Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*B-class for now, this article should have potential to become FA-class with more expansion and citations. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Nothing can really be done until the games are over because of stability issues. └Jared┘┌talk┐  14:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteering

Volunteering for the Olympics

Anyone know of the proper procedure for a Chinese expatriate to become a volunteer in 2008? Could someone start a subpage about possibilities of volunteering in Beijing?

It is possibly too late for this. (68.4.67.101 04:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

Proposal #2

thumb|right|200px|Students for a Free Tibet's campaign to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics.

Students for a Free Tibet (SFT) has initiated a campaign to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics. Among its other complaints concerning China's policies in Tibet, the group is protesting the Chinese government's use of the Tibetan antelope (chiru) as one of its five mascots. SFT claims that this is propaganda to legitimize Chinese rule of Tibet, and that this goes against the Olympic spirit.

Some environmental groups have called for a boycott of the 2008 Summer Olympics after it was reported that the Chinese government placed an order, for $1 billion USD, on 800,000 cubic meters of Merbau hardwood from the endangered rainforests of Indonesia's Papua province to be used in the construction of the games. Rainforest activist groups claim that this is against Olympic ideals of respecting universal moral principles.

---

Would anyone have an issue with using the above (identical to the first proposal except with the {{main}} link and the paragraph ending in {{citation needed}}) as the boycott section for now and continuing discussion of the uncited Falun Gong info as well as of a separate page here on talk? That's what it seems like to me from reading the above comments, but I'd like to make sure. It would be really nice to get the page unprotected. -- Jonel | Speak 00:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened to:

Boycotts occur at nearly every Olympic Games by groups of protestors and activists (sometimes sanctioned by member states) and the 2008 games are not an exception.

This was basic, uncontroversial information. 72.65.69.157 00:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, the article has been unprotected. I'm going to put up this Proposal 2 text in the section for now. Please discuss before you change it. Hong Qi Gong 02:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the current SFT image is too large and overlaps into the "Participating NOCs" section. It should be resized so that it stays within the "potential boycotts" section. RevolverOcelotX

I resized the image and reinserted the uncontroversial text. 72.65.69.157 03:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The text you reinserted is inaccurate. These boycotts are not sanctioned by member states. RevolverOcelotX

Please form a coherent sentence before you pretend to have an argument. Unnamed "weasel words" are not a justification for summary reverts of completely unrelated material. Mentioning the history of state sanctioning does not even imply that states are backing boycotts for 2008. It appears that RevolverOcelotX wishes to immediately restart an edit war. "Chairman LMAO" got to this one before I did. 72.65.69.157 07:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You reinserted "affiliated pro-Tibetan independence groups". Exactly what "affiliated pro-Tibetan independence groups" are you talking about? You have to name them specifically and they have to come from Verifiable sources. Mentioning "sanctioned by member states" is misleading, because there are no state sanctioning in these boycotts. 72.65.69.157, gather consensus on the talk page before adding controversial changes. Chairman LMAO (talk · contribs) is a new user with only 8 edits, all of them are reverts in your favor. Care to explain this? RevolverOcelotX

• Australia Tibet Council
• Free Tibet Campaign
• Save Tibet Austria
• Students for a Free Tibet
• Swiss Tibetan Friendship Association
• Tibet Support Group Netherlands
• Tibet Initiative Deutschland e.V.
• Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy
• Tibetan Community in Switzerland
• Tibetan Womens Association
• Tibetan Youth Association Europe
• Tibetan Youth Congress
• US Tibet Committee
• Canada Tibet Committee

From here, as I mentioned before (frame skip here). The phrase "sanctioned by member states" is a historical fact which contextualizes the boycotts and is not used in reference to who is boycotting the 2008 games. As for "Chairman LMAO", I am not going to speculate. There have been people watching these edit wars and looking through people's contributions lists (including mine, lest we forget). 72.65.69.157 07:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect Chairman LMAO (talk · contribs) is your sockpuppet. His contributions almost exactly mirrors your contributions, and they are all reverts to your preferred version. [1][2] [3]. I doubt that a new user would extensively look through and follow a dynamic IP address's contribution list. RevolverOcelotX

He's not me, and I don't think he's following me either. 72.65.69.157 07:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Chairman LMAO (talk · contribs) fits all the characteristics of a sockpuppet. Look at this edit where "Chairman LMAO" reverted immediately after 72.65.69.157 reverted 3 times. WP:SOCK states that brand new users acting together is a violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry as well. I think a RFCU might be required. RevolverOcelotX

This would be a violation, were it so that I was "Chairman LMAO", which I am not. You do not have evidence for this assertion anymore than past slurs. 72.65.69.157 08:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Made a couple of edits:

1. I removed the "sometimes sanctioned by member states" statement because I couldn't find any sources for that.
2. I changed this:

Students for a Free Tibet (SFT) and affiliated pro-Tibetan independence groups have initiated a campaign to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics. Among its other complaints concerning China's policies in Tibet, the group is protesting the Chinese government's ...'

to this:

Students for a Free Tibet (SFT) and affiliated pro-Tibetan independence groups have initiated a campaign to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics. Among its other complaints concerning China's policies in Tibet, Students for a Free Tibet is protesting the Chinese government's ...

Because I couldn't find evidence the other groups are also protesting the use of the Tibetan antelope.

Hong Qi Gong 15:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And again, I highly suggest that we make a separate article for these potential boycotts. It's obvious there are editors that want to add more information, and there are editors that want to add contrasting views. We've got enough information for a separate article. Hong Qi Gong 15:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The second edit mainly consists of a linguistic correction which I support; however, the first is a removal of undisputed fact. See here and here. The statement does not imply that the boycott of the 2008 games is taken up by members but rather is differentiating between such boycotts and those primarily organized by independent groups. 151.205.37.254 19:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I support removal of "sometimes sanctioned by member states" because the statement is misleading and these boycotts are not taken up by any member states. The "Boycotts occur at nearly every Olympic Games by groups of protestors and activists and the 2008 games are not an exception." also needs to be verified per WP:V. RevolverOcelotX

Ok point taken. I've put the statement back in, but I highly question its relevance. Hong Qi Gong 00:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I too highly question the relevance of including large amounts of text about the unrelated 1980 and 1984 boycotts. RevolverOcelotX

I reworded to clarify. 151.205.37.254 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

RevolverOcelotX is persisting in bad faith summary reverts. He asked for citation of past boycotts, it's given, then he questions the "relevance" of it all. And in the meantime, completely unrelated changes are reverted as well. This further demonstrates his intention to disrupt this article with an edit war rather than establish a compromise. 151.205.37.254 00:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First you cannot use other Wikipedia articles as citations. Please read WP:V. The 1980 and 1984 have very little to do with the 2008 potential boycotts and it is irrelevant to include so much content about them. RevolverOcelotX

You asked for proof of past boycotts. The very existence of them, and articles on them, is proof. There is no controversial assertion which requires a citation. You are playing a game where if nothing is provided, you will say there is no citation and it should be deleted, and then when it is, it is too long and "irrelevant" and needs deleted. In other words, persistent bad faith. 151.205.37.254 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

151.205.37.254, Wikipedia policy states you cannot use other Wikipedia articles as citations. You have to find other reliable sources or they should be deleted per WP:V. RevolverOcelotX

Well, there must have been boycotts in previous Olympics, everything faces boycotts these days, but labeling this boycott as just another boycott is clearly POV. Why do we need that sentence? deeptrivia (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This sentence does not say that the 2008 boycotts are "just another boycott"; it simply contextualizes the existence of Olympic boycotts by demonstrating that thus far no states are boycotting the Olympics. This is important information which informs the reader. RevolverOcelotX has been participating in efforts to attempt to gut the section, including a "proposal" that it be reduced to a single sentence and line. 151.205.37.254 00:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Make a main article for the boycotts

I removed the expand tag in the section and added a main tag. The section doesn't need expansion. It needs to either stay at its current size or be trimmed down. The original problem, at least as I saw it, was that it was too big. Now it is in danger of getting bigger again. Please just make a new article for it and take all the discussions about the boycotts to that article. Hong Qi Gong 05:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the section needs expansion or need a new article. A new article is unnecessary and other editors have opposed it during the first proposal. RevolverOcelotX

Correct. A new article is unnecessary. The current section is as large as it should get, unless there is a significant change sometime in the future ( ex. a IOC state starts boycotting the games, or a large # of athletes that would have attended suddenly decline to attend. ) 68.115.163.74 11:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why so much attention is placed on this boycotting organisation. If you type 'boycott 2004 olympics' in yahoo/google you'll see many non-state groups threatened to boycott olympics. Does it have any significance to the actual olympics? I wonder the merits of allowing such a big section or even a new page dedicated to this. 24.189.163.169 00:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed this sentence: "Other Environemtal groups at the same time claimed the US Olympics and the Japan Olympics were also against Olympic ideals, since US is the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and Japan is the biggest whale hunter, both at the time of the games and now." I previously removed one almost identical. It could be POV, and more to the point I count at least four unverified assertions. I also do not see what an alleged claim by unnamed groups about unidentified games has to do with Beijing 2008.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for a more general discussion of boycotts, protests, and the Olympic games. I just don't think this is the article for it. I also think it may be worth spinning Beijing protests and boycotts out into its own article. A lot of it is speculative anyway - while many groups are calling for action, has anyone actually done anything? Eron 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence does not seem implausible to me. It's definetely verifiable that the US is the largest CO2 emmitter and Japan hunts the most whales. I think it gives a point of reference to other "potential boycotts" of olympics, similar to the first statement of this section.

As for a separate page, there has already been a somewhat heated debate a couple of months ago. And you are right that these are all speculations and not encyclopedic facts. Pseudotriton 03:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Other Environemtal groups (which ones?) at the same time claimed the US Olympics (which ones?) and the Japan Olympics (which ones?) were also against Olympic ideals (why?) , since US is the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and Japan is the biggest whale hunter, (are these against 'Olympic ideals'?) both at the time of the games and now." Did these unnamed groups specifically call for boycotts of those games as these other groups are now?

As it was stated in the article, the sentence appeared, to me, to be an attempt to counter criticisms of the Beijing games by saying, in effect, that other people had criticized other games too. I think that moves the article away from describing the games - and any surrounding controversies - to debating the criticism. Eron 11:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To me, It's not worth fighting over again. Just drop it. I don't think that sentance should be in there anyway, as its not really a boycott. → JARED ^(t)  13:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

2 More years

I'd just like to point out the date (08-08-06) to signify that these games will come in exactly 2 more years as of UTC 5 and a half hours ago! Just 731 days to go.... → JARED ^(t)  17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Pictograms and Calendar

I have uploaded the black and white pictograms, cropped found on the sub-pages of this website, the official site of the beijing olympics. You can find them on Wikipedia like this: SPORT_2008.gif (e.g. Weightlifting_2008.gif). For Canoe/Kayak, I did Canoe-Kayak_Slalom_2008.gif, etc., for technical purposes. Have fun with them!

Also, I'd like to remind you that I had started a calendar a way long time back, located here:

User:JP06035/beijing2008calendar

Just so that no one starts another one. You can change the layout however you want. → JARED ^(t)  20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Participating NOCs section

This section really should have been done like this. I hate to be a stickler after someone has put in all that work, but it is so much neater and takes up less space. Now, someone can copy the 2006 Olympics ones and put them into the article (maybe use AWB to change 2006 Winter to 2008 Summer) but then they'd have to create from scratch all of the other nations' templates that didn't participate in the 2006 Winter Olympics. I really do appreciate the effort that was put in to do it though. → JARED ^(t)  14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Digital Beijing Building

Should the Digital Beijing building be mentioned on this page?

Although not a venue it is atleast as significant in the olympic games as the venues being built.

Boycotts addition?

I wonder if it is also worth adding a mention regarding concerns about China's human rights issues, in particular their continued mass and public executions. See BBC and Amnesty International. 217.40.136.20 11:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what Human Rights in the People's Republic of China is for. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. I meant should we add a reference to that as part of the Boycotts section which currently only mentions Tibet and Rainforests as reasons there have been objections to Beijing holding the Olympics. 217.40.136.20 09:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is a reference stating that a group has called for a boycott of the Beijing Games because of China's policies on capital punishment, then it could be included here. Right now, the only references to calls for a boycott are about groups doing so because of Tibet or the environment. Without a reference, suggesting that a boycott could occur for other reasons is speculative, not verifiable.

The two references you provide do not mention a boycott. The Amnesty link is to a general fact sheet on executions in China; the BBC link is to an article published before Beijing was even awarded the Games. Eron 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • I agree with 217.40.136.20 with regard to "...adding a mention regarding concerns about China's human rights issues, in particular their continued mass and public executions", and I believe that the motion picture Tibet: Cry of the Snow Lion (2003) would serve as significant documentation for such references.4.129.69.227 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to disagree with the original poster for the simple reason that there actually isn't any boycotts as much as some special interest group would like it. I would also like to point out to the last poster that a movie really is not a reference for future protests, since well, it's just a movie; it's not even about the 2008 Olympic, let alone boycotting it. Yongke

• • • • • Hopefully there will be mention of protests against organ harvesting as they develop. There are currently no references, only anecdotal reports of a groundswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 11:42, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Participating NOCs

I've added an unreferenced tag to the whole NOC section. Much of the text reads like unverified speculation; it's full of statements like "it is expected," "there is a possibility," and "it seems very unlikely." The only solid reference is to Korean participation. Absent references, I'm not sure a lot of this content is encyclopedic. Notable in this is the paragraph on a possible Taiwan boycott; the only sources I could find (in an admittedly quick Google search on "2008 Olympic Games" and "Taiwan boycott") were this page and pages that mirror it.

I recognize that speculation may be all that we can do two years out; but in that case, does the information really belong on this page yet? Eron 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who put the Korean info onto the page, and I made sure that I cited it properly. I, too, think that sources are a definite, and it is not out of anyone's way to include it. I know that (almost) all the stuff in that section is true, it's just that there is no source for other people to know the same. Please, from now on put sources if you add anything to the page! You brought up a good point. I would appreciate it if people found sources for their material. → JARED ^(t)  19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Emblem

The section on the emblem contained this text:

"According to the International Olympic Committee, the emblem is the first of the modern Olympics to use red as the dominant colour, an important colour for the Chinese people throughout its history. However, the emblems for the 1980 Moscow Olympics and 1964 Tokyo Olympics both feature red very prominently, so it is unclear how this claim is justified. It's justfied because the this emblem has red as a background color, so it's predominantly red, while that for 1964 Tokyo Olympics and the 1980 Moscow Olympics only feature red."

I have removed the section in italics, as it seems argumentative and unencyclopedic. The IOC has said this is the first one to use red as the dominant colour and the article has reported that. I don't think it is necessary to argue the validity of that claim. If someone can find a reference that proves it wrong, we can put that in. Until then, I see no need for it to be argued about on the article page. Eron 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored an amended version of the text, without the unencyclopedic question-and-answer format. The references that you are seeking are in the two links. Just look at the Moscow and Tokyo emblems; it's clear that the colour red is equally "dominant" in both those emblems. Matt 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

Montenegro

Why is Montenegro listed here? From all sources that I can find, Montenegro doesn't have an NOC or even an ISO code yet. Shouldn't we wait for the IOC/Montenegro to decide on something? On a further point, do we even know the country will be competing in 2008? For all we know, Montenegro could sit out to save money or something else. - Thanks, Hoshie 07:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I had all the NOCs hidden for this reason that you said: how do we know that a certain country will compete? For all we know, the US could have major problems in a year and a half and will have to withdraw its participants. Who knows. I'll re-hide them until we know for sure who will be participating. → JARED ^(t)  14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparent error in Sports section

This section currently states that no Olympics has featured demonstration events since 1992. What about Wheelchair racing at the 2004 Summer Olympics? Algebraist 13:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The International Olympic Committee decided in 1989 to eliminate demonstration sports from all Games, beginning with the 1996 Atlanta Games (see this page. The Paralympic events that were held in subsequent games were demonstrations, but not demonstration sports. There are significant differences. Demonstration sports had almost full medal status and received a level of service and support that was almost equal to full program sports. This is not the case with the Paralympic demonstrations. The wheelchair races, for example, consisted of only the final - athletes in the races had to qualify prior to the start of the Games. Athletes participating in the races were also not accorded the same status (full acceditation, Village access, etc.) as Olympic athletes. I'll try to get more information on how the wheelchair events were actually designated. I think part of the problem is that articles use the terms "demonstration sport" and "demonstration event" interchangeably, and they don't actually mean the same thing in the context of the Olympic Games. (And, the Wheelchair racing at the 2004 Summer Olympics article is wrong to call it a demonstration sport. It wasn't, and I'll fix that. - Eron 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The reason I didn't change this myself was because I thought something like that might be the case. Algebraist 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Potential boycotts"

Seems like too much speculation to me. Needs more solid sources. Aran|heru|nar 13:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A blog is an acceptable source if it outlines the complaints/views of the group in question. John Smith's 15:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the official wikipedia policy on acceptable sources, which clearly state that "blogs" are not an acceptable source of information. Yongke 04:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My problem with this section

OK, here's the deal. I've been involved in editing and re-editing this section multiple times (see the whole talk-page archive on this!). This section, while it has gotten better as far as being in a NPOV, it has hardly any valuable sources! Now, I've never tried to get rid of this section, but it's coming to the point where it's just becoming an edit-warring problem. I feel that if someone can re-write this with as many (vaulable) sources per section that I've been using above, it could have potential. Otherwise, it's not even worth mentioning because as of not, it's just speculation without good sources.

Please take this and the old archive into consideration when re-writing. I don't want to have to remove the section, and I probably won't, but with all this edit-warring, it's not even worth keeping. → JARED ^(t)  14:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Like I said a long time ago, this article should not be used as a soapbox for anti-China groups. We should create a seperate article for the potential boycotts instead. I've removed the statement about a potential boycott by the Republic of China, because it remained unsourced for months. I also checked the other sources in that section: the source for Student for a Free Tibet doesn't actually mention a boycott, and the source for the environmental groups also does not actually mention a boycott. The only source in that section that actually mentions a boycott is the one for Reporters Without Borders. If the other two do not get referenced with sources that actually call for a boycott, I'll be removing them in a few days. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as I promised, I've removed the two "potential boycotts" whose sources referenced do not actually call for boycotts. Maybe that information is hidden in some other webpages on those sites, but I could not find it. If anybody could provide specific URLs for webpages that state those organisations are actually calling for boycotts, I'd be more than happy to re-insert them. But for now, they're gone. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is already pretty big. Some boycotts are worth mentioning because they'll affect attendance. But "protests" or "potential protests" are really not worth mentioning unless they actually make an impact on the event. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only way to determine that protests "have an effect" would be to wait until after the games, and even then what sort of baseline would be used to determine it? I would say that since these groups are fairly well known and large that the protests are valid news to include in this section. Also with a little searching on Google I was able to find several instances of the Students for Free Tibet calling for boycotts, including the unfurling of a boycott banner in Tibet, but since their offical webpage does not have the word "boycott" on it I described them as protests instead. I have stated earlier having a separate page for this section is not really practical or necessary. 68.115.163.74 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You've basically highlighted the problem of inserting information about calls for protests on this article - most of them are not even notable. They have not happened! We can only know whether or not they're even worth mentioning after they've happened. As for the SFT calls for boycotts, note that individual SFT members and chapters calling for boycotts do not necessarily mean the national organisation is calling for a boycott. However, if we can find a source to confirm this, I'll be happy to re-insert that. Compare that to the call for boycott from Reporters Without Borders - RWB is a notable organisation that frequently gets mentioned in mainstream news, and their website has a clear message calling for a boycott. Personally I've never read about SFT in mainstream news sources, and their site is basically a blog. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few protests have happened and will continue to happen. It would not be pratical to list every one as they happen, so the best thing is to just point out that some have happened and that more are planned, and to mention some of the more notable ones. Attempting to insult an organization that has thousands of members and many chapters in schools and universities all over the world by calling their webpage "basically a blog" is not very productive discussion.68.115.163.74 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not insulting SFT. Anyway, take Reporters Without Borders as an example. It is a notable organisation, with a clear message of boycott. If SFT is conducting notable protests, let's see some mainstream press coverage of their thousands of members protesting. This article is not a soapbox for SFT. Read this - WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither is this article a soapbox for the Chinese. Both sides of the coin need to be shown. Large amounts of people have a problem with China hosting the games and these views can be mentioned here without causing a problem. "Mainstream press coverage" is not a requirement for posting information on Wikipedia. Unless you can point me to the wiki page that specifically says it is? 68.115.163.74 14:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And this article is not being used as a soapbox for "the Chinese". What does that even mean? Do all Chinese people agree with each other? This article does not praise China, does not state how it has done no wrong, does not soapbox about how it deserves to host the Olympics. Now, the article is about the 2008 Olympics, and it is already a relatively big article. If you want to write about people using the Olympics to raise human rights concerns in China, please create a new article for the "potential" boycotts and protests and link it here. The article is not for SFT to complain about China's Tibet policy. There are other articles for that. For example, Tibetan sovereignty debate and Students for a Free Tibet. Specifically concerning the two items that you keep putting back in:

• The source for the environmental groups specifically said that the "action alert has expired". The page actually redirects automatically somewhere else after 5 seconds. It does not even call for boycotts or protests. It's an expired online petition addressed to the Chinese government.
• And once again, the SFT site does not call for protests or boycotts. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The closest it gets is a threat to protest.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Notability page means that whole articles cannot be written about trivial items. Like "Look how great my garage band is" kinds of things. Placing SFFT on the same level as this is not correct. Mentioning SFFT in the main article as one group who has protested against the Olympics being awarded to China is perfectly fine under those guidelines. SFFT has held protests ( one is shown in this link http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=339 ) and not just "threatened" protests. I left out the rainforest stuff as that page did expire ( although the protest did happen ).68.115.163.74 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I added links from the BBC and the Guardian showing active protest movements. I hope those sources are "mainstream" and "notable" enough?68.115.163.74 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's much better. Thanks. I did some copy-editing for it, too. The two sources talked about other activists, too, not just SFFT, so I edited to reflect that. I changed the source for SFFT to link directly to their 2008 Olympics campaign. And I took out that picture because 1) it messed up the spacing in the next section, and 2) I think it's soapboxing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree about the graphic. The layout looks fine on my monitor, but it may be just a matter of what screen resolution is used. I think the section looks better with a graphic and this is the best one available. I do agree that the section should not get much larger than what it is.68.115.163.74 12:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's very soapboxing to put that graphic in there. It's unnecessary and it also messes up the spacing in the next section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You have to focus on the FACT before you add "Potential boycotts" here. First, the group who claimed to boycott the game even do not have an olympic committee. Second, the boycott action could only be considered when any of olympic committe definitely declared that they WILL NOT attend the game due to some seasons. Third, that picture called "Beijing2008GamesOverlogo.jpg" is not a proof for boycootting from any olympic committee. it just for instigation.--198.96.36.18 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Reporters Without Borders

All right I realized I stepped into some sort of edit war on boycotting '08 here only after I've made the changes in Report without border part of that paragraph. Just a news update and C&C welcomed.--StrikeEagle 03:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Your contribution to that section looks excellent. The conflict over that section seems to have cooled for now; hopefully things won't randomly disappear overnight. Of course, the RSF's change of heart will probably fuel the fires of the opinion that the entire section is speculation about what is likely to be a tempest in a teapot. -- Jonel | Speak 03:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong:No intention to start a edit war so I believe its better for me to make my pov clear. If you noticed my edit history, you may find out how I change my word regarding the boycott from stop to halt. A brief research you may come up with many news, such as this one here, and I believe these reports refelected RSF's view. I can't (and to be honest, don't want to) find out reason why RSF's website still advocating ---- yet if you want you can find hundreds of them, aren't you?--StrikeEagle 08:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just wanted to be very specific because a number of editors have been pretty adamant about having these boycotts mentioned. But that Epoch Times article is very helpful because it specifically mentioned that RSF will "halt" the calls for boycott. I'll add that information in the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'm going to use this article from the Manilla Times instead[4], because Epoch Times is known to be very bias against the PRC, and I don't think it's a very good source at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I know the Epoch Times is quite biased and I personally don't much trust it. Yet I cited this artical just because since even Epoch Times have said so, those editors would much less likely to start arguing something :p --StrikeEagle 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

NOCs

While most NOCs participate regularly, political, financial, or other situations in the country could cause a nation to be absent from the games, as was the case for 6 NOCs in the 2006 Winter Olympics.

What does this sentence refer to?--Nitsansh 19:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I wrote that, and it's horrible. Haha. I think I meant that 6 NOCs from the 2002 games were not present at the 2006 games. Could you find a better way to phrase that then, maybe? → JARED ^(t)  20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, those countries didn't sent athletes to 2006 Olympics because they decided their athletes are not good enough. Definitely not for political or financial reasons.--Nitsansh 03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

GAC question

I was looking through the GACs and I noticed this page was a nominee. I will review it, but first I have a question: Is it against policy to promote a future event to GA status? Because obviously, the page is going to change quite a bit in the next year and it will be difficult to maintain its GA status should it be promoted. -- Scorpion 17:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing right before I nominated it. But here is my rationale: GA criterion 5 states that "it does not change significantly from day to day" and this is quite true for this article. For the time being, there are little to no new stuff to add to this page, at least until the Olympics come in 2008; even then, all that would probably be added are medal tables and some highlights...the rest is all organized into the subpages.

So in short, I recognize that it is a future event, but I don't think that matters because I think it is in good quality and shouldn't change too much, even when the games do occur. I think GA just refers to the quality of an article at a given time period, and if people believe this is of GA quality now, it should be deserving of the title. I hope this helps. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It would technically fail criterion 5, because the article will become unstable very soon. Of course, assuming it will become unstable soon is in itself a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I looked through the GAs and I couldn't find any future events or films that are GAs, so I'm unsure of what to do. I will review it eventually though. -- Scorpion 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

This is a future event, so therefore the article fails the stability criteria. WikiNew 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Medals unveiled

See here. Someone may choose to add something about this somewhere in the article. I don't know where would be good, though. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(I saw those yesterday - God damn beautiful!) Perhaps under the "Games" section? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For anyone with DirecTV Satellite--- CCTV channel 455.

For anyone with DirecTV, almost nightly China has been showing various huge-features about the upcoming Olympics games on their TV channel. It is channel # 455 on DirecTV, the channel is known as CCTV. These features go very indepth about the various stadia and so on. http://www.cctv.com/english/ CaribDigita 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Students For a Free Tibet

After reading this section, I have added an image of the outlawed Tibetian flag (symbol of Tibetan independence from Communist China) and added matrial clarifying why the Students For a Free Tibet are protesting the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games --- it seems to me that some effort has been made at this section to minimize and distort (e.g.:"...the group Students for a Free Tibet is protesting the Chinese government's use of the Tibetan antelope (chiru) as one of its five mascots.") the rationale behind the Students for a Free Tibet movement:

Tibetan flag, the outlawed symbol of the Tibet independence movement

Pro-Tibetan independence groups, such as the group Students for a Free Tibet, have initiated a campaigns to protest the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics. Students for a Free Tibet campaigns focus on three areas: political (Tibetan independence from Communist China), economic (persuading foreign corporations and the World Bank from assisting China's occupation of Tibet) , and human rights (increased freedoms and rights, and for the release of political prisoners and dissidents). Among its other complaints concerning China's policies in Tibet, in particular, the group Students for a Free Tibet is protesting the Chinese government's use of the Tibetan antelope (chiru) as one of its five mascots.

4.129.69.227 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hello there, I have removed this image for the following reasons, please feel free to discuss this issue with me if you wish.

- Relevance: This picture is not relevant enough to the text. Tibet is neither participating nor boycotting the game. A more appropriate picture would be logo for Students for Free Tibet if you so with to included.

- Uncertainty: Future events are bound to be uncertain, especially in this case. The group Students for Free Tibet have not officially made plans to protests at the 2008 games. They would like to make a protest, but they would also like many other things. As such, this is pure speculation.

- POV: It is with no doubt that this picture will send a political message. Mostly, from a pro Tibet independence point of view, which will not be in the spirit of Wikipedia.

- Personal Opinion: From reading your post, I unfortunately found a lot of personal opinions which might blind you from a neutral point of view. For example: "it seems to me that some effort has been made at this section to minimize and distort...". If you do not agree with this section, please point it out so we may discuss it. Yongke 04:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• UPDATE: What the duce?? You don't just change it back without talking about it on the dicussion, if you don't agree, then TALK. Only trolls go and do whatever he likes. I am changing this back and I hope you will have the decency to at least SAY you are changing it. Yongke 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is not a soapbox for Students for a Free Tibet. Additions to the article need to be relevant to the Olympics and supported by sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Emblem; 京 or 文?

"The "Dancing Beijing" emblem, depicting a Chinese seal inscribed with the character "Jing" 「京」 (from the name of the host city) in the form of a dancing figure."

Really? It looks more like the character wen 「文」to me. Could someone provide evidence for either? --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 15:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Beijing Organizing Committee states here that "the character "Jing"... is developed into the form of a dancing human being." I think we'll have to take their word for it. - Eron ^Talk 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Guangdong Stadium

Why is there a whole paragraph about Guangdong stadium under "Venues"? Doesn't look like there is going to be any event held there. It needs only a brief mention about this was intended to be the main stadium before the Beijing stadium was built. The rest of the content should go to the Guangdong stadium page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kvasir (talk • contribs) 19:21, April 18, 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the reason it has its own section was because when I redid the page a few times a while back, there might have been a lot of info about that stadium, so I just made it into its own section. Regardless, I don't think it is necessary as well, and maybe you can merge it with the section above, saying how it was actually intended to be the main one. If you don't do it, I'll get to it eventually. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, seeing that i'm not the only one who think so. I'll do it in a few hours when i have the time. --Kvasir 14:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

External links

I just ruthlessly cut the external links section back to two sites: the official Beijing 2008 site, and the official IOC Summer Games site. Most of the other links were commercial (i.e. were to sites where the first things I saw on the page were ads); a few were to specific news releases. I cannot see that there is a need for too many other links. Once major news organizations develop their Games-specific web sites I can see adding those, but I think we should avoid commercial and travel site links. See the guidelines for external links for more information. - Eron ^Talk 01:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I probably would have done the same eventually myself! _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  01:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Expect to need to do it again and again every once in a while. Just the way things work around here. Keep up the good work! -- Jonel | Speak 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting

“ The 2008 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, were awarded to Beijing, China after a two-round vote of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on July 13, 2001. ”

A two-round vote is when there are a certain number of candidates participate in the first round vote. If there is no majority, then the top two advance to the second round. In the Olympics this does not occur. The candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated and the votes of the eliminated candidates are transferred to the second choice. This is more like an instant-runoff vote. I have corrected this. --TheTallOne 16:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that the IOC selection process actually does use a two (or more)-round system. If no city has a majority, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated and all the IOC members submit new ballots. There is no transfer of votes in the IOC process. 2012 Summer Olympics bids actually developed a good description of the general process (in the bidding process section) during its featured article candidacy. -- Jonel | Speak 17:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm incorrect. But neither two-round system or instant-runoff voting is factually correct. In a two round system, only the top two candidates proceed to the second round of voting if there is no majority. Here, only the candidate (or joint candidates) with the lowest number of votes is/are eliminated. --TheTallOne 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, an exhaustive ballot is used. --TheTallOne 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Archery 2008.gif

Image:Archery 2008.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Source about the Rogge dismisses 2008 Olympics boycott calls

I cann't find another independant source or serious news agency to his words except this page [5],this link shows no author,no news agency name among other things.Maybe just an attacking page.If it is not a reliable source,I suggest we remove it.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was sort of thinking that as I added it. But I overrode that thought by the fact that seldom will people go out of their way to make up a bogus speech by the president of the IOC. But apparently people do. It was definitely something I could see Rogge saying, so if another source, a reliable one, comes available, we'll put it back in. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes,I agree,this link is too suspicious after I checking the keyword Jacques Rogge boycott in google news search [6],the link of earthtime is the sole evidence of his speech,rather dubious.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly worth saying

The article states that, based on past data, meteorologists cite that "there is potential for rain during the games". This seems so unremarkable as to be hardly worth saying. Should we get rid of it? Matt 11:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

I remove it,it's strange to place the bad weather pharse in the section,it is unreferenced.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 13:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What I had tried to do earlier was fill the intro with info that encompasses the entire article. That's why I had stuff about concerns in the lead, especially seeing as how it has become big talk recently. I still think the lead does not delve deep enough into the article, so that is something that should be on our to-do list. As for the meteorological statement, it was, again, just pulled from the environmental concerns section. It was unsourced because I didn't feel that we needed to source it in the lead, if it is already below. I do like, however, what the editor did by pulling that whole paragraph down to be the Concerns lead. Now we just have to fill the real lead back up, which shouldn't be too much of a problem. And even still, the games are 400-something-odd-days away, so no big worries.

On a note of accomplishment, I think that the article is in wonderful shape. Probably the best that an Olympics article has ever been. But come game time, I think this will definitely change, because instead of having the "usuals" at this page or the members of WP:OLY editing here (which I might suggest that you consider taking a look at, if you're into editing Olympics pages; almost everything Olympics-related is talked about there!), we'll have random people coming in, who do not know too much about the structure we've laid out for these pages. So in short, I think keeping a neat page now is very helpful, and will lessen the work we need to do in the long run. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I found I took the trouble to fully understand what you meant,anyway,weather is important,but it is too far from now to 2008,any anticipation of weather wont be accurate enough to place in the article.A weather report of 10 days before the Game will be suitable.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. But I still think it will suffice to say that early predictions suggest the possibility of rain. Certainly, it cannot be taken as a weather report, however, because nowadays, weathermen cannot even get it right for the following day, let alone a year and a half! _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  16:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The more definite statements later in the article under "Environmental issues" are worthwhile, but "potential for rain" or "possibility of rain" could be said of practically any place on Earth, at any future time. Matt 00:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Relevance unclear

From the "Participating NOCs" section:

"The Netherlands Antilles were to have been dissolved, giving Curaçao and Sint Maarten a Status Aparte similar to Aruba's relationship to The Netherlands; however, dissolution was postponed until at December 2008.[36] Bonaire, Saba, and St. Eustatius will have direct relations with the Netherlands as Kingdom Islands.[37]"

Since this won't happen until December 2008, what is the relevance to this article? Is it describing a "what might have been" scenario? And anyway the text omits the crucial information - the effects of these constitutional changes on Olympic participation. Does "Status Aparte" mean that the islands will compete separately? What about "Kingdom Islands"? Matt 12:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

I put back in the part about the fact that it was supposed to have happened in July 2007. That's what makes it relevant. I can see what you're saying, but I think it's good to establish the fact that there are constantly things going on which allow for or inhibit the creation of new NOCs, or their participation at the games. That said, I think it would be perfectly fine to leave the part in, because it's sourced and relevant.

On a separate note, I thank you for your recent contributions to the page, and might urge you to both create an account (so your work doesn't go unnoticed) and perhaps take a gander at our Olympics WikiProject here at Wikipedia. _└^Jared_┘^┌_t^┐  14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, that section is very much clearer now. Matt 17:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Nationalism Concerns

Do you think it is a problem serious enough to be listed here. IMO with Chinese Nationalists (and I am not talking about Kuomintang, I am talking about Fenqing), I believe Japan will either get booed or stuffs thrown at during the Parade, and the West might get booed as well. Alas, I cannot cite myself on there. Do you think we need to include this as a part of the concerns section? Arbiteroftruth 08:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are not multiple sources currently suggesting that there will be concerns with nationalism, then we should not rush into putting it into the concerns section. It may very well be a veritable concern, but if the media or anyone has yet to catch onto it, then it is not as important, and should be skipped for now. If eventually it becomes a noticeable problem, by all means cite in a new section on it. Jared (t)  11:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you ever lived in China？Or Do you ever have any direct contact with ordinary chinese people？How do you know the West will be booed?In China,there's 380，000 permament foreigners.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was born in Hong Kong, and I know very well how those "people" up there act, thank you very much. The very knowledge that I have led to me posting that question here. Take a look at this page and you will understand why I think there are concerns. Arbiteroftruth 23:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can surely exclude your concern,just check the 1990 Asian Games,2007 Asian Winter Games,some games of FIBA Asia Championship.What do you mean those "people"？Japan had made Games in China for 30 years long,the page was the only(?) outbreak of unfriendly urge against any country I had ever known. Shanghai run F1,and there's many tennis opens in China.I didn't see any other prove of your nationalist concern other than this one.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact they are not present on those pages does not mean there is no incident. The incidents on my page happened, and were documented by television stations. I suggest you take a look at the fenqing page and you will see there how these will bubble up in 08. Arbiteroftruth 00:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not worth refuting,there's hundreds of International Games every year hold by hundred countires worldwide.Following your logic,no reports doesn't mean no booing，so we get hundred booed Games aroud the World.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fenqing page is written by some strong-biased editors,no refs,no views from any news agency.I saw the complete orginal research,and even considering it as an attacking page.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the corresponding Chinese page then. They won't lie, would they? Arbiteroftruth 00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Corresponding page were written by taiwanese angry young men,and it was also unferenced,someone had already added the NPOV.There's no neutral views for any articles relating Mainland China in nowadays chinese wikipedia,following the block of wikipedia.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV or not, people did not pull things out of thin air to create the page. The fact the page exists means that there is a problem! Arbiteroftruth 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Some one do write attacking page on wikipedia and for longtime no one ever finding it.You can check this link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shanghai woman,the page exist 2 years before someone found it as an attacking page.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be an "attack page", but you cannot refute the fact that they exist, no? Arbiteroftruth 00:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes,there's Fenqin in China,but I doubt to which level they will show the claimed firece behaviors shown in the article.They are 20 years old young men,with no weapons,even no ordinary Baseball bat，some are younger,I am not sure.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 01:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you admit to their existence then! They don't need weapons to harm people. We are talking about coke cans, jeers, booing, any way to show the uncivilized side of these "people'. Arbiteroftruth 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As for so long time I had lived in China,the page was the sole evidence of booing against team from other nations,generally,they booed the chinese national team for bad performance,but not the foreign team.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 11:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I really did not understand what you are trying to say with your last comment. Why don't you try to type it out in Chinese and I will translate it myself? (I am being sincere here, and I am not insulting you) Arbiteroftruth 23:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

While there may be some disagreements between the two of you, might I suggest that we not argue. The issue here is so petty that it is not worth fighting over. While in the grand scheme of things, the idea of there being nationalistic problems may truly be a problem (and I don't wish to diminish this by calling the issue at hand "petty"), the issue is really too large to cover on an encyclopedia talk page, and so I would hope that we just be civil and focus on the 2008 Olympics page, and not a nationalistic issue there may be in China. Jared (t)  01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Jared, I hope you didn't get the impression that I have been incivil to others. I have been civil in this entire conversation. The truth, I believe, remains that the possibility that Nationalism will affect the game is present, and it should be addressed. While I am not saying that it will be Munich all over again, but I think non-Chinese athletes, especially Japanese, could get hurt. Even Japanese spectators could get hurt. Arbiteroftruth 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You could be very right, but without reliable sources, none of this can go in the article.--Daveswagon 15:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The 2004 Asian Cup Finals is a good reliable source for past behaviors. Arbiteroftruth 17:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, you are making your own judgements from past statistics. This is original research and are not permitted in the article. There needs to be reliable source(s) that specifically state the concerns you are intending to add into the article. Oidia 23:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, I think you have been fine, the both of you. I am only hoping to keep things from getting to an uncivil state. From what I see, there may be instances in the past that may be interpreted as such, but unless this interpretation is documented via a reliable source, then it is original research. Jared (t)  00:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My original intent was to alert people to this issue, and round up the collective research power of other interested editors to find a source (I am not lazy, but I can only do so much). I wasn't going to introduce this based on OR, and the fact that we are talking about this here right now is a testament to my actions. If we can find a source, I suggest that we put this issue under the "concern" section, but I will not be overzealous to the point that it disrupts this page.

Now, any takers? Arbiteroftruth 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems very reasonable, but alas, I'm busy in the real world and don't have time to undertake another project. Sorry I cannot help you here. Jared (t)  18:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that I came across this discussion. I know of someone sharing the exact thought as user Arbiteroftruth. That PRC nationalists/extremists could be a potential concern. Most of the incidents were supposedly overlooked in the 2004 AFC Asian Cup? Can't say I know much about the subject, but this is not the first time I have heard of the concern. Benjwong 05:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but notice this "topic" is somewhat pointless. I am sure we all have our own "concerns", but so what? I think the original poster should just put up and wait until the game and then decide if there are actually any "booings". 129.173.159.60 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

English grammar and phrasing clean-up

Large sections of this article have clearly been written by non-native English speakers. The grammatical structure and phrasing is often bizarre. I am adding a type-editing clean up tag to the top of the page. Wikipediatoperfection 20:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I made the following comment in a section below without first looking at the prior sections. I thank the editor for making a comment here on the decision to add the tag. 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just biased because I've been one of the main contributors to this page on a regular basis, but I personally feel that the page is better than most pre-event pages would be. It's very informative, first of all, but I think that the structure, setup, and wordings of all/most of the topics are great. Maybe a quick look through of the page wouldn't hurt, but I don't think it's something in need of a copyedit tag. Save those for pages that are in dire need of copyediting, not just pages like this that are good other than just a section or two, for instance. Jared (t)  03:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but the article has a bizarre tone which stems from poor grammar and sentence structure. I clicked randomly in the contents box to find a section to use as an example and I landed on Participating NOCs. Setting aside that NOCs is a technical term which is confusing (the section title should be "Participating Countries," NOCs can be explained within the section), the first sentence in this section is both awkward and grammatically incorrect. It reads: "It is not yet completely certain which National Olympic Committees (NOCs) will participate." It should read something along the lines of, "At this time it is uncertain which National Olympic Committees (NOCs) will participate." I would further change "National Olympic Committees (NOCs)" to "countries" for greater clarity. As I stated above, NOCs should be explained within the section. We are, after all, talking about which countries will participate, right?

My point is that this article does require significant editing for style, grammar, and tone. If I can select a section of the article at random and find an error in the first sentence of that section, it needs major copy-editing. I think this is ample reason to add the tag. As a major contributor to the article it is natural to feel defensive of the article, but a copy-edit tag will encourage a much needed clean-up and ultimately give you a better article to be proud of. Wikipediatoperfection 05:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I guess I sort of see your point. Rather than argue, I'll accept the fact that there may need to be some sort of a review of the article. If time permits, I will do something about it soon. I just want to stress that we are pre-games, and it is not totally necessary for this article to be in absolute top shape right now, but yes, a good article is always nice. Jared (t)  19:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing concerns to controversy

I am going to change concerns to controversy. The stuff under concerns would tend to fall under controversy in other articles, particularly the political issues. Wikipediatoperfection 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think Controversy it too harsh a word. Especially being pre-games, I don't think there's enough hype now to call any issues out there "controversies" per se, so I don't think that it's a very fitting word. While, yes, other articles may have this wording for a section title, these articles are probably about topics that are in the past, but this one is in the future, and thus it is difficult to envision whether these present "Concerns" among some will turn to "Controversies" among many. Jared (t)  03:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is past, present, and future. Many people object to China getting the games in the first place because of its human rights abuses. There were no talks of protesting or boycotting the Athens games because Greece is a democracy with freedom of the press. There is significant debate as to whether an authoritarian country like China should be allowed to host the Olympic games. Very recently, there were protests along the great wall in relation to the games. There is a real possibility that certain countries might boycott the games, particularly if there is a high profile incident between now and then. These might be "concerns" of the Chinese government, but they are controversies in the western world. Wikipediatoperfection 06:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly controversies surrounding the country, but the event itself has not yet caused any. That stunt in the Great Wall pulled by activist has nothing to do with the games but the controversy surrounding Tibet. Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 07:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the banner they hung http://img.iht.com/images/2007/08/13/13letter550.jpg By the looks of the Olympic rings it seems they think it has everything to do with the Olympics. And it was a protest, not a stunt. Wikipediatoperfection 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the title Concerns and controversy is a better comprimise. Oidia (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would work. Wikipediatoperfection 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, isn't that what it was originally? I would compromise to this, even though again, there really hasn't been real "controversy" sparked solely by these events. Jared (t)  19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please remove "Class discrimination" section. I have searched and can't find any reference to this. The closest was discrimination in Shenyang, a northern china city, which has nothing to do with Olympics. (140.142.68.148 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Taipei officially dropped from torch relay

A lot of sources have indicated that Taipei is no longer part of the torch relay anymore due to political reasons, so I've changed a few sentences in the torch relay section. xero-7 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This might be of interest to anyone who saw the Aidan Hartley’s documentary on Channel 4

‘Unreported World’

There doesn’t seem to be enough about the forced evictions, severe beatings, and the resulting incarceration in ‘black jails’ or homelessness from those who legally petition to keep their homes from the development in the areas related to the games it’s an important element surrounding the games and is rather crass to sweep it under the carpet regarding human rights as one editor in the archive suggested. If you can have large production sections with film pages and any controversies relating to them then matters related to the advent of the 2008 Olympics and its ‘production’ are also relevant. The figure of 300,000 being displaced since 2005 seems woefully out of date also; the figure is alleged to be into the millions now. I don’t really know how you’re supposed to cite documentaries if there is little reference to them on the Internet (this in the situation where you can set up your own fan website and use it a ‘source’ see the Superman III page).

[http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/247856/the-terrible-secrets-of-beijings-black-jails.thtml ]

[7]

Le Gibbon 06:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Second time?

This article says that since some events are taking place in Hong Kong, 2008 will be the second time (after 1956) that two National Olympic Committees will be hosting the Olympics. However, the 1956 Summer Olympics article says that 1956 was the second time, after the 1920 Antwerp Olympics, that events were held in the territory of two separate countries. I recognize that these are not precisely the same thing, but it sure seems similar enough to me that 2008 ought to be noted as the third time, not the second. Can someone with more specialized/detailed knowledge on the subject look into this? Thanks. LordAmeth 09:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

goverment

I noticed how the 1980 Olympics and 1984 it says they where hosted by socialist governments shouldent that be noted in this article. It even says they are on the PRC wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.46.93 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5