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 FerrerFour (talk | contribs) at 23:09, 9 August 2012 (→Percieved elitism section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:09, 9 August 2012 by FerrerFour (talk | contribs) (→Percieved elitism section)(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)


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 Notable. 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)
The point of lasting notability is that these claimed controversies such as this are in some cases not even lasting out the session of the Olympics they occurred in such as the men's gymnastics rings below. This claimed controversy lasted until the end of the day it happened, it didn't continue being mulled over or being referred for a substantial period afterwards. This article is full of recent journalistic newspaper articles and news stories. There is no notability of the majority of these as they do not pass the threshold of actually being encyclopeadic content it is just one journalist calling something a controversy and others not calling it a controversy. To base that it is notable when only limited sources call it a controversy is Cherry-picking is "original thought" and is also "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves.". The sources on this one are not clear here and they do not all agree that this is a notable "controversy". The main sources in the article do not even use the word "controversy" in their stories of the event. This shows that saying it is a controversy is an opinion which constitutes "original thought" and as such is original research. Sport and politics (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, just stop linking to policy pages you clearly don't understand. If you want to make claims like "The sources...do not all agree that this is a notable "controversy".", then it's up to you to provide sources that say this, otherwise it's you who is cherry picking and engaging in original thought. As for this being recentism, that cannot be judged until time has passed. Frankly it's quite ridiculous for you to be claiming that a story isn't reporting a controversy if it doesn't use the term, when the whole purpose and tone of the piece is to report the controversy. FerrerFour (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This is getting very silly and starting to get far to personal. This tiny little incident of one man breaking the rules and being disciplined has been discussed to death. There is clearly differing interpretations of the policies of Wikipeida. The term "controversy" not used so the sources not using it are not considering it a "controversy". The incident inclusion is beginning to sound more and more like I like therefore it needs including. There needs to be a remembering that Wikipeida is not a repository of everything which happened at the Olympics and is not a blow-by-blow news reporting of what happened. I have not really head anything more on the incident since it happened and it is seriously failing having any lasting notability. Sport and politics (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
More rubbish. This page contains 0.000001% of the actual amount of news coverage there's been of the Olympics, so that claim is clearly nonsense. There are no differing interpretations here at all, there's people talking about policies that they know about, and then there's you, who can barely even match up a policy to the issue it governs - NOTABILITY doesn't control content in articles, RECENT doesn't bar the inclusion of recent incidents, NOTNEWS doesn't forbid the use of journalistic sources, WP:ILIKEIT only applies to deletion debates, etc etc etc. You can claim all you want that incidents weren't controversial, but merely pointing out that the word 'controversial' isn't in the source is about the thinnest argument you could ever produce to support it (and in the case of Kim Collins, it's actually a lie, there are soucres calling it controversial, I don't think you even bother looking half the time). FerrerFour (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The source from his own country uses the c word - controversy!--Egghead06 (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Well done that's the only one and if its not used in the main article (at the time of writing). The sources from the UK and from Australia do not so there is no wider controversy outside of his own country if it is even a "controversy" there. Not being able to cite material which directly support the claim this is a controversy outside of his own country demonstrates this is not a controversy, add it to the St Kits and Nevis at the 2012 Olympics article for sure because that is where it is notable but its not relevant here.Sport and politics (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That's brilliant then. As this is the English language wiki (not the English one or the American one) a good reference from an English language source is just what is needed. --Egghead06 (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
There needs to be a breadth of sources to demonstrate this is a controversy not just one or two. As the two main references (currently) being used do not call it a controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The use words: "rubbish...thick head...insane...I think its garbage...a lie" to refer to other editors and their writing and accusing editors of being motivated by: "weird hatred of the press" are not positive contributions to this discussion, and should be ignored.
Inclusion of material in this article is governed by Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper:
"2.News reports. Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Misplaced Pages may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." and other policies.
The inclusion of a timely news item in an article is a matter of judgment. - Fartherred (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
And I really wonder why you assumed I was not aware of that policy? I can wait for S&P/Hilo to produce some sort of argument that any of the 'athletes sent home' type entries on this page are nothing more than 'routine sports reports' (eg Tiger best Sharks 1-0) or somehow are as vacuous and uninmportant as the latest celebrity gossip (J-Lo's new haircut), however, while they refuse to do this and just whine on about news in general, I reserve the right to call their points rubbish, because they are. I personally cannot fathom how anyone can even think that being sent home from the Olympics for a non-injury reason is just some routine event, and that journalists only cover it because they need to fill space. Bizarre. FerrerFour (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You are asking people to prove a negative. That's almost impossible. I see this topic as a certainty to be removed from the article, along with many others, when time permits most editors to take a rational, long term view. One use of the word controversy in one newspaper, which has to publish a lot more words on the Olympics than we will ever use, is not evidence that including this item (and many others) is justified. You MUST accept that the newspapers use many more words than we do. You MUST accept that we cannot include them all. YOU must make the case that this particular incident is really a controversy. HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. It is exceptional to claim that an athlete being sent home from the Olympics for non-injury reasons is not controversial, and it is doubly exceptional to claim that it wasn't controversial when reliable sources state that it was. If the only argument you have against documenting every instance of athletes being sent home from these games is this weak, almost non-existent, rationale that newspapers have to write a lot of stuff and Misplaced Pages doesn't, then no, none of this material is going anywhere I'm afraid. I fully accept the contents of WP:NOT#NEWS, but I reject your argument that these reports are as trivial as the latest celebrity gossip and thus violate it. They aren't and they don't. The only requirement for these type of entries is for the content to be balanced, weighted, and sourced to reliable independent sources. This is standard Misplaced Pages policy. As for the long view, I've already given you an example of a near identical case being referred to 6 years later to debunk your claims that these incidents are simply routine reporting that's instantly forgotten, and given you seem to have been struck dumb in the face of this evidence, I see no reason for anyone to be forced to listen to your continued insistence that black is white, or to indulge you if you try to remove information in the future on this obviously flawed basis. FerrerFour (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is now getting very circular I have now requested a third opinion on this issue in a bid to resolve this discussion which has been done to death. Sport and politics (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I fear that WP:3O may yet be another thing you don't understand - third opinions are only really offered where only two people have been in dispute. Looking above, it's pretty obvious that more than two people have now had their say on whatever this issue now is. If you want even wider participation, I would advise drafting a Request for Comment. FerrerFour (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

3O

I am a Third opinion Wikipedian. I'm afraid that a Third Opinion is not available due to the number of editors involved in this dispute — at least five by my count — and your request has been removed for that reason. A request for comments is, indeed, one option but you might also want to consider filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard as another possible choice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:46, 9 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)

It is not off-topic to suggest something for an article, and in no way am I attempting to make a political statement. In future I suggest you familiarise yourself with the appropriate guidelines, and read up on the definition of off-topic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest you understand the topic of this article first. One man being invited by another, no matter who they are, Is in no way related to the running or outcomes of the Olympics. If it belongs anywhere, which is dubious, it is not here. This is not a soapbox for politics or general discussions of things at the Olympics or associated with the Olympics which is one users opinion of a potential controversy. This is for discussing the Olympic Games themselves and not the non-Olypmic personalities and individuals surrounding the Olympics. The Leverson Inquiry has nothing to do with the Olympics and neither does Rupert Murdoch. Sport and politics (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be missing the point. It was a question about whether or not to include a piece of information - not a general discussion on the subject, and definitely not an attempt at political soapboxing, which is what you seem to be implying. I strongly suggest you refrain from making such accusations in any future postings, and maybe you should also familiarise yourself a little more with our policy on civility. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I did answer it and the addition was wholly ff topic the banner at the top clearly states that information added which is wholly off topic is liable to be removed or redacted. Please stop getting over the top by someone simply disagreeing with you and saying what you did was not correct. Sport and politics (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The original post in now way violates WP:FORUM, and if you had tried to remove or redact it, it would have likely been you who ended up being blocked, especially for the outrageous accusation that the user was engaging in soapboxing. This is just another example of you not really knowing the policies you keep referring to. FerrerFour (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You are very close here to being reported for making unwarranted personal attacks. Please make sure you know what your talking about before stating other know nothing. You also keep wading in with your wanting to include everything and anything under the sun in this article. This stuff on one man getting an invite is nothing to do with the article and barely anything to do with anything as regards to being notable. Sport and politics (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I do know what I'm talking about, whereas you pretty obviously don't. If you disagree, then by all means try and delete this section from the talk page, and we'll see what happens. FerrerFour (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from veiled threats and goading. Using phrasing such as "try and delete" and "see what happens" implies that you are not willing to edit constructively on this issue. Sport and politics (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from talking nonsense. What has a willingness to be constructive got to do with me highlighting the fact that you have no basis whatsoever to be telling the person who started this section that he was wrong to do so? FerrerFour (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
There have been previous warnings from others users that referring to others users comments as "nonsense" is not constructive and may result in being reported for making uncivil personalised comments. Sport and politics (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
In other words, you can't really explain it. You can report me all you want, it won't suddenly make you an editor who understands things like WP:FORUM, let alone Original Research etc. FerrerFour (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

_____

I think you should both chill out now and perhaps even consider taking a break from this page for a while, as you seem to have some kind of disagreement going on across several threads. Sport and politics, you definitely have to gain a greater understanding of the guidelines you're throwing around, especially WP:FORUM, and apply them in the spirit in which they were intended, as well as being more civil when you reply to postings. FerrerFour, you have to take a deep breath and keep a cool head. This type of behaviour is disruptive to the overall ethos of the project, and distracts from constructive editing. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:58, 9 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)
Reason enough only by your interpreting of the sources which is synthesis.
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)
The story is a non-story if the sources cannot make out clearly what happened or the reasons why it happened. The content of this article needs to be clear, concise, on topic, notable, relevant and be easily understandable. This is clearly not clear, not easily understood, and not notable. This is again anoter piece of journalism. Claiming that it is a controversy based on cherry picking from the sources is synthesising the answer. Claiming it is something based an opinion is Original Research. there has to be positive evidence proving something is what it is and not to try and claim it is not something. These sources are though giving contradictory evidence and are proving nothing. The opinion that this is a controversy is Original Research. Once again please refrain from making personal comments on contributors. Sport and politics (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Please just stop talking absolute rubbish. It's beyond obvious that you don't have the first idea what Original Research even is, neither do you have any idea what notabiity is. The idea that we can't include information if the picture of what actually happened is not clear, is again just total and utter rubbish. Why don't you all give us a laugh and go and suggest the deletion of the Area 51 article based on this bizarre theory of yours. After all, nobody's all that clear what the truth is behind that topic are they? FerrerFour (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
By the reading of the comments above there seems to be a very flimsy grasp (if any at all) of what Wikipeida is not. There has been adequate explanation of why it constitutes OR, Synthesis and why it is not notable. This is beginning to look like I like there for I want it in. The difference between this and Area 51 is that Area 51 has a large volume or sources which give a large amount of verifiability and notability to the article. It gives a balanced argument to the whole article. Nothing in anywhere similar exists for this non-story. Sport and politics (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

UTC) UTC)

I shouldn't trust your reading skills if I were you, if you've ever read any of the policies you keep linking, you've clearly not understood them. There is no difference in Area 51 and this item given what you were claiming - you said that if sources are not clear on the story, it should not be covered. Which is garbage. A balanced treatment of this item is possible because there are plenty of sources out there. The only IDONTLIKEIT going on here, is your stupid outright rejection of sources because they're 'journalism' and bizarre belief that using sources as the basis for content is Original Research (totally the opposite), based on you not really understanding that notability governs titles not content, not really understanding that NOT#NEWS doesn't apply to non-routine reporting, and not really comprehending that RECENTISM cannot be assesed when the issue is still recent! You know nothing about any of this it seems, yet it doesn't seem to stop you waffling on as if you do. FerrerFour (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personal comments on contributors. I have made clear and thoroughly explained points to set out my position on the information. If you disagree, please do so in a way which addresses the substance of the information being discussed and not the individual making the contribution. Failure to stay on the substance of the discussion and to continue to focus on the individual contributors may result in referral for being uncivil and making personal attacks. I also suggest reading the things to avoid on a discussion pageSport and politics (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The main issue here is the contributor, namely your continued failure/refusal to understand many basic policies even when they're explained to you, while continuing to blindly insist that you do. I have addressed the substance many times, but it is essentially pointless when you don't have the competence to participate in the debate in a meaningfull and logical manner. FerrerFour (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Number of sources does not imply whether an event is notable or not. However amount of social coverage is an indication of notability.65.42.208.133 (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


Could you please provide something verifiable for that? Sport and politics (talk) 14:44, 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)
Somewhat brilliantly the Misplaced Pages article Create, read, update and delete is the top Google result for crud. To further clarify my comment I mean the top link here - Basement12 (T.C) 01:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that those are the actual headlines, in actual reputable news organisations, then this is so clearly worthy of inclusion it's unreal. But I sense yet another tedious round of claims that the press should be ignored because they know nothing about what is and is not controversial coming, and to call this a controversy will be Original Research, and other ill-informed nonsense. FerrerFour (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh good another of these 'I think it is', 'I think it isn't' debates. Surely as the games are still going on lasting notablity cannot possibly be known. This is controversial now, in the news now, has verifiable, reliable sources etc. Even Lord Coe is concerned! This can always be revisited later (if anyone is bothered by then) and additions/deletions to content will not muster such tension amongst editors.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The material can be included on the Misplaced Pages article about the 800m race at the Olympics, surely. Wouldn't that be a better place? Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That would only help readers who already knew the controversy had its genesis in the 800m. It wouldn't help those who remembered the controversy was about the winner of the 1,500m, nor those who could only remember that it involved a distance runner being disqualified and reinstated. There's no reason why it can't be in all three. FerrerFour (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
How about including it on just the page for Taoufik Makhloufi. Sport and politics (talk) 20:11, 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)

Do you have any sources other than hear say and what is "allegedly" heppening. Do you have an actual link to the Olympic games other than they travelled to the Olympic to compete. Claiming asylum or applying to stay in the United Kingdom is not anything to do with the Olympic Games or the Olympic Authorities. This is an immigration and asylum issue to be dealt with by the appropriate department dealing with immigration and asylum claims. It will not be dealt with by the Olympic authorities or the department of Culture, Media, Olympics and Sport. it is nothing to do with the actual competing at the Olympic Games. Sport and politics (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is coverage of this as, I suggest, a quick Google search would have shown you: e.g. BBC News. As they could only come to the UK because of the Olympics, this is clearly to do with the Olympics. And reliable sources, like the BBC article linked, class this as Olympics news. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The reasons they have come to the UK may be anything and to speculate and use news articles to speculate is Original Research. The Olympics may have simply been used as an excuse to come to the UK. It doesn't make this an Olympic Controversy. This is similar to when people came to the UK for the Boy Scouts anniversary and then decided to stay, it didn't make it a scouting controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
They were athletes who qualified for the respective events of theirs. That was the reason, then they went missing (and its happened to CMR before, apparently). Many sources mantion thisLihaas (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This happened at the Commonwealth Games too, and is a common issue. It is minor, but significant. Rich Farmbrough, 17:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC).

7/7

Why has the section on 7/7 been removed, it was a controversey?Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It is covered on the NBC page. Also this has been discussed before. Please contribute to the earlier discussion surrounding the NBC coverage of the Opening Ceremony. Sport and politics (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I an find no mentio of this on the NBC page, perhpas you cpuld help.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see the above discussion here if you wish to contribute on this topic. Sport and politics (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Gender equality

Need to mention the Japanese women's football team and Australia's basketball team where they played better in performance (and were better before) and travelered in economy class. In the former case "because the men were professionals". Apparetnly HJapan said they would return in bizz class and Aus initiated an enquiry.

Also add that this was he first time every NOC sent at least 1 women (though Saudi's dint play due to injury). Rogge said something in the opening ceremony too.Lihaas (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Careful with the wording there. Not every NOC sent female athletes to London; every NOC has now sent women to at least one Olympics. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 11:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Japan's men's team traveled in business class because their corporate sponsor volunteered to pay for the upgrade. Japan's women's team corporate sponsors did not volunteer to do so. It was an issue of the men's team having a sponsor more willing to pay out, not necessarily an issue of gender equality. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Just quoting the sources. Seems to have generated controversy as such (and Japan and Aus took action on it)Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Politics Scotland

First Minister has said that this would be Scotland's last games before going on itsown. He ws condemned as stirring up trouble ("killjoy") by the media. Lihaas (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that qualifies as a controversy for this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
For well known political reasons those mischievous Scots are using every possible platform to promote independence. The Olympics is just one of many. This is a UK issue, not an Olympic one. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I would agree, also thius is not abouot the olympics at all.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
But using the Olympics as a political platform is alwasy controversial. Munich, Mexico City, Los Angeles, Moscow...It generated criticism as well.Lihaas (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Percieved elitism section

This section was removed as it is not really of any place in this article. It is simply making up something to fill up some column inches. It does not matter where the competitors from the UK come from. This is also not a UK centric article and as such needs to provide a world-wide perspective on the events. focusing on the Background of competitors from one nation is classist, POV pushing and slanting of the article towards being UK centric. It has no place here as it does not serve a purpose. It doesn't matter where someone comes from, they cannot choose their background. If someone does well good for them it is all that matters. This is a non-story and most definitely not a controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The BOA chairman himself started the debate with his very public condemnation of the stats, and anyone with half a brain can see that class & opportunity is perceived as an issue within the British public and political sphere, therefore it's no surprice that the issue has been covered by multiple reliable sources, producing comment from all sorts of people in high office. What you personally think of the issue is frankly irrelevant. FerrerFour (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
And regarding this being a UK centric issue, it should be noted that the section was sourced to the Japan Times (although I take issue with the fact that it didn't include an online link). FerrerFour (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
So what if the BOA chairman started the debate it is a ridiculous story focusing on aspects of someone which they have no control over. An individual cannot choose their upbringing or the family they were born into. The whole section is ridiculously slanted as making out that they are all snobs by using language such as "posh" as a pejorative and implying its terrible that they went to private schools. It implies it is a terrible thing that these schools exist and how dare they have better facilities. It also doesn't matter what the source is in the slightest, singling out the UK competitors makes the article unnecessarily UK centric. I could source a negative section on Australia from South Africa and that would still make the section unduly slanted to wards Australia. The wider debate which is starting in the UK is on funding of sports in schools which is not a controversy. It is simply an internal debate in the UK. If there is felt the need for including that debate on Misplaced Pages please do so on appropriate page which is not this page but is on a page such as; school sports in the UK or on education in the UK or on Sport in the UK or the Olympics legacy in the UK. To single out individual competitors background which is something they have no control over is the same as singling out competitors race, gender, age, eye colour, height etc. It is something they have no control over and is a non-story made up to sell newspapers by pandering to attacking people perceived to have something which others do not have. The number of "reliable" sources here is completely irrelevant as the story doesn't belong here and if the issue is to be included on Wikipeida (which is not here) the blatant anti-POV needs stripping out and a balanced piece on funding of school sports in general needs writing. This section simply attacking "posh schools" and including the BOA Chairman's title adds to the anti-POV this section has. It is just wholly puerile in its classism. This section is one of the most POV, biased and unbalanced sections added to the article. Sport and politics (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"So what if the BOA chairman started the debate" - well, it's pretty relevant if you want to claim this was a story manufactured by the press. It exposes claims like this of yours as nothing but fantasy, having no connection to what actually happened at all. The whole post there just makes it obvious that the only thing that underpins your removal is a personal opinion. Your views on the merits, or lack of, of a debate in the media and wider country about class and opportunity in sport, have absolutley no place in controlling what does and does not go into Misplaced Pages articles. More examples of your lies about the section are the ridiculous claims that it contained attacks on competitors and implied going to private school was bad - both of these things have been invented by you. The only point you have is about whether this is the right location for the material, but given that this is clearly not your main objection to it, but merely a mask for your personal distaste that the debate even exists, you really shouldn't be in control of that at all. FerrerFour (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually trying to keep it out to preserve this sas a short article is not valid an arguement. If th enotable HEAD of the NOC said so that generates controversy itself because of his cocnern (an d no doubt efforts to change will come). Its not a surprise that Equastrian has this, but its a move towards change and thats a call, hence a controversy. Maybe instead of a section, merge it elsewhere.Lihaas (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It should be part of a wider section on another page on funding of sports and funding of school sports in the UK. It is currently written in such an anti way it makes it out as if it is wrong that the individuals who won some how only got there because they bought there way there. A persons upbringing is not something one can help and it should there for be treated with a lot of care it should really be treated in the same way as race as that is another thing people cannot help. The section needs a lot of balance and the level of anti in the current version is so disproportionate it has no place on Misplaced Pages. Sport and politics (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the section should remain in the article, and once again advise editors to discuss these things first before reverting them from the article. I think one of us here has already been warned about this. Cla68 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion the way it is currently written is potentially defamatory as it is effectively stating they did not get there on merit and that Private schools are somehow morally wrong. Removing something and then discussing to justify its conclusion is far better than leaving something up which is so biased it is potentially defamatory. Add if you like but don't expect it to stay there if it is potentially a hot button issue. If it is reverted and a discussion is started that is how the usual cycle works. An editor is bold in adding, another editor removes or reverts and then there is discussion. This is not revert warring as you are once again implying. The previous interpretation given on this page of revert warring gave a selective interpretation, which was inaccurate. Currently the section is so biased and one sided it cannot be included. If it is re-written on another article to discuss all sides of this then it has a place on Misplaced Pages at the moment it is potentially defamatory and cannot be included. This could potentially be a BLP violation as it is implying that the people who completed and went to private schools did not deserve to be at the Olympics because of their upbringing which is potentially defamatory. Sport and politics (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You're against the grain of consensus on its inclusion. That said if you think it needs to be reworded feel free to do that OR bring the dodgy phrases here to discuss how to change it.Lihaas (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Words cannot express how wrong you are. Not only are you showing how you have no understanding of policy at all, this time BLP of all things, now you are showing you have no idea about basic legal concepts like defamation. It's just unbelievable. FerrerFour (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Section Rewording

Colin Moynihan from the British Olympic Association expressed concerns over the proportion of the British team who did not come from the state school sector and commented on the lack of funding available for school sports in state schools. One fifth of the team did were educated outside of the state sector. With sports such as rowing and equestrian being up to one third. Moynihan said that it was "wrong and unacceptable" that there were not more students from the state sector in the team. There has been wider debate with in the UK over the level of funding available for school sports and increasing acess to sports from people of all backgrounds. <Insert quote from a person in a source>.

That is a first draft of the section removing the pejorative language the unnecessary inclusion of the peerage and the slant against the athletes who have come from outside of the state school sector in the GB team. Obviously reliable sources will be found and added when the final wording is agreed upon. Sport and politics (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It has no need of revision. Your ignorance of basic concepts like defamation and BLP is no excuse to be making content worse, eg why on Earth would an encyclopoedia not give someone their proper title, and simply say they were "from the BOA". FerrerFour (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Africa village

Lihaas (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the second Olympic related cultural organisation to go bust. Could you please elaborate on what exactly you would like to be done rather than just dumping a link without explanation. Sport and politics (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories: