Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.65.68.229 (talk) at 22:25, 13 June 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Falun Gong

Since when is Falun Gong a democracy movement? 130.238.5.7 17:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Anything that is anti-communist-China is considered "democracy movement" by western propogandas. The sad thing is that most westerners do not realize that they, too, are subject to propaganda. 68.229.152.169 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)68.229.152.169

You, dear sir, have just forgotten: Extermination of Tibetans, genocide of Uighurs, Tiannanmin square, agression towards a democratically elected government in Taiwan, censorship of the press and the internet, supporting and trading with notorious dictators in Africa, arms dealing with terrorists, supporting and protecting Kim Jong Il in North Korea, and probably a whole host of issues beyond falun gong. Just because short-sighted corporations are jumping to make money in china doesn't make the regime in Beijjing legitimate to progressive, democratic human rights respecting people.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.41.142.242 (talk • contribs) .

Extermination of Tibetans? Genocide of Uighurs? Really! One aspect of western propaganda is that they like to over-exaggerate stories. Why are westerners so brainwashed by their own media? 134.84.166.42 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Typical western POV, excessively focusing on negative aspects of the Chinese government. What about the extensive improvements of infrastructures over the decades, including in Tibet, the lifting of millions after millions of people out of poverty, and trying to broker the six-nation talks on Korean nuclear issues? Nothing in this world is perfect, certainly not the Chinese government, but it has changed extensively since its days during the cultural revolution, just as the American government and society have changed since their segregation days. I have encountered many Americans offended by foreigners' criticism of the American government. Choosing to focus more on positive or negative respects of something is POV. Pseudotriton 04:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

This is not NPOV to write that those who consider human rights record are poor in China are anti-Chinese. Ericd

Quite. 172's insistence that some people thinking China has a poor human rights record is the work of "Anti-China Forces" (what are they?) is ludicrous and insulting. I have made it slightly more NPOV and will continue to remove 172's "Anti-China Forces" each time they appear. 62.30.150.99 19:10 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

If you criticize China = you're anti Chinese. I'm French and very critic about my own governement thus I'm anti-French. Ericd

No, that doesn't cut it. Nor does it make sense. "Anti-China Forces"?? Come on! 62.30.150.99 19:10 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

If Anti-Americanism is a legitimate phenomenon, why is it so hard to conceive "Anti-Chinaism"?

sorry, I misunderstood EricD's sarcasm! :) 62.30.150.99

172 I'm French and anti-French. Full of self-contradictions. All of your edits are POV. Who disagrees with you is anti-something or extreme something. Ericd

Ericd what about when you hear a non-French criticising France? How do you feel about that? Being a Chinese living in the US, I often come across Americans being offended by foreigners criticising US (including their government). The botton-line is: hearing negative comments about your country (gov't., etc.) from outsiders is different from your fellow countryman. 68.229.152.169 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)68.229.152.169

Isn't misunderstanding French sarcasm sort of ... anti-French? olivier 02:47 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

Mais non! 138.37.188.109 08:53 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure if im doing this right (it's my first time to comment) but why not just seperate allt he sections of the story that are not neutral under the ehading of 'controversies' like what's being done with a number of other articles here in wikipedia?

Human rights

Its election was considered controversial by many, given what some consider the poor human rights record of China.

Well I really don't understand what human right gots to do with Olympic Games. Olympic is just a sport festival and has nothing to do with politics. As a Chinese I really think that China should host an Olympic Games, for the fact that there are 1.3 billion Chinese in this planet, and the country has the economic strength to host such an event. And I am sure that it is not controversial at all in mainland that China should host the Olympic games. --Formulax 09:30 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the wording "what some would consider" ambigious. It should be replaced by "progressive, democratic thinkers worldwide"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.41.142.242 (talk • contribs) .

I realize I'm coming to this discussion late, but I feel I have to put in my two cents regarding the comment, "Olympic is just a sport festival and has nothing to do with politics," which I find absurd. Politics play a huge role in the Olympics. Multiple games have been boycotted due to politics, South Africa was banned for a period due to its politics, the 1988 games in Seoul were a factor in forcing the South Korean government to democratize...the list could go on. Parthepan 11:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I remember the 1988 Games, but do not recall the media making a big deal about the Olympics forcing changes in the Korean gov't., so why now with the Beijing Olympics? Admit it or not, this is probably one of the most politicized Olympics in recent years, at least by the media. 68.229.152.169 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)68.229.152.169

Actually with the new chinese leadership, china has tried to change its image to shed the old "suffered under European colonialism" image into a more assertive one. and whatever happened in the late 1800s happened 100 years ago :P Frankchn 14:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But fans will boo at western athletes. --Arbiteroftruth 07:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, didn't they boo at this year's olympics too? -- Frankchn 04:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankchn, the spectators didn't actaully boo anyone I think. They were just silent when Macedonia and Turkey (both nations have tense relations with Greece) entered the arena. After the Asian Cup Finals, I can see that all Western athletes, plus Japanese athletes, will be booed when they enter the stadium. I dunno about the Chinese turning the Olympics into a sob story, but I think it might happen. PRC has a bad track record on this.

Well, I think they did behave quite rowdily in some events (not ref opening/closing ceremony) Frankchn 08:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What the fans do (for better or worse) has nothing to do with PRC. You think the gov't wants to rowdy up it people and generate bad publicity in such international events? Com'on. Then again, if the Chinese gov't tries to exert too much control, westerners are gonna cry "iron fist". It's impossible to please some westerners. And you wonder why some Chinese believe in "Anti-China Forces"? 68.229.152.169 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)68.229.152.169

Maybe you've just illustrated why china is an innapropriate host for the games....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.41.142.242 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure what exactly you are refering to, nevertheless, if you have so much problem with Beijing hosting the 2008 Games, just don't watch it. However, the IOC obvioulsly disagrees with you, and so do hundreds of millions of Chinese, including many in Taiwan. Apparently, the only people feeling the same way as you do are those with "anti-China" agendas trying desparately to inject politcs into this whole ordeal. Beijing IS the host for the next Olympics, deal with it... Pseudotriton 04:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourg

Why is Luxembourg withdrawing from UEFA? And are there any sources for their rumored withdrawal from the Olympics? --Metropolitan90 July 8, 2005 06:01 (UTC)~

• I think this is pure trolling and should be removed.194.183.196.141 8 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

Guangdong Stadium

I wonder whether the piece about the Guangdong Stadium is relevant in this article. Did the Chinese really consider having the stadium so far away from the host city or is this just a fantasy ?

Yes indeed. Guangdong Stadium in Guangzhou is quite close to Hong Kong. I couldn't imagine how they even thought about of holding the opening ceremony there when the city chosen was Beijing. Can someone elaborate on this in the main article? In so far as I know, cities other than the host, like Guangzhou, can host an sports event during the Olympics (and in this case, Qingdao, Hong Kong and some other cities ), but as explicitly stated in the 2014 Olympics page, to host the opening/closing ceremony at some other city other than the host city (that's why it is called a host city) is in violation of the Olympic Charter. So how can the authority even think of such an arrangement during the campaign phase of for hosting the 2008 Olympics, especially when they are really wanted to win the rights of hosting?Joey80 06:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Participating Nations...

...needs work. It's written in a strange way. Thanx 68.39.174.91 5 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

An annonymous user edited the intro to add the following lines:

On 8th July 2005 NOON(In Hong Kong Time), the International Olympic Comittee announced Hong Kong will be hold the equestrian events. The place of The equestrian events will be hold in Hong Kong Sports Institute in Fotan,Shatin. The Oringinal Sports Institute may move to Wu Kai Sha.

The reading of the sentences was pretty bad so I tried my best to reword the paragraph. I came up with this:

On July 8 2005, the International Olympic Committee announced that Hong Kong will hold the equestrian events at the Hong Kong Sports Institute in Fotan, Shatin. The Original Sports Institute may move to Wu Kai Sha.

I really didn't understand the second half of the paragraph, as the English didn't read too well. Could someone please double-check my edits to make sure I didn't do something stupid? Thanks, 青い(Aoi) 8 July 2005 09:33 (UTC)

About 8 in Chinese culture

In the article: 'the number 8 stands for prosperity in Chinese culture'. As a Chinese, I agree not. What I can tell you is the idea '8 is prosperity' is typically superstitious. Because 8 is pronounced ‘ba’ in most of the Chinese dialects, And since it’s similar to ‘fa’（发）, it is considered 8 will bring people money (‘fa’). In many cases such as mobile phone numbers, car numbers etc., Chinese prefer to use 8 instead of any other numnber. Thus I think it is proper to be edited: 'the number 8 stands for prosperity in Chinese sub-culture'Pourfemme 01:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. How do you know something is superstitious and other things are not? The number "8" is special for Chinese because for the exact reason you mentioned. I think all Chinese are smart enough to know that 8 is not prosperity. But, they choose the number 8 and liked it so much because it sounds like "prosperity", a word they like to keep hearing. It's a part of Chinese culture. Heilme

Concern

I have removed the section for the time being. It is too POV, does not cite sources and uses an anonymous "they". Could we please have sources cited for any concerns - either in edit summaries or on this talk page? Can we be clearer about who "they" are? Criticism by the Falun Gong would fall under a general discourse by the Falun Gong about China and would not warrant mentioning in this article. Who suggests that this event might serve as a unity event in relation to Japanese acknowledgement of past aggression?--AYArktos 22:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The excised text:

There are those who believe that the government of China will use the 2008 Olympics as a showpiece of Chinese nationalism to promote unity among Chinese provinces including Taiwan, Tibet, Uigher, and Hong Kong. With the continuing denial from the Japanese government and public of its past aggression, Olympics might serve as a unity event. Although some have contended that the PRC government is moving away from its anti-western stance, others with far less historical understanding and significant bias do not believe such assertions at all. The selection of Beijing as host city has also been criticised by supporters of Falun Gong, Tibetan independence, and Taiwanese independence. The Chinese government claims that these concerns are unfounded.

Uh, those wikilinks aren't source enough? Taiwan and Tibet have their own articles. The Tibetan link is directly to a group, even. Are you looking for direct citations from those groups? As to the "unity" and "nationalism" aspect of the opening lines, I can only speak from personal experience: China may be a modernizing economy but the CCP propaganda machine is as strong as ever, as a foreigner you're bombarded with it as if they have something to prove to you.

This paragraph has gone through a lot of revisions from a lot of users. I don't think it deserves being excised. SchmuckyTheCat 22:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the revisions by a lot of users reflect the POV of those editors, not particular groups or "they". So yes at this stage I would say I am looking for citations from those groups not second guessing what those groups might think about the 2008 Olympics.--AYArktos 22:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I've toned down several of those POVs. I didn't ask for cites for the ones that remain (because they seem obvious) but removed some that couldn't be cited (HK and MO).

Tibet: Commemoration of the 42nd Anniversary of Tibetan National Uprising Day. On March 10th, 2001, in commemoration of the 42nd Anniversary of Tibetan National Uprising Day, Tibet supporters participated in a rally at Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza in view of the United Nations building. The rally included speakers from the Tibetan exile community, Tibet support groups, human rights and labor groups, academic and political communities and local Chinese dissident groups. This was followed by a march across 42nd Street to the Chinese consulate at 42nd Street at 12th Avenue and a reception that was held at Tibet House. The various speakers used this opportunity to state the case against awarding the 2008 Summer Olympics to China.

More: http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=38

Taiwan: This is CCP finger and dick wagging at Chen Shu Bian on the very issue: http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-11/21/content_283675.htm

For either case Googling Taiwan/Tibet + Olympics gives you plenty of reading material that this isn't any editors POV but real issue based campaigning by Tibet/Taiwan sympathizers.

I agree with you the nebulous They here is weasely writing. That's a case to re-write though, and not excise. SchmuckyTheCat 23:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• The reason for excising is that the only part of the paragraph that is substantiated by your comments is:

The selection of Beijing as host city has also been criticised by supporters of Tibetan independence and Taiwanese independence who are concerned that the government of China will use the 2008 Olympics as a showpiece of Chinese nationalism to promote unity among Chinese provinces including Taiwan, Tibet, Uigher, and Hong Kong. The Chinese government claims that these concerns are unfounded.

I do not think this is radical stuff - it would be radical if such organisations came out and praised something that the Chinese Government was doing or encouraged other nations to support the Chinese Government! However, I would be happy for a statement such as the one above tobe included.

While I could google and produce references myself I think the onus is on the eidtors who include these comments to cite sources. There has been a lot of anon editing and as stated I believe the edits reflect their views not those of any stated organisation. Any future edits on concerns should also cite sources - it is too political and Misplaced Pages should report on the politics but not generate the debate or be a place for the debate.

Note Falun Gong declares itself above politics - its supporters may have stated something. I would like the source here on the talk page before the assertion is reincluded. Similarly for the statement about Japan. I refer to the policy: Misplaced Pages:Cite sources to justify my approach. The paragraph had got well beyond simple statements of public record that do not need to be referenced.--AYArktos 00:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

First things first: "Uyghur" refers to a single member of the Uyghur ethnicity. It is parallel to "Tibetan", "Mongol", etc., not "Tibet" or "Mongolia".

The entire statement is made from the perspective of someone who's obviously not familiar with the Chinese POV. Tibet, Taiwan, Uyghur, and Hong Kong are "non-Chinese peoples"? The Chinese POV is explained at Zhonghua Minzu: from the Chinese POV, Han Chinese is not equal to Chinese any more than White American is equal to American; rather, Han Chinese, Tibetan, Uyghur etc are all subsets of Chinese, just as White, African-American etc. are subsets to American. (This is the Chinese POV, you don't have to agree or disagree with it, but the point is that it exists, and the current phrasing doesn't reflect it.)

Secondly, what's the point of singling out Hong Kong? Doesn't the Olympics promote nationalism in Beijing? or Shanghai? or Guangdong? or Sichuan? It certainly has. So what is so special about Hong Kong, really? The only inference that can be drawn is that it "needs" an extra dose of nationalism like Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang, which all have independence movements. This is why I pointed out that HK doesn't have such a movement.

Finally, both the Chinese government and the general Chinese public acknowledge that the Olympics do indeed boost nationalism, and would in fact say that it is a good thing. And why wouldn't it be? Which country would feel that patriotism toward itself is a bad thing? And which strongly nationalist people (as Chinese people today are) would condemn their own nationalism? So the last sentence, that "these concerns are unfounded", seems strange.

-- ran (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• While I was trying to leave much of previous editors' input in, I agree with User:Ran's comments. In order to not excise concerns entirely, perhas the minimal statement: The selection of Beijing as host city has been criticised by supporters of Tibetan independence and Taiwanese independence. is accurate, refers people on to those issues via wikilinks if they wish to explore further and will suffice.--AYArktos 08:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ran, nationalism is a good thing, but nationalism in the hands of fenqing is not good. Arbiteroftruth 19:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Vatican?

Is the piece about the vatican joining a joke? I don't think anyone seriously expects the vatican to participate in the games, as a catholic i dont find the idea of pope benedict in one of this skin tight track suits to be particularly good for the mind.

• Not a joke as such, but it would be the only widely recognised sovereign nation not entering (for obvious reasons)Average Earthman 13:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yea. I don't think we will see nuns running in events. No offence to anyone. 70.190.225.86 01:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As funny as this idea is, i think we should remove the mention of the vatican from the article, as it sounds silly and is impossible. However, i would love to start a petition to get the pope training to run in the 100m sprint (although i dont think he would be ready for 2008; it may be a better idea for him to plan to run in 2012). Wright123 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • heh. godspeed!!

I second that (removal of the mentioning, that is; not for the pope running sprints). Pseudotriton 04:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The last time I checked, the Vatican/Holy See does not even have a National Olympic Committee. And almost always (though I think there were some exceptions--that's why they let some athletes participate as individuals), a National Olympic Committee must be recognized before a country's participation. In the case of the Vatican, its involvement with the Olympics is usually made in terms of the Pope sending a message of peace in the period leading to or during the Games. In this particular edition, the involvement of the Vatican and China is more on the political arena, rather than a sports stadium, with some speculations being made on the establishment of diplomatic ties between the two by 2008. Joey80 06:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Calendar

I know it's jumping the gun by some 2 years, but I began a calendar of events following the one on the 2006 page. I started to do the dots, but I stopped because we don't know the event specifics yet. Then I started another one with just the sports. I just wanted to let someone know if anyone was looking to start it. Here are the two links to the pages I started:

This one has everything.

This one has everything, but it's ugly. Use the one above, please!

--Jared / 20:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

New disciplines and events

There are two disciplines added to the programme in Beijing: open water swimming and BMX cycling. There will be 5 new events: 10km open water swimming for men and women, BMX cycling for men and women, and also women's 3000m steeplechase in athletics. 2 track cycling events (1000m time trial for men and 500m time trial for women) and 2 shooting events were discontinued.--Nitsansh 01:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also there are new team events (men and women) in table tennis, that replace the doubles events, and 2 events in fencing were changed.--Nitsansh 00:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They forgot to add a list of Olympic venues

Someone forgot to add the list of venues for the 2008 Summer Olympics. We already have a list of venues for the 2012 Summer Olympics and the 2010 Winter Olympics. They need to add that list to this article. They do not have detailed venue information in the Beijing 2008 Olympic website.

Well, there was an episode shown in the Discovery Channel about the latest structural developments in Beijing, mostly devoted to facilities which will be used for the Olympics. So in terms of making a list, the documentary is a good start. And I agree that in contrast to the 2012 Olympics wikipedia article, this one is lacking in details when it comes to venue. It is quite peculiar that this will be the next Olympic Games and many are already reporting that construction of venues are on time or either ahead of schedule. But this article devotes its content more on speculation on boycott, politics, etc., which are not really a direct part of the Games (and which will actualize only during the period leading to the Games or during the Games), rather than what is certain as of the present. In this case, this includes the update on venue constructions and even the list of venues.Joey80 06:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

About the Boycotts

If you are looking for a Chinese who can openly admit that China is not a perfect country but with its share of hypocracies and dis-satified people, I'll be the first one in line. However, I just feel that it is inappropriate to devote so much detail on the boycott on the Beijing Olympics, while they are usually rendered as footnotes for other Olympics. I think the 2008 Games should be treated just as another Olympic event and not be politicized. And it seems rather low to brand someone with different opinions "vandals". 68.229.152.169 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)68.229.152.169

Furthermore, the "proposed boycotts" originally described in this page are not in the same sense as those for previous Olympics, conducted by sovereign nations who are IOC members. The boycotts for the Beijing Games are called by groups with particular interests and hitching rides on western sympathy. Also, the original section mentioned that many previous Games were successful despite similar protests by "minor political groups". Why are there no description of such boycotts for these other Olympics in their respective pages? 68.229.152.169 04:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)68.229.152.169

Blanking of a section is considered vandalism. If you feel strongly enough that the section should be deleted, than you should gain consensus on this page before deleting. Sue Anne 05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your ideaology behind all of this, and I realize that your opinion is valid. It is true that maybe a big deal shouldn't be made out of this. First, though, I would like to point out that making blankings on a page, as Sue alluded to, is blatent vandalism, especially without adding your view first to the discussion section of the page. I know you're not a "User" of WP, so I think that you may not be too keen on policy. Second, I think that the information on boycotts is interesting and informative. That's what wikipedia is supposed to publish. In my opinion, it doesn't take away from the article. Now, when you refer to other Olympics, where the boycotts are just footnotes, you are forgetting that those games are already over, and there is more important information to display on the page. Currently, there isn't that much, so this just adds to the information present. I thank you in advance for your attention to Misplaced Pages policy regarding this matter. → J@red  19:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jared for the response. You are right in that I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages. I have just registered now (You don't have to know me as an IP address any more). I never intended to vandalize any contents here or be antagonistic to anyone. it was my intial impression that any user can edit any content at any time, at least based on the slogan on the Wiki main page. Now there appears to be catches to this whole thing. And I still don't quite understand what exactly constitutes consensus, even after reading that page 3 times. Wiki users come and go. How do you know when you have consensus from the majority? So this mechanism seems arbitrary and potentially subjective to me. Nevertheless, in order to demonstrate good faith, I'll propose that we both make concessions regarding the boycott section. I'll agree to keeping the text portion for now (although I do not promise not to bring it up at a later time), if you (or who ever we need consensus from) agree to delete that logo of Beijing Olympic Boycott. To me that is a rather disturbing picture and does not belong in the article describing the Olympics itself. I also want to reiterate that these movements should not be considered boycotts in the strict sense because Tibet movements etc. are not sovereign nations with IOC memberships. Lastly, I hope you don't get offended when I say that I don't buy your explanation that previous Olympics articles put less attention to boycotts simply because they are "over". Somehow I doubt these contents will diminish for the Beijing Games even after it is over. To me this is a reflection of western bias on these sort of issues. Pseudotriton 17:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) formerly 68.229.152.169

Pseudotriton, its great that you became a member of Misplaced Pages by signing up. You also have done your reading! That's good. I'm sorry you don't understand the policy, though. I, too, had trouble grasping the policy of Consensus when I first started. Basically, though, it means that a visual majority must agree in order to do something. Now, I don't know about other people who are listening in on this debate, but I'm willing to negotiate, too:

I, first, personally think that the picture is a great suppliment to that section. It may seem to be one-sided and a little biased, but if you scroll to the top of the page, you see a picture of Chinese cheering at the joy of having the Olympics. To me, this evens it out, so to speak. Second, though, I think that there may be too much writing on this subject for an Olympics page, so I suggest morphing this section with the "Olympic Lawmaking" section, and maybe a few other blurbs floating around, and call the new section Chinese response or Chinese reactions . This way, the "boycotts" section won't pop out in any way. Do others agree? → J@red  19:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the Boycotts section should be left as is and not merged into a "Chinese response" as the boycotts have nothing to do with how the Chinese government is responding in "Olympic Lawmaking" where they are already gearing up for the heavy suppression of anything that might even be seen as dissent by the outside media. Also, the boycotts are not "potential" but are occuring at this time as people are refusing to do business with 2008 Olympic sponsors. 66.32.43.49 22:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem to make sense to me to have this "boycott" under "Chinese response". Perhaps I did not understand Jared fully. And I wonder who the "people" refered to by 66.32.43.49 are. In previous Olympic boycotts, such as the 1984 Olympics, an IOC member country like the USA leads a block of other IOC member countries to boycott the Games by not participating. I don't think the ones in the current issue qualifies as boycotts. These groups are not IOC members and are not eligible to particpate in the Olympics in the first place. They are merely using this opportunity to advance their own agendas. I think what they are advocating can be qualified as "protests" at the best, not boycotts.

One more note if you are so pre-occupied with how the Chinese gov't is eager to crack down on dissent, just think that if you are organizing a major international event like this, wouldn't you try to make sure that it will go unimpeded? Keep in mind that people do things differently in the other part of the world. It is not unusal for dissenting groups to vandalize such events. And really, do we have to inject so much politics into an article about the Olympics? Pseudotriton 02:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(without addressing anything else) - Quite unfortunately, politics has been thoroughly injected into the Olympics without our help. -- Jonel | Speak 02:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Jonel on this one. Politics is a big part of the Olympics. Look back at other Olympic pages and I'm sure you will see that. That said, you should see why having a boycotts section is advantageous: it shows what political problems or lack thereof are going on in the host country and gives a better sense of how the Olympics may run, etc. Yes, this may not be a "true boycott" in the sense of a whole NOC not participating, but Tibet makes up a good portion of China, and its residents may participate in the Olympics if they wish. It is quite notible if they boycott it. → J@red  19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I am well aware of all the politics involved with the Olympics. I just think that media (including Wiki) have perhaps over focused on such issues rather than the game itself. And that's what I meant when I said "we" -- Wiki articles describing the Olympics. I'm not so naive to deny that many people are unhappy to see Beijing hosting the Olympics. I just want to see equal treatments among comaprable articles in Wiki. I have said this repeatedly and I'll say it again, I don't see other Olympic articles devoting so much detail to their respective controversies. To me, this is not NPOV. Pseudotriton 23:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed this line from the environmental boycotts: "Others, however, feel that an attractive stadium will attract an abundance of tourists, equating to more profits for Beijing." There doesn't seem to be a need to mention in the boycott section that there are some people not boycotting. (The way it was phrased also made it sound like some envoronmental groups were against destroying the Papua forests, while Others (referring back to environmental groups) thought it was a great idea.) Tomtefarbror 16:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

POV attempt to delete information

User:RevolverOcelotX is attempting to delete information which accurately represents the arguments of potential boycotters, including disputes over the use of Tibetan imagery as Chinese symbols, and qualifications of opposition groups as "controversial". 72.65.80.34 14:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

72.65.80.34's changes to the article are clearly POV. 72.65.80.34 keeps insisting on adding redundant info and weasel words to the pro-tibet group. 72.65.80.34 also keep deleting the words "controversial" which is clearly inappropriate and should be considered vandalism RevolverOcelotX

If it was "clear", then you'd be able to provide an argument for your deletions rather than giving specious claims of "vandalism" for a content dispute. 72.65.80.34 15:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly inappropriate to devote so much detail on the boycott on the Beijing Olympics, while they are usually rendered as footnotes for other Olympics. The 2008 Games should be treated like other Olympics per consistency. The "potential boycott" section should be shorten into footnotes or removed for consistency. And 72.65.80.34, you're not fooling anyone here. 141.153.121.104 is clearly YOUR sockpuppet that you use to evade the 3RR, just look at your contributions for proof. Theres even complaint about your sockpuppet here. RevolverOcelotX

Not all Olympics face much threat of boycotts because there are not overt issues of human rights concerns that groups feel the need to draw attention to in relation to them. However, in one case, there is even a separate article to deal with this fact; since the 2008 Olympics have not yet occurred, there is only enough material to deal with a short subsection. As it is, there is no consensus for a removal of this section and so your deletions are selective in an attempt to qualify the information pertaining to the group's claims.

Also, please read Dynamic IP. I do not personally control my address and even if I did, sockpuppets are not disallowed. Please refrain from false accusations. Thanks. 72.65.80.34 15:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What "overt issues of human rights concerns" are you talking about here? This is an Olympics article, not a human rights article. And your addition of "many pro-tibet group" is considered weasel words and POV. Who is the anonymous "pro-tibet group". You need to cite your sources for each group or they should be removed. But I will wait what other editors have to say about this first. As for sockpuppets, they are disallowed if you use them to evade the 3RR. And theres a clear link between 72.65.80.34 and 141.153.121.104. They both edit mostly the same articles, they both revert controversial articles, they both uses the same "arguments", and they both appear to help each other evade 3RR. It seems highly likely that you are using sockpuppets. RevolverOcelotX

The concerns are mentioned and attributed to the source; I'm afraid that providing my own elaborated information would be original research, which is disallowed, as well as besides the point.

Also, please read the article I guided you to. I do not have control over the address, and you have failed to back up your repeated assertions of 3RR violation; in fact the addresses in question have distinct log sessions and have not broached four reverts in any twenty-four hour period. Please refrain from these false accusations. Thanks. 72.65.80.34 16:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I havn't been reading the diffs of each of your edits, so I'm not sure what exactly each person here thinks. Would both of you sum up your argument into a small blurb, so I can put my thoughts in? → J@red  17:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it is basically essential that you read at least one diff (they are mostly the same), as they show what is in dispute. Basically, User:RevolverOcelotX is attempting to delete information about what the Tibetan groups are disputing, pertaining to its use of Tibetan imagery as China's own. He is also attempting to insert a POV qualification of Falun Gong as "controversial" (he had a worse description beforehand) so that the reader is instructed to disregard them and their claims. The word "controversial" just as well applies to most any and all political bodies, including the Chinese government itself, so the word's value is only in attempting to discredit it to those unfamiliar with the involved issues. Thanks for taking a look. 72.65.80.34 19:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:RevolverOcelotX and I have been saying the same thing: there is simply too much details dedicated to the so-called boycott calls to the Beijing Olympics in an article about the game itself, while other relvant info such as the bidding process is merely described by a few lines. Almost no other Olympic games get the same treatment in their respect articles. The article mentioned by 72.65.80.34 illustrates the issue here: a whole article about the American-led boycott on the Moscow Olympics, but only four lines describe the retaliatory boycott on the LA Olympics.

It appears that User:RevolverOcelotX has been getting into some trouble for reverting several China-related articles, and I can sympathize with his seeming frustration, given the presumably westerner-dominated editorial board here in English version Wiki. Many of these English articles, in my opinion, reflect western POV. If you can read some of the Chinese counterparts to these articles, you can often detect a different tone of voice. The paradox is that the decision of which info is POV is made based on POV.

Also, I don't think it is a stretch to lable the Falun Gong "controversial". It is neither saying they are good nor bad, simply that they stir up controversy. And they certainly do. Pseudotriton 02:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you feel you have content to add that would be useful regarding the 1984 Olympics, you are free to do so on that page. That is no argument for selectively deleting content here.

Also feel free to expand the bidding section. I have no objections to that either. 72.65.85.60 04:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the current state of this article reflects the western POV: focussing obsessively on the negative apsects of everything related to China. And who gets to decide which content is appropriate to delete (such as "controversial", perhaps?) while others are not? It's all POV. Pseudotriton 05:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The subsection is a small and altogether insignificant portion that comes near the end of the article. Furthermore, criticism of China's human rights comes in the context of claims by Tibetans, decidely of non-western origin, and their advocates. That this reflects poorly on China is not reason for deletion. Nor would a general western tilt to the article, if such a thing even existed. 72.65.85.60 05:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Again this is an Olympics article, not an article about "criticism of China's human rights". Theres a separate article on that. There is definately a western tilt to this article. The group is definitely controversial so its appropriate to label it "controversial". I also suspect that User:72.65.85.60 and User:72.65.80.34 are sockpuppets of each other. They both make the same "arguments" and POV changes to the article. RevolverOcelotX

They are the same person, as is User:72.65.65.154. However, that editor has consistently been explicit that he edits using multiple IP addresses because his Internet Service Provider uses dynamic allocation of addresses. As far as I can tell (and someone correct me if I'm wrong here), he hasn't used this situation to attempt to avoid 3RR or to make it appear that multiple people agree when there's just him; therefore "sockpuppet" isn't accurate. Though I do recommend registering an account to avoid any further confusion. -- Jonel | Speak 02:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this page has a responsibility to atleast show some boycott related material. That being said, that doesn't mean that it should show every detail. In cases where there is not solid evidance, do not include that fact or introduce it with a "It is possible that..." or "Some think...". This article should in no way persuade the reader to do something, it should just be informative. I think the both of you should try to settle on a nice compromising rephrasing of the section, and just leave it be for now. If you need any more help, just message me. → J@red  19:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy cripes, no. Do not say "It is possible that..." or "Some think..." Those are weasel words. Any evidence needs to be cited, and if there's no direct citation available, Misplaced Pages should not say it. For example, if you can find a verifiable citation of a reasonably reliable source saying that the boycotts are not likely to have much of an effect, please do add that back in. But it's not Misplaced Pages's purpose to make speculations. -- Jonel | Speak 02:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone who speaks Chinese please explain to this person the meaning of dynamic IP, because I think he either does not understand proper English or he is simply repeating insipid accusations in order to make something stick.

As for claims concerning the actual article itself, again, the section is small and not overwhelming, "western perspective" is irrelevant blather, and "controversial" is a clearly POV qualification. He has now reverted a move of the image to the top of the subsection, as is the case with others, and a resize more appropriate to the section size. It's as if he's personally very embarrassed about all this. It doesn't seem he should be editing these subjects if he can't keep a cool head about it.

In cases where there is not solid evidance

You are right. The only information it should contain is that which is available to us, which is what the section in question does contain. The only speculative information pertained to someone's insert about the boycotts not likely having much of an effect, but that was removed by another editor. What ROX was trying to do was delete verifiable information pertaining to actually existing facts surrounding active boycotts. That is unacceptable. 72.65.65.154 23:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial" is not a POV qualification. Many people see the group as controversial and the description is appropriate. Most of the boycotts are not active or verifiable as they haven't exist yet. They are all speculations. Please read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball to try to grasp the policy. The image is overly large and should be in the center of the text. RevolverOcelotX

This article is not a soapbox for Students for a Free Tibet

There is no need to list every single complaint that Students for a Free Tibet has against the PRC. This article is not a soapbox for the group. Users can click on the link to the group's article to find out more. Mentioning the boycotts is applicable to the article, but listing everything the group demonstrates about should belong to the group's article itself, which is already linked.

The amount of detail that is given amounts to a POV injection into the article. It is basically a way to sneak in anti-China sentiments. Instead of saying what's negative about China, it's worded to say that the group "claims" these negative things against China. These claims have a place in WP, but not in this article. Hong Qi Gong 06:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to point out that I went to the website linked and I could not find the information that was written in section. Maybe I was just looking at the wrong place. But what's written in that section is not only POV, but possibly unverified as well.

Also, I think that my revision of the text is better:

Tibetan separatist group Students for a Free Tibet has started a campaign for boycotting the 2008 Summer Olympics on grounds including the choice of the endangered Tibetan antelope (chiru) as one of five mascots for the Olympics. It also has a number of other complaints against the People's Republic of China and how it rules the Tibet Autonomous Region.

Hong Qi Gong 06:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First, don't reference policies that have nothing to do with the dispute. You tried "NPOV", which for your purposes here really means "don't describe a POV I don't like". That was apparent. "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox" pertains to self-promoters, propagandists, and advertisers. I am none of these (and I did not insert the original material) and I am not even involved in the mentioned groups. Furthermore, no matter who among us considers this group to be engaging in advocacy (which they are) or propaganda (which is a matter of opinion), the policy you mention (but did not really explain the relevance of to the article itself) states:

Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view.

You have not demonstrated that there is a NPOV problem with the section, but merely have (repeatedly) asserted it.

If the article was to list "every single complaint" that this group or any other had against the Chinese government, it would fill this page, others, full articles, reports, blogs, and videos, as can be ascertained by visiting their web site, where they do so. Instead there merely is a short summation of their complaints which specifically pertain not merely to complaints about the Chinese government's general practices but to procedures and imagery of the Olympics itself. By attempting to delete this information you transparently wish to deprive the reader of necessary context to their actions.

This effort would seem quite pedantic, with a flurry of ostensible policy justifications, if it weren't so obviously a ploy to remove critical references to, as you put it, "anti-China sentiments". You are fine to have your own particular views about the merits of the Chinese government, but not simply to edit articles with that view as your rationale and, in this case, delete contents wholesale. If you want changes, you need to start being specific about what is wrong with the section. 72.65.68.229 07:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have not tried to delete the text in its entirety. I've only wanted to shortened it to mention the most important reason behind the protest. The text as it appears is not only POV, but also it doesn't belong. We could add texts for the claims that the PRC makes to counter-balance the texts in that section to make it NPOV, but like I said previously, there is an article for Students for a Free Tibet for that purpose. I shortened that section because in order to make it NPOV, that section would grow substantially, becoming something that belongs in another article. You're basically bringing a Chinese human rights article into an article about the 2008 Olympics. But there's already an article for that, too - Human rights in the People's Republic of China. Hong Qi Gong 15:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletions are deletions. I never accused you of deleting "the text in its entirety" as that is demonstrably false. What you did delete is notable information which contextualizes the boycott rationale with particular relevance to the Olympics.

General criticisms of the PRC and its human rights record are not given here, nor should any Chinese response in kind. That is a complete red herring. Has China responded to boycotting threats and activism? That is relevant. 72.65.68.229 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the text as it appears is POV and doesn't belong in the article. We should not list every complaints that this group has with the government. It needs to be shortened and made NPOV. It is inappropriate to devote so much detail on the boycott on the 2008 Olympics, while they are usually rendered as footnotes for other Olympics. RevolverOcelotX

All of these non-responses have been dealt with previously. 72.65.68.229 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I do think we should have a "Boycott" or "Protest" section in the 2008 Olympics article because there may arguably be more demonstrations in this Olympics than other Olympics in the recent past, seeing as how the host is the PRC and so many groups protest against the PRC government. However, I'm concerned about the size of the section and its potential to grow too big as to overshadow the purpose of the 2008 Olympics article itself. Hong Qi Gong 20:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Potentiality is speculative. Deal with events as they arise, rather than attempt to preempt content. This section is very short and in no way makes the article unbalanced. 72.65.68.229 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The "proposed boycotts" described in this article are not the same as those for previous Olympics, conducted by sovereign nations who are IOC members. The boycotts for the Beijing Games are called by groups with particular interests and hitching rides on western sympathy. We should reduce the size of this section and move the details to the relevant links. RevolverOcelotX

The verifiable existence and notability of boycotting is not contingent upon massive state support. 72.65.68.229 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we're going to agree and I'm beginning to see the pointlessness of this discussion. Your responses don't cover anything I've already addressed. The way that the group's complaints are listed amounts to injection of POV content. You're basically listing the criticism that the group has against the PRC. It doesn't belong in this article. I stand by what I said, this article is not a soapbox for Students for a Free Tibet. Hong Qi Gong 21:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox and NPOV are not the same issue. I provided an explanation of how the former does not apply, and you have yet to address how the contents are not NPOV, so I can hardly respond on that point. I do not see bias in the writing, as every claim of the group is specifically attributed to it as its view rather than fact, as they are contentious claims. Mentioning "he way that the group's complaints are listed" is vague; it does not tell me anything about what issue I or anyone should be having. 72.65.68.229 21:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This 2008 Olympics article is not a soapbox for the group's every single complaints. Soapbox is not allowed in Misplaced Pages. Please read What_wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Misplaced Pages:NPOV to actually grasp the policy. RevolverOcelotX

Stop citing help pages. The relevant info is here. These are guidelines, not policy, so your statement that I am "not allowed" to do what you do not want me to do is wrong. If I want to respond to comments directly, I can. Furthermore, you are removing my indention of a direct quote in an unrelated instance, and making it appear as if the statement is my own. Please refrain from tweaking my comments to your liking. This is not your talk page. 72.65.68.229 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)