Talk:Olympic Games/Archive 5

Cotswold Olimpicks (again!)
I'm sorry, but I still maintain that the Cotswold Olimpicks should be listed in the precursors to the modern Games. With the 2012 Games in London next year, and the British Olympic bid directly referncing the Games as the first stirrings of the Modern Games, I feel it is somewhat harsh to diminish probably one of the first attempts in modern times to revive the Olympic ideal. The fact that so many notable figures referenced the Greek Olympic games in their dedications to Robert Dover in the 1636 publication of Annalia Dubrensia, shows that the intention was definitely to revive something which had hitherto been dormant.

To quote one such, Michael Drayton: "Douer, to doe thee Right, who will not striue,   That dost in these dull yron Times reuiue    The golden Ages glories; which poore Wee    Had not so much as dream't on but for Thee?    As those braue Grecians in their happy dayes,    On Mount Olympus to their Hercules    Ordain'd their games Olimpick, and so nam'd    Of that great Mountaine; for those pastimes fam'd:    Where then their able Youth, Leapt, Wrestled, Ran,    Threw the arm'd Dart; and honour'd was the Man    That was the Victor; In the Circute there    The nimble Rider, and skill'd Chariotere    Stroue for the Garland; In those noble Times    There to their Harpes the Poets sang their Rimes;    That whilst Greece flourisht, and was onely then    Nurse of all Arts, and of all famous men:    Numbring their yeers, still their accounts they made,    Either from this or that Olimpiade.    So Douer, from these Games, by thee begun, Wee'l reckon Ours, as time away doth run. Wee'l haue thy Statue in some Rocke cut out, With braue Inscriptions garnished about; And vnder written, Loe, this was the man, DOVER, that first these noble Sports began. Ladds of the Hills, and Lasses of the Vale, In many a song, and many a merry Tale Shall mention Thee; and hauing leaue to play, Vnto thy name shall make a Holy day. The Cosswold Shepheards as their flockes they keepe, To put off lazie drowsinesse and sleepe, Shall sit to tell, and heare thy Story tould, That night shall come ere they their flocks can fould."

In fact the Olympic heritage of the Dovers Games is repeated in this BBC programme by Professor Mark Horton, who also mentions the heritage of the Cotswold Olimpicks referenced by the BOA.

Giuliettista (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Change in nationality
A new editor User:Rachelbarth added a large section about citizenship. I think it is a reasonable subject for this article, but this section is too large and will give an undue weight to the subject on the main article. I think it should be summarized for the main article and the rest of the subject broken off to a new full article. The section seems to center around the United States and contemporary athletes. I think we will find this trend has existed further back in time than their research shows and it occurs in other countries as well. In my own edits I have mentioned other athletes making changes in domicile for competitive reasons, most of them away from the United States team (because it is so hard to make the United States team). Other athletes have emigrated toward other countries because their home team is so hard to make in their events. We have articles that show such changes. Bahrain and Qatar have fielded teams that have virtually no native athletes. Trackinfo (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of gamesbids.com as an external link
Why does this website keep on being removed from the external links? Some Olympic related articles such as Bids for the 2018 Winter Olympics use the website for information. Moreover the website is very similar to the AroundTheRings.com and Insidethegames.biz which are listed as external links on this website. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions  03:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edit
Could someone with access please edit this line (under "Politics"): "Nazi Germany wished to portray the Nationalist Socialist Party as benevolent and peace-loving when they hosted the 1936 Games, though they used the Games to display Aryan superiority."-- to something like ". . .attempted to use the Games to display Aryan superiority"? (Obviously, Aryan superiority cannot in fact be displayed.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.40.161 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Concern about "Growing Trends" subsection
After reading the "Growing Trends" subsection I feel it is US-centric and I feel it should be removed unless it can be made more "international". I'll leave this post up for comment and if I don't get an objection by Friday the 20th I will delete. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since no one responded I removed the content. Please discuss here before reverting.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Drug use
Paragraph should mention the BOA's dispute with Wada over the right to impose lifetime Olympic bans on British athletes and the International Olympic Committee suuport.Salmonpate (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source then by all means be bold. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned about a few of the External Links
I'm not sure we need such a long list of external links on this article. I'm referring to the MOS on external links as a guide for what should and shouldn't be included in this section. Open-source wikis are not supposed to be used in external link sections, so that's one that can be removed.

I'm also not sure about the Goddess Nike link and what that adds to the reader's understanding of the Modern Olympic Games. It may be more valuable in the Ancient Olympic Games article.

There is one that is a little trickier and will require some discussion. Per the MOS, personal websites are frowned upon in this section. Consequently I'm concerned about the "All the daily program and the results of the Olympics (personal website)" link. I've looked it over and while I don't find anything glaringly inaccurate I also don't see much third-party research or vetting by experts in the field. It obviously is a labor of love by an individual but I don't think it should be included as an external link due to the fact that it violates MOS and also because I don't see what it adds that isn't found in other sites already in the article. This is a featured article and as such we need to be sure we are maintaining its quality and its strict compliance with MOS standards. These are my opinions of course and I won't make any moves until posting here and giving people a chance to discuss. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

1972 massacre
The murder of Israeli sportsmen in the 1972 Olympics is consistently ignored by the Olympic Committee, in spite of repeated requests to observe a minute's silence in the memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.41.188.29 (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Switzerland
Article has huge mistake- says Swizterland has never boycotted, then once sentence later talks about Switzerland boycotting.107.3.104.108 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Professionals
Should a note be added to the amateurism section that professional wrestling isn't actually wrestling? Or does anyone ever get paid to wrestle? What about that 600 year old tournament in Turkey that's the world's longest running sporting event. Do they get prizes? Does that make them ineligible for the Olympics? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hatnote info should be moved to infobox
Information on most recent and upcoming games should not be linked from a disambiguation hatnote, but from a prominent location early on the page, most suitably the infobox. __meco (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Events to add to see also ?
Since this is a high profile I thought I should ask advice as to whether the pages are suitable: ThanksTetron76 (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mind Sports Olympiad An event set up in 1997 to emulate the Olympics but for mental skills, board games and card games. Although, it went much smaller in 2000, there were entire suppliments on the event in The Times the only online version I found was http://www.studiogiochi.com/en/p/516/img/1997%20TheTimes.pdf
 * World Mind Sports Games this was a follow-up to MSO where Chess, bridge, Xiangqi, Go and Draughts are trying to establish themselves as Olympic events and successfully were held in conjunction with Beijing http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7651145.stm but not for London where the IOC rules are being enforced.
 * On looking through the other see also events I decided that both links are probably suitable so I decided to be WP:BOLDTetron76 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

NBC-YouTube controversy
I've heard about some sort of controversy over NBC having the right to remove home videos of the Olympic Games on grounds of copyright "infringement"... NBC would be the ones committing copyright infringement by claiming rights to content they don't have. How is this possible, and why isn't this mentioned in the article? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that makes that conclusion? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just heard it somewhere, but it's a good thing to look into. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do some research and find a reliable source that makes this conclusion. Then we'll be able to discuss whether is actually belongs in the article and where. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm putting up a few sources on WT:WikiProject Open Access. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012
Please change the spelling of Australasia to Australia in section "6 Symbols" because Australasia is incorrect.

49.248.175.144 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. It is correct.  Australia is the name of a country, Australasia is the name of the contenent.  RudolfRed (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: Australasia is the term for Australia and several surrounding countries, not the continent. The continent is called Australia. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 July 2012
I would like to edit this article because I believe some of the information to be incorrect.

Please change the part quoted in the Winter Olympics portion of the article as, "After that, beginning with the 1994 Games, the Winter Olympics were held on the third year of each Olympiad.", to, "After that, beginning with the 1994 Games, the Winter Olympics were held every four years, two years after each Summer Olympics."

Theraj662 (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Your account is old enough and has enough edits that you should be autoconfirmed (WP:AUTOC) already.  Go head and be bold and make the edits yourself.  RudolfRed (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The current wording is correct; an Olympiad begins in the year of a Summer Games and lasts four years until the next Summer Games, the Winter Olympics take place in the third of those four years - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 08:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How to tell if an event is a medal event
When looking at the medal count on google. It has a schedule showing the events. How can I look at the schedule and see if its a medal round or not. I see a lot of events are something that ends in team final. is that a medal round or just gets them into the next round of the event ? I see medals are being issued I am trying to figure out how to look at the guide and figure out when the next medal winning event will be, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstretchh (talk • contribs) 04:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at the 2012 Summer Olympics article you will find a calendar. Wherever you see a number that is an event final. The number being the number of event finals in that sport on that day.  An event final is when they will be awarding medals.  Each sport is hyperlinked to articles about that particular sport for the 2012 Summer Olympics so you can see what specific events are being contested on a given day.  That's what Wikipedia will offer.  Best of luck in your Olympics following!  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Paralympic games
I dont know how to edict the olympic games host cities table, but can someone skilled add the paralympic games to it please? Learningnave (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The Paralympic Games are not technically under the auspices of the IOC.  They are administered by the International Paralympic Committee.  The Summer, Winter and Youth Olympic Games are all administered by the IOC.  Given that fact they are not included explicitly on the table.  It should be noted that since 1988 the Paralympic Games have been held in the same city as the Olympic Games.  It is an interesting suggestion and I'd be open to discussion if people feel it is important to include the Paralympics on the table.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement to this article
Would it not be an improvement to this article if had, at the top of the article, a note like "For information on the most recent (i.e. 2012) Olympic games, please see" and then gave the wikilink for the article on the London 2012 Olympics? I know that if one presses on the hyperlinked Roman numerals in the table at the bottom table, one can get to the articles on individual Olympic games, but this might not be obvious to all readers. The alternative would be to add to the "See also" section, and then have a note explaining clearly how information on specific Olympic games is at (and explain how one gets the right wikilinks). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: It appears as though your suggestion has been added. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2012 August 1
Could someone add wikipedical information about the history and process of inclusion/exclusion of new sports into the Olympic Games, and hopefully, some verifiable cases of controversy regarding proliferation of eurocentric disciplines, or any other kind of bias (maintaining a WP:NPOV of course). Some people say the IOC has been obstinate and negligent because of the rejection or slow inclusion of sports such as the so-called extreme ones, or martial arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.167.101.45 (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The sports section of the article gives a pretty clear account of how new sports are added and removed. As far as cases of bias towards certain sports if you can find some credible documentation on that then perhaps something can be added.  Keep in mind we can't use "some people say" as a reason to add something.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 2012 August 2
The beginning of the second sentence of the Boycott is misleading. It makes it seem as if the majority of countries miss Olympic games. I think it should be changed to something like the following: "Most countries that miss an Olympics do so due to a lack of qualified athletes, ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.8.4 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited the sentence. Hopefully, it's clearer and more neutral now.--Newbreeder (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Lacking lists of oldest and youngest competitors, oldest and youngest medalists
We have already pretty detailed statistics in some aspects of the Olympics (cf. Template:Olympics_statistics). But many interesting facts still lack coverage here. To my surprise there is no list dedicated to age of competitors at the Olympics. As my work on wiki is centered on geography-reůated articles I give to more sport-oriented colleagues at least a suggestion: Would someone play with this topic and create a list containing oldest and youngest competitors. Of course the more detailed coverage, the better (record age overall, at Summer. at Winter Olympics, age-extreme participants and medalists for each olympics, each country and each sport etc). --Miaow Miaow (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

HOST
The article mentions "Host Nation". There is not such thing.The modern games were deliberately structured so that the "Host" is a city, not a country. The idea was to prevent jingoism destroying the spirit of competition, where doing one's best is the goal, not winning. The idea has been unsuccessful, but he terminology "Host Nation" is still wrong. Historygypsy (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The term is only used a handful of times in this article, mostly to refer to the national team that comes from the country of the host city. For example, to say that host nations (i.e. the British team this time) tend to perform well seems eminently sensible; to say that host cities tend to perform well is sheer nonsense. Also, the term "host country" is used in the Olympic Charter so it does have some status. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Summer Vs Winter
I think the table of locations and years is off by one. It's showing London as Winter, which is off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.196.129 (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the column headings. The reference is to the winter youth games. --Lo2u (T • C) 09:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Fix sentence
"The IOC has since become the governing body of the Olympic Movement, whose structure and actions are defined by the Olympic Charter."
 * The IOC is not a "whose". Change to:

"The IOC has since become the governing body of the Olympic Movement, the structure and actions of which are defined by the Olympic Charter."--108.54.25.10 (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done: Actually, I don't really mind "whose" as the possessive of "which" but I'm happy to change it. - Lo2u (T • C)
 * Thank you. Also, now that I'm thinking about that sentence, I would like to raise the issue that the use of "actions" is not quite right. The Olympic Charter doesn't define the IOC's "actions" but its authority and ability to act. I'm struggling to think of how to say this though.--108.54.25.10 (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the objection that the IOC does things, the selection London for the Olympics etc, that aren't 'defined' by the Olympic Charter; they're merely permitted? What if it was changed to "the structure and role of which..."? --Lo2u (T • C) 15:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Role does work better but doesn't authority cover both? I also think its a bit overcomplicated in structure. How about flipping the sentence around and making it: "The IOC has since become the governing body of the Olympic Movement, with the Olympic Charter defining its structure and authority." What do you think?

Another thing. In the sentence "The origin of these Olympics is shrouded in mystery and legend, and one of the most popular myths identifies Heracles and his father Zeus as the progenitors of the Games" doesn't read well. The second half doesn't follow the first such that "and" works. I think it should be either broken up into two sentence or the comma replaced with a semicolon and the "and" removed.

Another: "The most widely accepted date for the inception of the Ancient Olympics is 776 BC..." should be changed to "The most widely accepted inception date for the Ancient Olympics is 776 BC..."

Just below that I don't understand why "zenith" is linked to its article on the " imaginary point directly "above" a particular location, on the imaginary celestial sphere"'. I could understand if this was linked to a dictionary definition bedause you thought people might not know the word, but it seems kind of jarring to link it here, when that article has nothing to do with this topic.--108.54.25.10 (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: The word "zenith" might be unfamiliar to people who speak limited English. I think it is helpful to have the definition linked. I have made all the other changes you requested. FloBo  A boat that can float!   (watch me float!)  16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

London 1908
For the sake of completeness, and compared with the entry for St Louis, you might like to add a note to the effect that the 1908 Summer Games were originally given to Rome, but were moved to London when Mount Vesuvius erupted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.27.95 (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Messed references
The references and sources got messed in many places, could someone fix?--176.241.247.17 (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Gender equality
In gender equality paragraph it should be added, that, acording to International Olympic Committee, to include new male distipline in the olympics it is enough to exercise it in 40 countries on 3 continents, but to include male distipline it have to be exercised in 75 countries on 4 continents. I am not english native speaker, so thanks for helping me adding this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.229.232.222 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a credible source for this information? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can. The Modern Olympic Games, page 7.  For summer sports, it take 40 countries on 3 continents for women and 75 on 4 for men.  For winter sports, 25 countries on 3 continents without distinction for gender. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The gender equality section notes that equestrian is the only sport where men and women compete together. Since the introduction of mixed doubles in tennis and badminton, this isn't the case. However, I think it is the case that equestrian is the only sport where there are no events that are solely men or women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydenmuhl (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Greek name
I've removed the modern Greek translation from the opening. The modern Greek name has no particular historic importance and is given no official priority. The ancient Greek name was simply τὰ Ὀλύμπια. I really don't understand the logic of including this and it seems arbitrary. --Lo2u (T • C) 13:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I dissagree, with Lo2u, Greeks might have failed as a nation but none should forget that Greece is the birthplace of the Olympics, Olympus and OLympia in Greece the root of the term Olympic. A least from a glossology point of view it is interesting to include he word in its original alphabet. Greeks deserve this at this very point of their history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.7.148 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Failed as a nation? Really? Maybe as an economy, or modern government, but as a nation? I don't think so.Moumouza (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ouch - Greece failed as a nation? That's not really fair or accurate.... :) Anyway, I agree with your objections to Lo2u's comments. There is a deep cultural connection between the Olympic Games and Greece. To take steps to ignore that connection strikes me as imbalanced. What language does "Olympic" come from? Zimbabwean? Obviously not. Nor does it come from the IOC's "official languages" English and French. Come on now, why on earth would anyone want to keep the etymological connection out of this article? Nojamus (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Greece was the birthplace of the ancient Olympics; the modern games have a somewhat more complicated history. Wikipedia isn't generally in the business of writing things simply to console people - that would obviously contradict the principles of writing from a neutral point of view. If a Greek name is going to be included, it needs to be the ancient one. I repeat, the modern Greek name is arbitrary trivia. I don't really understand the linguistic argument. Are you saying that because the name in modern Greek has an ancient Greek root it deserves to be included? Doesn't that extend to the name of the Olympics in any modern language? --Lo2u (T • C) 15:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Lo2u, the name Olympic Games is derived from the Modern Greek words (ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑ) and (ΟΛΥΜΠΙΟΣ) which are places in Modern Greece, not on the ancient greek word ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΔΑ which by teh way is exactly the same as in Modern Greek (same as ΟΛΥΜΠΙΑΚΟΙ ΑΓΩΝΕΣ, it is spelled exactly the same way in both languages. It is like having an article on Champagne and considering irrelevant to have the French spelling in the title. I think there is absolutely no harm in including either the Greek or Ancient Greek words Ολυμπιακοί Αγώνες (it is spelled the same anyway) since Olympia & Olympic are terms referring to places in Modern Greece. I dont see why you are so fanatic removing the term, olympic is a Greek term, you like it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.7.148 (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Modern Greek has a different orthography and a different name for the games. οἱ Ὀλυμπιακοί may be an ancient Greek word (it means "the people of Olympia") but the ancient games weren't called that. Inserting this here creates the false impression that this was the original, ancient name. What you're doing is a bit like trying to supplement the article on the US Senate with the name in modern Italian. And yes I do think it's harmful; I can't imagine why anyone would want to add this except for nationalist reasons and for this reason it creates an immediate impression that the article is untrustworthy. --Lo2u (T • C) 08:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lo2u, I question your knowledge of Greek - modern or ancient! Οἱ Ὀλυμπιακοί most certainly does not refer to "the people of Olympia". Besides, your basic assumption here is that a difference in orthography equates to a difference in substance or meaning of a word. That's obviously a false assumption.
 * You say that you can only see nationalist reasons for specifying the Greek etymology of the words. That baffles me. Let's look at this from a different perspective. What is gained by including the etymology? Quite simply, the reader can see where the words come from, and find meaning in them. What is gained by not including the etymology? Nothing. We simply avoid giving some potentially useful information. Far from being a nationalist demand, the inclusion of the etymology of a word in the article is a basic requirement of encyclopedias.
 * By the way, your analogy to the US Senate is bogus. The modern Olympics aren't just an indirect adoption of another country's culture. They were formed with significant backing from modern Greeks (including the Greek journalist who called for the games to be recreated just after the Greek revolution; the Greek businessman whose money was used to organize the 4 modern pre-IOC games; and the Greek writer who served as the first president of the IOC). Clearly, Greece isn't some afterthought in all this. That's why the IOC itself ensures that Greece marches first into the stadium during the opening ceremonies, and why it plays an Olympic Anthem composed by a Greek with lyrics written by a Greek. So again, clearly, your US Senate analogy is bogus.
 * Whenever I see people intent on NOT sharing information, I wonder about their motives. You labeled someone else here a nationalist, but could it just be that the tables are reversed? I won't claim to read your mind. I just question what is gained by your approach. It's certainly not "accuracy".Nojamus (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Nojamus. You too seem to be under the mistaken impression that the term inserted by the other user is the original ancient name, with only a few orthographic differences. It isn't and I'm therefore surprised you question my knowledge of Greek. The term "Olympic Games" was found in Britain as early as the seventeenth century, long before contact had been made with the contemporary Greek world. Olympik-o isn't a modern Greek word but it is an ancient Greek word; it's found in Aristpohanes (I think he has "ton Olympikon agona"). So the English term "Olympic Games" owes nothing to the modern Greek name which keeps being added. The claims that the term that was inserted is the "origin" or "etymology" are quite obviously untrue and I wish people would stop making them. Ṫhis is harmful for several reasons: 1. It creates a false impression that this was the name of the ancient games; 2. It creates a false impression that the Greek name is accorded privileged official status, in preference to that used in other countries; 3. it's obviously impossible to give the name in the languages of all 204 countries and arbitrarily selecting this one is incompatible with WP:NPOV. I have absolutely no idea what you mean about the tables being reversed. Exactly which nationalist cause do you believe I am helping? --Lo2u (T • C) 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lo2U, I am really curious where you are getting your information from? If you are indeed familiar with the Greek language, you will realize that the classical form of the name for the games was simply a different grammatical tense of the modern form. Τα ολύμπια refers to The Olympics (more properly, to "those things relating to Olympia". It is understood that those things are the games. A Greek speaker would never be confused about this). This grammatical form is commonly used even in modern times for other words in the Greek language.
 * You claim that olympik-o (I guess you meant ολυμπιακό???) is not a modern word, but again you are wrong. It is yet another tense of the same word, in this case referring to something "Olympian". (I wonder how this point affects your argument one way or the other... It seems irrelevant.)
 * I also want to remind you that the modern Olympics didn't just adopt the ancient cultural legacy. As this article points out, there was a MODERN Olympics movement in Greece that put on 4 successful Olympics Games before the IOC was created, and whose success played a role in the IOC's success. Those early games were all called Olympic Games (in Greek). The people involved with funding and organizing those games were involved in the funding and organizing of the first IOC Olympic Games. So even just from modern times - ignoring the obvious ancient legacy - there is a link to the Greek language.
 * So having deconstructed all that, I am wondering in all honesty what you are trying to establish here. Are you arguing that the modern name of the games isn't derived from Greek? That's an astonishing suggestion. Even if the grammatical form has changed, the words are the same, and are clearly Greek ones. How does that not belong in this article? I grant that the intro sentence is not necessarily the best place for it, but it DOES BELONG. Otherwise, what are we doing? Pretending that "Olympics" is some English word? That's bizarre.
 * I hesitate to respond to your quip about the 204 countries taking part. Like your previous US Senate analogy, this is not relevant and seems to me like misdirection. The Olympics are derived from the cultural legacy of only ONE of those 204 countries. Clearly no one in their right mind would place Greece and, say, Zimbabwe on the same page here. Right? So let's drop the strange analogies please.
 * Your approach to this issue really does make me question both your intentions and your self-proclaimed knowledge of Greek. I'll say what I said earlier: whenever someone seeks to keep information OUT of Wikipedia (as opposed to adding it), my internal radar goes buzzing. I agree that some information is not appropriate to an article, but you have provided no rational evidence to support your points. The only evidence you gave is based on a misunderstanding of the Greek language as I have outlined. So if there is no rational evidence, and you are still gung ho about keeping the material out, I must conclude that - for whatever reason - you want to hide the Greek etymology of the word Olympic. It's none of my business why this may or may not be the case. If, on the other hand, you are acting in good faith, please refrain from calling other editors "nationalists" at the first sign of disagreement. Nojamus (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to keep this as brief as possible. Clearly your knowledge of modern Greek is good but I suggest that after twenty years of studying and teaching ancient Greek my "self-proclaimed knowledge" of that language is better. The phrase "I guess you meant ολυμπιακό???" gives that away as does the assertion that these are all different tenses. Let's be clear: 1. The modern Greeks call the Olympic games the "Olympiakoi agones". Ancient Greeks didn't. They used the term "Olympiada" or occassionally "Olympikoi agones" (verify the spelling here). All of those are in the same grammatical form. The modern name is the one that is proposed. You claim you want to provide people with "the etymology", and I have no objection to explaining the actual etymology, but that's not actually what this is, is it?
 * 2. Yes, I agree there are a couple of ways in which Greece is privileged. I don't accept the validity of all of your examples but some are valid. It's not really relevant, however. Wikipedia follows the conventions of the most reliable sources. The French name is used internationally, outside the Francophone world, including by the IOC and at Olympic games. As far as I'm aware, the Greek name is rarely used outside Greece. This simply doesn't belong on English Wikipedia. Have a nice day. --Lo2u (T • C) 07:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I've been asked by Lo2u to comment here. Just some brief remarks: Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this whole debate suffers from the misconception that mentioning or not mentioning a foreign name in the lead sentence should be construed as a symbolic mark of recognition of the importance or prominence of a given nation's connection to the topic of the article. It shouldn't. Foreign names cited in lead sentences have the single purpose of helping the English-speaking reader in cases where this foreign name form might be encountered in important sources. Official names of organizations are cited in this way because the reader needs to be able to recognize them in the organization's own official material; that's all.
 * Lo2u is generally right about the linguistic details of the Greek forms. The common modern Greek name (ολυμπιακοί αγώνες) is not identical with the terms that were used in antiquity. They are of course all derived from the same root, but they are different derivations, hence not forms of the same word. (Incidentally, Nojamus needs to look up what the word "tense" means; it doesn't mean what he thinks it does.)
 * On a more general note, I find that the article is confusingly unclear about what its scope is supposed to be. Is it (a) about the modern Olympic Games alone, or (b) about a hypothetical overarching concept uniting both the ancient and the modern ones as two incarnations of essentially the same thing? The hat-note implies it's (a); the first sentence defines the topic in a way that also fits only (a); but then the sentence "The ancient Olympic Games were held in Olympia, Greece, ..." sounds as if those games were part of this article's coverage too, implying (b), and the following section "Ancient Olympics" also creates that impression. If we actually wanted this article to cover the ancient games fully and in a straightforward way, then the question of the name in the lead might have to be asked afresh, but since it does so only in such a halfhearted and incoherent way, I don't think that ought to be taken into consideration. (Actually, I think definition (a) is the only viable one: the ancient and the modern games simply are not the same thing; they are radically different historical entities that share with each other little more than the name and the fact that the former were the inspiration in creating the latter.)
 * Thanks for outdenting! I'll deal with your points in order:


 * This might have been lost in the long text of this debate, but if you scroll up you'll see that I conceded the Greek words might not belong in the opening line. I think the most appropriate place is later in the article in the discussion about the Ancient Olympics, either in the intro or the dedicated section. So this is not out problem here! Also, I am perfectly ok with the Greek explanation using the word Ολύμπια rather than Ολυμπιακοί. That's not the problem either.
 * With respect, Fut. Perf. and Lo2u are not correct about the language. If I hadn't already said it, I'll say right now that I am an (educated) native speaker. (Please don't take that as an excuse to label me a "nationalist" as Lo2u did above with anyone who disagrees with his/her opinion. That's just unfair and defeats our common purpose here). What I am NOT is a linguist, so I don't pretend to know the subtleties of linguistic terms like "tense" or "root"; I may have used the wrong terminology. But Τα Ολύμπια clearly refers to the Games (or Festivities) of Olympia. It is in the plural; the missing word in the phrase is implied. Its meaning could not possibly be misunderstood by a Greek speaker, ancient or modern. It's very much like saying "The Olympics" today. So your linguistic claim seems to be splitting hairs and missing the big picture.
 * We don't have to deal with most of your last point because, again, I am not necessarily arguing about changing the lead sentence. However, you bring up something that I find very disturbing: the claim that the modern and ancient games have little in common other than the name. (So you agree that the name is common. How nice!). This is a claim that the IOC itself would not accept. The ancient and modern games are linked by: (a) classical ideals, including a belief in honour and fairness, the ideal of competition through sport, and the goal of finding common ground between people who might otherwise be fighting each other; (b) a similar multi-event format; (c) many specific events (sprinting, boxing, wrestling - even if the rules have changed); (d) the classic 4-year cycle of the Panhellenic games; (e) a connection to the Greek people (many love to forget the contributions of the 19th and early 20th century Greeks in building up the games. Fortunately the article mentions some of this history). But let's drop this whole issue of modern vs. ancient because it is getting us off topic.
 * The point is to discuss Ολύμπια vs. Ολυμπιακοί. If you don't like Ολυμπιακοί Αγώνες in the lead sentence, AGAIN that is acceptable, if highly debatable. But Ολύμπια (in Greek) belongs in the article one way or the other, whether in the lead or somewhere else.Nojamus (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Olympic Games (Ancient or Modern) are Greek. There name is derived from Greek. All the French did was revive them. Putting the French name and not including the Greek name makes it imply the French created the games, which they did not. 173.59.97.116 (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've hinted above, the French didn't even revive them. As we all know by now, Zappas ran 4 successful Olympic Games in Athens in the 19th century before Coubertin did anything. Nojamus (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IP, this is exactly the problem with all of the arguments made from the Greek perspective. You start from the assumption that the modern IOC games are Greek. Then you claim this means we need to include some Greek. You don't recognise that the first statement is highly simplistic and extremely debatable. You seem barely aware that the Greek names, and even the Greek language, have changed, and you don't particularly care which name is used or whether the claims made are inaccurate or the impressions given misleading. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion is getting a bit unweildy, and we may not even know what we are debating anymore. (I'm not sure I do!) I'll give some practical suggestions for specific debate. For me, an ideal lead sentence in the article would look something like this: "The modern Olympic Games (from Greek: Τα Ολύμπια / Ta Olympia) (French: les Jeux olympiques) are a major international event...". There could be a note that explains French and English are the official IOC languages. Notice that my phrasing does not use the more modern form "Ολυμπιακοί Αγώνες".
 * An alternative would be to start the "Ancient Olympics" section with the sentence: "The Ancient Olympic Games (Greek: Τα Ολύμπια) were a religious and athletic festival...". Nothing is lost and much is gained by a simple insertion of the Greek word.
 * The advantage of the first approach is that it shows the cultural and historical legacy of the Olympics (after all, the modern games were designed as a REVIVAL of the ancient games.) The advantage of the second approach is that is keeps etymology separate from the lead sentence. I'm not sure I agree with this, but it's a point to be made.Nojamus (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Some (brief) comments:
 * I didn't call the other editor a nationalist. My point was that anyone reading that article would likely jump to the conclusion that it was written from that perspective, as I did when I saw it, and would be less likely to trust it. I object to the effect on the article, not to the opinions of the editor, about whom I know nothing.
 * Your linguistic arguments are still convoluted and generally inaccurate. You have a lot of useful knowledge about modern Greek and the Olympic Games. Nevertheless your understanding of the linguistic points seems extremely limited. What you think is hair-splitting is actually fairly crucial when it comes to speaking of derivation, a subject that you introduced. Nevertheless, I'm pleased you've dropped the claim that the name used by modern Greeks is "the etymology".
 * I'm not quite clear what you are trying to achieve by including a Greek name. I'm not sure you are either. Either (1) you want to explain etymology of the English name, via early modern English, middle English, and Latin; or (2) You want to include the name of the ancient games to strengthen your claim that there's a direct continuity between the ancient and modern games.
 * If (1) is the case, I'm fairly sure, judging by your earlier comments, you don't have the expertise to do it. I'm happy to help if you want.
 * If (2) is the case, then we're back to the question of whether the ancient and modern games are the same festival. To most people the answer is obviously "no", regardless of modern Greek involvement and ancient inspiration. However, I find the whole thing very tedious and I'm really not prepared to discuss it. If this is your reason please go ahead and add a sensible note to the section on the Ancient Games. It can't make the article any more misleading. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wrote that before your second comment. I'm not sure your first suggestion is really acceptable: how did we get from "ta Olympia" to "Olympic Games"? Was the English name actually derived from the place Olympia? Please do some reasearch before adding anything like this, or give me a few days to do some. --Lo2u (T • C) 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * About the derivation in English: According to the OED, Olympic, as an adjective, is first attested in English in the late 16th century (referring to the place of Olympia in general, as in the Olympic plain, or specifically to the ancient games. (Also, at about the same time, in the other meaning of Olympian, referring to Mt Olympus and the Olympian Gods rather than the place Olympia.) The use as a plural noun (the Olympics) is only a few decades younger. Incidentally, the OED has a reference to those "Cotswold Olympics" among its earliest references, but it sounds as if it was being used as a facetious description, not as an actual name for that event ("Dovors Olimpicks or the Cotswold Games", 1652). Etymologically, it is of course the regular anglicisation of the Latin olympicus, which in turn was a regular borrowing from Greek ολυμπικός (not ολυμπιακός). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, the more I think of it, the less I am convinced the French translation ought to be in the lead either. It wasn't there when the article was promoted to FA status, and it adds very little of practical information, apart from the effect of a symbolical bowing down before the "official" status of the IOC. Which is not what we ought to be doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand why Lo2u removed the Greek name before consulting the other members of the community. Do you think that you have superior knowledge for the subject over all the others? You removed the name and then consulted the rest of us. Why didnt you ask the others' opinions first? All i can see now is a talk page full with your comments trying to convince other contributors for your actions. Until Lo2u finds his refenences or justifies adequately his actions, i support the name's return to the article.Moumouza (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Moumouza, check the history. The current removal was by a different editor. I removed originally because that is normal Wikipedia practice. Happy to give references/justification - exactly which bit are you struggling to understand? Do you think that you have superior knowledge for the subject over all the others? In some cases, yes. Regards. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (Response to FP) Thanks for the etymological information. I don't have easy access to the OED at the moment. I don't say I know for a fact this is the case, but could it be that the French name is the primary name, the one by which the IOC identifies itself? If so it might be best to keep it, for the same reason that the foreign names of countries and cities are given in Wikipedia. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Important! - Olympics supersede World Championships
It should be noted in the lede that the Olympic Games supersede any and all World Championship events for/during the year that those Championships are held, sans any event which is not classified as an Olympic category.69.146.144.86 (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Phelps in introduction
Someone added a line to the end of the introduction about Michael Phelps being the most decorated Olympic athlete. It certainly doesn't belong in that paragraph, nor anywhere in the introduction, which doesn't discuss individual athletes, so I have removed it. Winter Maiden (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Or at least I tried to remove it. It's still there, looking as arbitrary as ever. Is this because the page is semi-protected right now? Winter Maiden (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Try purging your cache. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 22:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history you did not make any edits. Perhaps you forgot to save? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 22:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks okay now. Winter Maiden (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only phsical disabilities
I removed the word 'physical' because the Paralympic Games now have several competitions that are open to athletes with an intellectual disablement. See here. Richard Avery (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

boycotts
I've just noticed that according to the article Switzerland has apparently both boycotted a Games, and also attended every single one. Something doesn't smell right about that.  &#91; stwalkerster &#124; talk &#93;  18:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually both are correct. Switzerland did boycott the 1956 olympic events held in Melbourne.  But, because they sent an equestrian team to the competition in Stockholm, officially they are considered as having competed in the games as a whole.  Any nation that competed solely in the equestrian events at Stockholm are still considered by the IOC to have competed in the 1956 games a whole. Ravendrop 19:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to tamper with a such high visibility article given how little I update Wikipedia articles. Could a Wikipedian make that boycott sentence clearer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.10.225 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you a suggestion as to how. To me its pretty clear, especially how the dual olympics melbourne/stockholm is explained in the article.  Ravendrop 02:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Australia, Great Britain and Switzerland are the only countries to send a team to every Olympic Games since their inception in 1896. <--- France has sent a team to every Olympic Games... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.183.137.251 (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_table Great Britain (GBR) - France (FRA) - Switzerland (SUI) participated 47 times in the olympics games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.183.137.251 (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. They did not send a team to the 1904 Olympics.  While there is some evidence that Albert Corey was French, he entered as an American. The IOC (see here) does not consider France to have competed at those Olympics.  Wikipedia can't be used a source for itself.  Ravendrop 12:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Australia missed 4 Winter Olympics. Marpocky (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Missed or boycotted? Not the same thing. --LauraHale (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE claims regarding "Tailteann Games"
I have removed the following claim regarding the "Tailteann Games" as I find it WP:FRINGEery of a high order. First, the date for these games is impossibly ancient (1829 BC), which is barely at the end of the Stone Age in Ireland. Written records in Ireland don't appear until millennia later, thus the highly precise date (1829 BC, or even the later date of 632 BC) is highly suspect. Such a claim is extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Only modern, scholarly peer-reviewed sources will do for such a claim. However, I note the sources used here are anything but. One is a reprint of essays from the 1900s, the other is the Lebor Gabála Érenn, an 11th century manuscript. The Lebor Gabála Érenn is interpreted by the user adding the material, clearly WP:OR. Athenean (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Aye, they were invented when Hercules was but a twinkling in Zeus' eye. I found a 2002 source claiming they were "Etruscan-style", which would make them pretty old, Etruscans were a bit older than Ancient Greece! When exactly do modern sources put the lives of Lugh and Tailtiu? You can't exactly delete stuff as fringe if you haven't got a mainstream opinion. This one from 1930s says 1600 BC as does this one from 1985, the Encyclopedia Americana source published in 2000 on the Tailteann games page suggests 1829 and surely that isn't a fringe source? This makes it around the Middle Bronze Age, or maybe the Late Bronze Age in Ireland, still long before the Olympics. I'd agree that the Stone Age is a bit WP:FRINGEey, when we were building Neolithic passage tombs like Dumha na nGiall (the Mound of the Hostages) around 3,400 (cal.) BC on the Hill of Tara, which isn't so far from Telltown! I wouldn't put their foundation back that far, but who knows! Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 21:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Etruscans? What do the Etruscans have to do with anything?  And by the way, they are not "older" than the Olympic Games  (768 BC vs 776 BC).  Now, let's get serious.  You want to claim that the Tailteann Games date to 1600 BC?  The burden of proof is entirely on you.  You have to produce high quality, scholarly peer reviewed sources for such a claim.  The clai you are making is exceptional.  Exceptional claims require high quality sources.  Only high-quality sources specializing on archeology and Bronze Age Ireland, or on the history of sports, will do.   The source you are using, a social and cultural history of Ireland for the period 1922-1985 is not adequate for such an exceptional claim.  Nor does it seem particularly scholarly.  And even if we assume the claim is true, if only for the sake of argument, what does this have to do with the Olympic Games?  There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Tailteann Games inspired or have anything to do with the Olympic Games, ancient as well as modern.  So in addition to being FRINGE, the claims about the Tailteann Games are completely irrelevant here. Athenean (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read the page, it says Etruscans start at 800 BC which is before the Olympic games. I have provided multiple high quality, scholarly peer reviewed sources for the founding date of the Tailteann games. You have not provided one for your outlandish and fringe claim that they were founded later than the Olympics. Please provide one or stop deleting things that don't agree with your unsourced and presumably personal fringe claim. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There you go again with the Etruscans. What about the Etruscans? What do they have to with anything?  Regarding your sources, they are neither high quality, nor peer-reviewed, nor scholarly.  And they are far from the specialized kind of sources that would be acceptable here.  I am not making any claims regarding these games; you are.  As such the burden of proof is on you, not me.  Now answer me this:  Even if we assume, if only for the sake of argument, that these so called "Tailteann Games" were indeed held in 1892 BC or whenever, what does that have to do with the Olympics?  There is absolutely nothing to suggest that these Tailteann Games are in any way connected to the Olympics, ancient or modern.  They certainly did not provide any kind of inspiration for the Olympics, ancient or modern.  So not only have you failed to provide adequate sourcing, you cannot explain why we should even mention these games in this article. Athenean (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this matter has been raised at WP:RSN. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are a load more scholarly, high quality, peer reviewed sources suggesting the Tailteann games predate the Olympics<and there are plenty more. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 23:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question: What does all this have to with the Olympics?  And none of these are in-depth scholarly sources into the history of sports or of the Olympic Games.  Athenean (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources discuss the Tailteann predating the Olympics. Please now answer my question why any of these sources, including encylcopedias, olympic factbooks, histories of Ireland and sports that mention this claim are not in-depth and scholarly? Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 01:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This a featured article and for this kind of article it needs exceptionally good sources to make exceptional claims, and any controversial material should be discussed in advance. I share Athenean's reservation about the impossibly precise an early date, about 2000 years actually before the first men on the Irish isle became literate...This is in all likelihood a legend, a product of the modern invention of tradition. In fact, the article Tailteann Games itself calls it a legend, so why don't you start there first trying to build up consensus fpr your views?


 * And, for the sake of the argument, considering it turns out true, I still wonder what a reference to these completely unrelated event has to do in the lead to the Olympic Games? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want archaeology specific sources, there are reliably, high quality, scholarly, peer-reviewed sources suggesting the Olympics began as Funeral games dating back to the Mycenean period. I certainly think this question of it's origins and links to such things as Aonachs deserve a mention. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 06:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Huh? Finally an appropriate source, but I don't see any mention of the Aonachs or the Tailteanns or any such thing.  You will also note how it connects those earlier funeral games with the classical Olympics.  Even so, this article is about the modern Olympics.  As such we should only mention the immediate forerunners of the modern Olympics, which as far as I know are the ancient Olympics.  Mentioning the Mycenean-era funeral games as forerunners of the ancient Olympics using the above source would be fine at the article on the ancient Olympic Games, but would be beyond the scope of this article.  And in any case I see nothing in the source on the Aonachs or Tailteanns so I don't see your point.  Unless you can provide a source of similar caliber to the above that explicitly connects the Aonachs or Tailteanns to the modern Olympics, I consider this case closed. Athenean (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, you are way off topic here. Sources / counter-sources are irrelevant. Just speaking from common sense, if the Tailteann Games were the inspiration of the modern Olympics in the 19th century, surely the modern Olympics would have been called the Tailteann Games. Come on guys - the Tailteann Games were far from the minds of men like William Penny Brookes, Evaggelis Zappas, and Pierre de Coubertin! Whether or not those Irish games had an influence on the ancient Greek games is quite irrelevant here. The ancient Olympics developed a unique culture of sporting competition over many centuries. It was that profound culture that influenced the people who formed the modern games. Nojamus (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "The great Irish festival, the Aonach Tailteann may be older than the Olympic Games, the Irish claim that it was the inspiration for the Greek games"  I'd suggest this is also an appropriate source linking them but with context to the Ancient Olympic Games and am formulating something to say on that page, which I hadn't realized existed when starting this discussion and agree is a better place for the connection. The connection should be made or else we are not providing information regarding the possibility (unproven through written history admittedly) that the profound culture that inspired the Olympics was influenced by profound cultures elsewhere and goes back much further than many would expect.  Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 00:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please no. I've been following this and have made no objection to mention of the Irish games per se but the idea that the ancient Greeks were actually inspired by them really is in fringe theory territory. This sort of idea belongs in the articles on Gavin Menzies and Iman Wilkens, not here. --Lo2u (T • C) 01:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Believe it or nor, he did it . Using sources such as "Sports and Exercise in a changing society", and some other source from 1849.  This really needs to stop. Athenean (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have stopped editing this article. The edit Athenean is referring to was on the Ancient Olympic Games page as suggested here, so this discussion really should continue there. The Freeman source is quoted by multiple others meets all requirements (please provide reasons if not). I have yet to see any criticism of it, please provide some if you think it fails requirements on any count. If you prefer we can use, page 905, which can hardly be considered fringe. Simply not liking a source it not a valid reason to remove it so please keep your personal opinions to yourself, or provide better reason. Also, the 1849 source is the Annals of the four masters (John O'Donovan's 1849 translation), which is the medieval chronicle of Irish history. Please see the talk on the Tailteann games page to see that this is the source for the 1829 BC date everyone is using. Now please provide reasons why any of these sources or information are invalid on a non-featured article page in the correct "Origins" section, or please revert your edit immediately. The full text should read:

Athletics and games such as wrestling have been found depicted on Sumerian statues dating to 2600 BC, with the origins of many aspects of the Olympics dating to funeral games of the Mycenean period and later. Early examples are known such as those held for Patroclus by Achilles, described by Homer and in Book 5 of Virgil's Aeneid, in which Aeneas organizes athletic contests on the anniversary of his father's death. Similar funeral games were held in Ireland called Aonachs, the most notable of which was the Aonach Tailteann founded, according to modern folklore based on John O'Donovan's translation of the Annals of the Four Masters by Lugh Lámhfhada as far back as 1829 BC at earthworks near the Hill of Tara.>[http://archive.org/stream/annalsofkingdomo00odon#page/20/mode/2up O’Donovan, John (ed. and tr.). Annála Rioghachta Eireann. Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters, from the earliest period to the year 1616. Edited from MSS in the Library of the Royal Irish Academy and of Trinity College Dublin with a translation and copious notes. 7 volumes Royal Irish Academy. Dublin, 1849. First edition, 1849.] Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 09:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous. None of your sources show that these Tailteann Games have anything whatsoever to do with the Olympics (ancient or modern), let alone provided an inspiration for them.  Unless you come with a high quality source that explicitly connects the Tailteann Games with the Olympics, which I am fairly sure you won't, this debate is well and truly over.  So there is no chance of reverting myself immediately, or anytime soon as a matter of fact.  I keep both articles (ancient and modern Olympics) watchlisted, as do several other users, so don't even think about re-adding said material by force or by waiting it out, it's not going to happen.  Now put down the stick and slowly back away from the horse carcass. Athenean (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I continue to await your reply to why the Freeman or Encylopedia Americana sources are not high quality in that regard. As mentioned before, your personal dislike of a source is inadequate reason for removal of material. I'll give you 7 days to respond properly without all the threats. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Neither source connects the Tailteann with the Olympics in any way, shape, or form. Source quality is completely irrelevant.  And like I said, don't even think about edit-warring, whether now or in "7 days". Athenean (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh yes they do! The Freeman sources says "This funerary origin was not rare in ancient times; the great Irish festival, Aonach Tailteann, may be older than the Olympic Games. Indeed, the Irish claim that it was the inspiration for the Greek games." The Encyclopedia Americana says (in the context of describing the history of sporting events) "Ireland has records of the Lughnasa or Tailteann Games as long ago as 1829 BC. Homer wrote of a clove foot race in the Illiad which probably took place before the 11th century BC. The Greeks originated the Olympic Games in 776BC" and "Legend tells of throwing the hammer in the Tailteann Games about 1829 BC". rehashes the hammer origins fact. I can happily go off and find more sources, but will you read any of them? I'll start quoting them to help. For instance, the Encyclopedia Britannica connects it with the origin of the pentathalon saying "As far back as 1829 BC, the roth clear, or wheel feat. was a major test of the Tailteann games. It was also one of the features of the Pentathlon when it was introduced at the ancient Olympic games". The Golden Bough  devotes an entire chapter to a discussion about the comparison with Sir James Frazer giving (in one of the most important early texts in the field of anthropology a nice discussion and comparison about how the origins of both Irish fairs and the Olympics were both the same, created by people trying to cash in on the large numbers of people attending someone's funeral "This theory might account for the origin not only of the Olympic and other  Greek games, but also for that of the great fairs or public assemblies of ancient Ireland which have been compared, not without reason, to the Greek games" he also mentions their differences "Whatever may be thought of these speculations, the great The Olympic festival cannot have been, like our Lammas, a harvest festival". Another interesting sources was published by J. Goulstone in the Olympic Review of 1980, which does suggest orgins of the Olympics in the North Sea, but not specifically Ireland. As a sidenote, this source is so good, he's spotted a theory about an ancient stadium in Amrit, Lebanon which in my opinion is a more likely and more obvious link that probably also deserves a mention and more research. This source pulls from that info to suggest Viking origins  and goes on to mention Boutros 1977 article and several others in the Olympic Review suggesting Phonecian origins. If you want another one (that quotes two more) connecting the two, try  on for size, where it says "Sporting  festivals, too, come to the fore very early in our journey. Both Tim Harris in "Sport" and Melvyn Watman in "The History of British Athletics" identify the most ancient of these to have been the Tailteann Games, which are believed to have been started in 632 BC, although some put its origins as far back as 1829 BC. These were effectively an Olympic Games of the age, staged in County Meath in Ireland." Here's another pretty good source, not that modern, but not too old  saying "The Tailtin or Tailteann Games also preceded the Olympic Games" and lets not forget  which says "Some scholars trace religious games to the great Irish funeral festival, Aonach Tailteann, which may be older than the Olympics games", which is not a bad source either but is using Freeman. The  says "A connection between the first Olympic Games and the Tailteann Games seems possible". The  says "The funeral games of Tailtiu that evolved into the Tailteann Fair are reputed to be the oldest organized games of history". I gotta love this one too  saying "The story went that the Aonach Tailteann were celebrated in Ireland more than a thousand years before Rome was founded, and that the Olympic Games were a mere shadow of Ireland's sporting contests." and that's Harvard University Press saying that, so sorry, but the horse isn't dead, it's very much alive and kicking, and could probably go on quoting good sources all night. Even in less suitable sources that merely stand to show the prevalence of this information in modern literature  Peggy Stanaland of Eastern Kentucky University (1977) rehashes T.H. Nally, dating them to 1500 BC in "The Tailteann Games of Ancient Ireland: Their Origin, Growth and Continuity through the Centuries of Unwritten History" saying "The most ancient such spectacle and sports festival recorded is the Tailteann games or Lugnasad, established more than 3000 years ago in Ireland".  says "We know that as early as 1800 b.c.e., Celtic tribes in Ireland regularly held competitive games honoring fallen warriors that predate the first recorded Olympic games, held in 776 BCE".  says "the Games, a sort of Irish Olympics, predate the Greek Olympics". I am not edit-warring, or threatening to and don't need to. I research and wait for people to catch up with me and form consensus.  Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 02:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still fringe, Paul Bedson. Your collection of one-line sources just repeats the same hypothesis over and again, but they all fall short for providing evidence for such an early date. The Tailteann Games are in reality not attested earlier than the Middle Ages, this is the verifiable date we have to go by. The rest is legend or folk tale, certainly worth a mention in Tailteann Games but totally inadequate for making a precedence case here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The starting date of the Olympics is also only testified by legend or folk tale, so how is that fact not fringe too? The evidence is on the ground at the archaeological site near Telltown, inlcuding artificial lakes tentitavely dated to have been constructed in the Iron Age for the games. Similar to the pre-olympic Phoenician stadium at Amrit. I admit the "Events in other areas" section of the Ancient Olympic Games page is the best place for it, but the suggestion that one country's mythology is better than anothers is a shameful form of nationalism that restricts study of comparitive mythology should be frowned upon if it is restricting infomation publishing on Wikipedia. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Legend, folktale, mythology?... The combination of victor lists and calculations from 776 B.C. onwards enabled Greek historians to use the Olympiads as a way of reckoning time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympiad#Historians Michalis Melidonis (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, the legendary founders: Hercules, or Idaean Dactyls, or Pelops...but the date 776 BC had not been ever disputed. Nobody said 754 or 888, or 1000 BC. Nor the victors and the first winner, the runner Coroebus of Elis Michalis Melidonis (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but the date of 776 BC still appears to have been determined from a tale about mythological events attributed to Pausanias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Olympic_Games Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 23:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The record of Coroebus of Elis has been much disputed and even he may be mythological (although there is no documentation of this on Wikipedia due to the tremendous Hellenic bias in this area). There is even an entire book dedicated to disputing the Hippias pre-6th century BCE records and the early chronology of the Olympics, and plenty of notable sources such as Plutarch suggesting the early victor lists to be unreliable and in dispute since the 5th century BCE. When I get time, I will endeavor to rectify this bias with appropriate sources to prevent readers being led into such unreliable perspectives. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 11:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This kind of research is not limited to ancient Olympic calendar. Exact dates of the whole BC history are also disputed. See Ab urbe condita. If the name Coroebus is legendary, this does not alter the fact that Olympiads were used as an era calendar, and that Coubertin and the other founders were inspired by the Ancient Olympics of Elis, not by Tailteann Games of Ireland. Did athletics and sports preexist before 776 BC? Yes! Please, go to History of sport. The whole discussion is irrelevant here. Michalis Melidonis (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well directed, and you are of course right again and have enlightened me greatly on the subject, but I still think Olympiad and Ancient Olympic Games need some work as a result of this discussion. They don't even know about Sumerian wrestling over on the History of sport page and it seems to indicate sport originated in China! And to conclude, you're probably right, it's hard to tell and perhaps nice for lots of Irish to speculate. Personally I'd say you have to go to archaeology to judge whether the stadiums at Amrit, Olympia or Telltown are the oldest and unfortunately two of those sites haven't been reliably dated very well. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 17:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)