Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 1

NPOV
Neutrality is first disputed in Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 3, Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 3 and Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 3 (and maybe in Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 1 and Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 2, too). Wouldn't it be better, if those discussions moved here? --Kahkonen (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently seems to be a well cited page outlining some controversies in the Olympics. Seems simply to present the facts that there is controversy, as opposed to taking one side or another.152.3.41.118 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tag removed.--Kozuch (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger of 2008 Olympics attack on American nationals
This article needs to be merged into the other article. There is no reason for it to be its own article. NorthernThunder (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Nobody is saying that the article isn't notable, but the concern is whether or not it needs it's own article or can be merged into the "Concerns" article, which I believe is the best choice here by far. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 19:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this should be merged. It's not that the content can't be covered anywhere, there's just no need for an article unto itself. Croctotheface (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest waiting until that AFD is over before merging. D.M.N. (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Things I am concerned about at the Olympics: boycotts, protests, air pollution, surveillance, media censorship, and persecution. Oh! And being stabbed to death. I think that the nature of this "concern" makes it worthy of a separate article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Against Merge This is definately not a concern during the olympics. Keep article seperate. All other concerns are pre olympics concerns. Being stabbed to death is not relavent to a pre olympics concern and not to this article. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge or rename and expand to 2008 Summer Olympics related crime, because its quite likely to be an act of random violence, and thus not much of an article, better for WikiNews. Merge it, since it raises concerns, or expand coverage, to overview crime at the Olympics. 70.55.86.69 (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Against Merge - it doesn't make sense to have 2008 Olympics attack on American nationals merged into this article. Just because a crime happens during the Olympics, doesn't mean it has any thing to do with the Games. Ingramhk (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this discussion concluded? It has been 5 days. I'm gonna go ahead and close the merge. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns or controversies?
Let's just say it like it is: these are controversies. Having the article named "Concerns..." is weak. Barrylb (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Poor crowd turn out is not controversial. BillyTFried (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * China faking the ages of its athletes is.Rhinowing (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Several of the controversies in the article describe events (rampant forced disappearances, persecution, apartheid, forcible transfer of population) that may qualify as crimes against humanity in accordance with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. "Concerns" does indeed sound less partisan, but may not be appropriate anymore. —  C M B J   22:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have actually mentioned the primary reason why "concerns" is used. As per WP:NPOV, wikipedia is not a partisan advocate of any one viewpoint, and is less-partisan terms are certainly appropriate.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It is undeniable that some events that have happened before the Games (for example the torch relay) and during the Games have been controversial. Therefore, naming the article "Controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics" rather than "Concerns..." seems to be a more accurate, neutral name because "concerns" does not accurately represent the level of controversy that these events have generated. -Paul1337 (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)3

I suggest that the following sections are concerns, not controversies; and therefore the article could be split, but would be inappropriate to rename as proposed.

4 Environmental and health issues

* 4.1 Air pollution concerns

o 4.1.1 Air Quality Measurements in Beijing

* 4.2 Weather forecasting

* 4.3 Water and drought history

* 4.4 Algal bloom

* 4.5 Locust prevention

* 4.6 Oil slick

6 Terrorism

* 6.1 Sabotage plot

For example, Air Quality: there was no dispute about the facts or the extent to which they were relevant.. there was just a concern which gave rise to various activities to make the air cleaner. Neither was there controversy over what constituted over-polluted air, because this is regulated and benchmarked. I propose that on this basis, the article could be split, but is not appropriate for it simply to be moved. Tsuchan (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that those sections cannot correctly be called controversies, they are indeed concerns, as you say. Instead of splitting the article, how about moving it to Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics? This would be a more accurate title than both the current "Concerns..." and my original proposal "Controversies...". -Paul1337 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now adjusted the move request to Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics both on this talk page and at Requested moves. -Paul1337 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree as being wholly appropriate and obviates need to have two separate articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with just changing the title is that it ducks the issue, that the page is a mish-mash of far too many subjects very tenuously related to the title. I mean, it could be almost spot on as an accurate title if it were renamed to "General issues with more or less some connection with the 2008 Olympic Games in China, focusing on things the Chinese government wouldn't be too keen to emphasise as a lasting memorial."  Encyclopaedia topics are generally best on a narrow focus, because they steer the reader to exactly what s/he is looking for, they can be linked as highly relevant articles from lots of other topics, on a Wikipedia level they must be far easier to manage, etc. Tsuchan (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In a way, you are correct. However, your basic assumption is that all of the stuff stayed. Of course, changing the title needs also to be accompanied by a refocus on the real concerns and controversies of teh Olympic games. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reconsidered the relevance of the Environmental issues, and now am of the belief that much of this belongs in the Environment of China. Although it certainly warrants a mention, it is an issue which transcends the Olympic games. The section on air pollution in the latter article is poorly populated relative to this article, and that certainly needs to be corrected. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit Canceled :'(
Poor me just spent 1hr expanding the pollution section. When I tried to save the section, it was canceled and all my changes lost. Apparently someone made some very minor adjustment during this last hour and my edits rejected. =(

Would wikipedia have saved a copy of my rejected change in a scrap bin somewhere or am I SOL?. Shaoquan (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you hit back on your browser, it should still exist in the text box of the page prior to the one saying edit conflict. —  C M B J   22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Gender verification
There are reports in the Western news media that gender verification will be in effect in Beijing. According to the article gender verification in sports, it has "been officially stopped by the International Olympic Committee in 1999". Wonder if someone can verify this. --Voidvector (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Olympic documents

 * Beijing Briefing Kit, 3 August 2007, Volume 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DL5MDA (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Predefined Google search, The Beijing Effect —  C M B J   09:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling consisting
Madchester- It doesn't matter what spelling IOC uses. (See Manual of Style, which refers only to a strong connection to a particular region.) Moreover, China uses American spelling (with logical puntuation -- just like Wikipedia!) on their Olympic Web site, though that, too, is irrelevant. Let's follow WP policy here! The article started out with American spelling; let's keep it that way. (And let's keep it consistent!) Thanks. PeterH2 (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I believe in China its common to use American spellings, only in Hong Kong and other colonies will you find more British influence to be common. .:davumaya:. 10:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Wikipedia's MOS indicates that we actually have no preference towards one variant of English over another.
 * Second, the best solution is to substitute those words with multiple spellings with ones that are common across all variants of English. i.e., criticize/criticise to denounce, organize/organise to form, index, etc. Also when you're taking quotations from a source, you should still be reproducing it word for word, even if its based on a different spelling variant.  I've made the appropriate fixes using the appropriate synonyms, except for one word ("politicising"), which was directly quoted from the BBC article.
 * The reason I referred to the IOC standard, is because we use the organization as the main reference for Olympic articles. I remember moderating over an edit war at Talk:2006_Winter_Olympics_medal_count with multiple editors trying to promote their different counting systems, instead of following the one established by the IOC. --Madchester (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this comment section be "Spelling Consistency" rather than "Spelling consisting", which is grammatically meaningless? In the substance of this discussion, in fact China famously uses Chinese; not British English, not American English. And it is irrelevant to the issue: this is the English version of Wikipedia... the language of China has no bearing on it. There are a lot more serious - terribly serious - problems in this article than the spelling. And if spelling is to be brought up, "logical puntuation" is a spelling mistake in any brand of English of which I know. Tsuchan (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ticket scalpers
here, I wodner if this should be included or wait to see what develops. Katana  Geldar  07:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Kunming bus bombings
Should these bombings be mentioned? I'm not sure if they are, but I can't tell.  Spencer T♦C 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * yes because they are fundamentally a threat to the Games posed by the terroists (or whatever they call themselves). Maybe there should be a new section named safety; as this is not an isolated event, there has been a few potential threats made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingramhk (talk • contribs) 16:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There are security threats to all Olympic Games, and surely that is likely to continue into the future. I suggest a topic "Threats to the Olympic Games" which could have a section per Olympics. This would enable it to be neatly referenced by articles on the Olympics, Terror, Security, Public Events Safety, etc. They are not controversies, and I submit that there too many to be dealt with in detail even in a distinct topic on "Concerns".

Even in a separate and specific topic on "Threats to the Olympic Games", a bus bombing itself is a news article and only merits a link, unless it is going to be an article by itself recording in encyclopaedic fashion factual and statistical information. Tsuchan (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Ingramhk. I believe it a tangential subject which warrants no more than one single line. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The begining singer
I read while look on the drudge report that the girl who "sang" the song was not singing it, instead she was chossen because the girl that was choosen for her voice had buck teath. Should this be mentioned, and no I can not find the site where it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 15:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I remember I saw it on a news report. They said she wasn't cute/pretty enough (I knew something didn't look right). 12.74.209.109 (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Age of Chinese Gymastics
I had previously added that the Times of London (I believe) indicated that a simple series of x-rays of arms, hands, and legs, could help dispel the age question. unfortunately, I do not know how to add references to the page. Could someone else double check this and add it, I think it is worth it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.117.153.55 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (By the way, do new items in a section go at the top or the bottom?) About the reference... to be clear, are you seriously wanting to introduce to this topic a suggestion by a newspaper of how all this under-age gymnast malarky could be neatly sorted out? What relation does that have to an encyclopaedic documentation of the facts?  I guess writing a letter with the suggestion to YU Zaiqing (IOC Member for China) may clear the matter up: x-ray the girls in question; yes, I'm sure that's exactly what they'll want to do.  But this topic is for documenting controversies and concerns that have arisen; not for regaling readers with journalistic comment for a "helpful solution". Tsuchan (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Though there is nothing offical about this, and might not be apporpriate, but is widely thought that the chinese olimpic team is underaged, though on there pasports it says they are 16, but even the person covering the games says they looked to young, If anyone can find something offical to comfirm or denie this, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A section on this topic has been added to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_over_the_2008_Summer_Olympics#Possibly_Underage_Gymnasts BillyTFried (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The IOC is not investigating the age, even though their is monting evidence? I heard they were, though I did not read it personally though. is there anyone who can look for evidence of this?--Not G. Ivingname (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are concerns over one event appearing in this article, when they should appear in the respective event page? This is not an issue which concerns the entire games, and if anything, doping is of far greater concern across all sports.--Huaiwei (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear why age is a controversy. In the 2008 Olympics Tom_Daley_(diver) was a 14-year old diver from Great Britain, but that doesn't seem to be controversial. If it is to be a controversy suitable for recording in an encyclopaedia, the minimum age needs to be recorded and a credible citation to a IOC rule provided. Tsuchan (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - The minimum ages are different in different sports. Please see . Badagnani (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The article says: Former noted coach and NBC guest commentator Béla Károlyi has said that the 2008 Chinese women's gymnastics team cheated by using athletes who did not meet the minimum age requirements. He and his wife stated that "They are using half-people. One of the biggest frustrations is, what arrogance. These people think we are stupid." Surely this is opinion, gossip, tickle-tackle; not encyclopaedic. Tsuchan (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was contemplating removing it too. But I will do so as part of a complete overhaul. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If this will involve massive blanking which will not first have discussion and consensus, please do not engage in this for a third time, as it is simply not a permissible manner of editing at our project. Thank you for your consideration. Badagnani (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just get real! Again, consensus is running in the opposite direction to your view. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think some contributors to this page need to have a serious think about what consensus means. If we hold out for unanimity, we're all going to be waiting around for a long time.  My understanding of a Wikipedia consensus model is to have a discussion in advance, test agreement by making a change (yes, a 'bold' change if needed), then wait for discussion.  And I'm not sure "Please restore that text, then we can discuss" is what the Wikipedia designers had in mind.  The page history does suggest that this is what has been happening.  Tsuchan (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the last day or so, the age of Chinese gymnasts has risen to become a controversy that may be a enduring memory of these Olympics. But still I've not been able to locate any IOC regulations from which we can pull extract the facts, and this is most perplexing. I've spent several hours searching, to no avail. The problem is, we have two sides to this controversy: what the rules are, and whether they have been broken. Establishing what the rules are should be the simple part. A UK Daily Telegraph article represents that "According to Olympic regulations gymnasts must turn 16 by the end of an Olympic year, but several reports in the Chinese media appeared to refer three of the Chinese gymnasts as 13 and 14 as recently as a year ago." We can't verify whether it is accurate or whether it is complete. It doesn't help us understand whether "an Olympic year" runs from January to December. But it does introduce a new concept of "by the end of an Olympic year", which could make a competitor who was 14 years old 12-months ago a legitimate competitor.

It would be really, really useful if anybody could find a link to the Olympic Regulations and include it as a citation in this section. Tsuchan (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion that this does constitute a controversy since the article of age controversy in gymnastics states atheletes has to be 16 in the year of the Games. He Kexin's participation involved 4 medals which could be revoked if she get DQ'ed. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited the section in a more chronological order, trimmed off repeated material and added current info. Shaoquan (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Empty Olympic seats cause concern
By Michael Bristow BBC News, Beijing

Chinese officials have admitted that they are concerned about the lack of spectators at some Olympic events.

They have hired volunteers, dressed in yellow shirts, to fill up empty venues and improve the atmosphere inside.

But Wang Wei, a senior official with the Beijing organising committee (Bocog), said other Olympics had experienced similar problems.

The comments came after spectators and journalists noticed that certain venues were far from full, even though all events are sold out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7555509.stm

BillyTFried (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Foreigners taken away by Beijing police for instigating "Tibet independence"
BEIJING, Aug. 13 (Xinhua) - Seven Americans and one Japanese national were taken away by Beijing police on Wednesday noon for fomenting "Tibet independence" at a park, police said. At around 12:20, the eight people were gathering at the China Ethnic Culture Park in the northern part of urban Beijing, waving flags symbolizing "Tibet independence" and shouting slogans supporting "Tibet independence". Police also said the eight entered China on tourist visas. The Beijing police was considering cutting their stay period in China and asking them to leave China. Editor: Bi Mingxin

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/13/content_9268286.htm

BillyTFried (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Protests still unwelcome in Beijing
China has set aside three parks during the Olympics, to allow people to demonstrate. But, as the BBC's Michael Bristow finds out, the parks are empty and those who apply for permission to protest are even finding themselves arrested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7559217.stm

BillyTFried (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

77 Olympic protest requests, 0 approved, Applicants Arrested
BEIJING - Chinese authorities have not approved any of the 77 applications they received from people who wanted to hold protests during the Beijing Olympics, state media reported Monday. In July, China said protests would be allowed in three parks far from games venues. Tuesday is the last day anyone could apply for permission to protest during the games. "This is not realistic," Wang said. "We think that you do not really understand China's reality. China has its own version and way of exercising our democracy." There have been no demonstrations in the designated areas since the games started, though small unregulated protests have occurred in other parts of the city. Most of them have been conducted by foreigners who were swiftly deported after unfurling "Free Tibet" banners. Also Monday, a dozen people applied for permits to protest about being forcibly evicted from their homes to make way for redevelopment projects. As they gathered, plainclothes security officers videotaped them and took their photographs, a common method for Chinese authorities to keep track of dissenting voices and one that intimidates many Chinese. "I have lived all over since I became homeless, including tunnels, warehouses, on the street, and the houses of friends and relatives," Yang Shuangjun, 37, who lost his home in 2006, told AP reporters who were present. "What they have done to us is unlawful and unfair." Another petitioner, Sun Liwei, said she also has slept on the streets and relied on the kindness of friends since being kicked out of her home in 2005. "My heart aches," said Sun, a 52-year-old former teacher, her eyes filling with tears. "I have always believed in my government, even though I have lost everything. My possessions, my home, and my job were taken away from me. I don't feel like a citizen anymore."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080818/ap_on_re_as/oly_china_protests

BillyTFried (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the point of this section here? Is there something to be discussed? Since what you have mentioned is already included in the article and you are not making a comment or discussion I recommend this section to be removed. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ara Abrahamian (Wrestler throws medal in protest)
here are two Reuters articles about the Swedish Wrestler, Ara Abrahamian, throwing his bronze medal on the mat and quiting the sport. | "Anger as Swedish wrestler loses on 'bad call"  | "Swede throws down medal, faces probe" Dreammaker182 17:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

just added this Rhinowing (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues With the Olympic Village's Religous Center
Possible new section: there are allegations that many athletes from various nations and religions are increasingly dissatisfied with the Religious Center. The complaints include that it’s hard to find, too small to house its worshippers, lacks competent religious clergy, who cannot speak or perform religious ceremonies in any other language outside their native Chinese. Athletes are apparently so angry that they repeatedly go to the center so that their multiple complaints get logged again and again to reinforce how bad it really is. Some people are arguing it’s just another example of Chinese control over religion, and what was previously taken for granted at other Olympics. Here’s a link to a Washington Post article on the subject. Some Olympians Dissatisfied With Religious Center

Also, shouldn’t the fact that Bela Karolyi was banned from the Gymnastics stadium a be added to the said section? I think its very pertitent that the most vocal critic of the Chinese Gymnastics Age Scandal wasn’t allowed access. Zidel333 (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

According to rules set out by the IOC, atheletes (and their coaches) are not permitted to make political comments or take part in political activism during the Games. I think his ban should be put there. It does not relate with the Reiligious Center, as this ban was not related to religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

rower's bus crash?
Shouldn't the bus crash involving the Australian doctor and the athletes bus putting a bunch of Chinese in a van into critical condition be somewhere? 70.51.11.210 (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No angle has been suggested to relate this to concerns and controversies about the 2008 Olympic games. There's a major distinction between something that happened during the Olympic Games and a concern or controversy about that entity, 'the 2008 Olympic Games' itself.  A connection doesn't constitute relevance to the core.  During the Olympic Games, Georgia attacked South Asetia, and Russia invaded Georgia.  It affected millions of people.  It may have been timed to co-incide with the Olympic Games because the world's attention was elsewhere, and just one particular way that it affected the Olympic Games is that the Georgia Team considered going home.  It is a concern with a connection to the Olympic Games, but it is not a concern *about* the Olympic Games.  And likewise, the bus crash is a concern connected to the Olympic Games, but not about that institution which *is* the Olympic Games.  I hope this helps.  Tsuchan (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning is faulty, otherwise Murder of American tourist would not be a section in this article. This bus crash is more closely related to the events than the murder. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about Murder of American tourist... I don't see any mention of it. There was an article 'Murder of American Coach's Father-in-law', and it wasn't relevant.  I made the same point and it's subsequently been removed.  I submit that neither matter related to the 2008 Summer Olympics. Tsuchan (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Gold medal controversy
Would this be the proper place for the debate over the Liukin / Hexin results in the uneven bars competition? (no, i don't mean "Can we debate it, here, on the topic page....") it's being reported on some of the 24-hour networks, seems kinda newsworthy. if ya don't know what i'm talking about:

look over it yourself, see if it merits a reference on this page.

24.3.14.157 (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that it probably doesn't merit a mention. The ruling was based on an established set of laws by the IOC. The only reason it was confusing was because this situation probably hasn't come up since the rules were implemented, and that IOC gymnastics rules differ from FIG rules. In fact, Nastia doesn't seem terribly bothered by the decision. Now, the women's vault competition, on the other hand, might deserve inclusion, if it gets any further attention. --SesanaP (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can someone add a section about the f***ing (Yes I know the nicey nice rules so don't tell me) horrible judging (something simple like Judging Errors), since it appears the judges are A) being payed off or B) are incompetent dips***s who couldn't judge a minor league baseball game.--67.140.56.121 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Americans are understandably concerned over the results of the women's uneven bars competition, but so far I don't see evidence that it rises to the level of the other issues in the concerns article. Ultimately, we have to be encyclopaedic. If the controversy persists, we could include it, but I suspect that at least half of the material in this article will be cut, and probably much more over time.


 * For the record, the criticisms of the uneven bars competition are that 1) the Australian judge's scoring appeared to ignore several deductions from He Kexin's routine, while making several deductions from Nastia Liukin not made by other judges. Also, 2) the tie-breaking system was confusing to the viewing public. There is also the women's vaults, where the bronze medalist Cheng Fei fell during one of her routines, but nevertheless outscored Alicia Sacramone. Sacramone did not make any major errors, though her starting difficulties were also lower than Cheng's. Nevertheless, the decision remains controversial in the United States.


 * I don't see a problem with including the content, but honestly in a few months the real work of cutting away the extraneous material will begin. Any or none of these stories could survive, depending on media attention. Wellspring (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While it's true that this maybe more of a matter of confusion over the judging, there are all kinds of "confusion" over legal rulings (especially criminal sentences and perceived leniency/severity), and those are usually considered worth noting. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chinese were incontrol of the event I noticed after looking at the recording of it again, it was mentioned by the reporter. Just to be noted, they also said that the American girl had a better porfomince as well, just going by what they said...--Not G. Ivingname (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this page should be reserved for issues with games organization. This includes China human rights, censorship, broadcasting delays, ticketing, pollution, participants' safety... all of these concern the games as a whole. Individual controversies are (IMO) beyond the control of the games organizers and so beyond the scope of this article. In this category I would place age controversies, judging controversies, drugs cheats etc. These belong in pages on individual events but not on this page. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Or to put it another way: "Is it due to the fact that the games are in Beijing?" If the answer is "no", then it doesn't belong on this page. IMHO. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's certainly true that we have a page which is unclear about its remit. However the measure you're proposing doesn't seem to fit the title in any sense.  The title doesn't even mention that the games are in Beijing.  Apart from that, I suggest that the kind of controversy you would detail under individual events is often more likely to have an enduring legacy on the 2008 Olympic Games overall.
 * - Think about the age controversy, for example... if a sufficient weight of evidence emerges to say that one country conspired to falsify their gymnasts' ages, that the IOC were forced to remove one or more awarded medals; the event itself will be close to irrelevant in the ensuing uproar.
 * - Similarly, unless a number of drugs-positives pervade a particular sport, I suggest a number of isolated drugs offences will be associated with sport as a whole, with the 2008 Olympics as a whole or the Olympic institution as a whole, rather than a particular sport.
 * - Judging controversies may be a storm in a teacup, hardly worthy of a footnote to a particular sport; but if the judging mechanism were found to have been tampered with, the implications rise much higher than the event.
 * - (Note: I have just used your examples: I very much hope none of the above ever comes to pass)


 * So I tend towards the opposite benchmark to yours (that if it's not related to Beijing, it should be out). I think that being related to Beijing or China is only relevant if an issue also has an inextricable relationship with the organisation, management or institution of the 2008 Olympics itself.  Hence, to offer my view:
 * - persecution of Christians is not relevant unless they're thrown to the lions as an Olympic Event (^_-)
 * - terrorism which cites the Olympics is only worthy of a link to another article if something devastating happens to an Olympic venue itself.
 * - Pollution is worthy of some mention (the efforts to reduce it, and the extent of their success) but detail should be in other topics
 * - Ticketing is worthy of mention if extent of any problems (or solutions) particularly distinguishes it from other Olympics
 * - (And I still think that concerns and controversies merit distinct topics, of which the former is a pretty short record, heavy on links to specific subjects)


 * Tsuchan (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

China has been cheating in gymnastics by using 14 year old girls, that obviously bears mention here. What is more interesting is : How much has the IOC been helping them cover it up? JeffBurdges (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tsuchan (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - When reading most comments in this section, the word "Blog" springs to mind. If Wikipedia is used as a Blog, it will become a Blog, be given the credence of a Blog and a second-hand newspaper.  Disappointingly, that process is in fact already happening.


 * Yes, we've got wikinews for news stories, but it's also natural for people to "over fill" this article. It can always be trimmed down later.  JeffBurdges (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are Wikinews stories an appropriate reference for this kind of story in an encyclopaedia? If I were researching this subject, the reference I'd be hoping to find is an IOC regulation on the subject.  I have to say, my own search for such a regulation has so far been fruitless.  Without such a reference, it's really just hear-say, isn't it? Tsuchan (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS specifies that self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely unacceptable. —  C M B J   12:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

State training and expectations of Chinese athletes
Even to take the subtitle at face value, this is not a concern or controversy about the China Olympics: it's about the Chinese Olympic team. It's no more relevant to this article than 'High Expectations of Spanish Athletes' would be. On that basis, I suggest this section is removed from the article.

The initial sentence is a value judgement; and its place in this article about controversies makes it a value judgement set against the pressure and expectations placed on athletes of other countries. "As the host country, China has high expectations, putting immense pressure upon athletes and coaches alike."

The following sentence is not an example of a controversy about the China Olympics (or even about the Olympic team), it introduces the subject of disappointment about an injured athlete: "Liu Xiang, the defending Olympic champion for the 110 meter hurdles, had pulled out of the heats with an injury." I cannot see the relevance to this article. If there is a controversy, it can only be about whether he was genuinely injured or not. That would be a sub-subject of the athlete's personal entry in the encyclopaedia, if at all.

If it did have a relevance to this article, the following detail is hopelessly flawed. Just to detail a few points:

There is no citation for this comment: "Liu's coach had been told by government officials that "if Liu could not win a gold medal in Beijing, all of his previous achievements would become meaningless.""

Every citation in this paragraph is taken from 'The Christian Science Monitor Olympic Glory Blog'. It hardly seems an appropriate reference for an encyclopaedia. And it isn't even well represented: the quotations just don't exist in the article.

The second half of this section talks about 'the Chinese government's training regime in the state academies'. It is opinion and comment, citing human interest stories in the Herald and Tribune and The New York Times newspapers. To be a controversy even about China's treatment of its athletes (which is not this article), it would have to cite one or more comparative studies of the way different countries treat their athletes. Tsuchan (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Murder of American coach's father-in-law
This section is a news article about Crime. It's not about Concerns or Controversies related to the 2008 Summer Olympics. On that basis, I suggest that it is removed from Wikipedia (news, not encyclopaedic; Crime not Controversy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuchan (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you be more clear about your concern? Badagnani (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to oblige, but it's difficult to be clearer than the precise comments I've already given: - It is news, it's not encyclopaedic - It is a Crime, this article is about Concerns and Controversy regarding the 2008 Olympics - Hence, the section is not in keeping with the Wikipedia guidelines and therefore I believe it should be removed from an article about Concerns and Controversy regarding the 2008 Olympics

Of course, that's my opinion... please feel free to voice any justification for it being a legitimate part of this article.

Tsuchan (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a compendium of news, and I'm not sure why the Drum Tower attack is here at all. Maybe if there was a Murders during the 2008 Summer Olympics article, yes, but there isn't and very rightfully won't be, and I don't see how its related to Olympics concerns. --Joowwww (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless Attack at Beijing Drum Tower during 2008 Olympics is to be revisited by AfD a third time, it should remain mentioned in this article in the form of a short sentence. —  C M B J   02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed this section has it is not a controvery, and thus not related to the subject matter of this article. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with its removal. There is no question, doubt, coverup or debate about his death at all. Its just another murder that took place during the Olympics in Beijing. It did not impact the Games. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest a Major Overhaul and Clearout of This Topic
I suggest that this page needs a pruning - probably by about 90%. It has wandered way off-topic, and been annexed as a vehicle for propaganda, news, opinion and comment, and other non-encyclopaedic purposes; as well as extended passages on the subject of other topics, where in fact a "See Also" link would have been justified at most.

I suggest first-of-all, separating relevant content into two pages:
 * 1) Concerns
 * 2) Controversies

Then think very carefully about what is an encyclopaedic matter of record relating to Concerns about the 2008 Summer Olympics and Controversies about the 2008 Summer Olympics.

For me, the potential controversies pertaining to the 2008 Summer Olympics itself, are these: - Tibetan Independence - summary referencing the Torch-carrying protests (link to relevant article)
 * 1) Opening Ceremony
 * 2) Empty Seats
 * 3) Political Controversy - something along the lines that the following political protests associated themselves to the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics:

- Threatened boycotts and head-of-state grandstanding related to Human Rights in China - possible summary of which leaders protested and how (link to relevant article(s))

- China's involvement in Burma - note that Steven Spielberg quit on this topic (link to relevant article)

- Internet Censorship challenged by foreign media (link to relevant article)

It may also be worth making a comparison with controversies previous Olympic Games (for example, figures on the number of positive drug tests in Athens 2004 v. Beijing 2008; ticket touting and on-line ticket fraud, compared to Athens 2008).

On the other hand, I don't see how it's relevant to discuss the Chinese laws on protests during the Olympics, unless the fact is that the law was changed for the Olympics. I haven't seen evidence that it's other than situation normal, except perhaps for the number of people challenging the law and the availability of foreign news crews to report it. It may be an issue, but it's not this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuchan (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Tsuchan (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please sign posts by adding four tildes after your posting, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I went back to do that within a couple of seconds of the submission, after I realised I'd missed it; but I got a message to say that Wikipedia was in read-only mode, perhaps because of an update to slave servers... apologies. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuchan (talk • contribs)


 * The 2008 Summer Olympics seem to be more controversial than many previous Olympics because they have actually generated controversy. Removing 90 percent of this article (most of it well sourced) will not alter this situation. Badagnani (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is in need of cleanup and NPOV checking, but pruning 90% (or perhaps even a much lower percentage) of the content would not be justifiable. Splitting the article is a very interesting thought, but could introduce new discrepancies and unintended implications when differentiating individual concerns from controversies. —  C M B J   03:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a review of the guidelines on coatrack articles would be worthwhile. Much of the content of this article seems to be about concerns over China, not concerns over the Games. Please note that I am not taking a position one way or the other regarding the concerns raised in this article. I am not suggesting that none of them are notable, or verifiable, or well-sourced. What I am saying is that this article is in danger of becoming a POV fork containing criticisms of China that cannot be shoehorned into the main Games article. Actual Games-related issues are getting buried as a result. - EronTalk 03:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why would it not be justifiable? I'm not saying that 90% of the content should be lost, just that it needs sorting out into a far better structure of topics; needs a tough assessment making of what is encyclopaedic, what is news, what is comment and deal with it accordingly; needs to be far more discerning about references (a reference to --hmm, no, I can't think of a better way to say it-- a reference to rubbish is only better than nothing in the sense that the reader is able to correctly categorise it, given an investment of time).  This is an encyclopaedia.  It must deal with facts, plainly and unemotionally.   It must consider structure - a topic is not a hat stand, still less a cloakroom.  Tsuchan (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tsuchuan, I would like to strongly disagree with your implication that a section on the "Chinese laws on protests during the Olympics" is not relevant to this article. When special protest parks are set up for the duration of the Olympics but nobody is actually allowed to protest in them and moreover, two elderly women who apply for a permit to protest there are arrested, harrassed and threatened with being sent to a labour camp, I think it is definitely an appropriate issue to include in this article. -Paul1337 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. I recognise that the parks were set aside for these Olympics, and on that basis the sub-section is justified.  And on reflection, I'm with you that some detail on this particular subject is justified within the article (although I think it remains true that there is no change of law, policy or practice for the Olympics; and it's the consistency rather than the change which is the root of the controversy that is being documented).  But where I do think the sub-section extends beyond encyclopaedic remit is in telling the stories of individuals (a journalist's job) rather than framing the facts.  Take this text, for example:

"Hunan province business owner Tang Xuecheng disappeared after trying to file for a permit. His friend Ji Sizun, a legal advocate from Fujian province, applied for permits with the intent of protesting for "greater participation of Chinese citizens in political processes, and denounce rampant official corruption and abuses of power,""
 * How about something along the lines of "There have been well sourced reports of permit applicants being arrested(citations), disappearing(citations), threatened with a year long term in a re-education camp(citations), [etc.]"...? That keeps the known facts in the encyclopaedia, and the journalism in the newspapers.  That method will also prevent Wikipedia from reporting the news.  For example, the text "received a one-year non-judicial sentence".  Two out of three of the citations cast some doubt as to whether it will be served.  Keeping the detail out of the encyclopaedia entry doesn't bring less attention to it.  Quite the reverse: if a reader thinks s/he's extracted all the salient detail, s/he's much less likely to recourse the source than if the summary is posted.

Tsuchan (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thank you for your opinions. Do you have one or more other accounts besides this one, as you imply? I don't think that is permitted. Badagnani (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I made no such implication, I have no other Wikipedia account. I have nothing to hide. However, I do think it would be good just to deal with the topics, rather than the life-stories of the contributors. Tsuchan (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What reasonable grounds are there for suggesting Tsuchan may be a sockpuppet? You should not bite the newbies, be more civil, desist in your innuendos and character assassinations. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please list specifics. The article covers a highly significant topic of great interest around the world, is notable, and largely well sourced. Badagnani (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will provide a few specific examples. Let's start with the first sentence. "Red China"? Who calls it that anymore? That is highly POV.
 * The Protests section is very well sourced, but there is not a whole lot actually there. For example:
 * The British Olympic Association (BOA) will require that before leaving for China, British Olympic team members sign an agreement, stating that they "are not to comment on any politically sensitive issues." However, BOA spokesman Graham Newsom stated that the BOA didn't intend to censor athletes, and referred to a rule in the International Olympic Committee charter which states, "No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas."
 * What is the point? The BOA told its athletes not to do something... that has been disallowed since 1968, by the IOC.
 * The Tibet, Darfur, and Burma sections are not about the Games; they are about political activists who want to use the occasion of the Games to further their agendas. Excellent strategy on their part and one that should be noted - in the appropriate articles.
 * The Persecution of Christians section doesn't even mention the Olympics until the third paragraph.
 * Algae... locusts... oil slicks... none of which appear to have affected the Games. (Or in the case of the locusts, even had anything to do with it.
 * There is good and useful content about the Games in this article. But there are a lot of coats hanging on it as well. - EronTalk 03:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The opening statement was highly inappropriate, and has been removed until the intro can be rewritten. Tibetan independence is a subject that most (irregardless of personal disposition) would agree irrefutably influenced the games. The section regarding persecution of Christians does not currently say the word Olympics until the third paragraph, but the statements throughout the section all refer to events that are specific to the Olympics. The environmental issues such as air pollution and algae have had a wide variety of related of related effects. I can agree that the article is in need of serious style and tone improvements, but the topics themselves mostly seem to pertain to the Olympics at this point. Much of the content could also be improved with clear and neutral summarization, or more subtle inclusion.  —  C M B J   05:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Red China" should not be used in this article. I agree that it should be replaced with a neutral term. Badagnani (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree that the opening statement can be made more accurate, factual, and NPOV. Badagnani (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is a thorough mess, and I thought the comments of the talk page were indicative of a consensus. Furthermore, I see little need to have elaborate coatrack sections when the related topics are clearly linked to. So, unless anyone can demonstrate how these subjects which I removed have anything but a tangential relation to the games, they should remain deleted. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will certainly join your consensus. Tsuchan (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the need for an overhaul. Things like Darfur, human rights and communism are concerns about China, not the Olympics. I recognise that they are linked ever so slightly to the games, but should not be given entire sections. --Joowwww (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All those Tibet, human rights protests etc do in fact have some relations to the game. Since the Olympic Games were the reasons why many protests were held in 2008. However I do agree their remoteness in relations to the Games itself. I beleive a paragraph explaining the overall atmoshpere before the game started is sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well not too much happened
This article needs a massive overhaul, the games are pretty much over and it is still speaking in a tense that implied that they have not even happened yet. Somehow the People's Republic were able to do a fantastic job, so most of these were non-issues. Perhaps they should still be mentioned, though? Knowitall (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Each issue must be individually evaluated based on its relevance according to WP:TOPIC and WP:UNDUE. —  C M B J   12:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made a stab at structuring and kicking-off a discussion for that purpose, for two major sections. See below Tsuchan (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Liu Yan
Liu Yan dancer who fell from a malfunctioning platform during rehearsals for the opening ceremonies paralyzed for life. That should appear on this page. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should it? As a controversy or a concern?  I suggest that falling is not - in itself - controversial, however sad the event.  Neither is it a concern about the 2008 Summer Olympics, even if we are concerned about it. Tsuchan (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a controversy, but I think it should go with the Opening Ceremony article for which Liu Yan was scheduled to perform. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Olympic organizers covered it up, did you read the NY Times article? If you did, you wouldn't ask about concern or controversy. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It was an industrial accident, and an occupational hazard. Has there really been an attempt at a cover-up? The NYT said "The organizers of the opening ceremony initially asked witnesses and friends not to disclose the accident ahead of the Olympic Games on Aug. 8". Conspiracy theorists might think so, but I think the key to this was "ahead of the Olympic Games on Aug. 8". Of course it can go in the opening ceremony as a few lines, but it would perhaps be bias if it was in this article. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Organizers did NOT cover it up. Someone has already included the accident as part of the Opening Ceremony article. The Director of the ceremony Zhang Yimou has been interviewed and commented on the issue. Also Liu was given credit for what she has done. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive blanking
Please undo this massive blanking, as without consensus it is considered disruptive. Thank you. Badagnani (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More massive blanking
Please undo this massive blanking, as without consensus it is considered disruptive. Thank you. Further, as noted earlier, the edit replaced proper grammar with improper grammar. The sentence "The song Ode to the Motherland was recorded beforehand by another young girl, Yang Peiyi," was replaced by "The song Ode to the Motherland was pre-recorded by another Yang Peiyi." The new, improper version implies that there are two Yang Peiyis. Please, I am asking you in all good faith to carefully consider your edits and develop consensus before implementing them. This is particularly important at articles that are controversial. Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel obliged to defend myself now in the strongest possible terms: I have reverted the last entry posted here by Badagnani as an unacceptable personal attack. I thought I had clearly explained the basis of my removal of some blocks of text both in my edit summary and here, and my views were apparently in line with some fellow editors on this talk page. I stand by my assertion that the article was a complete mess in desperate need of cleanup. Please note that it was not I who initiated this debate, nor was I the one who tagged the article. To use my edit to the sentence on Ode to the Motherland to complain about my removal of coatracks and blatant political bias wreaks of the same pathethic attempts at vilification I experienced at the hands of the abovementioned user (and his cohort) in another article. It was a simple problem which he could have fixed himself. I will not stand for being hunted like a witch. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to your excellent contributions to Wikipedia, the massive blanking without first seeking and obtaining consensus, was ill-considered. Please restore that text, then we can discuss in a thoughtful and considered manner. Regarding the grammatical error you introduced twice, you were alerted to this after the first instance, yet you chose to revert, returning to the erroneous version. This is not in dispute. The main issue, however, is the manner of editing without first thoughtfully considering and gaining consensus, of which the revert was simply an indicator. Badagnani (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you haven't noticed, you seem to be the only one not going with the flow here. I would respectfully point out that you don't own the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent point, and in fact it's why we've been going over, carefully, thoughtfully, and thoroughly, each section that is in question, discussing it, then altering that section as consensus develops. You can see how this consensus manner of deliberative editing, which is a cornerstone of our Wikipedia practice, has been operating, just above. It would be wonderful if you would join us. To show your good faith, it would be good if you would restore the enormous areas of text you blanked earlier today, (on your *own*) without first seeking nor gaining consensus here. Badagnani (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am the contributor responsible for placing all three cleanup tags on the article. There has not been a consensus for removal of entire sections. In fact, the only related editorial concerns have been raised by single user on an account that currently has zero contributions in the mainspace.  —  C M B J   06:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have, as you say, made no contributions in the main space. It would be inappropriate for me to do so until I'm much more familiar with Wikipedia tools and editorial process.  However, I have done my best to suggest a structure, and give reasoned and specific feedback.  I ask you to judge my feedback on the basis of what I have written, not where I have written it.  I suggest that it takes no less investment in time to write to this page than the main space. Tsuchan (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus building is a very important function, and I did not in any way intend to imply that contributions to the talk page were of lesser value than contributions to the page itself. I was merely wary of sockpuppetry, a malicious practice in which a user controls multiple accounts to push a particular agenda, especially on controversial topics. If you are genuinely a new user, please accept my sincere apologies; and welcome to Wikipedia. —  C M B J   07:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be the case of the lack of mainspace contributions, but I still believe the comments valid, and he/she was not the only one to express concerns of coat-racking. I went ahead, boldly but in good faith. I feel that the sections which I removed for just those reasons should best be left deleted because they are irrelevant, and need to be completely re-written it so that its is relevant. I believe we could recreate, rather than attempting to make a sow's purse out of a pig's ear. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kindly restore the very large areas of text you blanked earlier today, then we'll have a productive discussion. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I try consciously not to put in text which is not demonstrably and directly relevant to any article I may be editing, especially as it appears to introduce a material bias to an article. In my view, your request violates that principle. I may try and restore some of the material if I find a relevant way of introducing any of the elements. Thank you for your understanding in the meantime. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See above. —  C M B J   03:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a contribution to the consensus building process: I've re-read the article and the removed elements. Although there's a long way to go, I think the removal of the sections above has made a big improvement to the page. Tsuchan (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Even more massive blanking
See. Badagnani (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears that those sections were merged with the corresponding articles. —  C M B J   07:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These are event-specific, and belong elsewhere. Where have they gone? see edit summaries. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This pattern of behavior of unilateral blanking on a massive scale, established at other articles and brought here (see above for evidence) is highly disruptive and simply not permissible at our project. Please utilize discussion and generate consensus before blanking massively. Badagnani (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please refer to complete discussion above. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

More massive blanking; request article protection
See. Again, blanking of an entire paragraph, without prior discussion and consensus for such. Badagnani (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is called editing. Look it up.--DanteAgusta (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanked names of organizations
Please restore names of organizations removed in this edit. As changed (with deletion), the text is vague. Badagnani (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ho, my edit summary stated: "Enough to give an example of those freed. no change to blocked sites, most of which are a matter of public record". I would remind you that WP is not a directory. It is an encyclopaedia, and it is wholly unnecessary to list every single thing which appears in a given journal. In this case, I just moved some of the unblocked sites to give an example.

More blanking of text
Please restore text removed here. As changed (with deletion), the text is vague. Badagnani (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I shall refrain from comment on this one, in order to maintain an air of civility. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

More blanking of text
Kindly use "Discussion" before blanking large areas of text, as in this edit (15th request). Badagnani (talk) 05:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly not a case of blanking. You seem to be hostile towards Ohconfucius.--DanteAgusta (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If saying something frequently or loudly doesn't get heard, Don't despair - perhaps you should examine whether what you are trying to communicate is in fact reasonable. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, a bit off topic, but what is "blanking"? 64.229.239.26 (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It would appear that the word has a variety of meanings, and Badagnani's definition is one I certainly don't share. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeated alteration of quote
Please use "Discussion" to generate consensus before repeatedly reverting quotes to selectively remove text, as in this edit, thank you. Badagnani (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * consensus? ok, I agree with the edit.--DanteAgusta (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of large sections of text
Please do not remove large sections of text, as in this edit, without first seeking and obtaining consensus (15th request). Badagnani (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't read the edit summary, I have merely exchanged the relevant paragraph from the 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony article, with no embellishments. It was made without valued judgements about the lip-synching, just that the ensuing comments were more appropriate in the aforementioned article. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After no fewer than fifteen requests, it should be clear that the removal of large sections of text (in fact, nearly 20 full paragraphs) without first seeking and obtaining consensus, is not a proper manner of editing on a contentious article. Badagnani (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would remark that most of the contention is coming from you, the only one seriously bucking what I am doing. Most of my edits are backed by often more than one other user comment prior to me making the relevant edit. I try to maintain a high level of editing transparency by writing accurate edit summaries. It is quite natural for an article like this to grow exponentially when editors from all corners will post stuff they have read about, or believe may be interesting, useful, relevant, controversial, newsworthy. There may be other agendas. At some stage, when the buzz has died down, the consolidation phase begins. Things get a clearer focus, important points get further developed and unimportant points get washed away. The article is now down to 99kB, so yes, I may have pruned 10% of the article, but most of it has only been moved to more directly relevant places. And judging by the comments here on this page, we have consensus that there is still some way to go. Liberally sprinkling fertiliser also causes weeds to proliferate, so pruning and weeding are important elements in how to make a beautiful garden. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the requests have been made by a single source. But the number of sections opened to make this same point is starting to make the discussion page a little difficult to navigate. Tsuchan (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just simply unreasonable as most of the [15] requests have related to as many different pieces of text. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Further removals
There have been several weeks of articles on this subject; please add sources rather than removing text, as in this edit. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 07:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would refer you to my edit summary, which said: " rem unsourced pending adequate sourcing". ALthough what you said is also true, both approaches are acceptable, by our guidelines. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Blanking
Please use "Discussion" to request and develop consensus before blanking text, as in this edit (16th request). Badagnani (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your kidding right?--DanteAgusta (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

More blanking; request article protection
And again, here. Please seek and develop consensus before blanking from the article (17th request). Badagnani (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not blanking, that's cleaning up. You could try requesting protection here, but I doubt anything will be done because he's not vandalizing the article. -- Scorpion0422 03:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Kindly desist in your attacks against me. This is harrassment. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have just filed a request for page protection on behalf of Badagnani, to settle this dispute once and for all. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this puts the matter to rest. Badagnani is a bit off balanced if you ask me.--DanteAgusta (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like Badagnani needs to learn how to interpret diffs. I saw no blanking in this example, only moving text from one place to another. Badagnani, these talk page comments of yours are disruptive. Please stop. =Axlq 05:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's very important to read diffs carefully (did you?); please check again and you'll see that there are names missing. I addressed this issue just below. I assure you I read diffs very, very carefully and that's why it's becoming increasingly difficult to ensure that such important content is not lost (as it just was in this edit). Please check again. One such name is "Gao Chuancai," and three discrete dates were removed; many other names were removed in separate edits today as well. Did you not also notice the nearly 20 edits over the past five days, which removed many entire paragraphs? Badagnani (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is quite clear that you have some sort of problem with Ohconfucius, and it needs to be rectified. Protection has been requested in the proper place, and not just wait for an administrator will have to deal with it.--DanteAgusta (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I very much enjoy working with all editors at Wikipedia, as can be seen from my "Discussion" page archives, except those who choose to blank large areas of text from articles, after having been asked not to do so without first proposing such removals at "Discussion," and developing consensus for such. Badagnani (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, your discussion page should you get along real well with others.... All those bans say the same thing.--DanteAgusta (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Even more blanking
Another example of unilateral blanking without consensus here, for the third time in a single day, names and other important details have been removed from passages in this article, in unilateral fashion, without consensus. The removal of many names of specific individuals undermines our content, making it more difficult for readers to isolate particular incidents and follow up on them in other media; as such, such removals do not appear as "cleaning" but as willful removals to obscure the details of each incident (for what reason, one must only guess). Kindly propose such deletions at "Discussion" first (18th request); it's important that at contentious articles we adhere to a deliberate, consensus process as regards major deletions of content from articles, a fundamental aspect of our project. Badagnani (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Were those names added with consensus?
 * I don't see the existence of those names in the article as relevant. What's important are the events described, not the identities of the individuals involved, none of whom were notable in any discernible way prior to the events in question. If anyone is interested in the names, they aren't hidden, the sources are available for reference. For the record, I agree with eliminating the names because they distract from what's important. Badagnani's comments appear to be much ado about nothing more than good-faith attempts to clean things up, in the spirit of WP:BOLD. I suggest a review of WP:AGF is in order here. =Axlq 05:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus sought nor obtained for removing specificity in these cases, which in all cases makes it much more difficult for our readers to follow up and find more information about such stories. The removal of dates and names does not improve the article, but instead obscures the incidents described therein. For what reason the editor is doing this, one can only guess, but it's clear that all edits are being made in a particular direction, one which is to minimize and obscure--and that requests to propose such removals at "Discussion" before doing so unilaterally have been dismissed, often with extreme sarcasm and rudeness. Our project is, and should be better than this. Badagnani (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You dodged the question. Were those names added with consensus?
 * As I already stated, I strongly disagree that peppering event descriptions with names of non-notable individuals detracts from this article's quality. The point of those passages was to describe events. Simply put, the names aren't relevant. Dates, on the other hand, are more important, and I would agree with you that they should be retained.
 * Your insinuations about another editor here are inappropriate (and I have been guilty of that in the past myself). It seems clear to me that the edits to which you object are honest attempts to improve the article. It is unreasonable to demand talk-page consensus for removal of every non-notable name. While I object to rudeness and sarcasm, to me it looks like Ohconfusius has only expressed exasperation at your repeated demands for discussion about perfectly reasonable edits.
 * You want consensus? Perhaps I have contributed to that with my own comments here. =Axlq 05:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I would not object to putting the dates back if the consensus of opinion is so. However, I would reiterate my belief that the two-week+ of the games sufficiently frames the context, and thus precise dates is likely to detract from clarity. What is more, it is clear that nothing major hinges on the chronological flow of individual incidents with protesters. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess you don't understand, because you haven't actually looked carefully through the history. These removals are part of a campaign of 30+ removals, some of entire paragraphs, all with the apparent intent to minimize or obscure. All were done without consensus being sought or obtained, and many were of crucial importance to this topic. Please try to take some time to take a look through the history, of this discussion page, and of the article itself, before commenting further. It's not just about a name here, or a date there. (Have you asked the editor to restore those dates?) Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You should consider retracting what you just said. You are casting aspersions on me and my editing. You do not know my intentions, and have no way of proving what you are accusing me of. Even in the face of overwhelming condemnation of other editors, who have intervened with comments not solicited by me, you appear to be still stuck in your denial of what constitutes your unjust accusations, unreasonable behavour and harrassment. An administrator should be along soon with a ruling to protect or no. If the decision is not to protect, as is the apparent belief of the vast majority here, I hope you will abide by that ruling and stop your sniping. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I bet it takes a while, there is a lot of look over here now.--DanteAgusta (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that the protection would serve User:Ohconfucius, because the very large amount of text s/he removed (many whole paragraphs, many names and dates, and other specific information) has already been removed, and in my experience protecting editors do not take the time to restore such deleted material in case of contentious articles experiencing severe blanking issues; they simply protect the article in its depleted form. Regarding the removed dates, if you'd like to restore them, please do, pending discussion if you'd like to remove them again. That would certainly show good faith. Badagnani (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very good point. ;-) I'm not going to suggest that you did one massive revert to before when I started blanking massive chunks of text (your words). Do it at your peril. Judging from the near unanimous comments from fellow editors, I am at least 90% certain that doing so would incur you the wrath of all the assembled editors who inhabit this article. I am absolutely astonished that you really do not realise that you are totally out on a limb. In order to show goodwill, I will refrain from any more "massive blanking" (again your words) until an Admin has decided on the protection status, but I will reinstate nothing. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Badagnani: I would not have commented as I have if I had not first looked through the edit history. I do not characterize the constructive edits I have seen the same way you do. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The removals to which you object don't appear to have been performed with intent to obscure, but with intent to tighten up. Again, your repeated demands for consensus to remove irrelevant details (you are focusing mostly on names of non-notable individuals) seem unreasonable and disruptive.
 * Yes, I ask Ohconfucius to restore dates. Although he makes a good point about the 2008 Olympics already being well known enough to frame the events in time, having dates (even relative dates, like "6 days later") would give a sense of chronology, and that might be relevant (I am not sure myself). And, once again, you have avoided my question. =Axlq 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection denied
Page protection has been denied and the edits have been deemed constructive. RFP --DanteAgusta (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another storm in the teacup?
I thought the issues of my style of editing would have been put to bed by Administrator User:Stifle. Evidently, it has not. What are we going to do about it? I think an ultimatum is in order: If this harassment continues, I will file a formal complaint against the user concerned. You are waaaay out on a limb, amigo. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought this was taken care of, well early this morning. It was made clear that the edits are constructive. The recent revert was unnecessary and smacks of harassment. I beg this party to please stop before a complaint is charged against him which could cause his freedom to edit to be taken away.--DanteAgusta (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I already posted a pre-emptive warning on his talk page not to engage in edit-warring which was removed within seconds of my posting it. It is customarily assumed that such removal constitutes acknowledgement by the recipient. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed names
Please restore the names removed in this edit, pending seeking and obtaining consensus at "Discussion" (19th request). Badagnani (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you making such an issue of this? The person is not notable, and his name is irrelevant to article, or how the story unfolds. This is perfectly in line with the consensus on removal of non-notable names. In any event, you only complained about the grammar when you reverted my edit, so now after I made a very simple fix of the grammar to satisfy your concerns, I realise you were in fact complaining about me removing his name? Get a life! Ohconfucius (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

More massive blanking
Please use "Discussion" to propose very large deletions such as this one, seeking and obtaining consensus for such from this article before unilaterally doing so. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL. Do you even read this page? Discussion was made, no objections. It is gone. Thank you, don't come again. --DanteAgusta (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck

 * To show that I wasn't bluffing, and that I have truly had enough, I have just lodged a complaint against Badagnani. I would wish him the very best of luck. You're on your own, mate. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Water and drought history

 * Comment - I suggest that the section on Water and drought history should be removed. Firstly, the subject of "Water and drought history" is off-topic to the 2008 Summer Olympic games.  Secondly, the links to other sections show that Wikipedia has this matter covered.  In relation to the second paragraph, there is a question of whether the USA's decision to import its own food constitutes a controversy.  I suggest that it was just one of a thousand ways a political statement was made in the run-up to the Olympic Games, and nobody particularly responded strongly so (in similar vein to the stunt of some of the USA team flying-in wearing face masks as a statement about air quality) the subject doesn't justify mention here.  Apart from that, one of the references (currently 197: "Don't drink the water") shows "Page not found". Tsuchan (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The water situation was relevant to the games in that neighboring bodies of water were diverted because of and for the games. For examples, see this and this. The section as it currently is, however, does essentially nothing to explain these concerns. Some of the information, such as the meat/steroid concerns should be in an entirely different section. —  C M B J   02:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree Water and drought history should be removed. The recent diversion of water is a seperate controversy irrespective of what the past has been. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They're really the same general topic, it's just an entirely different presentation and aspect. The section will need to be fully rewritten from scratch. —  C M B J   10:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So if we have agreement that there's nothing useful in this section, it sounds like we have consensus to remove it until somebody has something relevant to put in its place Tsuchan (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Since it had to be rewritten from ground up, just remove the current work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Tsuchan (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Removal seen in this edit. Badagnani (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Domestic Issues
Either someone has to polish up this section or I will remove it tomorrow. Reason: This is not a concern or controversy. This pertains to normal operation of the Games. While the media has noted the presence of the volunteers and a large security force, there is no mention of how these preparations have had a significant negative influence on the Games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right; but having searched through the article I'm not very clear about which domestic part you have in mind. Tsuchan (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It has already been removed. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, hehe... that explains it. Tsuchan (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NYT article on NBC tape delay backlash
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/sports/olympics/09nbc.html?hp

Good article on NBC's futile efforts to censor (online) footage of the opening ceremonies within the US. --Madchester (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NBC West Coast Primetime Delay Very sad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.28.117 (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're on a satellite dish, you should be able to get east coast... 70.55.86.69 (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Added my contribution. Edit as you see fit. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am completely lost as why this is even mentioned. It might be weird to those outside the US, but if you love here then you know that things this big are always shown in prime time. NBC has only showed the US Olympics live. How is this even considered a concern or a controversy? --DanteAgusta (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been searching, and can't find any other reference for this other than an obscure article in the NY Times. This particular paragraph needs some major refs or needs to be deleted. --DanteAgusta (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the America-centric press, and the huge sums paid for the broadcasting rights, concerns about fans not being able to watch the event in real time. Most of the rest of the world got totally live coverage, so it's really a US broadcasting issue and not so much an olympics issue. I tried to refocus the section, but would welcome additional views on whether it should stay. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just the norm in the US media. The way it has always been and always will be. It would have been a major controversy if they had not shown it in prime time. But I have found no evidence that anyone cared it was being delayed. --DanteAgusta (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there was that NYT article. If that was the only source saying it was a concern, then the whole section can probably be deleted. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The NY Times is well known for making a lot of noise about nothing. That article looks like filler to me for lack of anything else to write about. Not that anyone at the NY Times can write to begin with. --DanteAgusta (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL Ohconfucius (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after seeing the view on top, I am now condensed this was added by people just wanting to rant about something. I say delete it. --DanteAgusta (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * you may well be right. I am "condensed" too! ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well dang, that is what I get for typing, eating a sandwich, and watching tv at the same time. --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So can we get a VOTE on this from the US readers? was this issue of any significance in the US? while it certainly did not matter to the rest of the world, we can add 1 or 2 lines to describe this if there was alot of outrage in the US. Otherwise I'd say we drop this topic, cause it really isnt material even if we can find proof of it being true. (and yes i know voting is evil). Shaoquan (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I got on my MySpace and asked all my "friends" if they cared, not one single one even gave it a thought. The only one that had a problem was a Swiss living here and did not understand why it was not shown live. When I explained to him how tv works over here, he understood. It's all about "money, money, yeah, yeah". If the rest of the world did not care, don't see how anyone here would have cared as we are use to it. It was a 12 hour time difference, who is gonna get up at 8AM to watch tv??? Most people where at work, except for me who was in bed. lol --DanteAgusta (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Total medals vs Gold medals controversy
Critics accuse the US media of cynically manipulating the figures to keep the USA team at the top of the table. In the USA, newspapers have been reporting the table in terms of totals medal won, rather than by the number of golds as the IOC does. This method moves the States to the top. NBC favors this method to give the US an advantage -- thus the leader is no longer the one with the most gold but the one with the most medals. Look at any newspaper, news agency or media corporation outside the US that is analyzing the olympic results and all of them would place China in first place because of the gold medal count. I think it is very convenient that American media is the only one in the world focusing in the total count —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.10 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It has been made perfectly clear that the US media has ALWAYS gone by total medals. The IOC does not have an official medal count, so there is no standard. Each media outlet is free to show the medal tally anyway they want. And besides, countries don't win the Olympics, athletes win in their respected sports. The Olympics is not a competition between countries, it is a coming together of nations for friendly athletics. All who are chosen to be Olympians are the winners, not a single country. --DanteAgusta (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I renamed the topic since "Americans refusing to accept defeat" was racist. (I CAN say that because I am Chinese. LAWLZ) We had a section on medal table controversy in this article 2 days ago. It was later removed altogether. The US had NOT always gone with total medals. I think it was USA Today that used to do a gold table first. Theres an article from a UK media about it. Checkout the Olympic Medal Table article they got some good references there. The US may (or may not) have always done a total table, the fact that some medias in the UK, and I bet you I can find a truckload in China, are criticising the US means that it qualifies as a controversy even if it proves to be false. I mean, the US has pointed their fingers at China all the time and we've always included those accusations whether proven or not. Why cant the Brits and Chinese do the same? That being said, I think it is more appropriate to put this in the 2008 Olympic Medal Table article since this issue no longer deals with the Games itself and had more to do with the medal table. Obviously no one criticised the BOCOG for using a gold table..... Also, if you check the discussion page on 2008 medal table, theres a huge fight there too. Shaoquan (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have been watching the Olympics since the 70's and I always remember the papers posting all 3 medal standings. I for one like to know who all won a metal, not just gold. I don't know anyone who cares who wins the most metals. In America, that is not the point, it is the participation, and the experience of the world village that the Olympics creates. The metals are for the athletes, the rest of us just like to watch the show. One of my favorite things is seeing all the great stuff of the hosting country that NBC shows. China in HD was fantastic, I really would like to visit one day. But this whole thought that Americans are refusing to believe we "lost" is just weird. China won the most gold, we are very happy for them. (Maybe not Hollywood, but no one in America counts then anyways) Not to steal someone's quote, but can't we all just get along? --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me also say that much of the criticism that goes toward China comes from left wing Hollywood and liberal media. Most of us round here don't have a problem with China at all, we have a lot in common actually. --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear that. But you know the way wikipedia works, even its proven false, we still have to show it, and THEN prove it false. there is an article by AP that backs the claim that the US has always done a total table "for as far as they can remember". USA Today seemed to be the only one that did gold tables in the US in recent years. Also, in 1964 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Summer_Olympics the US actually had fewer total medals than USSR but more gold. =) might be a relevant fact to add when this section gets added to the controversy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaoquan (talk • contribs) 08:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about most national papers. The local papers, on the state and city level always have done the full medal count. And like most Americans, I guess we thought the rest of the world did it the same way. I mean, who ignores the silver and bronze? If you country does not get a medal, do you not even post they where there? I have not been able to find any sources really stating that anyone cares about this. Only a few people coming online either here, or in a blog or two. Seems like they just want to find something to scream about. But, if there are legit foreign sources that have made serious claims, then it should be looked at. And if I remember correctly, the Soviets beat the US several times in total metals and we still posted it. --DanteAgusta (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dante, who is "we" that you are referring to? Guys, as I said, if you REALLY need some "legit foreign sources" I can supply a truck load of Chinese links. This one is from Xinhua picking up the story from Times (UK) http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2008-08/26/content_9713383.htm The Chinese title is "Times Reports: US 'very hurt (upset?)' refused to accept defeat on the medal table". Xinhua pretty much summarized the UK article. This link shows Xinhua's own reporting on the subject. http://news.xinhuanet.com/olympics/2008-08/21/content_9565276.htm Title is "Chinese Gold Table and American Medal Table" Xinhua puts it very lightly and quoted that UK and French press also noticed the "secret". But Xinhua makes an attempt to put out the fire by claiming "even if the Americans swapped their tallying method to keep themselves on top, it does not mean the US is weak in sports. ... there are alternat ways to measure national performance ... diffilt or impossible to determine which is more scientific or reasonable". LAWLZ Xinhua backs doesnt wanna take on the US like the UK did. Shaoquan (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if other countries really have a problem with it. I did not think it so big. I mean, I don't understand why anyone would get upset about this. It was made quite clear China won the Gold's by a large amount. No one debated that. I was even chearing the Chinese most of the time. (especially Gho Jing Jing, spelling?) But if there is enough people talking about it internationally, I found nothing domestically, then it should be added back. But it should be noted that these allegations have no real basis. --DanteAgusta (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did some Chinese search on Google. Most of this US bashing take place in forums and blogs. The State media largely refrained from this. While they did reported on the difference, there is no complaint from the State media. The US obviously arnt complaining about it. The UK, while there are some talks about it, are largly poking fun at the US. And I cant read French... IMO while there are voices criticising the US on this matter, it really bears no significance to the Games. The subject is already being addressed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_medal_table I'd say we drop this matter. Shaoquan (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen sources showing that this issue has been controversial. If they exist, what are they? Badagnani (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, just seems like people want to complain about something. I don't think this page is for observations, just facts of real concerns. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Badagnani, since you asked for sources.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4599875.ece http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2602029/US-accused-of-medal-table-spin---Beijing-Olympics-2008.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/aug/14/bustedhowamericaturnedthe .... the Brits editors are rubbing it in more so than the mouth pieces of the Chinese Communist Party. Shaoquan (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a long discussion, but it's not a controversy about the Olympics, it's only a controversy about how it was reported. Think about it... "the Olympics"... it's an institution, it's an event with good or bad organisation, it's a body of people. But it's not the US media. This is a controversy about the US media, not about the Olympics.88.96.159.85 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's called American spin and self-delusion. America still rules the waves now, not Britannia ;-). It's just a pathetic attempt by the US media to make the US appear top dog although they no longer are. Even they will not deny that a gold medal is 'valued' much more than a silver or bronze - you didn't hear about Michael Phelps talk about how he was going after 8 'gold,silver or bronze medals', did ya?? No, he was going for gold. The controversy lies there in the US and how they would like the world to see them, and not by how the world actually sees them through the focal lens of the Olympics or otherwise. No, it's actually got not a lot to do with the Olympics. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In 2004, ESPN ranked China as 3rd, despite having more gold medals than Russia. —  C M B J   06:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Forget it, CMJB, Ohconfucius decided already that is all a spin and self-delusion, an evil plot of the US media to make the US look like the winner. Don't come him with facts, because he already made up his mind and knows how the US media and the US ticks. Obviously it is not related to the Olympics and has no place in this article as it is at most a controversy (and not even a controversy given the facts) about US media. In fact all this would be a good example for the article Anti-Americanism. Novidmarana (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL. I see that I certainly have no monopoly on the use of irony! Ohconfucius (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Each nation is entitled to its bit of nationalism, why would I care about CNN arithmetic? It's not a problem of the Games. NVO (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Letter to AP on Air Pollution
Hey guys, I just wrote a letter to Associated Press on what I believe to be errors within their data (which is currently included in the article). While I donno if I will ever get a response from them, this does provide a good explanation of what I meant about some problems with the AP and BBC measurements. This letter IS(??) Primary Research of my production so it CAN NOT(??) be used in the article, but the links below CAN be used for reference.

-- To the Staff of AP,

The AP has recently produced the report below, which I believe contained errors. http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_international/oly_fea_pollution/index.html?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME

Based on AP's report, AP has measured the air quality of Beijing, near the Bird's Nest during day time, each day, for 2 hours. AP has also matched it against the WHO guideline of 50 microgram per cubic metre.

Based on the WHO information below, the guideline is meant for samples taken over a 24hr period and then averaged. WHO also noted that the short term (24hr) exposure tolerance is higher than the long term (1 year). http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2006/WHO_SDE_PHE_OEH_06.02_eng.pdf

As human activities take place during the day, the measurments taken by AP may not be representative of the 24hr average. While AP figures may accurately portray the level of pollutants an outdoor athelete was be exposed to during the Games for those 2 hours, AP should seek academic advice to convert the 24hr WHO guideline to a 2 hr tolerance level for PM10, or if a 2hr measurement has any scientific significance.

If one is to assume the good faith of SEPA, who's data AP has included in it's report, it is possible to determine the upper limit of the PM10 average for each day by consulting the chart provided by the link below (in Chinese). According to the chart, API of 50 means PM10 daily average of at most 50 micro gram per cubic metre. Thus, in at least 10 out of the 16 days, the air quality in Beijing did in fact met the WHO's highest standard for daily average, where as AP's current presentation resulted in 5 out of the 16 days passing the benchmark. In addition, in none of days was the Interim target 1 breached (PM10 above 150), while AP data reported 7 days. http://www.sepa.gov.cn/quality/background.php

The method used by AP to measure air quality did not conform to the definition prescribed by the WHO guideline, it would not be apprporiate for AP to present it as a benchmark. It appears that the information presented by AP has overstated the level of air pollution in Beijing. While it is difficult for AP to measure air pollution around the clock, AP could have resorted to other sources/methods to determine pollution level.

In addition, AP has stated that 50 microgram per cubic metre as the "target for developing countries" appears misleading based on the WHO guide above. The figure 50 is the WHO "guideline" for PM10. Above which WHO also set "targets". The Interim target 1 for PM10 concentration is 150, which somewhat corresponds to API of 100 by Chinese standards, which is also the current Chinese policy "target". AP's definition of "target" appears most appropriate for developed nations. If one choses the WHO's definition of "target" and methodology it appears the air quality in Beijing did reach its target consistently for standards applicable to a developing nation throughout the Games. However, using AP's data and definition, Beijing failed the pollution test by a shocking 1100% on August 10th!! It would be understandable why some atheletes had to wear masks or quit the Games altogether.

The report produced by AP appears materially inaccurate and misleading.

dy/dx -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaoquan (talk • contribs) 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Fireworks
Weren't the fake fireworks previously mentioned in this article? Where is the discussion that led to the removal of all mention of this? Badagnani (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Some looking through the archives shows that this appeared in this version (with three sources), then was removed without any discussion here. This type of removal without prior discussion and consensus has unfortunately become common at this article, and it would be wonderful if editors would kindly discuss such proposed deletions to build consensus for them before doing that. It's important, at contentious articles, that we maintain a deliberate (and deliberative) manner of editing, as regards large deletions of sourced text. Badagnani (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Double-U Tee Eff mate? I just added back that damn firework section last nite. ARRRRRGGGHHH. O well, i will just copy something from the Opening Ceremony and dump. I agree that the lip-sync and firework was the most controversial part of the OC and deserves mentioning. Shaoquan (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. As long as we cover all the bases for our readers (i.e., provide all the information they'd be expecting to find here regarding controversies and concerns that have been widely reported), without the article being overly long, we'll be fine. Badagnani (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not a concern on anyone's part. Already mentioned on 2008 Summer Olympics page, not needed here. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed again without consensus. Badagnani (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dante WTF? I think it derserves mentioning in the controversy section. its a widely report criticism of the OC. it should be mentioned. on the otherside, i think it can be removed from the 2008 Olympics main article since the OC was largely praised, the criticism is a minor detail that need not to be mentioned up front. Shaoquan (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Who would bother complaining on something so mundane. What sources are there of complaints? --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It received very large press (as did the lip-synching and fake minority children), one of the several top concerns represented in the world media. If readers will come to our encyclopedic article expecting to have a sourced mention, we should have information about it (although not overly long information). You just asked about sources; there were formerly three sources in the passage before the entire passage was removed without prior discussion; please see the version presented earlier today (just above, with the link entitled "this version"), which contains those three sources. Badagnani (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen no press or found any sources another than the CNN article posted, which just mentioned it and did not criticize it at all. It was clearly stated by the announcers that it was CG. Not a controversy. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, since the we are just dumping from the main OC article, more sources can be found there. i concur Firework deserve mentioning. although i say we leave out the minority children part, to keep things short. full coverage is at the OC article anyways. Shaoquan (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that minority children thing has no leg either. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It received press in nearly every media outlet. Where exactly did you look? You also did not mention the two other sources that were removed when the entire section was removed from the article, without discussion nor consensus. Should I present the link (which is just above) again? It should be easy to find; it is just above, in a link entitled "this version." Badagnani (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Shaoquan, in the media the lip-synching, fake fireworks, and fake minority children were all mentioned as items of controversy. It would only add a few words to mention all three, providing encyclopedic information to our readers about this aspect of the controversy. Badagnani (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The only thing mentioned was the little girl. No one mentioned fire works, and I saw one mention of the children. None of this is controversial. --DanteAgusta (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

DanteAgusta, can you please be specific about where you searched? Let's be specific, and compare notes about the hits we've found (or not). The fireworks were mentioned in nearly every media outlet. Badagnani (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If so then right here is you place to show it. --DanteAgusta (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just looked on Google News, a good place to scan major media from North America, Europe, Australia, and other nations around the world. I found thousands of articles on this subject (fake fireworks, singing child, and minority children), including this one, from the newspaper in the capital of the United States. But you said you checked for sources covering these issues, and found none. Did you not scan Google News? I believe this is the site most WP editors use when looking for recent news articles in major English-language media; maybe you can try it in the future. Badagnani (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, an article stating the fireworks were fake. We knew that, we were told that before the event. And it was explained why. I have found articles mentioning this, but NONE criticizing it. The point was made on the main page, this page is for controversies. --DanteAgusta (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles presenting these three components of the opening ceremonies as concerns. Just go to news.google.com and search a bit, and you will find them. Three had already been presented before the entire passage was removed from the article without prior Discussion nor consensus. Badagnani (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All three did not show any concern about it. And again, I have found NONE showing any. Simply mentioning the fireworks were fake is not a concern. It was told they would be CG due to it being unsafe to fly a helicopter over them. --DanteAgusta (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the concern is not due to safety; it is due to something fraudulent presented as something true (perhaps in the same way some media found that the clean, happy Beijing they were presented may have been similarly unnatural, due to thousands of people being ushered out of the city before the foreign visitors showed up, and similar "cleaning" to present a false or too-perfect veneer). This is clear in all the articles--those three and the thousands of others. You claimed earlier that you had not located any articles on the subject, however. Have you checked the website I mentioned yet? Badagnani (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Bringing up the same articles are not helping. They do not show concern, and there was none. We were told they were going to be fake before the show, and DURING the fireworks themselves the announcers clearly told us the were computer generated. This is a non issue. --DanteAgusta (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There was some talk about the CG: it was pretty surreal and was obviously a fake just when it was broadcast, and that was also brought up by the press too. Now that DanteAgusta mentioned that it was widely known before the event, it doesn't stop people from complaining when expectations are dashed. The whole Olympics fell within what is usually silly-season for the press, and every minute detail was covered. There was a lot of nonsense published. I would disagree that it was a controversy - probably a 0.5/10 on the scale of the lip-synching, is my guess. I'm not saying we should put the paragraph back, in fact, I'm saying it was nothing. However, if we do, it should mention that the use of CG was well publicised in advance, as per Dante's cited sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems 2 of us (me and Badanani) think its a controversy while the other 2 disagrees. I think we all have had our say. Some of us feel theres enuf complaint/substance, while some of us dont see it that way. lets get a 5th person to break this tie and b over with it. I mean either way, the material is included in the main CG artile anyways so no one can say wikipedia did NOT include it. Shaoquan (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is, there is no proof that it is a controversy. There needs to be a source. --DanteAgusta (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If we have to go by the definition of a controversy: a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. Thus we can say that this IS a controversy because obviously the BOCOG thinks is OK to use CG images while the media thinks its NOT ok cause they are faking it. likewise the lip-sync, the BOCOG and IOC defends it, many thinks they have done it wrong and should let that ugly duckling haver her day on stage. Shaoquan (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessarily a case of consensus being some 2:2 -> tie-breaker, we also need to consider the preponderance of sources which back up the claim, in this case, of controversy. Anyway, our 'friend' User:Wikipedian06 has also removed it twice, if that is worth anything. ;-) If there are no or insufficient sources to indicate that it was a controversy, inclusion would be biased by virtue of undue weight. Also, nobody is disagreeing that lip-synch episode was not a controversy, and so its existence within the article is not being challenged. We are still talking about relative weight here. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I veto anything Wikipedian06 says/writes/thinks/sees/touches/smells/feels. his user talk page speaks for himself and i do not think his opinions should be taken into serious consideration. Shaoquan (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You will have noted my wink-smiley when I mentioned [him]. Aside from Wikipedian06's "contributions", you do not appear to have addressed the other points I raised. I think it would be reasonable to insist on an adequate number of reputable sources which state there was concern or controversy over the CG, do you not? Ohconfucius (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is one; there are about 1000 others on Google News. Just do a search for fake fireworks. Badagnani (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

More removals without prior Discussion or edit summary
See. Badagnani (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, no one is paying attention to you anymore. --DanteAgusta (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * O that? I did that. I wrote that section myself last nite and did that trimming. Some of the info I trimmed because (as I DID state far above) the Beijing vs NYC comparison is somewhat misleading and irrelavent. We've already nailed the main issue that most media stopped complaining about the air and everyone agreed it was great. the comparison is really redundant and scientifically incorrect. as for the Chinese API vs American AQI, they are somewhat different and I subsequently realized that I do not have sufficient proof to show direct relation between the two. Shaoquan (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; as long as it's clear what's being removed, and why, we should be fine. If it could be made clear to the other editors here when text is removed, it would be great. Otherwise, things simply disappear without notice or explanation, and usually without consensus (sometimes important ones). Badagnani (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Edits to the Air Pollution Section
Whoever keeps reviving that Beijing vs NYC comparison better stop because the comparison is not scientific and therefore misleading. In addition microgram per cubit metre is not mg/m^3 it mg = milligram = 1000 microgram. Stop trying to put down scientific facts if you do not understand the science behind it. Shaoquan (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I trust you must be referring to this edit. The editor appears to be bit of a maverick, of you ask me. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * well he seems really eager to show the air quality isnt that bad and close to par with NYC. dats just ridiculous. all he did was quote ONE data and has not mentioned all the other days. this gives UNDUE influence. not to mention his comparison method isnt scientific. and he had factual errors. Shaoquan (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Add the word "Criticism" to this article?

 * I Propose this article be renamed to "Concerns, Controversies and Criticisms of the 2008 Summer Olympics"

theres been some arguments about if some issues qualify as controversy or not. but most of those issues would qualify as criticism and has been widely reported by the media. given the volume of public coverage, ignoring these issues would not allow wikipedia to present a good coverage of events that pertain to the games.Shaoquan (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Against. Maybe that should be a new article. This one has enough in it already. --DanteAgusta (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think controversies strongly implies there are criticisms, so to add this to the title would be redundant, IMHO. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Watch this guy: Wikipedian06
He keeps changing stuff without discussing it here, and frankly I find his writings childish and unenyclopedic. In addition, his scientific knowledge is somewhat lacking.

His user page speaks volumes about himself.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikipedian06

Watch his changes and stop him from ruining the article. Shaoquan (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He has been doing the same at Olympic medal table. Keeps adding extreme anti American POV. --DanteAgusta (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He/she clearly has a track record for POV additions and inflammatory and offensive remarks, just look at his/her talk page and past contributions. Gems include for example edit summaries such as "rm Amerikkkan-fueled anti-Chinese propaganda". Hopefully he/she will return to video games once the olympic frenzy is truly over, because video games, I truly don't care. Novidmarana (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)