Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isaacmercado106. Peer reviewers: Enj0yLifeee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120721030057/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/18/the-debate-have-olympic-sponsorship-regulations-gone-too-far/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/18/the-debate-have-olympic-sponsorship-regulations-gone-too-far/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120727024517/http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/112456-olympic-blunder-sees-north-korea-refuse-to-play-after-wrong-flag-raised/ to http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/112456-olympic-blunder-sees-north-korea-refuse-to-play-after-wrong-flag-raised/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121213152901/http://www.fencingofficials.org/documents/rules/USA%20Fencing%20Rules%20-%20September%202010.pdf to http://fencingofficials.org/documents/rules/USA%20Fencing%20Rules%20-%20September%202010.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120811052707/http://news.sportsseoul.com/read/photomovie/1071001.htm to http://news.sportsseoul.com/read/photomovie/1071001.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120731220402/http://www.london2012.com/documents/brand-guidelines/guide-to-protected-games-marks.pdf to http://www.london2012.com/documents/brand-guidelines/guide-to-protected-games-marks.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021015908/http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5314/5048/0/Final20award202422.pdf to http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5314/5048/0/Final20award202422.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140305084413/http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5879/5048/0/Award20265820FINAL.pdf to http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/5879/5048/0/Award20265820FINAL.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720191254/http://www.london2012.com/about-us/sustainability/food-vision/ to http://www.london2012.com/about-us/sustainability/food-vision/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120811031338/http://ca.news.yahoo.com/7-cameroon-athletes-disappear-london-olympics-sources-204131518--oly.html to http://ca.news.yahoo.com/7-cameroon-athletes-disappear-london-olympics-sources-204131518--oly.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130228114959/http://www.london2012.com/ to http://www.london2012.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop removing sourced content
You should not be removing sourced content regardless. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Just because? Why? The content is a load of rubbish, and is totally irrelevant. Most of the links are dead and the content is sour grapes, feet stomping, and howling at the moon. So what teams had bikes better than others, what next a Section on Formula One about teams being better with technology than others labelled a controversy or teams with better shoes being labelled controversial, or better diets, or more money? What a ridiculous section take to have on this page. It is how all sport works, and calling how all sport works a controversy is madness. without technology in cycling, bikes would weigh 10 tonnes, have one brake and a bigger wheel at the back and a little one at the front. Ridiculous. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

If nothing is commented on this in a few days I will ask the page be unprotected and the removal to go ahead. This cannot be allowed to be a stopper from the removal of this content by having no discussion take place. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That Section should not be removed because it appears to have two reliable sources mainly included in that section which is are BBC Sport and The Wall Street Journal which appears to be reliable sources per WP:RSP Untamed1910 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Have you read the sources? or are you simply going BBC and WSJ therefore must remain included? Simply going these two sources are used addresses none of the points I have made and is simply more of the same, sources = equal blanket inclusion, which in this case is keeping in junk. This sources and section also seem to ridicule the claims being made. All a storm in a teacup, news sites making column inches and nothing to actually see here. One source is dead and two sources are simply regulations. Please do better than you currently are its embarrassing. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that the section is notable as sporting equipment is often subject to scrutiny and regulation by the sport's governing body when it is viewed as conferring an unfair advantage on it user including in cycling.
 * Following the December 2008 European Short Course Swimming Championships in Croatia, where 17 world records were broken by competitors using bodyskins (a high tech swim suit), it was felt there was a need to modify the rules surrounding swimsuits. This culminated in FINA deciding to ban bodyskins in competitions.
 * A similar story played out with the Nike Vaporfly and Tokyo 2020 Olympics Controversy.
 * This story is further notable as the allegations of cheating received extensive news coverage and British Prime Minister responded to the allegations of cheating. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they)   ( talk ) 19:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the sources in question? This is simply people going I do not like that they have better stuff. ZERO rules were broken. There are also two sources of just regulations. This is all adding together to make the section seem like it should stay.. This cannot be the case it's all opinion of those who added that it all adds up to being something controversial. IT IS NOT. Welcome to how international cycling works. I would like to note nothing that UK cycling had at the games has been banned since the games or was banned at the games. You are simply stretching the definition of sanity here to bend over backwards to keep it because you are embarrassed that you didn't get me prevented from editing here.
 * Your arguments are complete and utter nonsense and in no way convey anything out of the ordinary you say "as sporting equipment is often subject to scrutiny and regulation by the sport's governing body when it is viewed as conferring an unfair advantage on it user" There is no evidence that any rules were broken, just some complaints from others that the UK had x and they had y and that they wanted what the UK had. Everyday complaints in elite level sport.
 * You go on to compare cycling to swimming. This bit "Following the December 2008 European Short Course Swimming Championships in Croatia, where 17 world records were broken by competitors using bodyskins (a high tech swim suit), it was felt there was a need to modify the rules surrounding swimsuits." I see you are invoking whataboutism here. Those were rules at the time in 2008 and show that when people push technology people complain, more evidence of this being a normal thing and nothing special. The comparison with cycling is also hokum as nothing the UK used or did was later banned, so this is a false equivalence and complete red herring.
 * You try and bolster your whataboutism and false equivalency with the line "This culminated in FINA deciding to ban bodyskins in competitions." The UCI did no such banning after the 2012 Olympics. So your comparison is garbage.
 * You claim the following "A similar story played out with the Nike Vaporfly and Tokyo 2020 Olympics Controversy." This is not comparable as the technology which the UK used was not banned and regulations were not changed to limit or prohibit the technology. More whataboutism and trying to use things which are about things that are different where regulations were changed. No such thing happened here. It feels like trying to crowbar in tabloid hysteria from sour grapes losers. This is a trash section.
 * Your final bit of hollow argumentation is "This story is further notable as the allegations of cheating received extensive news coverage and the British Prime Minister responded to the allegations of cheating" This place is an encyclopaedia and not a copy of the National Inquirer. The stuff about the French President and The British PM is really bottom-of-the-barrel nonsense to include in this and feels very subjective and very biased that the UK is a bunch of cheats.
 * In conclusion, you are going completely down the path of whataboutism and tabloid journalism to spout conspiracy theory claims of the UK cheating because they had some stuff others had sour grapes over. The section is horrendous and defending it in the way above shows you have not read the sources or fully appreciate what you are reading.
 * Having sources does not mean something should be here. Wikipedia is not a conspiracy theory farm or a place to create a conspiracy theory under the veneer of a controversy. Some of the worst of the worst detritus I have ever encountered from anyone online or in the real world.
 * Over to you to do better than you did because what you posted to defend the section was an embarrassment to read from someone who is clearly intelligent and wants to do the right thing. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've said everything I have to say about this topic, so I'm going to leave it at that and politely suggest that you calm down and realize that no one is out to get you here. This is a philosophical dispute about content, and not you as an individual, and it personally matters to me very little whether or not the section stays or goes. This discussion is starting to devolve into personal attacks, so I am going to withdraw before it goes any further. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they)   ( talk ) 01:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No actual response to the substantive points
 * I’ll assume the running away means there are no counter arguments and it is as I suspected simply a ploy to prevent the removal of this section and keep in a conspiracy theory of made up added together junk. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As the other two are not listening or engaging in substantive reasons for keeping removal is the blindingly obvious course of action. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * User:67.149.160.101 I really Disagree with your removal of that section, Also I been unable to engage on the talk page as i been busy playing Pikmin 4. Can we come up with a compromise to restore that section and remove Reference 134 which you said was dead link  ?
 * Here what i want for an compromise
 * Just restore that section and remove Reference 134 which is dead in the first place. If that section was still there in the first place i would remove Reference 134 which gave me an Page Not Found error on supersport site Untamed1910 (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree to no such compromise, such contrived nonsense cannot be retained on Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be in the business of obliquely calling one group of athletes cheats and promoting sour grapes from other nations to imply in the mind of the reader using the voice of wikipedia that UK cycling cheated at the 2012 Olympics.
 * The retention of this section is using Wikipedia to push the line UK cycling cheated and is trying to push this through the use of the sources, which wile not pointing to any evidence of cheating use conjecture, innuendo, and foot stamping to try and make up and give an impression that UK cycling cheated. The section is flagrantly a misuse of Wikipedia to push a specific untrue narrative. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I hate to tell you this but I Still disagree with your removal of that section, anyways that section you removed was sourced, and disagree that The section is flagrantly a misuse of Wikipedia to push a specific untrue narrative. Untamed1910 (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How can trying to impugn UK cycling and push false claims that they are cheats be anything other that a misuse of Wikipedia?
 * Also the bear trap you are wading in of sources = worthy of inclusion, is something you could not be more wrong about.
 * This whole section while it has sources does not warrant inclusion simply for having sources. In the same way Wikipedia is not a newsfeed. News articles have sources yet Wikipedia does not include those items simply for have sources. The inclusion of this section only serves to impugn UK cycling and push a false narrative voice that they cheated, both of which are pushing an horrific point of view with no basis in fact.
 * This is an encyclopaedia and not a debate on technology in track cycling, or UK cycling, or cycling or anything else for that matter. Stick to this being an encyclopaedia. 67.149.160.101 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)