who ended up being blocked, especially for the outrageous accusation that the user was engaging in soapboxing. This is just another example of you not really knowing the policies you keep referring to. FerrerFour (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You are very close here to being reported for making unwarranted personal attacks. Please make sure you know what your talking about before stating other know nothing. You also keep wading in with your wanting to include everything and anything under the sun in this article. This stuff on one man getting an invite is nothing to do with the article and barely anything to do with anything as regards to being notable. Sport and politics (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I do know what I'm talking about, whereas you pretty obviously don't. If you disagree, then by all means try and delete this section from the talk page, and we'll see what happens. FerrerFour (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from veiled threats and goading. Using phrasing such as "try and delete" and "see what happens" implies that you are not willing to edit constructively on this issue. Sport and politics (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from talking nonsense. What has a willingness to be constructive got to do with me highlighting the fact that you have no basis whatsoever to be telling the person who started this section that he was wrong to do so? FerrerFour (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been previous warnings from others users that referring to others users comments as "nonsense" is not constructive and may result in being reported for making uncivil personalised comments. Sport and politics (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you can't really explain it. You can report me all you want, it won't suddenly make you an editor who understands things like WP:FORUM, let alone Original Research etc. FerrerFour (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

_____

I think you should both chill out now and perhaps even consider taking a break from this page for a while, as you seem to have some kind of disagreement going on across several threads. Sport and politics, you definitely have to gain a greater understanding of the guidelines you're throwing around, especially WP:FORUM, and apply them in the spirit in which they were intended, as well as being more civil when you reply to postings. FerrerFour, you have to take a deep breath and keep a cool head. This type of behaviour is disruptive to the overall ethos of the project, and distracts from constructive editing. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Gender equality

Need to mention the Japanese women's football team and Australia's basketball team where they played better in performance (and were better before) and travelered in economy class. In the former case "because the men were professionals". Apparetnly HJapan said they would return in bizz class and Aus initiated an enquiry.

Also add that this was he first time every NOC sent at least 1 women (though Saudi's dint play due to injury). Rogge said something in the opening ceremony too.[6]Lihaas (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Careful with the wording there. Not every NOC sent female athletes to London; every NOC has now sent women to at least one Olympics. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 11:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Japan's men's team traveled in business class because their corporate sponsor volunteered to pay for the upgrade. Japan's women's team corporate sponsors did not volunteer to do so. It was an issue of the men's team having a sponsor more willing to pay out, not necessarily an issue of gender equality. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Just quoting the sources. Seems to have generated controversy as such (and Japan and Aus took action on it)Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Africa village

[7]Lihaas (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the second Olympic related cultural organisation to go bust. Could you please elaborate on what exactly you would like to be done rather than just dumping a link without explanation. Sport and politics (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I put it here to bring attention and discussion to thsi instead of adding and then having it reverted to discuss.

Its obviously an issue that the showcase of a major segment of the world will not finish its term for the entire olympics. Inclusion somewhere in a sentence or 2 should be keyLihaas (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you suggest some wording to discuss? Sport and politics (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics → Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics –

Should this page not be at Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics to be in line with Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics, Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games, Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics, Concerns and controversies related to UEFA Euro 2012 etc? - Basement12 (T.C) 00:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but remember OSE is not an arguement. Its a bit redundant, IMO.

Is there a MOS for the title? I dont' think so.Lihaas (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently someone else had the same idea and initiated the move... Not all of the issues raised in the article are necessarily going to be controversies, for example the issues with air pollution at the 2008 Games would be (and are I think, hence the name of the 2008 article) better classed as a concern. Can't lay my hands on it right now but I'm sure the title would have been discused in the past - Basement12 (T.C) 00:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

An event this large and complex is naturally going to endure a number of gaffes, missteps, and mistakes. "Concerns" is one way to describe this in the title. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the move for both consistencies sake, and, as Cla68 pointed out, not everything included can necessarily be termed a controversy, and concern is the simplest way to put it. I.e. the North Korean flag incident. I wouldn't call that a controversy. Ravendrop 02:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I would think thats definately a controversy, though stuff like the Munich thing probs would be a concern (or neither really)

Well at least we worked towards a discussion. Im not in the consensus decision but it seems thats ecome the consensus. Perhaps wait till tomorrow to move (in case others come by)?Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Support: Based on titles of the same article in earlier Games. Information on a genuine and much discussed concern was removed for not being "a controversy".88.88.163.156 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose As the new title will give unwarranted licence to add information which is not relevant and not notable. Sport and politics (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesnt give any such license. It will be removed if consensus deems it non-notableLihaas (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is already a high level of dubiously notable and relevant stuff being added and adding the weasel word "concern" will only give them more licence to add more dubiously relevant and notable information. Sport and politics (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - This article has a broad enough scope as shown by the twenty screens (on my monitor) of text with the outline and eight pages of footnotes. If some information concerns the Olympics, but is not a controversy it can be added to [[2012 Summer Olympics]], one of the other forty-four other pages in the Category:2012 Summer Olympics, or one of the pages under the eleven subcategories. If it does not fit in any of these pages, a new page can be started for that sort of information or it just does not belong on Wikipedia.

Besides there has been sufficient controversy concerning what is suitable to include under the present title. expanding the scope of the article is likely to increase the level of controversy. - Fartherred (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as standardisation. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 16:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Standardisation with what? Sport and politics (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  See the proposal. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 19:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The title "Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics" was not decided upon after discussion it just was picked by Bluap when Bluap split the article from "2008 Summer Olympics." It was a poorly chosen title that should not be imitated. According to Wikipedia:Article titles: ...the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short..." but this change would be a detriment to precision and make the title unnecessarily longer. Consider two hypothetical titles: "Concerns of the 2013 Ohlimping Games" and "Non-concerns of the 2013 Ohlimping Games". If the Ohlimping Games were real there would be something suitable for the first title and nothing suitable for the second title. So adding: "Concerns of the" to the title rules nothing out that is not ruled out by notability policy. It adds nothing to specificity and is completely useless. Adding "Concerns and" to the title of our controversy article is worse than useless because it adds back into the scope of the article everything that was ruled out by the word controversies in the title. As for someone looking for [[Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics]] and not finding this article, that is taken care of by Lihaas adding a redirect as a residual result of a move that undid the previous undiscussed and ill-advised move. - Fartherred (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This links to the discussion that occurred: Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 3#Criticism section - Fartherred (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - as far as I can see, the 2008 Olympics was treated this way, but not Games previous to that, so there is hardly a lasting precedent already set. This talk page is already extremely active, indicating that there is already plenty of content for the article, without opening it up to every 'concern' too. Sionk (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kim Collins - Where's the controversy?

Two editors have now added content on Kim Collins being removed from his national team because he broke the rules. I removed it, but the second addition put it back. I submit that there is no controversy in this story, and I ask other editors to tell me what's controversial about a team enforcing its rules. There's drama, yes, but nothing controversial, surely? HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you removed it from 'controversies' as you believed there was none(?). I moved it, with additional ref, to 'Athletes sent home', which he clearly was. Is his removal any more/less controversial than those sent home for tweets, facebook pages or damage in a shop. They (and Collins) broke the rules and went. My view is if they are valid for inclusion in a section marked 'Athletes sent home' then he is. If they are not neither is he.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right. None of them belong. There is no controversy in a team sending home an athlete for breaking the rules or doing something really dumb. Thanks for highlighting that. Shall I be bold and delete the whole sub-section? HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - The St Kitts newpapers [8] describes it as a controversy.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes and. That one newspaper does not elevate it to being notable. Sport and politics (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not saying it does but editors seem to be unilaterally deciding what goes in and what comes out without there being any clear definition OR CONSENSUS as to what is a controversy. Another view from a WP:RS is that it is one.................--Egghead06 (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Athletes being sent home from the Olympics for any reason other than basic injury, will always be seen as controversial. It's pretty ridiculous for anyone to claim otherwise frankly. FerrerFour (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Doktorb made an excellent post to the immediately previous thread. I hope he doesn't mind me repeating it here...

"...Wiki is not a newspaper, which can call something a scandal/controversy/evil/wrong/whatever on Monday and then forget about it on Tuesday. NOTNEWS and RECENTISM come into play for an article like this, and UNDUE for that matter. This article is not a timeline for every niggle and question mark as reported by national newspapers, it's for genuine controversies and serious issues of competence. I'd wager that a lot of this article will be edited out in about two month's time, as the bright light of recentism fades and most of the day to day editors move on." HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Being sent home from an Olympics is a niggle? A forgotten detail of history, preserved only in the news archives of the day, like the horoscopes and weather reports? Like I said, ridiculous. FerrerFour (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it would have caused less friction if this article had been named as per the previous Olympics?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that would have just added another category, Concerns, to justify adding even more garbage to this article. This article WILL shrink later when sanity finally prevails, but for now, with all the rabid Games haters about, I guess there' no point trying. HiLo48 (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow. So now if someone argues that being sent home from the Olympics is a controversy they are a "rabid Games hater"? You really are a very silly man. I think we can close the book on this one - you're welcome to come back to this article in a year's time and list all the athletes that got sent home who you think have been completely forgotten about, and we can all have a good laugh at you as we disprove each case one by one using the magic of the internet. I forgot to post it last night, but I found a case of one US athlete sent home from the 1988 Olympics being brought up again in the news in 1996 in the context of a debate about team conduct. His crime? Stealing a wall decoration from a restaurant. He was arrested, and after apologising was released without charge, and sent home in disgrace. Nearly identical to the case of Josh Booth, one of the very cases in that section that you're ludicrously trying to claim will be forgotten about in a week. FerrerFour (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Kim Collins was removed from the team. He represented his version of the reason for his dismissal as worthy of contempt. This is a controversy. It happened at the 2012 Summer Olympics. At least one Newspaper considered it noteworthy. I think we should respect each other's opinions. - Fartherred (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do need to respect others opinions and one newspaper has considered this story journalisticly noteworthy. Wikipedia though is not a newspaper. This has not been reported for a prolonged period, it was just an also story on from the BBC. Just because one person has said this is a controversy and doesn't make it notable. Remember that all a newspaper article is one persons opinion and a parroting of the facts, that does not confer notability.Sport and politics (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers have masses of space to fill every day. We don't have to. They can call anything they like a controversy, then the next day's edition comes out and nobody remembers what they printed the day before. Our best content is (hopefully) permanent. Don't get led away from Wikipedia's standards by tabloid journalism. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

An athlete sent home for non-injury reasons is a controversy and the national newspaper picked the story (the global media dont pick any stories from minor countries (unless you could GRN;'s 400m (which was a major event))). It rightfully should be included. In the same vein we dont want to be biased against small countreies(Lihaas (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)).

You two are really full of it. Do you seriously expect to get away with being allowed to call organisations like the BBC, or papers like The Independent, "tabloid journalism"? Do you really expect to get away with having your personal opinions as to what is and is not a controversy and what will and won't be remembered, ranked as equal to what's written in reputable reliable sources, or disproven already by looking at near identical past incidents? Talk all you want, if this sort of rubbish is all you've got to say, or more importantly show, then the content is here to stay. FerrerFour (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What is being wholly missed here is the level of minutiae of what could be called a "controversy". A man broke the rules and was sent home. That is all this story is. Nothing more nothing less. All it is, is a man broke the rules and was disciplined. Any newspaper not matter what level of journalism it targets, sensationalises and gives its own bias and opinions. They may be reliable sources but it doesn't make the story notable. Sport and politics (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What is being missed here by you is that nobody here is obliged to believe what you say, just because you keep repeating it. You can talk as much rubbish as you like about newpapers, you can second guess their editorial policies all you like, it's just your opinion, nothing more. Nobody's 'missing' anything, they just don't agree with you. FerrerFour (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What is being missed here by you is that is that newspapers, television and radio produce words daily in quantities several orders of magnitude greater than what is ever going to be in Wikipedia. We MUST be selective. We simply cannot include content on everything that some newspaper article somewhere in the world used the word controversial to describe. The same applies to all articles. We make judgement calls on what is notable and what isn't. Your argument is totally impractical. I say again, we cannot include everything. This article WILL be reduced in size after these Olympics and your excitement level have faded away. You would do well to start think now about which items will go. HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've not missed that at all, because you've said it in here TEN times already. Just get this through your thick head will you - I can understand what you are saying, I just think it's garbage, born out of your weird hatred of the press, and some sort of desire to have your opinions on what is and is not controversial elevated over and above what actual sources say about something. Notability has got jack all to do with it, why don't you and sports and politics actually read the bloody page about notability eh? Notability only governs what topics can be given articles, it does not govern the content that goes into them. You're correct there should be a discussion about each point, but that discussion should not contain garbage claims like 'this will be forgotten in a week' because 'all newspapers are tabloids', especially when I show you evidence that this is pure nonsense. If you repeat these garbage claims down the line, they will be rejected, so I suggest you not waste any time even attempting to remove anything, if this sort of nonsense is all you have by way of justification. At the end of the day, if you seriously think that this article covers everything that has been written in the news about the Olympics, then you're insane. This isn't even 0.00001% of the coverage that's out there. 01:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Calling this a "controversy" is nothing more than synthesis and Original Research. The information must also be Notable. I have seen no evidence of any lasting notability in this information being a controversy. Also please avoid commenting on the contributor and please stay on the topic when adding information to this article. Sport and politics (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you going on about? You see no evidence of lasting notability in items that only happened this week? Are you serious? I gave an example above of an incident in 1988 being referred to in 1996. Are you suggesting that we should delete this article, then wait until 2020 before seeing if it has had lasting notability? What nonsense. And will you please actually read the 'Notbale' page before citing it? If you did that, you'd see it only governs article titles, not their content. Also please can you actually read the Original Research page too if you want to refer to it, because I think you'll find that calling something a controversy is 100% not original research, if you have in your hand a reliable source that says THE EXACT SAME THING. FerrerFour (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The point of lasting notability is that these claimed controversies such as this are in some cases not even lasting out the session of the Olympics they occurred in such as the men's gymnastics rings below. This claimed controversy lasted until the end of the day it happened, it didn't continue being mulled over or being referred for a substantial period afterwards. This article is full of recent journalistic newspaper articles and news stories. There is no notability of the majority of these as they do not pass the threshold of actually being encyclopeadic content it is just one journalist calling something a controversy and others not calling it a controversy. To base that it is notable when only limited sources call it a controversy is Cherry-picking is "original thought" and is also "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves.". The sources on this one are not clear here and they do not all agree that this is a notable "controversy". The main sources in the article do not even use the word "controversy" in their stories of the event. This shows that saying it is a controversy is an opinion which constitutes "original thought" and as such is original research. Sport and politics (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, just stop linking to policy pages you clearly don't understand. If you want to make claims like "The sources...do not all agree that this is a notable "controversy".", then it's up to you to provide sources that say this, otherwise it's you who is cherry picking and engaging in original thought. As for this being recentism, that cannot be judged until time has passed. Frankly it's quite ridiculous for you to be claiming that a story isn't reporting a controversy if it doesn't use the term, when the whole purpose and tone of the piece is to report the controversy. FerrerFour (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This is getting very silly and starting to get far to personal. This tiny little incident of one man breaking the rules and being disciplined has been discussed to death. There is clearly differing interpretations of the policies of Wikipeida. The term "controversy" not used so the sources not using it are not considering it a "controversy". The incident inclusion is beginning to sound more and more like I like therefore it needs including. There needs to be a remembering that Wikipeida is not a repository of everything which happened at the Olympics and is not a blow-by-blow news reporting of what happened. I have not really head anything more on the incident since it happened and it is seriously failing having any lasting notability. Sport and politics (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

More rubbish. This page contains 0.000001% of the actual amount of news coverage there's been of the Olympics, so that claim is clearly nonsense. There are no differing interpretations here at all, there's people talking about policies that they know about, and then there's you, who can barely even match up a policy to the issue it governs - NOTABILITY doesn't control content in articles, RECENT doesn't bar the inclusion of recent incidents, NOTNEWS doesn't forbid the use of journalistic sources, WP:ILIKEIT only applies to deletion debates, etc etc etc. You can claim all you want that incidents weren't controversial, but merely pointing out that the word 'controversial' isn't in the source is about the thinnest argument you could ever produce to support it (and in the case of Kim Collins, it's actually a lie, there are soucres calling it controversial, I don't think you even bother looking half the time). FerrerFour (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The source from his own country uses the c word - controversy!--Egghead06 (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Well done that's the only one and if its not used in the main article (at the time of writing). The sources from the UK and from Australia do not so there is no wider controversy outside of his own country if it is even a "controversy" there. Not being able to cite material which directly support the claim this is a controversy outside of his own country demonstrates this is not a controversy, add it to the St Kits and Nevis at the 2012 Olympics article for sure because that is where it is notable but its not relevant here.Sport and politics (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That's brilliant then. As this is the English language wiki (not the English one or the American one) a good reference from an English language source is just what is needed. --Egghead06 (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a breadth of sources to demonstrate this is a controversy not just one or two. As the two main references (currently) being used do not call it a controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The use words: "rubbish...thick head...insane...I think its garbage...a lie" to refer to other editors and their writing and accusing editors of being motivated by: "weird hatred of the press" are not positive contributions to this discussion, and should be ignored.

Inclusion of material in this article is governed by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper:

"2.News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." and other policies.

The inclusion of a timely news item in an article is a matter of judgment. - Fartherred (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

And I really wonder why you assumed I was not aware of that policy? I can wait for S&P/Hilo to produce some sort of argument that any of the 'athletes sent home' type entries on this page are nothing more than 'routine sports reports' (eg Tiger best Sharks 1-0) or somehow are as vacuous and uninmportant as the latest celebrity gossip (J-Lo's new haircut), however, while they refuse to do this and just whine on about news in general, I reserve the right to call their points rubbish, because they are. I personally cannot fathom how anyone can even think that being sent home from the Olympics for a non-injury reason is just some routine event, and that journalists only cover it because they need to fill space. Bizarre. FerrerFour (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You are asking people to prove a negative. That's almost impossible. I see this topic as a certainty to be removed from the article, along with many others, when time permits most editors to take a rational, long term view. One use of the word controversy in one newspaper, which has to publish a lot more words on the Olympics than we will ever use, is not evidence that including this item (and many others) is justified. You MUST accept that the newspapers use many more words than we do. You MUST accept that we cannot include them all. YOU must make the case that this particular incident is really a controversy. HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. It is exceptional to claim that an athlete being sent home from the Olympics for non-injury reasons is not controversial, and it is doubly exceptional to claim that it wasn't controversial when reliable sources state that it was. If the only argument you have against documenting every instance of athletes being sent home from these games is this weak, almost non-existent, rationale that newspapers have to write a lot of stuff and Wikipedia doesn't, then no, none of this material is going anywhere I'm afraid. I fully accept the contents of WP:NOT#NEWS, but I reject your argument that these reports are as trivial as the latest celebrity gossip and thus violate it. They aren't and they don't. The only requirement for these type of entries is for the content to be balanced, weighted, and sourced to reliable independent sources. This is standard Wikipedia policy. As for the long view, I've already given you an example of a near identical case being referred to 6 years later to debunk your claims that these incidents are simply routine reporting that's instantly forgotten, and given you seem to have been struck dumb in the face of this evidence, I see no reason for anyone to be forced to listen to your continued insistence that black is white, or to indulge you if you try to remove information in the future on this obviously flawed basis. FerrerFour (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is now getting very circular I have now requested a third opinion on this issue in a bid to resolve this discussion which has been done to death. Sport and politics (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I fear that WP:3O may yet be another thing you don't understand - third opinions are only really offered where only two people have been in dispute. Looking above, it's pretty obvious that more than two people have now had their say on whatever this issue now is. If you want even wider participation, I would advise drafting a Request for Comment. FerrerFour (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely the measure here needs to be what rules were broken? An athlete sent home for breaking the rules of their national team (e.g. Collins) should have that added to the relevant "Country" at the 2012 Summer Olympics article. An athlete thrown out of the Games for breaking IOC/Olympic rules (for example those ejected for doping) need to be mentioned here. An athlete getting a bit drunk and being carried into a taxi by their teammates (after they've finished competeing) has no place being included in an encyclopaedia article relating to the Games as a whole - Basement12 (T.C) 23:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because then this article would have to be renamed Violations of IOC rules during the 2012 Summer Olympics, to better reflect its content. If it's a controversy that occurred during the games, it's fair game for inclusion here. Despite the ludicrous claims made elsewhere, this article does not, and never would have, contained every news story that happened during the games. And besides, all team rules are ultimately ratified by the IOC - who do you think is taking the moral/ethical lead on this issue? Do you suppose the IOC has no stance on Olympic athletes getting pissed after competing but while still at the games? And there is no logic to only including issues in this one that only affected the whole games, unless the goal is to make it impossible for readers to find information. Why should someone who wants to know basic information like athletes being sent home from a games, be forced to read 200 odd articles to get a proper understanding of the information? FerrerFour (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it wouldn't have to be renamed that would it, let's try and keep things sensible. There's a big difference between being sent home from a Games and being expelled from the Games. Being expelled from the Games is notable enough for this article, being sent home perhaps could be depending on the exact circumstances. I think lumping a drunk Belgian and a German with a boyfriend of questionable character in with some of the more serious, and more directly Olympic related, reasons for being sent home devalues the section and the article as a whole. And no, judging from the number of British athletes merrirly tweeting their drunkeness and being photographed for the frontpages whilst inebriated I doubt that there is an IOC stance on it. What they do after they're done competing is up to them as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law. - Basement12 (T.C) 00:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well for a start, giving articles accurate titles is policy. If you want to narrow this article's scope somehow, beyond the point where the current title would make sense to a reasonable person, then yes, a rename would be necessary. There are plenty of controversies that affect more than one team that don't stem from a conflict with the IOC for example (except in the wider sense that they organise the games, by which logic, every incident even single team ones, is then related to the games). As for the claim that incidents must be criminal, and that once you finish your event the rules don't apply, well here's a timely example of how that's wrong. The IOC of course have a view on nearly everything athletes at the games do, except of course in the cases where they're happy to let the NOC deal with it. That just about covers every incident where an athlete is sent home for non-injury reasons. FerrerFour (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

3O

I am a Third opinion Wikipedian. I'm afraid that a Third Opinion is not available due to the number of editors involved in this dispute — at least five by my count — and your request has been removed for that reason. A request for comments is, indeed, one option but you might also want to consider filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard as another possible choice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Percieved elitism section

This section was removed as it is not really of any place in this article. It is simply making up something to fill up some column inches. It does not matter where the competitors from the UK come from. This is also not a UK centric article and as such needs to provide a world-wide perspective on the events. focusing on the Background of competitors from one nation is classist, POV pushing and slanting of the article towards being UK centric. It has no place here as it does not serve a purpose. It doesn't matter where someone comes from, they cannot choose their background. If someone does well good for them it is all that matters. This is a non-story and most definitely not a controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The BOA chairman himself started the debate with his very public condemnation of the stats, and anyone with half a brain can see that class & opportunity is perceived as an issue within the British public and political sphere, therefore it's no surprice that the issue has been covered by multiple reliable sources, producing comment from all sorts of people in high office. What you personally think of the issue is frankly irrelevant. FerrerFour (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And regarding this being a UK centric issue, it should be noted that the section was sourced to the Japan Times (although I take issue with the fact that it didn't include an online link). FerrerFour (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So what if the BOA chairman started the debate it is a ridiculous story focusing on aspects of someone which they have no control over. An individual cannot choose their upbringing or the family they were born into. The whole section is ridiculously slanted as making out that they are all snobs by using language such as "posh" as a pejorative and implying its terrible that they went to private schools. It implies it is a terrible thing that these schools exist and how dare they have better facilities. It also doesn't matter what the source is in the slightest, singling out the UK competitors makes the article unnecessarily UK centric. I could source a negative section on Australia from South Africa and that would still make the section unduly slanted to wards Australia. The wider debate which is starting in the UK is on funding of sports in schools which is not a controversy. It is simply an internal debate in the UK. If there is felt the need for including that debate on Wikipedia please do so on appropriate page which is not this page but is on a page such as; school sports in the UK or on education in the UK or on Sport in the UK or the Olympics legacy in the UK. To single out individual competitors background which is something they have no control over is the same as singling out competitors race, gender, age, eye colour, height etc. It is something they have no control over and is a non-story made up to sell newspapers by pandering to attacking people perceived to have something which others do not have. The number of "reliable" sources here is completely irrelevant as the story doesn't belong here and if the issue is to be included on Wikipeida (which is not here) the blatant anti-POV needs stripping out and a balanced piece on funding of school sports in general needs writing. This section simply attacking "posh schools" and including the BOA Chairman's title adds to the anti-POV this section has. It is just wholly puerile in its classism. This section is one of the most POV, biased and unbalanced sections added to the article. Sport and politics (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"So what if the BOA chairman started the debate" - well, it's pretty relevant if you want to claim this was a story manufactured by the press. It exposes claims like this of yours as nothing but fantasy, having no connection to what actually happened at all. The whole post there just makes it obvious that the only thing that underpins your removal is a personal opinion. Your views on the merits, or lack of, of a debate in the media and wider country about class and opportunity in sport, have absolutley no place in controlling what does and does not go into Wikipedia articles. More examples of your lies about the section are the ridiculous claims that it contained attacks on competitors and implied going to private school was bad - both of these things have been invented by you. The only point you have is about whether this is the right location for the material, but given that this is clearly not your main objection to it, but merely a mask for your personal distaste that the debate even exists, you really shouldn't be in control of that at all. FerrerFour (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually trying to keep it out to preserve this sas a short article is not valid an arguement. If th enotable HEAD of the NOC said so that generates controversy itself because of his cocnern (an d no doubt efforts to change will come). Its not a surprise that Equastrian has this, but its a move towards change and thats a call, hence a controversy. Maybe instead of a section, merge it elsewhere.Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be part of a wider section on another page on funding of sports and funding of school sports in the UK. It is currently written in such an anti way it makes it out as if it is wrong that the individuals who won some how only got there because they bought there way there. A persons upbringing is not something one can help and it should there for be treated with a lot of care it should really be treated in the same way as race as that is another thing people cannot help. The section needs a lot of balance and the level of anti in the current version is so disproportionate it has no place on Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the section should remain in the article, and once again advise editors to discuss these things first before reverting them from the article. I think one of us here has already been warned about this. Cla68 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the way it is currently written is potentially defamatory as it is effectively stating they did not get there on merit and that Private schools are somehow morally wrong. Removing something and then discussing to justify its conclusion is far better than leaving something up which is so biased it is potentially defamatory. Add if you like but don't expect it to stay there if it is potentially a hot button issue. If it is reverted and a discussion is started that is how the usual cycle works. An editor is bold in adding, another editor removes or reverts and then there is discussion. This is not revert warring as you are once again implying. The previous interpretation given on this page of revert warring gave a selective interpretation, which was inaccurate. Currently the section is so biased and one sided it cannot be included. If it is re-written on another article to discuss all sides of this then it has a place on Wikipedia at the moment it is potentially defamatory and cannot be included. This could potentially be a BLP violation as it is implying that the people who completed and went to private schools did not deserve to be at the Olympics because of their upbringing which is potentially defamatory. Sport and politics (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You're against the grain of consensus on its inclusion. That said if you think it needs to be reworded feel free to do that OR bring the dodgy phrases here to discuss how to change it.Lihaas (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Words cannot express how wrong you are. Not only are you showing how you have no understanding of policy at all, this time BLP of all things, now you are showing you have no idea about basic legal concepts like defamation. It's just unbelievable. FerrerFour (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there any other objections to the section besides Sport and politics? Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO this isn't worthy of inclusion here. Relates to one country's team and if anything is a wider ranging issue in the UK not really specific to these Games, despite it's current appearances in the press. See my further comment below on the wording - Basement12 (T.C) 23:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Section Rewording

Colin Moynihan from the British Olympic Association expressed concerns over the proportion of the British team who did not come from the state school sector and commented on the lack of funding available for school sports in state schools. One fifth of the team did were educated outside of the state sector. With sports such as rowing and equestrian being up to one third. Moynihan said that it was "wrong and unacceptable" that there were not more students from the state sector in the team. There has been wider debate with in the UK over the level of funding available for school sports and increasing acess to sports from people of all backgrounds. <Insert quote from a person in a source>.

That is a first draft of the section removing the pejorative language the unnecessary inclusion of the peerage and the slant against the athletes who have come from outside of the state school sector in the GB team. Obviously reliable sources will be found and added when the final wording is agreed upon. Sport and politics (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It has no need of revision. Your ignorance of basic concepts like defamation and BLP is no excuse to be making content worse, eg why on Earth would an encyclopoedia not give someone their proper title, and simply say they were "from the BOA". FerrerFour (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Still seems biased even when reworded. It's all well and good saying that a fifth of the team were educated outside of the state sector but that tells you nothing. What if for example, a quarter of the population are educated ouside the state sector? Then they'd be under represented in the team. I've got no idea what the real proportion is but nor will the reader so if it is to be included the section needs more background information to provide context - Basement12 (T.C) 23:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of its inclusion here isn't to explore the facets of the issue, just to note that, according to notable observers like Moynihan, Britain has a perceived issue with elitism among its Olympic athletes. Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's jolly nice but misses the purpose of Wikiepida. It is not relevant to the article so does not warrant being included in the article. It is just one man making a political point. Sport and politics (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Just one man eh? Ha Ha Ha. I mean the temerity of the BOA chairman even thinking he can express an opinion about the makeup of the British Olympic team! What a fool! I cannot think why the press gave him the time of day. Who does he think he is? Still, it will all be OK in the end, because after all, he's going to get sued now because he's defamed the public schools, right? LMFAO. As for not being purpose of Wikipedia, then I suggest you go and delete articles like Social structure of the United Kingdom. I mean after all, once you get down to it, that's only made up of bits and pieces that random blokes have said at one point or another, right? FerrerFour (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In all honesty it seems to me that the purpose of the article has long been forgotten in favour of including every little story that could possibly be included. Moynihan is indeed a notable observer but if he has made unsupported claims (i.e. without the sort of context I'm suggesting we need to included here) then they aren't notable in relation to this article - Basement12 (T.C) 23:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think this was a little story, I can only assume you are not resident in the UK. It dominated the news for at least a day, possibly more once the wider issue of funding was tacked on. As for unsupported claims, the sources I've seen include full stats - the medals are distributed 50:50 public/private, yet the general population is more like 11:1. If people haven't even read the sources, and are not aware of the coverage, then why are they even discussing this? FerrerFour (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest a better place for this would be Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics? Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I wholly agree. Sport and politics (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Cla68, it is an issue brought up by a notable person, we have not reson to synthesise on what he said by saying but "x of the population are in stateschools too" RS sources scite this issue.

I think its fair t add it briefly here in a section (not its own section as UNDUE) with a link to this page from the GB page. Anyways, this subsection is about the wording lets put the discussion on the content inclusion above so as not to obfuscate issues.Lihaas (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the problem is that Moynihan is saying it as if it's controversial when it's actually not. Public schools tend to have better sports facilities than state schools purely through their greater spending power - it's not exactly a surprise that practically no state schools have facilities for equestrianism or rowing! I suspect that Moynihan is actually having a back-handed dig at the Government for their cuts to the SSCO/SSP budget - something he's quite entitled to do (and is quite right IMO) but that's not an Olympics issue. Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Why does having an explanation for why the discrepancy occurs, not make it a controversy? If it truly wasn't a controversy, then after Moynihan had made the statement, nothing more would have happened would it? If he had come out and said, 'well, we're doing quite well aren't we?', that would not have sparked the debate and comment that this statement did. There's an explanation for the budget cuts if you believe the government, but I hope you're not going to claim that because that exists, there's been no controversy over those, surely? It is controversial precisely because there is an explanation for it that boils down to a difference between the public and private school system. It was hardly going to be down to anything else, was it? FerrerFour (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, I quite agree; my point was that it's a worthwhile subject, but is it a suitable subject for this particular article? (Incidentally, there hadn't been much controversy about the SSCO cuts outside the education sector until now, so I suppose we can thank Moynihan for shining a spotlight on that!). Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Cook

Why is there no mention in the article of Aaron Cook's omission from the team GB Taekwondo, despite him having never lost a competition in 2 years and being ranked no.1 in the world, as this was a subject of great controversy in the press (in the UK, at least) at the time that he was omitted???

Totally agree, that should be added. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It may have received attention in the country but it was an internal decision by a national team months before the actual Olympic Games. I don't see how it raises to the level of this article. It's already mentioned at both Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Taekwondo and Taekwondo at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Controversy. That seems sufficient. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the same style of coverage given to the GB Rhythmic Gymnastics team when they were initially denied a place but successfully appeals it is covered on the relevant pages elsewhere. Sport and politics (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Women's hammer throw

Betty Heidler threw a result which seemed to put her into 2nd place at that moment. There was a problem with the measuring device and the result could not be taken. Heidler was asked to throw again, but this time it didn't help her. She ended in 8th place. I think this will be a big talking point today. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Her result was changed to bronze [9] and she seemed very happy with it. Let's wait and see whether the Chinese (who were demoted from third to fourth) or others complain. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Who is User:HeCameFromTheShadows?

This user appeared out of nowhere an hour ago to make his or her first posts. They involved deleting an AfD tag, with obvious detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies. This brand new user appeared shortly after the blocking of the similarly well informed but allegedly new (a fortnight ago) User:FerrerFour. Anyone else care to speculate with me? HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Speculation would be wrong and lead to attacks and assumptions, but I'd recommend going to the WP:SPI noticeboard, which deals with sockpuppetry. --Activism1234 23:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone submitted his name here. Although I have to agree there's no chance it will get deleted. Nearly every vote I've seen there is to keep it, if not all. And there are a lot of votes. --Activism1234 23:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Already started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angryjo2012london. I respectfully suggest speculation be forgone until checkuser results are available. VQuakr (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I humbly submit that the only way we will ever identify sockpuppettry is with at least a little bit of speculation. Happy with the process now though. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I had actually assumed he was an Admin... Shows what I know. (Natt39 (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC))

XCameroon athletes

7 are missing from the Games' village. We need to add that...allegedly defecting to europe.Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sources other than hear say and what is "allegedly" heppening. Do you have an actual link to the Olympic games other than they travelled to the Olympic to compete. Claiming asylum or applying to stay in the United Kingdom is not anything to do with the Olympic Games or the Olympic Authorities. This is an immigration and asylum issue to be dealt with by the appropriate department dealing with immigration and asylum claims. It will not be dealt with by the Olympic authorities or the department of Culture, Media, Olympics and Sport. it is nothing to do with the actual competing at the Olympic Games. Sport and politics (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is coverage of this as, I suggest, a quick Google search would have shown you: e.g. BBC News. As they could only come to the UK because of the Olympics, this is clearly to do with the Olympics. And reliable sources, like the BBC article linked, class this as Olympics news. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The reasons they have come to the UK may be anything and to speculate and use news articles to speculate is Original Research. The Olympics may have simply been used as an excuse to come to the UK. It doesn't make this an Olympic Controversy. This is similar to when people came to the UK for the Boy Scouts anniversary and then decided to stay, it didn't make it a scouting controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

They were athletes who qualified for the respective events of theirs. That was the reason, then they went missing (and its happened to CMR before, apparently). Many sources mantion thisLihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This happened at the Commonwealth Games too, and is a common issue. It is minor, but significant. Rich Farmbrough, 17:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC).

I've updated the Cameroon article, which is where it belongs. 7 people out of 10,500+ disappearing isn't a "controversy". Lugnuts (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Resistance to deletion is happening

I removed some of (not the whole entry) "Political demonstration by South Korean football team". My attention was drawn to the section by an edit that created the text "...the team planed a politically-lean goal ceremony"(sic!). The revert of my deletion was accompanied with an Edit summary saying "i don't think it is a good idea to delete valuable information. truth always triumphs despite the negative odds.". I don't think this editor is engaging in the discussion. Might just leave it for a few days. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Truth always triumphs despite the negative odds. It is a common sense. This is something that Wikipedia needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.96.121.108 (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ummm. Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a Japanese IP contributed this manipulation. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.96.121.108 (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you registered and signed your posts so we knew who made that post. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Be careful of Japanese anonymous users who are contributing the Wikipedia pages. They have very racist intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.96.121.108 (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And I suspect English isn't your first language. (Not a crticism. More a suggestion that you seek help when editing here.) Your change of the wording to "...expressed that the team planed a politically-lean goal ceremony" is not good English. I would fix it, but I'm really not sure what it means. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not write "expressed that the team planed a politically-lean goal ceremony". I wrote it like "The captain of the South Korean team Koo Ja-Cheol expressed that the team would never consider a politically-lean victory ceremony.". See this. [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.96.121.108 (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for quoting the wrong version. However, that's equally clumsy. I'm still not sure what it means. HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. I fixed it for your pleasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.96.121.108 (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Politically-lean????--Egghead06 (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What word should I use then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.96.121.108 (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Without fully understanding the issues here as I am not an expert of Japanese/Korean politics, maybe 'politically biased'--Egghead06 (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read this and I have no idea what is being discussed here, what exactly is the wording being discussed trying to say. I understand English may not be a first language, but it is coming across as gobbledygook which I cannot decipher. Please can there be an explanation as to what is trying to be said. Sport and politics (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you blaming your lack of understanding because of my poor English? This doesn't sound nice at all.

Can you understand PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS? HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

And yes, your level of English IS leading to a lack of understanding. It's not meant to be an insult. It's just a reality. No offence is intended. Do you have someone who can help you with better English? HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm afraid not. But I'm trying my best editing it. People don't look at one's hardworking effort of improving. I don't like how Wikipedia is so bureaucratic and lacks of softer human approach in discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.96.121.108 (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The above post appears is in perfect English can there be some explanation as to what is trying to be discussed as I am not able to understand the phrasing of the section being discussed. Then there can be some breaking down and re-wording into comprehend-able language. Sport and politics (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a subject where only Korean speakers need apply?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Did I say something wrong?

Someone needs to read this........--Egghead06 (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Female athletes revisited

I realise the article is in pruning mode,but nevertheless... While the controversy on NOCs without female competitors at any Olympics was resolved prior to the games, it still was one of the most important issues discussed in the run-up to the games. The discussion was archived with unrefuted arguments in favour of inclusion without anyone including a section on it. 85.167.39.6 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that should be in (the Prior to the games section). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's begin the cleanup - Athletes sent home

There's a lot of garbage in this article. We will no doubt disagree somewhat on how much, but I'd like to think that sending athletes home for breaking team rules is not really controversial. I'll add that the most aggressive arguer against this view has now been blocked for his behaviour here.

My proposal is to move details of the two athletes in trouble over drugs to the earlier section covering drugs (maybe renaming it), and remove the rest of the entries. Happy to hear polite objections :-) HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

More or less what I was proposing in the discussion over Kim Collins. My basic guideline would be that athletes who were expelled from the Games (e.g. drug cheats, badminton players not trying) should feature in this article, the drunks/racists/etc sent home by their teams should not - Basement12 (T.C) 01:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As I understand this the proposal would be to remove anything which was not related to the actual sport? If it happened on the pitch/court/pool then it is an Olympic controversy. If it happened away, for example in a store/bar/hotel bedroom, not included. It that the gist?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah if something was really controversial, say the organizers of the Olympics meant at the hotel and decided who would win and lose, that'd go in. It's the nonimportant stuff, like "Drunk fan throws bottle" that isn't needed, or "VISA credit card system crashes" which isn't a controversy. --Activism1234 06:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

OK i hears yah. We still haven't moved on from 'it is'/'it isn't' important. I'll revisit when these games are not en vogue.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with stripping out the things except the athletes testing positive and those sanctioned by their sports governing body. I think there also needs to be a section on criminal prosecutions resulting from the Olympics eg the Lithuanian racist. Sport and politics (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pointing out the obvious - the only thing that dopers and the badminton non-triers did, is break team rules, just like everyone else in that list. If there is some logic to discriminating between various rule breakages to record some but not others, then for this approach to have any credibility, the justification needs to be more robust than 'it's garbage'. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That's just plain false. Disqualification by the BWF is not just breaking team rules. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

BWF? Sport and politics (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Badminton World Federation, the badminton governing body that made the disqualification. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Doping is braking every rule in every book from team to federation right up to the IOC, as is Match Fixing. Now I would argue that the match fixing should probably stay as this is the first time that they have been caught however the Doping issue is indicative of every Games and not just the London Games. Unless anyone is actually stripped of a medal I think they should stay out on the grounds that it is a general sport controversy. (Natt39 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC))

Side point - anyone think of this too when they saw the title of this section? Or am I alone? --Activism1234 00:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No and please stay on topic posting random links may be considered spamming as it is wholly irrelevant to this talk page. Sport and politics (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Political demonstration by South Korean football team

Can someone edit the references in the opening of this section so that the two events, the football demonstration & the visit by Lee Myung-bak, has a source linking them for example (which is already used elsewhere in the paragraph), because otherwise it falls foul of WP:SYNTH. Every time I try I get an edit conflict! Thanks BulbaThor (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think this sentence: "Numerous South Korean netizens protested against this violation by citing pictures of Japanese audiences waving the Rising Sun Flag that South Koreans consider is politically associated with Japanese militarism and imperialism.[141][142]" should be removed. The Korean player's unfortunate decision to politicize his team's win in the soccer game doesn't appear to have anything to do with the flags being waved by Japanese fans. Cla68 (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC).
  • I think the sentence should stand, because the term "Numerous South Korean netizens protested", proves that many Korean people do support what Park did, rather condemning his political act, which is prohibited by both IOC and FIFA.---What can I do for someone?- (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I assume that many South Koreans may also think that his act brought shame on his parents as well as his country, but I don't think that belongs in this article either. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Logan Campbell

Should there not be any mention in the article of the controversial newspaper story about Logan Campbell funding his olympic campaign by opening a brothel??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohdear15 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Who says it's controversial? The business was a completely legal "high class escort agency". If that's controversial to you, take up the issue with the New Zealand government that legalised such enterprises. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Only the passage of time can prove lasting notability

I'm a bit concerned about the rush to include or exlude various topics in this article. We need to remember that notability is not temporary. I think we should wait at least a few months to see which of these stories were just an insignificant "blip on the radar" and which are truly notable. Roger (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue has been raised many times here over the last few weeks. Generally people seem to be making reasoned arguments to retain or remove stuff. Like you say, notability is not temporary, so I hope certain editors won't come back in a few weeks/months and delete stuff they don't like, when there are less people watching this page! Sionk (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Security breech?

What about the tweeting of security badges?[12]38.100.76.228 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Two athletes, one Daily Mail report and no issues rising from it whatsoever? I wouldn't call it a controversy. (Natt39 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC))

Gymnastics - Rings

Chen Yibing seemed to have been robbed in the Rings competition. He did nothing noticably wrong and scored what seemed to be the best score while Arthur Zanetti made more visable errors. Zanetti winning was a shock. I think one of the NBC commentators even joked about this being in Rio, as if saying a Zanetti could only win from biased voting. --Ilias Of Nikos Iliadis (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything other than original research to back up the claims of biased judging? Sport and politics (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I found this article:"Feature: China's 'king of rings' ends Olympic career in disputed scoring" (http://balita.ph/2012/08/07/feature-chinas-king-of-rings-ends-olympic-career-in-disputed-scoring/). Besides the comments by the Italian coach Maurizio Allievi, it also quoted Bulgaria's six time Olympian Iordan Iovtchev as saying "Personally, I think Chen performed the best, but I'm not the judge".(Showmebeef (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC))

I just provided a source in response to "Sport and politics"'s request but then found out that the section was removed--actually it appears that the section has been removed and reinstated several times. The reason stated for removing the section was that it was a complaint, not a a controversy. So the question is: does a judging controversy constitute a controversy (that warrants the inclusion here in this article)? There are several listed under "boxing officiating". I think this should be voted/debated on first before we decide whether to include the section, instead of the back-and-forth removal/re-instate game. My personal view is that it should be included as there are multiple notable sources that question the objectivity of the judging. (Showmebeef (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC))

It's still just a complaint. Accept the bloody umpire's decision and stop whining! HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree! it's exactly the reason people find the "bloody umpire's decision" questionable that it is controversial and that's why it belongs to this section. And that's why the women's soccer semi-final game between the USA and Canada is included in this section--the officiating is controversial, as are those cases listed under "boxing officiating". If you browse through other public forums, especially those focusing in gymnastics, you will notice that most of the comments hold the view that the ruling is questionable. BTW, Raising an issue in the "talk" section with the intention of discussing this topic is not "whining", while repeatedly deleting another author's contribution without discussing with the author is a rather questionable practice. (Showmebeef (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC))

This is without doubt not a controversy; Public forums do not a reliable source make. The cases listed under the boxing section ended up with judges being suspended and results being reversed, this makes them a notable controversy. The football section quite probably doesn't belong in the article either. - Basement12 (T.C) 17:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not using "public forum" as a source for my argument, but merely as somethings to convey a sentiment. The source is the article I listed previously in earlier comment. It quoted other coach's and finalist's observations in which they have cast their doubt in the judges' decision. Note that some of the cases listed in the boxing section do not involve suspension of judges or reversal of the results. Besides, just because the cases do not involve judge suspension or result adjustment don't mean they are not controversial--it could be that they may not have a channel to make an appeal (as in this case) or that the appeal was ignored or refused. The articles here are meant to document controversies, not the results. And if the officiating in the USA-Canada soccer game is NOT controversial, I don't know what is. (Showmebeef (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC))

Cleanup part 2: Women's football officiating

I previously removed this section on the grounds that questionable refereeing decisions happen in every match and are always open to interpretation, i.e. these ones weren't encyclopaedia worthy. The section was readded by an IP [13] with the instruction to discuss it on the talk page, so here we are. It should be noted that in the first example within the section the "controversy" is apparently that the rules were applied (when they often aren't) - Basement12 (T.C) 01:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Complaints about individual questionable calls (e.g., football this year), out. Officials doing such a terrible job that they get sent home and match results get overturned (e.g., boxing this year), in. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 12:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Better to tell the whole story: the football calls (the semi-final in particular) where very controversial, heavily discussed by media, and had a significant impact on the outcome of the matches. There is little benefit to removing them, especially if other similar officiating controveries in other sports are being included (e.g. boxing, fencing, cycling, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.26.14 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

They were not "very controversial", in the first instance the rules were applied correctly, the article even states that the Canadian keeper was in violation of those rules; they were heavily talked about in the media but unlike the boxing or cycling events didn't result in results being overturned or judges being suspended. As I've said before you could write a similar passage for every football match that has ever been played. These occurrences are not notable - Basement12 (T.C) 09:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree about removing the USA-Japan Final, as a missed handball is rather routine. In the case of the semi-final, however, I think that a "soft" rule being enforced for the first time in recent memory does seem rather controversial (I believe one of the articles mentioned that 2002 was the last time it was ever called at the top level). If it was just another missed offside call, or a harsh red card, or something like that I would agree with you that it happens all the time, but this really is unique. Also, the results not being overturned or the lack of any other consequences would not make it any less controversial. The cycling crash issue is a good comparison: France questioned the British tactics, but nothing else came of it. Anyways, if I can't convince you with my reasoning above I suggest we let others chime in and see if we can form a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.26.14 (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You may have a valid argument about the time-wasting rule, though it is in the rules which players should be aware of. Overall the paragraph sounds like sour grapes because of a series of refereeing decisions that went the wrong way. Perhaps the paragraph should be pruned so it doesn't read like a match commentary. Being a semi-final and leading to the threat of disciplinary action, I'll vote "keep" on this one. Sionk (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to look again at what we mean by controversy. A rule being correctly applied is not a controversy. A few players throwing hissy fits because they don't like the rules is not a controversy. It makes no difference what round of the competition it happened in. The prospect of disciplinary action is also not a controversy, in fact it would again be correctly applying the rules. Some of this information may be relevant to the article on the women's football tournament but it doesn't belong here - Basement12 (T.C) 15:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)