Talk:2010 Winter Olympics/Archive 2

Costs (internal inconsistencies)
The Costs section currently includes both of these claims: "all raised from non-government sources, primarily through sponsorships and the auction of national broadcasting rights. $580 million is the taxpayer-supported budget to construct or renovate venues..." These appear, to me, to be contradictory. The venues are a huge part of the Olympic games, and are a huge part of the cost of hosting the games. It makes no sense to say "all raised from non-government sources" when a third or more of the total cost is provided by the government. How should we temper or remove the "all ..." claim? N2e (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Death of Nodar Kumaritashvili
This is the first time a winter olympic athlete has been killed during the games. I expect it is going to receive a lot of media coverage. I suggest we need to mention the death in the lead of the article rather than just a small section low down in the article. Abc30 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We should wait to see how this is covered before deciding where it ends up. If this becomes one of the major focuses of the Games, then we can add it to the lead afterwards; if not, then somewhere lower in the article is more appropriate. PaulGS (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Contrary to popular belief this is not the first winter games related death. http://www.torontosun.com/sports/vancouver2010/news/2010/02/12/12857041-qmi.html --89.217.180.63 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It was hardly "popular belief". The reference cited with the claim that it was the first death also mentioned earlier deaths towards its end. So not "popular belief", just incomplete reading. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't the death occur before the official opening of the games? It is surely notable and terribly tragic, but "during the games" may not be accurate, perhaps "in a training accident hours before the opening ceremony" is right. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Nicolas Bochatay was a speed skier not a speed skater. Suprcel (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not find a reference to this person in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Participating Nations - alphabetical order?
Shouldn't the participating countries be in order alphabetically? I am watching the opening games right now, the person editing it is arranging the nations in order of entrance into the stadium. In my opinion, they should be in order alphabetically, as the article is not stating the order of entrance of nations, but those participating. It would also be in respect to the other participating nations shown in the previous Olympics Games, in order alphabetically. Anime4international (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it should. The recent edits are ridiculous. The only place we should have nations in marching order is the 2010 Winter Olympics opening ceremony and/or 2010 Winter Olympics national flag bearers articles.  Look at the 2008 articles for an example of how we did this.  All of the other 45 preceding Games articles use normal alphabetical order in the participating nations section.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do appreciate the quick response. I'll edit and place this on my watchlist for any ridiculous changes...Anime4international (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like everything's good. Someone got to it before me. Was taking a look at the previous to see the consistency.Anime4international (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit were reasonable, and made in good faith, and I do not appreciate them being called "ridiculous". However, I happily bow to precedent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Torch Relay
Please change "Also Shania Twain carried the torch in her hometown of Ontario" to "Also Shania Twain carried the torch in her hometown of Timmins, Ontario".
 * Done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OLYMPIC MALFUNCTION
OLYMPIC MALFUNCTION --- And there was indeed supposed to be a fourth pillar rising to the sky there. Not sure how many people here noticed --- there was quick speculation here as the drawings we got showed a fourth one. I think most here just figured they were building suspense. It was LeMay Doan who got axed out of her moment of glory.

-- Billy Amato


 * this does sound like a good article to make..we will need some more time ..so that more info can come out about it..However i see no need to mention every little thing that happens on this main article..If they are worth mentioning then they should have there own article... Like the unfortunate accident that resulted in a death today... Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is worth its own article. Sprocket (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It goes in the opening ceremony article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Border security questioning
I'm yet to work out what the Olympic connection is with the detaining at the border of someone who didn't even know the Olympics were on. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Luge track too fast and dangerous
There seems to be a pervasive concern amongst the luge athletes that the track is too fast and difficult. The death of the Georgian luge athlete today obviously increases that perception, but there have been other accidents and other concerns expressed by the athletes themselves. The track is proven to be fast with world record times. Anyway, this seems to be sufficiently big concern to note in the article, especially with the death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabelar (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The weather and snow conditions
I suggest that the unseasonable weather and the resulting poor snow conditions and fog delays are of sufficient concern to be noted. Of course it is a developing story -- we don't know how much impact there will actually be, but within a couple days we should have enough info to create a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabelar (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gretsky Missing!
Wayne Gretsky was the final celebrity to carry the torch, as the most prestigious Canadian athlete. He should be added to the list of celebrities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.241.174 (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

IOC President Jacques Rogge
International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge looks exhausted at the opening speech of the 2010 Winter Olympics last night; no wonder after yesterday's tragedies. Overall the message seems to be: we hold the dead athlete in our hearts but the games are going forward. Only the bad weather is going to delay the start of the competition tomorrow.

-- Billy Amato —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.17.196 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

8 athletes in Georgian team
I changed the number to 8, with * to point out the death. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Olympic Cauldron Lighting
Let's nip a edit war in the bud; I think we may all dispute who lit the cauldron. The problem is that 4 people lit the one inside BC Place, and only 1 lit the one outside. Both are to remain lit throughout the Games. So, let's hammer this little dispute out now before we start revert wars. ThePointblank (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Both are not to remain lit throughout the games; the indoor cauldron was extinguished after the ceremony. --99.231.163.135 (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... not quite, Catriona LeMay Doan did not light the one inside, her pillar didn't rise. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Terry Fox
This morning in the news, it was debated that the games should have done something more to include the legacy of Terry Fox. For further data, please see www.ctvolympics.com. - Its a current cover story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.70.66 (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please fix error
The world map is an addition that I was going to suggest. There is an error. Greenland does not have an national olympic committee, they may compete with Denmark. Therefore, Greenland should be marked in green as Denmark's Olympic Committee is sending a team. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Polska reprezentacja to 47 zawodników a nie 50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.144.73 (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Participating nations as of Feb. 3
I've done a bit of cleanup work on this section and the NOCin2010WinterOlympics template. All of these nations appear to have qualified athletes for the Games, using http://www.fis-ski.com/data/document/summary-quotas-allocation.pdf as the latest quota allocations from FIS. However, I'm concerned that some of these countries might not appear after all. The list of entrants at http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-athletes/ seems to be fully populated, but several nations on the FIS list still show 0 entries (ALG, ARG, BIH, ETH, ISL, MEX, NEP, RSA). That page also still shows some countries that might have sent entries, but ended up with a quota of 0 in the final FIS list (BAH, CRC, GAB, KEN, LUX, MLT, MAD, THA, TGA, VEN). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I found NOC sources for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mexico and South Africa, a news media source for Iceland and a blog source for Argentina. Like four years ago, Ethiopia's sole qualifier is Robel Teklemariam and there are several sources confirming his 2010 participation, including his own blog. I was unable to find any sources for Algeria and Nepal, however. Sue-Tomi (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are good finds, and the official site does say The athletes listed have not been confirmed, nor is the list inclusive of all participants. More athlete profiles may be added or removed at any time., so I think we can still assume Algeria and Nepal will compete. It's easy enough to delete those articles if not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As of February 8, the Vancouver 2010 site has been updated with most of those nations previously missing. The only ones we're claiming will attend, but do not appear on that site, are Colombia and South Africa.  Perhaps the Colombia entrant withdrew?  Not sure why the RSA entrants aren't showing up yet. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found entries for Cynthia Denzler (COL), Peter Scott (RSA), and Oliver Kraas (RSA) on the Vancouver 2010 site, so we can be sure that Colombia and South Africa will participate. That leave us with 82 confirmed nations, pending any last minute withdrawals.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found entire Philip Boit (KEN) so Kenya will go to the OG
 * And now there is this story. He will not participate after all. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at this section, and it took a second to realize that the parentheses hold the numnber of athletes for each country. I looked around and didnt see an explanation for this. Just thinking it may not be clear to everyone and a footnote should probably be added. Otherwise, as it is written, they are just numbers next to the countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Security and civil rights - Tree Sit link
needs to be changed to point to tree_sitting 194.74.237.82 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this!!!194.74.237.82 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Medal Table - What's an NOC?
Well?

HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

National Olympic Committee. You're welcome.-Cbradshaw (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks. Well, maybe it has some pedantic, precise meaning in the formal legalities of the Games, but I suspect 99.999% of readers would find it a loss less confusing if it said country. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Except that not all the teams are from discrete countries: see Virgin Islands, Cayman islands, Hong Kong etc. 142.166.86.10 (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * sorry that last comment was me, forgot to sign in. HalifaxRage (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games
In the introduction, please change
 * are being organized by the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC).

to
 * are being organized by the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC).

Thanks. 72.244.203.42 (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done Nirvana888 (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

tedium work - conform/cleanup/format/tidy citations
the citations (at moment some 125+ of them) on this somewhat high profile and padlocked article are presented in a mishmash of styles including:


 * some article titles are presented in italics
 * various bylines and/or datelines are missing
 * plenty of newspaper (and other publisher) names are not presented in italics
 * many article titles have only first word initial capped (see Manual of Style (capital letters))
 * several bare URLs are presented

could some kind soul take on the tedious task of cleaning up the citations? (as an editor without the option to register, this editor is unable to edit this locked article).--98.113.187.11 (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of "British Columbian"
Among other changes in this edit, I corrected "British Columbian government" to "British Columbia government". The -n form is only used for people, usually in a nominative sense, not adjectival (e.g. "he was a British Columbian"); other adjectival uses do not use -n, e.g. "British Columbia mountains", "British Columbia rivers", and even non-personal mentions of people, e.g. "British Columbia premier", "British Columbia skier", "British Columbia doctors", "British Columbian voters" etc. The -n form is comparatively rare, come to think of it; this should probably go in WP:CANSTYLE with other specifically British Columbia(n) uses, such as capitalizing "Interior" and (in some contexts) "Coast". I just wanted to mention it here because in this and other articles, heavily edited by non-British Columbians, there'll be edits which in good faith use the -n form but which are awkward/incorrect-sounding/looking "on the ground".Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On further thought, there are some cases where a phrase like "British Columbian skiers" could/would be used, but others where the normal use "British Columbia skiers" would apply....what the distinction is I'm going to have to think about; I can affirm that "British Columbia government" is the normal use in that case, and that the most common/normal use of "British Columbian" is for people, not objects/places etc.Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Matches my understanding as well. Likely the anon editor is from away.  -- KenWalker | Talk 15:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is true for British Columbia as well as all of the other provinces as far as I can recall, however the same does not apply to the Federal Government. It's always referred to as the Canadian Government. So the system should be specified for the provinces only. I'll make a note of this on the WP:CANSTYLE page.--Brendan OhUiginn 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohuiginn (talk • contribs)

US Team Members
The US team actually consists of 216 members, as opposed to the 215 shown on this page (Even the US-specific Winter Games page contradicts this and shows as 216) 24.8.211.188 (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The source, the official Vancouver Olympics website, lists the United States as having 215 athletes. Perhaps the error is on the US wiki page? --Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with chronological summary
Hi, it would be great if more people would help update Chronological summary of the 2010 Winter Olympics. You just need to understand basic use of tables, references, templates etc. It's currently linked from the main page, and gets over 10k hits a day. I'm in Europe, so it's hard for me to always keep up to speed on the events. Lampman (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Olympic and World Records
Shouldn't OR's and WR's be listed in this article?

Like the Men's 5000m longtrack speedskating, the figure skating pairs short, long and overall program scores, etc.

70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The only Winter Games sports that the IOC maintains Olympic records for are the two speed skating disciplines (see List of Olympic records in speed skating). Unfortunately, the references on that page are now stale since the IOC website has been re-designed. But that content should (and does) appear on event articles like Speed skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's 5000 metres. I'm not sure they need to be also listed on this top-level summary article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 09:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Medal count table problem.
Why is France 6th when it should be 5th, it has the same number of gold and silver medals as South Korea but France has more bronze medals. (Note the different rankings of U.S.A. and Canada were decided by bronze medal count.) Edit: problem solved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.212.211 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Update tense
Just a note, the majority of this article currently says things like "Vancouver will host the Winter Olympics"; currently this should be "Vancouver is hosting the Winter Olympics" and it will later need to read "Vancouver hosted the Winter Olympics". -M.Nelson (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The whole article needs a tense check and rewrite; if I wasn't at work and discreetly peering behind tabs to get to WP I would do it myself. HalifaxRage (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I went through the whole article, replacing every applicable use of the word "will" (diff). These will need to be updated again once the games end (it will help to look through my diff because I didn't use a word like "will" throughout). There still may be other incorrect verb tenses in the article, so please be on the lookout; also I may have made some mistakes in my edit so please take a look. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There are only 7 sports consisting of 15 disciplines
The reference to the sports contested in the 2010 Olympics is inconsistent with the definition of the 2006 Olympics and the official Olympic listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcampsall (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are 15 sports. Bobsleigh and Skeleton are not the same sport. There are three different sport types: Ice, Alpine, and Nordic. But none of the pages are separated as such. The 2006 page has been corrected for consistency. --Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Refs for stolen flag
thumb|Members of the Native Warriors Society pose with the stolen Winter Olympics flag, while holding a [[Mohawk Warriors Society flag. They stole the flag to protest the Olympics, and to honour the death of Harriet Nahanee.]] Could somebody take a look for some RS refs for the image caption to the right? The image is located at 2010 Winter Olympics. The statements aren't even mentionned in the body, let alone sourced. Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind; the image's source has a statement by the Native Warriors Society. I'll add this to the article. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"weather and ice surfaces" section
Where's the weather? The section only talks about the skating rink. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The weather information had been removed by an editor because it is covered elsewhere in the article, ice conditions info moved back into more encompassing section on equipment failures including the cauldron glitch during the opening ceremonies. This problem was widely covered in the worldwide media and will likely be noted by commentators at each subsequent summer and winter games.  --RadioFan (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Concerns and controversies"
Can this section be split off into a separate article? It has reached the size where it is awkwardly dominant, and there are some sections within it that are not as relevant as they once were. Sprocket (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. I clicked on the discussion page with the intention of making the exact same post.  I understand the point made in the reply below mine (by HiLo48) as well, but nonetheless, I see no harm in having that page started now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.253.70 (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about the (ir)relevance of some bits, but I also note from historical experience that most of the "issues" arise before the Games (i.e. up to now), then the real success stories start to come out during the period the Games are on. Give it a couple of weeks. Maybe help by adding some positive stuff of your own. Then when it's all over some effort can go into working out what really was important. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And the first paragraph of the article says The 2010 Winter Olympics, officially the XXI Olympic Winter Games or the 21st Winter Olympics, is a major international multi-sport event held on February 12–28, 2010 ... but the link for protests is from 2007. --74.56.12.36 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of IOC listing for the Medal Table is not a ranking.
I'm not going to further argue whether it makes more sense to rank by gold first or Total first (since it's more than obvious that ranking by total first makes more sense, and gives more information as to the overall performance of a nation) however, if we're going to use the IOC's listingItalic text system, then we should not use a table that uses the word rank"italic text" in it's header. This is NOT a ranking if it's based on the IOC system it's just a listing. Therefore the table template that should be used is Template:ListedMedalTable. If anyone can show good reason to use the word rank for a system that is not a ranking system then please discuss: --Brendan OhUiginn 01:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohuiginn (talk • contribs)


 * Ya, who decided it is ranked by number of gold? http://www.vancouver2010.com/ list it by total medals. C T J F 8 3  chat 03:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is the use of the word rank in the headers of the table when the sources for the table are the IOC's medal tables, which they specifically state is NOT a ranking system. Can anyone argue why we are using the word rank? We should be using the word, listing. Lets discuss this. --Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I found out after my post that a discussion is at Talk:2010_Winter_Olympics_medal_table C T J F 8 3  chat 05:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again. This issue comes up every Olympics anew, and no doubt it will surface in two years again. Blame the IOC for not standardising its listing to NBC's style. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.179 (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request (more detaile of fatal crash)

 * Hours before the opening ceremony, Nodar Kumaritashvili of Georgia was killed during a training run for the luge after he was thrown from his sled and struck a exposed steel pillar at turn 16 of the Whistler Sliding Centre, at last clocked speed of 89.9 MPH (144.7 km/h). A response time was at Nodar's side within seconds and they did not give up on trying to save his life, Nodar ended up passing away at the age of 21 in a Trauma Center. The International Luge Federation called an emergency meeting after the accident, and all other training runs were canceled for the day. Nodar's father never saw the crash on television nor does he ever want to see how his son died simply stating that his heart is too weak and that he may not survive seeing the footage. Out of respect the crash was only broadcasted the day it happened and that the media had agreed to never broadcast the footage again.


 * The Whistler Sliding Centre, which has recorded some of the fastest speeds in luge history, was the site of several non-fatal accidents during training runs leading up to the start of the games. One crash gave a Woman's Luger a concussion and knocked her unconscious. The host nation (Canada) had proclaimed the track was safe just a few hours before the fatal crash, in reply to Luge Experts deeming the track unsafe and too fast.


 * With in 24 hours of the horrific crash the track was re-modified, the wall at turn 16 was extended to prevent future fatal/injury crashes. The ice was also shaved at turn 16 deeming it safe. The Men's start was moved down to the Woman's original starting point, and the Woman's start was moved even farther down the track. Making the top speeds slower, one American who also wanted to Medal, said that it (the practice run) was no longer fun after completing a practice run.


 * Nodar Kumaritashvili's teammate Levan Gureshidze refused to compete for the Medal on February 14th 2010, stating that he just couldn't go on. There was a small memorial of Nodar Kumaritashvili at the steel pillar he hit which had lots of flowers and a picture of Nodar on his slide, someone then put a note in the upper right hand corner that said like gold your dream will remain forever


 * Nodar's body was flown back to Georgia on Monday February 15th 2010. John Furlong, the chief executive of organizing committee said, ''The body will be repatriated this afternoon from Vancouber airport to (the Georgian capital) Tbilisi. A simple and intimate memorial service was held on the morning of February 15th 2010, which was attended by around 50 people. Nordar's coffin was then carried by eight bearers, one of which was John Furlong, towards the hearse which then took the Georgian to the airport.

My sources was mainly off of my phone carrier's website which has put out many articles about this tragedy. My mobile carrier is Cricket Wireless and is following the 2010 Winter Games, another source is 9News KUSA I wish I had websites to be able to cite this but I know my information is correct and I believe that this more a detailed edit should be inculded into the page out of respect for Nodar.

Alysong (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Alysong

Not done: There should be a source for this by now. Celestra (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Austria is missing in the medal tabel
Currently Austria has won 2 silver  and  the  2 bronze medals but doesn't appear in the medal list. See http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-medals/

SNOWDIVER (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The medal tables are typically arranged by number of gold medals, currently placing Austria at #14 (and not in the top 10 shown). The full list can be viewed at 2010 Winter Olympics medal table. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored controversies material
I changed back the public relations-wording "Challenges" in the Concerns section to "Controversies", and wish some of you other editors had caught that instead of let it go by; it's not innocent and is decidedly POV in nature. I've had connectivity problems this last week so haven't been able to monitor this article - but I was stunned to note whole sections had been deleted in the course of the last two weeks; these being two sections which POV editors had previously attempted to remove; my restoration edit is HERE, concerning the abuse of O Canada and the harassment of Amy Goodman at the border; seems to me there were other sections here as well, but maybe they've been consolidated elsewhere (the January meltdown material seems to be in the Cypress Mtn section, or the ideas are anyway.....). This article will no doubt have other p.r.-agency attack/censorship edit in the next week, and thereafter; would other editors-of-conscience PLEASE be on the lookout for edits which masquerade as simple grammar/punctuation but which actually delete section or significantly re-word the article in a POV fashion? I have a really bad connection or would hunt through the edit history to identify those accounts/IPs which deleted the materials I've restored; IMO those editors should be blocked, as this isn't hte first time they've tried to do this.Skookum1 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies: Trademark enforcement vs Use of "O Canada" lyrics
The Trademark Enforcement and Use of O Canada Lyrics sections under Concerns and Controversies say almost exactly the same thing. Can we merge these two sections into one or remove that latter completely? They are separated by only a single paragraph making the sense of Deja Vu more prominent. Omniomi (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and done. DES (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight on Concerns and controversies
The Concerns and controversies section is larger than the sports section. I recommend trimming it back dramatically or breaking off into a separate article. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics YellowPops (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the new article. Now let's summarize the section in this article to a short paragraph or two, while those seeking additional detail can go to the new article. Alanraywiki (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Women and child trafficking for the purpose of forced prostitution
That is WAY too vague, and from what the cited sources say it seems to be an issue for every olympic games, not just Vancouver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.233.165.85 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to mention an ongoing issue outside the Olympic Games as well. It should not be listed as an Olympic-specific concern. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.179 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the Ice Hockey obsession?
The Olympic Games is an international event covering many sports. I don't think "the longest road trip in NHL history" has any relevance to the Olympics at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL (from a Canadian who's not hockey-obsessed). Sounds like there's a passage that belongs on Olympic hockey or a subarticle on the 2001 Olympic hockey series but yes, it doesn't belong in this article....."the longest road trip in curling history" would sound equally silly wouldn't it?Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise that the offending text was actually duplicated. It was in the Venues section AND in the Sports section. User Zondor has place a Discuss tag on the remaining piece in the Sports section. I'm not a well enough informed and experienced editor to understand the intentions of that tag. As far as I'm concerned the Canucks mention should disappear from there as well. HiLo48 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This stuff was put back into the article with no discussion. I have removed it again. Please recognise that NHL activities are not part of the Olympic Games. It's like talking about where the people who normally ski at Whistler at this time have gone this year. Not relevant. Please also recognise that many readers would have no idea what NHL is. (I'm an Australian. Not very notable here.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Chinese anthem question in Portuguese
Eu não domino o idioma Inglês, sou do Brasil, gostaria que alguem verificasse e me informasse qual a musica tocada (clássica), durante a apresentação do casal Shen Xue e Zhao Hongbo, que ganhou a medalha de ouro. Nome da musica e se possivel o compositor.

Eziquiel de Souza Silva - São Paulo

es.guedes@ibest.com.br —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.13.108 (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't hear it, it might have been The East Is Red but maybe that's obsolete as China's anthem (the inquiry is to what was the piece of classical music played during the medal presentation for Shen Xue and Zhao Hongbo).Skookum1 (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Who Wants To Live Forever" (short program) and "Adagio in G minor" (free skating). Parutakupiu (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He meant the music they skated to? I misread it, though he meant the music played during the medals (Ode to the Motherland??).  The Adagio in G Minor I take it you mean J.S. Bach?  Didn't see the free skate....Skookum1 (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

fix "a fees"
Visitors were also upset by a fees to attend medal ceremonies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.200.32.34 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of Athletes needs single source
I'm not sure the number of athletes per country is accurate. They all have different sources, and they don't make sense. For example Canada's source is "Germany, Norway round out 2010 Olympic men's hockey" which says nothing about the # of athletes. It says Canada has 206 athletes, but http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/athletes says Canada has 218. I see different numbers for other countries too. I plan on editing it. Maybe there's a better source than Yahoo, but a single source is better than having it from all over the place. DisgruntledWaterlooStudent (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the most logical source is the VANOC website (http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-athletes/). They list 2622 total athletes, and sorting by country gives you the total for each one.  However, the website is still a bit buggy.  If you search for South Africa, you get no results, but Oliver Kraas and Peter Scott are listed in there for South Africa anyway (search for their names as keywords and you'll see).  Also, they still have the blanket disclaimer that The athletes listed have not been confirmed, nor is the list inclusive of all participants. More athlete profiles may be added or removed at any time.  But until the Games are over and we have complete results for every event (and can correlate them all together), that might still be the best bet.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I did some of the deleting Skookum1 is concerned about because....
...they were sections where no connection to the Games had been made in the text, and I could see none. I raised the issues on this page first, left it for a couple of days to seek other opinions (something Skookum1 doesn't seem to want to do), and then deleted them. Perfectly good and normal Wikipedia practice. Anyone unhappy with my edits can add to the discussion here now. HiLo48 (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After a few days, at your discretion is NOT standard wikipedia practice. I happen to have been having connectivity problems which is why I haven't monitored this article more closely; you've assumed my silence was acquiescence or unwillingness.  The deleted materials were selective in their public relations-related context, and had previously been restored after clear efforts at censorship.  Only completely extraneous, or un-factual material, should ever be deleted.  If Olympics-related wording wasn't in what was deleted that's because someone did away with that wording; what I've restored was as of a Feb 1 revision, there might be other different versions deeper in the history.  I strongly object to casual deletions of this kind, under pretext of relevance as decided by only one editor; and because the deletions were not impartial (similar comments in reply to the following section).Skookum1 (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * further, if you can't see the Olympics connections *("I can see none", you say) in VANOC trademarking lines from the national anthem for Olympic slogan usage, or Amy Goodman being harassed because the border guards thought (wrongly) that she was coming to be an anti-Olympics agitator, then you need a better pair of glasses....Skookum1 (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Skookum1 - your comments are quite offensive. It is not my problem that you had a connection problem, nor that I was unaware of previous edits that were (allegedly) not impartial. My edits were truly completely impartial and improved Wikipedia in the short term. They took out material that had no apparent connection to the Olympics at the time that I saw them. It WAS completely extraneous, in the form it was in, at the time. If I see garbage in Wikipedia, it's not my job to go back through an unspecified amount of history to work out how it got there. If you can now politely, and after discussion, put sensible, relevant, referenced text in the article that covers those matters, I will have no problem with it at all. I can assure you that my stance was not partial in any way. I simply saw no connection. Probably not your fault, nor mine. Perhaps you are angry at others for POV activity. I can assure you mine was not. I have no opinion either way on whether the behaviour being described in the material I deleted was reasonable or not. I live 20,00 kms away, do not hear Canadian news, am unfamiliar with local political issues, and actually depend on Wikipedia to tell me these things. Please be careful where you direct your anger.

PS: I did not touch the section on "VANOC trademarking lines from the national anthem". Must have been somebody else. HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Anger? Offensive?  The only two sections I restored were the anthem thing and the Amy Goodman thing; the latter received worldwide coverage in major newspapers, sorry you don't read them or don't think it's important from wherever you are.  If you didn't know, and you asked here before deleting them, then knowing it was potentially sensitive to delete them you should have been more patient; and also remember not everyone is on Wikipedia 24x7 (though with a good connection I often am).  If you "have no opinion on whether the behaviour being described in the material was reasonable or not", why did you want it deleted?? Augmentation, not deletion, is the Wikipedia way....Skookum1 (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Sometimes the more accurate article is the shorter one, because it does not distort one pov to dominate all the rest. (And, let's rephrase - received some backpage coverage worldwide is not nearly the same as dominating worldwide coverage across major newspapers.) My own interest is only in accuracy and proportionate coverage. I agree that those points should have a mention -- a one- or two-line mention each, not more. That would be proportionate against the whole. As far as strong positives are concerned, where is the mention of Live Sites? Where is the mention of the growing crowds trying to get into the Aboriginal Pavilion? Where is the mention of all the green initiatives (references below, for your convenience)? Positives to negatives, as it stands, the current article is not proportionate. - Tenebris


 * Skookum1 - you have missed my point. Please stop thinking that everyone comes here trying to impose a POV. My goal was to make it a better article. For example, nothing in the Amy Goodman section showed any relevance to the Olympics. That was the reason I removed it, nothing to do with wanting to conceal anything. I have never heard of Amy Goodman, so I could hardly take sides in a matter involving her detention. This is an encyclopaedia. If I don't know something, it should tell me. There was no link. You still haven't told us what that event has to do with the Olympics. I still don't know. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're actually cracking me up. The Amy Goodman material had multiple-cites and clearly mentioned the Olympics paranoia on the part of the border guards.  I just looked at the controversies section and it's been trimmed of so much it's unrecognizable, explicitly "p.r.-washed" of the heavy politics that surrounded the lead-up to the Games in BC, and which had been part of the article for a long time.  YOU may not be a p.r. operative but it's clear there's somebody around here who is.  That section shoudl be a summary of what's on the new split-off article (aka "POV fork"), not a selective cherry-picking of it.  Things like the security concerns (i.e. the penchant of the guy in charge of security for using pepper spray and riot squads) and the gross budget cuts that helped pay for the Olympics all belong in this article, or the funding crisis around the Athletes' Village, not JUST in the POV fork-article.  It's gone from "excessive controversies" to "minimal and sanitized soft-soaped controversies".  Clearly a POV result if not - on YOUR part (but somebody's) - POV in intent.  You're being disingenuous if you claim taht the section as it stands now reflects the content of the split-off article; and if you don't understand why something like the Goodman matter is Olympics related READ THE CITES and/or look back into the edit history to see what/when it got sanitized.Skookum1 (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Medals
Can a photograph of the medals be placed on here?--Cooly123 17:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Events navbox reform proposal
That is, the one you see at Template:EventsAt2010WinterOlympics. I propose to group them by sport; you're invited to the discussion here. Enjoy the games! Schmloof (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Major mistakes in the games
Maybe it's time to create an own article to collect all the blunders/flaws/mistakes that have occurred during the games. The games are less than a week underway, and already there's much buzz about it. A couple of examples: (nothing else compares to this, but still there are more) LarRan (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The death of the Georgian luger,
 * The failure of the fourth pillar to rise in the opening ceremony,
 * The dangerous track of the ski-sprint event, in which Petra Majdic fell around 8 feet into a ditch during practice,
 * The obvious incompetence of the officials in the biathlon pursuit event, in which the officials failed to let the competitors away at the correct moment - twice! Both women's and men's competition were affected. One would have thought that they had learned something the second time.
 * The dangerous pist of the women's downhill event, in which both Anja Pärson and Dominique Ghisin had serious accidents, and several other had problems that could have led to falls.


 * There is already a Concerns and challenges section, some of the above is already covered there, Nodar Kumaritashvili has a dedicated article as well. The Biathalon issues should be added.  The snow conditions should also be expanded in the weather section with (reference-able) concerns about safety to the athletes.  If the section on issues at the games continues to grow, a dedicated article may be warranted but I dont think we are quite there yet.--RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And to add that the Dave Murray Downhill Course has been in existence for years - sounds like a stretch known as "the Weasel" is what's being complained about; but downhill courses are inherently dangerous to start with - that's the whole point; Brian Stemmle got injured on Kitzbuhl's downhill run, it's still in use, for example. Other than that there were also:

[undent]One major sports controversy that's not yet in the article is the alleged favoritism in training times on the rinks and sliding course for the Canadian team over others; there's lots of citations for that, I don't have time to work up the material, but it should definitely be in the article.Skookum1 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * the failure of the Olympic flag to open during hte opening ceremeony (that can go in the opening ceremony article, if cited)
 * the failure to seat the heads of state of the Four Host First Nations on time (for reasons I have yet been able to find information on)
 * the problems with the "Olympia" (the Zamboni) at the Richmond Oval that screwed up the men's speed skating competition
 * the failure to credit Joni Mitchell in the opening ceremony narration (only novelist W.O. Mitchell was credited)
 * only one line of God Save The Queen was included in what turned out to be a medley instead of the whole anthem, for the "salute to the monarch" section or whatever it was called (a protocolic necessity when the G-G is in attendance...the equivalent would be playing only one line of Hail to the Chief or one line of the Star Spangled Banner


 * CTV and NBC said that the GG's anthem is supposed to be a mix of God Save the Queen and O Canada.
 * The Olympic flag did not open because it was flown at half mast - to honour the dead luger.
 * 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The line of God Save the Queen followed by O Canada is called the Vice Regal Salute. Look it up, it's real and it's for the Governor General. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Honors music details the viceregal salute HalifaxRage (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Brian McKeever
So how about adding Brian McKeever to this article? He's the first winter paralympian to also compete in the winter olympics. There are many refs his article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Medal table rankings
The IOC ranks countries via number of gold, then silver, then bronze. They don't rank via total number of medals. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Haralds Silovs
So how about noting the first time someone skated in both speedskating disciplines on the same day, and at the same Games? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds interesting. Find a reference, put some words together, and just do it. If yo want someone else to do it, put the reference here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And again, please note that unregistered users can't do it, not while the article remains locked. It is not a matter of want or will. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.232 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, register. HiLo48 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if you register, you still can't edit this article, you need to wait like a week. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So I assume you've registered now, so that you can make a useful contribution down the track. And the Games have now been running for a week. Did you register a week ago? Have a think. All the current registered editors went through the process I'm now suggesting for you. We coped. And I do see some value in making people just watch some of the more serious articles for a while. I learnt plenty that way. HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From that, I infer that it seems like a very bad idea to register. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why? HiLo48 (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See the Haralds Silovs article, there are several refs on that article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Security Breaches
There have been a number of security incidents at the 2010 Olympics. A man got within ten rows of U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden at the start of the Olympics.

On the early morning of February 20th, a man broke into a construction site immediately adjancent to the Olympic Cauldron and climbed up the construction crane. He was brought down by special emergency units of the police and fire departments three hours later at about 3am Vancouver time.

citation -

~Jackhidary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackhidary (talk • contribs) 13:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You would need a little more detail to show that the events were significant. Is there a reference for the first incident? And the second sounds like an attempted suicide, not actually within an Olympic venue. Sad, but not any particular threat to or even connected with the Games. HiLo48 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Amusing note about unauthorised cauldron (construction site) access. Most of the media has been complaining about there not being enough public access to the cauldron. The Olympic committee had to quickly put together a special viewing platform -- and even now, the public can't get up close. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.188 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Motto
What is the motto yo?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.116.50.104 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean "With glowing hearts/Des plus brillants exploits", as listed in the infobox under "motto" on the right hand side of the page. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  09:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Participating teams
Which is the corect number of participating teams.

In the text is written: 83 National Olympic Committees have entered teams in the 2010 Winter Olympics

But only 82 Countrys are showon in the list of countrys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.250.181 (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong participates in the Olympics even though they are a part of China and if we were using the propaganda of the Mainland Chinese media, there would be 81 countries because of the and two other NOCs: HK and the ROC/Taiwan/Chinese Taipei. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  07:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

But China, Chinese Taipei and Hong Kong are in the list of the 82 contries.

Which is the country No 83?

Controversy - Cypress Mountain snow
Up above I explained my reasons for editing the Cypress Mountain snow objections, and changed the article. Someone has now put the objection back. It has two references. One is from an obvious opinion piece that declares that having the events at Cypress Mountain simply won't work. Well, it has. So, scratch that reference. The other explains that the option of trucking in snow was in the plan for the event right from the start, so it wasn't an emergency response at all. In fact, it could be seen as a positive that the organizers had such plans in place. I intend to again edit the text to state the truth. If anyone feels the need to revert my edits again, please have the courtesy to discuss it here first. HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That stuff should be in the controversies article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should it be anywhere? The references don't support it as being any more than an excuse for sensation seeking journalists to strut their stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I have now edited the Cypress Mountain stuff to more accurately reflect the references. Any complaints? Post them here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a controversy, it's covered by journalists, to generate sales. Journalists generate reliable sources (atleast according to our current standards at Wikipedia). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

# of people working at / in the Olympic games?
I am in grade 4 and we are studying the Olympic games. Does anyone know how many people are involved in working at the games? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.30.144.96 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how many people are employed for the games, but this CBC article says that there are 25,000 volunteers. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Most populous?
Vancouver isn't the most populous city to have held Olympic Winter Games. Turin has a higher population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.101.232 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Metro Vancouver (2.1 million) is more populous than Metro Turin (1.7 million). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * With international variations in municipal boundaries, and cities these days often crossing such boundaries, such claims are hard to prove in an absolute sense. How about we settle on "...one of the most populous cities ever to hold the Winter Games...."? HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the number of cities to have hosted the Winter Olympics, would there really be any significance in that? --24.36.128.14 (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Either way, that statement is original research. Rather than putting another in, I simply removed it (the reference for that sentence didn't mention the populous bit). -M.Nelson (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not original research, since both NBC and CTV announce it loudly on TV. You just need to add a ref to either of those. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, YOU need to add a reference (or someone wanting to justify the claim does), but maybe you first need to convince us that they are reliable sources. I don't trust commercial TV in my country. And it's just possible that CBC is a tiny bit biased. HiLo48 (talk)


 * Who said anything about CBC? NBC is the official US Olympic Broadcaster, CTV is the official Canadian Olympic Broadcaster. They are both commercial TV, neither of them is located in Australia. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoops. My mistake. If they are reliable sources, just find a link that justifies the claim and use it. HiLo48 (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (outdent) If there are reliable sources, could someone please provide them? I took a look but couldn't find anything; that's why I removed the statement earlier. Currently it sits in the article with a big ol tag (I put it there). -M.Nelson (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well:


 * Winnipeg Free Press (Canadian newspaper) http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/boss-send-medicine-to-whistler-i-have-olympic-fever-84838567.html
 * New York Daily News (American newspaper) http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/winter_olympics_2010/2010/02/12/2010-02-12_a_host_of_troubles_for_canada.html
 * Agence France Press (France wire service, via Montreal Gazette) http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/2010wintergames/Blue+clad+volunteers+provide+French+services+winter+Olympics/2354247/story.html
 * QMI wire service (Quebec wire service, via Toronto Sun) http://www.torontosun.com/sports/vancouver2010/news/2010/02/10/12830166-qmi.html
 * 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Largest and warmest city:


 * Philadelphia Inquirer (American newspaper, via a website) http://www.dailycamera.com/sports/ci_14387626#axzz0gSYOBB6Z
 * 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I added the QMI ref to the article. Please note that in the future, the burden of evidence lies with the person who adds or restores the questionned material; it would have probably been easier for you to stick one of those in the article than list them all here. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I now remember that you probably can't add refs as the page is protected. Either way, problem solved. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I know everything should be sourced, take a look at the areticle about Torino and Vancouver. It have the freakin populations on the pages, i'm sure they are sourced. Don't be so fast to remove things, just because they aren't properly sourced doesn't mean they are false. Look above, it says assume "edits are made in good faith". Check before you remove things children.--Tacit tatum (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but as much as it sounds backwards, it is synthesis to look at two different sources and draw an original conclusion (even if it is a > b). Even if this was allowed, we would need to source the population for every Winter Olympics city, at the time of its Olympics, in order to say that Vancouver is the largest of all time. The reason I removed the statement in the first place, rather than just adding, was that the paragraph already had a number of s and it would look particularly unprofessional (unencyclopedic, unreliable, etc) to add another. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Medals
There should be a photo of the medals and mentioning that when all the medals are combinded they form a piece of art. Each medal is distintly its own.--Cooly123 18:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Forget the medal table!
Obsessively keeping track of medals won at the Games is a corruption of the Olympic goals. It was originally intended as a competition between individuals. Most entrants won't win medals.They are still Olympians. The real success is to participate and finish.

OK, that may sound a bit idealistic in the modern world, but some here seem determined to prove that their rich, powerful nation can outflank all the other smaller nations. Not a healthy attitude. There have been far too many hasty, honest and, I would dare to suggest, deliberate, errors introduced into the table, all with the above pointless goal.

Can we all grow up a little? If we must have a medal table, what harm would it do to wait until the end of the Games to actually get it right?

HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Host City votes don't add up
The table under the heading "Bid and preparations" doesn't add up. The first column (Rd 1) has 40+51+16 = 107 votes. The second column has 56+53 = 109 votes. Other sources (eg. NY Times) indicate this is correct, but it would be good if there was some explanation for the discrepancy. 59.101.33.190 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When Salzburg was dropped from the ballot after the first round, the two IOC members for Austria were allowed to vote in the second round. IOC members from Canada and South Korea did not vote in either round. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Excessive controversies
Someone copied and pasted the controversy/concerns section into Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics for good reason: the amount in that section was obscene compared to the rest of the article. Since there is a subarticle, I have cut much of the information so this and it are not completely redundant. The portions I removed were rather outdated (H1N1), going too far in depth (parts of the luging), minor happenings (boxing kangaroo, mentally ill man), and other things that are not at all about the whole purpose of the Olympics: sports (trademarks, external foreclosure fears). Having all of these is completely unncessary and gives WP:UNDUE weight to negative aspects. If you think portions should be restored, be specific. They are already in the subarticle and likely have no place in the main article. Reywas92 Talk 22:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, can we have some of the positive notes as well? There is absolutely zero in the article about the other city events and entertainment tied in with the Olympics. It was one of the things commented on positively by the UK Olympic delegation. http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Olympic+boss+likes+what+sees+Vancouver/2579633/story.html The way this article is going, the only way this will be mentioned will be by way of the single barricade that went down.


 * Come to think of it, this entire article leans toward the negative, right from the paragraph dedicated to bid bribing scandal onward (and why is this given so much weight at *these* Olympics?). The attempt to make these Olympics the greenest yet is given a single paragraph at the end of Venues; yet Equipment Failures (which resulted from this attempt) is given its own section. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.179 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What else can be said about attempts to make the games green? That was the plan, has there been coverage of positives from that plan or reaction to the plan and its implementation?  I've not seen any.  But mountains have been written about broken down green ice resurfacers.  The article needs to be neutral, but it also needs to be source-able.  There isn't a lot positive being written about the handling of the games at the moment, hopefully that will change as time goes on.--RadioFan (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If I were limited only to the loudest voices of the moment, I would have a very distorted view of the reality. (For those who are anticipating the London Olympics, now is the time to find all the sources which proclaim "LONDON 2012 TO BE GREENEST OLYMPICS EVER".) Source-able green, let's see -


 * Athlete's village - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/olympic-village-receives-top-sustainability-certification/article1470287
 * Building standards, with specifics - http://www.journalofcommerce.com/article/id37573
 * Hydrogen buses (I can't believe no one thought to mention these) - http://www.inhabitat.com/2009/12/09/vancouver-2010-promises-greenest-games-ever
 * Six-acre living roof - http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/02/28/vancouver-convention-center-expands-on-green
 * Carbon management and offsets - http://www.vancouver2010.com/dl/00/19/23/vanoc-carbon-management-fact-sheet_60d-jJ.pdf
 * Recycled metals for medals - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/18/winter-olympics-vancouver-recycled-medals
 * Current analysis and a nice breakdown of green acts - http://www.newsweek.com/id/233490 - note "VANOC believes it is on target to achieve a 15 percent reduction in its direct carbon footprint over what would be normally produced in these types of events."
 * More green aspects to the current games - http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/25-can-future-olympics-go-greener-than-beijing
 * A few heating details - http://www.ecofactory.com/news/whistler-enjoys-record-snowfall-olympics-lower-slopes-not-so-much-021010
 * etc. http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/travel/stories/vancouver-2010-the-greenest-olympics
 * http://www.thestar.com/olympics/2010/article/763802--bare-slopes-unlikely-to-smudge-a-green-olympics
 * http://energypriorities.com/entries/2010/01/vancouverism_2010.php


 * As you can see, sources are most definitely available, citing data that seems to be drowned out by (I don't - yet - say deliberately lost under) the current tide of undue negativity and the lack of snow. (Btw check out the current temperatures at Sochi.) Just because mountains are written, it does not mean that those mountains are not repeating the same six points over and over, let alone that those mountains are giving anything close to the entire picture. - Tenebris


 * With all due respect to editors with concerns about the lack of the positive in the article, particularly on green issues, dont expect others to make those improvements to the article, do it.


 * With all due respect, unlock the article and let unregistered users like me do it. Edit wars, such as they are, seem to be between the registered users, not people like me. There is no real justification for keeping it locked. (Haven't you ever wondered why those things always shake themselves out *after* the article is unlocked?) But if you do choose to keep it locked, then please do make use of my work toward those improvements to the article, since you are a registered editor whose interest, like mine, will be in creating an accurate and proportional article. - Tenebris


 * Yes, there is: vandalism. I'd rather editors be able to focus on trying to keep articles up to date than fending off the 6 million vandals messing with their country's medal count. Marylanderz (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a somewhat tired argument, especially given all the discussion above and in the archive. The medals are not coming fast and furious, as in the Summer Games; and the strongest opinions don't seem to be those of the unregistered editors. But I will grant you it is the easiest argument. In fact, even easier would be to ban unregistered users from editing Wikipedia altogether. I do believe it has been proposed before. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.232 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The easiest argument? You're welcome to your opinion, although disguising insults behind a thin veneer of argument is pretty petty. Of course, the easiest solution might be for you to simply register an account. Marylanderz (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to edit the article, create an account. If you need help, just ask, there are plenty of editors ready and willing to help you if you need it.--RadioFan (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * laugh* Is that your solution to all things -- "create an account"? The only time I ever get involved in debates to this extent is whenever my ability to build Wikipedia is blocked, so I offer what I have in different ways. (In fact, access to those ways is the explicitly stated reason Wiki-policy does not bar the talk pages of semi-protected articles to such as us.) If you choose not to accept or even consider those ways, even though they are to the best interests of the article, that is your prerogative. And yes, the constant risk of vandalism *is* the easiest argument, the default argument if you prefer - even though you have had no evidence of vandalism in this article, and the Wikipedia preferred position is not to lock an article at all. (Since when is it considered an insult to say what exists?) The choice is yours. - Tenebris
 * I think the potential for vandalism is high if this article were to be unblocked. I agree with the controversy section being split off, by the way...it was domineering simply because anything and everything that could possibly be written there was included. Sprocket (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * to me that's an "out of sight, out of mind" argument and can be used to distract from important issues by shoving them off to a side-article without a mention in the main summary. there's also a distinction between political and financial controversies/crises (crisis being what happened with Athletes' Village financing, for example) and sports controversies like the luge-track issue or biathlon mistakes or weather issues.  The political background to these games, like all OGs in the past in fact, is very heated and very much part of their story; to pretend otherwise and complain that there's not enough "positive" (promotional) content is a bleat; anyone could take the time to expand the "Green" section, and there's nothing stopping anyone from creating Entertainment programming for the 2010 Winter Olympics (or 2010 Cultural Olympiad, which is a different thing) and having relevant subsections with summaries in this article.  It's not the "negative" people's fault that there's so much controversy, the controversies are there to be reported....that "good news" is rarely really news, and often packaged p.r. hype/sell-jobs, is also not the fault of editors trying to be thorough in covering news items relating to these Olympics; which overwhelming happen to be negative because THAT'S THE WAY THE COOKIE CRUMBLES.  What you "can't we have more positive material" are saying is something like "can we have more positive coverage of this incredibly corrupt politician, please?".  This article is supposed to a neutral account of the Games; "balance" is not neutral when it means adding in "poaitive" fluff/p.r. to "balance" the "negative" truths/controversies, be they financial or sports controversies, or political malfeasance.  How this article could  have had less political controversy in it is if there hadn't been so much political tomfoolery in the first place.Skookum1 (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I should add I'm all for creating articles/sections on "athletic firsts at the 2010 Winter Olympics" or happy-face stories about someone overcoming adversity to compete, or doing brilliant out of nowhere; but there's no way there's any validity to the argument that coverage of the event's many controversies is "excessive"; unless it can be shown (and it can't) that the actual controversies weren't "excessive"....yes, the popularity of the events programming downtown and in Whistler Village is worth mentioning; but so then is the collapse of the stage during the Tommy Chong gig the other night. You can't just eat candy, folks, you have to eat your vegetables too OK?Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been following the games. These so called controversies seem to me little more than negative media creating negative stories to sell media and thus,ads. I don't think any of this stuff belongs in the primary article. THere is no real "controversy" that I can see. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you choose to be blind, don't complain if you can't see anything. The major media coverage is heavily controlled/censored, much like in the People's Republic.  Just because PRC newspapers didn't talk about Tibet during the '08 Games doesn't mean Tibet wasn't an issue.....bury your head in the sand if you wish, but don't expect other people to follow suit....and it's laughable that the media who are covering the controversies are doing so to follow ads; most are independent bloggers and 'zines which barely have any ad revenue, if ads at all....and the foreign papers who ahve covered the controversies (that the Canadian/BC media won't cover) don't need their ad revenues supplemented by controversies about an event in BC (I('m meaning the NYT, London Times, Manchester Guardian, German networks, Aussie media etc etc etc).  I'm not just following the Games, I'm following the damage to the BC economy and infrastructure the Games have caused; which the media you're watching don't want to talk about, or admit to....Skookum1 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

[undent]I've given some more thought to what's been taken out and am aghast at the casual way the "positive" crowd have decided that free speech concerns (which are many, and unusual in a democratic country) were "undue weight"...they're also hard to find on the new page, never mind not mentioned at all on this page now.....this link includes a passage about contractual muzzling by VANOC. No doubt you'll tell me "it's extraneous to the Olympics" and not significant enough....maybe not in your world...but I pity your world, as much as I am bemoaning the masking of censorhip under the happy-face flag of a (POV) emphasis on "positive" content.Skookum1 (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about a comment of mine that YOU have just removed. Please show some good faith here. It's quite possible that you and I will even agree on the political matters about which you're concerned, but right here we're working on an encyclopaedia. Please trust my comments, and let's try to make this a better place, FOLLOWING THE RULES! HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found that it's extremely ironic that Skookum decided to remove HiLo's comments while claiming that this article is being censored. It's just a two week event people, enjoy it, live your life and have fun. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  20:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What did I remove? If so it was a total glitch, I made no intentional deletion of anyone else's material.  I remember pasting into an edit conflict but I don't recall overlaying it on any existing copy by anyone.  I'm way above that Emarsee you should know better than to assume it's intentional - wbat's missing?Skookum1 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * the other thing is I know a few people who are actually at the games and they are all saying its the greatest olympics ever with a mardi gras free atmosphere (with a heavy fog of BC Bud in the air); bottom line, there is no real controversy there or if there is it's being swamped over by the fun and friendliness. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with the controversies the abounded in the lead-up to the Games, and the ongoing financial and political crisis it is part of, indeed partly the cause of. How people feel on the street can and should certainly be reported - but that's NO REASON AT ALL to exclucde important information.  The term "encyclopedic" includes the sense "as complete as possible", and does not include keeping things out simply because people enjoying a free party are having a good time (it's not actually free, they just haven't realized how big the bill is yet or how many years they'll be paying for it, and in how many ways).  Your claim that because it's a great party that there's no controversy is not just pollyanna-ish, it's straight out fo the BC Liberal/VANOC playbook and talking points....Skookum1 (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I accept that the disappearance of my post was an accident. So let's get on with tidying up the article. For starters, just who is Any Goodman, and what really happened at the border? :-) HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be an accident, but who know? All I know is that someone's comment was removed. The edit in question was . Of course there are controversies, but you can't deny that there are more people out there in Vancouver that wants to have fun and enjoy the Olympics than to complain/protest/be negative about the Olympics. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  01:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never saw that text/passage at all; I do remember experiencing an edit conflict when I posted that, but as noted I only copy-pasted into blank space; could be a wiki-glitch of some kind, but I know I didn't delete anything by selecting/deleting it or copying over it.....As for Amy Goodman, she's a leading progressive broadcaster on American Public Radio who was coming to Canada to promote her book at the Vancouver Public Library; when the border guards found out she was a journalist they hauled her inside for a grilling and refused to believe she wasn't coming to join anti-Oympics agitators (she didn't even realize the Olympics were comiong, they weren't on her radar, and they refused to believe her and got even nastier). File under "security paranoia" along with the harrassment of all kinds of people by home visits from the Integrated Security Unit.  Made big controversy/headlines, especially in the US but also internationally....Skookum1 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Find a good reference and put it in. It will need to be a very good one, because I doubt if all the players will be telling the same story. And I do see an irony in that Goodman is allowed to have had no idea that the Olympics were on, but the guards had to trust her motives. I'll await the good reference. HiLo48 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL the references were deleted somewhere along the way by someone sanitizing that passage so it could justifiably be deleted; I'll find them again later; one is a Dave Zirin article in the Huffington Post.....ROTFL....there are several "good references".....funny how cited material can disappear so easily from this article huh?Skookum1 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you, or anyone, has re-deleted the Amy Goodman passage I re-inserted; here are some of the citations that were attached to it before some "positive" minded editor euhemerized it to strip it of any Olympic connection, just so some other "positive" editor could take the liberty of wantonly deleted it. Amy Goodman and Canada's Olympic Paranoia, Dave Zirin, Huffington Post, November 27, 2009, and U.S. Journalist Grilled at Canada-U.S. Border Crossing, CBC News, last updated December 22, 2009.  There are other cites on the Dave Zirin article, but I know this received press-time in the UK and also in foreign-language media.  The truth is out there, you're welcome to find it (instead of pretending that because YOU have never heard of it, it doesn't matter....).  CBC News and the Huffington Post - I hope those are "good" sources for you....Skookum1 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sake Skookum, if you have the references and some nice words to put around them that show the notability and relevance of the event to the Olympics, please just put them in the article. Make a fuss here too when you do it so the more sensible editors know about it. If it's good stuff, I will defend its presence even more aggressively than I deleted the messed up content when it was there. HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If Goodman REALLY was unaware that there was an Olympics taking place, then why are you SO determined to include her in an Olympic article? If she WAS aware of the olympics, and denied that fact, then her alleged treatment was justified. Come on, are you really asserting that real JOURNALIST wouldn't know about the olympics?72.39.30.144 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting that you know better about what Amy Goodman knew and when she knew it, and thereby impuging that she was guilty of something to post facto justify her harrassment? You security-shill propagandists all sound alike...I saw teh same stupid argument in the blogs, perhaps it was made also by you.....the reason this is relevant to the Olympics is because of the heavy, paranoid hand of the Integrated Security Unit, and its bloated one billion dollar budget (which is, as someone noted somewhere, the cost of a few days' war in Iraq...and most of its visible energies targeted at civil rights activists rather than terrorists.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do see a double standard here, or at least an irony. I was criticized for not knowing who Amy Goodman was, from 20,000km away, but it's OK for her to not know the Olympics were on, in a place she was visiting. I also condemn waste and paranoia on security and military matters, but let's be consistent here. HiLo48 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a BIG difference between knowing about the Olympics vs. knowing about Amy Goodman, and there's a BIG difference between here not knowing about the Olympics, or rather about them not being on her "front burner", and also a BIG difference between you not knowing about Amy Goodman and Amy Goodman not knowing about the Olympics and/or coming to Canada about them. There's also a big difference, though some moral equivalency, between paranoid border guards persecuting a foreign journalist for overtly political reasons (whether justified or not) and people in wikipedia wanting to remove all such information by way of censoring "negative" and "excessive" coverage of controversies the organization/implementation of these Games.  there's not double standard at all, you're comparing apples and oranges....and a few kumquats too...Skookum1 (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is, with anything worth being in an encyclopedia, there is always some degree of "controversy" I suppose. I mean, there's lots of RS material showing that the Nazis were put in power by Skulls and Bones' guys (Bush,Harriman, Wooley, Walker etc.) but we won't find one word about that in our articles about Hitler's rise to power,nor should we. It's a matter of degree as to what extent the "controversies" belong in the article and for that I suppose the RSs content rule the day. So, when including the actual sports reporting, which I think is what most people think,rightly or wrongly, this is all about. I imagine the RSs content about the controversies of these Olympics, before and during, would be much,much less than 1% of the whole. May be a simple way of thinking about it, but that's the way I see it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
I don't have a problem in particular with fairly comprehensive coverage of controversies. My bigger concern, frankly, and looking through other Olympica articles it seems to be relatively common, is that there is no summary whatsoever of what actually happened during the Games. I know that the sheer quantity of material requires that much of the information be on sub-pages, but there is literally no text description of any athletics, which concerns me. Marylanderz (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's very true. I also find that the "controversies" are presented from a very one-sided perspective. I checked the reference about trucking snow into Cypress Mountain and found that it actually said that such an approach had been part of a contingency plan right from the start. That the editor adding that criticism had failed to mention that fact shows obvious POV. The item has now been amended. HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, with Marylanderz, there must be a way to include a text summary of the athletic events in the main article. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Open editing
Thank you to whoever took off the protection on this page. I actually accomplished everything I intended to, this day (which surprised me!), which means that late tomorrow I will be able to put my time where my mouth is wrt this article. Don't worry, I don't intend to remove determined negatives or touch the controversies page -- although again, some might want to examine the 2008 Olympics page more closely, and decide if the current Games are really that much more controversial -- but I do intend to give a more balanced and overall accurate picture in this one. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.188 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And there it closes again. Was that by the free speech advocate, by any chance?
 * In any case, I am currently reworking the last half of this article as promised. These are some of the headings I intend to add.
 * - Green initiatives, from enhanced building standards to recycled metal for medals.
 * - Live Sites, drawing crowds in the tens of thousands (how does one add a televised citation? The Colbert Report (in Vancouver, Olympics week 2) showed some of the real audience numbers, not only at his own shows but also at the various international houses.
 * - A showcase House for any country which wanted it; as well as the popular Aboriginal Pavilion, at the centre of the festivities, a project supported by most of the aboriginal community. Again, extremely popular, judging by the draw.
 * - (I can't positively confirm it yet, but I think this Olympics is the first to have fully integrated athletic competition with public events for the general public. A few others have had an isolated, park-ish area around the main competition facilities, but none before tried for this kind of integration. The chairman of the London Olympic committee was quite impressed.)
 * - Multiculturalism, which has resulted in several non-Canadian medal winners being fetéed by the local community.
 * - Contingency plans which allowed nearly all the events to continue with at most a day's delay due to weather -- which, I hope you will grant, is beyond any committee's power to control.
 * - Lowest doping positives since doping became a serious factor. (Of course, we have to wait eight years for the final verdict there.)
 * - Clean air. (Don't discount that!)
 * And while we are at it, here are a few negatives that have not yet been mentioned:
 * - Sky-high cost of accommodation. This is not a problem specific to the Games, although it was certainly exacerbated by them.
 * - Last-minute cancellation of the cruise ship.
 * - The effects of the global recession/depression in such things as expected federal funding. (Although it has been hinted at in the expected deficit. Montréal managed to get its Games right in the middle of stagflation. It must be a Canadian gift.)
 * (saving this link for later http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/02/vancouverites-foresee-positive-legacy-and-a-considerable-deficit-from-olympics)
 * - And (sigh) a case of Hansen's disease.
 * A few of the sources are already listed above. Many more will follow. If the article is not unlocked by the time I am finished compiling this, I will post it here. At that point, the only work a registered member need do is cut and paste. - Tenebris

(Storing - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-gold-medal-for-vancouver-games/article1483796 ) - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.176 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Individual medal table please
It's nice to represent nations but at the end of the day it's about athletes. We need a medal table ranking by athlete. Nowhere in the article can we find information on the few exceptional athletes who won several medals 87.231.132.245 (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with that sentiment. The obsession with which rich, powerful nation can win more medals than those smaller nations with less snow has become fairly sickening here. There should be a lot more in this article on individual events and performances. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember that this article is intended to be a top level summary article, from which more detail can be found on the per-nation, per-sport, and per-event pages. There are lots of places where we can tell the complete story of these Games.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

United States
How about making the United States have 37 medals? They are guaranteed a medal today in Hockey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.119.106 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a place for predictions. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  18:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, surely people can wait a few hours for the final medal table. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What was that about guaranteed a gold in Hockey? David Biddulph (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When did I say a guaranteed gold? They lost the game, they get silver. But when I said that, I meant that there is no way they won't get a Gold or a Silver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.119.106 (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Team disqualification or withdrawal is possible. That's why it's irresponsible to estimate a medal / win. Ericleb01 (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Medal table
The France team is not in the lead with overall medals. The French have 3 medals were USA has 6. Also Germany has 4 and then Canada with 3. Can somebody correct the order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.20.178 (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC) The oficial site of Vancouver 2010 is counting by total medal, why here in wikipedia you're conuting by golden medal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edimon (talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one for the FAQ. In the US, we sort by total medal count, but in most other countries its sorted by number of golds.  The wikitable is sortable, so we Americans can click on the total count column to get the look we are accustomed to.DavidRF (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Added Swedens gold medal to the table (Charlotte Kalla, skis 10 km), I think I did it right. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Column sorting should be removed from the table, because it does not contain the top ten NOCs by sorting criterion, but always the top ten by gold, then silver, then bronze (even though sorted according to the criterion). For instance, NOCs from below the top ten by gold, then silver, then bronze, will not appear after sorting by Total, even when they are in top ten by Total. 91.79.31.67 (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

True. For example, Russia is currently # 6 in terms of the total number of medals, but it is not even in the top-10 table when sorted by total number of medals! This is certainly a problem which must be fixed. P.P. (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It can be fixed by reducing the obsession on "current" medal totals. Leave the table out completely until the Games are well over and the dust has settled, then, if we really must have medal totals, list them all. Then the columns will work. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The US way of counting medals is totally flawed. Whens the last time a bronze is equal to a gold?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.86.116 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Medal Table
Uhhh, shouldn't these be arranged by the number of total medals? 98.244.55.251 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This has already discussed to death at another page. See Talk:2010 Winter Olympics medal table for that discussion. -- Scorpion 0422  01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can also adjust the table to your preference by clicking the little icon beside each heading. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.205 (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * America alone (and I guess with Canada) uses total (started recently perhaps? When they noticed that China would beat them in 2008), everyone else usage to rank by gold, silver, bronze. Article on Olympic medal table. I even have a screen from early when the official site ranked by golds (I guess the American NOC wanted that changed because the next day it was total) chandler 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with China (very few people would argue that the U.S. had a better Olympics in '08 than China did, anyway). The U.S. media has always customarily ranked nations in the Olympics by total number of medals, not just by golds. They did it this way in the 1970s and 1980s when the U.S. usually finished third in the Summer Olympics and nowhere to be found in the winter, and have done it ever since. Personally, I think they should be ranked on a 3-2-1 basis, which makes China the "winner" in '08 by a large margin and the U.S. narrowly a "winner" in '10. Jsc1973 (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This should be reverted since it is not in line with the official IOC ranking method, nor with the medal table main article. --87.79.143.161 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done; thanks for pointing that out. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And thank you for taking care of it. :) --87.79.143.161 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

the medal table is constantly wrong
It goes by most medals. The IOC has no official ranking numbers, and never will. Most medals. Stop changing it to most golds, it so ridiculous. Yeah Canada, we have the most golds. We're not top in the medal table. The United States are. Wiki nazis can't even decide what's right for the medal count. Check the Beijing Olympic article, then check the Beijing medal table article. Most medals a ranking, most golds is a ranking of most golds.
 * This is argued every two years. See the Olympic medal table article for a full perspective.  Even as recent as the 2002 Salt Lake Games in the USA, the SLOC organising committee used a gold-first ranking.  But sometime after that the US (and Canadian?) media switched away from that method, although other English-language media (UK, Australia, etc.) continue with gold-first.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there is no Official Ranking, the order is arbitrary. Users can change the sort order with one click if they wish. Otherwise, having Most Golds as the default sort order is fine.  Beside, you know what they call the ones who receive silver and bronze medals?  LOSERS!
 * Just kidding. Kid Bugs (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Canada finished 1st as they were the most successful nation at this Olypmics as the winningest team (as China did in the 2008 Summer Games), and Canada sit atop the National Olympic Committee medal table. Its all about WINS. The gulf between Gold medal Winners, and Silver medal best placed loser is vast...and the table should (and does) reflect that. Its the same in all sports...the winner in whatever sport is the best. With law of averages, any team that has the most participants (due to population) is likely to collect the most medals (probably why some TV channel in the US uses this lesser method).. but its all about who wins events..tops the podium, the champion...and Canada has the most champions hence globally they finished 1st in the medals table. Congrats to them.Gold coast surf (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Germany Now Leads All Time Medal Standings, Pushing USSR/Russia in 2nd Place
I already mentioned this in the medal table discussion, but it might be relevant here as well. According to Europe's leading news magazine DER SPIEGEL, until recently USSR/Russia led the All Time Winter Olympics Medal Standings. This refers to the combined medals of the former USSR (1952-1988), Unified Team (1992), Russia (1992-). But in 2010 Germany surged ahead (combined medals of the German NOCs 1928-2010). Here the SPIEGEL link: http://www.spiegel.de/sport/sonst/0,1518,672825,00.html#medals_2 Click at "Ewiger Medaillenspiegel" to see the current all time medal standings. Gold medals so far: Germany 128, Russia 123, Norway 106, USA 87, Austria 55, Canada 51, Sweden 48 .... This new development should perhaps be mentioned. My17cents (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please discuss on the talk page for "2010 Winter Olympics medal table", not here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Make the edit to the first section regarding medals
There should also be an addition in the first section relating to the US winning most overall, that Canada now holds the record for most Gold medals at a Winter Olympic Games... Not only the medal leader, but now the record for most golds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.196.196 (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition, ladies and gentlemen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.196.196 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the medal table....
....and it should stay out until the obsessive but irrational and nationalistic editors of it can come to some agreement on how it should be portrayed. It made absolutely no sense in the form I saw it. My view is that it should follow the IOC's format from its website and show ALL medals. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wiki articles for previous winter Olympics have the top 10 metals - sorted gold count first - on the main page. IMO we should stay consistent. SubtractM (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Crossmr (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its common to show abridged versions of content if there are main articles. a Top 10 is fine with the full medal table linked. This is consistent both with the IOC and previous medal tables.--Crossmr (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But the table I saw had a caption claiming Canada was top, but showing it in third place in the table. It was also sortable by columns. With only ten teams shown, thats' just silly. I suspect some of you don't comprehend the logic of that. But please think about it. What if the 11th team won more silvers than anyone else? A sort on the top ten gold winners won't show it. It should show all medal winners. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only reason the tables are made sortable is so that those who wish to sort by total medals not golds are able to do so. If the 11th team won the most silvers there may be an issue. They never have so there isn't. It is policy for all articles of the type "Year" "Season" Olympics to have a top ten medal table by number of golds won and there is no reason for it not to be the case here. Basement12 (T.C) 11:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What if the 11th team by gold medals won the 10th most silvers? A sort of our table won't show it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want that information, you go to 2010 Winter Olympics medal table, not to 2010 Winter Olympics. David Biddulph (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether I want the information. It's whether the article is a good one. At the moment the table is still a bad table. If it only shows ten nations it should not allow sorting, That gives meaningless results. (Showing only ten nations really does too.) HiLo48 (talk
 * Personally, I don't mind if the table stays. However, I removed the sortable property because the table is incorrect if it's sorted on anything other than the number of gold medals. To take an example, Russia is 6th by total number of medals, while here (if you sort by total number of medals), South Korea is 6th (while it's normally 7th) and Russia is not even in the table. Laurent (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You should always check the page history. The reason you saw that Canada was listed third and the table captioned for first was because an editor had just changed it because he was upset that America wasn't number 1. While the IOC and pretty much the rest of the world ranks by gold, American media ranks by total medals.--Crossmr (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But what do you think about my point above regarding Russia? - if a user sorts by total of number of medals (or by anything other than gold) the resulting table is incorrect. It shows countries at the wrong position and entirely excludes countries that should be in the table. For that reason, I think the table should not be sortable (i.e. the "sortable" property should be removed). Are you OK with that? Laurent (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of the sort option. If people want to sort and get fuller information on the table they can see the main linked article. Sections with full articles are meant only to show a snapshot of what is in there and enough to give context to the current article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Serbia is making her winter Olympic debut?
Isn't Serbia a successor state for Serbia and Montenegro which in turn a successor state for Yugoslavia?--79.111.133.123 (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Montenegro is a successor state as well. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Luger at the top?
Should Luger be mentioned at the top of the article or in the media sections? Considering how much media converage was devoted to his death, surely it should be notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamamaniac (talk • contribs) 05:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sub articles naming
Why is the word "men's" in the name of the article "Ice hockey at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament" spelled with a capital M? The same goes for several other pages about 2010 WO results, like men's and women's slalom, men's and women's 10 km classic, etc. It's not the beginning of a new sentence, and "men's" and "women's" are not proper names. I propose we make an effort, and move these pages. LarRan (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion should be at WT:WikiProject Olympics, since this affects several thousand articles across all 47 Games, not just the 2010 Games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved as per Andrwsc's suggestion above. LarRan (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WTF re so-called "Legacy" section
HiLo48, it doesn't really matter at all if something is cited if it has nothing to do with the stated topic. How the following p.r. peacockery has anything to do with "legacy" is beyond me:
 * ''The massive celebratory crowds in downtown Vancouver were highly praised by the IOC. Jacques Rogge, the president of IOC, indicated that "the way Vancouver embraced these Games was extraordinary. This is really something unique and has given a great atmosphere for these Games."

"Massive celebratory crowds" is POV/peacock to start with, but what the state of the booze and hockey-giddied crowds has to do with "legacy" is not clear at all; it's entirely spurious in fact, as if happy crowds were a legacy. Similarly, Jacques Rogge's self-congratulatory blurtations are not "legacy", they are self-serving p.r. Similarly, the "funding" section is a rehash of federal and provincial govt press releases about what great guys they are for throwing money in the hopes it will wash back in popularity at the voting booth; and the funding re BC is a fiction, especially re culture funding, which was savagely slashed before the games (even in weeks immediately before the event) and now "restored" to lower levels than before. (see here). "Legacy" has yet to be defined by history; other than the remnant facilities e.g. the skating oval and convention centre and curling rink, which are "legacy", the other legacies are a vastly increased provincial debt/deficit, the ill-will of communities outside hte Lower Mainland which saw all this money spent so people could get giddy and dance int eh street and feel good about themselves for a few weeks. "Legacy" will include secure/higher real estate prices in the Sea to Sky Corridor. "Legacy" may include things like an Alexandre Bilodeau statue on Cypress someday; pronouncements from the IOC boss adn accounts of flag-waving crowds are not "legacy". Similarly, the funds/buy-offs to the chiefs of the Four Host First Nations are a legacy, but as you'd find on http://www.liberatedyet.com there's some dispute within at least one of those nations (the Squamish) as to what happened to all that dough, and the land in Whistler that was part of teh deal (none has reached regular band members and is unaccounted for in the band's books). That's "legacy", too...oh, I know, I know, that's not a "reliable source" because the Vancouver Sun chose to ignore it......Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Danger: Spin doctors at work
It's interesting to watch the information-manipulators at work. First, at the end of teh Native Opposition section a little sentence was added about how the bands had signed a protocol with VANOC. Then that little bit, meant to balance the preceding material about large-scale native criticism/opposition, was moved to the head of that section by someone "separating two thoughts", then that section was retitled "native reception". News is that that protocol didn't belong in this section at all, but elsewhere in the article about things VANOC had to get done in order to make the Games viable....so it went from a tack-on "balance" to "first priority" in that section, then used as a premise to retitle/downplay that section. Seems to be similar to the editing-then-deleting that was pulled on Amy Goodman and other material.....the edit history of this article provides fertile ground for someone who might want to do an analysis of p.r. manipulation of Wikipedia, because that's clearly what's been going on here. And it stinks. "WPCivil, WP:AGF" etc just can't apply when manipulation is so clear and blatant. This is about whether something is true or not, it's not about whether or not someone's noise is out of joint because someone else called them on their bullshit.....another example is the Legacy section, which is defended simply because it's cited. It's no more relevant to the legacy of the Games than a weather report for yesterday is....some of its contents may belong in other sections, but their tone and purpose are little more than window-dressing.Skookum1 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Skookum1 - I can agree with you on two points. The name Legacy doesn't seem quite right for the section, and there is some peacock language there. Both should be able to be easily fixed. (Although I really haven't been able to come up with a better name yet. Anyone?) As for your continuing attacks on other editors (including myself, for I deleted the Amy Goodman material, and still believe I was right to so at the time), you are simply way out of line. You seem to imply some sort of conspiracy. I haven't heard of it yet. People with many different POVs are working on this article. I try to be impartial and am definitely not involved in the local political aspects of the event. Let's move on and make the article better. HiLo48 (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Legacy?
Is it too early to include a legacy section in this article? I feel this could really help to balance the negativity that seems to permeate this article. While the games started out rather shaky with safety and weather concerns, most sources I can find agree that the games had turned around by the closing ceremonies and had become a source of national pride for Canada. A legacy section could mention the outpouring of patriotism in Canada, the final thoughts of international media at the close of the games, and lessons learned by London and Sochi from the unfortunate issues at the start of the games. There are numerous sources for all of these points in print and online media over the last few days. 96.50.4.28 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * These are not legacy:
 * ''the outpouring of patriotism in Canada, the final thoughts of international media at the close of the games
 * "legacy" is for lasting heritage, not reception in the media, or the temporary hysteria of crowds.Skookum1 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

We should also add that one of the Olympic legacy is now expeted to be a $400m profit: http://www.theprovince.com/sports/2010wintergames/Politicians+bask+Games+400m+profit+equality+boost/2626347/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.36 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * YOu should also note that the Province is a known shill for the British Columbia Liberal Party and fields all kinds of false information on a regular basis, and hides all kinds of necessary information on an even more regular basis. "Success" oriented hype from CanWest papers is to be taken with a grain salt, and cannot be considered objective or reliable; they are too politically biased to be taken as anything but a mouthpiece for the ruling party.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to you, anything from the MSM is considered to be unreliable and shouldn't be used as a source? Then what do YOU think should be a reliable source? WP:RS already defines newspapers like The Province or The Vancouver Sun as a reliable source. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  07:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on for what. Movie reviews, general civic data etc.  Information on the BC Legislature Raids and associated trial definitely not.  Recent political history definitely not (they're still trying to indict Glen Clark even though he was found not guilty long ago, after a long trial by media, which included them); honest reporting on the sale of BC Rail or the activities of the Public Affairs Bureau, or even the right figures for the provincial budget/deficit DEFINITELY NOT.  Reporting on dissident movement activities DEFINITELY NOT - times 20; it took the Seattle papers to report the full (and nasty) details of the RCMP attack on the people of the Seton Lake Indian Band during the Oka Crisis; neither the Sun nor Province made any but the most cursory reports, with completely wrong numbers of RCMP involved etc or what the real issues were.  One other problem is the pay-for nature of their archives (which their new ownership erased all pre-1993 information from upon takeover) and the difficulty of searching them; the blockades of the St'at'imc of Sutikalh did to block the Cayoosh Ski Resort did get reported in the Sun, as I remember - but finding that specific page/date is not going to be easy; whether it reported on the Olympics-related blockade/opposition I don't know - like other intelligent British Columbians I make a point of reading it only to keep an eye on its lies or to maybe read the movie reviews.  Similarly with the many political and financial crises associated with the Games; those papers are Olympics-boosters and didn't report facts, not factually anyway; a good example would be the Olympic Village funding crisis; they reported events, but not reasons, and helped paper over the scandal, same as they hyped (and still do) the Fast Ferries as a "scandal" even though the spanking new Convention Centre's cost overruns are far more scandalous; anything the BC Liberals do is OK, anything the BC Liberals do wrong is the NDP's fault.  Real politics are to be found in http://thetyee.ca or http://www.straight.com which though "fringe" as certain editors here would describe them are the only really reliable news sources in BC (other than blogspace).  For a while now I've been meaning to compile a much more extensive list of why mainstream newspapers cannot be trusted on various issues/events, to put on Wikipedia talk:Reliable Sources....and explicitly just because something is not found in the pages of the Sun or Province does not mean it did not happen, or that because it's only reported in what to others might seem like obscure blogs or organization pages (e.g. the Warrior Society or The Dominion) does not mean that those are unreliable sources.  In search the St'at'imc of Sutikalh item I found lots of sources (non-clone sources) and among them was http://www.indymedia.com which is a legitimate source.  Deleting sources/information because the editor doing that hasn't heard of the source without looking for other sources, or considering the relevance of the source (e.g. the flag theft re the Warrior page announcing it) is lazy man's censorship and lazy man's journalism; expecting someone who objects to have to "fill in the blanks" which have been deleted is "here I made a mess, you go clean it up".  I also submit that a lot of editors and admins at Wikipedia aren't old enough to know what's political or historically relevant, or to understand the propaganda nature of many of the Mainstream Media outlets.  Unless you're going to tell me that FoxNews and MSNBC are neutral and objective rather than clearly unreliable.....You should also consider that any newspaper making campaign donations to a governing party which they always soft-soap at every turn is not an objective, neutral source.  Reliable for weather and sports and car accidents; NOT RELIABLE for political news.  ESPECIALLY IN BC.  And this applies as much or moreso to Olympics costs/funding and "legacy taxation" as it does to any reports on the political opponents of the Games; more honest reporting on BC is sometimes found in the national papers (when they bother to look west of the mountains) but that coverage is NEVERrepeated in the BC papers; often independent local editors in BC take up the cause.  You won't find, for example, the case in Kitimat involving charges against teh Premier for fraud, uttering threats and more in relation to the Haisla land claims/treaty negotiations in t he Sun or Province, you find it in the Terrace Daily.  Similarly the BC Rail scandal, if reported by other than the Straight or Tyee or on Tieleman's blogs or in his column in 24 Hours, gets coverage in papers like the Gulf Islands Driftwood and Victoria's Monday Magazine, but not in the Times-Colonist (except in the most cursory fashion).  Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable source backing up your claims about the MSM? If this is just your own opionion, or the opinion of non-reliable sources it is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.36 (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would agree here. Skookum, you need to calm down. We don't need you to redefine what a reliable source on Wikipedia is. Currently, the Sun and Province in addition to the Straight and The Tyee would all be considered to be reliable sources. Just as how the Sun/Province have a slight conservative bias, the Straight/Tyee have a slight liberal bias. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I live on the other side of the world and have no familiarity at all with Vancouver's media. We can't eliminate a mainstream paper because of a bias. They all have a bias. I suspect that last observation about the direction of the bias of each outlet is true. However the only Vancouver paper I've seen an obvious problem with was an opinion piece in the Tyee which announced that having events at Cypress Mountain wouldn't work because of poor snow. Well, it did work, because the organisers had actually planned for that possibility. Do we now eliminate the Tyee? I don't think so. We just have to be careful. Obvious OPs are always going to be a problem, and all papers have them. Some don't mention the negatives of their favourite parties, so we also need to look elsewhere. The real message is to not depend on one source alone. HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll get back to you guys later, as your examples and counter-arguments are shallow and just don't get the point, which had to do with whether or not the MSM report honestly, or at all, on alternative views of the Games and on political opposition, not "bias" about snow cover on Cypress. This post is my comment on why I removed the entire so-called "Legacy" section, which consisted mostly of denials of bad reviews in the foreign press and the over-cited self-congratulatory statement by Jacques Rogge, plus a jejune comment that events were well-attended. THOSE have nothing to do with "Legacy", which is too early to discern yet (and the political-opposition view is that the legacy includes closed hospitals, closed schools, a new found of higher taxes and budgetary flim-flam as of the new provincial budget, which was released after teh Games closed, and also large-scale new real estate development in the Sea to Sky Corridor which is expected in coming years. "Legacy" is a word to be decided by history, not hype-pushers before the corpse is even cold.  The sub-section "Funding" I removed first because it was clearly govenrment hype/p.r. about what great guys they are for increasing sports funding (after grossly neglecting it or, as in BC's case, savagedly slashing it, in months/years before the Games began).  Government funding promotions are not, or should not be, in the purview of encyclopedia-style coverage of teh Games......funding realities, that's differentSkookum1 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  17:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to read through all the above arguments at the moment, but looking at the article's history, there seems to be more consensus in favour of keeping it-- User:Jonhoca added the section, User:Ckatz re-added when Skookum removed (w/ an edit summary), I noted in an edit summary that I support keeping it, and User:HiLo48 also supported in edit summary. Additionally, a number of editors edited the section, implying consent on its inclusion. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Skookum, The funding numbers that were reported by the Sun are hard facts (34M on top of the 10M per year for athletes), verifiable in the budget transcript on http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/plan/chap3d-eng.html. Canadian athletes did well, Feds decide to reward them with extra funding. How is this NOT a legacy of the 2010 olympics???? How is this a subjective PoV when this is actually what transpired ????? I think it should be put back in, these are facts, not opinions. Phileo (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Political funding is never about "hard facts", it's about selective data. That being besides the point, because government funding promises DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "LEGACY".  And what a government promises and waht it actually cuts cheques for are two different things, also.  None of either this funding section or its parent legacy section are relevant, especially because government funding promises are not legacy, and the rest of the legacy section has no legacy in it".  see below about happy crowds and self-serving congratulations from the IOC prez; those are not LEGACY.  Repeat L-E-G-A-C-Y.  The jury is out yet on what that legacy really is, don't you get it??  Legacy is about impacts on history/society, and surviving monuments/landmarks.  It's not about what Jacques Rogge says, or the Canadian/BC governments promise'', it's about lasting legacy/ies, not p.r. bumpf.  And criticisms of government promises are also "hard facts", though "hard facts" that the Vancouver Sun either chooses not to cover or just wishes would go away; see here for a sample, though that's about culture funding rather than sports (culture and sports are tied together in the new BC budget but similar critiques apply to sports, as the provgov hit school and amateur sports funding hard in the lead-up to the Games; what's been "restored" is less than before; claims of "hard facts" are just a numbers game, adn typical politics-as-usual.  Another "legacy" that's of note is that the social housing the Athletes' Village was supposed to become has been wiped off teh agenda; that's "legacy" too, not just Jacques Rogge going on about what a great event it was, or the governmental grandstanding over "look at us we're good guys for giving more funding as a result of how well we did".  The Legacy section and its bastard child "funding" shoudl be trashed; if tehre's a "funding" section in this article it should be about "where the money came from to pay for the Games".Skookum1 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * If you would slow down a little here you might notice that I have agreed with you elsewhere about the name legacy. Now, let's find a better name. HiLo48 (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Skookum1 We may be arguing over semantics here. I am more talking about the tangible, measurable, and verifable effects that the 2010 olympics had on Vancouver, and Canada in general.  The gov`t funding, however you want to view it, is not just a promise, Alex Baumann of the Own the Podium program has mentioned that he will be meeting with the gov`t to discuss how to disburse those funds.  The gov`t funding is a direct `cause and effect` of the olympics, clear and simple.  Aren`t the tangible, measurable, verifiable cause and effects NPoV ??  Legacy may not have been the correct choice of words, but `cause and effect`  for sure.  I am looking to include something like the `effect on the city` section in the 1996 Olympics.  Then we can include things like the Richmond olympic oval, Whistler sliding park, Vancouver olympic centre.  You can even mention how the low income vancouverites got shafted when they cancelled the partial allocation of the Athletes village to social housing.  Phileo (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that it was Alex Baumann that the government gave its "commitment" to; the government also committed relief for Haiti and the Indian Ocean Tsunami that's still waiting for a cheque to be cut; the same is true of some of the Olympic costs-promises made to BC taxpayers (by the Cdn government to the BC govt, and/or by the BC government to its citizens). In any case, promotional largesse by election-minded governments is just not LEGACY, it's riding on the coat-tails of a popular event. AS for "hard facts" which someone else here (maybe you) invoked, here's some further "hard facts" from more neutral sources than government press releases.  then there's this re cuts to arts funding and there are similar stories out there about the damage done to amateur sports programs.  Claiming a #400 million profit when that profit was borne on the backs of other programs is utterly ludicrous, and highly political in nature; and like all claims by governments highly suspect, especially when the facts of that "profit" become understood....and the lying, cheating, wheedling nature of the ruling party in BC is factored into the equation.....(and the online presence of its 223 p.r. staffers)Skookum1 (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are heading in a useful direction there. Wikipedia should always include relevant content from a city's main newspapers, irrespective of their alleged biases, but it is good if it can also include material from other sources which present alternative points of view. A pluralistic, open approach is always going to be more acceptable than one that wants to restrict certain views. HiLo48 (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If we removed this section then we should removed the section about opposition... either we show both sides of the stories or none. The games start really badly but at the end of the games most comments were positive about the games -even in quebec where we always judge something "canadian" really hard. You need source saying the games were great? I can find them at the dozen! But I think we should removed the part about canadian funding... this information should maybe be moved to the page canada at 2010 olympics games. whaT DO YOu think ? 74.59.71.79 (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) By rundle fall74.59.71.79 (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Legacy, what should it be?
OK, Rogge's comments do not constitute as "legacy", but the quote is there to back up the claim that the celebratory atmosphere "creat[ed] a positive atmosphere for athletic achievement". It is a message that is repeated in many reports in popular media. As London 2012 organizers indicated on a CTV interview, the involvement of the citizens is considered by host cities as a significant indicator of the success of the Olympics. Also, full stadiums lead to more tourist and ticket revenue to the stakeholders of the Games, thus financial benefits. Considering that one of the mission statements of the IOC is to "ensure the regular celebration of the Olympic Games", atmosphere/participation matters. So, if the claim is correct, then, the "happy crowds" and "self-congratulating" comments by the IOC reflects an affirmation that super-sized celebrations were a L_E_G_A_C_Y for future games because host cities have signed up for that. One report by the Guardian indicated that London 2012 organizers are now considering installing huge screens (similar to Vancouver's LiveCity venues) in London to encourage local participation. I guess maybe it's a "legacy to the Olympic Community" rather than to society as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhoca (talk • contribs) 09:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What about "Reception" or something along that vein. It would seem to fit the content of the section better. 24.68.249.40 (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Reception sounds acceptable, but from popular media, I sensed that there was a lesson to be learnt from Vancouver 2010 (positive and/or negative). Reception is fine, but it sounds a little bizarre to have "Native Reception" and then "Reception" as 2 separate and unrelated paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.212.243 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No it's not fine. It should state what it is  "post-Games p.r." vs "reception", because "reception" is used for wide media coverage (e.g. what's on the opening ceremony's page "reception" section, which is a sampling of newspaper reviews).  The hysteria of Vancouver crowds (now disappeared, "with only the crows picking through teh garbage" as one writer put it) and a self-congratulatory COI statement by Jacques Rogge are not "reception".  And it sounds like someone has AGAIN POV-washed the title of teh Native Opposition section, which I'll change back to its proper and original title.Skookum1 (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Reception is by definition the manner in which something is greeted. The Olympics were embraced by Vancouverites and almost the entire city celebrated for the two weeks of the games, there is both anecdotal and physical evidence of this. Even many of those that were initially skeptical and even fearful have found themselves missing the atmosphere in the city during those weeks. Just because you feel the unjustified need to be a poopy pants negative nancy and have some kind of anti-Olympic agenda doesn't mean you get to rewrite history. How the people of Vancouver reacted to the games is EXACTLY what should be thought of as their reception. 96.54.199.43 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

More than 130,000 people were in Downtown Vancouver during the night of the closing ceremony ALONE. Downtown streets were filled with noisy celebrating people even at 2 am (personal experience). It is hard to understand why there is such strong opposition from one editor of posting that on the Vancouver 2010 article. It is fine to voice your opposition, but please be honest, do not claim to be "neutral". Who can believe that? Can you explain how more than 100 thousand people were post-game P.R.? Do you think they were paid to celebrate? The number of people at the celebrations were many times larger than, say.... the anti-prorogation protests all across Canada occuring around the same time. Would you call those protests "P.R." then? And would you oppose to writing a paragraph about those protests? (BTW, there is an entire article about that, with one line about one lone protester in Beijing). As you have said, reception is "wide media coverage", the huge crowds were mentioned in one of the most critical media of these Games, the Guardian, as the only positive side of Vancouver 2010(with reservations mentioned in the "legacy" section, "overly-nationalistic"). So why would you use one unknown writer's comment to characterize the crowds as crows. Please state your source, I have not read that at all. If you don't have a source for that, I seriously wonder who the "rewritter of history" that you are keen on pointing out is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhoca (talk • contribs) 07:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't read any better than you can think; the reference to "crows" was about ACTUAL CROWS, picking through the garbage left by the happy mobs of the last night's euphoric celebrations. But those celebrations are not RECEPTION and they are most certainly not LEGACY.  And the "overly-nationalistic" criticism of the Games and of the Own the Podium program and teh associated jingoism of the sponsor's commercials can be found in many Canadian newspapers, magazines and webzines.  Apparently to you only euphoria counts.  If it were legacy, those crowds would still be giddy and dancing in the streets....no, they're finding out now (those that pay attention and aren't swept up in "gee, aren't we great") that the euphoria didn't last forever, and that the BC government is jacking taxes, taking revenues away from other programs, and cutting programs to pay for the Games after the fact; that is legacy....Skookum1 (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If not "legacy", maybe "aftermath"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * that's closer but also includes political/financial upshots....maybe "post-Games celebrations" (and to include Rogge's quote, "self-congratulations").....maybe we could have a section on "Grandstanding by Canadian politicians", listing the number of times politicians tried to isnert themselves into photo-ops or showed up at events to get on camera, and also their post-Games claims to increase funding (in the context of their cutting it beforehand)? Jonhoca and others here and confusing the idea of a "Legacy" section with coverage of the celebrations, as if they were the same thing and they're explicitly not.  Fine to cover the celebrations and Rogge's self-backclapping, and the Campell and Harper regimes' posturing over their support for sports, riding on national euphoria to bolster political support - but that's not a LEGACY section.  The jury is still out on the legacy; "manufacturing legacy" is not for day-after fans of the event to decide, it's history that will tell that (and the provincial budget); if in two years there's a big upswing in speed skating participation in the country, or somehow our new "heroes" translate into greater Canadian nationalism/militarism/jingoism in a permanent sense, THAT is legacy....Skookum1 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that we are having trouble with people trying to hijack prominent articles for their own ends. I had this happen before on another article (and it became a 15 minute media circus on CBC). If you wish, we can submit this section to Wikipedia binding arbitration and have it resolved there... But I believe that the general consensus is that most people are fine with the section as is, and that people who continue to contribute to that section also agree that the section is fine. ThePointblank (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

To one editor, no reference = no credibility, article or talk page. I was downtown at 5:30 am, there was a whole fleet of street cleaning vehicles on Robson and Granville Sts, the garbage was quickly removed I believe, what crows? .................. To other editors, aftermath sounds negative, legacy sounds positive. Is there a more neutral word for "lessons learnt"? If so, then both positive and negative can be included in the paragraph. As I mentioned before, I wasn't confused about the fact that the atmosphere during the games is no legacy to the city or to the country, but Vancouver 2010's atmosphere certainly is a legacy for Olympic organizers especially for the Winter Games. Because of the small number of nordic populations worldwide and smaller cities in which winter games were held, organizers in the past have struggled to provide a good atmosphere. It was particularly apparent in the Torino games which had high TV ratings, but a more "tamed" and smaller celebrations at the venues. Of course, not everyone was impressed with very loud flag-bearing crowds, as it was criticized as over-nationalistic. Another critic came during curling games, 1 CTV commentator disapproved of spectators making noise during the throw. True, fans do not decide what the legacy is, but the ability of fans to come and stay downtown, the willingness of thousands to pay to enter stadiums say something about the games. This is analogous to the voter turnout rate which I argue can be a legacy of a particular election. It says something about the current political climate, discontent/support with the incumbent candidates, trust in the process, and lack of fear of attacks, something that is taken for granted in many stable countries. It is a little deeper than the "reception" of an election. Hosting an event is the same, rich democratic societies tend to look at "what benefits can residents / individuals get" as legacy but I argue that once Vancouver signed up for hosting, there is responsibility to pass on something to the Olympic movement. I believe that legacy should be defined as "what residents can get AND what did residents give"......Criticism of that responsibiity to host cities should go into the Olympic Movement article, as criticism....................If there isn't a more neutral word, I propose a title or subtitle "LEGACY TO THE SPORTS COMMUNITY". It is difficult to determine how much time has passed before one can fairly assess "legacy" to society (as mentioned, budget impacts, debts, effect on Vancouver's image, tourism numbers, and general reception takes many years to become apparent, as in the case of Expo 86). However, legacy to the sports community has to be realized quickly, or else there won't be time for London 2012, Sochi 2014, Rio 2016 and athletes to adapt to upcoming games. Maybe editors can read and quote from a wider variety of sports publications worldwide to broaden this paragraph so it doesn't sound like "We say we are good". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.212.243 (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)