Jump to content

Talk:Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Confusing Phrasing/Copy and Paste

[edit]

Besides the bid history section, much of the other sections is written in a totally confusing manner and not understandable at all. It also seems that a lot of this confusing text has been copied and pasted from the bid committee website. For future reference, just a PSA, please don't copy and paste content like that. - SantiLak (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Speakers

[edit]

es:Candidatura de Los Ángeles a los Juegos Olímpicos de 2024

also needs HELP. --Redspork02 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DOne--Vrysxy! (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and AWESOME! --Redspork02 (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/Paste

[edit]

I have added {{Copypaste}} to the article, based on the Earwig's Copyvio Detector review of the page. A lot of the article is word for word from the sources that are listed. Elisfkc (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any need to report this as plagiarism. Both the article referenced and the words on this page that match the article are just what the mayor Eric Garcetti said and both sources quote his exact words given when the article was written. Johnny Brockman (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Direct quotes are not cited as such, and the article is heavily plagiarized from the Los Angeles Times, KABC's website and other sources. Your repeated removal of the template is disruptive editing. Wikipedia has a process for addressing copyright violation and plagiarism issues. Let the process run its course. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am so so sorry! I did not realize that this was an automatic process. I only noticed it took up the whole page and the info regarding the bid team and the venues was gone, and so I just wanted to take a look at that stuff. Again, I am so so sorry! Johnny Brockman (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've got you up to speed now, which should make things easier. No apologies needed. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the statements made by Dr. Margi above. This page can easily be fixed with editing and sourcing the materails (add/remove content) and not be as disruptive as you have been Margi! Mr. Brockman was only trying to help. Can we please restore the page so people can work on fixing its errors! --Redspork02 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)--158.61.0.239 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but once the process of reviewing the article for copyright violations starts, you have to live with it. Check with them to see what can be done. I didn't add the tag; I'm just trying to cooperate with the process given the massive copyvios and plagiarism present. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some certain parts in the article are copied word for word from a source doesn't necessarily mean it's plagiarized. I compared one part of the article to the source it was taken from and it was summarized and paraphrased. If it was taken from the source and written exactly in the way it was written in the source, it would be plagiarism. Therefore this page is okay. So listen up, because I'm only going to say this once. To all you people who thought that this article was plagiarized, it's not, so LEAVE IT ALONE!!! It can be fixed by editing and paraphrasing. Johnny Brockman (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Like it or lump it, there is a process for dealing with copyright violations and plagiarism, both of which are present in this article in abundance. Read the box to see how to handle the problem and stop giving everyone orders. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 August 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved.Weighing the arguments used by both the sides, the oppose !votes are much stronger in rationale.A new article may be created about the 2028 bidding.(non-admin closure) Godric on Leave (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics → Los Angeles bid for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics – Should this be moved to Los Angeles bid for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics now? Jmj713 (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — JFG talk 07:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IOC requires "A 2024 Bid" to "drop out" and re-apply for 2028 exclusively as stated at the 131st IOC session. A new Los Angeles bid for the 2028 Summer Olympics should be created. THe IOC will officially name it a 2028 bid and will officially vote on 9/13/2017. --158.61.0.239 (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree, should reflect the changes mentioned above, LA 2028 bid --2605:E000:AE1F:B500:9065:4E20:5A2C:30BD (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The bid was for 2024; the result was 2028. Moving the article would mis-represent what LA did, and the outcome. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose, citing 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids and related articles on how a dual-year bidding process is usually done. There's no particular focus on one of the two years. The focus should be kept on the entire process, 2024 and 2028, not one or the other. Similarly, I support Jmj713's original proposal, per my reasoning. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this before seeing this discussion, but it was reverted back. Just move it over, the content has been updated to include both; all else is dumb. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is too complex for a quick-and-dirty move, or cavalier comments about all else being "dumb". After the second move by someone who is more interested making moves than the actual article, I've requested move protection until we can hammer something out. It strikes me that there are a couple of issues to be considered:

  • Do we need to move? The IOC offer and 2028 negotiations were part of the 2024 bid process; renaming the article as was done earlier today suggests LA bid for both 2024 and 2028 from the outset. That's not the case. 2028 was never on the table until the IOC approached LA about the change. Yes, they had to withdraw one bid and submit the other, but it was a formality that lead to immediate awarding of 2028. It was a very short process, and can be handled accurately within the 2024 article without a move. A redirect from Los Angeles bid for the 2028 Summer Olympics can be added. Much simpler.
  • Do we have one article, or two? As late as this weekend, Mayor Garcetti was still trumpeting and tweeting about the effort for LA 2024, and the LA Times writing only recently wrote about the advantages of 2024 v. 2028. Although there had been rumblings about the IOC approaching LA about moving its bid to 2028 following a virtual tie with Paris and a poor field for 2028, LA was still laser focused on 2024 and there were denials of any 2028 bid. So the question becomes do move the article, or create two, one for 2024 and one for 2028.
  • If we move, to what title? As I noted, Los Angeles bid for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics suggests LA bid for both, when the actually bid for one and were awarded the other. That title, even if a move is needed, isn't suitable. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the camp that says no move, and a redirect. Everything that happened grew out of the 2024 bid. A subsection of the article, discussing the IOC 2028 offer and LA acceptance can be included in the article under the standing title. It's the most accurate presentation of what actually happened. (I'd also encourage discussants to review the coverage in the LA Times, which has been extensive, before commenting.) ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make it out like anybody who disagrees with you is a rank idiot who knows nothing at all about the topic. I've been following the 2024/2028 bid fairly closely, I just never edited the article. pbp 04:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move immediately to Los Angeles bid for the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics: That title honors the fact that LA bid on the 2024 Games, and bid (of sorts) for the 2028 Games, which will be awarded to them. Because it's now a near-certainty that LA will bid for and receive the 2028 Games, there should be an article about the 2028 bid...but there is zero need for two separate articles as the 2028 bid is a virtual carbon copy of the 2024 one. The claim that L.A. only bid for one games and was awarded a games they didn't bid for seems misleading. pbp 00:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The title also suggests LA submitted two separate bid though two separate bid processes. That's not at all what happened. LA was offered 2028 by the IOC, and the bid is a simple formality, not a competitive bid as 2024 was. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the title would suggest. Two separate bids would be suggested by two separate articles, and, as I noted above, if we had two articles, they'd essentially be duplicates, and therefore are not necessary. pbp 01:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are not two separate bids. The 2024 bid essentially became the 2028 bid. We don't need two articles covering the same process. Therefore, the title needs to reflect both years. Just either one will be factually incorrect. Jmj713 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a week now, and it looks like only DrMargi wants things the way they were. Me, Jmj, PhilipTerryGraham and SuperNintendoChalmers want it as both 2024 and 2028; two IPs want it at 2028 only. I'd have to say consensus is in favor of 2024 and 2028. pbp 00:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: consensus is not a vote. Consensus is about agreement. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even with Jojhutton's vote below, there's certainly no consensus for the title at present, Drmargi. pbp 04:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Burden is on you to gain consensus for the move, and you haven't got it. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Move The article is about the "bid" for the 2024 Olympics. LA never put in a bid for the 2028 Olympics, so changing the article title would be incorrect.--JOJ Hutton 01:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! The article as it is covers the process accurately. It's about the process, not the outcome. The proposed title mis-represents what actually happened. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – There was only one bid for the 2024 Olympics. The recent IOC decision does not change history. A new article for the 2028 bid should be created. — JFG talk 05:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we did that, we would have two articles that were almost exactly the same, and what's the point of that? pbp 13:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new article would not have to be "almost exactly the same" as the 2024 bid. It would be much shorter, describing the essentials about the venues, and the unusual process that awarded the games to LA in 2028. It would point to the 2024 bid article for historical details of that effort. — JFG talk 17:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing: how would it be a duplicate when it is describing a shorter, and entirely different, sequence of events? We're barely over the starting line with 2028. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of this article is the venues, and the proposed venues for 2028 are exactly the same as for 2024. pbp 18:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So? By that logic, 1934, 1984 and 2028 would all be in one article since they'll use overlapping venues. Venues aren't the determining factor in whether we need two articles. These are substantively separate sequences of events with some overlap, like a Venn diagram. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that 2024 and 2028 is the same process essentially,l not two completely separate unrelated processes. We do not need two articles for the same event. Jmj713 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're treating 2028 as a static event. It's not. A lot is yet to happen. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"A lot is yet to happen" is 100% crystal balling. To say nothing of the fact that the stuff that happens will be happening after the bid process and would be covered by articles other than the bid article. Until stuff starts happening, the 2028 bid is submitting the same venues, and there's no reason to split it from the 2024 bid. ONE ARTICLE for the combined bids. I will not budge one inch in my opinion as to that. pbp 04:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm OMFG, it's nothing close. You need to read up on WP:CRYSTAL; I'm not predicting what will happen or adding assumed information to the article, which would be crystal-balling. It's moronic to assume nothing will happen in the next eleven years, particularly given we know about pending events in the next weeks along, much less suggest we should pretend we don't know that a lot is to come, then make a decision about this article. And try, TRY to argue without throwing in a backhanded insult in the edit summary, however desperate you are to win. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 04:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, you need to get off your OWNership of this article and disparaging and badgering of anybody who doesn't let you do 100% of what you want. You also completely ignored my comment that the stuff that happens...after the bid process...will covered by articles other than the bid article. 11 years of potential changes will not be covered in this article because changes to the plan after the bid don't concern the bid. As for being "desperate to win", I'm not the one who undid two editors' move of this title. You are. You should have been blocked for move-warring. pbp 21:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89 and Drmargi: Please remain WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. @Purplebackpack89: From a procedural standpoint, undoing a move that has not been discussed is standard practice, not an offense. The move-warring happens when the same move is applied again without first gaining consensus, so the only person guilty of move-warring was you.[1] The correct process to obtain consensus on a move proposal is to open a WP:Move request, as was done here by Jmj713. After a week or two of advertising on the relevant articles and discussion in this thread, this debate will be settled by an uninvolved closer. — JFG talk 06:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The bid was for 2024, not 2028. Despite the wording and posturing, ultimately LA lost this bid, but as a result of it was awarded the 2028 Olympics. A redirect from Los Angeles bid for the 2028 Summer Olympics should redirect to here and the situation should be clearly explained in the lede. By the time these Olympics occur (admitedly, 11 years away), the main article 2028 Olympics will be by far the most visited/important page and the exact title of the bid page will be much less consequential. Ravendrop 17:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. LA didn't lose; there was effectively a tie and a very poor field for 2028, so LA was offered 2028 because it had had the Olympics twice before and more recently than Paris. Initially, both cities were offered 2028, and both refused, forcing the IOC to indicate a preference and press for LA to take 2028 (LA has a history of bailing out the IOC, which was no doubt a factor). LA's change to 2028 was a negotiated withdrawal from 2024 with a lot of goodies thrown into the deal. That said, you make a very good point about what will be important long-term and the need for a separate 2028 article to capture what happens from here. We're only at the starting line, and given Eric Garcetti's energy and enthusiasm, there will be a lot to add to the article over time. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 2028 Bid Process should have its own page, no matter how short the process was. LA didn't lose. Both Paris and LA were given the option of 2028. Per press release, LA has to "drop out" and re submit 2028 plans and sign 2028 city contract. --Redspork02 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't create an article on the 2028 bid without copy from or referencing the 2024 bid. You just can't. It can't be done. pbp 22:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Just start the 2028 bid page from the events in March 2017 with the comision and end with the vote in Lima in September 2017. Leave all previous events in the 2024 bid page. Redspork02 (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know if you don't try? ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Redspork02: Why March 2017? L.A. was continuing to bid for 2024 and not 2028 past March. One of the inherent problems about making this two articles instead of one is that ANY place you split between the two articles is arbitrary. pbp 15:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: that is when the IOC executive committee met to discuss double year bid for the last two remaining candidates. LA is the exclusive bid city for 2028. It will have to submit a new adjusted bid. all new guarantees from the city (which just happened). and The IOC "vote" will be in September for 2024 and 2028. --Redspork02 (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

August 9 LA Times article

[edit]

I have re-added, albeit with slightly different wording, a sentence about the report before the LA City Council that was published this week in the Los Angeles Times. I believe mentioning this report is appropriate, as the article is primarily paraphrased rather than, as another edit puts it, "plagiarized" pbp 15:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to review the history of plagiarism in this article. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's it plagiarizing? Give me a diff, give me a link. Else "plagiarism" is just a weasel word. pbp 16:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first paragraph of the source and compare. It's fixed now, so no need to keep chipping at me. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second source for August 11, 2017 LA City Council Vote

[edit]

I have re-added a second source for the August 11, 2017 LA City Council Vote. Two sources are better than one. Besides, we've got plenty of sources from the L.A. Times, and some sources from elsewhere would probably do this article good. The source I added is from Southern California Public Radio/KPCC (the local NPR affiliate and assuredly a reliable source), where I learned of the vote yesterday. pbp 14:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Summer 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) 11:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Los_Angeles_bid_for_the_2024_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1207416316"