Misplaced Pages

Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:31, 8 November 2012 editAndromedean (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,179 editsm →Technologies in Track Cycling← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:34, 31 August 2024 edit undoDukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,798 edits →top 
(93 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Not a forum}} {{Not a forum}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{Old AfD multi|page=Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics|date=10 August 2012|result='''keep'''}}
{{circles|search=no}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| 1=
{{talk header}}
{{WikiProject Olympics|importance=high}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell | 1=
{{WikiProject Olympics|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Sports}}
{{WikiProject Sports|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject London|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject London|class=C|importance=high}} {{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=c|importance=high}} {{WikiProject 2010s|importance=low}}
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 17: Line 18:
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index }} {{Archives |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months }}
{{Old AfD multi|page=Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics|date=10 August 2012|result='''keep'''}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}} }}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
== Technologies in Track Cycling ==
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-23">23 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-10">10 December 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. Peer reviewers: ].

:'''Warning: Someone has attempted to hide this section after only 1 week of discussion, neither has the other editor who is dissatisfied with the premature closure of the dispute resolution been given a chance to respond yet (his board suggests no activity on Misplaced Pages since the 3rd November) please respect the view that others have lives outside Misplaced Pages and may take considerable time to respond!''' Please ensure it remains clearly visible for at least 3 months, and don't try to remove or hide the article or the talk page! May I also suggest that previously uninvolved editors who have no intention of factual input, refrain from this article. It is not Misplaced Pages policy to take account of views of those who don't attempt to justify them through rational argument! Milbourne and HiLo were not involved in the DRN and the latter one was asked to leave by the volunteer for disruptive behaviour.

I have applied to Dispute Resolution for this article, please keep the article its present location until the situation is resolved. --] (]) 08:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please though do not assume that this means your versions is the "accepted" version of this article. ] (]) 17:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

: Consensus reached for replacement prose. Some remaining wording discussion to be referred back to article talkpage. Participants are commended for civil collaboration! Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

: Now it has been changed I will respect the decision of the DRN volunteer to include the current recently edited version as a starting point for further discussion, however please note that the DRN was closed prematurely without any agreement from showmebeef (or explicit agreement from myself). Therefore as the consensus interpretation doesn't conform to the evidence, showmebeef is entirely within his rights to change it to a version he believes is suitable. For the time being I will refrain from changing it in case anyone has any rational counterargument to the following points. If they don’t I will resume editing, and expect others to respect that decision.

: I shall take each point in turn

: I have just noticed this outrageous and deliberate attempt to completely change the meaning of a quote from
: ''But is Boardman not concerned that '''this high-tech warfare''' will put some countries at a disadvantage? "Well, I'd like to think so," he laughs. "We haven't done our job if they're not."''
: has been written as
: '':When asked if '''the British team''' will put some countries at a disadvantage, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, Chris Boardman replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."''
:obviously all implication of technology has been removed. What greater evidence of deception by the editor do we need? It is just incredible this was allowed! --] (]) 20:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

:'': All bicycle and equipment were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use.''

:Strictly speaking Chris Boardman said this, so should we precede the statement with - Chris Boardman said that “All bicycle and equipment were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use.” it also clarifies we are including further statements from the British side to provide relevent balance.

:'':Joe Lindsey of Bicycling magazine stated that the spirit of equal footing had been broken.''

:Conversely, we need to state or summarise what the regulation actually says “Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine" so this doesn’t just look like the speculative opinion of a blogger. This is one area I feel very strongly about which I never conceded in the DRN.

:''Bryan Coquard supported the British''
:This is rather misleading, he supported Chris Boardman’s view that technology was a factor:

:''"he Australians didn't race cohesively."''

:This is somewhat irrelevant to the article. The main issue (regarding suitability of quotes to avoid synthesis) should be if technological differences between the bikes/helmets/setup etc. used by the teams were likely to give any team an advantage, either absolutely or relatively. This is no place for speculative claims on the competence of teams. This effect may, or may not have, been additional to technology

:'':Home advantage was given as a possible reason for the British performance with Omnium gold medalist Laura Trott stating: "I just got going and the crowd just drove me home." ''

:Considerable synthesis is also used by including this quote, and should be removed for the same reason. Home advantage may or may not have been additional to technology, but it doesn’t affect any advantage that technology could have provided. However, there is no evidence that home advantage was significant to cycling relative performance between Beijing 2008 the UCI world cycling championships and in Manchester UK earlier in the year. It also distracts from the technology issue and provides unwarranted balance.

:This quote should be replaced by

:'':"The British team stress that performance is achieved through ‘marginal gains’ in many areas, including training, preparation and home support in the case of the London Olympics"''

:this paragraph should be re-inserted for further clarification that technology advantage is an important factor in the British team’s strategy.
''
:"''British Cycling is well funded through its national lottery, and are secretive about the various technologies adapted from Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats ''''"--] (]) 08:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

::I see no appetite for this to be discussed again, please let this go. This issue has been discussed to death. If you still have disagreements with this section of the article please take it to mediation. This issue has been discussed to death and re-opening this discussion is disruptive to the article and this talk page. For the record i disagree with every single point you have made above and this has been discussed to death already. Please take this to mediation if you wish to discuss this further. and there have been compromises on all sides, no side got everything they wanted please just accept one side got some of what it wanted, the other side got some of what it wanted. Agreement was reached leave it at that, or it will simply be seen as wholly unnecessary disruption. --] (]) 09:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

::: You say Consensus has been reached. It is repeated false claims such as this which confirms my suspicions, since I know, you know, this isn't true and it makes me even more deeply unsatisfied with the outcome.

::: After a highly promising start to the DRN in which the volunteer confirmed what I had been tirelessly trying to point out to you for more than two months, it was inexplicably closed prematurely with a version quite at odds with two out of the four of us. It is true I suggested that a '''temporary''' 'intermediate' version chosen by the volunteer was placed on the Misplaced Pages site whilst we sorted the DRN (That's what I meant). I think he simply left 88*s choice which myself and Showmebeef had shown strong reservations against. I was just trying to be helpful.
::: You know full well that there are issues to tidy up. It remains my responsibility to ensure that the article conforms to the published facts without being misleading. In addition myself and 88* agreed that the UCI rule should be entered, and I doubt if showmebeef would disagree with that, so why start another edit war? --] (]) 23:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

::::As I have said previously if you wish to re-open and re-discuss this then please take it to mediation. Compromises were made on all sides and claims being made that there was "no consensus" is vague and being used misleadingly. There was very very strong consensus that the version before the DRN case was opened was not fit for purpose, was misleading, biased and a violation of BLP policies. This version is not perfect but drop the dead horse flogging as it is disruptive. The claim "It remains my responsibility to ensure that the article conforms to the published facts without being misleading." is simply not true and is making out as if you are the articles owner. You are also making treats which is uncivil such as "why start another edit war?". It also implies you are going to attempt to foiseter your unwanted unwarranted biased POV on this article by cherry-picking and synthesising sources, such as selectively quoting Bernard Cocquard, to make out he was holding the opposite opinion to what his actual opinion was. ] (]) 16:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

::::: I was advised not to take it to Mediation before discussing it here first. However, I agree that progress is unlikely whilst you persist with your usual attitude. Now please show me, where did I personally agree to that second version ]?

::::: With regards to Showmebeef he made his view plain here on his talk page.''Andromedean: let it be clear that I have not agreed to the version that 88 has put there on the page, not even close! I thought we were still debating various topics. Even on the discussion on "home advantage" issue, I have made my concession and made the suggestion I could accept. 88 countered with a different version which I haven't consented to. Personally I'm rather disappointed, to say the least, with 88's rush to put this version on the main page without a final roll call. Showmebeef (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)''

::::: Now there were only four of us, so that is two out of four. Looking more closely even you didn't agree as far as I can tell from the text! So which part of the concept of '''no consensus''' don't you understand? Even amadscientist who seemed to be misled about the consensus still suggested there were ''some remaining wording discussion to be referred back to article talkpage.'' so why are you refusing to be reasonable?--] (]) 19:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

::::::I am not going to play so and so said this and that and the other etc. etc.This is not what Wikiepdia is for, it is not constructive and is not a discussion of anything except the ego of Andromodean. As has clearly been demonstrated by the volume of space taken up by this discussion, it is pointless to continue discussing it. It is time to disengage at let it go. Push your POV and bias somewhere else away from Misplaced Pages. If you are intent on continuing this discussion take it to mediation otherwise stop disrupting Misplaced Pages and this article. ] (]) 20:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

::::::: I have no wish to play games, and always try to stick to the hard facts, and am as sick to death as anyone though your behaviour. I have long realised that there is little point in negotiating with you, since you will happily argue 'black is white' all day either for partisan or ideological reasons, as indeed you have. I just needed to demonstrate to any unbiased person looking in how unreasonable you are before I attempt to change anything or go to the next step. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::::The above "scheming" demonstrates the lack of willingness to put Misplaced Pages first and yourself second. You do not try to stick to hard facts you cherry-pick and in some cases wholly misrepresent them. The line "I just needed to demonstrate to any unbiased person looking in how unreasonable you are before I attempt to change anything", Clearly demonstrates a lack of co-operation, bad faith and a degree of I own this article and I am going to go ahead and impose what I want on this article. Your claims of "any unbiased person" has been torn apart before as no one who disagrees with you is unbiased and only those who agree with you are unbiased from what you have previously demonstrated in past discussions. As I have said if you want to make changes go to mediation where this can be discussed otherwise disengage. There is also a thinly veiled threat of "or go to the next step", what ever that is meant to imply. Your conduct has been bought up by other users before and you have been warned that you are not a perfect editor as you like to make out. You are shooting yourself in the foot by continuing. I suggest you take this to mediation before you make wild and unwarranted changes to this article which have no backing other than from you and potentially one other user. The user below will clearly not be agreeing with your changes and I am highly unlikely to agree with them so you have again got your "no consensus" back. ] (]) 00:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 19:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
::::::::: For the record I am 100% English ethnically, geographically and in any other respect, and have no special interest in cycling, France, the French or any other country. I even supported GB at the athletics stadium. I am also an Engineer a profession which would benefit from the use of Technology in Sport, although I have never been involved in the sporting sector. Therefore, my stance on Misplaced Pages in this article requires a great deal of sacrifice of partisanship on both counts. However, genuine independence of thought and action is surely something surely beyond your comprehension. It's a shame that yourself and some others on Misplaced Pages could not learn from it. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== External links modified ==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::::::::::I am not quite sure what ethnicity, geography or employment has to do with anything, unless you are claiming to be one of these "experts" who is being hounded out by the way Misplaced Pages operates. I am also not sure what you are trying to demonstrate here by saying you are "my stance on Misplaced Pages in this article requires a great deal of sacrifice of partisanship on both counts.". It appears as if you are trying make out what your doing is some how better than everyone else and that your contributions carry more weight. Both of which are a demonstration of Ownership. Also "genuine independence of thought and action" has clearly been demonstrated by the individuals telling you that your horse manure excuse for a "well written section backed up by facts" Is a load of misrepresentative ill-informed biased rubbish. People have stood up top you and torn your POV pushing synthesis to pieces. You can claim all you like about bias and lack of comprehension, but it does your case no good as it shows the lack of co-operation you are engaged in and a sheer in ability to remove you fixed view point which is total crap the TEAM GB are cheats. If you make that claim anywhere in the article or imply it i will report the page for BLP violations, as it is simply untrue. Compromises were made on all sides and now you want to roll them all back and re-insert all the irrelevant and misleading rubbish. As I have said if you want to genuinely make further changes go to mediation otherwise stop the bluster and stop disrupting Misplaced Pages. Your hope others will go away and you can sneak your changes in to the article are not going to happen. ] (]) 09:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::::::::::: I am of the view that weight should depend upon evidence only. I had provided vast quantities of evidence from many sources. You in contrast provided none at all until the DRN, and that snippet on home advantage was largely irrelevant, highly speculative, POV and Synthetic, to use your mantra. I also compromised substantially before entering the POV, removing vast amounts of background material embarrasing to your world view. Yourself in contrast compromised on nothing before the POV. So in addition to using speculative material to sway the view, this made it look as if you were compromising more than I was. I wonder if ever before on Misplaced Pages has so much been achieved with so little evidence?--] (]) 13:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120721030057/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/18/the-debate-have-olympic-sponsorship-regulations-gone-too-far/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/18/the-debate-have-olympic-sponsorship-regulations-gone-too-far/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120727024517/http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/112456-olympic-blunder-sees-north-korea-refuse-to-play-after-wrong-flag-raised/ to http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/112456-olympic-blunder-sees-north-korea-refuse-to-play-after-wrong-flag-raised/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121213152901/http://www.fencingofficials.org/documents/rules/USA%20Fencing%20Rules%20-%20September%202010.pdf to http://fencingofficials.org/documents/rules/USA%20Fencing%20Rules%20-%20September%202010.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120811052707/http://news.sportsseoul.com/read/photomovie/1071001.htm to http://news.sportsseoul.com/read/photomovie/1071001.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::::::::::::It is time to end this discussion in this place, if you wish to continue it either take it to my talk page or go to mediation. This has degenerated in to the usual Andromedean and their POV is perfect and they are perfect and are correct in pushing their synthesis, bias and POV. ] (]) 21:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::::::::::::I agree. I recommend no further response. ] (]) 18:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I still believe the whole item should be removed from the article. Don't try to convince me otherwise. Enough words have been written and enough crap thrown already. ] (]) 07:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:FWIW I support complete removal of the section. ] (]) 19:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::My personal POV is still to have this section removed from the article entirely. In the interests of Wikipeida i worked to improve the section and the consensus at the time was to retain the section in the article. If though consensus is changing to remove the section I fully support complete removal of the section. ] (]) 20:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::: ''i worked to improve the section'' This is nonsense S&P, you don't expect anyone to take that comment seriously! Your only aim has ever been to remove it by whatever means possible. In the absence of any coherent argument you has simply waded through the rule book and invented them. The only reason why you want it removed is for the same reason as the others which have suddenly jumped on here, because you don't like it for partisan/nationalistic reasons. Unfortunately bias is not a reason for removal, neither is it one to dilute the article with propaganda. You must all remember your responsibilities here, this is supposed to be a responsible encyclopaedia and there are plenty of people in favour of maintaining the article, or even strengthening it. I have yet to see anyone mount a viable argument, or even attempt one, against its inclusion, although it clearly has too much false balance and needs to be improved. --] (]) 07:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120731220402/http://www.london2012.com/documents/brand-guidelines/guide-to-protected-games-marks.pdf to http://www.london2012.com/documents/brand-guidelines/guide-to-protected-games-marks.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021015908/http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5314/5048/0/Final20award202422.pdf to http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5314/5048/0/Final20award202422.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305084413/http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5879/5048/0/Award20265820FINAL.pdf to http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5879/5048/0/Award20265820FINAL.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720191254/http://www.london2012.com/about-us/sustainability/food-vision/ to http://www.london2012.com/about-us/sustainability/food-vision/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120811031338/http://ca.news.yahoo.com/7-cameroon-athletes-disappear-london-olympics-sources-204131518--oly.html to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/7-cameroon-athletes-disappear-london-olympics-sources-204131518--oly.html
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130228114959/http://www.london2012.com/ to http://www.london2012.com/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::::Right Andromedean, you have just said about everyone who disagrees with you, "''...you don't like it for partisan/nationalistic reasons''". That is absolute nonsense, for which you have no justification, and it's completely unacceptable behaviour. Drop it now. Your case is lost. ] (]) 07:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Just a note in case anyone is not aware, this article has been through a dispute resolution last month and we were requested to discuss the wording by the volunteer on the talk page, that is what I have attempted to do.--] (]) 12:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
:That may very well be true, but there is now only one editor actively attempting to make any changes, no other user has expressed any support for any changes to be made to the version currently in place that was a result of the Dispute Resolution process. Continued attempts to keep on changing this section are highly disruptive and not in the best interests of Wikipeida. This issue is not going to be edited again as currently a consensus of editors do not want any changes made. If you wish to re-open this discussion please take it to mediation. ] (]) 15:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


== Stop removing sourced content ==
::Quote by Sport and Politics ''no other user has expressed any support for any changes to be made to the version currently in place that was a result of the Dispute Resolution process''. This is the third time you have repeated this lie, despite me clearly showing otherwise, which only proves it is deliberate deception on your part. You must have a very low opinion of Misplaced Pages, and I'm afraid in view of the way your behaviour has been encouraged, I'm beginning to agree on that. --] (]) 16:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


You should not be removing sourced content regardless. ] (]) 03:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:::OK this is the last of it you are expressing continual bad faith in this whole process and need to stop or you will be stopped, this is not the first time you have been warned about your conduct, this issue is highly disruptive to Wikiepdia and this article. Also can you please provide an example in this current discussion initiated by you on this talk page of any one other than you Andromedean actually expressing any support for your changes on this page and not in your shopping for support on user talk pages. ] (]) 22:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


Just because? Why? The content is a load of rubbish, and is totally irrelevant. Most of the links are dead and the content is sour grapes, feet stomping, and howling at the moon. So what teams had bikes better than others, what next a Section on Formula One about teams being better with technology than others labelled a controversy or teams with better shoes being labelled controversial, or better diets, or more money? What a ridiculous section take to have on this page. It is how all sport works, and calling how all sport works a controversy is madness. without technology in cycling, bikes would weigh 10 tonnes, have one brake and a bigger wheel at the back and a little one at the front. Ridiculous. ] (]) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::::Andromedean - I detest reporting people here, for a number of reasons, but you are really pushing the limits. ] (]) 07:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


If nothing is commented on this in a few days I will ask the page be unprotected and the removal to go ahead. This cannot be allowed to be a stopper from the removal of this content by having no discussion take place. ] (]) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::::: S&P That is another misleading statement, I was very careful not to ask anyone for support, but advice on how best to continue and only someone previously involved with the article. I will continue to do so, and try to ensure any misleading statements you state are refuted directly by them if necessary. HiLo48 are you not being investigated ] It places my truthful, verifiable statements such as accusing others of 'lying' into perspective. However, anyone resorting to lies, threats, and partisan behaviour without any explanation is very unsatisfactory.--] (]) 09:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


:That Section should not be removed because it appears to have two reliable sources mainly included in that section which is are BBC Sport and The Wall Street Journal which appears to be reliable sources per ] ] (]) 04:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::One reason I detest reporting people is because the process allows every bigot to throw lies and garbage around without consequence. If you want to check what I have really done wrong, do your own investigations, but don't believe others' bullshit allegations. I have been known to swear when people annoy the crap out of me. I do highlight ignorant bigotry and outrageous, stupid generalisations, like yours. It upsets some of the bigots. If you want to experience the appalling processes here, just keep up the irrational abuse, and I will oblige. ] (]) 09:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


:Have you read the sources? or are you simply going BBC and WSJ therefore must remain included? Simply going these two sources are used addresses none of the points I have made and is simply more of the same, sources = equal blanket inclusion, which in this case is keeping in junk. This sources and section also seem to ridicule the claims being made. All a storm in a teacup, news sites making column inches and nothing to actually see here. One source is dead and two sources are simply regulations. Please do better than you currently are its embarrassing. ] (]) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
:Time to close this discussion this is a place for discussing changes to the article not to attack other editors. I will give it a few more hours to see if anybody has constructive comments to improve the artice, if not we can close this topic. ] (]) 12:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
:It is my opinion that the section is notable as sporting equipment is often subject to scrutiny and regulation by the sport's governing body when it is viewed as conferring an unfair advantage on it user ].
{{Collapse bottom}}
:Following the December ] in Croatia, where 17 world records were broken by competitors using bodyskins (a high tech swim suit), it was felt there was a need to modify the rules surrounding swimsuits. This culminated in ] deciding to ] in competitions.
:A similar story played out with the ].
:This story is further notable as the allegations of cheating received extensive news coverage and British Prime Minister responded to the allegations of cheating. — ] (]) 19:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
::Have you actually read the sources in question? This is simply people going I do not like that they have better stuff. ZERO rules were broken. There are also two sources of just regulations. This is all adding together to make the section seem like it should stay.. This cannot be the case it's all opinion of those who added that it all adds up to being something controversial. IT IS NOT. Welcome to how international cycling works. I would like to note nothing that UK cycling had at the games has been banned since the games or was banned at the games. You are simply stretching the definition of sanity here to bend over backwards to keep it because you are embarrassed that you didn't get me prevented from editing here.
::Your arguments are complete and utter nonsense and in no way convey anything out of the ordinary you say "as sporting equipment is often subject to scrutiny and regulation by the sport's governing body when it is viewed as conferring an unfair advantage on it user" There is no evidence that any rules were broken, just some complaints from others that the UK had x and they had y and that they wanted what the UK had. Everyday complaints in elite level sport.
::You go on to compare cycling to swimming. This bit "Following the December 2008 European Short Course Swimming Championships in Croatia, where 17 world records were broken by competitors using bodyskins (a high tech swim suit), it was felt there was a need to modify the rules surrounding swimsuits." I see you are invoking whataboutism here. Those were rules at the time in 2008 and show that when people push technology people complain, more evidence of this being a normal thing and nothing special. The comparison with cycling is also hokum as nothing the UK used or did was later banned, so this is a false equivalence and complete red herring.
::You try and bolster your whataboutism and false equivalency with the line "This culminated in FINA deciding to ban bodyskins in competitions." The UCI did no such banning after the 2012 Olympics. So your comparison is garbage.
::You claim the following "A similar story played out with the Nike Vaporfly and Tokyo 2020 Olympics Controversy." This is not comparable as the technology which the UK used was not banned and regulations were not changed to limit or prohibit the technology. More whataboutism and trying to use things which are about things that are different where regulations were changed. No such thing happened here. It feels like trying to crowbar in tabloid hysteria from sour grapes losers. This is a trash section.
::Your final bit of hollow argumentation is "This story is further notable as the allegations of cheating received extensive news coverage and the British Prime Minister responded to the allegations of cheating" This place is an encyclopaedia and not a copy of the National Inquirer. The stuff about the French President and The British PM is really bottom-of-the-barrel nonsense to include in this and feels very subjective and very biased that the UK is a bunch of cheats.
::In conclusion, you are going completely down the path of whataboutism and tabloid journalism to spout conspiracy theory claims of the UK cheating because they had some stuff others had sour grapes over. The section is horrendous and defending it in the way above shows you have not read the sources or fully appreciate what you are reading.
::Having sources does not mean something should be here. Misplaced Pages is not a conspiracy theory farm or a place to create a conspiracy theory under the veneer of a controversy. Some of the worst of the worst detritus I have ever encountered from anyone online or in the real world.
::Over to you to do better than you did because what you posted to defend the section was an embarrassment to read from someone who is clearly intelligent and wants to do the right thing. ] (]) 23:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I've said everything I have to say about this topic, so I'm going to leave it at that and politely suggest that you calm down and realize that no one is out to get you here. This is a philosophical dispute about content, and not you as an individual, and it personally matters to me very little whether or not the section stays or goes. This discussion is starting to devolve into ], so I am going to withdraw before it goes any further. — ] (]) 01:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
::::No actual response to the substantive points
::::I’ll assume the running away means there are no counter arguments and it is as I suspected simply a ploy to prevent the removal of this section and keep in a conspiracy theory of made up added together junk. ] (]) 06:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::As the other two are not listening or engaging in substantive reasons for keeping removal is the blindingly obvious course of action. ] (]) 02:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::: ] I really Disagree with your removal of that section, Also I been unable to engage on the talk page as i been busy playing Pikmin 4. Can we come up with a compromise to restore that section and remove Reference 134 which you said was dead link ?
::::::Here what i want for an compromise
::::::Just restore that section and remove Reference 134 which is dead in the first place. If that section was still there in the first place i would remove Reference 134 which gave me an Page Not Found error on supersport site ] (]) 17:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::I agree to no such compromise, such contrived nonsense cannot be retained on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages cannot be in the business of obliquely calling one group of athletes cheats and promoting sour grapes from other nations to imply in the mind of the reader using the voice of wikipedia that UK cycling cheated at the 2012 Olympics.
:::::::The retention of this section is using Misplaced Pages to push the line UK cycling cheated and is trying to push this through the use of the sources, which wile not pointing to any evidence of cheating use conjecture, innuendo, and foot stamping to try and make up and give an impression that UK cycling cheated. The section is flagrantly a misuse of Misplaced Pages to push a specific untrue narrative. ] (]) 16:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I hate to tell you this but I Still disagree with your removal of that section, anyways that section you removed was sourced, and disagree that The section is flagrantly a misuse of Misplaced Pages to push a specific untrue narrative. ] (]) 16:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::How can trying to impugn UK cycling and push false claims that they are cheats be anything other that a misuse of Misplaced Pages?
:::::::::Also the bear trap you are wading in of sources = worthy of inclusion, is something you could not be more wrong about.
:::::::::This whole section while it has sources does not warrant inclusion simply for having sources. In the same way Misplaced Pages is not a newsfeed. News articles have sources yet Misplaced Pages does not include those items simply for have sources. The inclusion of this section only serves to impugn UK cycling and push a false narrative voice that they cheated, both of which are pushing an horrific point of view with no basis in fact.
:::::::::This is an encyclopaedia and not a debate on technology in track cycling, or UK cycling, or cycling or anything else for that matter. Stick to this being an encyclopaedia. ] (]) 18:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:34, 31 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics at the Reference desk.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 10 August 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconOlympics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSports
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconLondon Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon2010s Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isaacmercado106. Peer reviewers: Enj0yLifeee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2012 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) 22:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2012 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) 21:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop removing sourced content

You should not be removing sourced content regardless. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because? Why? The content is a load of rubbish, and is totally irrelevant. Most of the links are dead and the content is sour grapes, feet stomping, and howling at the moon. So what teams had bikes better than others, what next a Section on Formula One about teams being better with technology than others labelled a controversy or teams with better shoes being labelled controversial, or better diets, or more money? What a ridiculous section take to have on this page. It is how all sport works, and calling how all sport works a controversy is madness. without technology in cycling, bikes would weigh 10 tonnes, have one brake and a bigger wheel at the back and a little one at the front. Ridiculous. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If nothing is commented on this in a few days I will ask the page be unprotected and the removal to go ahead. This cannot be allowed to be a stopper from the removal of this content by having no discussion take place. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That Section should not be removed because it appears to have two reliable sources mainly included in that section which is are BBC Sport and The Wall Street Journal which appears to be reliable sources per WP:RSP Untamed1910 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Have you read the sources? or are you simply going BBC and WSJ therefore must remain included? Simply going these two sources are used addresses none of the points I have made and is simply more of the same, sources = equal blanket inclusion, which in this case is keeping in junk. This sources and section also seem to ridicule the claims being made. All a storm in a teacup, news sites making column inches and nothing to actually see here. One source is dead and two sources are simply regulations. Please do better than you currently are its embarrassing. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
It is my opinion that the section is notable as sporting equipment is often subject to scrutiny and regulation by the sport's governing body when it is viewed as conferring an unfair advantage on it user including in cycling.
Following the December 2008 European Short Course Swimming Championships in Croatia, where 17 world records were broken by competitors using bodyskins (a high tech swim suit), it was felt there was a need to modify the rules surrounding swimsuits. This culminated in FINA deciding to ban bodyskins in competitions.
A similar story played out with the Nike Vaporfly and Tokyo 2020 Olympics Controversy.
This story is further notable as the allegations of cheating received extensive news coverage and British Prime Minister responded to the allegations of cheating. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Have you actually read the sources in question? This is simply people going I do not like that they have better stuff. ZERO rules were broken. There are also two sources of just regulations. This is all adding together to make the section seem like it should stay.. This cannot be the case it's all opinion of those who added that it all adds up to being something controversial. IT IS NOT. Welcome to how international cycling works. I would like to note nothing that UK cycling had at the games has been banned since the games or was banned at the games. You are simply stretching the definition of sanity here to bend over backwards to keep it because you are embarrassed that you didn't get me prevented from editing here.
Your arguments are complete and utter nonsense and in no way convey anything out of the ordinary you say "as sporting equipment is often subject to scrutiny and regulation by the sport's governing body when it is viewed as conferring an unfair advantage on it user" There is no evidence that any rules were broken, just some complaints from others that the UK had x and they had y and that they wanted what the UK had. Everyday complaints in elite level sport.
You go on to compare cycling to swimming. This bit "Following the December 2008 European Short Course Swimming Championships in Croatia, where 17 world records were broken by competitors using bodyskins (a high tech swim suit), it was felt there was a need to modify the rules surrounding swimsuits." I see you are invoking whataboutism here. Those were rules at the time in 2008 and show that when people push technology people complain, more evidence of this being a normal thing and nothing special. The comparison with cycling is also hokum as nothing the UK used or did was later banned, so this is a false equivalence and complete red herring.
You try and bolster your whataboutism and false equivalency with the line "This culminated in FINA deciding to ban bodyskins in competitions." The UCI did no such banning after the 2012 Olympics. So your comparison is garbage.
You claim the following "A similar story played out with the Nike Vaporfly and Tokyo 2020 Olympics Controversy." This is not comparable as the technology which the UK used was not banned and regulations were not changed to limit or prohibit the technology. More whataboutism and trying to use things which are about things that are different where regulations were changed. No such thing happened here. It feels like trying to crowbar in tabloid hysteria from sour grapes losers. This is a trash section.
Your final bit of hollow argumentation is "This story is further notable as the allegations of cheating received extensive news coverage and the British Prime Minister responded to the allegations of cheating" This place is an encyclopaedia and not a copy of the National Inquirer. The stuff about the French President and The British PM is really bottom-of-the-barrel nonsense to include in this and feels very subjective and very biased that the UK is a bunch of cheats.
In conclusion, you are going completely down the path of whataboutism and tabloid journalism to spout conspiracy theory claims of the UK cheating because they had some stuff others had sour grapes over. The section is horrendous and defending it in the way above shows you have not read the sources or fully appreciate what you are reading.
Having sources does not mean something should be here. Misplaced Pages is not a conspiracy theory farm or a place to create a conspiracy theory under the veneer of a controversy. Some of the worst of the worst detritus I have ever encountered from anyone online or in the real world.
Over to you to do better than you did because what you posted to defend the section was an embarrassment to read from someone who is clearly intelligent and wants to do the right thing. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I've said everything I have to say about this topic, so I'm going to leave it at that and politely suggest that you calm down and realize that no one is out to get you here. This is a philosophical dispute about content, and not you as an individual, and it personally matters to me very little whether or not the section stays or goes. This discussion is starting to devolve into personal attacks, so I am going to withdraw before it goes any further. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
No actual response to the substantive points
I’ll assume the running away means there are no counter arguments and it is as I suspected simply a ploy to prevent the removal of this section and keep in a conspiracy theory of made up added together junk. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
As the other two are not listening or engaging in substantive reasons for keeping removal is the blindingly obvious course of action. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
User:67.149.160.101 I really Disagree with your removal of that section, Also I been unable to engage on the talk page as i been busy playing Pikmin 4. Can we come up with a compromise to restore that section and remove Reference 134 which you said was dead link  ?
Here what i want for an compromise
Just restore that section and remove Reference 134 which is dead in the first place. If that section was still there in the first place i would remove Reference 134 which gave me an Page Not Found error on supersport site Untamed1910 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree to no such compromise, such contrived nonsense cannot be retained on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages cannot be in the business of obliquely calling one group of athletes cheats and promoting sour grapes from other nations to imply in the mind of the reader using the voice of wikipedia that UK cycling cheated at the 2012 Olympics.
The retention of this section is using Misplaced Pages to push the line UK cycling cheated and is trying to push this through the use of the sources, which wile not pointing to any evidence of cheating use conjecture, innuendo, and foot stamping to try and make up and give an impression that UK cycling cheated. The section is flagrantly a misuse of Misplaced Pages to push a specific untrue narrative. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I hate to tell you this but I Still disagree with your removal of that section, anyways that section you removed was sourced, and disagree that The section is flagrantly a misuse of Misplaced Pages to push a specific untrue narrative. Untamed1910 (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
How can trying to impugn UK cycling and push false claims that they are cheats be anything other that a misuse of Misplaced Pages?
Also the bear trap you are wading in of sources = worthy of inclusion, is something you could not be more wrong about.
This whole section while it has sources does not warrant inclusion simply for having sources. In the same way Misplaced Pages is not a newsfeed. News articles have sources yet Misplaced Pages does not include those items simply for have sources. The inclusion of this section only serves to impugn UK cycling and push a false narrative voice that they cheated, both of which are pushing an horrific point of view with no basis in fact.
This is an encyclopaedia and not a debate on technology in track cycling, or UK cycling, or cycling or anything else for that matter. Stick to this being an encyclopaedia. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Categories: