Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FerrerFour (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 10 August 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think it needs to be a rule that anyone who comments on this article's merits, should at least know the subject matter it refers to. I only got as far as the first line, "This article is full of trivia, such as the security company not getting enough security guards", before I nearly fell off my seat laughing. G4S's failure to provide enough guards was a huge issue. It generated huge amounts of public debate, massive amounts of media coverage, and statements from all sorts of high offices, which even generated its own side controversy over some less than well thought out comments on it from a certain US Presidential candidate. It was even debated in Parliament. And that's before we mention the real world consequences for the company itself, the world's largest private security provider (which included a trip by the CEO to said Parliament, for a very public humiliation). Actually I probably will have to mention them - the stock crashed and they gave up bidding rights on some future global events. Anyone who has done any research on the subject, and yet can still claim that this event was trivial, is a liar quite frankly. Don't be fooled by the section's size, that's a mere product of Misplaced Pages's complete lack of any editors who are able to remain here long enough to put some quality work in, in the face of having to deal with editors like, well, you can see if you look at the talk page. All I'll say is I'm surprised it hasn't been removed yet for being a BLP violation against the company's CEO. The G4S debacle was arguably the biggest controversy of the games, or is at least tied for the title with the seats issue and the perennial brand protection/sponsor broohaahaa. I will not vote either way because that would give unwarranted legitimacy to this clearly unresearched proposal, but I nonetheless condemn it. FerrerFour (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Games or sports)
• AfD debates