Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics/Archive 1

Olympics Lanes
There has been a significant amount of concern and anger at the lanes all around London reserved for 'VIPs', does this merit a section here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.116.17 (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source to back it up, it definitely belongs. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please include a balanced point of view if this is included and why they are needed, referencing the Atlanta traffic problems. Sport and politics (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Eligibility of dopers
It would be a concern or controversy even if the IOC was alone in not wanting these athletes to compete at its event; in fact even if the IOC had ceased opposing it immidiately after the court decision it still ought to be in the article. A number of sports fans are also opposed to them taking part, and I'm sure I've seen athletes commenting on the issue. I acknowledge it is not the main controversy in the week of the opening ceremony, it shouldn't be removed just because it was discussed more some time ago. The isssue has been subject to two court cases, more than most the other controversies in the article. 88.88.162.69 (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue for the IOC and WADA to take up after the Olympics have concluded and should be a priority for the next Olympics. This is not a current Olympics controversy as it is calling for something to be done between this Olympic games and the next Olympic games. Also the court cases pre date the 2008 Olympics. This is not an issues exclusive to 2012 and is going to be continued after 2012 so is not relevant as a 2012 Olympics controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The court cases are post-2008, and because of the probable update of the Code, the court cases may well have an effect only for the London Games. Both court cases were initiated in order to get the athletes into the current games. 88.88.162.69 (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a myth the Dwain Chambers cases were started pre Beijing Olympics please see this case here. Sport and politics (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one of the cases was initiated in order to get athletes into the current games. The other case was a BOA appeal on a WADA decision based on the result of the first case, thus not strictly the Dwain Chambers case (i.e. he was merely affected by it). Information on the controversy related to the Osaka Rule is clearly relevant for these Games, BOA could perhaps be moved to Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics, but I think it is relevant information when discussing the Osaka Rule. 88.88.163.156 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It as Chambers who to the BOA to CAS so he is the most relevant It is also not going to be exclusive to these Olympics. It is also shows the long time that this issue has been going on a lot longer that these Olympics and will be going on into the next Olympics. This page has to remain focused on issues only affecting these games or the purpose of the article will be lost. This shows that cheats have been trying to overturn BOS laws baring them from the Olympics since way before this Olympic games. The issues is not relevant to these page as it is not exclusive to these Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your premise. Even if the issues may come up again later, that has no bearing on the fact that they came up at these Olympics. Furthermore, my main point is regarding the Osaka Rule, which currently is, and probably will remain, exclusive to these Games. 88.88.163.156 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole section concludes by saying "by the 2016 Summer Olympics", which shows the whole section is not restricted to these Olympics so should not be in the "Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics" page Sport and politics (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated above, I disagree that a controversy simply having an effect beyond the current Games disqualifies it as a controversy related to the current Games. The statement in the article is in effect: "Because it was not allowed to bar dopers from the 2012 Olympics, the IOC seeks a different way of doing so for future games." The Osaka Rule was an attempt to bar dopers from the current and subsequent Games. It (unfortunately) failed, thus the only Games directly affected by the controversy on the Osaka Rule is the one where it first would have applied. 88.88.163.156 (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The section needs including on the main Olympics Games page as this will have had an effect on three different Olympics,; Beijing, London and Rio de Janeiro. It cannot be linked to just the London Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add something to that article. The Osaka Rule concerns the eligibility of athletes at these (and other) Games. The striking down of the rule led to significant debate, which will continue after the Games. That doesn't change the fact that there are athletes competing at the London Games who are competing against the will of the IOC. The IOC has been forced to let certain athletes compete at these Games. This is, in my opinion, worthy of inclusion here. Anyway, I sense we won't agree, so if no-one else wants to add their opinion we could try WP:3O.88.88.163.156 (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC) PS: Of course, the section can be rewritten to focus more fully on this angle. 23:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:Female athletes
While it is debateable whether it is a controversy (there were calls for not permitting Saudi Arabia to compete), this page is likely to be moved to concerns and controversies per earlier Games. If moved information on this case certainly ought to be included in the article. 88.88.163.156 (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It is neither a Concern or a Controversy. It is giving undue weight to the selection policies of individual NOCs. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a journalistic exercise including every single thing concern every single editor can dig up. Sport and politics (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a controversy. Some NOCs have controversial selection policies. It has been widely discussed in the press both before and after the Saudi Arabian NOC changed its mind. 88.88.163.156 (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is it a controversy that some nations were complaining that some countries were thinking of not selecting women. remember this is not a place for all and everything also how is it notable. Just because it has a source does not guarantee or demand inclusion of the information. Sport and politics (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NCC. Why is it not a controversy? It meets the definition of the word. As to whether it should be included: There has been significant debate on this issue, and the Saudi Arabian NOC was under a lot of international pressure, which was strenghtened by the two other NOCs deciding to send women after all. The London Games are the first in which all NOCs let both men and women compete which makes it highly relevant for this article. 88.88.163.156 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That surely makes it a great step forward rather than a controversy. If we had an article on Things that Stopped Being Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics, it would fit there. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it was quite clearly a concern/controversy in the build up to the Games, there was a lot of pressure put on Saudi Arabia in particular to include female athletes. Just because something ends up being resolved doesn't mean it wasn't an issue; vast amounts of the 2008 article are on pollution which ended up being a non issue. It's as worthy of inclusion in this article as many of the other items - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 23:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a lot of POV rubbish here. I'm working on getting rid of it. (Is that what you meant?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Partly what I meant. I appreciate the fact that it's always going to be hard to keep this type of article suitably encyclopaedic whilst the games are on and everyone wants to add every tiny little issue, but mostly I meant that as issues go female participation was a relatively large and noteworthy subject. Just because it occured in the build up to the Games and was eventually settled in a positive fashion it still merits inclusion - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 23:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Pricing and traffic
My addition of text about the controversy over elevated ticket, souvenir, and food prices was reverted. Anyone else think the complaints over elevated prices should be in the article? Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A user who removes text you have boldly added is not revert warring. Stop making those unfounded pejorative and ridiculous assertions and claims. Do you have any other sources that the prices are inflated well above what was expected? The pricing has been praised by some for allowing access by having low priced tickets, while high demand tickets are warranting their price. As for souvenirs and food, it is always inflated in London compared to being outside of London and of course official Olympic merchandise will cost more when bought inside the Olympic Park it is the way free market Economics works its not a free give away. This is not a controversy its just a complaint that some people are thinking the prices are high this is not enough for it to be a controversy. All it is is complaining. Complaining and controversy are not the same. Sport and politics (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sport and politics, I have left you a couple of warnings on your talk page about the repeated revert-warring you are doing in this article. About that text, it was the source that was reporting on the pricing controvery, not me.  We report what the sources are saying.  If attendees at the Olympics are complaining about paying double prices for fish and chips, or can't afford to attend an event because the ticket prices are beyond their means, then it is a controversy. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 just because you dislike your edits being modified and removed doesnt make it revert warring. I suggest that you need to stop thinking that just because you think something is revert warring doesnt make it so. I suggest you read the up what revert warring actually is and what constitutes notability. Sport and politics (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that another piece of text related to the traffic woes was also revert-warred, by the same editor. Any objection to that sentence from anyone else? Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Again that already has a discussion please add your comments to the section on the ZIL lanes. Also how is a US presidents having to take a Walk because he was stuck in traffic relevant to the Olympic games he could have got stuck in traffic regardless. These pieces removed which you have added are all very badly written and highly POV and as for the US politician he is noting to do with the Olympics. Also once again stop taking ownership of what you add. Sport and politics (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Section on 1972 Munich Olympics memorial
I haven't seen a more non-neutral POV on display in Wikipedia for a long time. That's an appallingly biased item. I actually don't think it belongs at all. Some people asked for something out of the ordinary, didn't get it, and now it's a controversy? No. That's just silly. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is very common for the British to mark 5 and 10 year anniversaries, so it would have been in practice to have included a bit, but yeah, not planning one is hardly controversial, especially in light of the seriousness of the 7/7 section. Acroyear (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The section wording can be modified to be more neutral (remove the quotes, etc), but the section itself is absolutely a controversy. The widows of the first and only Olympians to ever be murdered during the games have campaigned for 40 years to be recognized. They have never once had a memorial. In comparison, the 2002 winter Olympics Opening Ceremony had a memorial for the 9/11 victims. The controversy is that the only reason the Munich Massacre victims aren't being memorialized is their Nationality. That the issue was controversial this year is evident in the amount of media coverage it got, the strong opinions on the subject, the amount of common people advocating for the memorial, the divisiveness among the Olympics people (IOC vs London mayor), and the governments an leaders advocating for it.
 * Change the wording if you wish, but the section must stay. It is not silly either, that's deeply offensive to the victims of the Massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:C08:1:164:224:36FF:FEB4:E2F6 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's silly because lots of people ask for lots of out of the ordinary things at the Olympics, and don't get them. We don't include them as controversies. It's political to say that this one should be included. Excluding them all is the non-political path. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How is a memorial for dead Olympians at the Olympics out of the ordinary? I'd say it's very ordinary. When the Georgian luger died in an accident last year, he got a memorial. Having the memorial would have been non-political. Denying it solely because it involves Israelis is political, and racist (or so some say, and some say otherwise). Controversy is measured by the amount of ink spilled on expressing difference of opinion, and this was definitely a controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:C08:1:164:224:36FF:FEB4:E2F6 (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Compared to the other controversies on this list, I say it got a considerable amount of press (except from the BBC, but that's another story). It qualified as a controversy. Also, is there any other "out of the ordinary" request that got as much publicity this year? Name one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:C08:1:164:224:36FF:FEB4:E2F6 (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The controversy in question being "silly" is your personal opinion, and that is fine. Unfortunately, something being "silly" does not exclude it from coverage on Wikipedia. We have lots of articles on lots of silly things. This article exists so we can cover things that deserve coverage without cluttering the main article. Politics do not enter into the equation. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 03:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I like that perspective. This article exists to keep the garbage out of the serious article. I hate controversy content in Wikipedia in general. It cannot exist without presenting POV content. All very unhealthy for a great encyclopaedia. Whether this is important enough is always going to depend on opinion. Whether it's even really a controversy is a matter of opinion. Do what you bloody well want. This article is mostly garbage. Adding your favourite whinge here actually reduces my respect for that issue. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Evan. We cannot deny that the memorial campaign existed, and enough people feel it was a controversy and referred to it as such in the media to merit it's inclusion on this list of other, equally arguable but ultimately existent controversies. I am satisfied.


 * HiLo, I have to admit that I am puzzled as to what exactly you think Wikipedia is supposed to be. The fact is that everything in this world is potentially controversial. Controversy exists; it is part of life on this planet and is just as entitled to coverage as anything else. POV has nothing to do with it; by your logic, should we even acknowledge the existence of opinions? What about the people that hold them? (The "N" in "NPOV" stands for "neutral", by the way, not "no".)


 * If your complaint were about the way the content was being presented, I could understand. But you're actually effectively claiming that NPOV prevents us from mentioning anything on which anyone has ever expressed an opinion. Hey, let's just delete every article except the ones about obscure anime characters. That'll solve the imaginary POV problem for sure! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me what I'm "actually claiming". What you have written is simply wrong. Destroying straw men doesn't win debates. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If that's not what you're saying, then please clarify, as that's all I'm getting out of it. Please explain what kind of negative material we are allowed to include, in your world. Feel free to cite policy when doing so. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 05:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Nah, not playing that game. I have said what I think. Read it ALL again, OBJECTIVELY, as if you have never heard of this issue before. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You have problems communicating with people. I think that is clear, as neither I nor any of the other editors that have expressed bewilderment over your comments are intellectually disabled. You have not cited a single policy or guideline since this discussion began to support your assertion that the Munich controversy should be expunged from the article. If you're not willing to do that, don't be surprised or act indignant when someone calls you on it. I do not care about how you feel or what you think, as Wikipedia is not about how anyone feels or what anyone thinks. When you're ready to make an argument that extends beyond "I don't like it", I'll be ready to listen. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 06:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I gave reasons. You disagreed. How does that demonstrate that I have problems communicating. I have problems agreeing with you, but that's not a crime. Stop taking this so seriously. HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shifting from the personal attacks... I find it unusual to consider, among others, the United States Congress, United States President Barack Obama, United States Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States GOP Candidate Mitt Romney, the Italian Parliament, the Australian Parliament, the Canadian Parliament, the German Parliament, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, and NBC sportscaster Bob Costas as "some people." Their decision not to hold a memorial was also heavily criticized by many of these people, editorial pages of media outlets, etc.  Yes, it's rather controversial that they didn't commemorate the darkest page in Olympics history, despite international requests. It generated much attention. -- Activism  1234  21:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Revert-warring note
If anyone else has noticed that some revert-warring has occured here on the talk page, I have warned the editor in question on their user page. Hopefully, it won't happen again. Cla68 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to fail to grasp what Edit Warring actually is you are now starting to become highly disruptive with your continuous, false and unfounded claims based only on your edits being modified and removed. This is looking like text book WP:Ownership. Sport and politics (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sport and politics, the problem here is that you are reverting cited text without attempting to discuss it. In other words, you are trying to impose your will on the article by fiat.  That is why it is revert warring.  I have not reverted you or anyone else.  I am attempting to discuss the disagreements on the talk page.  This is what you need to start doing instead of revert-warring text you disagree with.  Wikipedia is a collaborative project.  If you will discuss text you disagree with instead of revert-warring over it, then I think you will find that this process works much better.  Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What you are failing to see here is that you have taken total ownership of what you have added using phrases like "my edits" and focusing only on edits you have made. If you refer to this as Revert Warring once more I will report this. This is not revert warring it is you taking total ownership of the edits you have made and getting highly exercised when one of "your" edit is modified or removed. Please ensure you understand what Revert Warring and Article Ownership actually is. The problem with the process is you being disruptive and clogging up the talk pages with spurious claims of revert warring based exclusively on your Ownership of you Edits. Please stop going down this path. Sport and politics (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sport and politics, when someone takes the time to add cited text to this article, they are likely doing so with the intent of improving the information presented in this article, i.e. making the article more informative and complete. When you revert-war those attempts to improve the article, simply because you don't agree with the information, instead of attempting to discuss it first, as you have done repeatedly with this article, then you are impeding progress.  If you disagree with cited text, instead of revert-warring, start a discussion on the talk page.  If the majority of other editors agree with your objection, then you can remove the text and it won't be considered revert-warring.  Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Rational engagement is being lost with you as you are blinded by the fact that you have taken ownership of your Edits. I am now going to be taking this further as you are being highly disruptive now and are still making unfounded claims of revert warring. Sport and politics (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the ins and outs of the content Cla68 you need to be very careful about your accusations. Your suggestions of revert warring are not for the first time without basis in fact - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 01:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Every time I have mentioned revert-warring, I have backed it up with a diff. Wikipedia is a collaborative project.  Disagreements are settled by discussion, not be reverting each other.  At least, that's how it's supposed to work.  Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Undoing edits or removing information is not revert warring. Removing the same text repeatedly is revert warring and that can only occur if the same text is being added multiple times - it takes two to revert war. As far as I can tell discussion has taken place around every subject you've raised and what we have is nothing more than WP:CYCLE - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 09:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverting reliably sourced text without attempting discussion is revert warring and it is something that I decline to participate in, because it is wrong. Now, does anyone object to the text on attendees complaining about the high prices or the sentence on Mitt Romney having to walk to meet the Irish Prime Minister because of the games-caused gridlock? Cla68 (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @User:Basement12 and User:Sport and politics; your definitions of revert warring are incomplete, please read 3RR, specifically A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. This is exactly what Sport and politics did, and therefore violated WP:3RR.  I'd strongly suggest you refrain from this course of action or you will be blocked.  (added emphasis is mine).


 * Not only is this edit warring, but with at least 5 reverts within a 24 hour period User:Sport and politics also violated the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR, and was lucky not to be blocked. I'd strongly suggest you follow User:Cla68's advice and discuss on the article's talk page instead of continuing to edit war.  Neither WP:BRD nor WP:BOLD are justification for edit warring and violating 3RR.  I don't see any civility or wikiquette violation by Cla68, on the contrary, Cla68 has been extremely civil throughout, while Sports and politics has been quite uncivil.  Dreadstar  ☥   21:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

India @ boxing
during the now just finished game against razil the announcement said the loser had 11 points, the official scorecard showed 14. And others said it still dint tally up. Lets keep an eye on this if its seen as a "travesty"Lihaas (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The official website says Brazil 15-14 India. http://www.london2012.com/boxing/event/men-light-heavy-81kg/match=bxm081503/index.html

Judo - Mens 66kg Ebinuma (JPN) vs Cho (ROK)
The decision in the Judo was overturned after the floor judges decided in favour of Cho and the television judges overruled the decision. I think this is the start of the sporting controversies. Sport and politics (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems so. 88.88.163.156 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Source?Lihaas (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Little soon for a source but I'll get one when one appears.Sport and politics (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources 1 2 3 4 and 5 Sport and politics (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also: IJF Statement Itoshiki (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

High prices
Now, does anyone object to the text on attendees complaining about the high prices or the sentence on Mitt Romney having to walk to meet the Irish Prime Minister because of the games-caused gridlock? Cla68 (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I object. As the information on the prices is not a controversy its what you expect prices to do. they were expected to be high during the Olympics inside the Olympic park. also one man who is a US Politician in traffic in London and having to take a walk because he would have been late is sod all to do with the Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The prices are no different to those at any large event/festival and one man having to walk somewhere is entirely irrelevant and not at all worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 11:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 please justify the notability of the information or it has not got relevance or noteworthiness for this article or any article on Wikipedia. Claiming the information has a "reliable source" is not enough as this is not an indiscriminate collection of information and is not a newspaper. Sport and politics (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If a source shows athletes complaining that is by definition controversial. Whether Romney had to walk a foot or a mile or across a country doesnt mean anyhin, however.(Lihaas (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)).
 * The article I used as a source stated that some visitors to London were unable to attend some events even though tickets were available because the prices were beyond their means. Also, the visitors complained about what they felt were exhorbitant prices for souvenirs and local food.  The article provided an example of a local vendor charging double the regular price for fish and chips. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Still it is just your opinion that this warrants being a controversy such as the other stuff which you have tried to get in to the article which is clearly no a controversy. Can you show that this was so unexpected as to constitute being a controversy. Your source is basically just someone complaining the stuff is too expensive. Complaining and controversy are not the same. To say "were unable to attend some events even though tickets were available because the prices were beyond their means". That was always going to happen as no matter what price something is there will always be people who cannot afford it. Also this is not a newspaper and not every single thing which ends up in a newspaper somewhere round the world has an unmitigated right of unchallenged inclusion. Can you demonstrate with multiple reliable world wide sources that the price were "exhorbitant"[sic] as opposed to just being above what was to be expected? The prices were always going to be higher. Fact. It is the way these events work, also it is in London so the prices are higher in general. It is the Olympics and the prices were going to be high for Olympic branded stuff in the Olympic park and host Boroughs, particulaly during the Olympics. This whole section on "rip off prices" is not a controversy it is just complaining not a controversy. BTW the ticketing has been praised for allowing cheap tickets from at as little as £20 and the giving away of tickets to the armed forces and school children in the host London Boroughs. This is far from being a controversy its just complaining, which has not been reflected in the media widely. Sport and politics (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I reckon three quarters of the items in the article fit that description. HiLo48 (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You may not be far wrong there, I was had up for removing some this un-needed information. Sport and politics (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Price gouging is a controversy. Complaining about hight prices wouldnt be. What that restaurant in denmark ranked #1 in the world? Theyre opening shop in London for the duration of the olympics due to renovation in copenhagen and thyve increased prices too.(Lihaas (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)).

Yes price gouging is a controversy and the price gouging by Landlords is adequately covered. The costs of merchandise and food though is not price gouging this is just normal higher pricing during an event. Sport and politics (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversial stoppage in second semifinal of women's epee
The clock was stopped at 0:01 and the South Korean would have won the match when the final second runs out. Play resumed and the clock was stuck. The two fencers registered three straight simultaneous touches and German registered a point on the fourth touch. When play was stopped, the clock was still at 0:01, leading to controversy.

Sources 12 98.227.155.56 (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems good to put in the article to me. -- Activism  1234  22:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added some content with sources doktorb wordsdeeds 05:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Revert warring
Some text I added today appears to have been subject to some edit warring. Here the LOCOG spokesperson's name is reverted, then someone removes the text completely, saying "unde POV pushing and not relevant." First of all, revert warring without discussion is unhelpful, second, since the information was cited to a reliable, independent source (Yahoo! News), how can it be "POV pushing"? Third, I feel it is relevant that the LOCOG promised there would be no flag mix-up, only to have a flag mix-up happen on the very first day of the games, before the opening ceremony had even been held. Any objections to readding that single sentence? Cla68 (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is POV pushing as it is making the whole situation appear worse than it actually is. There has also been no mention of this outside of the one media outlet. If this was widely included in the news reports on the subject then sure add it. Simply putting in the comments of one individual who is not named in the Wikipedia article and making it out as if this person is more important than they actually are is giving it undue weight. Adding it as a blind quote is not what should be on Wikipedia as it is not verifiable. Sport and politics (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly if it's just been removed once that hardly seems like edit warring. Linking the spokesperson's name wasn't needed as it's almost certainly always going to be a red link, that aside the quote did get more widely reported that one source (but not by many) but seems it may have been about mix ups involting national anthems not flags (e.g. ). I'd lean towards not including it based on the sources I've seen so far - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 13:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When someone adds text that is accurately cited to a reliable source, then it is edit warring to revert it without discussion. I hope it doesn't happen anymore with this article. Cla68 (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's rubbish. Its not, not even in the slightest bit edit warring. Just because something has a "reliable source" doesn't guarantee information inclusion, information still needs relevance and encyclopaedic value. The information must not give undue weight to one opinion or argument and must not be just an information dump. The information needs adding in the main text and in good pros in a way which is natural and encyclopaedic. The information as it currently stands does not add encyclopaedic value in its current format and is in danger of adding undue weight as is giving of a greater negative impression. It is also elevating the person who made the comments above the level of importance they are actually holding. 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Its certainly pertinent as it was immediately followed by a gaffe and gives context.Lihaas (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't "immediately" followed. Also what is the justification for elevating the comments of this one individual. Without reasonable justification it is giving the comments by one individual too much weight. Was this individual speaking in an official capacity or were they giving their opinion on the matter. Were the comments given at a press conference or during a prepared statement or just during a casual conversation. There is a need to avoid elevating everything picked up on by the media which is said by individuals. Sport and politics (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well look at their relevant title. It was related, so their comments are gonna be related.


 * Also this shows irrelevance to 012, put it as th e first concern for 2016Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sport and politics, notice that even though I don't agree with your reasoning for revert warring the text I added, I didn't respond in kind by revert warring your revert. Instead, I started a discussion on the talk page which so far shows two editors for and two against the text in question.  Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which means that revert warring with each other gets in the way of resolving differences over article content.  Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly you need to stop referring to this as "revert warring" as it most clearly was not and is starting to get on the borderline of becoming personal by accusing me of engaging in an edit war. Secondly this is not a vote so counting users support on each side in an argument is erroneous. Thirdly the statement attempting to be included lacks encyclopaedic relevance and is highly pejorative. Fourthly the section has now been sufficiently expanded to include a broad coverage of the issue. Finally this is a collaborative project and it appears as if you are trying to bite and are coming across as wanting ownership. Please be more careful when engaging in discussion as you are coming close to being highly uncivil and remember we are all volunteers trying to improve Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Let the policies of Wikipedia be accurately represented. This is a quote from Edit warring: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions..." When one editor reverts another's work a single time it may be the wrong thing to do. That can be pointed out in discussion. But, it is not an edit war without two or more editors repeatedly overriding each other. A disagreement is just a disagreement. Discuss it and try to come to some consensus. Good luck. - Fartherred (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be more helpful to discuss the subject of the disagreement, rather than the disagreement process. However, I tend to agree with S & P that the quote from the LOGOG official is not put into context by the Yahoo article and is unnecessary here. Suffice to say, the fact the flags were mixed up is controversy enough, without rubbing salt into the wounds. Sionk (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

NBC again
As I posted in response to the earlier complaint against NBC, anything like that is specific to one network in one country. (Out of 200 at the Games!) Why do we now have a section about NBC? It's not even the host country. The coverage in my country is crap too, but I wouldn't expect it to be covered here. I will probably get screamed at and shot for calling "US-Centrism!", but why just that country's coverage? HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it a little dodgy too. BUT left it in as NBC is notable for having the global rightsLihaas (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)).

NBC's editing of the opening ceremonies
The page probably should add an entry on the horrible editing of the opening ceremonies by NBC (nevermind the poor commentary like who is Tim Berners-Lee), focusing on the exclusion of the 7/7 memorial moment, Abide with Me (replaced by a rather dull and emotionless interview with Michael Phelps). NBC's going to be getting flack for that for years to come, I think.Acroyear (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's particular to one TV network in one country. Not significant enough for this global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe me, NBC's horrible coverage of the Olympics has been a concern for over 10 years. It probably merits a separate article, but doesn't necessarily fit into this one. Cla68 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the coverage in my country is crap too (Rugby League commentators describing swimming events!), but I wouldn't expect it to crack a mention here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Japan's coverage (where I reside) is uniformly excellent. They often show ALL of the preliminary heats or rounds, not just the ones featuring Japanese athletes (like NBC does with American athletes), and take it easy on the insipid human interest stories and inane interviews.  Japanese networks often like to present a complete story in its natural form and leave it up to the viewer to interpret what they see.  I can imagine the reaction from an NBC producer to suggesting they try to do the same.  Anyway, I agree with you that so far it doesn't merit mentioning in this particular article. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the issue is really the interview, the replacement of the 7/7 with Phelps. For a country that practically prides itself on naming 9/11 every chance it can get, to then turn around and block Americans from seeing memorials to terrorist victims elsewhere really is a big deal.  Perhaps it doesn't belong in this article per-se, but as more commentators weigh in on it after the weekend, it will be a big enough deal to warrant inclusion in the wiki in some form.Acroyear (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While that was poor taste (here the commentators were talking non-stop during that segment), I don't think it ought to be mentioned here.88.88.163.156 (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. Thus is NBC specific. It doesn't involve the IOC directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:C08:1:164:224:36FF:FEB4:E2F6 (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This does not belong on this page it is a americo-centric rubbish and not a widely notable controversy. How one country covers parts of the Olympics is up to them. Its nothing to do with the Olympics or the IOC. Sport and politics (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Faults with the NBC coverage of the Olympics are not germane to the article. NBC coverage is a source of information about what controversies arise in the Olympic games. The reporting itself is not an Olympic controversy any more than the controversy of what to include in a Wikipedia article is Olympic controversy. If the faults in NBC coverage were notable enough to include in Wikipedia, they would be mentioned in NBC News. - Fartherred (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is covered at NBC_Olympics. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's enough discussion for me. I'll take NBC out in this instance.  If someone wants to put description of their coverage back in, I hope to see some supporting discussion.  There is always the possibility that a future mention of NBC coverage will be more germane.  - Fartherred (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Should there not also be a see also section linking to the above page?Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Empty seats
Would it be apt to add this if the trend continues? Of course, turnout will be much higher in last few days (Tennis at Wimbledon for instance) but the ticketing system has been a shambles right from the off. 50,000 football tickets withdrawn and protests from Counter Olympics Network yesterday over free tickets for sponsors. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you find a quality, reliable source covering this as a controversy? HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The BBC isn't a reliable source? Cla68 (talk) 08:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sky is also reporting on it.88.88.163.156 (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be the top story on several reliable sites. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will add something on it if no one else does first. Cla68 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it, it's definately news. 2001:C08:1:164:224:36FF:FEB4:E2F6 (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of things in the news that aren't really controversies. HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree this was a news story not a controversy the whole story has now vanished from the media circus. Sport and politics (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Lebanon asked for a screen put up so they wouldn't have to see Israeli athletes - and the Olympics commitee gave them one
shouldn't this be in the article?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamDavid (talk • contribs) 12:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

whoops forgot to sign AdamDavid (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * proper link AdamDavid (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * tOUGH. It is unusual though...and per the title it could be a "concrn"(Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)).


 * Looks like an unsubstantiated rant, ignore it until neutral mainstream news sources also report it. Roger (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some other refs (some editors don't count IsraelNationalNews as an RS) - http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=279172
 * http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4261350,00.html
 * Even Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/oly-judo-isr-day-idUSL6E8IRMGW20120727
 * These are all reliable. Whether it's important to add, I don't know.
 * It seems unusual for IOC to cave in to another team's demands over this. -- Activism  1234  14:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, it doesn't seem very unusual, and the Israeli team didn't seem to think much of it. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/27/oly-judo-isr-day-idUSL6E8IRMGW20120727 AdamDavid (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its pretty ridiculous that people not liking Jews is considered normal AdamDavid (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether it is actually a controversy or not, at least it is now better sourced. We need to keep in mind the literal meaning of the word "controversy" - an incident or occurrence only becomes a controversy when two or more opposing sides actively engage in a dispute about it. Me saying "Your mamma's fat" isn't a controversy if you agree with me that she really is obese. It only becomes a dispute if you slug me for insulting your mother and escalates to a controversy only if we get sent to the principal's office for fighting. Roger (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If anyone cared enough to argue about this, then it would be a controversy, but as you said, right now it seems like an incident, not a controversy. AdamDavid (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. On another note though, if we're discussing Israel, it may be interesting to discuss here whether to include Iran's comments that they won't play against Israeli teams. This is noteworthy, since the IOC heard it and specifically made a point of saying anyone who does this will be disqualified. A few days later, the news reported that Iran said they would play against Israel. Iran immediately denied it, and said it was a mistranslation.  Again, not sure if it's enough to be a controversy.  More than happy to supply references if anyone wants. -- Activism  1234  15:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's perhaps worth remembering you can't prove what someone is thinking. If I was the Lebanese contigent, I would have simply asked for a screen because seeing the other atheletes training was causing too much distraction. Perhaps the reason was because they were Israeli atheletes, but unless the Lebanese tell anyone, which if they are smart they won't say at least until after their events how can anyone prove their rationale? For the IOC or organisers to deny athletes the right to some privacy and avoiding distractions while training when practicable without causing problems for others would be far more controversial. Unless they can actually prove that the reason they asked for it is because they didn't want to see Israelis which as I said is unlikely unless the Lebanese actually gave this reason. So really what happened here hardly seems surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * like the article said, the IOC had the screens already, so it wouldn't make sense to not let a team use them. and if certain teams don't like Israelis, they are smart to not say so openly. AdamDavid (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, not sure if the section "Status of Jerusalem as capital" is necessary. It talks about the BBC, not the IOC, and is more related to a BBC article or BBC bias article than here, since such wording and biased use of pictures (the latter isn't mentioned, but if it's kept it should be) is found in other BBC articles and profiles as well, and often don't provoke as much outrage simply because they don't get as much attention or importance as a profile for the Olympics. I'd say remove it, but other's opinions are necessary. -- Activism  1234  15:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I had nothing to do with that section, but since you brought it up, pretty much every country in the world gets to choose its capital and where foreign embassies are located - Israel has it's capital decided by US presidential veto every 4 or 8 years. More ridiculous facts. AdamDavid (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying you did, I just brought it up here anyway. Do you feel it's more appropriate to make a new section about it? Whether or not a president violates a bill passed by Congress or not isn't relevant to the section. -- Activism  1234  17:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel up to it, the criticism of the BBC page would be a good place to put a section about BBC not recognizing Israel's choice of capital city. And you're right, vetoing the congress bill for 'national security' belongs in an article on Jerusalem or on American-Israeli diplomatic relations. AdamDavid (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That definitely is not an Olympic controversy and doesn't belong on this overcrowded page. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ye Shiwen
I have concerns about this section as it presents the controversy as "did she take drugs", which is sheer BLP speculation, when the actual controversy should be "John Leonard's remarks". ' Ankh '. Morpork  21:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I wholly agree it is just sour grapes form an individual who has shown them self to be unsavoury rather than saying that was a great swim they have turned round and shouted "CHEAT" with no justification except their own made up synthesis. i would remove the whole section due to how slanderous/libellous.defamatory it has the potential to be. Sport and politics (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My preference is also removal compared to the existing paragraph. However, I think that if the paragraph's slant is suitably changed to avoid any implication of veracity to the drug claims, it should be Ok. It was not the performnace that was controversial but the subsequent allegations and this must be accurately conveyed. ' Ankh '. Morpork  21:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic has also come up at the main article talk page. The consensus there is that it's so close to defamation that it probably violates BLP and should not be included unless official doping charges are forthcoming. Roger (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What about structuring the paragraph along the lines of "After Shiwen's exceptional performance in which she..., Leonard controversially claimed..., a claim widely criticised by...who said...? Would this be acceptable? Are you sure there is no way to cover this 'Olympic controversy' in a proper and fitting manner, as this was reported in the media with legal precautions and it would be a pity if it was totally omitted. ' Ankh '. Morpork  22:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You could have a go at rewriting it to avoid the BLP concerns. I think posting a draft here so that it can be discussed is a good idea. Roger (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

IOC upscale accomodations footed by LOCOG
Why is this content considered controversial? It seems pretty logical and normal to me. Why shouldn't they stay there if it meets their needs better? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not familiar with the issue, but looks to me like it's controversial because they're paying from British taxpayer $ for a luxury 5 star hotel for IOC officials who arent participating in the GAmes rather than putting them in the Olympic village or a different hotel. That's what it seemed like from The Japan Times. -- Activism  1234  23:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the relevant quote from the ref.


 * What especially irks is the government's surrender to the unaccountable International Olympic Committee, whose members will not be running, swimming, wrestling, canoeing, riding or engaging in strenuous sports, nor will they be staying in the Olympic village or enjoying the jellied eel delights of the east end. Instead, they are staying miles away in the five-star London Hilton, all expenses paid by the British taxpayer.


 * Asked why IOC officials could not stay in a hotel close to the games, Olympic boss Jacques Rogge declared loftily: "I'm sorry but you will not find the facilities there are in this hotel, conference room, simultaneous translation — this is something only more upscale hotels have."


 * Why do they need interpreters when there are officials, coaches and athletes from every country under the sun? Why not meet in the center of the action?
 * The section can definitely use some clarification, which I'll do my best at.-- Activism  1234  23:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Complaints about IOC officials demanding luxury perks from olympic organizing committees during the games' selection process and during the games themselves have been common for years. I guess it needs a little more research into sources to present the full background and context. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I, for one, could just be overlooking it, but I'd like to know where the facts about LOCOG paying for it (the Japan Times said it was British taxpayer $, and I don't know if LOCOG is from British taxpayer $, but I'd still like a ref saying LOCOG is paying for it), and "LOCOG had previously agreed in securing the games to pay for 1,800 hotel rooms in four and five-star hotels for the IOC's staff" are from. I may be overlooking it in one of the refs, but I just can't find it.  If anyone can find it, it'd be much appreciated. -- Activism  1234  23:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)Plus, it appears that according to the LOCOG article that they are a Private company limited by guarantee, so I'm not sure if public funds were involved. They do work with the publicly-funded Olympic Delivery Authority, but that appears to be for infrastructure rather than operating expenses.  So if private funds instead of public funds paid for the hotel, there shouldn't be a controversy.  If my limited knowledge of this area is incorrect and public funds were used, I can see them being controversial. Thanks in advance for the clarification.  72Dino (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the Japan times, it was from British taxpayer $. "they are staying miles away in the five-star London Hilton, all expenses paid by the British taxpayer."  That's what the reference to the Japan times said.  Now, I can't find in that reference or the Vanity Fair reference mention of LOCOG paying for it or about the 1800 hotel rooms... Again, that can be an oversight, but if others can point me to it that would be better. And if others look it over and can't find it either, then we should remove that part.  [I didn't create the section, I just noticed it and figured I can help out] -- Activism  1234  23:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No comment on its validity, but I distinctly recall this coming up as an issue well before the games started, and so it should be in the 'before the games' section. And yes, he basically said they need to be put up in 5 star hotels because you don't get the facilities they need in lesser hotels, whatever they may be. Conference rooms and such like if I recall correctly. FerrerFour (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree this is another non-controversy masquerading as notable information as opposed to what it actually is and that is just the journalists pen getting carried away with itself. Sport and politics (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you agree about that when FerrerFour wrote "No comment on its validity??" -- Activism  1234  00:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Its an agreement with the general comments in the discussion criticising the inclusion, not one specific users contributions. This is in my opinion journalistic pen running amok.Sport and politics (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah got confused since you indented right below him. Okey dokey thanks for the clarification. -- Activism  1234  01:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Badminton doubles trying to lose on purpose
Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the few genuine controversies and not just a load of journalists letting their pens get carried away or giving too much coverage to silly little things. These people have actually been charged by the governing body of badminton. There needs to be a wide range of sources and some balanced and non sensationalist coverage in this article. The coverage also needs to stick to the point and not ramble. Sport and politics (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whats going on with the re-allottment after DSQ? Apparent controversy in India.
 * It seems the next is from someone within that group to go through in place.
 * See Badminton at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's doubles(Lihaas (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)).

Olympic Cauldron dosses & American Flag Dipped
Just thought that I should mention your missing the "cauldron dossing conterversy" and the "wether or not the American Flag was dipped conterversy" ... I don't have that much Info on them I just know they happened ... mostly from MSN. 98.112.227.137 (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't even understand what you mean by "dossing" or "dipped". So how on earth can this be a "controversy", it looks like another set of journalistic pens getting carried away. Sport and politics (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Effect of travel advice
Regarding these removals (which bizarrely seem to have removed the same section twice, without anyone re-adding it in the mean time), I'd like to say that this wasn't just a single report - the issues were debated over a full news cycle here in the UK. So, as far as showing there was a debate, I don't think it's necessary to provide multiple sources, surely? As for it being undue weight - I'm not that fussed - opinions? FerrerFour (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the deleters - Somewhere in the section there must be an explanation that says A was/is arguing with B about the issue. It takes at least two opposing sides actively "fighting" each other for it to be a controversy. The text as it was simply say "this happened" - it needs to say "A caused this to happen, then B threatend to sue A for the damage to B's business". A controversy is a consequence of a dispute - if there is no presentation of evidence of dispute where is the controvesy? Roger (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree there has to be a demonstration of actual controversy and not just some person complaining. There needs to be actual controversy for their to be a relevance for this article. If it just "this happened" or "so and so complained" as this information is showing itself to be then it is note noteworthy, notable or relevant for inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That seems excessive. The 'other side' is obviously those people/organisations who claimed businesses would see increaded trade due to the Olympics, while also advising non-games visitors to stay away due to anticipated congestion. There doesn't need to be evidence of insults being traded between the two, before the media coverage over the footfall figures etc, becomes evidence of a 'controversy' regarding these claims and advice. FerrerFour (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Its not a controversy it is just a reality. Complaining and controversy are not the same and this is just a few complaints. There does need to be "an other side" as if no one is interested in the gesticulating and complaining then it does not become anything more than just sour grapes and someone being annoyed. Also who are these "people/organisations who claimed businesses would see increased trade due to the Olympics" BBC news ran a well balanced piece which concluded by saying "mass tourism and the Olympics do not mix if you want a smooth running games" (or words to that effect). This is again not a controversy its just a few shop keepers complaining they are not making as much money as their sticky fingers wanted.Sport and politics (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As another of the 'deleters', I would describe it as a commentary, rather than a controversy. The BBC was describing a downturn in trade on the first two days of the event and speculating about its causes. Sionk (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

NBC / Opening Ceremony: US Olympic Banners omitted from montage
During the Opening Ceremonies, just after the camera finished its tour along the River Thames, a montage was shown displaying every Olympic banner in chronological order, generally three at a time. However, the Atlanta '96 banner was excluded. I've heard reports that the LA '84 banner was also excluded. Seems to have been an intentional omission. I don't know whether NBC or London Olympic committee was responsible, and I'm not sure there's been an official statement.

Source: http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2012/07/28/atlanta-la-snubbed-during-london-olympics-opening-ceremony-montage

63.101.88.126 (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not notable outside of the US and again it is just more complaining over something which is not really an issue. There is also no proof the things were omitted and if they were omitted if it was deliberate or accidental. Sport and politics (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Having re-watched the sequence yes the 72 and 96 banners are missing but so is the 36 banner a space is left for them. reasons for the omitance could be anything and this is not a controversy. If it was just 36 which had been omitted would we even be talking about it? Sport and politics (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless a reliable source reports that there was a reason that certain years were omitted and that reason is controversial, it isn't a controversy, it's simply original research. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
This article is getting filled up with wholly not notable, un-notworthy, completely irrelevant and just sheer complaining. There needs to be a discussion on what is an actual "controversy" and what constitutes meriting inclusion. Not all controversies will merit inclusion as the will be centric to just one part of the world and not more widely noteworthy. There needs to be a discussion on this or the article will be in danger of just being a repository of news and complaints. Sport and politics (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's an impossible task, a complete waste of time I would say. Each item must be assessed on its merits, it's the only way inclusion/exclusion debates will be feasible. As for the article just being a repository of news and complaints, that's all it ever will be until some time has actually passed and we can benefit from the 'long view'. FerrerFour (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There though needs to be a basic criteria where information can be just removed as it wholly out of place. Take the inclusion of a man taking a walk because he would have been late. That inclusion of that kind of information must be discourage and basic criteria would stop that kind of information which is wholly unwarranted and with no merit from being included. Sport and politics (talk) 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Additions like Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics are simply reports of something that happens at every Olympics. It will only be significant to the team who, for 8 minutes, thought they had a bronze medal. Surely we don't want every disqualification, points deduction and appeal listed in the article?! Sionk (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Listing every disqualification, points deduction and appeal <> listing every disqualification, points deduction and appeal that affects the the final medal order after competition has ended. And to be pedantic, it was a decision that affected two nations in a negative way, not one. FerrerFour (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless at least two different people/groups/countries/entities are actually arguing/fighting/in dispute about it, it simply is not a controversy. Roger (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So all someone has to do to avoid a controversy in your eyes, is to say 'no comment'? Patently absurd. Life is full of well documented controversies where one side simply denies there's even an issue. Take that Badminton issue, the Chinese players initially declined to say anything - so in your eyes that issue would never have been put on this page until the players were actually disqualified (although even then, how are the Chinese 'arguing'/'fighting' to make this a controversy in your eyes, unless they actually appeal?). When you consider the news coverage it got between those two points in time, it shows how unworkable that definition of a 'dispute' really is. FerrerFour (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What is being missed here is the level of minutiae which is masquerading as controversy is absurd. For something to be a genuine controversy there has to be prolonged and meaningful outrage. The badminton there was prolonged and meaning full outrage which resulted in four pairs being thrown out. The Swimmer from china had not meaningful outrage other than sour grapes so is not a controversy. for things to be included just cos of a complaint is nonsense the whole point is it has to be a genuine controversy where there is dishonesty, manipulation, cheating, deceit, rule breaking, gross misconduct, large scale failings, high levels of offence caused etc. Not a man taking a walk or someone not liking a decision or nit liking the performance of an opponent because they lost.there needs to be sensible perspective here. For example The fencing is a controversy due to the failings by the time keeper and the result being directly affected. The price of food and drink ad merchandise is not a controversy as that is just normal (higher) pricing during an event and is just complaining from those who cannot pay the prices. Sport and politics (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A disqualification is not a controversy unless it is appealed. Appeals are by definition controversies, but whether they are notable or not is open to question.  A controversy is the expression of oppoing views.  What belongs in the article is a notable controversy in the 2012 Olympics.  - Fartherred (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Table tennis
Women's singles final Table tennis at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's singles will need to be added(Lihaas (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)).

In the final the referee caused controversy by disallowing Dang Ning's serves and giving her a yellow and red card resulting in two extra points for the eventual winner in the final set.

Original text from the linked to section.

Unreferenced and just a sporting commentary not a "controversy", this is another example of a non controversy masquerading as controversy, which is just commentary on what happened in the match. Sport and politics (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * JUST finished. Sources will come soon(Lihaas (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)).


 * looking at the final score the penalty made no difference to the final result. This is not a controversy it is just a competitor being disciplined for breaking the rules. Sport and politics (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's wait and see what the sources say shall we, before dismissing things? For perspective, this was a decision that meant the world number three beat the world champion in the gold medal match, so it's clearly not just any old incident. Second, having watched it live, the commentators at least were in no doubt that it affected the contest both as a sporting spectacle, and in their opinion probably also the final result. Her rhythm and concentration was certainly disrupted as she engaged in disputing the decision with officials, rather than playing on. If it turns out the official was wrong, or there is any kind of official complaint, seeing as the lack of translators also seems to have played a part, then I'd say it's a slam dunk for inclusion as a controversial incident. FerrerFour (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * John Macernoe used to shout at umpires and dispute calls all the time and if every time that happened it was listed as a controversy there would not be enough paper in the world. The sign of a good character is dealing with things when they don't go right for you and if this athlete was unable to cope then tough its not a controversy. As for it being a "spectacle" that is a secondary concern the primary concern is for fair sporting competition within the rules. If that's what was being upheld it is not a controversy it is just following the rules, it would have been a controversy if the umpire had allowed the competitor to get away with breaking the rules ad not acting in a fair manner, as that is cheating. This is just a competitor being told to stay in the rules and not being able to cope with being told they are not in the rules. Sport and politics (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If an umpire allows cheating it is still not a controversy until someone disagrees. The controversy is the umpire saying the play was fair someone else saying it was foul.  - Fartherred (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is just though a sporting dispute, when does it then become a controversy because a sporting dispute is not a controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that we have a basic difference in the understanding of the meanings of words. One meaning of controversy is just a discussion in which opposing views are put forward.  Perhaps for this article we want the meaning that includes anger or similar emotional involvement and some persistence in time of the dispute.  For inclusion in the article we would want notability.  - Fartherred (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Sport and politics (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

POV in "Status of Jerusalem as a capital"
I've tagged this section as being possibly in violation of WP:NPOV because of the two sources used one is "honestreporting" whose tagline on their website is "Defending Isreal From Media Bias" which to me sounds like it's not going to be a reliable source. Any opinions are welcome, as unless a more unbiased source is found I'd be inclined to remove it. BulbaThor (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is it even there? It's a BBC controversy, not an Olympic controversy. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed with CheeseStakeholder. More appropriate on article about BBC or BBC bias. -- Activism  1234  22:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Will I get in trouble if I just delete it? CheeseStakeholder (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not with me. I'll congratulate you. HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Same here. Go ahead, it's fine to delete by many editors it seems. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  05:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tis done. BulbaThor (talk) 09:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Boxing: Satoshi Shimizu vs. Magomed Abdulhamidov
I don't think there is any doubt that this should be included, especially now that the AIBA was expelled some of the officials involved http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-blogs/boxing/olympic-boxing-officials-punished-for-controversial-rulings.html Kingmebob4 (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The above sentence does not make sense the AIBA what? Sport and politics (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian and Dutch national anthems
31.46.182.152 (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/oly-fenc-femisb-anthem-idUSL6E8IUFQ820120730
 * http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/07/dutch_national_anthem_sounds_s.php
 * http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/329770

What's the controversy here then and thy does this journalism warrant inclusion? Sport and politics (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Atos
Why no mention of the controversy surrounding Atos sponsoring the games? It has had plenty of publicity:


 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/may/21/paralympic-games-organisers-defend-atos-sponsorship
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/31/disabled-cuts-paralympic-games-atos
 * http://atosvictimsgroup.co.uk/2012/05/22/paralympic-games-organisers-defend-atos-sponsorship-deal/
 * http://legal-aware.org/2012/07/atos-and-dow-the-real-price-of-corporate-sponsorship-of-the-olympics/

G-13114 (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is about the Olympics, not the Paralympics. The issue is already being discussed there. Roger (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Great Britain in football
The story about some footballers not singing "God Save the Queen" is an interesting issue; however someone keeps removing references to the Welsh players and singling out Kim Little for special mention. The references here and here clearly explain that there were two Scottish women players and two Welsh male players who refused to sing, so I don't really understand why one editor feels the need to remove this information (this has been done twice) and single out one player. There may be an argument for not going into detail and listing all the names, but there is no reason to remove half the story. I have restored missing text and, as it stands now, no individual player is mentioned by name, but please do not keep removing references to the Welsh players as it makes it look like it's an issue with only one person and nationality. Thank you.7ofclubs (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The topic is not discussed in this article so please tell us where this edit war is happening? Roger (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The text I have now restored has far tighter and better language as it doesn't use weasel wording like "some". The prose also read better in the version I have restored. The issue is with her national identity so naming Kim Little is justified. Also please remember that not everything in a source warrants inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree on two points here - "some" is not a weasel word, it's neutral. It simply states that not all players were involved. More importantly, however, the section is now skewed as it singles out one player. The references clearly discuss several players who abstained on account of being Welsh or Scottish. The Telegraph article actually focuses on Giggs and has a great big photo of him, but for some reason you want to suppress this and focus on only one of the women players? Seems odd. It misrepresents the issue if you mention one player and one nationality - so either list them all or simply refer to "some players" or "a number of players" or however you think it should be worded.7ofclubs (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The word "some" will then be followed by the following wikimarkup and the phrase "a number" will then be followed by the following wikimarkup  and very rightly as they are vague and encyclopaedic prose. I firmly am of the view it has no place in the article at all. Sport and politics (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am familiar with the tag - a suitable response would then be to insert into the article Kim Little, Ryan Giggs, Ifeoma Dieke and Craig Bellamy, which no doubt you would then go in and delete! However, ff you think this issue has no place in the article at all, then that's a separate issue and it would be more useful to discuss that instead. So far your edits have been concerned with removing only parts of the section which confuses the issue.7ofclubs (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops! I was looking under "During the games" - isn't that where it belongs? Roger (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there could also be an argument for moving it down to "During the games" - I guess it is closely tied with the issues about the GB Team, which is why it appeared further up in the article, but maybe it should move down. What do you think?7ofclubs (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was me, a few days ago, that moved it from 'During the games' to the GB football team section. I can see now there are good arguments for it being in 'During the games', so I've no probs if someone wants to move it back. Sionk (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

From watching the matches, it seemed all the Scottish and Welsh players kept their lips closed. But the news articles certainly mention most of the Scottish and Welsh players by name. They single out Little because she commented on the situation, saying it was a personal decision. Sionk (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, Telegraph article lists several players in this issue. There are other news articles out there which discuss nationality of the other players, so no, I don't agree that the section should single out one player only.7ofclubs (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a controversy then, if it is just her making a personal decision and is not violating any rules, regulations or even the spirit of the games, then it is nothing more than bored journalists pushing their patriotic rubbish on a news article. This is just journalism. Did it have any bearing on the football, no, the team won the group. Also why they "kept their lips closed" is pure original research, it could be they don't know the words it could be they don't like singing, it could be Welsh is their first language and don't speak English of Scottish Gaelic is their first language and they don't speak English. It could be they had glue on their lips and were unable to move them. It could be anything. Sport and politics (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, glue on their lips! Well, very funny but that's a wider issue of what constitutes a controversy. Every single issue mentioned in this article is arguably "just journalism". You could argue that this entire article be deleted, for without journalism there are no controversies! I understand it, you really want the whole issue removed from the article. So could we please calmly discuss whether this issue should or should not be included in the article. Personally I am in favour of mentioning it in a sentence which either mentions all the players or makes a general reference to some players. I believe it has had significant coverage to merit a brief mention as a controversy related to the 2012 games. Does anyone else have a view? 7ofclubs (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are controversies that occur at the Olympics completely independently of their being reported. For example, when Magomed Abdulhamidov was knocked down six times by Satoshi Shimizu  without a standing-eight count judges awarded the win to Abdulhamidov then the AIBA overturned the judges decision.  This would have been a controversy whether reported or not.  The controversies that only occurr in relation to journalists making comments outside the Olympics do not belong in the article.  - Fartherred (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a quote from the male team captain Ryan Giggs which explains the problem. There is obviously a subtle unionist agenda in newspapers like the Telegraph. The whole idea of fielding a GB team was a 'hot potato' so these sensitivities will always be important. Sionk (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Sport and politics - if you remove content, explain your decision in the edit summary. When an explanation is available for the players' silence, it is better to include it, rather than speculate. Sionk (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes this was a "hot potato" issue as to having a team in the first place but its not really a controversy as to weather some bloke sings a song or not. Its just a few bored journalists filling column inches. Sport and politics (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sionk identified it correctly. Up until the Giggs statement, only Little had definitively said she was making a personal choice not to sing, whereas it was still purely press speculation that the others' refusal was them making a deliberate point (bearing in mind no Team GB player is obliged to sing it at this particular tournament). Even with the Giggs statement you still can't really say that their refusal is on a par with Little's, it's still entirely possible that Giggs was talking abstractly, and they weren't singing for entirely benign reasons (very unlikely, but it's not Wikipedia's place to put two and two together and make a black panther salute). FerrerFour (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I'd absolutely go along with that. Thank you for the positive contributions. It's an interesting topic, and I am all for a brief, balanced, neutral and factual mention of it in this article. Looking at it today it seems fine.7ofclubs (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)