User talk:Cm1ij

Paste from 'Response to Response' on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scorpion0422) for completeness of discussion record on this page...

Just wondering why you undid my edit of the 2020 Olympics page on 12 June. The edit was appropriately directed to the identification of criteria - namely the fundamental principles of the IOC Olympic Charter - which bid cities are required to abide by. If you haven't read the Olympic Charter then follow the footnote reference link which I added to the post. Reference to the fundamental principles of the Olympic Charter is important encyclopaedic knowledge which is informative for the 2020 Olympics entry, irrespective of whatever prejudices people may hold. Please explain your actions. I shall delay reversion of the page back to my edit until I hear from you. Cm1ij (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Response

"Potential bidding cities located in countries where homosexuality is illegal, such as Delhi in India, Doha in Qatar, and Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, or where other forms of discrimination exist, may encounter difficulties in securing selection from the International Olympic Committee (IOC), as the 'Fundamental Principles' of the IOC Olympic Charter provides that: “The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind.” And further, that: “Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.”[1] Athletes such as diving Gold Medalist Matthew Mitcham, who acknowledged his homosexuality publicly just before the 2008 Beijing Olympics,[2] would be at risk of imprisonment or the death penalty should an Olympic Games be held in a country where homosexuality was illegal. Such athletes may consequently not be able to participate in such an Olympic Games. This situation may amount to a form of discrimination which is discordant with the fundamental principles of the Olympic movement as stipulated in the Olympic Charter"

Tad dramatic, is it not? All it is is using the charter to bad mouth bids from other nations and make exaggerated claims. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It says Olympians who go to those countries may be executed... Uh... Huh. Take your exaggerations to a blog, this is an encyclopedia. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's just not needed in the article. Yes, the IOC has an anti-descrimination policy, but that's not very relevant in the article right now. If one of those cities becomes a finalist, then it might be, but right now the page should be kept to bid information. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to your response posted here as there is some factor preventing posting on your talk page... So...

I disagree that the edit is dramatic or that it purports to bad mouth bids from countries who maintain discriminatory laws. The edit uses Matthew Mitcham as but ONE example of an athlete whose Olympic participation MAY be compromised if the Games were awarded to a country with discriminatory laws. I don't think this is a dramatic point that I am making... it is a legal point; and perhaps a political one. But I didn't write the Olympic Charter. The Charter uses the words "fundamental principles" and "Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind." In fact the Australian Olympic Committee incorporates these anti-discrimination principles into their Constitution at paras 4.4 and 4.5 of the constitution. (http://corporate.olympics.com.au/files/30/SR_Constitution_21June07.pdf)

Continued further...

The Canadian Olympic Committee does the same: referring to principles of fairness and equality. (http://www.olympic.ca/en/about/canadian-olympic-committee/values/) I haven't researched the Indian, Qatari or Malaysian Olympic Committee constitutions as yet... but they may state similarly. The uses of the words imprisonment and death penalty may seem inflammatory; but again all I am stating is the legal fact that imprisonment and the death penalty are the legal consequences to homosexual acts in countries such as India, Qatar and Malaysia. There is absolutely no way that the IOC could require of its Olympic Athletes - some of whom, such as Matthew Mitcham, are gay - that they put their lives at risk in participating in an Olympic Games in a country with discriminatory laws. Such action by the IOC could result in legal challenges, at least, or boycotts from many nations. I am sure that Canada, whose laws are much more progressive than those in Australia, would at least consider boycotting an Olympic Games held in Delhi India, for example, consequent to any lobbying by Amnesty International Toronto (http://www.aito.ca/lgbt/lgbt.html). The Canadian Constitution may be cited to support a boycott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Canada#Constitutional_framework).

These factors may have contributed to the reasons why Qatar's bid for the 2016 Games failed, even though their bid scored more highly than Rio's.

I can see your point of view that the language may seem dramatic or inflammatory... But the point is purely a legal point to highlight that the IOC will unlikely compromise their own "fundamental principles" when considering which city to award the Olympic Games to. I think this an important encyclopaedic point which can be incorporated into each of the future Olympic Games wiki pages. Perhaps there is a way to frame this point so that it appears less dramatic to those who may be sensitive the forcefulness of the language used, albeit that they may agree with the penalties of imprisonment and death for homosexual acts. Though, such compromise seems a little hypocritical to me... but I do have capacity to understand concealed bigotry. I am not decrying the Indian or Qatari or Malaysian people their sovereign right to determine their own domestic laws and the pace at which they may reform their domestic laws to embrace equality; but I am saying that such countries cannot expect success in being awarded the most important international sporting and cultural event of the modern era whilst maintaing discriminatory laws which are discordant with the fundamental principles of the IOC. Such a point is appropriate to highlight on an important reference source such as is Wikipedia.

Non-discriminatory principles are a CRITERION for a bid city seeking the games... and it is appropriate that these principles be cited on Wikipedia.

You have to remember that the page is just supposed to be a small list of potential bid cities. Even if rules are against them, they are listed (for example, bids shared between two nations are not allowed). I just think at this point to have a large section like that is undue weight and not necessary (especially considering that it isn't mentioned at the 2016 page). Now, if a bid went through, it probably should be mentioned on that nation's specific bid page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re 2016 Olympics

I did not think it necessary to edit the 2016 Olympics wiki page or 2012, nor that of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver for 2010, or Sochi for 2014, as none of the countries hosting the Games, or bidding for the right to host the 2016 Olympics, maintains discriminatory laws against women or homosexuals. The bid cities for 2016 are Chicago USA, Madrid Spain, Rio Brazil and Tokyo Japan, none of which criminalize homosexuality. This is not the situation for potential bid candidates for the 2020 Olympics. I am not flustered whether my particular edit remains or not, but I do think that mention of non-discriminatory principles is important as one the criteria for bid selection. Perhaps a new para or heading can be inserted bearing the title "Criteria" or "Criteria for Candidacy". A criterion is a principle or standard by which something may be judged. Setting out criterion is informative. Cm1ij (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

2020 Olympics wiki page

Further, the page concerns the 2020 Olympics... and all matters relating to that future Olympics are appropriately referenced to such page. If the page was entitled only "List of Candidate Cities for 2020 Olympics" then I would accept your view that the page is "just supposed to be a small list of 'potential' bid cities." Cm1ij (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

An opinion

Please consider this as not supporting either way yet but I am leaning towards including it though not in that form. I have removed it from WP:3O and notified Scorpion. I was going to say that most of that information be under the parent bidding process article but I can't find it or it doesn't exist. This page will eventually become just about the bidding so it's probably worth mentioning but imo it would be much better with a sourced statement either from an athlete, organisation or country. Also if there has been any other historical examples as to how such potential problems are dealt with (ie. special exemptions) including that would be good.

I'd agree the statement was a bit dramatic. Proabably start off with what the charter says then x countries have laws against homosexuality and the usual punishment and be aware of crossing the line on original research. There's no real need to mention an athlete by name unless they have made a statement about it.

Please take further discussions to the article's talk page under a new section so other users can find it easily. RutgerH (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well welcome then. First off remember I'm just another editor like yourself, I just saw your 3O open and thought I'd look at it as it was quite old. It's still too much original research regarding how the charter is or should be applied and what is needed is a decent source speaking about it whether that's an athlete, prominent LGBT campaigner or other trusted source. I've tried searching for any statements or other information on this but I can't find anything relevant on the charter or the bids in those countries (especially as Qatar bid for 2016) so if you can please let us know. RutgerH (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to your "basiji militiaman" comment here, I'd just like to point out that I have found in my past experiences that tagging edits really does nothing (they sit there for months and nobody touches them, until either the tag or the statement is removed). I am a strong believer in WP:BURDEN, that the editor who adds a statement should make sure it conforms to all guidelines before adding it. I saw a barely sourced POVish statement that stated a living person could be executed, so I removed it. Now, to address your last statement, "but if others are to summarily delete genuine attempts at an edit based on their prejudices". That is way out of line, when have I ever shown any evidence of prejudice? Why do people automatically assume that because someone removed an edit relating to homosexuality, it must be because they are homophobic? It's an encyclopedia, my goal is to help build high quality articles, nothing more, nothing less. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Copied from WP:EAR

Copied here for your convenience. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistance?

Thought an edit to the 2020 Olympics wiki page was appropriate... another thought not... Please refer to complete discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cm1ij

Any thoughts from anyone? Cm1ij (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems like your trying to include a political topic that most people, I would think, would not think particularly relevant to the article. It also smacks somewhat of original research. While it's fun to think about these things, we really have no idea how the charter and legalities of host countries will interact. --C S (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)