Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pegasus Airlines Flight 751 was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 February 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Olympics Mid‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Travel and Tourism Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Sports & games / Economy / History / Politics and law Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[The Atlantic#The Wire|The Wire]] The anchor (#The Wire) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Olympic Truce

In what way is the Olympic truce a concern or controversy? HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's not, or nobody cares. I shall boldly remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are team selection decisions really a controversy?

We've recently had a (very poorly written) paragraph added to the article about "Countries choosing to not enter competitors". Some of us have now massaged it into better English, but I wonder if it really serves any purpose? For every Games, Summer and Winter, there are disagreements at national levels over which competitors should be sent. It's perhaps controversial within those individual countries (the sources don't really even say that), but hardly a big controversy for the Games themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as one of the masseuses, I could go either way. Arguably, they are controversies, although less with the Olympics per se than with the individual countries' Olympic committees. But in this spirit, you could even include the Nagasu-Wagner thing; but that seems too far.

I note that the regions not sending athletes are all from warm climes, and a decision for such a region not to send athletes to Winter Olympics is not inherently surprising. In the case of Puerto Rico, as best as I can tell, it stems from the territory not having a federation to cover winter sports. Indeed, the exact opposite reason is why the Jamaican Bobsled Team actually participating was a controversy (or at least of particular interest) -- one doesn't expect countries from tropical regions to field winter teams.

If this were a case of a nation boycotting the Olympics, as in the 1956 Summer Olympics boycott or the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott, I'd feel much more strongly that it should be retained. TJRC (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a nation boycotting would definitely belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the whales?

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/02/03/will-orcas-be-put-on-display-at-sochi/ 74.71.42.168 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)R.E.D.[reply]

The article is about rumours. Until there's something more concrete than that, I don't think we should include anything. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

t.A.T.u.

To me it is unclear what is controversial about their appearance. If anything, it may lead to a conclusion that the organizers are not that homophobic after all. Instead, the paragraph is merely used to drive the homophobic point even further ("Those antics are now illegal under current Russian law"), even if that doesn't have anything to do with the Olympics. GregorB (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's what the source says. The controversy is how could the Olympic organizers let such an act into the show, as they would seem to be daring to flout Russian law. So this is a turnabout position, the organizers are being controversial in a Russian law and order context. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble here is that it seems that whatever organizers do, it is used as a platform for criticism. The "lesbian antics" were not attempted, planned, nor expected, so why comment on their legality? The Huffington Post says that, by inviting t.A.T.u., the organizers wanted to "assuage concerns" - which makes some sense, but also makes their appearance merely a part of the larger controversy, rather than a controversy by itself. GregorB (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it merits its own section, but maybe there will more controversy about it. I've put it at the bottom of the larger section. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of spectators

Some events, most notably alpine skiing where the host nation has no medal chances are attracting barely any spectators, especially when compared to world cup events with tens of thousands of fans cheering on the competitors along the track. It looks almost as if they are racing on a ghost hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.77.11 (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent things happen at every Games. Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. comparison

Why is the RS sourced information about the US removed from here?(Lihaas (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

I agree with the removal. It is not relevant what the US policy is (should we list the policy of every country in the world?) And commentary such as "paradoxically" is POV pushing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal, U.S. policy is relevant because Obama and other U.S. people are noted here. Alabama: "homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state." Texas: "state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under Section 21.06, Penal Code." etc. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It was re-added with the justification that it is relevant because "Obama has commented". Except Obama is not mentioned in this article. Again, listing the US policy and not that of hundreds of other countries is inappropriate - why single the US out? Additionally, it is problematic because it does not explain what policies are supposedly shared between Russia and the United States. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research to hypocrisy-check critiques of Russia, and it isn't sufficiently relevant to provide a blow by blow in the war of words but it *might* be encyclopedic to repeat, say, a Russian official's denunciation of the US as hypocritical.--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that there is no US government response mentioned in this article (nor the response of any other government), so it is especially bizarre to mention US law. It smacks as an attempt to editorialize by someone, which is not appropriate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that "U.S. officials" aren't what is mentioned by the Washington post blog piece since it is actually referring to the independent laws of federated states, not the opinion of official positions of any United States (federal) official, nor any of the official positions of any of the several states or their officers.--Tznkai (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i mistook it, Obama was mentioned in the main olympic article, or maybe here in some weeks ago. This belong to other articles. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good discussion exapmle to gain consensus. It may be too warly to say so, but I dwould venture to say this si resolved, and amicably at that.

Giooid to see resorting to talk page was fruitful adn should be used ;)Lihaas (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed organization

As we all know, these list based articles can quickly turn into a hodge-podge of itemized angst with no context or help for the reader. I'm hoping we can do ever so slightly better. As far as I can tell, we have the following large groups of controversies:

International Politics and human rights. Other countries object to going to/holding the Olympics because of issue X with the Russians.
Construction, lead up, domestic effects - environmental, human, animal and other concerns in the run up to the building of the Olympic campus.
Concerns about the safety of the games, and other things in the immediate lead up to games qua games. Maybe should be combined with
Controversies at and during the games themselves.
Aftermath, in the event of post-mortems talking about what the games have done for/against Russia, politics, rights, others.

Comments, suggestions, objections?--Tznkai (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians Targeted?

Removed sentences:

This would also try to shut Canada out of the gold medals.^[1]

Going along with these allegations, additional suspicions of being targeted for disruption by inordinate drug testing of the Canadian figure skating, including an unusual competition day pre-event test, and very late-night testing, possibly making them disruptive to preparation for competition.^[1]

At this point, the sourcing is entirely speculative on the parts of I think about two journalists exclusively in domestic Canadian press. As we go, an actual story may emerge, but the sentences would have to be rewritten to indicate that it is only being reported this way in Canadian press.--Tznkai (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b Grant Robertson (8 February 2014). "Reports of judges' pact, flurry of drug tests, leave Canada's figure skaters feeling targeted". Globe and Mail.

Links

>> Lebanese slam focus on Olympian's topless photos(Lihaas (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Electronic surveillance

It might be worth to mention the systematic mobile device hijacking issues which have been reported by some, although we probably need to find some reliable sources. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are now several RSes on that, so you can add it. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Olympic Committee responsibility

Amnesty demanded the International Olympic Committee to condemn the human rights violations and arrests. [1] In my opinion condemning the human right violations is not sufficient. It is self-evuident that the International Olympic Committee have responsibility for the human rights violations, corruption and environmental effects of its own events! In my opinion no state or person respecting human rights should take part in events where the human rights are resisted. Watti Renew (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing and opining on the subject itself. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I stand for to suggest to include these points in the article. Watti Renew (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Main Sochi 2014 Article?

I am unfamiliar with Wiki rules/customs. Why wouldn't this article be merged with the main Sochi 2014 article?Teknozilla (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Teknozilla[reply]

WP:Undue, which is a part of WP:NPOV, is the main concern. What will likely happen is that much of the main article content that could be gone into detail in this article will be trimmed back to just the highlights. Some of that work must be done in hindsight, or after the Games have ended and criticisms have ebbed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Score and Judging at Ladies' Singles Figure Skating

This section is unbalanced. It has many quotes from people who thought Kim was "robbed," but not a single quote from those who disagree. Johnny Weir and Tara Lipinski defend Sotnikova's score in this interview. Elvis Stojko also thinks it was scored fairly. Paul Wylie said "I don’t have a problem with the result, other than the (margin) of it." Philippe Candeloro apparently thought the scoring was fair. Scott Hamilton also seems to agree with the results. Yahoo! sports columnist Dan Wetzel called the score "exceedingly reasonable," while ESPN columnist Jim Caple says the judging was "probably" fair. Chris Chase called the result "debatable, but not a robbery." --50.46.245.232 (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do at this point is remove anything that does not belong, and add reliable sources for what does. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not really notice the quotes from the opposition side as I was only focusing on the problem of the controversy itself. I apologize for not considering such quotes stated from the opposition side. Would it be best to select the same number of few reliable and representative quotes from each side and put them together? The short selection of several representative quotes will be better and less confusing than the long series of quotes. Or would it be better to not include the quotes from figures at all? Rok398 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to do. Professional figure skaters seem to be divided on the issue.

Agree with the scoring (as far as I can tell): Johnny Weir, Tara Lipinski, Elvis Stojko, Paul Wylie, Philippe Candeloro, Scott Hamilton

Disagree with the scoring: Dick Button, Ashley Wagner, Kurt Browning, Katarina Witt, Jamie Sale, Michael Weiss

The opinion of sports columnists is similarly divided. I don't know whether any of these people have kept up with the ever-changing rules of this sport and have any idea what they're talking about. There's no practical way to quote everyone, so I'd suggest we mention that there's a controversy and a petition and just leave it at that. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start with reliable sources first, it will save a lot of effort. Many of those cited are paid commentators for the Olympics so they are likely quite familiar with the rules of scoring. But see what news outlets have reported, sports journalism is very comprehensive so the sources are available. State that news outlets noted the controversy, neutrally describe what it is and then note if there are conflicting opinions and what they are. I suggest brevity so readers will actually get through it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, more is more, and then less is more. That is to say, use your best sources to get widest coverage, and then edit it down to a good summary so the reader gets a sense. At this point, it sounds like "the judging was controversial, as noted by X. Commentators were divided, some saying X, others saying Y. Compare with the better movie reception sections.--Tznkai (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced it to a statement that many media sources questioned the result, one former skater that disagreed with result (with quote) and one that agreed. I left teh second paragraph questioning teh judge selection as that is a slightly different complaint. The section should be a lot more neutral now. I added a link to the figure skating article which has many more quotes on both sides - that is the proper place for all the details. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Widely reported facilities problems

Johnny Quinn, member of the US bobsled team, became trapped in his bathroom and had to bash a hole in the door to get out.^[1] Two days later and his teammates Nick Cunningham and Nick Cripps became trapped in an elevator.^[2]
Rebekah Wilson, member of the British bobsled contingent experienced having elevator doors open onto an empty elevator shaft.^[2]
Stacy St. Clair, Chicago Tribune reporter, reported that her hotel had no water, and that staff informed her that when it returned, not to wash her face in it as it was dangerous. The water service that returned provided murky dark water. The "dangerous face water" incident went viral.^[3]

-- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Faith Karimi (10 February 2014). "Trapped in Sochi bathroom, bobsledder punches hole in door". CNN.
^ ^a ^b John Drayton (11 February 2014). "American bobsledder Quinn gets stuck in an elevator just two days after breaking his way out of hotel bathroom in Sochi". Daily Mail (London).
^ Scott Kleinberg (4 February 2014). "Sochi hotel tells our reporter: Don't let dangerous water touch your face". Chicago Tribune.

Time to remove a lot of the irrelevant content?

I submit that much of the content of this article was media hype before the games, that ultimately had no impact. This would include the attempted plane hijacking, the stuff about Circassians, and the suicide bombings, plus probably some other stuff. How about a cleanup of the now irrelevant content? HiLo48 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gogol And Eisenstein

According to the article they're LGBT but their own articles don't say this. 86.45.226.161 (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "independent1":

From Barack Obama: Johnson, Wesley (November 5, 2008). "Change has come, says President-elect Obama". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on December 9, 2008. Retrieved November 5, 2008. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
From Munich massacre: Turnbull, Simon (27 January 2012). "Shaul Ladany: Still king of the road – Olympics". The Independent. Retrieved 25 February 2013.
From 2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremony: Jess Denham (7 February 2014). "Russian 'lesbian' duo t.A.T.u to perform at Sochi Olympics?". The Independent (London).

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent reversion

I've deleted material was a copy-paste of text from two other articles—Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles and Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics; that text was also deleted from the latter article and heavily edited in the former article, for the reasons discussed at Talk:Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics_–_Ladies'_singles#Results/Controversies_Section_Edit.--96.94.213.161 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the re-insertion of the text. There's an accusation of a "pro-Sotnikova" bias in the edit summary, which I'm happy to discuss, but that discussion should happen here or at the linked talk-page section above, not in edit summaries in a revert war.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[GlobeMail-2014-02-08-skate-1] Grant Robertson (8 February 2014). "Reports of judges' pact, flurry of drug tests, leave Canada's figure skaters feeling targeted". Globe and Mail.

[2] Faith Karimi (10 February 2014). "Trapped in Sochi bathroom, bobsledder punches hole in door". CNN.

[DailyMail-2014-02-11-elevator-3] John Drayton (11 February 2014). "American bobsledder Quinn gets stuck in an elevator just two days after breaking his way out of hotel bathroom in Sochi". Daily Mail (London).

[4] Scott Kleinberg (4 February 2014). "Sochi hotel tells our reporter: Don't let dangerous water touch your face". Chicago Tribune.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]