Talk:2012 Summer Olympics: Difference between revisions

So, who was first?

So, who was first to update the page with the result? Was it me? — Peter McGinley 6 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

Does it matter?? No.

Now, where's your christmas spirit? boffy_b

I'm not sure whether I'm happier that the UK won it, or that the French didn't. Proto t c

You really shouldn't put a carboardbox on your cat. You know that? right? -- yourself

An american friend has suggested it is genetic for the English to be torn between being ecstatic that London won the games or that we beat the French ;-P --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Yes well its probably best not to crow too loundly. Today's anouncement of the 2012 Olympics pleased a lot of Britains and has dominated the news in the UK today. But what is at stake;

A) In seven years time, Britain gets the opportunity to host an international event, spending £3 bn to play games for a fortnight,

Meanwhile last week, on the 28th June, in an item which got about 30s slot in the news;

B) France won the bid to host ITER, an international project, spending £7 bn to build a fusion reactor over the next 10 years. A project which after some 30 years of work could go some way to solving the world's energy problems.

A bit of perspective doesn't hurt. -- Solipsist 6 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)

I'll clarify one point which is that it isn't a fortnight but a month - there is the Paralympics straight after the main games. Both these projects have the possibility for massive change for the good. --Vamp:Willow 7 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)

Look at the acticle history if you are that bothered about who got here first --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

To the fusion Reactor comment I would rebuke that with the fact that France has spent vast amounts of money trying to win the Olympic bid for some 20 years now without winning - it represents a huge misallocation of money, perhaps that should be included in this article that the french government tried for many years to win and it came as great surpise to many that London won over Paris which had been the clear favourite from day one. Whilst the UK will be paying for the Olympics it will make that money back many times over in tourist revenue, buissness ventures, improving public infrastructure (especially transport) and it also aims to improve the overall state of health of the nation etc. This is no place for nationalistic arguments though, or for sour comments. (Id also direct you to the page on Nuclear cold fusion reactors - its a tough venture which may well not work. It could mean the French goverment has once again spent money it will not make back, and at an overhead of £7bn thats quite a potential loss.)

I frankly have no idea why these topics are being discussed on this talk page but since you've started... There is some small misunderstanding about the nature of these "vast sums" that have been "mis-allocated" - in total the sums for the 3 bids Paris has tendered are considerably less than that which London spent on one Olympic, one failed International Athletics bid together, not to mention 3 further failed bids by Birmingham and Manchester - so let's have a sense of proportion please. I also find it interesting that although there is mention of Chirac's comments re English food there appears to be no sign of the rebukes handed to the London bid committee regarding its promises of free airline tickets, shopping and restaurant vouchers. Neither is there a single mention of the shady-in-anyone's-eyes early hours behind closed doors meetings between IOC delegates and London representatives. Surely that is just as pertinent to the discussion? I mean a silly comment of food is more persuasive to the notoriously corrupt IOC committee members than free gifts and secret promises? Surely not. As for the ITER - this kind of crass nationalistic commentary belongs in the pages of the Sun, Mirror and Daily Mail not Wikipedia, please take your jingoism elsewhere.

Image

In the many reverts and updates, the image has many times changed between Image:Olympic rings.svg and Image:London 2012.jpg, I presumed it was being changed back to the former by accident and restored the London one, is there any reason not to use it? boffy_b July 6, 2005 12:14 (UTC)

It does say "Candidate bid" underneath, so perhaps someone thought it shouldn't appear. I believe it still should, however, and am currently celebrating! violet/riga (t) 6 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)

The 'Candidate city' line is a problem. It would be easy enough to edit the image, but as it is a logo, I suspect that shouldn't be done. Even so, it is visually more useful to show the logo of the winning bid rather than the generic Olympics logo. -- Solipsist 6 July 2005 12:26 (UTC)

Well until the bid's site comes back online, it's the most up-to-date image we have. boffy_b July 6, 2005 12:54 (UTC)

The bid site is back up, but the replacement logo won't be available for a while yet --Vamp:Willow 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

olympic soccer

Will the UK play the 2012 olympic football as ONE team as they did many years ago (they can't play there as England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)? The UK hadn't played olympic football since the 1970's even if they qualified in the U-21 European Championship.

All team sports that the UK plays are as a single team, under the official name "Great Britain and Northern Ireland". If the UK plays football in 2012 (and I'm pretty sure that it's one of the sports that guarantees a spot to the host nation), it will be as "ONE team", yes. Just like they had for hockey in 2004. -- Jonel | Speak 9 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

Because of the FA and its organisation a united kingdom football team has been elusive in the past, I understand however from a breif interview (records of which i cannot find) that Sebastian Coe said he hoped those issues could be resolved and ONE team could play instead thus representing the nation in which football (as it currently exists) was invented. Please correct me if im wrong however, its only something a vaugely remember.

Ramadan Controversy

Shouldn't we include a section about the Olympics being scheduled during Ramadan? That's major international relations news.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410439&in_page_id=1770

Which is the correct logo?

I noticed that Image:London Olympics 2012 logo.png has replaced the original Image:London Olympics 2012 logo.svg. I'm just wondering, has the official logo changed? Which is the real one? –  LATICS  talk  17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That is the official logo. There are 4 standard colours, but it's blockiness means it can be filled in with whatever the organisers want (so far, there have been images of the stadiums, of certain events, and of the Union Flag). This new one you just mentioned is a plain white version, rather than a coloured version, that's all. 86.136.103.34 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reaction to win

User:MissOrgum1996 has several times deleted information about events immediately after the award, seemin to think it's political. We alreday mention French commetns in the lead up to the vote, and the July 7 bombings were pretty siginificant, and widely linked to the Olypmic vote at the time. I don't see any reason for taking this out. David Underdown (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/07/Olympics2012.olympics20121
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/10/olympics2012.olympicgames7
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/10/olympics2012.olympicgames6
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/02/london.Olympics2012
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/sep/15/Olympics2012.politics
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/dec/23/Olympics2012.politics2
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/06/olympics2012.olympicgames2
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/07/olympics2012.olympicgames

Various press links showing coverage of these issues David Underdown (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Political Statements

Is it me or does someone have shares in the guardian newspaper? Political actions or statements should not be and are actually against the Olympic motto. Printing this on a page viewed by lots of people encourages more political actions and promotes their political cause. How many times has political been written in this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissOrgum1996 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

On your talk page you say that it's about anit-European sentiments, here about not promoting terrorism (MissOrgum amended her original statement here). I find your commetns completely bizarre, especially since there are plenty of "political" statements about the rival bids remaining in the article. The only reason I picked the Guardian is because it's not a tabloid, and nor is it noted for its anti-European attitude. What is the problem with presenting contrasting reactions to the result of the bid? Is it really controversial to say that the party mood was dampened by the bombings (it could scarcely be otherwise). David Underdown (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Politics may be against the Olympic motto, but mentioning politics on Wikipedia isn't against any internet guidelines. Politics surrounds every single Olympics and major sporting event there is, there's no escape from it I'm afraid. Pullshapes (talk)

->

I think the only reason you picked the Guardian is because you have shares in the business. Promoting your business is one thing, supporting political actions and statements is another. Unfortunately I don't find your comments bizarre. This is exactly what I expected to happen when changing statements supporting political actions - objection. Do you not have anything better to do with your time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissOrgum1996 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried assuming good faith? David Underdown (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I've highlighted this discussion at the two wikiprojects concerned to try and get wider input. David Underdown (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Having come here following the link posted on wikiproject olympics i'm struggling to see where the issue is. Is the material in question currently in the article? There is no problem with mentioning political concerns etc in the article (infact the 2008 games have a seperate article on that kind of thing) as long as they are properly referenced a nd not biased towards one particular POV. Basement12 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

MissOrgum, first of all, let's stop with the accusations, shall we? Suggesting that someone is including links because they own shares in the company is rude, and goes against the spirit of WP:Civil and WP:Good faith.

Now, on to the removals of the information.. I confess I don't understand your motivation. They appear to be good faith pieces of information in the article, referencing events around the announcement of London's win, viz, reactions in Paris, comments by Chirac and others (side note: I would edit your line about 'perhaps unfortunately for France', as that is pushing a political POV that isn't, as far as I can see, supported by the citations), and the eclipse of the news by the July 7 bombings. All of these things are relevant to the bid, and especially in the case of the bombings, notable inasmuch as something that would otherwise have been large news was generally overshadowed. Further, we owe zero allegiance to the Olympic spirit here; our policies are neutrality and verifiability. Excluding information because, quote, they are "actually against the Olympic motto" would be violating neutrality.

So. Based on those, I really don't see why you removed all of that. As David pointed out, noting facts is not a political POV; that the things you removed happened are in no doubt, and they do not push a political agenda of any sort.

Further, both you and David seem to have exceeded the three-revert-rule by a fair bit.

Accordingly, I am going to restore everything you have removed. I would ask that:

1. You both take a timeout from this page for a couple of days, and cool down.
2. You both achieve consensus here before embarking on any further edits to hitherto stable sections of the page.
3. You both re-read the WP policies on civility, neutrality, verifiability, and most importantly, assuming good faith.

I am not an admin, so this isn't official of course. But it would behoove you both to, at the very least, take a step back. Perhaps go for a walk, breathe some fresh air.

Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[EC] Wikipedia attempts to present a neutral point of view, that doesn't try to ignore controversy, but to present it without taking sides. Removing controversy that has been mentioned in reputable news outlets is not only burying one's head in the sand, but also fails this neutrality test. The Guardian is one of a number of reputable British news sources - including the BBC - and an acceptable reliable source. Generally speaking, if a matter has appeared in a reputable source, then it is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia - that is the notability test.

If I get the argument correctly, there is an attempt to remove any mention of politics from the article - that I find strange, as any International organisation depends on politics and the exercise of political influence. You also excised a real event that occurred as a result of London winning the bid. Maybe you'd care to expand on your reasons for that.

I also have to warn all parties not to get involved in edit wars; apart from the 3 revert rule, editors may be subjected to editing restrictions, or be blocked if they indulge in disruptive editing. It is always better to talk about these changes and achieve consensus on the talk page. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS - I am an admin, and Prince of Canada offers good advice. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Upon delving a bit further into the diffs.. MissOrgum, it's poor form to make large edits and note them as minor; it is also poor form to edit your own comments on a talk page and say you "changed a word" when you removed an entire sentence. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if I have indeed broken 3rr. I don't intend this to be wikilawyering, I'm just trying to better understand the policy in this instance. I count that I reverted twice in the article (and at first I thought I was probably dealing with delete vandalism). Perhaps wrongly, I had not considered that 3rr would apply to trying to prevent my own talk page comments being edited, contrary to WP:TALK (and again I only count 3 reverts, though perhaps talk and article count together on this? - I appreciate it could be seen as a single dispute, and that the 3 reverts are not an entitlement). David Underdown (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

My bad; I counted 4 'undids' next to your name at the article, not noticing one of them was reverting your own edit. While that would still violate 3rr in a very technical sense, I don't think it's violating the spirit. Does come under the heading of 'edit-warring', though, both at the article and here on the talk page. Better bet in the future: go to an admin when this starts happening. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 18:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is the correct logo?

There is a logo on the official London Games website which is pink - is that not the official one that should be on this page??? This should be the alpha one should it not..

Logo Confirmation

Pink logo is the official one (Times Newspaper) ref indent CC

AFAIK the whole point of the logo is that the colour can change colour for different uses. There is no official colour. Jooler (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Create Divisions with the French?

The sentence of tv coverage seems to be a way of creating divisions within Europe, and distancing relations between the UK and France. This is againts wiki's (Soapbox) rules. And anyhow the article is and should be about the 2012 Summer Olympics (and the bidding process has a separate wiki page anyhow), it should not be used to promote any kind of political statements with malicious intent.

Although I don't think this is a case of soapboxing, I think it either needs (reliable) sourcing or removing. Verbal chat 10:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing looks good to me. Where do you see the issue? (Honest question; I don't see an issue, so I'd like to know what I'm missing.) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There isn't actually a source given for the nature of the TV coverage-The Guardian links above do however contrast reactions in London and paris in a similar way. I doubt it would take long to turn up similar coverage from other British media outlets however, and we could broaden the sentence scope to refer to British media coverage in general (possibly other papers will mention the TV coverage too of course). David Underdown (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a great idea. Can you do it? I'm trying to write an article and this whole brouhaha has been somewhat distracting. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do the Terrorists Work For Them by Including the London Tube Bombings in this article?

Advocate Being a 12 year old girl from Poland and currently training in athletics it is my dream to go to London 2012. But when I read the 'Summer 2012 Olympics' wiki page alarm bells start to ring.

Instead of being a page that provides information on the 2012 Summer Olympics, the page is being used as propaganda for terrorism. This is because there is an immediate mention of the July 2005 terrorists attacks. At my private school in Lodz, we have learnt about terrorism and it is obvious that this is some form of psychological warfare or cyber-terrorism (here's your Guardian kantors worth: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/16/wisdomnotintelligence). Please also read the wiki articles on psychological warfare and cyber-terrorism for further info.

This (Summer 2012 Olympics) wiki article currently being read by thousands if not millions of people who are searching for information regarding this (2012) olympics on the internet and one of the 1st things that they see is the July 2007 terrorists attacks.

'If a serial killer's motive is to get their name printed in the paper and when they go out and kill 100 people is it right for the tabloids to print their name?' The answer is NO. Because this would mean they have won and achieved their goal.

If you support the mentioning of the terrorist atrocities in this wikipedia article you are basically helping to support their terrorism marketing campaign.

'Being mentioned in the same sentence of the London Olympics means they have been successful in the promotion of their course. Besides this, supporting terrorist propaganda is against wikipedia's (soapbox rule) as the article would be giving biased press coverage towards the terrorists (and not a neutral one as stated in the 5 wiki pillars). (Surely a neutral article which would just provide information regarding the summer olympic games 2012).

I hope everyone will see sense and immediately omit any reference to the July 2005 terrorist attacks, and provide perhaps provide a continued sense of victory for the already astonishing achievement your country has had so far.

This wiki game is new to me so please help me beat any terrorist advocate who wants to fight this alteration.

Do not let them win

Orgum Wisniewski.

Lodz, Poland

[EC] Simple reason, Wikipedia is not censored. Real world events are covered on wikipedia without judgement. Entries must be encyclopaedic, i.e cover the subject dispassionately, including the nasty things in the world. Wikipedia is not a game, it is an attempt to build an encyclopaedia. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 08:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Such a change needs consensus before it could be made, and in any case censorship is not a wikipedia policy. You can still edit this page to make your case, but the article is protected against editing by anyone other than an admin - for a while. I would ask you to confine your discussion to only matters relating to the content, and not other editors motives - you have been warned about this before. As a young wikipedean, I would urge you not to give your real world identity in posts. Kbthompson (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of terrorist (political) propaganda is against wiki (soapbox) rules and against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia which is a neutral point of view. Supporting terrorist actions by including it "in the tabloids" on wiki is NOT a neutral action. They are trying to stop me. I am not afraid of your threats. Please keep fighting this course. Do not let the terrorists win. --MissOrgum1996 (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting 'news is not terrorist propaganda. If the article said "London was bombed because the jihad commands us and London is bad!", that would be propaganda. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychological Warfare

If new reports of an anthrax mail scare then this is successful form of terrosirm (no matter if there is anthrax mail or not). Perhaps you should check the wiki page on terrorism.--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Why is it so important that the terrorist attack are mentioned on a page about the 2012 Summer Olympics. Putting on the bidding process page by all means. It is not appropriate to be on this page. It is advocating terrorism and promoting their course.--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Saying "Terrorism is good" is advocating terrorism. Saying "this thing happened" is neutral. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Including the July 2005 bombings on a page that is currently being viewed by millions of people trying to find information about the 2012 Summer Olympics is against wiki's (5 pillar) neutral policy because it is promoting the terrorists course. Psychological Warfare and Terrorist Propaganda is against wiki's (Sopabox rules) --MissOrgum1996 (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. I give up. I'm going to find a Polish editor who can explain to you why you are mistaken. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you being racist asking for a Polish editor? Please could an admin remove Prince of Canada from wiki immediately. In Poland racism is not tolerated and I hope it is not tolerated on Wikipedia.

PLEASE WOULD AN ADMIN CHANGE THE ARTICLE ASAP REMOVINGTHE TERRORIST PROPAGANDA MENTIONING THE JULY 2005 BOMBINGS WHICH IS ON A PAGE WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING VIEWED BY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE 2012 SUMMER OLYMPICS.

DO NOT LET THE TERRORISTS WIN--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Racism isn't tolerated in Canada, either. I have asked a Polish admin to explain things to you because English is not your first language, and we have had no success trying to explain things in English. I don't speak Polish, otherwise I would try to explain in Polish. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

MissOrgum1996, I'm an uninvolved editor who saw your post over atWikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. In my opinion, this isn't a COI issue. Reporting what happened is different than promoting a particular point of view and your refrain that the editors who disagree with you are "advocating terrorism" is absurd. You should try to WP:AGF. As for the racism,Prince of Canada was only trying to find somebody who could convey this to you in what is apparently your native language in the hopes that would make communication easier. I hope you consider these points, as I'm an editor who never saw or edited this article before your COI posting. Movingboxes (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Please read what MovingBoxes has said very carefully. PrinceOfCanada wanted a Polish speaking editor to speak to you as it may be easier for you to communicate in your native tongue. Reporting something happened in a NPOV manner is perfectly fine; WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against you. Minkythecat (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but this editor also wants to acknowledge / advocate the terrorists by including them on this page, thus promoting their course--MissOrgum1996 (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it your position that Wikipedia should contain no information about terrorists or terrorism? Movingboxes (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No it is not but reporting something that has happened in this instance is not a neutral point of view from the terrorists point of view - as they want their actions to be reported. This is victory for the terrorists and is not neutral. A neutral page on the Summer 2012 Olympics would not any include terrorist propaganda. --MissOrgum1996 (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I see no advocation of terrorism; merely events that occurred supported by references from reputable sources. Comment on the content - not the editors

With all due respect, utter rubbish. Like it or not, the attack happened, it's naive to believe it should be magically airbrushed from history. You've now spammed COI and other noticeboards despite numerous people telling you politely that you are wrong. Wiki works on WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS - both of which you are completely and utterly ignoring. You're close to breaking [{WP:CIV]] by borderline accusing editors of being terrorist advocators... please listen to what you are being told; if you don't take things on board then you are becoming disruptive. Nobody wants action taken. MissOrgum1996 (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)