Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 04:59, 6 February 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep, discussion about improving the article can take place on the talk page as needed. Bencherlite 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Misplaced Pages is not the newspaper. This article is full of trivia, such as the security company not getting enough security guards, a grandmother getting in trouble for trademark infringement, and Beijing making a stink because a London neighbourhood association put on a flag display that included the flag of the Chinese government. A few of these bits likely deserve to be mentioned in the article on the Games or in sub-articles; e.g., the bottle-thrower at an athletics event might get mentioned in the article on the event. However, there's so much unnecessary newspaperish detail here that copying information from this page would result in undue weight in those pages, and we need not keep a page for attribution purposes when its information is included elsewhere in completely different words. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The Olympics is a large and complex event. Thus, it inevitably gives rise to a host of controversies and concerns on political, athletic, financial, socio-economic and other issues that would not fit into the main article. For that very reason we have articles on Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics and Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics. Most of the issues listed are not "trivia" but legitimate controversies and concerns which received significant media attention. Nyttend, if you have a concern with the content of the article, why haven't you participated in its talk page discussions? If you have, my apologies for not noticing or responding to your concerns. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• My concern is the existence of the article, which I just discovered. I object to its existence because it's purely news events and thus a violation of a substantial portion of the WP:NOT policy. You make my point exactly — these incidents are appearing in the news media, and that's because they, unlike we, are concentrated primarily on reporting the news. Why does an encyclopedia need to mention the allegedly trademark-infringing grandmother? Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nyttend, NOTNEWS applies to ephemeral news stories that evaporate out of public consciousness after a few days. Can you really say that every controversy or concern listed in that article meets that description? I think a number of those concerns will be discussed for years to come and will affect planning for future Olympiads. Cla68 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and clean out the crap. There is undoubtedly a whole load of stuff in there not much greater that tabloid journalism that can either be ditched or removed to the various nation or event articles, however there are also issues in there worthy of mention that became too long to be included in the main 2012 Summer Olympics article and so came here as a necessary WP:SPINOFF. The type of cleanup needed tends to occur on these articles (at least it did for equivalent 2008 & 2010 articles) once the Games are over and the media, and everyone else, have calmed down a bit - Basement12 (T.C) 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: If we can have Concerns and controversies related to UEFA Euro 2012 for a much smaller event we surely have enough details for an article on the blooming Olympics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.79 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think it needs to be a rule that anyone who comments on this article's merits, should at least know the subject matter it refers to. I only got as far as the first line, "This article is full of trivia, such as the security company not getting enough security guards", before I nearly fell off my seat laughing. G4S's failure to provide enough guards was a huge issue. It generated huge amounts of public debate, massive amounts of media coverage, and statements from all sorts of high offices, which even generated its own side controversy over some less than well thought out comments on it from a certain US Presidential candidate. It was even debated in Parliament. And that's before we mention the real world consequences for the company itself, the world's largest private security provider (which included a trip by the CEO to said Parliament, for a very public humiliation). Actually I probably will have to mention them - the stock crashed and they gave up bidding rights on some future global events. Anyone who has done any research on the subject, and yet can still claim that this event was trivial, is a liar quite frankly. Don't be fooled by the section's size, that's a mere product of Misplaced Pages's complete lack of any editors who are able to remain here long enough to put some quality work in, in the face of having to deal with editors like, well, you can see if you look at the talk page. All I'll say is I'm surprised it hasn't been removed yet for being a BLP violation against the company's CEO. The G4S debacle was arguably the biggest controversy of the games, or is at least tied for the title with the seats issue and the perennial brand protection/sponsor broohaahaa. I will not vote either way because that would give unwarranted legitimacy to this clearly unresearched proposal, but I nonetheless condemn it. FerrerFour (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and Move. While there may be in need of some work, there is no question about the notability of the article. It should probably be moved to Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics to follow the same naming scheme of similar articles. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 02:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see here for the existing discussion on the page move. Sport and politics (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - it's a good article, albeit can use some cutting out of unimportant/unnotable "controversies." We have these types of articles for other Olympics as well, see Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics. --Activism1234 03:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure we have that article and others--but the major concerns over China's human right abuses, air pollution, media censorship etc. are of obvious importance, whereas a drunk guy getting helped into a cab or a bunch of empty seats are not. Now, the question is how much is left after the tripe has been cut. At any rate, the argument (you're not the only one to make it, of course) of "but those articles exist" doesn't help much. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think it'd be possible to cut this out while the Olympics continue, due to the # of editors who will be on the article and saying they feel that X is important. I think that maybe a week after the Olympics, we should list "controversies" like a drunk guy as you said on the talk page, and hold a vote on whether to delete or keep, and whoever says keep needs to have a good reason, such as notability, and prove that. While the argument that X exists so Y should isn't a good one, and should be avoided, I mentioned it because they're both on the same topic and seem to be a recurring series every 4 years. --Activism1234 01:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh, I understand your argument--I'm merely trying to point out that this is the kind of article whose existential validity may not be able to be decided on some inherent factor, but that it has to be established based on what's in the article itself. I'm quite on the fence, by the way, and I think your point, that there's maybe too many editors active to decide on it now, is well-taken. I think this is headed for a non-consensus, and a month from now we'll weed it out. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - In a year most of the information provided in this article will be of little or no use historically. The 2012 Summer Olympics is not yet even over there is no way this article is fair, balanced or neutral. Misplaced Pages is not a end all of everything. It is not for news but an encyclopedia as noted above. There is some good information in this article and in time the more accurate perspective will filter out the news media BS and propaganda. Then the article should be re-written. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The framing of the topic is inherently negative, contrary to core policy. If an issue about this event is significant then it should be in the main article. If the main article is too full then topics should be split off in a neutral way. So, for example, the G4S matter is best covered in a neutral article about security arrangements for these games and we actually have one — Security for the 2012 Summer Olympics. We should not cover the matter in a controversies article too because that will, by its nature, bring together other unrelated sub-topics that have been cherry-picked because they have some negative or sensationalist spin. Note also that we don't ever seem to get counter-balancing articles with a positive spin - articles which cherry-pick praise, success and things which went right. This further demonstrates the lack of balance and neutrality. Warden (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would agree if the article was Criticisms of the 2012 Olympic Games, but the article isn't inherently negative about the Games itself, I agree that much should be split out though. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Controversy seems to mean negative criticism - what else could it be? Just look at the sections:

The protection of the Olympic brand has been the subject of some criticism.

There has been criticism that companies that produce junk food...

The IOC and LOCOG have drawn criticism for accepting ...

The decision ... was challenged in court ...

A complaint by the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine ...

It's just a catalogue of complaints and criticisms. Misplaced Pages is not the IOC complaints department. Warden (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Lots of silliness to be had, sure, but there's plenty of events of note in here; what isn't kept could be reconciled with the pages of the respective subjects. DodgerOfZion (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Bring in line with wikipedia standards of course. This is a very important topic which deserves its own article. Unfortunately some of the previous olympics do not have such an article and a huge chunk of information that had defined some of those olympics has been "lost". Vanyagor (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. I have already removed quite a bit from this, and there is much more that probably needs to go (or be moved). The Opening Ceremony section, for example, is all either non-notable or should be covered in the Opening Ceremony article itself. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. This looks like a legitimate spin-off from the 2012 Olympics articles series. Although some aspects can also be accommodated in other articles, it makes sense to bundle them together. And to avoid unnecessary junk creeping in, perhaps we should agree on inclusion criteria.--A bit iffy (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per A Bit Iffy and Cla68. I think some clear guidelines as to what this article hopes to achieve would be useful, and there is no doubt the IOC and future Olympic hosts will have to consider some of the issues discussed in the article for future Games, so the topic has longevity. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as per DodgerOfZion lot of notable information, along with a lot of rubbish. Cleanup tag would be more appropriate. (Natt39 (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC))
• Keep - "Controversies" is a subjective concept, but the narrow time focus makes limitation and navigation of inclusion standards here possible and thus encyclopedic, whereas something like a broad List of Olympics controversies would not be. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• comment it will take a huge clean up effort, but once the next few weeks have passed and attention died down, it looks like it would be possible to create a decent article (once someone has gone through with a chainsaw and eliminated probably 80% of the current dross) -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • delete without prejudice for recreation the best method to get to an actual article from the current state will be to nuke and start over. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Snow keep. I originally attempted to apply this as a closure myself, but someone apparently believes that there is infact, more than a snow ball's chance of this nomination succeeding, and has reversed it. Makes you wonder whether to play the lottery tomorrow or not. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There were some valid arguments for deletion (BTW: I favour retention) so due process should have been permitted).—A bit iffy (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete It's an out of control hotbed of complaining and whining. A home for Olympic Games opponents. Nothing useful will ever come of it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not to object to your personal opinion, but who exactly would be an opponent of the Olympics, and why? --Activism1234 23:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • They're usually not hard to find in the city and country hosting the Games. (Although maybe not Beijing. Protesting there is not quite so easy.) They usually have objections to the amount of money being spent, or the negative impact on citizens moved out of the way, or the politics of those running them, or sporting administrators in general, or... HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • CommentNot everyone writing on there is an opponent of the Olympics. I, for, example wrote about the bottle throwing incident because it was an attempted disruption of a Men's 100m final and because it was funny that he happend to be sat next to a Dutch Bronze Medalist who hit him. There are some important points on there that have to be documented as they were for the Beijing games. Admittedly there is also a lot of crap on there which needs to be removed. (Natt39 (talk))
      • CommentThe same is true for me. I watch the Olympics when I eat my lunch as well, for every day since the start of the Olympics (excluding Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). I am by no means an opponent of the Olympics, and I have contributed somewhat to the article. A controversy at the Olympics, such as a person throwing a bottle, does not mean bias against the Olympics or the people in charge of the Olympics... Certainly not in my case. And I don't live in England either (nor Beijin, nor any city that has hosted it). --Activism1234 23:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
        • My post did not say, nor even suggest that every contributor to the article was an Olympic Games opponent. But those who are have clearly been attracted to it. That it attracts so much garbage as well as some possible sensible content is the problem. I still don't see throwing a bottle as a controversy though. It's just dramatic, possibly unacceptable behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
          • CommentTheres no possibly about it but this isn't the place to have that argument. Most of the major sporting events of the past few years have such a page including the 2008 Summer Games, the 2010 Football world cup, 2012 European Football Championships and the 2010 Olympic Games need I go on? It needs cleaning up but theres really no reason to go against the norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natt39 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • A few points for the sake of factual accuracy:
        1. The Olympics were bid for by Labour, but are now being run by the Conservatives. Both parties are therefore pretty chuffed about it, and it's hard to find any real political opposition to this stance now. There are activists against it, but they are activists, it's their job to be against stuff (no offence, Activist1234)
        2. Nobody was displaced to make room for these Olympics. Correction - a group of allotments was moved, creating the sum total of one newspaper story if I recall.
        3. Lord Coe, organiser of the London 2012 games, is very well liked by most of the country, and his popularity has only increased thanks to the actual success of the games, both in a sporting as well as socio/economic/feelgood/organisational/national prestige sense
        4. Of all things that people have been moaning about in the UK regarding the games, which is after all not unusual as moaning is sort of a national sport in itself, the cost has actually featured very little. Perhaps because the scaremongers about it being a white elephant that would never make a profit were proved wrong if not a few weeks before it kicked off, then certainly once it was under way
        • HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Wow I really do need to change my name... Too many people thinking I'm part of an organization or something, when my intention was to say I hope (and I am) active on Misplaced Pages, as an editor. Something like "Rasulalalala" would probably be better... Just gives off the wrong impression. --Activism1234 02:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - As a group, it appears clear that controversies at this year's Olympics have received coverage meeting WP:GNG. Deleting the page would probably be less work than managing that madhouse and going through the likely merry-go-round of discussion of what should be included, but that does not mean that deleting the page is the correct action. Semi-protecting the article until the population of upset fans dwindles may help expedite the pruning required for this article to be improved. VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is notable and has enough coverage. --Sofffie7 (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly what IS the subject? The word "controversy" has been very loosely defined by some contributors. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Controversy. Noun: Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. What other definitions are there? HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Some have argued that it's not up to us to define it, and if a newspaper anywhere says it's a controversy, then we must report it as such. I'm certainly not comfortable with that approach. But I am pleased to see the use of the word prolonged in your definition. On that basis, this article probably shouldn't exist yet. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. That's not my definition, it's from a dictionary, therefore it *should* be the most widely understood use of the term. Although I cannot think of any reason why a newspaper would use the word to mean something different that that, just like they wouldn't use the words 'good' or 'wrong' in different ways to ordinary people either. It strikes me that the dictionary definition is getting very little air time in this whole debate, and the many people here do infact want to make up their own definition for Misplaced Pages, judging by all this talk of inclusion criteria. Nothing wrong with that of course, particularly when it's objective (such as only listing footbally players with 100 appearances), but when it's based on subjectivity, it can only end in conflict and an article that many people won't think is a quality piece of work. I would humbly suggest that expecting a newspaper to use the term, would be very objective inclusion standard. Although that of course doesn't take into account national biases, what the American press might call controversial, the Chinese press might not, and vice versa. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Having a subarticle on controversies is what is keeping these topics from having an undue weight on the main article page. People will always want to add a few controversies to an article, because people perceive these issues to be important and notable. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • So it's the article for the garbage we don't want in the main article? Interesting perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It's the article for the less important things that we would prefer not to clutter up the main page, that people always like to add, and happens to pertain to a particular topic category. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Who are these "people"? Just because some people (or one people?) want to add stuff doesn't automatically justify its inclusion in Misplaced Pages. I learnt that on my first day of editing here. I'm a "people" too, and I might have a different opinion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep but it needs a massive clean-up. For example IMO athletes being sent home for breaking team rules is procedure not controversy, referees making mistakes happens in pretty much every game in some sports (football/soccer), one fan *possibly* doing a Nazi salute - really? The fact that this is my opinion is the other problem, if people want something to be a controversy they'll find a source for it somewhere given the ammount of media attention the Olympics get and that each nation will have news sources that cry foul over the slightest thing which doesn't go their countries way. There doesn't appear to be any defined requirement for inclusion, and some controversies (e.g. McDonalds sponsership, Hotel prices) seem to occur every Olympics, so perhaps would be better off in an article about long-term controversies anyway. BulbaThor (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, from a member of the general community, not an active participant of the Wiki. I personally don't like trawling through bullshit journalism to find information; it's nice to see a (relatively) reliable, unbiased, comprehensive collection of the controversies. Enough of the bull, it's a single page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.8.87 (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This article documents the events happening behind the scenes of a historic event. Currently, the only sources listed are news sources only because this is a current event. That's not a good reason for deleting it. Deleting the article would be censorship. USchick (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep- usefully documents the disgraceful behaviour of the Argentines over the Falklands and the appalling attitude of the People's Republic of China, and their attempts to isolate the peaceful island of Taiwan Trains in Space (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep ...it follows on the heels of Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics and no doubt, when the heat dies down, there will be things that can be edited out as mere 'trivia' and run-of-the-mill 'concerns'. The current article is well sourced and has generally been agreed after much discussion about the content, on the Talk page. It would be completely impractical to combine this information on the main article about the games and it is common practise to create separate sub-articles where they are warranted. Sionk (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No, the content has not generally been agreed after much discussion. One editor dominated proceedings for some time, with the goal of keeping everything no matter what, and abusing the crap out of anyone with a different view. He has now been blocked. It's time to clean up. That discussion is now under way at the article's Talk page. Please join in. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think you're exagerating slightly. A lot of editors have been involved in the discussions. But I agree, if a prominent participant has been blocked for persistent abuse (I can probably guess which one) that allows everyone else the chance to sort out things amicably. Sionk (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm new to all this but the consensus seems to be overwhelmingly leaning towards Keep and prune the crap, so can we call this? (Natt39 (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC))
  • Yep, but see my response to the post immediately above. Please come and help with the pruning. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: This article highlights some important issues regarding preparation and organization of the Olympics games and delete proposer's argument at most can justify a cleanup rather than a delete. Jacob-Dang 02:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobDang (talk • contribs)
• Keep Just like Olympic Games scandals and controversies, it shows the flaws, protests and suspensions of the players in the Olympics. TruPepitoM (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The inclusion criteria may be all over the place but the article contains much that is important and valid as related to the games. What is needed is an agreement as to just what to include. Deleting is throwing baby out with the bath water.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and clean-up/improve – Per WP:PRESERVE. Many of the topics in the article have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000 12:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and clean-up. I would definitely keep it; those controversial events are part of the Olympics. Besides, as the poster above pointed out, many topics in this page are supported by reliable sources. Gnayshkr3020 (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like it's snowing in the Olympic Park today. Lugnuts (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep with additions Add in the NBC stuff to boot. That stuff is relevant to the article.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Some of the items are trivia for deletion. Most of the controversies should be sections of other articles: those about the events, or the sports, or the security, or whatever. But this article should still exist as a list of them with summaries and crosslinks. Concerns about framing or undue emphasis are spurious: it's a legitimate cross-section of a very varied subject, and the framing is overt (in the article's name) not insidious or weaselly. jnestorius 19:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The basic topic is fine, even though the article needs to be better written. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. We have controversy articles for the 2008 and 2010 Olympics, so why not this one? If it needs to be cleaned up, some competition controversies could be merged with their respective event articles (e.g. just like the section "Men's team artistic gymnastics judging" was also included in that article). Illneedasaviour (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Snow keep per the fact that we a looking at a puddle here. If I were the OP I would withdraw. Continuing this is pointless and so borderline disruptive. →Yaniv256 _contribs 22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.