Talk:Olympic Games/Archive 3

Genetic Doping
WADA R&D team must search for a way to handle genetic doping.--Filippos2 (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Filippos2, this page is not the place to discuss your opinions on the Olympics. It is for discussing what should be in the article. Prince of Canadat 08:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

there wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.157.65 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The olympic games are now on
This article refrences the FUTURE of the olympics being in Bejing but they have already commenced. Please update. Teamcoltra (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This Site is Impartial
In the politics section it refers to the IOC chairman as autocratic, how would the editor of the article ever know this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.181.241 (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

gender: regarding where women and men compete against each other
today I wanted to briefly look up at which sports men and women compete against each other. I know that in horse-jumping there is no gender differnce (although not 100 percent sure). Maybe one sentence somewhere naming some sports at which women and men compete in same class and naming some where it is not clear why they cannot compete in same class (like the sliding on ice throwing thing, dont know how to name it)

Olympic games spirit
Olympic games nowadays are having little to share with ancient Olympic games. Then, the ideals were the cotinos and they made piece with each other, nowadays the ideals are a large amount of money and nobody cares about wars and violence. Only money makes the world go round. Scientists, criminals are all together with priests and athletes seeking for money. This is not the spirit of Olympic games.--Filippos2 (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2008 (U Insert non-formatted text here TC)


 * And? That is all a point of view. Our goal is neutrality and verifiable facts. Prince of Canadat 08:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

With athletes like Jonhson?--Filippos2 (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If we can leave something for the next generation at least we can revive Olympic armistice. --Filippos2 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Violence
This assertion is biased and has no source, "There has also been lots of violence caused by tibetans during the Beijing Olympic Games Torch Relay." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.112.76 (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC) The Germans ate stimulants in 2008 Olympics !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.22.176.50 (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I really want to know what the word olympics means because it has really been bothering me for quite a while. Hope it's no problem for you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubby 147 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Iraq
Iraq also choose to Boycott the 1976 Olympics along with Guyana these were the only TWO non-African state.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.170.211 (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixing up the page: suggestions
OK, so we've got a Featured Article Review here. It doesn't have much, but it's a start. I've started doing stuff to the page, but it needs a lot of work. Here's just a list of ideas/suggestions:
 * 1) CITATIONS!!! Just find some if you can!
 * 2) More useful, fair use/uncopyrighted images.
 * 3) Re-organization of the sections/subsections. This might require some finagling.
 * 4) Olympic Games and its subheadings should be moved to a section called Olympic problems or something of the like, and add in doping, etc, so that there are no subheadings for that section anymore.
 * 5) Opening/Closing ceremonies sections moved into one single section Ceremonies and taken out from under the Symbols section.
 * 6) Maybe do something with the Amateurism/Professionalism section.
 * 7) Olympic Games - this needs an explanation of how nations bid for the games and how they're chosen. Maybe some stats....
 * 8) Change "de Coubertin" to just "Coubertin" if used alone, per this
 * 9) Re-write the introduction again. I tried it, but I don't think it works. Maybe a different approach would be helpful....


 * In general, the article is in good shape, it just needs some re-organization.

→ &ensp; J A R E D &ensp;(t)&ensp; 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC); 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

USA Olympics
Am I wrong there's no US Olympics article? Seriously? I would think the UK and other European countries, China, Russia, and the USA would all have articles dedicated to their Olympic history and important coaches like Bela Karolyi. Right now it's a bunch of disparate loose information tied together by nothing. It's like articles on all the players of a sports league but no team articles. Why don't we just have articles on every Chicago Bear or Manchester United player but no Chicago Bears or Manchester United franchise/team articles? Quadzilla99 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is what you're asking for: All nations (should) have a "Nation at the Season Olympics" article where nation is the nation's name and season is either Summer or Winter (e.g. United States at the Summer Olympics, Australia at the Winter Olympics, Australia at the Summer Olympics). Now under discussion is whether these should be merged into one article, "Nation at the Olympics." There are already some of them (United States at the Olympics, Great Britain at the Olympics) but we really don't know if they are necessary. You can join the discussion here on WP:OLYMPICS. → &ensp; J A R E D &ensp;(t)&ensp; 15:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok I redirected USA Olympics, U.S.A. Olympics, US Olympic Team, and U.S. Olympic Team (previously non-existent pages) to United States at the Olympics. Quadzilla99 16:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC). there's to much work for us.

Re: Opinions on the success of the revival of the Olympic Games in 1859, 1870, 1875
Opinions about the success or a failure of any revival have no place in an encyclopaedia. Besides how can anybody consider the Olympic Games that were held in Athens in 1859, and 1870 as a failure.

Firstly, the 1859 Olympic Games was the first modern international Olympic Games. It had Greek athletes. It had athletes from the Ottoman Empire. It had athletic events comparable to those held in ancient times. It had medals. It had Olympians. It was a success.

Secondly, the 1870 Olympic Games was the first modern international Olympic Games to be held in a stadium. The only country in the world to have an athletics stadium in the 19th Century was Greece. I'll say that again for the hard of hearing. The only country in the world to have a bonafide, refurbished ancient Olympic Games stadium in the 19th Century was Greece. Greece was the first country in the world to host a bonafide Olympic Games in a stadium in the 19th Century. And guess what? Greece was also the second and the third country in the world to host a bonafide Olympic Games in a stadium.

What is even more interesting is that there was no stadium at the Paris 1900 side-show that was called an Olympic Games. To be be perfectly honest, if the International Olympic Committee did not recognise them as Olympic Games they would not be worthy of the name by anybody elses standards.

Then ofcourse they build a temporary stadium for St Louis in 1904.

And guess what? The first Olympic Games to have a proper bonafide Olympic stadium in the 20th Century once again was Greece at Athens in 1906.

Is that so hard to accept. Does it hurt the pride of the rest of the world to accept that. That small country called Greece had the first modern international Olympic Games and it had the first bonafide purpose-built Olympic stadium.

Please elaborate what success or failure means when you use those words. When David C. Young uses them he is referring to the fact that the Olympiad was not maintained. He is not saying that the Games themselves were not a success. Don't take quotations out of context. Don't quote opinions. Surely, that

Headline text
Also, take a closer look 1859, 1870, 1875, 1896, 1906, 2004

Years in which the Olympic Games were hosted in Athens. Does that make every other city that has hosted the Olympic Games a failure?

Vandalism In the Revival Section (or Who Really Revived the Olympic Games in Modern Times?)
I stumbled across vandalism within the revival section on this page. Data has been erased and i am not sure what to replace it with. If anyone could correct the problem, please do so ASAP! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homsar727 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

The vandalism was yours sir. By deleting the historical facts you have perpetuated the false version of modern Olympic history that is told to us by the International Olympic Committee. The additions are all referenced. David C. Young's book: "The Modern Olympics - A Struggle for Revival" is very clear on all the facts.

The first modern Olympic Games to be held in a stadium was held in Athens at the Panathenian stadium in 1870. This was not a minor event. This was not a national event. It was a major event that involved the refurbishment of an ancient Olympic stadium. It was an international event that involved participants from Greece and from the separate Ottoman Empire.

Anybody that denies the above facts is in cahoots with the fake version of modern Olympic history touted by the International Olympic Committee.

The Athens 1896 Olympic Games could not have happened without the Panathenian Stadium. It was the experience of the Greeks in arranging three earlier Olympic Games in 1859, 1870, and 1875 together with the experiences of Dr William Penny Brookes who organised a national Olympic Games in the United Kingdom at Crystal Palace in 1866 that made Athens 1896 possible.

If you want to criticize the revival initiated by Evangelis Zappas then I suggest that you take a good look at Paris 1900 which had no stadium. If you are looking for chaos then take a good look at St Louis 1904.

Take a good look at the side-shows hosted at the 1900 Exposition, the 1904 World's Fair and the 1908 Franco-British Exhibition before criticising or reducing the importance of the dedicated athletics Games held in Athens in 1859, 1870, and 1875. The Games in Athens were not side-shows. These Games were dedicated athletic Olympic Games and a true revival of the ancient Olympic Games.

What were you expecting to happen in 1859, 1870, 1875 in any case? These were the first modern international Olympic Games to be held since the ancient Olympic Games.

Baron Pierre de Coubertin did not pay for the building of the Panathenian stadium. Nor did he pay for the building of the Zappeion (named after Evangelis Zappas) that was used for the fencing events in 1896, and as the first Olympic Village (for the Hungarian team) in 1906.

Stop ignoring Evangelis Zappas. He was the true founder of the modern Olympic Games. And Dr William Penny Brookes was the true founder of the modern Olympic Movement. Give credit to the Baron where it is due. The Baron founded the International Olympic Committee, he did not found the modern Olympic Games, he did not organize the first international Olympic Games, and since he borrowed most of Dr Brookes ideas he did not found the modern Olympic Movement either since Dr Brookes organised the first major Olympic Games to be held outside of Greece in 1866. It may have been a national Olympic Games but so what. The event was a prototype for all future Olympic Games that were held outside of Greece. --Nipsonanomhmata 19:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I did take a look a book titled "A Brief History of the Olympic Games" written by the same author, David Young. And in the preface he states "The modern revival was a slow process wherein a few Greeks and Dr. Brookes advocated the idea of an Olympic revival for decades, but never fully succeeded.  A sporadic series of modern revivals in each country attracted little interest or support. Yet after the aging Brookes told the young Frenchman of their efforts, Coubertin achieved what they had not."  Those are the authors own words.  The same author that wrote the book you are using as a source.


 * Should Zappas, Brookes, Wenlock, and the rest be ignored? No, I don't think so. But first you must hold back from wholesale deletions and editing and discuss BEFOREHAND at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics page.  We can hash this out there and put in the appropriate edits.  Perakhantu 19:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "A Brief History of the Olympic Games" has some content pertaining to the modern revival but it is a brief and generic overview. The book is about half the size of "The Modern Olympics - A Struggle for Revival".


 * What exactly does "never fully succeeded" mean? Besides that is an opinion and not a fact. The fact is that the first modern international Olympic Games took place in 1859. The first modern international Olympic Games to be held in a stadium took place at the Panathenian stadium in 1870. That so called "failed revival" was a step that was used by the IOC's revival. That doesn't give the IOC any right to ignore that the first modern international Olympic Games took place in Athens in 1859.


 * Greece was still recovering from a war with the Ottoman Empire, and there was always the danger of more war, and it was difficult to sustain a revival but that doesn't mean that the revival failed or did not happen. It does not mean that it can be ignored and swept under the carpet. The IOC used the Panathenian stadium in 1896. A stadium that they could not have used if Zappas had not refurbished it the first time around. And if they had refurbished it the way that Zappas had asked them to and given them the money to do then a second refurbishment would not have been necessary.


 * So ... what do we call Evangelos Zappas ... the man who was the first to revive the Olympic Games from ancient times ... the man who paid for the revival out of his own pocket ... a man who paid for the organisation ... the medals, the prizes... except for the prize donated by Dr Brookes ... do we ignore him because he died before his dream could be realized despite all the money he left to make it happen.


 * Do we just say "Baron Pierre de Coubertin founded the modern Olympic Games" but we've never heard of Evangelos Zappas?


 * That is not fair or right or just.


 * Zappas made the first modern international Olympic Games happen. Give him recognition for it. Mention his name.Nipsonanomhmata 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreover, not only do you guys ignore Zappas but you then add insult to injury by talking about the Cotswold Olympicks which have never been Olympic-like and have no connection whatsoever with the Olympic Games. Then you add further insult to injury in promoting the false history promoted by the Wenlock Olympian Society about how Dr William Penny Brookes founded the modern Olympic Games in 1850. Get real! These Games were sports days with very few Olympic-like events before the 1860s. Most of the Olympic-like events were adopted after the revival of the Olympic Games in Greece. The first serious effort by Dr Brookes to make an Olympic Games happen was what he organised for Crystal Palace in London in 1866. You never talk about 1866 which was a national Olympic Games. Instead you talk about the local events sports days that involved typical sports day events and were neither Olympic in name or in nature. They were called "Olympian Class" between 1850 and 1858 then "Wenlock Olympian Games" from 1859. Don't believe what the Wenlock Olympian Society says ... instead read what Dr Brookes himself wrote in their archives. Dr Brookes founded the Wenlock Olympian Society in 1860.


 * Oh yes ... and the first person on the honor roll of that society was Petros Velissariou (or Velissarios) who happened to be from Smyrna in the Ottoman Empire (which was outside Greece). So the first person on the honor roll was one of the first international Olympians. Nipsonanomhmata 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * For every "Coubertin achieved what they had not" there is a "Zappas achieved what they had not" and a "Brookes achieved what they had not". Using quotes of opinions of who achieved what is a waste of time. What exactly did Coubertin achieve that they had not? Did he maintain the Olympiad without interruption? No he didn't. So Young must mean that the Olympic Games that the IOC presides over is still going today. But the Olympic Games that the IOC presides over used the stadium that Zappas refurbished, and used twice for Olympic Games before the IOC, for its first Games. So "Zappas achieved what Coubertin and Brookes had not". But Brookes held the first national Olympic Games outside of Greece with events adopted from the Athens 1859 Games. So "Brookes achieved what Coubertin and Zappas had not". Sorry Prof. Young. I do love your books. But that particular opinion about "achieved what they had not" is pointless. Who are you trying to appease? Nipsonanomhmata 03:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Place Names
I changed the link from "Turin" to "Turin|Turin (Torino)" for the benefit of those who only know the city from the publicity of those games. Are there any other host cities which might also cause confusion between the name they were internationally known by for the Games and those they are usually referred to by in English? -Nentuaby 19:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Amateurism and gentlemen
I removed a sentence from the following text:


 * In Coubertin's vision, athletes should be gentlemen. Initially, only amateurs were considered such; professional athletes were not allowed to compete in the Olympic Games. The exception to this were the fencing instructors, who were indeed expected to be gentlemen.

Although the sentence about the fencing instructors has been in the article for about two and a half years, it doesn't seem meaningful. As I read the paragraph, it said that Coubertin expected athletes to be gentlemen, with the exception of fencing instructors, who were expected to be gentlemen -- which is not an "exception". If this was supposed to mean something like "The only exception to the requirement of amateurism was that athletes were allowed to compete in fencing even if they had received payment for working as fencing instructors", then that would need to be sourced and rewritten as such. --Metropolitan90 05:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that the sentence *meant* to say what you rephrased it as, since there were events for professionals in fencing even while all other sports were strictly limited to amateurs. As for a source for that, there should be plenty out there and someone would just have to dig to find the most authoritative one.  For instance, the Australian Olympic Committee says here that
 * An interesting aside is that there were events for professionals in the early Olympics. Pierre de Coubertin, the champion of amateur sport, made a concession for professors of military fencing. The professional events had disappeared by London 1908.
 * -- Jonel | Speak 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That is an interesting fact and probably should be included in the article as rewritten and sourced. --Metropolitan90 15:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put a clearer edition of the sentence back in, with the AOC source. Feel free to hack at the wording and such.  -- Jonel | Speak 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Typos in "Amateurism" section.
"in the development many team sports". Please insert missing "of".

"he was made a Member". Capitalize "He" (it starts a sentence), uncapitalize "Member".

-- 85.183.215.251 20:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done so. Thanks for the heads-up! -- Jonel | Speak 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

el
El is NOT FA! plz change it 89.139.248.253 10:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please try to be a bit more descriptive (it took me a while to figure out what you were saying). If you mean that Ολυμπιακοί Αγώνες is not a featured article (which I think is what you're saying), then I've fixed our link. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A smallish error...
At the bottom of the Politics section, there's a phrase which reads, "a heroes welcome." I believe that should be "hero's." If anyone can fix that (or correct me; I'm hardly infallible when it comes to grammar.) I would appreciate it. :)

Mistake
"Most Olympic Games have been held in European and North American cities; only a few games have been held in other places, which were still limited to eastern Asian cities."

Since when have Melbourne and Sydney been "eastern Asian" cities? Am removing the last part of the sentence and connecting the remainder with the next sentence, which basically says the same thing (That South America and Africa have never hosted), only more clearly and less... wrongly. --Lode Runner 08:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Olympic Ceremonies / Opening / formula
This section states that "Since Adolf Hitler at both the Garmisch Partenkirchen Winter Olympics and at the Berlin Summer Olympics – both in 1936 – the Openers have unswervingly stuck to this formula".

This is not true. George W. Bush did not stick to it, but opened the Salt Lake City Games "on behalf of a proud, determined and grateful nation", which was criticized internationally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tilman123 (talk • contribs) 14:15, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

IOC medal tallies

 * "The IOC does not publish lists of medals per country, but the media often does..."
 * "The IOC medal tally chart is based on the number of gold medals for country..."

Seems to be a contradiction here. Does the IOC publish medal tallies, or doesn't it? Mtford 03:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This section should also point to the All-time Olympic Games medal count article. AaRH

Style for referring to Olympic Games
Example:
 * 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona
 * 1992 Summer Olympics of Barcelona

I don't know if this has ever been discussed, but I prefer "of" over "in" because lots of events are not competed in the city in question, but in some relatively nearby cities/towns. This makes "he won gold at the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona" factually wrong if the event was not actually held in Barcelona. Technically, "he" did not win gold in Barcelona, but in some other place at those Olympics. Using "of" instead does not make it factually wrong. Comments? wjmt 23:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just to be on the record, because it looks like its about 6 months too late, but basically, both forms should probably be avoided, if possibly. It makes more sense to switch it around and say:


 * 1992 Barcelona Olympics; or
 * Barcelona Olympics of 1992; or
 * Barcelona Olympics in 1992


 * Perhaps that makes more sense? Jared   (t)  &ensp; 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the style of the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, but then that begs the question of the title of all the articles for each Games: some just say "1920 Summer Olympics", others are listed as 1992 Barcelona Olympics. Should there be a standardized format for every Olympics in the article titles? Hires an editor (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the template Olympic Games, you will see that all articles of this nature are named "YEAR Season Olympics". This is our standard formatting, as used by the Olympics WikiProject. Yes, some links may say 1992 Barcelona Olympics, but that should redirect itself to the proper name, 1992 Summer Olympics. (Both links should lead you to the same page.) Jared   (t)  &ensp; 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tally of Host Cities
Just before the list of cities that have hosted the Olympics (near the bottom of the page) it states that "In 2012, London will become the first city to have hosted the Olympic Games three times." However, the list clearly indicates that Athens has already hosted the games 3 times. Someone might like to correct this error.


 * I tried to address it. The IOC doesn't include the 1906 games in their official statistics, so that's clearly what's going on here. -- Jao (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The tally is not continuously: Kiel-Schilksee is mentioned in 1936 and 1972 as the hosting city of the sailing events, but what is with Meulan-sur-Seine/Le Havre (1900), Ryde/Hunter's Quay (1908), Nyhäshamn (1912), Ostende/Amsterdam (1920), Meulan-les-Mureaux/Le Havre (1924), Durgerdam/Zuidersee (1928), Bay of San Pedro (1932), Torquay (1948), Harmaja (1952), Port Philip Bay (1956), Santa Lucia [Bay of Napoli] (1960), Enoshima (1964), Acapulco (1968), Portsmouth Harbour [Kingston/Ontario] (1976), Tallinn (1980), Long Beach (1984), Pusan (1988), Savannah (1996) and finally Agios Kosmas (2004)?

Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good point – not to mention all the cities that have hosted the soccer competitions. Does Kiel have a more official host city status, for some reason? -- Jao (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not that I remember! Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then should we add in the Netherlands for 1920? After all, 2 sailing races were held in the Netherlands instead of Belgium in that year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The dog2 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Hong Kong hosting the equestrian events should be included. To set a few things straight, I do not deny that Hong Kong is part of China. However, it is true that they are under different NOC's and send separate teams to the Olympics. Hong Kong also has a separate page for the equestrian events, which shows that the Hong Kong government and NOC does play some role in the event. While I agree that the NOC's of Hong Kong and China work much more closely than that of Australia and Sweden or Belgium and the Netherlands, they are still separate NOC's for now until at least 2047. -- The dog2 (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that's a given. In the Olympic context, it doesn't matter whether Hong Kong is under the jurisdiction of the government of the People's Republic of China or not. What matters is whether it is under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Olympic Committee or not, and clearly it is not. -- Jao (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Stockholm/Melbourne in 1956 was unique because there were two Games organizing committees, two sets of opening and closing ceremonies, two official reports, etc. Including venues outside the main host city for any other Games is misleading and leads to clutter and confusion in this table. It also happens almost every Games for football and sailing, so there isn't anything special about those instances. I also note that the contemporary IOC sources (like the medal database), show "Melbourne/Stockholm" for 1956 but do not show more than one city name for any other Games. If they show "Beijing/Hong Kong" once the 2008 medals start to get added to the website, then we should change this article to include Hong Kong, but otherwise, the current version most accurately represents the WP:reliable source for this article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. I had assumed the Hong Kong NOC would be involved when events are carried out in their territory, but indeed there seems to be nothing to prove that. Same for 1920, by the way. On a side note, isn't there (now) a rule saying that the Games are to be held in one country? I remember this was recently mentioned as a problem for a possible joint Trondheim/Östersund bid for the Winter Olympics. -- Jao (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a separate web-site for the equestrian events in HKG but not for the football events. I would think that the HKG NOC plays a part in organising despite not having a separate opening and closing ceremony or there wouldn't be an entirely separate web-site with a different domain. HKG is part of China but under the terms of the handover from the British, HKG is to send a separate team to the Olympics until at least 2047, though naturally, the NOC's of CHN and HKG would have much closer co-operation than of AUS and SWE. Of course, for political reasons, the PRC government won't allow the games to be called Beijing/Hong Kong 2008 for fear that it would lead to some sort of "Hong Kong Independence" movement. The dog2 (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Though the Hong Kong NOC may be involved in running the equestrian events, that is the only similarity between 2008 and 1956. As I just added to the main page, the IOC website's 2008 page only mentions Beijing (unlike 1956 which is "Melbourne/Stockholm"); that is the most reliable source as the IOC is outside the control of Chinese authorities (though Chinese influence is very much possible).  Rule 35.1 of the Olympic Charter merely states all events must be held "in the same country", *NOT* in the same NOC's territory; though they're usually the same, China is obviously an exception.  Also, though I haven't found the references yet (I added it as a hidden comment just in case), Stockholm had to bid for the 1956 equestrian competition, and had its own torch relay and opening & closing ceremonies, all just like any other Olympic city; Hong Kong has none of that.  Thus, Hong Kong should *NOT* be listed as a co-host city.  --RBBrittain (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chinese government definitely has a significant influence over a IOC. Why do you think Taiwan cannot use its flag and national anthem? But I don't wish to be drawn into an edit war. I'll leave your edit as it is. The dog2 (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I expressly allowed for "Chinese influence" (direct quote except for emphasis) at the IOC, which covers the Chinese Taipei situation among others (including perhaps the Beijing Olympics themselves). That is different from Chinese control; China does not control the IOC (it's an international body), thus the IOC website is the most reliable source.  My point stands:  Except for Stockholm in 1956, which had all the accoutrements of a full-blown Olympics sans only the non-equestrian events (I later found the Stockholm Games' official report as a reference) and was held halfway around the world from the main Summer Games, *NO* city has ever been recognized by the IOC as a "co-host" alongside the official host city, even if a major event was held there.  --RBBrittain (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There are too many footnotes in this section. Obviously, the Games in London, 2012 are not canceled due to WWII. Nor were the 1960-1980 Games canceled due to WWI! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.50.10.102 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

National Anthem?
"The flags are all raised while the national anthem of the gold medalist's country plays." The USA didn't have a national anthem until 1931. When did the playing of the anthem become part of the medal ceremonies, and what did they do before then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.36.128 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC) 13:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)13:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.114.245 (talk)


 * It's hard to say when, but the fact that there wasn't one at the time of the 1904 Summer Olympics (St. Louis), the only U.S. Olympics before 1931, but one was designated a year before the 1932 Winter (Lake Placid) and Summer Olympics (Los Angeles), suggests the importance of a national anthem may have grown between 1904 and 1932--though the article on "The Star-Spangled Banner" suggests Ripley's Believe It or Not! and John Philip Sousa had more to do with its being named the national anthem than did the Olympics. --RBBrittain (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

China smells like eggs too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.179.82 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Medals per country section
Includes this: "Since 1996, the only countries that have appeared in the top 10 medal tallies for summer Olympics have been the Russian Federation, United States, China, France, Germany, Australia and Italy." * The list of countries only includes 7 countries. The list my definition would need at least 10. * In 2004, Japan (6), South Korea (9), and Great Britain (10) were in top 10 -- http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/athens2004 * Netherlands and Cuba were in top 10 in 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Summer_Olympics_medal_count * Ukraine was in top 10 in 1996. Thus, sentence I think should be, "Since 1996, the only countries that have appeared in the top 10 medal tallies for summer Olympics have been the Russian Federation, United States, China, France, Germany, Australia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Great Britain, Netherlands, Cuba, and Ukraine."

"Since 1994, the only countries that have appeared in the top 10 medal tallies for winter Olympics have been Norway, the Russian Federation, the United States, Canada, Germany, Austria, South Korea, Switzerland, France and Italy." * Switzerland, Netherlands were in top 10 in 2006 http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/torino2006/medals * Finland in 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Winter_Olympics_medal_count * Japan, Netherlands in 1998 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Winter_Olympics_medal_count * Sweden in 1994 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Winter_Olympics_medal_count Thus I think the sentence should be "Since 1994, the only countries that have appeared in the top 10 medal tallies for winter Olympics have been Norway, the Russian Federation, the United States, Canada, Germany, Austria, South Korea, Switzerland, France, Italy, Switzerland, Netherlands, Finland, Japan, and Sweden."

- miles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.49.5 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Much more plausibly, the section attempts to list the countries that have appeared in all top 10 medal tallies – I think it managed to do this until an anonymous user added South Korea, Switzerland and France in January. Of course, it doesn't say this, but I think that's a typo, which could be easily addressed. I have greater trouble finding a reason for the seemingly arbitrary choices of 1996 and 1994 as start years for this exercise. -- Jao (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is that 1996 and 1994 represented the first Games at which the current set of NOCs "stabilized" (e.g. we had the Unified Team and Czechoslovakia in 1992, and two Germanys in 1988). It makes logical sense, but is perhaps original research.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I'm pretty sure your guess is correct. -- Jao (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This section should also point to the All-time Olympic Games medal count article. Djk20 (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

article currently states "The IOC does not publish lists of medals per country, but the media often do." http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/95A/GL0000000.shtml has a table that includes "total per country." this is the official (so it claims) "The Official Website of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games August 8-24, 2008." this site may/may not be an "official" site sanctioned by the IOC but i suspect many wiki readers to consider it as such. i don't really care. but if site not "official" IOC, perhaps sentence in article needs reworking to the effect - "The IOC itself does not publish lists of medals per country, although official host-city committees (and their websites) have and the media often do."68.173.2.68 (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To add to the comments immediately above, I suspect that the IOC is guilty of ambivalence towards medal tables. The IOC website (http://www.olympic.org) cites the beijing2008.cn site as being the official site and even provides a link on its home page. Following that link reveals a country by country standings table. I don't see how the IOC can be claimed not to publish lists of medals per country when it provides a link labelled official website to a page which does publish medal tables. 78.147.150.126 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Symbols section
In an update on 7 April 2008, the author states: "On April 7, 2008, for the first time in history, the Olympic Flame was extinguished in Paris, due to protests against the host nation - China.[40]" This is not factual. The torch flame is routinely extinguished; often on purpose and sometimes accidentally. It is re-lit from a flame that is kept separate from the public relays. The cited news article does not make any reference to any "historical" snuffing of the flame, and in fact mentions the official flame. A good addition to this article would be a description of how the flame is transfered between cities and countries and how the torch relays are just the public "spectacle". Rand104 (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A further example of just how untrue the "first time in history" statement is, refer to the wikipedia article on the Olympic flame at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Flame —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rand104 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doping Death
"'The first and so far only Olympic death caused by doping occurred in 1960. At the cycling road race in Rome the Danish Knud Enemark Jensen fell from his bicycle and later died. A coroner's inquiry found that he was under the influence of amphetamines.'"

Surely this is POV? There had to have been other cause factors in this death. Cyclists fall all the time, and sometimes die from their injuries. I suggest the following.

"'The first, and so far only, Olympic death in which doping was a cause factor occurred in 1960.'"

Ideally, that would be backed up by a reference.

--Tedd (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Section on drug use
Having 2 or 3 athletes singled out in this general article on the Olympics, when there are many instances of drug use, seems questionable under the BLP policy. IMO. Comments please. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Olive or Laurel
QUOTING ARTICLE: "the victor would have not only the prestige of being in first place but would also be presented with a crown of olive leaves."

The article Laurel wreath says that laurel leaves (bay leaves) were used as a symbol of victory.

Is there any way to decide this? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense assertion
The following statement makes no sense "Since 1996, the only countries that have appeared in the top 10 medal tallies for summer Olympics have been the Russian Federation, United States, China, France, Germany, Australia and Italy." At least ten countries must have appeared in the top ten list. This list only has seven. If it is intended to mean,  these seven countries have appeared in the "top ten" list for each Olympic Games since 1996,   then it should be reworded.Eregli bob (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See above. I had assumed this had been addressed by now, but apparently not. -- Jao (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

History
There is an article entitled History of the modern Olympics.

It is informal and whimsical. It doesn't have much more history than is in this article.

Do we need the history article?

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We may at some point want a separate history article if this article gets too unwieldy, but that one certainly isn't it. My recommendation would be to redirect that one here (I don't see anything there that jumps out as worth merging, and there are no sources, but if you can find anything to bring over, feel free). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have redirected it. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

7 or 15 sports?
Quoting the article:

"At the most recent Winter Olympics, seven sports were conducted, or 15 if each sport such as skiing and skating is counted. "

This doesn't make sense as written. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yikes. I totally missed that the sentence was nonsensical while dealing with the insertion of "talking" as a sport. I think what the sentence was getting at is the sport/discipline distinction made by the IOC. The 15 comes from 15 disciplines. The IOC groups the disciplines into 7 sports--see Olympic sports for a better explanation. For example, skiing is one sport, but has 6 disciplines. I've tried to rewrite the sentence to make sense. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The terminology is very confusing. Let's see if I have this right.


 * As an example, within the sport of skating there are two disciplines, figure skating and "ice skating". (of course figure skating is done on ice so the terminology has already gone bad.)


 * Within the discipline of figure skating there are several events: women's singles, men's singles, pairs, ice dancing (as far as I know). (Within ice skating are a whole bunch of events.)


 * The sentence about 7 sports and 15 disciplines might be helped with an example to illustrate what "disciplines" mean. Maybe "The sport of skating includes two disciplines, figure skating and "ice skating".


 * Is the idea of a discipline important enough to bother with? I can't remember ever hearing the term used in connection with the Olympics. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's about right. The sport of skating includes the disciplines of figure skating, speed skating, and short track speed skating. (However, it does not include ice hockey, which does involve skating as well.) An example would probably be good. I think the main reason we would want to list the number of disciplines is to avoid the confusion of saying "7 sports" and then people looking at a list of disciplines and saying "hey, there are a lot more than 7!" This becomes important because often the terminology is used sloppily—anytime you hear someone make the statement that water polo is an Olympic sport, it's not an accurate use of the Olympic terminology. Water polo is a discipline within the Olympic sport of aquatics (along with swimming, synchronized swimming, and diving). Giving the number of disciplines allows us to use the technically correct terminology, while (at least hopefully) avoiding confusion engendered thereby. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 01:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify why this confusion exists: the IOC considers each single "sport" to be managed by individual international federations. In the case of skating, both figure skating and speed skating, though wildly disparate types of competition, are both governed by the International Skating Union (ISU).  Therefore, "skating" is one sport.  The FIS has governance over quite a few skiing disciplines (alpine, nordic combined, cross-country, freestyle, ski jumping and snowboarding), but interestingly, not biathlon (gov. by IBU), although it is obviously very similar to cross-country skiing.  Another wierd anomoly is the winter sliding sports of bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton.  At first glance, you'd consider all three related, or at least luge and skeleton together, but in fact, the FIBT governs bobsleigh and skeleton, but luge is governed by the FIL.  Therefore, in the Olympic context, bobsleigh and skeleton are two disciplines of one sport and luge is a different sport altogether!  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Audio
hey i got a file of the native name of Olympic games. it goes after the Greek pronunciation. use it if you want.



CuteHappyBrute (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this. I don't know why it wasn't added earlier. Jared   (t)  &ensp; 22:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Eligibility/Nationality
Following a question on the Reference Desk I scanned this article but found no mention of how an individual qualifies for the Olympics or how their nationality is determined. Perhaps something should be added to the article? Rmhermen (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would probably be good to have something about that. I'm not sure how much detail we would be able to go into in this article, because qualification criteria vary widely by sport and discipline, and nationality is basically determined by each country's nationality laws. But it certainly should be addressed, if someone could do that. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 22:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * contrary to what is said in the article, the first boycott was against the 1936 Berlin games. I have seen this represented as Jewish support, but that wasn't the real issue. The real issue concerned the right of athletes from Northern Ireland to compete under the Irish Tricolour.  Britain wanted them to compete under the Union Jack.  Nazi Germany supported this view.  The IOC agreed with the Nazis.  So the Northern Irish athletes refused to travel (including some boxers with good medal prospects).  De Valera then said that no Irish athlete would attend.  This upset some people.  the head of the army equation school resigned.  Ireland would have won some show-jumping events.  When the Olympics resumed after the war, the IOC were asked if they still accepted the "Nazi view".  (putting it that way - they couldn't) So they decided that an athlete can complete for any country which grants him or her citizenship.  So it is as you say "nationality is basically determined by each country's nationality laws".  Which - in some instances - have proved to be very flexible ClemMcGann (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Olympics Link suggestion
Lost History-Ancient AthletesTokarski21 (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

World Fair Remark
Does anybody know if there is merit to the statement that the China Olympics were originally scheduled for Chicago, but then moved to co-incide with the World´s Fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadentsoul (talk • contribs) 08:16, June 22, 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you must have misread the footnote references. Footnote 1 is for the 1904 Olympics in St. Louis. The 1 in parenthesis after Beijing and Hong Kong just mean that 2008 is their first hosting. I reinstated the link to the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair. -- Jao (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What is this about?
2008_Guizhou_riot It seems to be partly about the Olympics. Please correct me if I'm wrong. --arkuat (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Summer and Winter Games counted wrong
I notice that in the "Olympic Games host cities" section there is a column called "no." for each of the Summer and Winter Games, with a Roman numeral for each Games. However, there is a misuse of the numbering system here, where the Summer Games, which are officially "the games of the x Olympiad" is conflated so that it is assumed that "Olympiad" refers to an Olympic Games when it does not. The Summer Games, it should be emphasized, are not numbered; the Olympiads are. I've re-checked the Olympic site, and, sure enough, the individual games are referred to as "...of the x Olympiad" while the Winter Games are number as "x Winter Games." While it may seem trivial, when we see the numbering convention for the Winter Olympics, we note that they are numbered only for those which are actually celebrated. So we go from "IV" in 1936, to "V" in 1948. Yet, the non-celebrated Summer games in 1916, 1940 and 1944 are given numbers as, of course, the Olympiads happened if the Games themselves did not.

Perhaps the Summer Olympics should have the column renamed "Olympiads," and the 1906 Games should also have "III" as it was celebrated during the third Olympiad, as were the 1904 Games. Canada Jack (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The intro is worded inaccurately: The summer and winter games are each held every four years (an Olympiad[2]). Until 1992, they were both held in the same year. Since then, they have been separated by a two year gap.


 * As the IOC document the reference attached to "Olympiad" states "The word Olympiad designates the four-year period that separates each edition of the Summer Games." I will rephrase the line to be more accurate. Canada Jack (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Champions and Medalists: Discrepancy in list order
Following US media criteria (same as with list of medals per country) medalists with the most medals are put first on the list regardless of metal type. Most countries media arrange their lists according to gold medals won and then total medals won.

There should be some kind of agreement guided by the IOC. I don't know if the IOC has such lists in its sites or any guidelines regarding this issue. Wikipedia should follow those guidelines or if there are no guidelines, there should be some survey conducted by Wikipedia as to how most countries arrange these lists, not just the US media or NBC.

The discrepancy I am talking about is that while in this article US media criteria are followed there is a link to other list where medalists with the most golds are put first regardless of total number of medals. I personally think that the following list makes more sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_Olympic_gold_medalists

--Yalose (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

About the coloured rings
Each of the coloured rings come from a flag each. The colours in order are blue,yellow,black,green and red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.203.5 (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead
I've been working on the lead for this article, which was identified as one of the major issues when it was removed from FA status. Is there anyone who can review the work and critique it? I'm open to suggestions and I'm not completely satisfied with it but I would like another set of eyes to give me a different perspective. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

nazi flag should be removed from the 1936 games
I think it would be appropriate to remove the nazi flag from the 1936 games. Keeping that flag there shows a respect to that flag which most would object to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.134.37 (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it is documenting a historical event. Any interpretation is up to the reader.  For us to remove it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Prince of Canadat 07:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the official German flag of the time was the nazi flag. This is a verifiable fact that must take precedence over our personal opinions regarding what the flag represents.  Nor, in my opinion, does it's presence on this page show any intrinsic support or respect for the nazi party.  If anything the 1936 Olympics showed the power of sport to trancend political ideology.  H1nkles (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The olympics was simply an adopted custom from the ancient macedonians
The Greeks adopted the worshipping of ancient macedonian gods there are many.The use of the word ol olympic is actually borrowed from the macedonians.over time the greeks merlely took it over & called it their own.Olympics ol is the sun like sun worship.The greek hellenes newcomers to the balkan region simply adopted other peoples gods & customs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.27.96 (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, 'Olympics' is derived from 'Olympus' the seat of the Greek gods and the site of the original Games.  The idea that they adopted extant religious customs is neither here nor there; all cultures do this.  If this is important to you, please be bold and add it to the article with appropriate citations. Prince of Canadat 07:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Medals per country according to country size, Athens 2004
In some sense more interesting than the absolute count of medals would be a count of medals per inhabitants. As a demonstration I've recalculated the first 13 plus two other countries from the official list for Athens 2004. To give meaningful numbers the list is for medals per 100 million inhabitants. Or                      Total per 100 mio. inh. per 100 mio. inh.

1. Norway                         108                         129 2. Australia                       83                         204 3. Hungary                         80                         171 4. Cuba                            78                         237 5. Greece                          56                         149 6. Netherlands                     24                         132 7. Romania                         28                          83 8. Ukraine                         20                          50 9. Russia                          19                          65 10. Korea, South                    18                          61 11. Germany                         17                          58 12. Italy                           17                          55 13. France                          17                          52 .    .     Switzerland                      13                          66 Japan                           13                          29 United States                   12                          34 .    China                             2                           5 .    Egypt                             1                           6 .

Naturally, there are some extreme results for relatively small countries, but that the calculation is quite meaningful is amply demonstrated by the results of countries of average size like Germany, Italy and France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.90.3 (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 88.209.75.8 (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical Question
In 1980 and 1984, the Cold War opponents boycotted each other's games. Sixty-five nations refused to compete at the Moscow Olympics in 1980 because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but 16 nations from Western Europe did compete at the Moscow Olympics.

I do not understand how the but is appropriate for this sentience and I can not discern if the 16 nation of the 64 were in Western Europe or if only 16 actually boycotted the games. I am assuming the line should be

...invasion of Afghanistan, of those 16 nations were from Western Europe.

but I do not know enough about the subject matter.(74.183.38.88 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC))


 * I think you're reading a "not" which isn't actually there. The statement talks about a total of 81 countries. 65 refused to compete, but 16 others actually did compete.

Original Nine Sports Error
The Revival section of the article about the origin of the modern Olympics claims that the original nine sports have appeared at every single Summer Olympics since then. However, one of these nine sports is tennis, which was discontinued after the 1924 Olympics and only brought back as a medal event in 1988 (see Tennis at the Summer Olympics). Can anyone explain this discrepancy? If not this sentence should be removed. 68.127.209.95 (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. I had not seen that statement in there. It was wildly inaccurate. Beyond the tennis that you brought up, a number of the original nine were not contested at every subsequent Olympics. Weightlifting and wrestling had disappeared at the very next Games! Shooting missed a couple of years. Also, the "discipline" terminology is questionable, since we now have two separate disciplines for track and road cycling, which were each held in 1896--neither of which have been held at every Olympics, though at least one form of cycling has appeared at each. Thanks for bring that statement up, it's been removed now! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 08:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

corrections
Some bits of this page don't make good sense: e.g. reverse 'boxing' & 'baseball". Michaelscales (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal table organisation
For the 2008 Olympics, some American media including USA Today and the NY Times have started organising the medals table according to total medals instead of number of golds. Even though this is clearly done purely so that the USA comes ahead of China, I think it should be noted that a number of venerable sources are departing from the IOC's system.217.206.93.190 (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

On His Way Home From Where???
Under the "Olympic Movement" section, "Criticism" sub heading, in the fifth paragraph there is mention of a quote of Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, implicating the IOC in taking bribes from the London Olympic Committee. It prefaces this by saying that the Mayor was on his way home...Where was he on his way home from? I think it was on his way home from the IOC conference where London was selected as the host city. I remember that it was a very close vote between Paris and London and the Mayor's comments were seen as sour grapes but I can't find a source for this. I'm working hard on this article as I'd like to get it up to FA quality but these sorts of sentences are hard to unravel. Any help here would be appreciated. H1nkles (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is from Johndoeemail - taken from H1nkles talk page.

I hope I am doing this right: "London organizers arrived in Singapore with their bid still the expected runner-up to Paris, the longtime favorite. But while the Parisian organizers, including Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, could often be found during the past week in the hotel lobby bar..." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/sports/othersports/07olympic.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

... I suspect he was flying home from Singapore, but I do not know if that's true. Regards Johndoeemail (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I think you're right, though it is hard to tell based on the context of the Wikipedia citation. I'll rework that section with this article's information. Thank you for your insight. H1nkles (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In same paragraph is written: "Mayor Delanoë never mentioned the matter again." Maybe it's just me, but it seems unnecessary (how could you possibly cite that?) Regards. Johndoeemail (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, "He also told France-Info radio that his London counterpart Sebastien Coe had 'crossed the line.'" http://www.cnn.com/2005/SPORT/07/11/games.paris/index.html Regards. Johndoeemail (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, regarding the bribery/Turin/citation required. A npr radio program says there did not appear to be any bribery (so I guess the bribery citation is still required). Should be the "All Things Considered" program of 06/19/1999. Sorry, I do not know how to post a direct link but its http://news.yahoo.com/fc/sports/international_olympic_committee/audio/1

in a article titled "Turin, Italy chosen to host 2006 Winter Olympics" Regards Johndoeemail (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"How Turin Got the Games" http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5195274 Johndoeemail (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your great research. I'm having a hard time finding citations to support the very inflammatory allegations that Delanoe is said to have made.  I can't find citations about bribery of specific IOC members (with names cited) or what was offered as a bribe.  If this cannot be corroborated then I would suggest removal of these allegations.  I will work on adding the citations listed above to the article.  H1nkles (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the "How Turin Got the Games" article and rewrote the end of the paragraph to conform to the facts in this article. They are compelling and credible.  Good find!  H1nkles (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Amateurism and professionalism
In this section it says "...it meant that you considered it more important to win than to take part."

Shouldn't this be the other way round?

"...it meant that you considered it more important to take part than to win." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.217.208 (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Medals
Can any body tell me please, who represented nz and won two gold medals but didnt receive them, im sorry but i dnt know which event or year he competed its a question my ten year old daughter was asked, your help will be very much appreciated. Thank you.121.72.176.30 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Questions like that aren't really what Talk pages are for.  May I suggest that you visit the reference desk?  People there are generally happy to answer questions.  You might also want to try looking at New Zealand at the Olympics. Prince of Canadat 19:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Carl Lewis, doping....
The article states that Carl Lewis has never tested positive for banned substance use. This, clearly, is not true. Ample sources indicate that he has indeed failed three tests in 1988, but that these failures were deemed the result of 'inadvertant use' by the U.S. Olympic Commitee.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Lewis#Performance-enhancing_drug_use http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/2989361.stm http://www.time-to-run.com/drugs-in-sport/articles/speculate.htm

etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.193 (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If it was ruled inadvertant use, then it doesn't count as a positive test. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

lol... if there is controversy, why not acknowledge it? Maybe this statement could be qualified?


 * Why bother to qualify it? The "controversy" ended when he got and retained his medals. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

...Maybe that is when it ended for you. And, for the record, inadvertant use does not mean that a positive test becomes a negative one. It is my understanding that banned substances were found in the body of Carl Lewis, aswell as approximately 140 other American athletes at the time. It's just that USOC decided that all of these athletes had taken these subsatnces by mistake.


 * Please sign your comments with four tildes (~) . Also, nobody said 'negative'; Niteshift said 'doesn't count', which is actually true.  A 'positive' test results in sanctions, whereas an 'inadvertent' positive does not, and therefore is not treated the same way as a positive test. Prince of Canadat 21:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You do know that "inadvertant" means that is was either accidental or without knowledge, don't you? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm, er, assuming you were aiming that at the anon user who doesn't even provide an IP? Prince of Canadat 04:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I guess I should have put it directly under him. My bad. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the context, a convicted doper had his medal stripped and given to someone who had a suspicious history himself. The reality is that many athletes were likely doping during that time, but suspicion and assumption is for blogs and books, not an encyclopedia. Fact is Lewis never had an official proclamation of a positive drug test. We can split hairs and debate each word, but at the end of the day it is the official results we must relay. H1nkles (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry folks, but Carl Lewis tested positive, period. The issue is not whether he tested positive or not for banned substances - he most certainly did - the issue is whether the US Olympic Committee acted to prevent Lewis from competing at the 1988 Olympics despite the requirement to do so as per the rules then in force. There is no such thing as a "positive" and "inadvertent positive" - The USOC simply bureaucratically decreed "these positives don't count." The IOC quite explicitly explains that an athlete is responsible for whatever is in their bodies, and many athletes get banned for having the substances Lewis and others had, whether they intentionally used them or not being irrelevant. The USOC over-turned the bans as Lewis and the others claimed inadvertent use. But this did not in any way negate the positive test. It was and will remain forever a positive test. What raised anger with many years later is that the USOC seemingly gave blanket "inadvertent use" waivers to athletes, often over-turning bans on that basis before the athletes in question were aware of a positive test. And what further strained credibility in Lewis' case was that he failed not one but three tests, and despite his claims it came from an over-the-counter cold remedy, two of his Santa Monica Track Club teammates had positive tests for the same substances. The athletes were required to list any cold remedies they may have taken, all three failed to do so, and all three, it would seem, shared the same cold. Canada Jack (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think as long as the information presented is fair and without bias to either side, fine. The current version is partway there, though the sentence "but was not banned" directly leads to speculation.  I would suggest amending it to "but was not banned due to a finding of inadvertent usage by the USOC.  Some sources dispute whether the use was inadvertent." or something along those lines. Prince of Canadat 19:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to put it into further context, Johnson himself at the time claimed that his bottle was spiked (he was given water from someone so he could produce a urine sample for testing) and even if this was shown to be true, he was told he'd still lose his medal as the policy was you were responsible for what you put in your body (his later admission of long-term drug use notwithstanding). This "inadvertent use" defence is one that many east-bloc athletes raised as they often were given "supplements" which they were not told were in fact steroids. The fact they may not have been aware of what, exactly, they were taking is not a defence - but the IOC chose not to make an issue out of revelations of past infractions.

As for the sentence itself: It [the 1988 100m gold medal] was awarded to runner-up Carl Lewis, who himself had tested positive to banned substances prior to the Olympics, but was not banned that seems fair to me. "Was not banned due to a finding of inadvertent usage," etc implies that this was a valid defence. It wasn't, as the issue of whether usage was inadvertent or not is irrelevant. Canada Jack (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just another example of how bankrupt the "inadvertent" defence is, the IOC had no hesitation in disqualifying those horses which were found to have steroids at the 2008 Olympics. The issue is the presence or non-presence of banned substances. The fact that horses could not have given consent to take these drugs, or could not be aware if they were taking steroids and therefore were not responsible was never an issue as this is irrelevant. Canada Jack (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that steroids have no legitimate use within the context of the Olympics, whereas ingredients commonly found in cold medication do. You're getting a bit axegrindy here, so how about we confine ourselves to the content of the article? Prince of Canadat 19:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't think his pre-Olympic positive test, inadvertant or purposeful usage, or an alleged USOC cover up are the issues in this particular context. Officially the IOC stripped Ben Johnson of his medal, because he had tested positive for steriods, and gave it to Carl Lewis, who himself had been under a cloud of suspicion regarding drug use. I think that is a fair assessment of the facts as they stand. It casts suspicion on Lewis' acheivements, which as you've pointed out is warranted, yet it also is true to the fact that Carl Lewis is the 100m Olympic champion. If you're going to say "...but was not banned." then we must ask the question, why wasn't he banned? The answer is that he did not test positive during the Olympics, which was the official requirements at the time. Why not just leave those four words out all together? We know he wasn't banned, not only does it imply a speculative bias but it's already inferred and seems unnecessary. H1nkles (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, I thought we were supposed to assume good faith here, Prince. Some here seem to want to rephrase the section to imply that the positive test "didn't count." In fact, as the rules then in place stated, Lewis was subject to a ban, there was no escape clause. Besides, I'm the guy who wrote the Carl Lewis article, someone else added all the "banned" stuff to that page. I didn't even breathe a word about it. If anyone here has some agenda, it is those who want to make it seem the positive test was irrelevant as it was over-turned. Sure, those three medals won't be returned, but Lewis' credibility has suffered as a result, and that is surely relevant.


 * And, actually, you are wrong when you compare steroids and cough medicine. The ingredients commonly found in cold medications do not have a legitimate use within the context of the Olympics. Neither do some ingredients commonly found in coffee. And every Olympian knows this. This was the third Olympics Carl Lewis qualified for. "Steroids," per se, are not the issue, the use of performance-enhancing substances, or their agents or masking agents, are the issue. Steroids are only one of many performance-enhancing substances. Canada Jack (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You missed my point. Steroids do not have a legitimate use; cold medicine does.  Silken Laumann might be a good article for you to read for one example.  And I do assume good faith, but it looks like you have a point you're trying to prove that is far beyond the scope of one sentence in this article. Again, I suggest "but was not banned due to a finding of inadvertent usage by the USOC.  Some sources dispute whether the use was inadvertent," which is not only factually accurate but is also supported by the relevant citation.  Or even "...due to a controversial finding of..." would still be accurate, factual, and isn't biasing one side over the other. I would further suggest, and this is meant respectfully, that perhaps you are becoming too emotionally invested in your point of view here, and it might be best to leave it alone for 24 hours. Prince of Canadat 20:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

H1nkles, a lot of what you say is true, but in terms of the circumstance of this gold medal, there were no drug suspicions resting on the shoulders of Carl Lewis in 1988, these allegations came out 15 years later, and Lewis and his people readily acknowledged the positive test, so there is therefore no "alleged" cover-up. And, in fact, while bans at the Olympics are one way to lose the medal, Lewis would not have been allowed to compete in 1988 in the first place if the ban was properly enforced. IS this now relevant? It casts a shadow on his 1988 achievements. I'd say it doesn't on his earlier 1984 Olympics and his latter 1991 World Championships achievements as there are no indication that he failed tests outside the window of the 1988 Olympics. And I'd say that the revelation that the very sprinter who was so adamant about the need to "clean up" the sport, who benefited from the disqualification of Ben Johnson, probably the most famous steroid cheat in history, was himself banned from competing for having performance-enhancing drugs in his system before having the ban reversed is a very big piece of news. And entirely relevant. Canada Jack (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Canada Jack, I appreciate your view on this. I think part of what we are looking at is the culture of the sport in 1988.  Would Lewis have been banned in 2008?  I think the answer is almost certainly yes. What I'm trying to say is that this particular article is not about what should have happened but about what did happen.  I think it is inappropriate to infer what should have happened to Lewis "...but was not banned" in this context.  I think it is entirely appropriate to state what did happen, both being awarded the gold medal and the suspicion on his acheivements.  Doing so automatically infers hypocrisy and irony by stripping Johnson's medal and giving it to Lewis.  But it also leaves the reader to his/her own conclusions as to what should have happened.  H1nkles (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Prince, it seems there are few salient points you are missing. Steroids in fact do have legitimate uses, Lance Armstrong used them even though they were banned by his sport's federation. And cold and coffee have legitimate uses as well. But their legitimacy for use is not the issue. And, neither is intent. For example, one can, inadvertently, take steroids. As did many east-bloc athletes. There was a case a few years of an athlete taking steroids fed to her by an unscrupulous coach without her knowledge and her being caught, and the issue of "inadvertent use" was not relevant, the issue of pertinence was the presence of the banned substance. She was betrayed by her coach, but the issue is whether an athlete had performance-enhancing substances present, not whether she intended to use performance-enhancing substances.


 * Here is another point you seem to be missing: Again, I suggest "but was not banned due to a finding of inadvertent usage by the USOC. Some sources dispute whether the use was inadvertent," which is not only factually accurate but is also supported by the relevant citation. Tell me, where do you find this in the relevant source? I fail to see a suggestion that there was an issue over whether or not use was inadvertent or not. The issue I see in the source is whether the USOC was too willing to overlook positive tests by rubber-stamping "inadvertent use" on positive tests. So, contrary to your assertion, what you suggest the line should say is not supported by the citation. Indeed, the very use of the word "finding" is at odds with the source as rubber-stamping these banned tests as "inadvertent" does not involve any investigative activity which is implied by "finding."


 * Or even "...due to a controversial finding of..." would still be accurate, factual, and isn't biasing one side over the other. Again, you miss the point of the article in the citation. There is no serious debate over whether athletes or not had inadvertent use - the issue is the USOC overlooking positive tests with no clear effort to determine how these substances came to the athletes in question. In the case of Carl Lewis, he and his agents suggest use was inadvertent. Perhaps you are conflating the "no intent" comments made by Dick Pound when speaking of the USOC with Lewis' own case. He doesn't say or suggest Lewis is lying, he says that the USOC is rubber-stamping everything.


 * I would further suggest, and this is meant respectfully, that perhaps you are becoming too emotionally invested in your point of view here, and it might be best to leave it alone for 24 hours. Wow. Sorry, Prince, I guess I hit a nerve here with you. But, if you take a deep breath and carefully reread what the sources say, you will see that the line as it stands is accurate, and that what you are suggesting in terms of a change is not supported by the citation. Canada Jack (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? You haven't hit a nerve.  You are, however, hell-bent on making some sort of point via the article, or so it seems.  Assume good faith, indeed. Whatever; I have no interest in wasting my time with someone who is soapboxing.  Make whatever edits you like.  Score another point for Wikipedia being written by those who yell loudest. Prince of Canadat 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

H1nkle, I think the important point is Carl Lewis was banned, but we didn't know about this until 2003. If that wasn't shocking enough, then the blanket "inadvertent usage" waivers granted to some 100+ athletes was even worse. As stands, It was awarded to runner-up Carl Lewis, who himself had tested positive to banned substances prior to the Olympics, but was not banned with the citation I feel sufficiently addresses this. It's truthful and factual and what Prince has thus far proposed is not supported by the citation, as the article focuses more on the issue of these blanket pardons rather than on the specifics of the Lewis case which, to me, would be the reason to expand the line. Canada Jack (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, Prince, no nerve hit. But as I said, the attempt to expand the line is unwarranted and unsupported by the citation. And, since I am proposing to keep this status-quo, I'm not sure what point it is I am trying to make "via the article," rather it seems to me that there have been attempts to change this to something which mischaracterizes the controversy. That's all. Lewis was caught with a banned substance, this was overturned. The fact that the USOC overturned 100+ positives is contentious, whether Lewis is guilty or not is not really the point of the cited article as in reference to him it mainly extends to his own claim of inadvertent use. Canada Jack (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My point Canada Jack, is that we all know he wasn't banned at the time, it's made obvious by the fact that he competed in the Olympics and was awarded the gold. Why include the fact that he was not banned at all? It's redundant. He was banned later, ok but that is not made clear in the line in the article, nor is it germaine to this article.H1nkles (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He was banned at the time, H1nkle. He was banned from July 1988 to the end of the year, thus barring him from competing at the 1988 Olympics. That ban was overturned, so the fact that he won gold from an athlete who failed a drug test is of interest - Johnson, obviously, did not have his positive drug test overturned, Lewis did. Without belabouring this any further, it became a big issue in 2003 when this was all revealed to have happened, as it was clear that Lewis and many others benefited from very lax enforcement by the USOC, while other non-American athletes, quite notably, did not. To the extent that athletes were effectively rubber-stamped as having "inadvertent" positives. And to pretend that, well, they investigated and Lewis took cold medication ignores the fact that the USOC clearly didn't bother to actually investigate most or perhaps any of these positives, instead opting to routinely overturn them. Canada Jack (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow...........lot's of writing. Bottom line: He got the medals. Everything else is really moot. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to say the same thing except that I don't think we should include the statement "...but was not banned." I feel as though it's redundant because he got the medal so why have it in there?  It infers some injustice that is outside the scope of this article.  I'm not going to raise any more of an issue about it, too much time has been wasted over 4 words.  H1nkles (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The article now states, "It was awarded to runner-up Carl Lewis, who himself had tested positive for banned substances prior to the Olympics, but was not banned". I feel this should read "... who himslef tested positive along for banned substances, along with 140+ other American athletes, but was amongst the vast majority of these athletes who were allowed to get away with it by USOC." Please note, this is merely a suggestion, not vandalism. 212.183.134.210 (talk)I haven't signed up to Wikipedia, but go by the name of Jonny. 22nd September, 2008 212.183.134.210 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "allowed to get away with it" is POV. The current statement in the article is NPOV; it recites the facts without comment or presenting one side over the other. Prince of Canadat 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, as much as I disdain the comment as it currently stands it is better than the aforementioned edit. Jonny, I appreciate your siggestion but please keep in mind neutrality, which is a key component of this encyclopedia.  H1nkles (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I aggree. Could we not include a section on the UCOS incident, or link to a more appropriate page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.208.15 (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Medals per country according to country size, Beijing 2008
In some sense more interesting than the absolute count of medals is a count of medals per inhabitants. I've, therefore, recalculated the first 30 plus some other countries from the official list. To give meaningful numbers the list is for medals per 100 million inhabitants.

Or                      Total per 100 mio. inh. per 100 mio. inh.

1. Jamaica                        214                         392 2. Australia                       68                         223 3. Norway                          65                         217 4. Georgia                         65                         130 5. New Zealand                     58                         214 6. Slovakia                        54                         109 7. Slovenia                        50                         250 8. Netherlands                     42                          96 9. Denmark                         36                         127 10. Great Britain                   31                          77 11. Hungary                         30                         101 12. Czech Republic                  29                          59 13. Switzerland                     26                          79 14. South Korea                     26                          63 15. Germany                         19                          50 16. Cuba                            18                         211 17. Belarus                         18                         195 European Union                  18                          57 18. Romania                         18                          36 19. Russia                          16                          72 20. Ukraine                         15                          59 21. Italy                           14                          48 22. Kazakhstan                      13                          85 23. Kenya                           13                          37 24. Spain                           12                          44 25. United States                   12                          36 26. France                          11                          62 27. Japan                           10                          20 28. Canada                           9                          54 29. Poland                           8                          26 .    Ethiopia                          5                           9 .    China                             4                           8 .    Brazil                            2                           8 .    Egypt                             0                           1 .                    Naturally, there are some extreme results for relatively small countries, but that the calculation is quite meaningful is amply demonstrated by the results of countries of average size like Germany, Italy and France, as well as by a comparison with the respective list of Athens 2004 (see above). 11:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 88.209.75.8 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 88.209.75.8 (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 88.209.75.8 (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 88.209.75.8 (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

the first modern olympics
why does the the list of cities show the first modern olympics to be athens when everyone who knows, knows the olympics were revised by the british and the first modern olympics were held in england...... perhaps someone can do something about this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.179.140 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone knows this? Really?


 * "On the last day of the congress, it was decided that the first IOC Olympic Games would take place in 1896 in Athens, in the country of their birth. "


 * I suggest you read the article and the references before making statements like that. Prince of Canadat 14:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the anon is referring to the Wenlock Olympian Games, which are discussed in the article. The list doesn't show them because the list only shows the Games that were organized in connection with the International Olympic Committee. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Refer also to the 1896 Olympics article, which explains further that Coubertin built on the Wenlock games along with games organized in Athens. I agree with Jonel, the list is based on the cities connected with the official "Olympic Movement" begun at the 1894 Congress in Sorbonne, when the IOC was created.  H1nkles (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Mayor of Vancouver
In the section on the transfer of the Olympic flag to Vancouver mayor Sam Sullivan in his wheel chair is it worth including his quote: "Some have questioned the wisdom of Vancouver sending its worst skier to Torino," or is that section no space for that kind of humour? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/24/vancouver-mayor060224.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattclare (talk • contribs) 01:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume this is a jest, though I find it offensive and not appropriate even for the talk page much less the actual article page. H1nkles (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism: promotion of nationalism
I am not referring to the fact that some people who were born in other places decide to represent a different country. I speak of the psychologies of "Canada vs. Mexico", etc. As far as I see, the original Olympics gave far more credit to the individual athlete. Obviously the 'nationalism' issue is a far-reaching one, both in sports and other areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykral (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bidding Process
Does anyone think there is room for a page regarding the Host City bidding process? There is Bids for Olympic Games, which basically just provides a list, and articles which deal with specific bids (eg. 2016 Summer Olympics bids), but nothing which deals with the process in general - not even a section of an article. - Matthew238 (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

current "participating" countries - cross wiki agreement/consistency
Comment 1 - total number

fifth paragraph of "modern olympics" section states

"203 countries currently participate in the Olympics"

however, first paragraph of "participating NOCs" section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Beijing_Games#Participating_NOCs states

"Following the Opening Ceremony on August 8, 2008, all but one (Brunei) of the current 205 National Olympic Committees (NOCs)[66]"

Comment 2 - Chinese Taipei

fifth (and final paragraph) of "modern olympics" section states

"Also, since 1980, Taiwan has competed under the name Chinese Taipei"

with "taiwan" as link that sends one to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan, an article about the island of taiwan and not the government. believe text should read "Republic of China (Taiwan)" with link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China.

also, third (and final paragraph) of "participating NOCs" section at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Beijing_Games#Participating_NOCs probably has some clearer languge of Olympic detente between People's Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan). finally, one article has taipei participating since 1980; other since 1984.

68.173.2.68 (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

closing section - "antwerp ceremony"
confusion

if summer host passes flag to next summer host and winter host passes to next winter host, were there always 2 antwerp flags (since 1920)?

why was oslo flag introduced? i would assume something to do with 2nd flag needed for summer/winter rotation.

why was seoul flag introduced? i would guess (could be dangerous!) that antwerp flag had become too fragile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.2.68 (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These are good questions that require a little research, perhaps even their own article. I don't think your assumption about the 2nd flag needed for summer/winter rotation is correct because the Oslo flag was introduced in 1952 and the winter Olympics didn't make their split from the summer Games after the 1992 Olympiad - 1994 was in Lillehammer for winter and 1996 was in Atlanta for summer.  What is also interesting is that I heard the commentators at the closing ceremonies refer to the flag as the "Antwerp" flag.  H1nkles (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here | is a good section on some of the protocols for the opening and closing ceremonies along with a little history about the flags. It talks specifically about the Oslo flag.  H1nkles (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"closing" section - final paragraph - retirement/withdrawal of olympic flag
just watched in last 24 hours beijing 2008 closing (nbc tv taped broadcast in usa). thought i saw olympic flag lowered and folded (vs. carried horizontally out of statium). i commented at time, "folded rather messily" to fellow viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.2.68 (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right I saw that as well, folded and taken from the stadium (rather unceremoniously as I could tell). Once the "folding" was finished the cameras cut away.  This could have been a break from tradition, I did not hear the commentators make any mention of that.  I'm not sure what to make of that.  H1nkles (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Champions and Medalists
In this heading it describes how awards were first handed out in the 1896 and 1900 games. It indicates that in 1904 first place received silver trophies, making the 1906 Athens games the first games in which the three medal format was used. I think we should remove the reference to the 1906 Athens games, which is the Intercalated Games, because the IOC does not recognize this as an official Olympic Games. It would be more accurate to list the 1908 Games as the first "official" games in which the 3 medal format was used. I know the question of what to do with these Intercalated Games is up for debate so I hesitate to make the edit without getting community input. Any thoughts on that? H1nkles (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk about both. Even though 1906 is no longer considered official, those Games did happen. Innovations made in them should be discussed. Then note that they were continued in the official Games beginning in 1908. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, I think my edits give due credence to the 1906 Games. Thanks for your input.  H1nkles (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks excellent. Good work! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stadion
I'm continuing to work on this article and had a question. In the Ancient Olympics section it describes a stadion as a distance of 400 strides taken by Heracles. It goes on to say that this is why modern tracks are 400 meters in distance. The stadion article in Wikipedia describes a stadion as a race of 200 yards or 180 meters. Is this a discrepency? Other research I've done seems to support the stadion being a 200 yard/meter distance, not the 400 meter distance, which is called a diaulos. If there is an inconsistency I'd like to use the correct wording. If anyone has some expertise here I'd welcome your insights. H1nkles (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review
I was asked by H1nkles to provide a review of the article. I edit here and the article's main editors are free to place my remarks wherever they feel apprpriate. I note that I had the opportunity to check only the article's lead, but I'll continue probably tomorrow with the rest of the article. These are some initial remarks:
 * What does citation 1 cites exectly?! In general, try not to overdo it with citations in the lead, which is supposed to summarize issues already developed and cited in the main article.
 * WP:MOS needs "&amp;nbsp;" between any number and unit, symbol or abbreviation that it goes with, such as AD 393.
 * "Evangelos Zappas sponsored the first modern international Olympic Games in 1859." It is not clear that these are not officially recognized international Olympic Games. 1896 were the first ones.
 * In general, I am not sure if the lead constitutes a proper summary of the whole article. I see too much history there!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insights. I have done some significant cleaning on the lead to trim out some of the information that is found in the article.  I want to make sure the lead is a good summary of the article, I think I have more work to do on it.  You mention the "first modern international Olympic Games in 1859."  I agree with you that the first Modern Olympics were the 1896 Games, but this is a sore subject for some editors who want to maintain earlier games organized by Zappas were in fact the first Olympics.  I've done some edit work to try and accurately reflect the historical record while being consistent with the sources we are citing.  Thank you again for your time and thorough review. H1nkles (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the leads reads now much better.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "In antiquity normally only young men could participate.[5] The sportsmen usually competed nude. This was due in part to the weather and also because the festival was meant to be a celebration of the achievements of the human body. Upon winning the event, the victor would have not only the prestige of being in first place but would also be presented with a crown of olive leaves. The olive branch is a sign of hope and peace.[7] ... " Ancient Olympic Games looks well-written to me, but this particular phrasins seems to be just a bit choppy. I see that the main sources for this section are online, which is not necessarily bad, but I think that in general more printed sources should be included, because they are highly esteemed.
 * I've removed this paragraph as it is redundant in the Ancient Olympics article, and generally poorly written. I'm going to continue trimming this section to streamline it a little.  H1nkles (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * MoS and referencing problems in "Revival" (I'll work a bit on them):
 * Single years do not need wikilinking.
 * Citation 10 has no page.
 * Citations are not consistently after the punctuation mark.
 * You write Panagiotis Soutsos but you link Alexandros Soutsos.
 * The above has been fixed, though Citation 10 did link to a page, but if it is inconsistent then I will remove the link. H1nkles (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If this article is going to pass FAC, then better sources than "Infoplease" are needed.
 * Removed "Infoplease" cites and added more credible citations from ESPN and Canadian Broadcasting Centre. H1nkles (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Although originally the IOC recognised and supported these games, they are currently not recognised by the IOC as Olympic Games, which has given rise to the explanation that they were intended to mark the 10th anniversary of the modern Olympics." No sources provided here, and I am not sure about the meaning: the later stance of IOC explains the real intention of the 1906 Games? How?
 * Fixed statement and gave a citation, which I hope will help. H1nkles (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have in mind that the article is already long, and we don't know its final version after the peer-reviews (I suggest that you'll go for an "official" one as well), copy-editings etc. before going to FAC. Therefore, you might think about WP:SS: you could make a smaller "Revival" section here, and create a main "Revival of the Olympic Games" sub-article. This is just a thought. Or you could also remove from "Ancient Olympic Games" some details, not necessary for this article and already developed in the main Ancient Olympic Games article.
 * I just want to point out that I haven't yet commented on the article's overall structure, but I'm not yet ready. I must first read the whole article in detail.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whew, thanks for all of this, obviously a lot of work to do. I agree with the suggestion of deferring to the Ancient Olympics article for much of the duplicative information.  I know that the sourcing is a big weak point for this article.  It's much easier to locate on-line sources.  The draw back is the credibility.  I'll start to work.  H1nkles (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "203 countries currently participate in the Olympics." You should cite this.
 * Done. H1nkles (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Modern Olympics" has a little of everything in it. Some history after 1896 (though with great gaps after 1906, some about financing, some about financing, some about summer and winter Olympics (when did the latter star?), some about the participating nations etc. etc. The structure and content organization needs work here. I am not sure towards what direction (maybe by creating a solid history section [merging Revival as well?] and treating these issues separately here or in Olympic Problems [renamed as Olympic Issues?] or here as it is but with subsections or without subesections but with a clearer material organization!). I am really not sure! You have a better picture of the material!
 * I've reworked this entire section, set up new headings, subheadings and sub subheadings. Ultimately this will need its own article because it is long but I just don't have the time to do that now.  If you feel as though this will keep it from FA status then I'll start on the new article promptly.  I've also removed a couple of paragraphs that would be great in an article on the revival of the Olympics but are too detailed for this article.  If you have a chance to review the changes I'd appreciate it.  H1nkles (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Two stubby paragraphs in a row at the end of "Youth Olympic Games". They do not look nice.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Combined the paragraphs into one. H1nkles (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The Youth Olympic Games (YOG)[23] are planned to be a junior version of the Games, complementing the current senior Games,[24] and will feature athletes between the ages of 14 and 18.[25]" Try to place the citations at the end of the sentence, and not in the middle (unless it is absolutely necessary). They are not well-readable in this way. You can also combine more citations in one as Sandy does in Tourette syndrome using the symbol * or with a semicolon, but for more online sources in a row Sandy's technique is better.
 * I've fixed a lot of the multiple citations per Sandy's example in Tourette Syndrome. I also moved the citations to the end fo the sentences.  H1nkles (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "A lot of sympathy was felt for the athletes forced by their governments to leave the Olympic Village." Make sure this is not POV.
 * Removed statement. H1nkles (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Many citations need formatting with the use of the appropriate templates (Template:cite web or Template:cite news). See for instance templates 37-39.
 * This, I believe is one of the biggest problems with this article, I will do a complete overhaul of the citations - making sure they conform with the above templates and that they are credible. H1nkles (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it accurate what is written about Lewis dopping prior to the 1988 Olympics. I read from Johnson's article: "Lewis had the test results overturned, however, as the use was found to be inadvertent and the result of using legal medication, not illegally obtained prescription drugs."--Yannismarou (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's discussion of that point, and the wording used to describe Lewis's testing, at Talk:Olympic Games. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Yannismarou, for your continued review, I wasn't able to do much on the article yesterday, hopefully today I'll get more done. RE: Carl Lewis and doping, I do desire to rework the sentence to make it (what I would consider) more accurate and more consistent with the context of the article, but if you read the discussion referred to by Jonel you will get an idea of why I've left it alone.  I'll get to work on the "Modern Olympic" section.  H1nkles (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Politics and Boycotts are closely related. After all, all boycotts were politically motivated. Therefore, it is a matter of consideration, if you should have these two separated sections (if this is what you prefer, then IMO they should be one after the other so as to show their interconnection) or one comprehensive section about politics, treating also the issue of boycotts.
 * Fixed, I put the two sections together. H1nkles (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "it is feared that they will continue to present prime targets for terrorist organizations. Therefore, increasingly stringent security protocols are now required for all Olympic games." 1) Uncited, 2) Weasel (who fears?!).
 * I removed the entire paragraph as it was difficult to cite and some of the information was duplicative. H1nkles (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to have one-two more lines about the Georgia-Russia issue? There were strong images, such as Putin and Bush discussing in Beijing about the crisis while the war had erupted.
 * I expanded on this subject a little w/ a political comment as well as an event between Russian and Georgian athletes. I hope it is consistent with your thoughts. H1nkles (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The "Olympic Movement" is difficult to define. To speak in broad terms, the Olympic Movement is sometimes meant to include everybody and everything involved in the Olympics." Personally, I do not like the wording. It looks to me a bit uncyclopedic.
 * Fixed wording for accuracy and professionalism. H1nkles (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "This would include national sport governing bodies, athletes, media, and sponsors of the Olympic Games." I suppose this is no OR. So we need some source.
 * Removed as part of rewording paragraph to become more enyclopedic. H1nkles (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "It should be noted that since the 1988 Summer Olympics". Weasel wording again ...
 * Fixed. H1nkles (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Many believe the games should expand to include locations in poorer regions. Some people assert that the infrastructure investments could provide significant long term benefit.[64] However, many ..." Many, some, many again in a row! Problematic wording.
 * Reworded to flow better. H1nkles (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The leadership of IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch was especially controversial.." Was it the only controversial leadership?
 * Try not to overlink. An article linked once is ok. Do not repeat the same wikilinks.
 * I've been working on this. It's better but not all the way there. H1nkles (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "In particular, Bulgaria's member Ivan Slavkov, and Muttaleb Ahmad from the Olympic Council of Asia, were implicated. They have denied the allegations. Mayor Delanoë never mentioned the matter again.." A bit choppy.
 * removed these sentences as the cites do not support them. H1nkles (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The criticism section has 3 paragraphs about corruption. However, the first two are cut off from the third one by a paragraph treating local reactions to the hosting of the games and not having to do with corruption. Maybe the material of the section should be better organized.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reordered section to put the three paragraphs together. I am trying to trim this article down and I'm looking for parts that I can cut.  So I'm considering removing the final paragraph in this section about the IOC's strict controls on their symbols.  While it is a criticism, it doesn't seem to really add much to the overall section.  It almost seems like an afterthought.


 * "Olympic Symbols" looks fine. Just make sure that this repeated assertion is accurate: "The Olympic movement uses many symbols, most of them representing Coubertin's ideas and ideals."
 * I removed the redundant wording and put in something a little more generic. H1nkles (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This picture you introduced next to "Changes and Adaptations" has a white gap between the image and the caption which does not look nice, at least in Internet Explorer. I'll check how it looks with Mozilla later today.
 * Yes I noticed that gap as well, I'm not savvy enough to know how to shorten it down. The reason I like the photo is that it features the first woman champion but if the gap can't be fixed then I'll probably have to find something else.  H1nkles (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have also in mind that the copyright control of images in FAC is much stricter than in the past. You should check the pictures of the articles one by one, and see if they are properly tagged and sources! This one in particular is supposed to be sourced from a web page, which has however expired. It may be possible however to be sourced from another web- or printed source.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Opening" is also well-written. I don't know if you can add one-two sentences about the artistic exhibitions (evens or programs that may have marked Olympic history), because you mention very few things compared with opening speeches, oaths etc.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a line about the expansion of the artistic portion of the ceremony as well as the cost of the opening ceremony for the Beijing Games. Not quite what I want but I'm looking for a source before I add something different.  H1nkles (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First paragraph of "Amateurism and professionalism" needs a source.
 * "It gradually became clear to many that the amateurism rules had become outdated." This should be sourced so as not to look weasel.
 * Found a source to apply to both of the sourcing issues in this subheading. I reworded a little bit to conform with citation. H1nkles (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see two external jumps in "Medals per country". These should go or become proper citations.
 * I fixed them myself. I added one more source, but you'll check them.

I think that I am mostly done with this peer-review. I'll watch the article during its future steps (probably official peer-review, and then GAC and FAC or only FAC), willing to contribute if necessary. I just want to express my excitement, because since I started reviewing the article, I see that it got already much improved, and this of course thanks to H1nkled devotion.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of "Olympic champions and medalists" needs a prose "massage" and better sourcing.
 * In "See also" section we are supposed to put articles not already linked within the main text. But I do know some editors who disagree with this rule.
 * Again, thank you for your very thorough review Yannismarou! Before I submit it for an Official Review I will do a meticulous overhaul of the citations and try to trim some more fat away.  I did add a small subheading about the Paralympics since this is an official spin-off of the original Olympic Movement and deserves mention here.  I hope to be able to move it on to Official Review next week and then once that is done I will submit it to FAC with crossed fingers.  H1nkles (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Revival
I've noticed a lot of discussion going on in the various edits on this page. The topic seems to be what to call the first Olympics and how to treat the various antecedents to the 1896 Olympics. Let's talk about it here rather than discussing it in our edits. Otherwise the article becomes unstable. Your opinions on this would be welcomed. In my opinion the first Olympic Games is the first "Official" Olympic Games of 1896. If someone wants to tackle it I believe there should be a separate article on the revival of the Olympic games. Much of the content of this heading could be put into this article, thereby streamlining this article, which is already too long. Your thoughts? H1nkles (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we have to treat 1896 as the first Modern Games. I'm not sure if a seperate article would be worthwhile, the Wenlock Games already have their own article as do the Cotswold Olimpick Games so i'm not sure how much could be added to create a fully worthwhile. I think a summary here with a "Main article" link to the other relevant pages is a better way to go. The article is bound to be long given the amount of history it is covering but my first suggestion to shorten it is to remove the table of host cities and just leave the "main article" link to List of Olympic host cities. Basement12 (T.C) 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To tag on to what you're saying, I think the over-arching argument is what weight we give to the various aspects of the Olympic games and their periphery. For example, in this argument there are quite of few different events held that had the name "Olympic" in them.  But this article is about The Olympic Games that we celebrate today.  The Olympic Games we're referring to are the "official" games under the auspices of the IOC.  I have no problem talking about the olympic predecessors and their contributions to the "official" games as long as they maintain their place in "official" history.  To name the Zappas games as the first "real" olympic games or the Wenlock games as the same smacks of a POV push.  I want to maintain the proper official historical view on this subject.  I feel that is more true to the record and our readers are relying on us to be true to all points of view but giving more weight to the official account rather than taking side-junkets on POV arguments that serve to hurt credibility rather than enhance it.  In my opinion anyway.  I've added the main article tags to the Olympic Forerunner subheading per Basement's astute recommendations.  H1nkles (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)