Misplaced Pages

Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Basement12 (talk | contribs) at 01:13, 8 August 2012 (→Taoufik Makhloufi: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:13, 8 August 2012 by Basement12 (talk | contribs) (→Taoufik Makhloufi: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
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: 7 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconOlympics
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics
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
???This article has not yet received a rating 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
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Page move

It has been proposed in this section that Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics be renamed and moved to Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics → Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics –

Should this page not be at Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics to be in line with Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics, Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games, Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics, Concerns and controversies related to UEFA Euro 2012 etc? - Basement12 (T.C) 00:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but remember OSE is not an arguement. Its a bit redundant, IMO.
Is there a MOS for the title? I dont' think so.Lihaas (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Apparently someone else had the same idea and initiated the move... Not all of the issues raised in the article are necessarily going to be controversies, for example the issues with air pollution at the 2008 Games would be (and are I think, hence the name of the 2008 article) better classed as a concern. Can't lay my hands on it right now but I'm sure the title would have been discused in the past - Basement12 (T.C) 00:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
An event this large and complex is naturally going to endure a number of gaffes, missteps, and mistakes. "Concerns" is one way to describe this in the title. Cla68 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with the move for both consistencies sake, and, as Cla68 pointed out, not everything included can necessarily be termed a controversy, and concern is the simplest way to put it. I.e. the North Korean flag incident. I wouldn't call that a controversy. Ravendrop 02:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I would think thats definately a controversy, though stuff like the Munich thing probs would be a concern (or neither really)
Well at least we worked towards a discussion. Im not in the consensus decision but it seems thats ecome the consensus. Perhaps wait till tomorrow to move (in case others come by)?Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Support: Based on titles of the same article in earlier Games. Information on a genuine and much discussed concern was removed for not being "a controversy".88.88.163.156 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose As the new title will give unwarranted licence to add information which is not relevant and not notable. Sport and politics (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Doesnt give any such license. It will be removed if consensus deems it non-notableLihaas (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
There is already a high level of dubiously notable and relevant stuff being added and adding the weasel word "concern" will only give them more licence to add more dubiously relevant and notable information. Sport and politics (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - This article has a broad enough scope as shown by the twenty screens (on my monitor) of text with the outline and eight pages of footnotes. If some information concerns the Olympics, but is not a controversy it can be added to ], one of the other forty-four other pages in the Category:2012 Summer Olympics, or one of the pages under the eleven subcategories. If it does not fit in any of these pages, a new page can be started for that sort of information or it just does not belong on Misplaced Pages.
Besides there has been sufficient controversy concerning what is suitable to include under the present title. expanding the scope of the article is likely to increase the level of controversy. - Fartherred (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The title "Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics" was not decided upon after discussion it just was picked by Bluap when Bluap split the article from "2008 Summer Olympics." It was a poorly chosen title that should not be imitated. According to Misplaced Pages:Article titles: ...the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short..." but this change would be a detriment to precision and make the title unnecessarily longer. Consider two hypothetical titles: "Concerns of the 2013 Ohlimping Games" and "Non-concerns of the 2013 Ohlimping Games". If the Ohlimping Games were real there would be something suitable for the first title and nothing suitable for the second title. So adding: "Concerns of the" to the title rules nothing out that is not ruled out by notability policy. It adds nothing to specificity and is completely useless. Adding "Concerns and" to the title of our controversy article is worse than useless because it adds back into the scope of the article everything that was ruled out by the word controversies in the title. As for someone looking for ] and not finding this article, that is taken care of by Lihaas adding a redirect as a residual result of a move that undid the previous undiscussed and ill-advised move. - Fartherred (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This links to the discussion that occurred: Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 3#Criticism section - Fartherred (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - as far as I can see, the 2008 Olympics was treated this way, but not Games previous to that, so there is hardly a lasting precedent already set. This talk page is already extremely active, indicating that there is already plenty of content for the article, without opening it up to every 'concern' too. Sionk (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Revert warring

Some text I added today appears to have been subject to some edit warring. Here the LOCOG spokesperson's name is reverted, then someone removes the text completely, saying "unde POV pushing and not relevant." First of all, revert warring without discussion is unhelpful, second, since the information was cited to a reliable, independent source (Yahoo! News), how can it be "POV pushing"? Third, I feel it is relevant that the LOCOG promised there would be no flag mix-up, only to have a flag mix-up happen on the very first day of the games, before the opening ceremony had even been held. Any objections to readding that single sentence? Cla68 (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is POV pushing as it is making the whole situation appear worse than it actually is. There has also been no mention of this outside of the one media outlet. If this was widely included in the news reports on the subject then sure add it. Simply putting in the comments of one individual who is not named in the Misplaced Pages article and making it out as if this person is more important than they actually are is giving it undue weight. Adding it as a blind quote is not what should be on Misplaced Pages as it is not verifiable. Sport and politics (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly if it's just been removed once that hardly seems like edit warring. Linking the spokesperson's name wasn't needed as it's almost certainly always going to be a red link, that aside the quote did get more widely reported that one source (but not by many) but seems it may have been about mix ups involting national anthems not flags (e.g. ). I'd lean towards not including it based on the sources I've seen so far - Basement12 (T.C) 13:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
When someone adds text that is accurately cited to a reliable source, then it is edit warring to revert it without discussion. I hope it doesn't happen anymore with this article. Cla68 (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's rubbish. Its not, not even in the slightest bit edit warring. Just because something has a "reliable source" doesn't guarantee information inclusion, information still needs relevance and encyclopaedic value. The information must not give undue weight to one opinion or argument and must not be just an information dump. The information needs adding in the main text and in good pros in a way which is natural and encyclopaedic. The information as it currently stands does not add encyclopaedic value in its current format and is in danger of adding undue weight as is giving of a greater negative impression. It is also elevating the person who made the comments above the level of importance they are actually holding. 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Its certainly pertinent as it was immediately followed by a gaffe and gives context.Lihaas (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't "immediately" followed. Also what is the justification for elevating the comments of this one individual. Without reasonable justification it is giving the comments by one individual too much weight. Was this individual speaking in an official capacity or were they giving their opinion on the matter. Were the comments given at a press conference or during a prepared statement or just during a casual conversation. There is a need to avoid elevating everything picked up on by the media which is said by individuals. Sport and politics (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well look at their relevant title. It was related, so their comments are gonna be related.
Also this shows irrelevance to 012, put it as th e first concern for 2016Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Sport and politics, notice that even though I don't agree with your reasoning for revert warring the text I added, I didn't respond in kind by revert warring your revert. Instead, I started a discussion on the talk page which so far shows two editors for and two against the text in question. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, which means that revert warring with each other gets in the way of resolving differences over article content. Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly you need to stop referring to this as "revert warring" as it most clearly was not and is starting to get on the borderline of becoming personal by accusing me of engaging in an edit war. Secondly this is not a vote so counting users support on each side in an argument is erroneous. Thirdly the statement attempting to be included lacks encyclopaedic relevance and is highly pejorative. Fourthly the section has now been sufficiently expanded to include a broad coverage of the issue. Finally this is a collaborative project and it appears as if you are trying to bite and are coming across as wanting ownership. Please be more careful when engaging in discussion as you are coming close to being highly uncivil and remember we are all volunteers trying to improve Misplaced Pages. Sport and politics (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Let the policies of Misplaced Pages be accurately represented. This is a quote from Misplaced Pages:Edit warring: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions..." When one editor reverts another's work a single time it may be the wrong thing to do. That can be pointed out in discussion. But, it is not an edit war without two or more editors repeatedly overriding each other. A disagreement is just a disagreement. Discuss it and try to come to some consensus. Good luck. - Fartherred (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be more helpful to discuss the subject of the disagreement, rather than the disagreement process. However, I tend to agree with S & P that the quote from the LOGOG official is not put into context by the Yahoo article and is unnecessary here. Suffice to say, the fact the flags were mixed up is controversy enough, without rubbing salt into the wounds. Sionk (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

NBC's editing of the opening ceremonies

The page probably should add an entry on the horrible editing of the opening ceremonies by NBC (nevermind the poor commentary like who is Tim Berners-Lee), focusing on the exclusion of the 7/7 memorial moment, Abide with Me (replaced by a rather dull and emotionless interview with Michael Phelps). NBC's going to be getting flack for that for years to come, I think.Acroyear (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's particular to one TV network in one country. Not significant enough for this global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Believe me, NBC's horrible coverage of the Olympics has been a concern for over 10 years. It probably merits a separate article, but doesn't necessarily fit into this one. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the coverage in my country is crap too (Rugby League commentators describing swimming events!), but I wouldn't expect it to crack a mention here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, Japan's coverage (where I reside) is uniformly excellent. They often show ALL of the preliminary heats or rounds, not just the ones featuring Japanese athletes (like NBC does with American athletes), and take it easy on the insipid human interest stories and inane interviews. Japanese networks often like to present a complete story in its natural form and leave it up to the viewer to interpret what they see. I can imagine the reaction from an NBC producer to suggesting they try to do the same. Anyway, I agree with you that so far it doesn't merit mentioning in this particular article. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the issue is really the interview, the replacement of the 7/7 with Phelps. For a country that practically prides itself on naming 9/11 every chance it can get, to then turn around and block Americans from seeing memorials to terrorist victims elsewhere really is a big deal. Perhaps it doesn't belong in this article per-se, but as more commentators weigh in on it after the weekend, it will be a big enough deal to warrant inclusion in the wiki in some form.Acroyear (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
While that was poor taste (here the commentators were talking non-stop during that segment), I don't think it ought to be mentioned here.88.88.163.156 (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I concur. Thus is NBC specific. It doesn't involve the IOC directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:C08:1:164:224:36FF:FEB4:E2F6 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This does not belong on this page it is a americo-centric rubbish and not a widely notable controversy. How one country covers parts of the Olympics is up to them. Its nothing to do with the Olympics or the IOC. Sport and politics (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Faults with the NBC coverage of the Olympics are not germane to the article. NBC coverage is a source of information about what controversies arise in the Olympic games. The reporting itself is not an Olympic controversy any more than the controversy of what to include in a Misplaced Pages article is Olympic controversy. If the faults in NBC coverage were notable enough to include in Misplaced Pages, they would be mentioned in NBC News#controversies. - Fartherred (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's enough discussion for me. I'll take NBC out in this instance. If someone wants to put description of their coverage back in, I hope to see some supporting discussion. There is always the possibility that a future mention of NBC coverage will be more germane. - Fartherred (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Empty seats

Would it be apt to add this if the trend continues? Of course, turnout will be much higher in last few days (Tennis at Wimbledon for instance) but the ticketing system has been a shambles right from the off. 50,000 football tickets withdrawn and protests from Counter Olympics Network yesterday over free tickets for sponsors. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you find a quality, reliable source covering this as a controversy? HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The BBC isn't a reliable source? Cla68 (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Sky is also reporting on it.88.88.163.156 (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems to be the top story on several reliable sites. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I will add something on it if no one else does first. Cla68 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Go for it, it's definately news. 2001:C08:1:164:224:36FF:FEB4:E2F6 (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of things in the news that aren't really controversies. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I wholly agree this was a news story not a controversy the whole story has now vanished from the media circus. Sport and politics (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Lebanon asked for a screen put up so they wouldn't have to see Israeli athletes - and the Olympics commitee gave them one

shouldn't this be in the article?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamDavid (talk • contribs) 12:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

whoops forgot to sign AdamDavid (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

proper link AdamDavid (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
tOUGH. It is unusual though...and per the title it could be a "concrn"(Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)).
Looks like an unsubstantiated rant, ignore it until neutral mainstream news sources also report it. Roger (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Here are some other refs (some editors don't count IsraelNationalNews as an RS) - http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=279172
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4261350,00.html
Even Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/oly-judo-isr-day-idUSL6E8IRMGW20120727
These are all reliable. Whether it's important to add, I don't know.
It seems unusual for IOC to cave in to another team's demands over this. --Activism1234 14:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, it doesn't seem very unusual, and the Israeli team didn't seem to think much of it. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/oly-judo-isr-day-idUSL6E8IRMGW20120727 AdamDavid (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Its pretty ridiculous that people not liking Jews is considered normal AdamDavid (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Whether it is actually a controversy or not, at least it is now better sourced. We need to keep in mind the literal meaning of the word "controversy" - an incident or occurrence only becomes a controversy when two or more opposing sides actively engage in a dispute about it. Me saying "Your mamma's fat" isn't a controversy if you agree with me that she really is obese. It only becomes a dispute if you slug me for insulting your mother and escalates to a controversy only if we get sent to the principal's office for fighting. Roger (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If anyone cared enough to argue about this, then it would be a controversy, but as you said, right now it seems like an incident, not a controversy. AdamDavid (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this. On another note though, if we're discussing Israel, it may be interesting to discuss here whether to include Iran's comments that they won't play against Israeli teams. This is noteworthy, since the IOC heard it and specifically made a point of saying anyone who does this will be disqualified. A few days later, the news reported that Iran said they would play against Israel. Iran immediately denied it, and said it was a mistranslation. Again, not sure if it's enough to be a controversy. More than happy to supply references if anyone wants. --Activism1234 15:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It's perhaps worth remembering you can't prove what someone is thinking. If I was the Lebanese contigent, I would have simply asked for a screen because seeing the other atheletes training was causing too much distraction. Perhaps the reason was because they were Israeli atheletes, but unless the Lebanese tell anyone, which if they are smart they won't say at least until after their events how can anyone prove their rationale? For the IOC or organisers to deny athletes the right to some privacy and avoiding distractions while training when practicable without causing problems for others would be far more controversial. Unless they can actually prove that the reason they asked for it is because they didn't want to see Israelis which as I said is unlikely unless the Lebanese actually gave this reason. So really what happened here hardly seems surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
like the article said, the IOC had the screens already, so it wouldn't make sense to not let a team use them. and if certain teams don't like Israelis, they are smart to not say so openly. AdamDavid (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


Also, not sure if the section "Status of Jerusalem as capital" is necessary. It talks about the BBC, not the IOC, and is more related to a BBC article or BBC bias article than here, since such wording and biased use of pictures (the latter isn't mentioned, but if it's kept it should be) is found in other BBC articles and profiles as well, and often don't provoke as much outrage simply because they don't get as much attention or importance as a profile for the Olympics. I'd say remove it, but other's opinions are necessary. --Activism1234 15:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with that section, but since you brought it up, pretty much every country in the world gets to choose its capital and where foreign embassies are located - Israel has it's capital decided by US presidential veto every 4 or 8 years. More ridiculous facts. AdamDavid (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying you did, I just brought it up here anyway. Do you feel it's more appropriate to make a new section about it? Whether or not a president violates a bill passed by Congress or not isn't relevant to the section. --Activism1234 17:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If you feel up to it, the criticism of the BBC page would be a good place to put a section about BBC not recognizing Israel's choice of capital city. And you're right, vetoing the congress bill for 'national security' belongs in an article on Jerusalem or on American-Israeli diplomatic relations. AdamDavid (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
That definitely is not an Olympic controversy and doesn't belong on this overcrowded page. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ye Shiwen

I have concerns about this section as it presents the controversy as "did she take drugs", which is sheer BLP speculation, when the actual controversy should be "John Leonard's remarks". Ankh.Morpork 21:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I wholly agree it is just sour grapes form an individual who has shown them self to be unsavoury rather than saying that was a great swim they have turned round and shouted "CHEAT" with no justification except their own made up synthesis. i would remove the whole section due to how slanderous/libellous.defamatory it has the potential to be. Sport and politics (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
My preference is also removal compared to the existing paragraph. However, I think that if the paragraph's slant is suitably changed to avoid any implication of veracity to the drug claims, it should be Ok. It was not the performnace that was controversial but the subsequent allegations and this must be accurately conveyed. Ankh.Morpork 21:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The topic has also come up at the main article talk page. The consensus there is that it's so close to defamation that it probably violates BLP and should not be included unless official doping charges are forthcoming. Roger (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
What about structuring the paragraph along the lines of "After Shiwen's exceptional performance in which she..., Leonard controversially claimed..., a claim widely criticised by...who said...? Would this be acceptable? Are you sure there is no way to cover this 'Olympic controversy' in a proper and fitting manner, as this was reported in the media with legal precautions and it would be a pity if it was totally omitted. Ankh.Morpork 22:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You could have a go at rewriting it to avoid the BLP concerns. I think posting a draft here so that it can be discussed is a good idea. Roger (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

IOC upscale accomodations footed by LOCOG

Why is this content considered controversial? It seems pretty logical and normal to me. Why shouldn't they stay there if it meets their needs better? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Not familiar with the issue, but looks to me like it's controversial because they're paying from British taxpayer $ for a luxury 5 star hotel for IOC officials who arent participating in the GAmes rather than putting them in the Olympic village or a different hotel. That's what it seemed like from The Japan Times. --Activism1234 23:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is the relevant quote from the ref.
What especially irks is the government's surrender to the unaccountable International Olympic Committee, whose members will not be running, swimming, wrestling, canoeing, riding or engaging in strenuous sports, nor will they be staying in the Olympic village or enjoying the jellied eel delights of the east end. Instead, they are staying miles away in the five-star London Hilton, all expenses paid by the British taxpayer.
Asked why IOC officials could not stay in a hotel close to the games, Olympic boss Jacques Rogge declared loftily: "I'm sorry but you will not find the facilities there are in this hotel, conference room, simultaneous translation — this is something only more upscale hotels have."
Why do they need interpreters when there are officials, coaches and athletes from every country under the sun? Why not meet in the center of the action?
The section can definitely use some clarification, which I'll do my best at.--Activism1234 23:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Complaints about IOC officials demanding luxury perks from olympic organizing committees during the games' selection process and during the games themselves have been common for years. I guess it needs a little more research into sources to present the full background and context. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I, for one, could just be overlooking it, but I'd like to know where the facts about LOCOG paying for it (the Japan Times said it was British taxpayer $, and I don't know if LOCOG is from British taxpayer $, but I'd still like a ref saying LOCOG is paying for it), and "LOCOG had previously agreed in securing the games to pay for 1,800 hotel rooms in four and five-star hotels for the IOC's staff" are from. I may be overlooking it in one of the refs, but I just can't find it. If anyone can find it, it'd be much appreciated. --Activism1234 23:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Plus, it appears that according to the LOCOG article that they are a Private company limited by guarantee, so I'm not sure if public funds were involved. They do work with the publicly-funded Olympic Delivery Authority, but that appears to be for infrastructure rather than operating expenses. So if private funds instead of public funds paid for the hotel, there shouldn't be a controversy. If my limited knowledge of this area is incorrect and public funds were used, I can see them being controversial. Thanks in advance for the clarification. 72Dino (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
According to the Japan times, it was from British taxpayer $. "they are staying miles away in the five-star London Hilton, all expenses paid by the British taxpayer." That's what the reference to the Japan times said. Now, I can't find in that reference or the Vanity Fair reference mention of LOCOG paying for it or about the 1800 hotel rooms... Again, that can be an oversight, but if others can point me to it that would be better. And if others look it over and can't find it either, then we should remove that part. --Activism1234 23:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
No comment on its validity, but I distinctly recall this coming up as an issue well before the games started, and so it should be in the 'before the games' section. And yes, he basically said they need to be put up in 5 star hotels because you don't get the facilities they need in lesser hotels, whatever they may be. Conference rooms and such like if I recall correctly. FerrerFour (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree this is another non-controversy masquerading as notable information as opposed to what it actually is and that is just the journalists pen getting carried away with itself. Sport and politics (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
How do you agree about that when FerrerFour wrote "No comment on its validity??" --Activism1234 00:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Its an agreement with the general comments in the discussion criticising the inclusion, not one specific users contributions. This is in my opinion journalistic pen running amok.Sport and politics (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah got confused since you indented right below him. Okey dokey thanks for the clarification. --Activism1234 01:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Badminton doubles trying to lose on purpose

Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the few genuine controversies and not just a load of journalists letting their pens get carried away or giving too much coverage to silly little things. These people have actually been charged by the governing body of badminton. There needs to be a wide range of sources and some balanced and non sensationalist coverage in this article. The coverage also needs to stick to the point and not ramble. Sport and politics (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Whats going on with the re-allottment after DSQ? Apparent controversy in India.
It seems the next is from someone within that group to go through in place.
See Badminton at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's doubles(Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)).

Olympic Cauldron dosses & American Flag Dipped

Just thought that I should mention your missing the "cauldron dossing conterversy" and the "wether or not the American Flag was dipped conterversy" ... I don't have that much Info on them I just know they happened ... mostly from MSN. 98.112.227.137 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't even understand what you mean by "dossing" or "dipped". So how on earth can this be a "controversy", it looks like another set of journalistic pens getting carried away. Sport and politics (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Effect of travel advice

Regarding these removals (which bizarrely seem to have removed the same section twice, without anyone re-adding it in the mean time), I'd like to say that this wasn't just a single report - the issues were debated over a full news cycle here in the UK. So, as far as showing there was a debate, I don't think it's necessary to provide multiple sources, surely? As for it being undue weight - I'm not that fussed - opinions? FerrerFour (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the deleters - Somewhere in the section there must be an explanation that says A was/is arguing with B about the issue. It takes at least two opposing sides actively "fighting" each other for it to be a controversy. The text as it was simply say "this happened" - it needs to say "A caused this to happen, then B threatend to sue A for the damage to B's business". A controversy is a consequence of a dispute - if there is no presentation of evidence of dispute where is the controvesy? Roger (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree there has to be a demonstration of actual controversy and not just some person complaining. There needs to be actual controversy for their to be a relevance for this article. If it just "this happened" or "so and so complained" as this information is showing itself to be then it is note noteworthy, notable or relevant for inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That seems excessive. The 'other side' is obviously those people/organisations who claimed businesses would see increaded trade due to the Olympics, while also advising non-games visitors to stay away due to anticipated congestion. There doesn't need to be evidence of insults being traded between the two, before the media coverage over the footfall figures etc, becomes evidence of a 'controversy' regarding these claims and advice. FerrerFour (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Its not a controversy it is just a reality. Complaining and controversy are not the same and this is just a few complaints. There does need to be "an other side" as if no one is interested in the gesticulating and complaining then it does not become anything more than just sour grapes and someone being annoyed. Also who are these "people/organisations who claimed businesses would see increased trade due to the Olympics" BBC news ran a well balanced piece which concluded by saying "mass tourism and the Olympics do not mix if you want a smooth running games" (or words to that effect). This is again not a controversy its just a few shop keepers complaining they are not making as much money as their sticky fingers wanted.Sport and politics (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As another of the 'deleters', I would describe it as a commentary, rather than a controversy. The BBC was describing a downturn in trade on the first two days of the event and speculating about its causes. Sionk (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

NBC / Opening Ceremony: US Olympic Banners omitted from montage

During the Opening Ceremonies, just after the camera finished its tour along the River Thames, a montage was shown displaying every Olympic banner in chronological order, generally three at a time. However, the Atlanta '96 banner was excluded. I've heard reports that the LA '84 banner was also excluded. Seems to have been an intentional omission. I don't know whether NBC or London Olympic committee was responsible, and I'm not sure there's been an official statement.

Source: http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2012/07/28/atlanta-la-snubbed-during-london-olympics-opening-ceremony-montage

63.101.88.126 (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not notable outside of the US and again it is just more complaining over something which is not really an issue. There is also no proof the things were omitted and if they were omitted if it was deliberate or accidental. Sport and politics (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Having re-watched the sequence yes the 72 and 96 banners are missing but so is the 36 banner a space is left for them. reasons for the omitance could be anything and this is not a controversy. If it was just 36 which had been omitted would we even be talking about it? Sport and politics (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

This article is getting filled up with wholly not notable, un-notworthy, completely irrelevant and just sheer complaining. There needs to be a discussion on what is an actual "controversy" and what constitutes meriting inclusion. Not all controversies will merit inclusion as the will be centric to just one part of the world and not more widely noteworthy. There needs to be a discussion on this or the article will be in danger of just being a repository of news and complaints. Sport and politics (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an impossible task, a complete waste of time I would say. Each item must be assessed on its merits, it's the only way inclusion/exclusion debates will be feasible. As for the article just being a repository of news and complaints, that's all it ever will be until some time has actually passed and we can benefit from the 'long view'. FerrerFour (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
There though needs to be a basic criteria where information can be just removed as it wholly out of place. Take the inclusion of a man taking a walk because he would have been late. That inclusion of that kind of information must be discourage and basic criteria would stop that kind of information which is wholly unwarranted and with no merit from being included. Sport and politics (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Additions like Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#Men.27s_Team_Artistic_gymnastics_judging are simply reports of something that happens at every Olympics. It will only be significant to the team who, for 8 minutes, thought they had a bronze medal. Surely we don't want every disqualification, points deduction and appeal listed in the article?! Sionk (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Listing every disqualification, points deduction and appeal <> listing every disqualification, points deduction and appeal that affects the the final medal order after competition has ended. And to be pedantic, it was a decision that affected two nations in a negative way, not one. FerrerFour (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless at least two different people/groups/countries/entities are actually arguing/fighting/in dispute about it, it simply is not a controversy. Roger (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
So all someone has to do to avoid a controversy in your eyes, is to say 'no comment'? Patently absurd. Life is full of well documented controversies where one side simply denies there's even an issue. Take that Badminton issue, the Chinese players initially declined to say anything - so in your eyes that issue would never have been put on this page until the players were actually disqualified (although even then, how are the Chinese 'arguing'/'fighting' to make this a controversy in your eyes, unless they actually appeal?). When you consider the news coverage it got between those two points in time, it shows how unworkable that definition of a 'dispute' really is. FerrerFour (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
What is being missed here is the level of minutiae which is masquerading as controversy is absurd. For something to be a genuine controversy there has to be prolonged and meaningful outrage. The badminton there was prolonged and meaning full outrage which resulted in four pairs being thrown out. The Swimmer from china had not meaningful outrage other than sour grapes so is not a controversy. for things to be included just cos of a complaint is nonsense the whole point is it has to be a genuine controversy where there is dishonesty, manipulation, cheating, deceit, rule breaking, gross misconduct, large scale failings, high levels of offence caused etc. Not a man taking a walk or someone not liking a decision or nit liking the performance of an opponent because they lost.there needs to be sensible perspective here. For example The fencing is a controversy due to the failings by the time keeper and the result being directly affected. The price of food and drink ad merchandise is not a controversy as that is just normal (higher) pricing during an event and is just complaining from those who cannot pay the prices. Sport and politics (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
A disqualification is not a controversy unless it is appealed. Appeals are by definition controversies, but whether they are notable or not is open to question. A controversy is the expression of oppoing views. What belongs in the article is a notable controversy in the 2012 Olympics. - Fartherred (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Table tennis

Women's singles final Table tennis at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's singles#Controversies will need to be added(Lihaas (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)).

In the final the referee caused controversy by disallowing Dang Ning's serves and giving her a yellow and red card resulting in two extra points for the eventual winner in the final set.

Original text from the linked to section.

Unreferenced and just a sporting commentary not a "controversy", this is another example of a non controversy masquerading as controversy, which is just commentary on what happened in the match. Sport and politics (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

JUST finished. Sources will come soon(Lihaas (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)).
looking at the final score the penalty made no difference to the final result. This is not a controversy it is just a competitor being disciplined for breaking the rules. Sport and politics (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's wait and see what the sources say shall we, before dismissing things? For perspective, this was a decision that meant the world number three beat the world champion in the gold medal match, so it's clearly not just any old incident. Second, having watched it live, the commentators at least were in no doubt that it affected the contest both as a sporting spectacle, and in their opinion probably also the final result. Her rhythm and concentration was certainly disrupted as she engaged in disputing the decision with officials, rather than playing on. If it turns out the official was wrong, or there is any kind of official complaint, seeing as the lack of translators also seems to have played a part, then I'd say it's a slam dunk for inclusion as a controversial incident. FerrerFour (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
John Macernoe used to shout at umpires and dispute calls all the time and if every time that happened it was listed as a controversy there would not be enough paper in the world. The sign of a good character is dealing with things when they don't go right for you and if this athlete was unable to cope then tough its not a controversy. As for it being a "spectacle" that is a secondary concern the primary concern is for fair sporting competition within the rules. If that's what was being upheld it is not a controversy it is just following the rules, it would have been a controversy if the umpire had allowed the competitor to get away with breaking the rules ad not acting in a fair manner, as that is cheating. This is just a competitor being told to stay in the rules and not being able to cope with being told they are not in the rules. Sport and politics (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
If an umpire allows cheating it is still not a controversy until someone disagrees. The controversy is the umpire saying the play was fair someone else saying it was foul. - Fartherred (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That is just though a sporting dispute, when does it then become a controversy because a sporting dispute is not a controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems that we have a basic difference in the understanding of the meanings of words. One meaning of controversy is just a discussion in which opposing views are put forward. Perhaps for this article we want the meaning that includes anger or similar emotional involvement and some persistence in time of the dispute. For inclusion in the article we would want notability. - Fartherred (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Sport and politics (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

POV in "Status of Jerusalem as a capital"

I've tagged this section as being possibly in violation of WP:NPOV because of the two sources used one is "honestreporting" whose tagline on their website is "Defending Isreal From Media Bias" which to me sounds like it's not going to be a reliable source. Any opinions are welcome, as unless a more unbiased source is found I'd be inclined to remove it. BulbaThor (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is it even there? It's a BBC controversy, not an Olympic controversy. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed with CheeseStakeholder. More appropriate on article about BBC or BBC bias. --Activism1234 22:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Will I get in trouble if I just delete it? CheeseStakeholder (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Not with me. I'll congratulate you. HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Same here. Go ahead, it's fine to delete by many editors it seems. --Activism1234 05:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Tis done. BulbaThor (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations! HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Boxing: Satoshi Shimizu vs. Magomed Abdulhamidov

I don't think there is any doubt that this should be included, especially now that the AIBA was expelled some of the officials involved http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/boxing/olympic-boxing-officials-punished-for-controversial-rulings.html Kingmebob4 (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The above sentence does not make sense the AIBA what? Sport and politics (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian and Dutch national anthems

31.46.182.152 (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the controversy here then and thy does this journalism warrant inclusion? Sport and politics (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Atos

Why no mention of the controversy surrounding Atos sponsoring the games? It has had plenty of publicity:

G-13114 (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the Olympics, not the Paralympics. The issue is already being discussed there. Roger (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Great Britain in football

The story about some footballers not singing "God Save the Queen" is an interesting issue; however someone keeps removing references to the Welsh players and singling out Kim Little for special mention. The references here and here clearly explain that there were two Scottish women players and two Welsh male players who refused to sing, so I don't really understand why one editor feels the need to remove this information (this has been done twice) and single out one player. There may be an argument for not going into detail and listing all the names, but there is no reason to remove half the story. I have restored missing text and, as it stands now, no individual player is mentioned by name, but please do not keep removing references to the Welsh players as it makes it look like it's an issue with only one person and nationality. Thank you.7ofclubs (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The topic is not discussed in this article so please tell us where this edit war is happening? Roger (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The text I have now restored has far tighter and better language as it doesn't use weasel wording like "some". The prose also read better in the version I have restored. The issue is with her national identity so naming Kim Little is justified. Also please remember that not everything in a source warrants inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Disagree on two points here - "some" is not a weasel word, it's neutral. It simply states that not all players were involved. More importantly, however, the section is now skewed as it singles out one player. The references clearly discuss several players who abstained on account of being Welsh or Scottish. The Telegraph article actually focuses on Giggs and has a great big photo of him, but for some reason you want to suppress this and focus on only one of the women players? Seems odd. It misrepresents the issue if you mention one player and one nationality - so either list them all or simply refer to "some players" or "a number of players" or however you think it should be worded.7ofclubs (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The word "some" will then be followed by the following wikimarkup {{who}} and the phrase "a number" will then be followed by the following wikimarkup {{clarify}} and very rightly as they are vague and encyclopaedic prose. I firmly am of the view it has no place in the article at all. Sport and politics (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with the {{who}} tag - a suitable response would then be to insert into the article Kim Little, Ryan Giggs, Ifeoma Dieke and Craig Bellamy, which no doubt you would then go in and delete! However, ff you think this issue has no place in the article at all, then that's a separate issue and it would be more useful to discuss that instead. So far your edits have been concerned with removing only parts of the section which confuses the issue.7ofclubs (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops! I was looking under "During the games" - isn't that where it belongs? Roger (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there could also be an argument for moving it down to "During the games" - I guess it is closely tied with the issues about the GB Team, which is why it appeared further up in the article, but maybe it should move down. What do you think?7ofclubs (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It was me, a few days ago, that moved it from 'During the games' to the GB football team section. I can see now there are good arguments for it being in 'During the games', so I've no probs if someone wants to move it back. Sionk (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

From watching the matches, it seemed all the Scottish and Welsh players kept their lips closed. But the news articles certainly mention most of the Scottish and Welsh players by name. They single out Little because she commented on the situation, saying it was a personal decision. Sionk (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, Telegraph article lists several players in this issue. There are other news articles out there which discuss nationality of the other players, so no, I don't agree that the section should single out one player only.7ofclubs (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not a controversy then, if it is just her making a personal decision and is not violating any rules, regulations or even the spirit of the games, then it is nothing more than bored journalists pushing their patriotic rubbish on a news article. This is just journalism. Did it have any bearing on the football, no, the team won the group. Also why they "kept their lips closed" is pure original research, it could be they don't know the words it could be they don't like singing, it could be Welsh is their first language and don't speak English of Scottish Gaelic is their first language and they don't speak English. It could be they had glue on their lips and were unable to move them. It could be anything. Sport and politics (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, glue on their lips! Well, very funny but that's a wider issue of what constitutes a controversy. Every single issue mentioned in this article is arguably "just journalism". You could argue that this entire article be deleted, for without journalism there are no controversies! I understand it, you really want the whole issue removed from the article. So could we please calmly discuss whether this issue should or should not be included in the article. Personally I am in favour of mentioning it in a sentence which either mentions all the players or makes a general reference to some players. I believe it has had significant coverage to merit a brief mention as a controversy related to the 2012 games. Does anyone else have a view? 7ofclubs (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
There are controversies that occur at the Olympics completely independently of their being reported. For example, when Magomed Abdulhamidov was knocked down six times by Satoshi Shimizu without a standing-eight count judges awarded the win to Abdulhamidov then the AIBA overturned the judges decision. This would have been a controversy whether reported or not. The controversies that only occurr in relation to journalists making comments outside the Olympics do not belong in the article. - Fartherred (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I've added a quote from the male team captain Ryan Giggs which explains the problem. There is obviously a subtle unionist agenda in newspapers like the Telegraph. The whole idea of fielding a GB team was a 'hot potato' so these sensitivities will always be important. Sionk (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Sport and politics - if you remove content, explain your decision in the edit summary. When an explanation is available for the players' silence, it is better to include it, rather than speculate. Sionk (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes this was a "hot potato" issue as to having a team in the first place but its not really a controversy as to weather some bloke sings a song or not. Its just a few bored journalists filling column inches. Sport and politics (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sionk identified it correctly. Up until the Giggs statement, only Little had definitively said she was making a personal choice not to sing, whereas it was still purely press speculation that the others' refusal was them making a deliberate point (bearing in mind no Team GB player is obliged to sing it at this particular tournament). Even with the Giggs statement you still can't really say that their refusal is on a par with Little's, it's still entirely possible that Giggs was talking abstractly, and they weren't singing for entirely benign reasons (very unlikely, but it's not Misplaced Pages's place to put two and two together and make a black panther salute). FerrerFour (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'd absolutely go along with that. Thank you for the positive contributions. It's an interesting topic, and I am all for a brief, balanced, neutral and factual mention of it in this article. Looking at it today it seems fine.7ofclubs (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing items for being 'resolved' / Aboriginal T-Shirt

Regarding this removal, I take issue with the idea this wasn't a controversy, it clearly is/was/will be in future. But I am more concerned about this idea that we can remove items from the page if they're 'resolved'. Does that mean we can remove things like the security guard issue simply because the Army was drafted in to cover? Or maybe once the legal issues are settled? Yes, the guy promised not to do it again. That doesn't resolve the cause of the controversy from where I see it, as he will still cearly feel aggrieved he can't represent his people. I can't see any logic in removing items if they are 'resolved', however that's defined. FerrerFour (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Did he say he was aggrieved? Not as I read it. You cannot speculate about someone's future feelings to justify inclusion. I saw this as a misunderstanding and non-awareness of the rules, resolved by calm discussion. That's NOT a controversy. And yes, the security did become a non-issue because of the army's involvement. I suspect that was a fall back position all along. Good management. Not a controversy. This article is full of similar crap. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious from the sources that he wasn't happy about being told to remove it. While he may have been unaware of just how much of an issue it would be, to suggest it was a simple misunderstanding is far fetched. And he is not the only disputant, just look at all support coming in even now from various places and in various publications, all condemning the IOC for their stance. This was a controversy, this still is a controversy, and the next time someone attempts it, it will be a controversy again, unless you've some reason to believe the IOC is rewriting their rules as we speak. As for the security guard shortage, that dominated the UK press for the entire two weeks before the Games. It led to parliamentary questions, US presidential comment, numerous Prime Ministerial statements, calls for the CEO to quit, a share price drop and a withdrawal by the company from some major future contracts. If you think that's just 'crap', something that's eraseable from history as a non-issue simply because the government thank God actually had a contingency plan, well, words fail me. Infact I'm willing to bet, in the UK at least, the G4S debacle will be the single biggest thing that's remembered as far as London 2012 controversies go. That or the seats issue (which of course also needs to be removed as having been resolved, no?). FerrerFour (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Please drop the anger. I really think this article is quite out of control. Remember that the press and TV have masses of space and time to devote to what they like to call controversies every day. I've seen other Olympics up close (two in my country) and most what the media tells us every day is important and controversial quickly fades from view. You were perhaps always critical of the Olympics in London and/or the organisers. Be careful not to let this article just be a vehicle for your dislike of the event. Heck, if all the stuff in this article was serious in the long term, the Games will be seen as a disaster for all time, and I can guarantee they won't be. Daily media coverage proves very little. We cannot include all media sensationalism. Think long term. What will we still see as having been important in ten years time? HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah sure, let's ignore the media, what do they know? Let's go with your own personal experiences eh? Ridiculous. The Cathy Freeman final was 12 years ago, yet here it is being referenced by the media in the context of this controversy. No doubt if Misplaced Pages had existed then, you'd have been making the same feeble argument. You can take into account bias in the media, you can even filter out the daily trivia, but what makes no sense at all is to pretend that everything they write is just sensationalism born out of a need to fill space. Perhaps the fact you don't live in the UK is the reason why you don't seem to realise what an almighty fuck up the G4S debacle really was. The world's biggest security firm failing to fulfill the world's biggest security contract, in a spectacularly embarassing and high profile manner. Fair enough if they had highlighted the risk well in advance allowing the contingencies to be put into action without fuss or drama or the need for public exhanges between the highest offices and angry debates about compensation and cancelled leave for soldiers etc etc, but they didn't, which funnily enough was all part of the unfolding controversy when it did become public, which saw it dominate the news for weeks, right up to the start of the event. How many daily issues churned through in the news really result in all the fallout of the G4S case? One a month, at best. At least in the UK. The last major issue that dominated the British media before this was probably the LIBOR scandal, and we have a whole article for that. God knows what goes on wherever it is you live each day, if these are the sorts of things that get classed as minor incidents, that would be forgotten after a week. FerrerFour (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I see no point in discussing this further. You have misrepresented what I said, and completely failed to address the points I actually made. HiLo48 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I get the same feeling reading your posts too. FerrerFour (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
And that proves that we're a long way from consensus here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with HiLo on this. Wiki is not a newspaper, which can call something a scandal/controversy/evil/wrong/whatever on Monday and then forget about it on Tuesday. NOTNEWS and RECENTISM come into play for an article like this, and UNDUE for that matter. This article is not a timeline for every niggle and question mark as reported by national newspapers, it's for genuine controversies and serious issues of competence. I'd wager that a lot of this article will be edited out in about two month's time, as the bright light of recentism fades and most of the day to day editors move on. doktorb words 06:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Some of this discussion would probably be better continued in the 'Inclusion criteria' section above. The issue of the aboriginal flag seems a non-routine, non-trivial political incident to me, worthy of a mention. Sionk (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
These discussions should address the topic named in the section heading. FerrerFour was right to suggest that a controversy should not be removed from the article because it is resolved. The reliable BBC source did refer to a controversy, so we can accept that there is a controversy. However, the controversy did not occur at the Olympics where every thing was calm and reasonable. A mistake was corrected with no fuss. The BBC referred to Hooper's win as overshadowed by controversy. The controversy, as indicated by Patricia Karvelas in the Australian, was at The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples which uncivilly suggested that the Australian Olympic Committee action in the matter was related to "bureaucratic insanity". Policies change from one Olympics to another and in this one the IOC stresses not using the Olympics as a platform for political statements. That should be accepted by everyone. It is generally accepted by the athletes. The edit summary provided by Martarius did not give the correct reason for removing the edit. The edit should properly have been removed because the controversy referred to did not occur at the 2012 Summer Olympics. - Fartherred (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Kim Collins - Where's the controversy?

Two editors have now added content on Kim Collins being removed from his national team because he broke the rules. I removed it, but the second addition put it back. I submit that there is no controversy in this story, and I ask other editors to tell me what's controversial about a team enforcing its rules. There's drama, yes, but nothing controversial, surely? HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you removed it from 'controversies' as you believed there was none(?). I moved it, with additional ref, to 'Athletes sent home', which he clearly was. Is his removal any more/less controversial than those sent home for tweets, facebook pages or damage in a shop. They (and Collins) broke the rules and went. My view is if they are valid for inclusion in a section marked 'Athletes sent home' then he is. If they are not neither is he.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You're right. None of them belong. There is no controversy in a team sending home an athlete for breaking the rules or doing something really dumb. Thanks for highlighting that. Shall I be bold and delete the whole sub-section? HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - The St Kitts newpapers describes it as a controversy.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes and. That one newspaper does not elevate it to being notable. Sport and politics (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not saying it does but editors seem to be unilaterally deciding what goes in and what comes out without there being any clear definition OR CONSENSUS as to what is a controversy. Another view from a WP:RS is that it is one.................--Egghead06 (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Athletes being sent home from the Olympics for any reason other than basic injury, will always be seen as controversial. It's pretty ridiculous for anyone to claim otherwise frankly. FerrerFour (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Doktorb made an excellent post to the immediately previous thread. I hope he doesn't mind me repeating it here...
"...Wiki is not a newspaper, which can call something a scandal/controversy/evil/wrong/whatever on Monday and then forget about it on Tuesday. NOTNEWS and RECENTISM come into play for an article like this, and UNDUE for that matter. This article is not a timeline for every niggle and question mark as reported by national newspapers, it's for genuine controversies and serious issues of competence. I'd wager that a lot of this article will be edited out in about two month's time, as the bright light of recentism fades and most of the day to day editors move on." HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Being sent home from an Olympics is a niggle? A forgotten detail of history, preserved only in the news archives of the day, like the horoscopes and weather reports? Like I said, ridiculous. FerrerFour (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it would have caused less friction if this article had been named as per the previous Olympics?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Nah, that would have just added another category, Concerns, to justify adding even more garbage to this article. This article WILL shrink later when sanity finally prevails, but for now, with all the rabid Games haters about, I guess there' no point trying. HiLo48 (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh wow. So now if someone argues that being sent home from the Olympics is a controversy they are a "rabid Games hater"? You really are a very silly man. I think we can close the book on this one - you're welcome to come back to this article in a year's time and list all the athletes that got sent home who you think have been completely forgotten about, and we can all have a good laugh at you as we disprove each case one by one using the magic of the internet. I forgot to post it last night, but I found a case of one US athlete sent home from the 1988 Olympics being brought up again in the news in 1996 in the context of a debate about team conduct. His crime? Stealing a wall decoration from a restaurant. He was arrested, and after apologising was released without charge, and sent home in disgrace. Nearly identical to the case of Josh Booth, one of the very cases in that section that you're ludicrously trying to claim will be forgotten about in a week. FerrerFour (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Kim Collins was removed from the team. He represented his version of the reason for his dismissal as worthy of contempt. This is a controversy. It happened at the 2012 Summer Olympics. At least one Newspaper considered it noteworthy. I think we should respect each other's opinions. - Fartherred (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do need to respect others opinions and one newspaper has considered this story journalisticly noteworthy. Misplaced Pages though is not a newspaper. This has not been reported for a prolonged period, it was just an also story on from the BBC. Just because one person has said this is a controversy and doesn't make it notable. Remember that all a newspaper article is one persons opinion and a parroting of the facts, that does not confer notability.Sport and politics (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Newspapers have masses of space to fill every day. We don't have to. They can call anything they like a controversy, then the next day's edition comes out and nobody remembers what they printed the day before. Our best content is (hopefully) permanent. Don't get led away from Misplaced Pages's standards by tabloid journalism. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
An athlete sent home for non-injury reasons is a controversy and the national newspaper picked the story (the global media dont pick any stories from minor countries (unless you could GRN;'s 400m (which was a major event))). It rightfully should be included. In the same vein we dont want to be biased against small countreies(Lihaas (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)).
You two are really full of it. Do you seriously expect to get away with being allowed to call organisations like the BBC, or papers like The Independent, "tabloid journalism"? Do you really expect to get away with having your personal opinions as to what is and is not a controversy and what will and won't be remembered, ranked as equal to what's written in reputable reliable sources, or disproven already by looking at near identical past incidents? Talk all you want, if this sort of rubbish is all you've got to say, or more importantly show, then the content is here to stay. FerrerFour (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
What is being wholly missed here is the level of minutiae of what could be called a "controversy". A man broke the rules and was sent home. That is all this story is. Nothing more nothing less. All it is, is a man broke the rules and was disciplined. Any newspaper not matter what level of journalism it targets, sensationalises and gives its own bias and opinions. They may be reliable sources but it doesn't make the story notable. Sport and politics (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
What is being missed here by you is that nobody here is obliged to believe what you say, just because you keep repeating it. You can talk as much rubbish as you like about newpapers, you can second guess their editorial policies all you like, it's just your opinion, nothing more. Nobody's 'missing' anything, they just don't agree with you. FerrerFour (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
What is being missed here by you is that is that newspapers, television and radio produce words daily in quantities several orders of magnitude greater than what is ever going to be in Misplaced Pages. We MUST be selective. We simply cannot include content on everything that some newspaper article somewhere in the world used the word controversial to describe. The same applies to all articles. We make judgement calls on what is notable and what isn't. Your argument is totally impractical. I say again, we cannot include everything. This article WILL be reduced in size after these Olympics and your excitement level have faded away. You would do well to start think now about which items will go. HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I've not missed that at all, because you've said it in here TEN times already. Just get this through your thick head will you - I can understand what you are saying, I just think it's garbage, born out of your weird hatred of the press, and some sort of desire to have your opinions on what is and is not controversial elevated over and above what actual sources say about something. Notability has got jack all to do with it, why don't you and sports and politics actually read the bloody page about notability eh? Notability only governs what topics can be given articles, it does not govern the content that goes into them. You're correct there should be a discussion about each point, but that discussion should not contain garbage claims like 'this will be forgotten in a week' because 'all newspapers are tabloids', especially when I show you evidence that this is pure nonsense. If you repeat these garbage claims down the line, they will be rejected, so I suggest you not waste any time even attempting to remove anything, if this sort of nonsense is all you have by way of justification. At the end of the day, if you seriously think that this article covers everything that has been written in the news about the Olympics, then you're insane. This isn't even 0.00001% of the coverage that's out there. 01:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Calling this a "controversy" is nothing more than synthesis and Original Research. The information must also be Notbale. I have seen no evidence of any lasting notability in this information being a controversy. Also please avoid commenting on the contributor and please stay on the topic when adding information to this article. Sport and politics (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
What the hell are you going on about? You see no evidence of lasting notability in items that only happened this week? Are you serious? I gave an example above of an incident in 1988 being referred to in 1996. Are you suggesting that we should delete this article, then wait until 2020 before seeing if it has had lasting notability? What nonsense. And will you please actually read the 'Notbale' page before citing it? If you did that, you'd see it only governs article titles, not their content. Also please can you actually read the Original Research page too if you want to refer to it, because I think you'll find that calling something a controversy is 100% not original research, if you have in your hand a reliable source that says THE EXACT SAME THING. FerrerFour (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch

Not sure if this is the place for it, as it's not strictly a controversy involving the Games, more one which occurred against the backdrop of the event, but I feel somewhere we need to mention the Rupert Murdoch controversy. After being invited to the games by Boris Johnson, Murdoch's apparently congenial meeting with Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt attracted some criticism for the latter who has faced previous criticism for his perceived impartiality in News Corp's abandoned bid to take full control of BSkyB. Just a thought anyway, and here's a few links to the story. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not an Olympics controversy and is not even a controversy in its own right. It does not belong on this discussion the above comments are the kinds of comments which are liable to be redacted and removed for being off topic. This article and this talk page is not a newspaper and not a political soapbox. Sport and politics (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Men's Cycling Team Sprint

This section is clearly not a controversy as what was said about crashing deliberately is disputed as to if it was even said. No investigation of the incident occurred. The statements we retracted even if they were said and the result was not affected. This section is another in a long list of non-controversies for the bin. Sport and politics (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. The fact that the cyclist admitted something that could have gotten his team disqualified, then the team had to quickly try to cover it up, is a controversy. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Ditto and more so in the light of the women's adminton saga(Lihaas (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)).
The badminton yes I agree that is a controversy, but I disagree that a single crash in the cycling which may or may not have been on purpose and weather or not the claimed saying was actually said or not is actually a controversy. There was no investigation and no action taken. The badminton was investigated and 8 of the top players in the World were thrown out, that was a controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You should research before start questioning whether he said it or not. There are videos on youtube of him saying in english, "I just did it, just to get a restart, because my first start wasn't the greatest. So I thought, get a restart." I think what he meant is pretty clear. Also just because the governing body refuse to investigate does not imply it is not a controversy as it is a clear violation of the Olympic spirit. 71.90.101.106 (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You should do some research too - it's been said by the team that this was a case of lost in translation, which is most likely referring to the fact his first language isn't English, given he was born and raised in Germany. FerrerFour (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The claims that this is a "controversy" are sounding like simple Original Research not backed up by the facts. This is because the sources contradict each other other. One says he did it deliberately, another says he didn't. One says he said this and that, while another says it was all a misunderstanding lost in the way he said things. This is all contradictory and to make assumptions and claims based on contradictory evidence is Original Research. There is no proof of anything in this at all. Sport and politics (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

His claim of mistranslation as a reaction is part and parcel of the controversy.
Further, virtually wthe whole page doesnt explicitly mention "controversy" so thats could be construed as coOR too. His explicit statement as such are reason enough to make it a controversy on the same level.Lihaas (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you stop talking rubbish please? If sources say different things, then you simply reflect that in the text in a balanced way. That is NOT original research. And no, if sources actually use the words "controversial" to describe an incident, as many do in this case, then that's pretty much the complete opposite of original research. It's pretty clear that you've never even read the Original Research page based on all these misinformed claims about what it is and isn't. FerrerFour (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Gymnastics - Rings

Chen Yibing seemed to have been robbed in the Rings competition. He did nothing noticably wrong and scored what seemed to be the best score while Arthur Zanetti made more visable errors. Zanetti winning was a shock. I think one of the NBC commentators even joked about this being in Rio, as if saying a Zanetti could only win from biased voting. --Ilias Of Nikos Iliadis (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything other than original research to back up the claims of biased judging? Sport and politics (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Taoufik Makhloufi

He was originally thrown out of the games (already qualified for 1500m final) after "not trying" in 800m heat. Algerian officials later gave medical certificate about the failure to finish and he was re-instated. He then won gold in 1500m. Does this qualify? BleuDXXXIV (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No it does not qualify its just in interesting story bout jumping to conclusions by the authorities. Sport and politics (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
At any rate, the issue would be the 800m. That should be controversial enough in that he was reinstated when he should have been disqualifiedLihaas (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually it's quite a big issue compared to most of the crud that's included... And to clarify that's mostly a vent against the crud rather than an endorsement of this. Also "should have been disqualified" - Lihaas? Remain neutral please - Basement12 (T.C) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

XCameroon athletes

7 are missing from the Games' village. We need to add that...allegedly defecting to europe.Lihaas (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories: