Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 4

Split proposals
This page is currently 109 KB long, which for an article that should have the potential of being featured in the future, is completely unacceptable, especially when considering that the Olympics have not even started yet (football did already start though...). The page takes forever to load and even more to edit. We need to drastically trim this article down, especially for those lengthy lists or tables that can easily be moved to their own separate pages. I've proposed the splits of the following:
 * Broadcasting → List of broadcasting rights at the 2008 Summer Olympics 2008 Summer Olympics broadcasting rights
 * Participating NOCs → List of participating NOCs at the 2008 Summer Olympics or List of participating National Olympic Committees at the 2008 Summer Olympics
 * If all articles need to start with 2008 Summer Olympics..., how would you start this? 2008 Summer Olympics participating NOCs ?? Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This would be a great start. Thanks Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 07:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Calendar → Calendar of the 2008 Summer Olympics 2008 Summer Olympics calendar


 * Before this goes any further, another suggestion might be a good compromise, because I do recognize the issue of large pages. Perhaps what we could do is move the Broadcasting table to 2008 Summer Olympics broadcasting (to keep with convention). That would eliminate a large chunk of the page. Then, since we already have NOCin2008SummerOlympics, we could just wipe out the list of national competitors. Finally, the calendar could be moved back to 2008 Summer Olympics calendar, with maybe a mini-calendar on the main Olympics page. I'm not sure if this is essentially what was proposed above, because as per my concerns below, there really wasn't a proposal laid out here in full. Comments/objections to this being the "actual" proposal?  Jared   (t)  &ensp; 16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much what I meant, except for the "we could just wipe out the list of national competitors". Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the splits proposals by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as I am the nominator. Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 07:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This will be one of the most, if not the most, visible and viewed article on Wikipedia for the next three weeks.  The loading time even for me with a cable connection is 10 to 15 seconds sometimes.  It will be major problems for those with slower connections. -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  07:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - article is too long, too slow to load and can take too much page scrolling to find what you want. Main page needs to carry essential data, and details not critical to describing the event itself, can be held elsewhere. Perhaps the section on Transport should have it's own page too? --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, considering the notability and global importance of the event, almost every section of the article probably needs its own page. For now though, I would like to handle only the huge sections that are the main cause for the loading and technical problems. Then I believe we should go ahead and decide for some of the other sections, case my case (all in my opinion of course). Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 08:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - As the event progresses, the article would become much more longer/larger and as observed in the past sports events, the article would attract a lot of viewers. Strongly support moving supplementary information to separate pages. --Natrajdr (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose – 109 KB is not long at all. Python eggs (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No offense, but was that a bad joke? WP:SIZE says that articles larger than 100 KB "almost certainly should be divided". I'm glad if you have an extremely fast internet connection, but most people do not have access to that kind of equipment. Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 08:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - that is 109 KB even before opening ceremony, elimination rounds, semi finals, finals, medals (and medal count) and closing ceremony. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 09:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The 109KB is irrelevant. Featured articles look at the length of readable prose.  This article has lots of formatting in the tables, bumping up the KB.  The actual amount of readable prose is actually fairly small.


 * Oppose. First off, the calendar used to exist at 2008 Summer Olympics calendar, where I created it, but someone had the necessity to move it here, removing the transclusion I had for it on this page completely. (I wouldn't oppose moving it back to that page, but ONLY if it stayed transcluded here). Basically, the size of this page is due to our using templates that repeat, or structures that look cool, but take up a lot of room. Everything should stay here for now, or at least in part, but for god sake don't keep getting rid of stuff, because there won't be anything left! Jared   (t)  &ensp; 14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Having been cleared up on the issues, I have no choice but to support the effort! Jared   (t)  &ensp; 20:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The 109KB is not irrelevant. It might not matter for featured article status, but it almost certainly will matter for the thousands of people who visit this page in the next two weeks who don't have super fast internet connections. Benjaminx (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong support - considering this page is going to be one of the most viewed on Wikipedia in the coming weeks I think is a necessity to pair it down. I think splitting the Broadcasting is a great first start because it is a simple and easy transition. Scottydude talk 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article has the thoroughness that the subject deserves. A great deal of the text in the article is references, not a bad thing.  I think we need to remember the 100K guideline is just a guideline.  Posterity will edit the article down after the Olympics are over, there is no need to be hasty about splitting it up right this minute because of concerns about the readers of 2010.  I don't see any good argument for making this nicely thorough article less so by forcing readers to go to sub-pages (which in the long run will slow down their reading even more).  Tempshill (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Make it easy for users to see the links to other pages and divide it up to keep it from getting too long and slow to load. Separate pages can expand on the thouroughness (sp?) of the sub-topic. Cs92 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Seriously too big for my poor 512kps connection (pretty much a standard connection in Australia), along with many other fellow Wikipedians that have already been talking on this talk page about this issue. Jordsta (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Yep it takes a while to load. However, its important that clear links are placed near the start of the article to help readers find what their interested in. Ziphon (ALLears) 08:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Simply being long is not grounds to split an article. The information is relevant and split pages will only seek to create confusion to access information. I have tried the page at a number of different internet speeds and foudn it loaded well within an acceptable timeframe Rotovia (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support just as long as those the split pages are easily accessible from the main olympics page hornplayer2 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Since the idea to split the page was first proposed, I suspect the page has gotten even bigger. Was some split off, only to see the page grow again?  I'm not sure, but I just commented at the end of this page that my browser basically freezes up for half a minute or more when I visit the page, which is pretty much ONLY true for this page.  I suspect that the problem is not just download time (I've got a very fast connection), but the resources used to display the page.  Tiny little flags are cute, but combined with all the other material on the page, it makes for a real drag. zadignose (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The Olympics is all about sports, competition, medals, and the atheletes who earn them (with a bit of national pride thrown in). But the current page buries the lede in placing these topics more than halfway down the page.  (It's only up that high, because the last 1/4 of the page is references.)  I think topics such as broadcast coverage, infrastructure, the selection process, and other "overhead" topics could be moved to a secondary page - maybe something along the lines of "Preparations & operations of the 2008 summer olympics".  -- Tcncv (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Comment. Basically, I don't understand this proposal fully. Is someone suggesting, and many people agreeing to, the removal of entire sections of writing, tables, and pictures from this article? I understand that not everything can fit here, but if the end game is to make this page smaller, we can't do it without sacrificing the "quality" of this page. Honestly, splitting an article seems like the quick fix, but it just makes more problems, so why not rewrite some stuff here, or make smaller tables. Do we really need an "HD" section in the Olympic broadcaster's table? Do we really need the table?! There are some ways we can fix this without having to shove stuff on other pages first, and I really don't think having more pages to tend to is the answer. Jared   (t)  &ensp; 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please move the subsection pictures away to an ancilliary articles. Please. please please please. please. they can be moved IMMEDIATELY. please please please please please. Do not lock this articel and ignore requests on talk page.-71.184.193.44 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The naming of the new articles should all begin with 2008 Summer Olympics.... --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I decided to be bold and make the NOC's table a transclusion from a template instead, shaved 10KB off the page size. ViperSnake151 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Highlights Section??
Do we want to add a Highlights section to this page, similar to one in 2006 Winter Olympics, and possibly linking to a more detailed Highlights of the 2008 Summer Olympics? I realise that it would become a bit of a dumping ground for information during the games, but I think that it would provide a centralised location for brief snippets of the games, which we could then clean up to a proper summary post-event. Bluap (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is probably the best way that we can control the dumping of results. And conveniently, the page has already been started! It is at 2008 Summer Olympics highlights. That's how most of the subpage names here are structured, I suppose, and how the 2006 one specifically was too. Jared   (t)  &ensp; 14:10, August 8, 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been bold, and added the section. Bluap (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is a seperate article, then there is no need for a section, at least not now. As the games go on, this article will grow exponentially, as will the highlights article. If there is a need for such a section, I suggest adding it after the games so you can control the size of it and you don't have to worry about it constantly being updated with up-to-the-minute results, rather than actual highlights. -- Scorpion0422 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else prefer the higlights page as doen in the Olympics pages pre-Syndney like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Summer_Olympics#Highlights. It's just easier and more accessible for the better highlights. Not every Gold medal is a highlight.Juggertrout (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Live Broadcast in USA.
Where would be the best place to put info regarding the press blackout of the opening by NBC? Just searching the web it appears alot of people (including me) were disappointed/angry by NBC's refusal to show it live and re-air it latter. Ifandbut (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the article United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics Bluap (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Was it not live? They did replay it all night though. -- eric (mailbox)  22:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people are really complaining about the opening ceremonies not being live; after all, the time difference between EDT and Beijing is 12 hours, so if it's aired live, people would have to tune in at 8 am friday morning -- most people were probably at work. Viewership for a live broadcast would be limited and the advertisers would've balked about that. I think there have been gripes about a tape delay for the west coast, though; I'm not sure about all the details here. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, live is live. If the opening ceremonies are at 4 AM they should still be covered live, and then repeated during prime time. There are a lot of people who don't want to wait 14 hours to see what everyone else is talking about.


 * It would be good to add a section on Nothing But Cosby's coverage of the olympics in the United States. In the morning when the olympics are live, there is a very sleepy commentator who seems to be on only because no one else wanted the gig, and in the evening when they are tape delayed a pompous I'm better than you commentator seems to think that just showing Michael Spitz or whatever his name is that won 8 gold medals is all that anyone wants to see. I understand that there are 3,000 hours of the olympics but the US only gets to see a few hundred hours. An especially goofy element to NBC's coverage is that during the daytime in the United States (night in China) only aerial shots of the venues are shown that were taken during the day, even though the events are shown live, and during the evening and night in the US (day in China) only shots taken during the night are shown, even though the events are live, and daytime in China. Are they trying not to confuse the flatlanders? It's highly bogus. In the future all networks should have access to the olympics and pay a flat rate determined by the committee similar to those "auctions" you often see where the promoter tries to get the best price for say a toaster and then announces that anyone who wants one can also get one for the same price as the high bid. 199.125.109.17 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. But this article is not specifically about US television viewers response to NBC coverage.    Please keep in mind your comments would be better served on a chat page somewhere; this talk page is designed to improve an encyclopedic article about the Olympics.  Cheers.Cbradshaw (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying the article should have more on the coverage of the olympics. Not a TV guide listing, but information on how the olympics are covered, not just a list of international broadcasters, which needs to be moved to a separate article, not just hidden (it takes a horrendous time to load the article because of the two lists of countries, both of which should be contained in their own articles). 199.125.109.17 (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of US NBC delay to the article
I'm wondering if NBC's practice is found anywhere else. I'm not talking about the competition--there's so many going on simultaneously thus there'll be a lot of delayed broadcasting. I'm talking about the opening and closing ceremonies, which too many countries in the world broadcast live no matter what time it is--and US' two neighbors, Canada and Mexico, did it live. If the opening ceremony is watched by X billion of people live (more people than ever before, blah blah blah...) EXCEPT for one big country, then it's relevant enough to mention here or in the Opening Ceremony article. I've heard comments of athletes marching in while holding a cellular phone conversation, probably asking folks back home "can you see me on TV?" That's something the whole US team cannot do due to blackout! HkCaGu (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of them will have had gray market satellite dishes with foreign broadcasters, so would have seen it live. Some of them can catch over the air broadcasts from say Mexico, or Canada. 70.51.10.38 (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this would be important to the article but here is the biggest thing your forgetting. NBC will not show the opening or closing ceremonies during the morning. Especially if its a Friday. Watch they'll do the same thing with the closing ceremony and its on a Sunday. they'll air it during prime time. Its all because of viewers and money. Advertisers probably wouldn't pay twice or something like that. But all these big events are always shown during prime time slots. I just wonder what would happen if they had the convention the same day. What would NBC do then (if NBC is actually covering the convention)- P.S. You could of tried and streamed it online from some foreign countries I don't know how to sign (I don't have a sign in id) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies
This section needs to be fully rewritten with better prose, and needs to provide neutral coverage for a broader spectrum of notable topics. I have also re-added the statement regarding persecution of Christians, and I will attempt to aid in further improvements of the section later tonight. —  C M B J  02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that we should try to keep this section as short as possible, reserving the sub-article Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics for a broad scope. We can't mention every single aspect of human rights in China in this article, which is supposed to be about the Olympics.  We definitely want to avoid placing undue weight on the concerns. Bluap (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The issue I have with this section (and the reason I kept deleting it) is that it's EXTREMELY America-centric. America has been the loudest among any nation about so-called human rights violations, air pollution, Internet restrictions, blah blah blah. We need a global view, not just what America thinks. Wikipedian06 (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While that may be, if the most reliable sources come from there, then it will get the most coverage. We're not here on wikipedia to create a point of view, only to accurately reflect what the reliable sources. Neutral point of view doesn't insist upon presenting something completely fair and balanced. It insists on presenting viewpoints held by the reliable sources with the weight that they're given coverage. If the majority of sources are US sources (and lets not forget the torch was snuffed in other venues) then the majority of text will be from a US view. What you can do is ensure that the sources are labeled as to where they come from.--Crossmr (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am currently in the process of rewriting this section in as appropriate of a tone as possible. —  C M B J   06:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The section has been rewritten, and now includes sources from Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It is not perfect, but it is undoubtedly an improvement. Further editing should include improved prose, and slightly more verbose and well-written explanations of the most influential topics; such as the proposed boycotts, Tibetan unrest, and media censorship. The section should remain focused on concerns and controversies that pertain to the Olympic games, and delicate caution should be taken to avoid WP:UNDUE. Some of the information would be more neutrally and tastefully presented in other areas of the article. —  C M B J   11:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Bluap (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section of this aricle deserves to be moved else where, even to its own article. Reading from Top to Bottom up til this point the entire aritile was neutral and informative. It did not share any views only facts of events from a world view, even the points about the Bruni pull out and ban on Iraq participation. This section deviates from this voice and tone and creates its own view that seems out of place. - TLD, Dallas, Texas, 8-10-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.39.78 (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: not all related parties are American, and this statement is exclusively addressing a controversy pertaining to Christianity. —  C M B J  09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This edit has been reverted for a second time, as the related groups are not all American. Furthermore, several of the controversies related to Christians are distinct from those of other religions.


 * Both the Tibetan and Uyghur peoples controversial in relation to the Olympics. We could generalize the two ethnic groups and simply say that "indigenous peoples" were the subject of controversy, but it would not be nearly as informative. I understand that Christians are not the only religious group facing persecution in China, just as Tibetans are not the only controversial indigenous people.  All four references for this statement specifically refer to Christianity, and there is a corresponding section in the child article.


 * The "equivocal religious freedoms" statement already covers generalized religious discrepancies, but does not adequately describe more detailed aspects and concerns. —  C M B J   09:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted a third edit. Please consider WP:WAR and WP:3RR. —  C M B J   12:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As an outside editor has expressed potential concerns about sources currently cited, I have substituted a report produced jointly by two international not-for-profit human rights organizations. —  C M B J   06:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

limited reception to other parts of the world
Man, why you make praise about transmitting the games in HD if you cant make the other parts of the world seeing it!, the broadcasting has been very limited and disappointing. I live in Panama and we here depends on small sections that are paid to US broadcasters to see it! And what we see? NOTHING! We only can see when our athletes play, nothing else from this big event. So whats the point? Why cant they transmit at reasonable prices for small countries so we can see at least something of the events? I cant see nothing in internet either because I not belong to any zone (Europe or USA) that the broadcasters belong!

When we will have a Super Low Definition Open Source Broadcast for the World, this situation isnt fair! I am so pissed, I wanted to see archery at last.....

And I have only see the opening ceremony, and because its the only thing we have, its looping in our local channels. I have Cable and I get nothing neither.

Please London! Dont make the same mistakes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.43.196 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno, but then, the broadcasters already paid for the exclusive rights to broadcast the Games in specific countries. Xeltran (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly can't watch the EU's streaming video online outside of their territory! Perhaps a distinction should be made between satellite TV and computer TV?kencf0618 (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the decision of the local broadcasting company to choose which programme they show on TV. And mostly the local company/ies will only show when their country/region is playing (i.e. The TV in Hong Kong show mostly when China or Hong Kong is playing. Maybe the TV companies just want to annoy us, maybe not. I am a big fan of badminton, and i know for sure there's matches all day, but i can only view it when China/Hong Kong, China play, not when only countries play Ingramhk (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_origin Lihaas (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To what extend is the pollution going to affect record times?
Are there sources supporting it? Because it sure sounds like it. I saw a portion of BBC saying that pollution yesterday in Beijing was about 8 times more than in London. --Leladax (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We shall soon see about that, but of course ultimately we will only report this correlation when there are reputable sources making the same deduction.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, many media has a certain bias when reporting, not only do they reflect the society, so do they impose certain ideas onto the people. Despite the talk of severe pollution, there has already been new records set, e.g. swimmer Michael Phelps, Weightlifter Chen Xiexia. Obviously these are not altheltics event (and we will have to see the results later), but let us not forget that a lot of events dont have world records for breaking, e.g. Canoeing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingramhk (talk • contribs) 02:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While it was mainly predicted that heat, humidity and pollution would affect the outdoor endurance events, the Women's 10000 metres was run in a new Olympic record time and the second and third fastest women's 10,000 metres times in history. We should not be expecting the same record pace for the marathon, as marathon records are almost never set in August due to the heat. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 06:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To follow up, there has been more world record set, for example the 100m men running and the group cycling by England Ingramhk (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sports section
Am I right in thinking trampolining has been missed out? Craigy (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Trampoline is a discipline of gymnastics; information is found at Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics. - EronTalk 19:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course. Thank you! Craigy (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

umm, sorry. Trampolining counts separately for the olympics. see this: http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/Schedule/index.shtml It starts tomorrow. Lihaas (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Beijing 2008 site shows the results separately, but trampolining is still a discipline of gymnastics, as is rhythmic gymnastics. There is currently only one wikipedia article on it, as linked above . We could certainly split it out, but we should do the same for the different disciplines under cycling and canoeing as well. - EronTalk 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two articles, Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's trampoline and Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's trampoline. These two event pages are both linked from the same higher-level Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics article.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh, missed that. Thanks. - EronTalk 21:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Split Games
Quote: The 2008 Beijing Olympics will also mark the third time that Olympic events will have been held in the territories of two different National Olympic Committees (NOC), with the equestrian events to be held in Hong Kong.


 * I know about Melbourne/Stockholm in 1956, but our lists that I've seen don't give any insight into what the other one was. What was it?  --  JackofOz (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oddly enough, part of one of the sailing events in 1920 Antwerp Games were held in the territorial waters of the Netherlands. A very minor distinction, to be sure, but there it is. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 06:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Very interesting.  Part of one event, eh.  Was that always intended, or was it a kind of accident of history?  I guess the difference is that the Netherlands was not an official "co-host nation" (if that's the correct term) in 1920, whereas Sweden was in 1956.  Or am I wrong?  It seems to me that if this information is mentioned at all in the Beijing 2008 article, and particularly in such a prominent position, it's more than just tantalising - it's getting into the area of psychological cruelty - to not provide the details.  I looked around a few places, in vain, and had to end up asking here.  What could we say about this, and where would it best be said?  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the explanation was that the Dutch crews got tired of racing in Belgium, and since the event's only entrants were the two Dutch crews, they went home and had the last two out of the three scheduled races for the event back home. I don't believe it was planned beforehand. Our coverage of that is rather spotty... I don't think it's even mentioned on the event page or the sport page, but does get a note on the 1920 Summer Olympics and 1956 Summer Olympics articles. It could probably be added in a couple places. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The 1956 games was actually two separate events. Melbourne and Stockholm are two separate hosts of two separate events, instead of co-hosts of one same event. The 2008 games is one event, albeit held within two different NOCs like 1956. And unlike 1920, however, the 2008 split requires IOC approval and involves a separate NOCs to host one of the items. The Observant (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This gets more interesting. So, which of A and B would it be more correct to say:
 * (A) there were 2 "Games of the 16th Olympiad" (Melbourne and Stockholm), but only 1 "Games of the 29th Olympiad" (but shared between 2 NCOs, Beijing and Hong Kong)
 * (B) there was 1 "Games of the 16th Olympiad" (divided into 2 events, held in Melbourne and Stockholm), and 1 "Games of the 29th Olympiad" (shared between 2 NCOs, Beijing and Hong Kong)? --  JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion is that option B is correct. There is one Olympic Games. While the host NOC is important, the key organization is actually the Organizing Committee - this year BOCOG - which is the body that actually puts the Games on. National Olympic Committees generally focus on their own athletes and teams; while they may help out with the bid process, they are not hosting organizations.
 * One perk that host NOCs do get is the right to field athletes in every event. This varies a bit from sport to sport, but for the most part all sports have a provision in their Olympic qualification rules which allows the host country to automatically qualify for the events. I would guess that for Beijing 2008, this privilege extended only to athletes from mainland China, not to Hong Kong.
 * While the matter is complicated a bit by the presence of national boundaries, the fact that the Games are geographically divided isn't really that uncommon. For the 1976 Summer Olympics, sailing events were held in Kingston, several hundred kilometres and one province away from the host city of Montreal. The upcoming 2010 Winter Olympics will be divided between two host cities, Vancouver and Whistler. (Which may be a very challenging divide to cross.)- EronTalk 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was aware of that. The rowing, kayaking and canoeing events in 1956 were held on Lake Wendouree (currently completely dry) in Ballarat, and some soccer events in 2000 were held in Canberra.  And there are lots of other examples.  All within the same country, though.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening Ceremony lip sync reference
The reference about the lip sync episode points to a rather emtpy place. I would recommend to change it to something a bit more interesting such as: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10526741 Hannes.nz (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to remain neutral and objective on this matter for the moment because this is still a very recent news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingramhk (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All the reports about the lip sync incident were directly or indirectly based on the interview with the music directory Chen Qigang. However, something was ADDED in translation by reporters to sensationalize the issue. In the interview, Chen did not say "chubby face and crooked baby teeth" or anything bad about Yang Peiyi. The links to the video of Chen's interview, the English transcript, the scan of the official program guide of the opening ceremony (which listed the names of both girls) and a summary of the issue can be found at:

http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20080815_1.htm http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2008/08/12/an-imperfect-perfection/

Lang203 (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

DOPING?
There isn't a single mention of the word doping in the entire article. Are we living in the 21st century where a large number of athletes, if not the majority in some disciplines, are doping? Can anyone actually believe that doping is not a significant, perhaps hidden, part of the games? Is this article written according to the censorship rules of China? Nergaal (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is not censored. You are looking at the wrong place. See Doping at the Olympic Games. Benjwong (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * SO having a hidden list of broadcasters is more important than presenting the issue of doping at this Olympiad? Nergaal (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also the Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics article. -- Scorpion0422 23:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been no significant doping cases at these Games - certainly nothing approaching the notability of the Konstantinos Kenteris case in 2004, or Ben Johnson in 1988. Your personal opinion that many athletes are doping is just your opinion. If there are verifiable, notable issues, then maybe they can be put in the article. At this point, there are none. - EronTalk 23:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then add into the article that there have not been any notable mentions of doping at this OG. Btw, several Russians were suspended just beforethe game, which should be notable enough. Anyways, just because Barry Bonds was never caught doping should not mean that the word doping should be excluded from his article. Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/15/2336655.htm?site=olympics/2008 ? Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * well, there's also this: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=3463251 ? The Bulgarians are considered among the best weightlifting teams in the world and were expected to win multiple golds especially considering Hussein Razazadeh of Iran decided not to compete. Yet, b/c of doping, their entire team has been disqualified. Just b/c Olympic weightlifting isn't popular in the US doesn't mean this isn't important. ArdetNecConsumitor (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.146.214 (talk)

bot to keep various stats consistent within and across articles
FWIW, I only started looking at the various pages related to this year's games this evening and I know I'm a little late to the game. (a week's passed already)

I noticed List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners seems to have all the data you'd need in order to maintain medal counts in infoboxes on players and countries pages and medal tables on pages like 2008 Summer Olympics, 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, and Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's individual. I'm imagining a workflow where people would update only List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners and updates to the various counts would be propagated automatically by bot(s).

Actually, on second, thought maybe it would be better to have the master values on individual event pages (like Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's individual. Probably slightly less scary for new editors and a little harder to make a mistake.  (e.g. add to wrong event)

Either way I'm sure some editors (or a bot) will put notes in comments around autonomously updated data telling people to go update some other page instead of this one and no matter what some people will change it in the wrong place. All pages which have source data or which are updated autonomously should be monitored for conflicting edits.

a few more tasks:
 * logging all changes to medal status for events by non-bots on the corresponding event's talk page
 * making sure pages are in the right cats, have the right infoboxes/sortkeys

I've played a little with pywikipediabot in the last few days (only reading pages not editing so far though) and would be happy to make a bot to do some or all of these tasks.

Thoughts? Is there a demand for these tasks? Jeremyb (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Transportation
Given that we're trying to streamline this article, this seemed bloated and full of a lot of irrelevant facts. I tried to streamline it and update it grammatically, and also added a blurb about Beijing Airport's spectacular new Terminal 3, let me know what you think.Spinner145 (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, since my edits (which I didn't think were controversial) were reverted almost immediately, let me summarize what I wanted to do to the section, and please let me know if you disagree. (1)  Update verb tense--a lot of this section is out of date, talking about past or ongoing events in the future tense.  (2)  Include a blurb about new terminal 3 at Beiming airport (biggest airport terminal in the world).


 * Also, I propose delete some portions I did not think particulalry relevevant or interesting to an article on the Olympics, i.e. (1) description of the intra-airport train transport system, (2) discussions of ability of new subway cars to carry cell phone signals and broadcast TV programs, (3) the description of the weather warning system at the Beijing airport (why is this even notable?), (4) delete some detail on the bus systems--do we really want to go into such detail about how many buses, mini-buses, private cars, etc. are going to be utilized?


 * Don't want to do anything on such an important article without consensus, but this section is too long IMO and I don't think people coming to read about the Olympics really are all that interested in the portions I propose to delete. thx.Spinner145 (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Those seem like reasonable edits to me. - EronTalk 11:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing Ceremony 2
I just noticed this BBC article detailing who would be appearing in the London segment of the closing ceremony (Beckham, Jimmy Page, Leona Lewis).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/08/beckham_to_appear_at_closing_c.html

Is that a reliable enough source? If so, please add (I'm also not sure where to put it).

Rbakker99 (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Protest zones link should not point to US free speech zone or atleast point to it's own page
What does the Beijing protest zone have to do with US Free Speech Zone? Can anyone say one's afforded the same protection in Beijing protest zone as in US free speech zone? I've follow the link and the US free speech zone is specific to the US and no where else. I do not like the current context which implies Beijing protest zone is the same as US free speech zone. 161.185.151.218 (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've redirected that link to Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics - EronTalk 03:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy - women's 100m
I've removed the following addition to the controversies section:
 * "In the women's 100 meter dash, American sprinter Torri Edwards clearly false started, but the officials didn't call the false start. As a result Edwards hesitated along with the other American sprinters allowing the Jamaican sprinters to have their first 100 meter sweep in Olympic history. The officials refused to do the sprint race over when it was clear the race was not fairly done."

This reference was provided. I do not think this entry conforms to the neutral point of view: "clearly false started" and "not fairly done" are statements of opinion presented as fact. - EronTalk 17:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well ok how do we state this in a way that is neutral. I mean in all seriousness that's the truth. She false started, the officials messed up and didn't call it, other sprinters reacted as well, even when it was realized that she false started the officials refused to do the race over even though they were wrong.Mcelite (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't state it on this page at all. It does not appear to be a major, notable controversy. If it is mentioned anywhere, it should probably be on the page Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's 100 metres. Which it is, in a neutral fashion. - EronTalk 02:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Precisely. This was not a major incident of these Games; it gets mentioned on the event page, and it is currently done well there. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it's still an incident. The officials messed up with not calling the false start that she did (not opinionated). It's kind of like saying well we're sorry we messed up but we don't feel like doing it over because we don't want to hurt feelings.Mcelite (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, this sounds like sour grapes. You seem convinced she was hard done by - and in truth she may have been - but an appeal was lodged, considered, and dismissed.  End of story.  You don't know that the decision to dismiss the appeal was for the reasons you suggest.  If Torri Edwards and her people want to somehow take it further, that's a matter for them, and we'll report whatever happens.  But this isn't the place to perpetuate the issue.    --  JackofOz (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Only thing I'm saying is that she false started which is true, but the officials didn't call it. Furthermore, refused to do it over which wasn't fair. That's all I'm saying and it should be included.Mcelite (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

error in the Calendar section?
In the Calendar section in the row for Athletics, the third (of 5) dot under Aug 19 should probably be for the women's 400 meters, not the women's 400 meter hurdles. The third (of 3) dot under Aug 20 already points to the women's 400 meter hurdles.

Richardchenca (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Richard Chen


 * You're absolutely right. I've fixed it. Thanks for the heads-up! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should change the two cycling events (BMX), that are due for august 22nd, instead of 21st because of the rain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.2.116 (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Restore ref #29 (name=Networks Fight)
Can anyone pull up an old revision to restore ref #29 under the Broadcast section? I seem to have a problem pulling up the source of any old versions; I always get the current text (missing the actual reference). Tried multiple browsers, so it's not a local problem. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed it... I had to go back a few weeks(!) before before it let me see an old version. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 22:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why no focus on India/
India is a great country!! I believe that India will tie China and USA at next Olympics on medal count and India will top medal count at 2016 Olympics in Delhi with Russia second. JAI HIND! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npsharma (talk • contribs) 14:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Why is no coverage on Abhinav Bindra's historic victory. I think there should be a mention definately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npsharma (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is a general page for the whole Olympics, so shouldn't focus on any single country (other than the host), sport, or competitor. Abhinav Bindra's victory is already mentioned in 2008 Summer Olympics highlights, as one of the highlights of Day 3. Bluap (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While India surely is an interesting and remarkable country, it is by no means a significant power in sports. It only has three medals in total, which is very unimpressive. What makes you think that USA won't make it to the top in 2016? --217.172.29.4 (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You believe India will tie US and China in next olympic? LOL thats too funny, India only sent 64 athletes to Beijing,

while US and China sent 600+. Speaker1978 (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * India won't be able to top the medal table in Delhi in 2016 - they cancelled their bid for 2016 and are going for 2020 instead. (That's not to mention that they've only won 20 medals in more than 100 years, 11 of which have been in hockey.)DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Updates needed on the Medal table in this article.
The other article is up to date, but this one isn't: 2008 Summer Olympics medal table. Menrunningpast (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

more of closing ceremoy
over last several days, i keep seeing ads/hearing audio mentions on nbc that michael phelps will be making special appearance from london during the closing. i also read in the ny times mid week an oblique mention about him leaving beijing a la "he was en route to london for a special appearance" (didn't mention satellite hookup (or whatever) to beijing closing ceremony. of course in well less than 30-36 hours all will be known about who appeared when/where during ceremony (except of course those only watching nbc in usa where almost entire coverage seems to be tape delayed even on east coast...sorry i just had to vent). 68.173.2.68 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Calendar
I've noticed a mistake in the calendar, but I can't discover how to edit it. Someone's put "23rt" when it should be "23rd". Thank you. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV? I think not
This page reads like Chinese propaganda. No information about concerns over Chinese human rights abuse other than journalistic restrictions. Human Rights Watch "allegations" are not allegations as the page states - they are documented facts. The controversy over Tibet is not whether protesters will disrupt the games, but whether China should continue to occupy Tibet.

82.70.211.221 (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Chris Owens, August 8 2008.


 * How dare you spoil the big party for one billion Chinese!! But seriously, that is a problem with many China-related articles on Wikpidia these days, as any criticism of China is anathema for some editors. Novidmarana (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the reason that subjects like Chinese human rights are not mentioned in detail here, is that same reason that the Occupation of Iraq and Guantanamo Bay are not mentioned in each US sporting event article. There are other articles that adequately cover those subjects. For example: Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The controversy over Tibet simply doesn't belong to this article, this article is about the Olympics.--Seba5618 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the press, which means the reliable sources, don't agree with you. If the reliable sources are constantly linking the two, then it does belong here. Ignoring that aspect of the coverage is a violation of NPOV.--Crossmr (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume that by "press" you mean western press. In any case I didn't really meant what I wrote, I'm OK with the current size of the controversy section and I do agree that it is necesary to avoid POV. Still, I don't see how to merge this section on the rest of the article without losing consistency.--Seba5618 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The press is the press, regardless of where they are from. There are a lot of people in the west, and their media also finds a lot of televisions, papers, websites, etc around the world. This is a far cry from some single extremist news organization where it might be okay to refer to them as the "press".--Crossmr (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The press is not the press wherever they are. State-controlled press that is not "free" press cannot necessarily be considered true or NPOV! Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is complete disregard concerning the geographic origins of press releases, I recon you would reflect the views of the Chinese propaganda machine to the last as well? NPOV is not merely an issue of quantity of citable sources. It is also about ensuring there is a fair and balanced coverage of views expressed by both sides of the debate. As far as the current version of the article stands, this has clearly been accomplished already.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Heavy edit needed
The article starts saying the Olympiad already has finished, but the rest of the article doesnt. It's in a mix of past, present, and future tenses. O.o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.1.55 (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors are kinda busy watching the Closing Ceremony now, LOL! Seriously, those would be addressed in due time. Xeltran (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe not quite in due time, though. The event is over, and the article still tells us that The Beijing National Stadium will be the site of the opening ceremonies, for instance. zadignose (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Results
Is Wikipedia going to have a page which documents the complete results of events once they happen. There have been several soccer matches played already prior to the Opening Ceremony, however they seem to be scattered across multiple pages. Is there a single Olympics Results page being created?

Rhettrospective (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Rhett B


 * For the 2006 Winter Olympics, we had a highlights page: 2006 Winter Olympics highlights. I hoped that the same thing could be produced for this games, although I'm not sure what others think. It would be at 2008 Summer Olympics highlights. Jared   (t)  &ensp; 13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess someone already started it! Perhaps you can reference that pages from time to time. Jared   (t)  &ensp; 13:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it a bit suspicious that China has the most gold medals. They must be cheating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.132.231 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Typical American. If you're not winning, the opposition is cheating. Get over yourselves! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.154.113 (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As an American, the only people who I thought cheated where the dopers. The other stuff was problems with scoring, mostly because of new system that need more time to be worked out. China won the most Gold metals due to their high athletic abilities. And they deserved everyone they got. Congratulations to the whole country of China for a great games, home I will get to see them back there one day.--DanteAgusta (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That post came from London, which is located in the UK. I recommend you stop your anti-American rants and have a look at yourself. I tend to agree the Chinese did win the most gold medals but their efforts and skill not cheating, but lets not forget some of the Chinese Gold Medals are under review with allegations of age cheating, so his comment was not without some justification

Even though they came 4th in the medals table Britain did the best. They were the best. China winning the most medals in there own country must mean they cheated, America tried to say other countries were cheating when they were not and Russia are just plain useless. GREAT BRITAIN RULES. PS: We beat you Austrlia. Slag us off now.


 * 4th is the best? Odd logic. It was not just American's that claimed the Chinese might have violated the age policy. In fact a British girl was among the first to note the incident


 * I was very proud of Britain, great to see them back in the mix where they belong. Loved the lion design on many of the uniforms. I can't wait till London... just 4 years away *sigh*--DanteAgusta (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Participating NOCs section
I am concerned about this text in the Participating NOCs section:


 * Since the People's Republic of China does not recognise the independence of Taiwan (Republic of China), the Taiwanese athletes are forced to carry the Chinese Taipei flag instead of their national flag. They are also referred to as Chinese Taipei (TPE) instead of ROC (Republic of China) because the Chinese do not accept them using their "own" name. If Taiwanese athletes win gold it will not be the anthem of Taiwan that would be played at the medal ceremony. Hong Kong however is displaying their national flag although they are not a sovereign state.

This makes it appear that the only reason for the designation of Chinese Taipei, and the use of the National Olympic Committee flag rather than the ROC national flag, is because these Games are in China and Beijing objects. This is patently untrue. The National Olympic Committee of Taiwan was redesignated as the National Olympic Committee of Chinese Taipei in 1979, and athletes from Taiwan have participated at the Olympic Games under the Chinese Taipei name and flag since 1984.

This looks like POV pushing, blaming the current Games organizing committee for a situation that has existed for decades as a result of international politics surrounding the status of Taiwan. I note that Taiwan participated as Chinese Taipei in the Athens and Sydney Games, for example, but there is no explicit mention of this on the relevant articles. I do not see why this needs explicit mention in this article. - EronTalk 21:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I fully agree Eron. Several editors have tried to push an anti-China spin on this article. This should be rectified to be as neutral as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.143.65 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The text has now been changed to "Since Taiwan (Republic of China) is not internationally recognized as a sovereign country, the Taiwanese athletes are pressured to use the politically neutral name "Chinese Taipei" and to carry the Chinese Taipei flag instead of the Flag of the Republic of China. They are also referred to as Chinese Taipei (TPE)[137] instead of ROC (Republic of China). If Taiwanese athletes win gold it will not be the anthem of Taiwan that would be played at the medal ceremony."

This is still inaccurate and POV. Pressured by whom? If anyone is applying pressure, it is the IOC and they have done so since 1979. I cannot see how this is especially relevant to this article. If we are mentioning Chinese Taipei's name here, we should also edit the 2004 Summer Olympic Games article to note that, due to pressure from the host country Greece, athletes from the Republic of Macedonia competed under the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It would be equally relevant - and equally incorrect. - EronTalk 21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A simple mention of RoC is represented as Chinese Taipei (like in any other Olympics) would suffice. It could also be removed since the situation has not changed and it adds nothing notable that is different from previous Games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.143.65 (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny reading - so Beijing doesn't give a damn if Taiwanese athletes fly the Flag of the Republic of China at the Olympics? It's the IOC's own idea as well as forcing the Republic of Macedonia to be called the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Greece couldn't care less about Macedonia's name!
 * WRONG! If IOC is applying pressure to Taiwan it's because someone else (guess who) is squeezing IOC. IOC is just a sock-puppet for PRC in this matter.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and readers seek knowledge. One of the above contributors suggested that information regarding matters indifferent from the previous games should be stripped from the 2008 article. So readers should always go back to the 1896 article and chew through all the intermediate Olympic Games articles to get answers regarding questions to the present games? That is a rather arrogant attitude, especially towards newbies. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean? "Strange that you both are from Canada ;-)" . That's a pretty brash accusation if I am correct in what you are inferring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.143.65 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an observation, that's all. Have a look at the Smiley article! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern with this section is that it is pushing the point of view that the only reason athletes from Taiwan are not competing under their national name and flag is because the Games are being held in Beijing and that China would not allow their participation otherwise. The inclusion of the sentence about Hong Kong contributes to this, as it seems to draw some sort of comparison between the treatment of the two. The comment above that "IOC is just a sock-puppet for PRC in this matter" is a clear statement of this point of view.

The problem is, this point of view runs contrary to the facts. The fact is that the National Olympic Committee of Taiwan changed its name in 1979, that the name it has used at the Olympics has been Chinese Taipei since 1984, and that the fact that the current Olympics are being held in China has nothing to do with this designation. Similarly, Hong Kong established its own Olympic Committee in 1950 and has competed at the Olympics since 1952, independent of its status with respect to both Great Britain and China.

I'd like to understand what the relevance is of highlighting the status of two out of 204 participating NOCs, beyond an attempt to push a POV that is critical of China's stance towards Taiwan - a stance which is not relevant to this article. - EronTalk 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the paragraphs, with explanation in the edit summary--pretty much the same reasoning mentioned by Eron. HkCaGu (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And that removal has just been reverted here, with the note that "The paragraph is a consensus of several contributors." I'm not going to re-revert now, but I will restate my question from above: What the relevance is of highlighting the status of two out of 204 participating NOCs, beyond an attempt to push a POV that is critical of China's stance towards Taiwan? The fact that the paragraph represents a consensus of several editors does not mean that it is not POV. I still cannot see why it is in the article. - EronTalk 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the Chinese Taipei arrangement has nothing to do with whether Taiwan is an independent and/or recognized nation. It has to do with the history of two governments fighting for the "seat" of China just like in the UN and everywhere else. For decades after 1949, PRC would not compete because they didn't think ROC was legitimate or "two Chinas" was acceptable. In the same time period, ROC competed as "China", until 1976 when Canada wouldn't issue them visas to "represent China", and then in 1979 the PRC won favors of the IOC and resulted in the subsequent CHN/TPE arrangement--all of this while the Chiangs are in power and the Taiwan independence movement was highly suppressed. Since then, the ROC government had changed hand twice from KMT to DPP and back to KMT. Neither parties wanted to fight for "a better deal" like they wanted for UN, WHO etc. because IOC is something they already continue to participate in and not excluded.

I don't see a "consensus of several contributors". I only see one person tending to add something which others tried to tone down, correct, and reduce. Many sentences contain POV, especially the inclusion of HKG, which may have its own flags but not anthem (it was GBR's and CHN's that get played). And BTW it's not "the anthem of Taiwan"--it's the controversial (today) KMT party song then ROC anthem from across the strait.

The info is only relevant in the Chinese Taipei article, not in this 2008 article--at least in this form. After all the sovereign, independent (de facto) nation of ROC is indeed allowed to send an Olympic team, albeit under a different arrangement like FYROM.

If there's anything worth noting (like the torch relay controversies), it'd be the controversy of how (and by whom) to translate Chinese Taipei into Chinese (Zhonghua Taibei or Zhongguo Taibei). This previously untouched "can of worm" finally got "opened" because Chinese is an official language of the 2008 games--something not happened before. HkCaGu (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the reason why Taiwan cannot participate as the Republic of China or as Taiwan is because of pressure from China to the IOC and its members. This is not specific to the 2008 Summer Olympics. But I think it is necessary to note in the article that visitors and expatriates from Taiwan were allowed to display their national flag in the previous games, since those games were not held in China. Was Macedonia allowed to use its own name in games other than the one in Athens? The Observant (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The text currently in the article does not mention visitors and expatriates from Taiwan; it only discusses competing athletes from Taiwan. These athletes have not competed under the name Taiwan or under the national flag of Taiwan since before 1984. - EronTalk 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is probably the first time in olympics that supporters cannot display the national flag of the Republic of China, and therefore necessary to be noted. The "Chinese Taipei" designation and the NOC flag of Chinese Taipei have been in place since the early 1980s. It is not notable particularly to the Beijing games. The Observant (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree re the significance of a ban on display of the Taiwan flag. I would like to find a clear reference to the ban; what I have found (and put in) is a reference to an article describing what spectators are planning to do to circumvent the ban. I'd be interested to know if anyone has found a reference to the ban itself. - EronTalk 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The ban has nothing to do with the Olympics, and there is no way you can document the ban. You simply can't display the ROC flag anywhere in mainland China (except at certain historical memorials) without being hauled away for a long time. (The PRC considers ROC no longer legitimate government, but still holding out a province which makes the flag rebellious.) In past Olympics, displaying the ROC flag might get you hauled away from the venue, but out on the street you can do just anything. In Beijing this time, even a "Free Tibet" banner somewhere in the city won't be tolerated. Additionally, I don't think any Taiwanese fans/supporters (of the athletes) are planning to bring in a ROC flag anyway. They're not political activists after all, and they are not that stupid to have to be told that they can't bring it.


 * In conclusion, taking away the "unlike previous games" phrase makes the mentioning of TPE's status irrelevant. HkCaGu (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is strange how some people dislike an after all tame paragraph. They produce subarguments in order to erase it. You can find more arguments at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What is it that disturbs your circles? I often come across Wikipedians who fail to comprehend that ordinary people look up in the Wikipedia to get knowledge that these Wikiusers take for granted. People might wonder why some teams are not using their own flag, or they might wonder where the Taiwanese athletes/spectators are. 2008 Summer Olympics is the perfect place to inform these people (contrary to the South African swimmer story - it must be misplaced). You might think that it's common knowledge or that ignorant people can just click on the Chinese Taipei hyperlink to learn about it. It's not very user-friendly to hide information behind wikilinks and if you're looking for the Taiwanese NOC you have no Taiwan => TPE hyperlink. If the problem is that it's not unique for Beijing 2008 you'll have to work overtime to erase information mutual with the previous Olympics. If it's about the relevance of highlighting the status of a few then remember - Olympic Games highlights the few, namely the medal receivers. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Map of participating countries really useful?
What is the value of the Image:2008 Olympic games countries.PNG, the resoultion of which prevents the new (tiny) nations from being shown? Two of the four colour-coded categories seem to be redundant and it seems to show simply that, of all the worlds's countries, only Western Sahara is not participating, a fact not explained/ confirmed in the text. Is this image required by Wiki guidelines or by precedent? Could it be improved to be in any way useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO the Image:2008 Olympic games countries.PNG is not useful in that resolution. A text explaining it would be better. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. We need some words to tell and explain why some countries are not represented at the 2008 olympics. Some do not have an NOC, some NOCs are not member of IOC, and some are barred by the IOC to compete. The Observant (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the map is that it's part of a series of similar maps added to each Olympic Games page; clearly, the maps for earlier Games are much more useful than the ones here at the point where almost every country has competed. It's hard to really show which countries aren't participating at this point, because the ones which aren't participating (Vatican City and Brunei) are tiny enough not to really show up. However, a curious reader could actually look at the higher resolution version, and see that, as well as the blue coloring for Montenegro, the Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu. Western Sahara and Kosovo are also shaded gray on the map, but neither are indisputably sovereign and the IOC hasn't recognized NOCs from either (and, at least in the case of Kosovo, has indicated that it won't until Kosovo's independence is recognized by the UN). Such textual explanation would be helpful, and there is some right next to the map. I'm not really sure what you mean by the redundancy comment--which two categories do you think are redundant? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 06:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Janet. Your explanation confirms my suspiciions. I was certianly curious enough to open the tiny picture and I could see only Western Sahara (not named) and Beijing as not green. Are you sure Kosovo and Montenegro stand out, or that The Marshall Islands or Tuvalu can even be seen? Vut your text above has told me all that I needed to know and I would suggest you add it, whether or not you keep the useless tiny world map. Martinevans123 (talk)


 * p.s. is Aruba a (non-participating) country? Or is it classed as a "Protectorate" and thus excluded? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that - Aruba's taking part in these Olympics. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So I see, my mistake. In any case I guess, in general, that country "status" is irrelevant - it's having a recognised NOC that counts. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I bet nobody can tell from the map that Macau is not taking part. The Observant (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Unlike Hong Kong, Macau has not established a recognized National Olympic Committee separate from that of the People's Republic of China; thus, the IOC considers competitors from Macau to be eligible for competition under the CHN NOC. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it'd be possible for competitors from Macau to participate in the Olympics in the Chinese team. Nor did they participate in the Portuguese team. The Observant (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly right. Like Aruba, Puerto Rico has its own NOC, as does Hong Kong. Macau, however, does not. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Macau has its own NOC too. It is a member of the OCA, but has not yet been admitted to the IOC. The Observant (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's obviously a bit complicated with the overlap/ separation between (1) countries which consider themselves an automomous nation (2) parent countries of these which do not (3) nations with a recognised NOC (4) nations without an NOC (5) nations with a non-recognised/un-registered NOC (6) whether or not country allowed to compete as part of a parent nation. I'm not sure the thumbnail-sized world map (with the key only visible when image os opened separately) can really do this complexity justice, especially wwhen (a) exceptions so few (b) size of the nations involved mostly so small (c) low resolution of the map. If the map must be kept, could it's resolution and size on the page be increased, but also all explanatory detail included in the text? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Would a separate list like the list of IOC members (but specific for the 2008 Olympics) help? The Observant (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I can tell the difference between the blue and green when the map is viewed at high resolution, but not when it's at the size which it has to be on the main article. As I understand the IOC position at the moment, Western Sahara should be colored green (as part of Morocco) and Kosovo should be colored green (as part of Serbia). The only gray that should be on the map would be dots for the Vatican City and Brunei. Thus, the map should be essentially all green -- which is what it currently appears to be. This shows that practically the entire world is competing, and provides a contrast to other games, especially the early ones and the ones hit by boycotts. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, in that context, the map may have value. But how many readers will see the maps in series/ contrast like that and indeed how easy is that to do? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think, instead, a map showing non participating countries/NOC would be of any value. --Kvasir (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, would be of more value. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New Caledonia
The map appears to show that New Caledonia is not participating. Is this correct? My understanding (see this page for example) is that it competes as part of France. Surely it should be green, just like French Guiana or Greenland, which are described as competing as part of France and Denmark respectively? --David Edgar (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, those 44 pixels do appear to be grey, don't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How many territories are taking part as part of their sovereign powers, in similar manner as New Caledonia and Greenland? The Observant (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The number of athletes participating from each counry needs to be updated but I cant figure out how to access that information when I get into the edit page it just has it a a wikitable and then the list of countries is not there. If someone who knows how to change that could tell me how I would be willing to update the information on each country. morpogostick22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpogostick22 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The data for the list of NOCs is stored at Template:2008 Summer Olympics NOCs Bluap (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

age of chinese gymnist
it has been comfirmed that at least one of them was 13 here [], now should we include it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't read that reference as confirming anything. - EronTalk 15:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another item for Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics, and it may warrent a mention on the Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics, but I would say "no" for the main page. Cheers--Cbradshaw (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Chinese officials insisted they are not underage. The young boy who marched with Yao Ming is 9, and he looked like 5 or 6. Speaker1978 (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have heard the commentaries or the announcment in the Stadium, the boy is not an athlete but a local hero credited to saving 2 of his classmates in the Sichuan Earthquake. What age someone LOOKS LIKE is irrelevant. I wonder why no one has raised doubt about Shawn Johnson's age, she doesn't look like 16 at all. --Kvasir (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Guangdong Olympic Stadium
Removed a misleading sentence re Guangdong Olympic Stadium: "The Guangdong Olympic Stadium was originally planned, constructed, and completed in 2001 for the games, but a decision was made to construct a new stadium in Beijing. " The source given only says "Guangdong Olympic Stadium in Guangzou, China, which will help host the 2008 Olympic Summer Games". Could never have been main stadium as outside the host city. --mervyn (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sentence restored, there are multiple sources on this. All it needs is a clarification. --Kvasir (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section "Jingoism"
The section regarding the USA ranking countries by medal count is poorly written: It sounds, unfortunately, like it was written by someone with a poor grasp of the English language. Furthermore, controversy is only where people look to find it. The mainstream American media has always ranked medals by most won, even when the Soviet Union would win the most, or in the Winter Olympics when the USA has had poor showings. This section seems more interested in criticizing the United States than recognizing that while most countries rank by golds, the USA doesn't.Seeyardee (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)seeyardee
 * Looks irritatingly like pushing NPOV point to me, too. Claims "made worldwide headlines" wihout providing proof. Didn't make headlines over here in Germany, amyway... -- megA (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's definitely using some weasel words, and is not written in coherent sentences. For instance:

"However contrary to popular opinion the USA have not always dominated the Olympics as the number one for golds in fact in the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain they were second to the Super Power country and rivals the USSR today Russia"


 * All around the world the table of medals are sorted by gold medals winners. If you don't believe this, only see the Wikipedia in all languages it exists. Why in english should be different??...I answer myself... because US refuse they lost fisrt place in gold medals count first time in 7 decades...--190.21.101.108 (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Popular opinion of who? This is unreferenced, and in my personal experience, most Americans KNOW we don't win every Olympic Games in Gold count... Also, the sentence does not make grammatical sense. The entire section is unnecessary as it is unreferenced and doesn't use NPOV. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The world seems to have a very short memory, I find it rather amusing to be quite honest. The proof's in the pudding I guess.  Let's take a neutral source... like "USA Today". http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/beijing/default.htm Please note that they rank by total medals in line with the rest of the US media.  http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2004table.jpg  Here's the table from 2004, ranking by Gold.  The "total medals" thing is new, it is limited to the US, and it is directly related to the US losing. Laomei (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your "proof" is rather funny. Because above the table it reads, In Sydney, the top five countries .... USA 97 (40 gold), Russia 88 (32 gold), ...., what rather confirms that US media ranks after most medals, at least in Sydney, and not after most gold medals. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And a cursory search in LexisNexis shows that indeed at least some US media ranks according to the total medal count. For example, the New York Daily News ranks Canada before Bulgaria, although Bulgaria had more gold medals (The Daily News medal count were the medal count I could find there. Another example, St Petersburg Times, Athens Olympics, Russia ranked before China, although China won more gold medals. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Countries are neither "winners" or "losers" at the Olympics according to the IOC. This is an irrelevant discussion.  If you choose to look at the US as a "loser" as a country with the highest total medals and second most gold medals, that's your choice.  It doesn't belong in the article.  I hope you will embrace the spirit of the Games in recognizing the themes of unity and peace between all the countries and celebrating the acheivements of athletes who have dedicated their lives to their sport.  Cheers.-Cbradshaw (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know (or care) how the American media usually references medal counts, but Cbradshaw's comment seems to make sense. That wasn't my complaint though.  My complaint is in the unsourced (and I believe false) assertion that Americans seem to have the "popular opinion" that we believe we win every Olympic Games. Wikiwikikid (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously US isn't a loser, but they lose the first place in the gold count.--190.21.101.108 (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is insane, the table is designed to show all medals. You can clearly make the table list the count by any of the 4 options given, Gold, Silver, Bronze, or total medals won. If you don't like it, then get over it.--DanteAgusta (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But in every way you sort the table, the rank always show China is the number 1. Limpiao--190.21.101.108 (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Should use weighted ranking, gold = 3 points, silver=2, brownz = 1 Speaker1978 (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal Count Rank
The medal count should not include the column "rank" The reason why is simple.

Since the 1904 when the American's created the system of awarding Medals, and ranking countries the Olympics have always been scored by total medals. It is worth noting however that the IOC has never ranked countries nor awarded a "winning country". That is in stark contrast to the fact that until 1936 the world and its media did unofficially award a winner, always related to Total Medals. During the 1904 games America did in fact also award a winner (itself) with a "team" gold medal.

The problem here is this - after the USA has dominated the Olympics since 1996 the world was ready for a new "winner". To this end the media and many people have decided to change the criteria to be just the gold medals. This movement started in the UK and quickly gained world support. This causes some controversy as the Olympics are now and have always been a team contest. That is the reason why every country is allowed to enter three competitors in all "individual" events.

There is a few important logical errors with the revisionist technique being applied today

1) Take the example that China wins the Gold, Silver and Bronze in some event. Since they all came from the same country does that mean the other canidates (Silver, Bronze) participation simply does not count? The spirit of the games is team unity with personal achivement noted. Hence the reason why the Olympics were also changed to become official venues for World Records, again the American's made the change in 1904

2) In both 1968 and 1912 the US had the highest Gold Medal count yet were considered World Wide as the runner ups. They were even noted that way within the US disproving conclusively the notion that the US changes the "rules" to make themselves winners. The fact is the rest of the world is doing just that, yet the American's have not called "foul". The simple fact is the American's all know who won and even if they had the criteria wrong that would mean they just added two more Olympic Victories to their countries name not just won. There is no other way but to accept either the US won the Olypmics 13 times (04, 20, 24, 28, 32, 48, 52, 68, 84, 96, 2000, 2004 and 2008) or, using the changed criteria, they have won the Olympics 15 times (04, 12, 64, 20, 24, 28, 32, 48, 52, 68, 84, 96, 2000 and 2004).

I feel if we apply the simplest answer then it is more likely that the UK spearheaded a media campaign to make themselves better in light of the games coming to London in 2012. The Americans had no motive to change the criteria being as when the controversy began they were behind in both Gold Medals and Total Medals. The American's place was soundly 2nd at the point, however by changing the criteria the UK were able to make themselves appear to be in 3rd place. The highest place they have ever achieved since the 1908 where they blantantly cheated.

3) In all other Wiki articles Rank is never mentioned, why suddenly do we mention in this one? I think the anti-America motives in this article are more than exposed when viewed in light of this fact.

4) America invented the ranking and medal systems during the 1904 Olympics. If they invented the system does it not also follow logic that they are the ones that know how it should be working? For over 100 years the US has stuck to awarding the winner by total medal count, which awards all atheletes not the few, and the entire entry and team rosters has been designed to work with that system. Did none of you ask yourself at any point "Why do 3 atheletes get to compete? Why not 2 or 4?" Did no one ever try to logic it out? I mean think. Lets assume that China had won Silver and Bronze in every single event but failed to win Gold in any. That would leave them with around 300 medals but no Gold. Now let us also asume that American managed only 3 Gold (the highest of anyone in this example) the entire games and not one single other medal making them Finish with a Total Medal Count of 3, and China with a Total Medal Count of 300. Can you honestly suggest that the world would consider the Americans Winners and China in 2nd or worse in that senario? If you can then you truly are not logical. It is obvious that the Chinese would be considered winners. And yet the same logic is not being applied to the current games. I seriously doubt that is by accident and I believe its clear who is behind the percieved mistake.

So with all that in mind, I suggest we simple remove the Rank, redo the table to match every other listed for the Olympics and leave it at that. You will never convince the American's they did not win the Olympics in 2008 because they know better. It is equally unlikely that the UK led media and its followers are going to concede that the American's won because that will mean they would have to admit to falsely accusing the Americans.

The way I see it, the author entered that table, sorted as it is, with Rank included with the motive to anger American's and express anti-American views.

He/she would have of course failed because American's would either just ignore him altogether or say "ok so now we have won 15 times instead of 13, no problem, we had a bad Olympics anyway"

Considering three different people have suggested that the Rank Field be removed I am removing that one column in the table - Well maybe not the freaking article is locked by an admin. How common is this becoming? Its a joke...

Since the article is locked then I third the request that the rank column be removed to align this article with all the other Wiki articles and eliminate the unnecessary controversy.


 * I object. Medal tables has been included in the articles for 2004, 2000 and prior summer olympic articles. We need to be consistent. In addition, medal tables are considered relevant information that sums up the results of the games. A shortlist of the top performing nations are generally listed in the media around the world.

The gold format should be used since this is the standard used in other Olympic articles as well as generally accepted format around the world. The American system of overall total is considered an exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal count rankings
How should we do this? Currently it is ranked by countries with the most gold medals rather than total number of medals awarded. I had thought that the latter approach was more common than the former, although I don't have a strong enough opinion that I care enough about this to argue either way about it. What are people's thoughts? thx.Spinner145 (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The table is ranked by gold medals, this how the IOC, IAAF and BBC rank the countries, The US however ranks by total number of medals. This is why the table is ranked by total number of golds. -- [[ axg|undefinedSpecial:Contributions/AxGtalk  |undefined]] 09:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The table is currently ranked by total medals. US POV? 70.55.86.69 (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, we should change that to the official one. We shouldn't bother referring to Yahoo's medal count, instead, go for the OFFICIAL site of the Beijing Olympics. Xeltran (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, funny how people are even thinking about the idea of ranking by total medals. The medal count has and will always be by gold medals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.139.57 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Complete non-sense. The Total Medal count is and alway has been the standard that is until 2008 when the BBC decided it should differ. The IOC has traditionally listed Golds because the IOC does not support the traditional view that the games are a competition between countries. They intentionally listed it different so either you support that there is NO rank, inline with the IOC or you suport there is a winner which is total medal count. You simply have to decide. Either way there should be no rank column on the table
 * yeah, we all know that has and always will only award gold medals too, right? lol.  Again, I've seen it done both ways, but I think I agree actually, that the nubmber of golds seems to be the most commonly used ranking.Spinner145 (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes its always been done by gold medals. It must be an american in charge of the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daz1865 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * False

Can we have the change to ranking by gold medals done? I feel the ranking by total medals is very US POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.5.120 (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Counting by total medals has it's merits, if we count by gold only it removes significance of silver and bronze medals. Maybe after Olympics it will be useful to have two tables. 75.10.130.226 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If we count by total it removes the significance of gold and silver. Unless the IOC changes the standard method, the official ranking is by gold medals. And even if they do change their ranking style at future Olympics, the tallies for this Olympics will be unaffected. 76.65.22.118 (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the idea of having two tables. The official ranking counts by gold and other tables are not needed. --Tam001 (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The US media have been ranking according to total number of medals, understandable as they want to rank the US as no. 1, but, everywhere else in the world ranks using number of gold medals - this is the real benchmark as the number of people who WIN events is what is really important. Silver and bronze tallies come into play if there is a tie in the number of gold medals, in which case the country with the most silver would be ranked first. Pexise (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A table showing medals per capita population might be more interesting? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the two table method is the most fair option. It allows for both views on the matter without compromising tradition. Many people will be as equally interested in knowing the full medal count as they are in knowing the gold medal count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilrem1988 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think having two meal tables is overkill. Virtually everybody except the US tends to list countries by Gold count.  The bolded top counts in the other columns give a quick reference so interested.  If a user is really interested in sort by total, that capability is provided.  Becouse some users may not be aware of the sort option, I suggest adding a small note instructing them to click on the sort icon.  -- Tcncv (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added to the page of "Concerns and Controversies" and it has been threatened on my part by another user to stop or I will be blocked, however the information added is in regards to worldwide news which was in relation to the Medal Tally and how most other countries show the Tally in order of the most Gold however, in America it was decided to demonstrate the most medals, overall. How is this vandilism this website was quoted. http://www.smh.com.au/news/off-the-field/al-jazeera-follows-uss-olympics-lead/2008/08/22/1219262487056.html. In addition I feel it is important to state every controversy which occurred. This includes the under age chinese gymnast, the baton relay and the Tibet display. If it's true and factual ALL should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klutzulmaniack (talk • contribs) 03:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC) --Klutzulmaniack (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it strange and confusing that you care about how the American media chooses to display the medal count. The IOC does not declare and official medal count and so it is up to each media output to choose their own way to report them, or not report them. The American media knows that Americans like to know ALL the winners or each and every medal, not just Gold. Calling NBC's choice to show all the medal winners a controversy shows nothing more than and underlying contempt for the USA. The rest of the World should join with Americans in celebrating ALL athletes and their participation. One World One Dream--DanteAgusta (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no arguement here. Wikipedia is meant to state fact. This happens to be one of them. You are on a misiion for world peace...(One World One Dream) I however am intent on using Wikipedia as it is meant to be used and this is as a site for people seeking facts. This is one of them. I have no opinions on it, I'm simply letting people know one of the many truth's that have occurred these Olympics. This is meant to be a neatral un opinionated website, but you keep letting your thoughts get in the way.--Klutzulmaniack (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I will make this point clear for everyone. There is NO OFFICIAL medal count. The IOC does not post one. The medal count does not matter. The US media has always show the total medal count due to the fact Americans like to know all the winners. Just because many country's media services just report Gold does not make it the OFFICIAL or the standard. Each network has the right to display the medal count according to however it's viewers prefer. This is with out a doubt, the dumbest thing I can think of to make a molehill out of. A controversy is someone using illegal drugs for performance, not how one network shows the medal count.

Now to how the table should display, then it should be laid out to how the Wiki Project has established for the normal, not by any other media.--DanteAgusta (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again there is no arguement here. We ALL understand there is NO Official medal Count. I am sure the whole world recognizes that. However whilst the rest of the world is counting by traditional standards America or the press anyway have chosen to display the medal count in accordance to overall medals won. No one else is doing that. It is by no means wrong or breaking a law of any kind, however it made headline aroungd the world. So it may be a "molehill" to you but the world knows and made it a "molehill", so now as a factual website Wiki should post it as what was seen by other countries...as a controversy whether you personally believe it isn't, you are once again letting your personal opinions get in the way of the neutrality and un biasedness of this site. Don't worry though. There is no issue anymore. I've solved it. But once again just to clarify it made headlines around the world because if America is (One World One Dream) as stated earler, they sure aren't showing it by putting themselves on top of the medal count. How is it, that every other Olympics the American media have displayed it by Gold Medal count always but one country shows its power and then different manouvers are introduced that were never used before.


 * Very simple answer - they didn't. The US Olympic committee has always listed by Total Medal Count since the American's invented teh system in 1904. That is of course an important fact since the rest of the world is just following the American standard

Also I showed facts and information from the IOC. You're just letting your personal opinions get in the way of something YOU have turned into a molehill as this was in the news, it was FACT and that is that. I'll leave you with that thought.--Klutzulmaniack (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Headlines around the world? Where please, apart from opinion piece mentioned above I don't see the headlines. Also, it simply not true that at every other olympics US media have ranked nations according to Gold medals won, see discussion below at Controversy Section "Jingoism". Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why the controversy? We should rank by gold medals, which is the way that the IOC use for their semi-official medals table. But we should use sortable tables, to allow the user to re-rank the table with a single click. Bluap (talk) 04:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay that's interesting to know. here is a forum where people round the world are discussing it. I'm assuming no one here speaks Spanish but I will place some up from the Spanish news. I'm only standing by this point because it occured and people seem to be taking offence to it personally. Which is unfortunately not my intention. The news only gives us soo much information but the internet is our greatest source of A Current Affairs. I just want to ensure people know this happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klutzulmaniack (talk • contribs) 04:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC) --Klutzulmaniack (talk) 04:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Blulap - That's a smart idea. I think that is possible acually. I think most people speaking on this topic are offended as it is close to home. I have previewed other medal tally's wihtin the past years. Mainly (mapsoftheworld.com) an American Website that it shows that it is counted by Gold in the past. --Klutzulmaniack (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh really, you checked mapsoftheworld.com and this webpage showed you that it was counted by gold in the past? Maybe you can provide some real citations, as I did below at Controversy Section "Jingoism", citations that actually show the opposite of your claim, that is that at least some US newspapers ranked according to total medal count in the past. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So, we're all agreed, then, a gold medal won by China or USA is just as significant as one won by, say, Tunisia or Panama? Likewise for sliver and bronze, however one choses to rank them? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering there is ambiguity in terms of "whether the important number is 'golds' or 'total numbers'" does there really need to be a "rank" column in the table? Default to sorting by most golds, but the "rank" column is sort of biased to one reckoning over another, and both "golds" and "total medals" have merit as a metric for success, and I believe that Wikipedia should not have an official ranking standard considering a click of a button allows the reader to re-rank the table by whichever metric the reader is most interested in. 12.217.241.217 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That might be OK for countries near the top of the table, but what about those in 33rd place? Bluap (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed sports
Do we really need to mention that there were scoring disputes in gymnastics, taekwondo, and boxing just because some Americans had some problem with the scoring? Can't the representative of the country file an official dispute with the sport's governing body if they really think their issue has merit (just as Serbia filed on the 200m men's breast stroke)? Other countries who lost a medal event probably also had "issues with scoring" just like contestants in the qualification round of "American Idol" thought the judging was bad too. Proper scoring is a perennial problem not just at this Olympics so I don't know why it even deserves a mention here. Angry bee (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the mention of boxing as none of the refs support any dispute in boxing. I also removed gymnastics since only one ref was provided which was a newspaper blog mentioning the points awarded were controversial but I doubt that's unusual and definitely a single blog ref isn't enough for us to mention it, it gives undue weight to what is likely a minor issue (it may belong in an article on one of the athletes and/or in the gymanstics events for these games). The ref itself primarily talks about the tie-breaker system which is not a dispute since the tiebreaker system was already part of the rules even if not often applied to the level that they were in this instance and I don't think anyone disagrees it was applied correctly. Some people may not think it's fair, but that disputes the rule rather then it's application in this instance. I left in taekwondo. I'm not convinced it should be there personally but one of the results was overturned after a scoring mistake, evidentally a first, although that's not really a dispute as opposed to a mistake (unless the one who ended up losing disputes the overturning of the original decision) Nil Einne (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I second Angry Bee, going back in past olympic articles, I noticed there was never a section on scoring disputes or contraversies (the only one showed up is a proven contraversy in 2002 olympics). So far, none of those has being prove so they totally don't belong to this page.  If we want to include it, then a similar section should be added to the 2004 olympics to start because gymnastics was under so much scrutiny back then (include a proven instance that a judge miscalculated the score for men all-around).69.204.249.221 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Motto should change
The chinese text of Motto 'One World, One Dream' 同一個世界 同一個夢想 in articles should change to 同一个世界 同一个梦想 for this is simplified chinese writing characters. The present chinese authorities and society are using chinese simplified characters so I think the Motto in chinese text should using chinese simplified caracters. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liwu (talk • contribs) 04:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. According to an image from the official site, see here, the motto is written in Simplified Chinese text. Xeltran (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong was an Olympic venue, HK uses traditional chinese, both should appear. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But the Simplified Chinese text is used in all Beijing Olympic images, as you should see in the official site. Besides, even though HK was indeed the venue for Equestrian events, the host city recognized by the IOC (and published by news agencies) is Beijing. Xeltran (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, even the signs advertising the Olympics in Hong Kong used the simplified characters for the motto.Spinner145 (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe there was some agreement in the advertisement? Many HK and Taiwan celebrities were indeed wearing sponsored clothes with simplified chars for many of those pregame events. Benjwong (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about trademarking? No doubt the slogan is trademarked, which could include the type of characters, font, and appearance. End of debate. --Kvasir (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics
Why not just link that page (Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics) insted of letting it have its own section here as well. Might want to combine them anywayse as this event becomes older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.32.210 (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, as time goes by, I also suggest we have a "legacy" section. 24.222.53.34 (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Concerns and Controversies part here is a teaser; an intro to the main article which a link to is provided. Xeltran (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a sub-article, as described in WP:SS Bluap (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit in third introductory paragraph
"The Chinese government has promoted the games to highlight China's emergence on the world stage"

replace "emergence" with "reemergence" to make sentence more accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abercrombiegal (talk • contribs) 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Reemergence"? How? Xeltran (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, China was the dominant power for almost all of civilization except for the last couple centuries so the user above does have a point. 76.65.22.118 (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. :) Xeltran (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dominant over their corner of the world maybe but not on any of the other continents. I think emergence is more accurate; they've been a major player in world politics for at least 60 years (eg UN security council seat) but are becoming more prominent lately. 78.86.71.53 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So if China wasn't dominant over the world, who was?


 * If your answer is "no nation was dominant over the world", well that would make those who were dominant in their regions "the dominant power(s)" and "on the world stage", which is in agreement with changing "emergence" to "reemergence" in the article. --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in)  16:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, there was no world stage in today's sense during most of human history. Up until globalization developed, there were multiple world stages because there was close to no political (and cultural) interaction whatsoever between some parts of mankind. fank1 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's almost settled then china brings home heavy gold and the us walk away with nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnysums (talk • contribs) 12:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha good one. Ninja337 (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think reemergence is a good choice. Changing it to communist China or modern China is better. "The Chinese government has promoted the games to highlight communist China's emergence on the world stage" 161.185.151.218 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "communist" leaves a bad aftertaste. yes, even though the PRC is a communism, the word looks like pushing for a POV.  Let's stick with this one if you'll agree: "The Chinese government has promoted the games to highlight China's emergence on the world stage."  Xeltran (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal count
I added the following, and someone removed it. So I've come here for opinions. In my view, since the medal table is provisional until the ruling is made, we should indicate that. Aridd (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Court of Arbitration for Sport is currently examining an appeal by the National Olympic Committee of the Netherlands Antilles against the disqualification of Churandy Martina in the men's 200 metre sprint in athletics. A ruling is expected by September 30. Should Martina's silver medal be restored, the United States' Walter Dix would lose his bronze medal, reducing the US medal tally to 109, and increasing the Netherlands Antilles' medal tally to 1.


 * Maybe we should include this fact as a footnote, and not in the main text. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not necessary on the main articles for the games. As long as its on the pages for the nations that may be affected that should be enough. The medals table is always provisional, drugs cheats in the past have had their medals stripped years after the games. Basement12 (T.C) 12:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A footnote would make sense I suppose, yes. Basement 12, the difference here is that there's an actual case pending. It's not as though it were hypothetical. Aridd (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it gives the case WP:Undue weight. There is no reson at the moment to believe the case will be overturned and Netherlands Antilles are not even mentioned in the shortened version of the table seen on this page. Basement12 (T.C) 13:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll leave it out for now, unless someone feels it should be added. Aridd (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt that particular case will be overturned. The runner clearly stepped on the line, not one but twice. But keep and eye on it just in case. --DanteAgusta (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do. Incidentally, the NA aren't only contesting the grounds for disqualification; they're also saying the time limit for disqualifying Martina had passed: "arguing that the protest against Martina was filed well beyond the 30-minute deadline set by the international track federation. [...] The Netherland Antilles' case starts with the precedent set at last year's world championship, when American Michelle Perry was allowed to keep her title in the 100-meter hurdles even though replays clearly show her going out of her lane, because the protest was filed too late." That's why I'd included it: it does seem possible that the case will be overturned. But we'll see what happens. Aridd (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting. Well, with out all the facts, I guess we just wait to see what the federation says. --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO sports complaints gets filed all the time and often involves medal standings. unless this is some high profile complaint, i'd say we leave it. i agree that there is insufficient weight in this matter to justify its metion at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaoquan (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sports
Should we edit Foorball to says Football(Soccer) since the majority of viewers to this page are American. I clicked thinking this was American FOotball not soccer. Add this for less confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Majority of readers of English Wikipedia are Americans? Err, since there isn't any published official statistics, we shouldn't really hang to this statement. Anyway, the official Olympic Sports name is Football, so let's just stick to that. Xeltran (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is publised Stats and what he stated is a fact. But, common sense alone would tell you he is right. Pendantic arguement. The point that NFL style football is not an Olympic sport is a valid point. No reason to change it


 * In the calendar in 2008 Summer Olympics page it is shown as Football (soccer). There should be no confusion anyway, as American Football is not an Olympic Sport --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One more comment. Please put new text under old text. i.e. new subjects go at the bottom of the page. When someone starts archiving the page comments, they will begin at the top, so please put the new stuff at the bottom. Thanks. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Where is Track and Field in this list?(Chazran (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC))

Hi, the track and field is under "Athletics." This was confusing to me as well. I was trying to look up the women's marathon, but couldn't find it anywhere, then I realised I couldn't find the track events either. After much searching, I figured out this is all covered with "Athletics" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.110.4 (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I orginally put the comment about soccer above. Since it was listed ont he offical site as Football (soccer) then it should be put on this page like that too, this keep with what it is called ont he offical website. Also, with American Footballs gaining of popularity and the the NFL playing out side of USA regularly this is the possisibility it could become and demo sport and then a medal sport. Not any time soon but when people look back at this they shouldn't possibly be confused by the listing of football and thinkn American Football. Granted if it is ever played at the Olympics or in a World wide Super Bowl, it will be listed as American Football. But this is still a relevant point. I think someone other then Xagent86 needs to review the request since this user seems biased against this idea and not giving it a fair chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.9 (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The official site lists it as football only. American football is not even a "recognised sport" as far as the IOC are concerned and demonstration sports no longer happen at the games. All in all this means there is very little chance of american football becoming part of the olympics anytime soon (the earliest it could possibly happen now is 2020). I don't think any further clarification is needed, clicking on the link soon shows the sport being talked about is "soccer". Basement12 (T.C) 14:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Official website
The official website of the 2008 summer olympics http://en.beijing2008.cn/ now redirects to the official paralympics website. Is there any official or mirrored archived version of the original site? BwanaKalimba (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its now at http://en.beijing2008.cn/en_index.shtml . Basement12 (T.C) 01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal Count disputed?
I noticed that although Beijing and most sites put China as 1st in the medal count, NBC and other Western media listed the United States as 1st. Should we mention that America counts total, not only gold, medals? BBCOFFEECAT (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Already been talked about. Considered a non issue. --DanteAgusta (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The system used here is explained in the full 2008 Summer Olympics medal count article which is linked to just above the shortened form on this page. The 2008 count page then directs the reader to Olympic medal table where there is an indepth explaination of the two ranking systems. Basement12 (T.C) 01:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, big countries get most medals. The same relative ranking for USA and China applies of course, for both systems, if you take medals Per capita. Although that doesn't quite tell the whole story.... But it's just taking part that counts. Isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the last section on Success
it really doesnt sound encyclopedic and didnt have much substance. it really looked odd with the rest of the article. Shaoquan (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally disagree. Why should there only be a section on criticism when things go wrong, but nothing to point out all the success of the game?  If anything, this article is overdue for one.  Also, as the game pass into history, something of a section on it's "legacy" should be set up.  I have added it back, but renamed it to Legacy, which is a very common section on Wikipedia used by many articles.  24.224.182.97 (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Forgot to log-in. I also rewritten the section to reflect the actual "legacy" of it.  Tons of sources were added.  Feel free to discuss anything you don't agree with, don't just delete the section though.   Yongke (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the idea of a "Legacy" section is fine in concept but it may be premature to really say what the legacy will be, as the games' legacy is a long-term question. And the section currently reads very POV.  (Putting down the Athens games, talking about 'national pride', cheering the performance of Chinese athletes, 'bolstering the CCP', etc.)  I agree that the games were for the most part a good thing for China, but the section as written is problematic IMO. I propose discussing how "legacy" issues should be addressed in the article before putting any brand-new sections into the article. (not deleting anything for now so other people may weigh in, though)Spinner145 (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if the legacy section ever make it to that big then of course, a new article will be had for it. For now though, like all small sections, it is perfectly find to start in the main article.  I also wouldn't really call them POV since they are true.  The Chinese was proud of the game, Chinese athletes did win the most gold, etc.  These things can't be argued because they are true and there for not POV (with sources to back them up too).  Some topics like the economy are remained to be seen, which I have written so.  Rest assure though, I will add significantly to this section and remain as neutral as possible.   24.224.182.97 (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your attempts to keep it NPOV. Still, your statement belies the underlying problem with the section: it really is "Chinese reactions to the games".  It isn't necessary to point out that China won the most golds here, there's a medal table.  To say that Chinese were "proud" is unverifiable--which Chinese?  Proud in what way?  Such a statement, if made at all, needs to be made with greater precision.  Also, the assertion that it has led to increased support to the CCP gives lie to the argument that the CCP constantly repeated when people protested Tibet, Darfur, human rights, etc., that the games should not be political, don't you think?


 * IF we have a section like this, here's what I'd envision: (i)  worldwide reaction (generally positive), (ii) Chinese reaction (also generally positive), (iii) certain concerns that happily failed to materialize (air quality, terrorism, etc.) and (iv) potential negative legacies (cost, assertions that the games actually led to increased suppression of human rights and political dissent, See http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11848192.)  In any case I don't see that the section should be more than a couple of sentences as most of these points could be more adeqautely addressed elsewhere anyways.Spinner145 (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I started a new discussion section for this topic, I'll keep all further discussion there.24.224.182.97 (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is certainly a place to report on positive reactions to the games without sounding like an ad. Perhaps a "Reactions" section for all things positive or negative may be better, as has been done in some other articles.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Legacy
Discussion of the Legacy section should go here.

People are doubting that the beijing olympic is a success and reversing my edits. There shouldn't be such doubt. Every article I have read have put it in a positive light. The current source is just one of many, an example if you will. Unless there are many articles that say otherwise, I say that's a majority. Yongke (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My question is what, precisely, does the "Legacy" section add to the article? The first sentence is vague ("generally accepted", for instance, is not a verifiable or rebuttable claim).  The Rogge quote is already given in the article's lead paragraph, it doesn't need to be included again.  The portion about terrorists, and air quality could be covered in the concerns and controversies section--i.e., note that these concerns were not realised.  Also, the fact that no athletes protested--this is reporting non-news as if it was news.  As I pointed out before, the assertion that the Olympics were a source of pride for the Chinese is vague, unverifiable and really not encyclopedic anyway.  Also do you suppose that the medals won by countries other than China were not likewise a source of pride for those countries?  Why only mention how proud the Chinese felt of their athletes?  Furthermore the point about bolstering support for the CCP--what does this have to do with the Olympics?  Didn't the IOC, BOCOG and the CCP constantly insist during protests prior to the Olympics that the games should not be politicized?  Finally, the assertion that the Olympics were a boost to China's economy is not supported but flatly contradicted by the source you cited.


 * This section seems like little more than an attempt to do a little cheerleading. I think a more NPOV, encyclopedic approach would be to update the controversies section to note appropriately those that, happily, did not come to pass (terrorism and air pollution, for example).Spinner145 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe people are reverting your edits, as I did just a few seconds ago because you cherry pick from your sources and choose to mention only the positive aspects and not to mention anything that - god forbid - is negative. Novidmarana (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's more like you guys are cherry picking all the negative aspects. God forbid I put up some actual truth other than the negative ones.  Before I provide source, it's citation needed; now I do, you just delete the whole sentence.  Truth hurt doesn't it?  Yongke (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And regarding that every article you have seen labels the games as a success, that is quite an subjective statement given most articles I have seen (including cited in the article) give a mixed review of the games (for example calling the games a logistical success, but sneaky too). That is not captured by a statement along the lines of "The Games were generally accepted as a success". Novidmarana (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's sneaky how the criticism of the game is longer than the actual article. While the whole nation is up in arm just because I want to write one little section praising it (with source non the less).  Yongke (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is bound to be the case if you insist on using Western sources that publish anti-Chinese/communist propaganda Wikipedian06 (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, I forget that everything that is not cheerleading the game is just anti-Chinese propaganda. Novidmarana (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say, you guys got some skills. Even a game so undeniably successful could be written so negatively bond to take some skills.  These are some spins worthy of Fox news.  Yongke (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To add my two cents, it should be pointed out that China and their hatred of free information probably block and articles that suggest that Beijing 2008 has been anything other than an unqualified success. If Yongke is in China, that might explain why he has such as simplistic view of things.   DJR  ( T ) 11:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And to add my two cents, I wonder if you live in the west because their hatred of china probably brain washed you to believe the game was a total failure. Such a simplified and typical view.  Everything china = bad.  And for you information I live in Canada.  You can do a IP address look up in my account.  Yongke (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, look like this thing ain't going to be easy. Stop deleting whole sentences when they are perfectly neutral and good.  And stop being so NPOV.  "some concerns"?  Tell me one concern people had before the game that actually materialized.  Yongke (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you talking to yourself? Because you are the one who is deleting perfectly and well-sourced information and to cherry-pick the few concerns that did not materialize (and some concerns did not materialize only because they were expressed ex-ante). But what one should one expect from an editor who accuses other editors of being brainwashed and full of hatred. Novidmarana (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors have done a great job in making this article as neutral as possible! It has improved a lot since I last read it, when it resembled a persuasive essay on a newspaper. However, I have read the talk page above, and I think think that there is nothing wrong with calling the Beijing Olympics a succuss, because to not do so would be too picky. As far as I know, media around the world have generally all admited (sometimes grudgingly) that it was a succuss, and personally, I've been to the Olympic games, and I can't see why it's not a succuss either. It has not, for example, been bombed, many records were broken there, new countries competed, and the ceremonies were spectacuar. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia provides readers with information, so if the games were a succuss, then the article should mention it.Diqiuren (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Tanzania
Tanzania had 10 competitors not 1 according to the Tanzania page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.182.45 (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true i've corrected this on the relevant template. Basement12 (T.C) 01:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Beijing was the SEVENTH time the Olympics have taken place outside Europe or North America: Melbourne, Tokyo, Sapporo, Seoul, Nagano, Sydney, Beijing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Small error about number of games outside the United States and Europe...
Hi, the article as it stands says:

The 2008 Olympics was the third time the Olympics had taken place on the Asian continent, and the fifth time for an Olympics outside of Europe and North America.

This is not correct, the Olympic Games have taken place outside those geographical areas only 4 times: Melbourne, Sydney, Seoul, Beijing.

I guess the fifth location would be Mexico City, but that is in North America.

That sentence should read:

The 2008 Olympics was the third time the Olympics had taken place on the Asian continent, and the fifth time for an Olympics outside of Europe and the United States of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acalpixca (talk • contribs) 21:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC) The statement may have partially included the Winter Olympics. 1998 in Nagano makes 5 times the olympics in general have been held outside of Europe/North America but would make it 4 in Asia (Tokyo, Seoul, Nagano, Beijing). Either way the statement needs changing in some way but thats where the confusion may have arisen. I'll change it. Basement12 (T.C) 21:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the 1972 Winter Olympics were in Japan as well of course. The paragraph has been changed anyway. Basement12 (T.C) 22:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ignore that its complete nonsense. Basement12 (T.C) 00:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Beijing was the SEVENTH time the Olympics have taken place outside Europe or North America: Melbourne-1956, Tokyo-1964, Sapporo-1972, Seoul-1988, Nagano-1998, Sydney-2000, Beijing-2008. You're all wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, i've confused myself in the above comment by writing Tokyo but forgetting to count it. The paragraph was misleading in any case as it refered to "The Olympics" as a whole without specifying that it refered only to the Summer Games. Basement12 (T.C) 00:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The article still doesn't make sense: "The 2008 Olympics was the third occasion the Summer Olympics took place on the Asian continent, and the only the fifth time that either the games had taken place outside of Europe and North America." What is that supposed to mean? Plus, you're discriminating against the Winter games here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.163.124 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the sentence so that it reads correctly. Also, the article is about a particular instance of the Summer Games, so it's entirely reasonable to focus on the summer instead of winter versions. That being said, I really care little whether it says "fifth summer" or "seventh overall" outside Europe and North America (or really that it says anything about it at all). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is that trivia even in the lead section of the article? Whhile it may be of interest to Olympic junkies, it is not a major section of the article. I suggest it be removed from the section.-Cbradshaw (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would happily agree with that, it would be more interesting if it was the 1st, 2nd or maybe 3rd time but will it still be interesting when it's the 10th, 20th? probably deserves a mention in the main Olympic Games article somewhere. I'll make sure its in that article somewhere and then remove it from here. Basement12 (T.C) 12:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed that sentence but have added a note on it being China's 1st time hosting the games, which i think is more relevant. Basement12 (T.C) 12:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good solution. That it's in China is significant. The other was just statistics.  Thanks!-Cbradshaw (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)