Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Torch Relay Edits

I have changed Pr-Tibet protesters to human rights protesters as Reporters without Borders is not a Pro-Tibet activist group. They are seeking transparency and access to Tibet during this period. Oiboy77 —Preceding comment was added at 18:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to "Torch Relay Edits"

Those protesters make me sick.Did you see those sings?This is an atletic event,not a superiority or human rights event!Now the torchbearer has to have GUARDS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.29.62 (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Opening Ceremony Times

The article lists the starting time as "8:08:08 PM Central Standard Time". This (incorrectly) translates as 12:08:08 UTC (it should be 02:08:08 UTC), as CST is UTC -6 Hours (-5 in summer). I don't have a source as to the actual time, so someone that does should probably change this.199.1.132.11 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

CST = China Standard Time, not Central Standard Time. ---CWY2190^TC 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Participating NOCs vs Nations at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, China

I know the former has been "hidden" until more information about the participating NOCs is available...but the latter is already being "filled in" with articles as and when information is available! Look at the Mali at the 2008 Olympics article, which confirms the Mali team as participating. There is nothing, other than being a polite Wikipedian, from me making the full NOC list available to point out that Mali and a few others are now certain particpants.

I guess my issue (such as it is) relates to whether the former section and the latter info-box are not, currently and very subtlely, in conflict with one another?

doktorb _words^deeds 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mascots: The Fuwa:

I'm a bit confused: This article says that the Fuwa corespond with the five elements of traditional Chinese society: water, metal, fire, wood and earth

According to the pictures beside the text: This is not the right order, is it?

The single article "Fuwa" says something different about the elemens:

water, wood, fire, earth and sky.

Which one is corret?

P.S. I'm not a native speaker so maybe I'm sometimes grammatical incorrect.

I think its metal, wood, water, fire and earth. However this is the traditional chinese order. It may not be the Fuwa order.--Faizaguo (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

---

It turns out, one fuwa represents air, wich is not an element, and one element wich is not a fuwa is metal. Noted such in article. Rustyfence (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 7.2 Class discrimination looks fishy

Can someone check the source (Singtao Shanghai news. Section A-14. [07-22-2007]) that says Communists are concerned about China's image? Also, it doesn't look very notable. If it is, it should be expanded with more information.Rustyfence (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was this removed? This was the hottest news topic in the east for weeks until the party decided to force everyone to self censor. Next to the anti-spitting campaign, these are all notable things unique to this olympic preparation. You cannot even find a news article supporting it now. Benjwong (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think it's possible? I don't know why China is depicted this way out of China. Wiki is not a ideology conflict battle field. Also, I don't see that has anything to do with the Olympics itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.248.216 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It does have to do with the olympics since it is another social challenge and controversy. Whether it belongs on the olympic frontpage, maybe not. We can move it to a new article if enough people request it. This is really nothing compared to the many things going on that hasn't been mentioned. Benjwong (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone verify the reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canugetit (talk • contribs) 05:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Metal theft and the Summer Olympics

All the articles referenced in the section (from reliable sources and with titles like "Japanese metal stolen to 'feed China's Olympic boom'") link between the 2008 Summer Olympics and the rise in worldwide metal theft. So the metal theft section is relevant; please don't steal it. -- Gabi S. (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because a news article claims it is relevant doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. I vote to remove the section.--152.228.0.100 (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

China is booming not because of the Olympics but because of a range of factors, Olympics being a fairly minor one. People whose knowledge about China and the Olympics comes exclusively from newspapers should probably not be contributing to this article. 124.42.101.210 (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC on "increased metal theft caused by the Olympics"

Should the article mention that "The 2008 Olympics has caused the rise in metal theft around the world?" Is it noteworthy enough? Is it giving undue weigh to that particular situation? Oidia (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All the references in the section state about the thefts and rise in metal prices across the world. All these articles make a general statement about scarcity of metals and thus the rise in prices. None of them is explicit enough to state that people are stealing metal to sell it for contruction of Olympic stadium in china. [1] just states in the end that "Demand in China is strong ahead of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing". It doesnt state directly that stolen metal is used in china. Same is the case with other references too...India and china are emerging markets for construction industry and obviously demand is high in these countries. What the references say is 2 different things- metal stealing and high demand in these countries. Now u linking these two together to arrive at a conclusion could be seen as "Original research" which is not allowed in Wikipedia. To include this in article we need strong evidence which explicitly states the allegation. I believe that even if the allegations are true then it isnt noteworthy to include it. As the above editor mentioned, "it would give undue weightage to this particular situation". Gprince007 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, first of all it isn't original research at all. Almost all the articles explicitly link the rise in metal theft to the olympics: "Industry insiders have been quick to point the finger at China, where the stolen metal is allegedly sold as scrap to feed a construction boom ahead of next summer's Olympics" [2], "The copper is going through larger scrapyards, then to smelters and then by ship to China, which has an incredible demand for copper, particularly with the Beijing Olympics coming and the demand for telecoms infrastructure," Mr Trotter said [3], and "In China, construction for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games has increased demand for recycled metal exports, DeJesus said [4]. Second, it is not given undue weight, just read the Telegraph article carefully to get a feeling of the havoc wreaked on North West England because of the olympics - telephone cables, the roof of a church, manhole covers... and it also mentions incidents in Australia and South Africa. It is an unexpected side effect that was never experienced at earlier olympics (maybe because China has so much infrastructure to build in such a short time), that it is definitely relevant and worth mentioning. And the last thing, the handful of references that I provided are just the tip of the iceberg. There are much more reported incidents of metal theft linked to the Beijing Olympics; I just picked a few. It's a well-known phenomenom that has to be documented. -- Gabi S. (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A is ahead of B does not mean I causes B. Yes, hosting the Olympics boosts the economy, and the hot economy demands more metal, but China's economy has been hot for a very long time; and the Olympics impact to the economy is not influential. Under the current budget, Beijing is projecting a 0.8% GDP increase, which can hardly described as an important factor[5]. And don't forget, Athens went way over budget and posted a financial loss. On the other hand, I am sure oil demand has been very high too and increased more than 0.8% in the past few years and in the 70s, but I can not find any mentioning of stealing gas or gas cap lock in the oil crisis articles. --Skyfiler (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Skyfiler and thats precisely my point. Just becos rat population is increasing in a town doesnt necessarily mean that the town has no cats; similarly just becos there is a huge demand in china doesnt necessary mean that all stolen metal is diverted to that country. "Industry insiders" cant be cited as reliable sources...who are these "insiders" ? the metal is "allegedely" sold...pls note that they are alleging and that they are not "sure" of this fact. similary in the second reference "... China, which has an incredible demand for copper, particularly with the Beijing Olympics coming ..." Maybe a part of the stolen metal might be goin to china but that doesnt mean that all the metal stolen by people across the world are being sent to china to build the infrastructure. It may be a miniscule percentage and that too "may be"....its not confirmed...this story has not had wide coverage at all. The sources which u have included are about metal theft in general and not about "Stolen metal used in China exclusively" .....this paragraph may seem ok in a article about "Metal thefts across the world" but i dont see any reason to include it in this article about olympics. this paragraph is trivial information ...something similar to this version in which there was a trivial paragrapgh about class discrimination and toilet facilities. Similary the metal theft section is trivial info which is not needed. The theft issue has not been raised at any official level...no country or olympic commitee has made any accusations, so i dont think it needs any coverage in an encyclopaedic article. Gprince007 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you underestimate the quoted experts. These are not "unreliable insiders" as you portray them. In two of the articles, the persons that link between metal theft and the Beijing Olympics are identified by name and position: Andy Trotter, deputy chief constable of the British Transport police, and Detective Sam DeJesus of the Seattle Police Department's pawn and commercial security unit. These look like sources reliable enough for me, and if they say that the metal goes to China then I think they're right (I can easily find more reliable sources if needed). Regarding the other issues: Skyfiler mentions the oil market in relation to the metal scrap market, while in fact these are two very different markets. And it's true that no country or olympic commitee has made any accusations, but I think that's because the worldwide metal scrap market is run by mobs rather than governments. In other words, no one can formally accuse the Chinese government, but still police officers that follow the stolen metal find out that it goes to the Beijing National Stadium. Maybe it doesn't need any wide coverage, but I think it is still worth mentioning - and of course I will update the metal theft article as well. Please let some other people express their opinions here before you make changes to the article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A cop making these statements may or may not be reliable. I mean did he prove it in the court of law??? were any arrests made??? Was there any international mayhem???...The answer is no. We need credible references which explicitly state the allegation. As i said before, this paragrapgh maybe appropriate in a "metal theft" article....but i certainly dont feel it should be put in in this article. What you are suggesting is a far-fetched remote possibility backed by references based on flimsy grounds. I mean...u make it sound as if all the stolen metal in the whole world is being diverted to china for construction purposes and whole world is sitting quiet and turning a blind eye to it !!! We need a rational explanation for this. Dont forget about wikipedia's policy about exceptional claims and undue weightage being given to some fringe topics. Gprince007 (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the editors in support of leaving this info out of the article, for now. Correlation doesn't imply causality- I'd want to see real evidence of the rise in incidence of metal theft as it relates to the Olympics. So far, there isn't much here that truly supports that theory. Leave it out of the entry, for now. Secretagentwang (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice that Industrial history of the People's Republic of China#Iron and steel and Industrial history of the People's Republic of China#Iron ore indicate that China is an importer of iron/steel due to not being able to produce enough to meet demand. Why would worldwide scrap metal be affected by a country which can't make enough steel to meet its own needs? If scrap iron is going to China, much of the scrap should be going to the other countries which are making what China is importing. If the situation in that article has changed, then that article needs to be updated. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There are going to be dozens of semi-related stories for the 2008 Games as they draw nearer. This article should not be a dumping ground for them. For this particular story, I would say that a single sentence, properly cited and with a wikilink to metal theft where the phenomenon can be described in more detail, is the appropriate "due weight". We don't want this top-level summary article getting "crufty". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think first any weight has to be shown. If an Olympics is causing enough stress on a single country's metal processing that global supplies are being affected, there should be some professional reports about it. Have metal prices risen globally, and have reports on those increases mentioned these Olympics? Have export and scrap metal industry analysts reported on this demand? -- SEWilco (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Olympics is the deciding factor. The normal economy growth is around 9%, which is ten times of the Olympic impact to the economy. If the Olympic is moved to somewhere else, the normal growth would still demand roughly the same amount of metal. In a country with 10 trillion GDP, a few billion is not that a big deal.--Skyfiler (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the figures seem to indicate that metal theft is not very significant, yet there are many people who still claim that the increase in metal theft has something to do with the Olympic Games. I will understand if the relevant article section is reduced to one sentence or even removed completely, but I don't understand the contradiction between what the quoted people say and the economic measures listed above. -- Gabi S. (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a matter of relevance between subjects. The effects of the content (metal stealing) on the subject (the 2008 Olympics) is not established by your source and should not be used to justify a place in the article concerning the subject. You can try to argue the other way around and mention 2008 Olympics in the metal stealing article using your source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyfiler (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be an argument about 2 different things: 1) Whether there is a significant effect and 2) Whether it is fair to include it in terms of weight. I believe a better way to go about this would be to replace the metal theft section with a section on China's economic growth and changes, etc. resulting from the Olympics, and a metal theft line could be added in there should this discussion show the claims to be viable. Sander9860 (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sander. China's rapid growth has been straining many natural resources. A section on China's growth and how the Olympics have possibly accelerated that growth further would be much more appropriate than singling out one resource and blaming it on the Olympics. China would be growing anyway. I think there would need to be a more substantial direct link between the stolen goods and Olympic venue construction. Otherwise this seems very abritrary.Foreverlove77 (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds far-fetched, but if you have reliable sources then it is "original research" not to believe them and include what they say if it otherwise seems interesting. Of course if someone publishes an article debunking this claim then include that also. Wnt (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Increased metal theft around the world to build one stadium. Or ten? Last time the world went into a "metal crises" when someone wanted to build a stadium was back in the Roman Empire.... China's demand caused (better: contributed to) commodity shortages around the world. Olympics didn't. Two different things. China. Olympics. Perspective. China has a foreign exchange reserve of one trillion dollars. Olympic committee is well broke. China built thousands of miles of freeway, all over the country. There has been more building in Shanghai and Guangzhou than in Beijing. Etc, ad infinitum. Once again: people who read about China in the newspapers should not contribute to this article. To think that China exists to present YOU with a nice picture for the Olympics is so conceded. Olympics are an important event for China as they would be for any country, but are by far not the cause of any shortages of anything, except maybe common sense. And please spare us Seattle's cop perspective about world metal shortages. Not interested. 63.217.44.46 (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Should this be added?

[6] Should it be added on this page or the Great Britain page or both? ---CWY2190^TC 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Relevance of content--Skyfiler (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the 2mliion Beijing local be evicted be added? It's totally insane to even think about evicting 2 million ppl. Which is also impossible. I don't know why ppl like to use a news from a Tabloid to "prove" themselves. Be serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.248.216 (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Long, weak and POV "concerns and controversies" section

It needs to be rewritten. Just now I'm moving "Broadcasting" section out, because even if it contains controversies it is a separate topic of the Games coverage. And I'm moving the section "Rise in metal theft" here. First, it needs to be rewritten, rise in price of any goods always stimulates the theft, so, the metal theft is not directly related to the Games, only the rise in metal price should be attributed to the Games, if any. Second, one should prove, that the Games is the main factor that increases the metal price in China and the major contributor to their global increase. After all, China accounts for only 20% of global copper consumption, what about other 80%? Maybe the major factor of the price increase blongs to those 80%? Oil prices also greatly increased in that period, maybe this was the main factor for the metal price increase? So, here is the section text, please suggest improvements, that I asked for:

"Preparations for the Beijing Olympics increased drastically the demand for copper and other types of metal. The global price of copper has risen fivefold during the 2001-2007 period. China accounts for about 20% of global copper consumption. Metal and copper are used for traffic and communication infrastructures for the Olympics, as well as for sport facilities such as the new Beijing "Bird's nest" stadium, which requires tons of scrap metal.

In Japan there were 5,700 metal theft reported cases in 2007 in locations as far apart as Shizuoka, Hiroshima and Okinawa. Similar rises in metal theft was observed during 2006-2007 in the UK, US, Israel, Ukraine, and other countries worldwide. Most cases were linked to the increased demand due to the Olympic Games. In North West England metal theft is still on the rise as of 2008" Av0id3r (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

All the referenced articles in the section "Rise in metal theft" include official claims made by police officers in the USA, UK and Japan that claim that there is a rise in metal theft, and that the Games are the main reason for it. It's not POV, it's not OR, and it's well-sourced. I agree that it's not a major issue, but it is relevant and deserves a handful of lines in the article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mia Farrow and the Summer Olympics in Beijing

Mia Farrow's comparison of Beijing with the 1936 Berlin Olympics is not out of order. These are the most political games since then. [7]--85.220.93.45 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not so. 1980 and 1984 Olympics were far more political than these, causing mass boycotts. Let's also not forget the Munich Olympics. Short sighted. 63.217.44.46 (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Philippine telecast of 2008 Olympics

If RPN or ABS-CBN will be select to broadcast the Olympics in August 8. Our cable provider SkyCable lost its three Solar Entertainment channels. ABS-CBN broadcasted the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona. If ABS-CBN will choose the network to simulcast the Olympics in Beijing and the Filipinos will watch the Olympics. -- 13:54, February 18, 2008 (UTC)

i dont even know why this mention is significant to the entirety of the Olympic games 202.4.4.26 (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Equestrian events in Hong Kong

Are we certain that the Sports Federation and Olympic Committee of Hong Kong (NOC for HKG) is actually responsible for the equestrian events, as opposed to the Beijing Olympic Committee and/or Chinese Olympic Committee retaining responsibility and simply hosting those events in another city (akin to the way the football tournament is usually held in multiple cities, and sailing events are often outside the host city)? I think the distinction is significant, and unless the HKG NOC is actually involved, we should stop drawing the similarity with 1956, where the Swedish Olympic Commitee had jurisdiction over the equestrian events in Stockholm, and the Melbourne organizing committee had nothing to do with it. In that case, it makes sense to claim that the 1956 Games were split between two NOCs, but I'm not 100% sure the situation in 2008 is comparable. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this is true. We'll have to find this out. Jared (t)  23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is also related to the table at Olympic_Games#Olympic_Games_host_cities, which seems to suggest a dual-NOC event when there is as yet hardly any reliable source supporting this interpretation.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong's NOC took part in convincing the IOC back in 2005, and takes part to organise the event. The nation's official English-language newspaper China Daily made such comparison. But HK's NOC obviously has a much closer working relations with China's NOC than Melbourne and Stockholm. -- Burgerist (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Olympic Slogan

I believe that the slogan has been misrepresented within the article. I doubt that it truly is "One World, One Dream, Crush Tibet's Spirit." 69.91.155.66 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The real slogan is of course "One World, One Dream, One China including the aberrant province of Taiwan, Crush Tibet's Spirit". Thanks for pointing out the error. Maikel (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You are NOT serious right? " crush tibet's spirit" can NOT be the official slogan.--Faizaguo (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dont worry the "crush tibet's spirit" people are just a bunch of hippies on pot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.65 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The CPC taps phones, filters the internet, and blocks websites.

Perhaps this quote is useful: "Most of all, by adding their goon squad of "flame attendants" with no apparent diplomatic status into the scene--hovering retentively, manhandling Londoners, and barking orders at the torchbearers--Beijing has made it abundantly clear that this is not about the Olympic spirit, but about power, Chinese power." [8] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of my closest friends (Chinese & LaoWai) are very leary of the upcoming 2008 game's impact. Some have not been able to renew their VISA's. Please understand that the Chinese people are some of the kindest in the world, and most are very fearful of the CPC. The CPC is referred at it's kindest, as a 'smile tiger', which has great power to control all and will crush all that do not conform. 2008 has been good for a few, but not the rest.~~

Taiwan

Will it participate? If so, how? Maikel (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the NOC goes under the name of "Chinese Taipei": http://www.tpenoc.net Maikel (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan has been represented at the Olympics as "Chinese Taipei" since 1984, and these Games should not be any different. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy. Maikel (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There was an interesting conflict about the torch relay (reasonably well documented in the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article) because the proposed leg on the island of Taiwan was scheduled immediately between Vietnam and Hong Kong. The PRC claimed it was part of the "international route", but the ROC did not like being the immediate predecessor to Hong Kong, part of the PRC, as it might imply that Taiwan was part of the "domestic route". In the end, that leg was removed from the torch relay route altogether. Google for "Taipei torch relay" and you'll find all sort of interesting POV about this issue, such as this piece. However, other than the torch relay issue, there should be no problems with TPE competing in the Games themselves. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs)

Samaranch connection relevence?

I fail to see the relevant connection in this, not to mention the vague "critics" line is weasel wording:

Critics point out that Samaranch's support for the Beijing games is hardly a surprise given his long years as a Fascist official in the regime of the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco.

A fascist and a communist are polar opposites. Yes, it's a great snarky comment, but it is not worth mentioning in the opening graphs. And it should only be used if there was a source actually making this assertion, and not OR as appears here. SteveCoppock (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Beijing 2008.svg listed for deletion

An image used on this page, Image:Beijing 2008.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Note: I didn't nominate it for deletion, just notifying interested parties. Rhobite (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential Boycotts?

www.stopchina2008.org is an online petition for people to express their sentiments if they feel the games should be boycoted, unfortanetly i am a new user, can someone please add this under the boycott section and provide a link... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikephilosopher2008 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

These countries are considering boycotts if the situation in Tibet worsens...should something like this be included in the article?

• Belgium [9]
• France [10]
• European Union [11]
• Republic of China (Taiwan) [12]

Are you then going to add countries opposed to the boycotts?

• Australia [13]
• Cyprus [14]
• Denmark [15]
• European Union [16]
• Lithuania [17]
• Myanmar [18]
• Singapore [19]
• Sweden [20]
• United Kingdom [21]
• United States [22]
• International Olympic Committee [23]--Huaiwei (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If the boycotts actually happen, they'll be noteworthy. Potential boycotts don't need to mentioned, since there's a chance they won't happen. --clpo13_(talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Boycotts section needs a clean up. It is beginning to list dignitaries that have announced non-attendance that has nothing to do with Tibet or a boycott. Non-attendance does NOT equal to a boycott. See the discussion in Talk:2008_Tibetan_unrest#Possible_Olympic_Boycott --Kvasir (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For the article on the Tibet protests, I would say include them. But for this particular article, I tend to agree with Kvasir in that they should be removed if they are not actually boycotting. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dirty Rats

"The new toilet facilities built in the Beijing stadiums can no longer be used by regular Chinese citizens living or working in the area. Concerns have been raised by Communist party officials that the hygiene issues of local citizens, who are as dirty as rats, would affect the Beijing Olympic image.[115] There is now a penalty of 100 to 500 Yuan imposed on any Chinese locals caught using the bathrooms" - I removed the "who are dirty as rats" line. JamesBenjamin (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice officials. Addressing their own people as "rats".--Faizaguo (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The source given for this information is stated as "Singtao Shanghai news. Section A-14." There is no link to this source. So can anyone independently verify this??? If not, I call for removal. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The info is now censored. If you can get a paper edition, it will mention it. The dirty rats part was vandalism on wikipedia, the source did not say that. If you can find any english or any web source to support it, you are good! Benjwong (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This info is now removed. There is not enough sources to support it is still going on anymore. It has been challenged too many times. Benjwong (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I here should say that this stretched information contains insults to both Chinese citizens and the Chinese government. As a person living in Beijing, I have never heard of this ridiculous news. It must be a vandalism to Wikipedia which should be deleted and punished. --DerekHe (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First off people who put this information here are trying to honest about the topic. You don't need to be accusing people of vandalism. Also you need to see the old archive2 page. There is a "Changing concerns to controversy" section. Notice how another user in the discussion claim Shenyang has also experienced this problem. What's ridiculous is the lack of sources covering this topic. Benjwong (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Macau

Are they going to participate? It isn't on the list of IOC member countries. Burgerist (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a Macau NOC. Nevertheless Macau has competed in other international games with their own sport federations. --Kvasir (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: "The Macau Olympic Committee (MOC) continues to lobby the IOC for recognition as an Olympic member", as of Feb 08. http://www.macaudailytimesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7278&Itemid=50 --Kvasir (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Torch Relay in San Francisco

On April 1, 2008, The San Francisco Board of Supervisors Tuesday approved a resolution addressing human rights concerns when the Beijing Olympic torch arrives in San Francisco on April 9. The resolution would welcome the torch with "alarm and protest at the failure of China to meet its past solemn promises to the international community, including the citizens of San Francisco, to cease the egregious and ongoing human rights abuses in China and occupied Tibet." A third of the population of San Francisco is Chinese American and many overseas Chinese, including advocates for Tibet, Darfur and the religious sect Falun Gong, plan to protest the April 9 arrival of the torch in San Francisco. China has already requested the torch route in San Francisco be shortened.

I just added this to the Torch Relay article. Should it be added to this article? maybe a shortened version?

165.124.138.251 (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The source doesn't seem to say that "many overseas Chinese" plan to protest. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The torch in France died due to technical reasons.[24] (not the reason stated in the article.

I can not edit it in because I am an "anon" that freely displays her/his IP and thus being less anon than most :) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not because you are an "anon", it's because you are a new user. --Kvasir (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Link

In the class discrimination section, the link on the world "lashings" points at a cricket team. This should be fixed. 212.49.210.38 (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One bible per athlete policy rumor

If this rumor is true, you can munchkin right around utilizing P2P file sharing. Chinese internet censorship is very ineffective with P2P.

Plenty of ED2K links at http://www.yeshuaagapao.com/download.htm . You can also use the built-in search engine. Burn CDs and DVDs with chinese-language bible addons for e-sword and sword project, or just use the standalone .chm files. Burn audio bibles. If the chinese censors block audiotreasure.com (or you just don't want to download individual mp3s chapter-by-chapter), I PowerShare a consolidated archive on the eDonkey P2P netowrk (ED2K link on my site or just search for 'audio bible audiotreasure.com'. I also got DVDRips of the Jesus film project in multiple chinese dialects. There are 3 other users in the UK that are devoting lots of bandwidth, so you will get decent speed smuggling contraband bibles into China! Piracy is a menace in China. Lets exploit it to spread the word of God! Even if it has to be the street vendors selling copies of audio bibles for a buck. Or maybe a brave athlete or coach person can risk arrest and torture and hand out free bible CDs and DVDs. If you can't get em' on the plane, you can use the internet, and proxy sites or P2P or anti-TCP-reset software can bypass the censors. --YeshuaAgapao (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to sell the evil religion to others? -Antievile (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Error in Paragraph

In March of 2008, few high-ranking politicians have openly announced that they will not attend the opening ceremony. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, was the first world leader to decide not to attend the Olympics in Beijing. But Germany's foreign minister said that Merkel had not planned to go to Beijing anyway, so there was "nothing to cancel", and "no link to Tibet".[108] Poland's prime minister, Donald Tusk, and the president of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus, have also decided not to attend.[109] However, Merkel's decision of not attending the ceremony is not officially linked to China's crackdown on dissidents in Tibet.[110]

Should read:

In March of 2008, few high-ranking politicians have openly announced that they will not attend the opening ceremony. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, was the first world leader to decide not to attend the Olympics in Beijing. But Germany's foreign minister said that Merkel had not planned to go to Beijing anyway, so there was "nothing to cancel", and "no link to Tibet".[108][110] Poland's prime minister, Donald Tusk, and the president of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus, have also decided not to attend.[109]

Watch out for the source tags, combine the 2 of them.

Thanks, whoever fixes this.195.216.82.210 (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening Ceremony issue

I don't know where to put this in so I'll write it out here. According to a news report[25], at the opening ceremony, countries will be introduced in the order of how many strokes are needed to write the first Chinese character of their country names transcribed in Chinese language. It's going to be confusing even to Chinese themselves as countries many have little knowledge of will be present.--Revth (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Soon enough there will be a dedicated Opening ceremony article. Better yet you can start it, following the example of 2006 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony or similar. The issue of sorting should really belong to that article. The sorting is no less confusing than the sorting according to the Greek alphabet in the 2004 Olympic Games Opening Ceremony. Too bad I can't recall what was done last few times the Games held in countries with non-alphabetic languages (Nagano, Sapporo, Seoul). Interesting and relevant factoid nevertheless. --Kvasir (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting in Colombia

Caracol TV and RCN got an agree with other Colombian TV networks to broadcast the Olympics. It's not yet defined if the broadcasting will be continuous or by "blocks". —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-cee10 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 April 2008

POV

The article seems to hint / imply some things against the Chinese government and people. Please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.106.43 (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Concerns and Controversy section in this article is far too long. I believe that it has undue weight and represents many things not associated with the olympics. I believe this section needs to be edited to only include olymipic related topics. People who want to add information about the human rights situation in China should do on related pages. I believe that people are using items with only tentative links to the Olympics. Thecolemanation (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure... and there was only a tentative link between the 1936 Olympics and the Nazis, right? Take your revisionist whitewashing and shove it. This article NEEDS to talk about the human rights violations in China, and how the Chinese government is using the Olympics to mask international concern just as other authoritarian regimes have done with their Games. By labeling this a POV dispute, you're doing your part in helping to make this happen. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What I'm saying is I have no problem with anything that directly relates to the Olympics being up here. I think that most of the concerns section has anything that has to do with China up there. That's simply unneeded. If the Olympics were in the US this year than there would be tons of outrage over our war in Iraq, but would it be an undue length in the article...I think not. Remember this encyclopedia still has all viewpoints in the necessary articles about Darfur, Tibet and so on. This is a sports event and while there is this political nature to it I think that this section should not be longer than sections about the sports, venues, nations participating and so forth. Thecolemanation (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

At least in liberal democracies, the protests, and the political goals the Chinese Communist Party hopes to achieve from hosting the Olympics have superseded the actual athletic events in interest. Not many people are talking yet about medal counts, but they are talking about Chinese nationalism and jingoism, and the history of the Olympics as a tool to legitimize undemocratic and illiberal regimes. Therefore, the protests are extremely important to understanding the narrative around the 2008 games. To ignore or downplay these factors would be laughable. It would be like calling Xinhua a "news" organization. Imagine an article about the Seattle WTO meeting without talking about the protests? That would be silly and myopic and miss what made the event memorable. Penser (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)penser

Seeing as how only American/western people have replied, I'm replying to this, although shortened cause my dad kicked me off of the desktop when I was half done with writing this so he could use it...To clear potential "bias" accusations up, I'm Chinese, but have been in America since 4 and am now 15 (more than 11 years in the US people!) so..... On the article neutrality: Its not neutral. Parts of the last section feels too anti-china. You have to be kidding me to say that the "counter-protests" (or support rallies) section has more things on how they are "violent" than the many peaceful ones across the world. The Olympic relay page is more neutral and has more non-biased information on the counter-protests. Either add mention of peaceful protests that occurred elsewhere in the world (like one in Canada a while back), clarify it as a section on protests IN china, scrap the small section at the end and leave it to the protests/rally things, and/or combine/move it with things on other protests. Noian (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Berlin 1936, Moscow 1980

Should this anywhere be mentioned:

• Berlin: 1936 + 9 = 1945
• Moscow: 1980 + 9 = 1989
• Beijing: 2008 + 9 = 2017?

Bombshell (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whose hypothesis is this Bombshell? Your own OR? You have a source? --Kvasir (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very intriguing, I'm sort of glad I saw this, even though its completely a hypothesis. Jared (t)  23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nazis are also Christian, right? Both Nazi and Christianity persecuted the so-called the Chosen People, Jews, right? -Antievile (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it, what are you trying to say? 64.72.65.130 (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, though :P --GloriousGeneration (talk) 03:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The author is trying to say that:

• 9 years after the 1936 Olympics, Nazi Germany collapsed (note that the Olympics were given to Germany while it was still the Weimar Republic, before Hitler ascended to power).
• 9 years after the 1980 Olympics, the Soviet Union collapsed (the Soviet Union did not collapse until 1991, I'm afraid)
• 9 years after the 2008 Olympics, the PRC will collapse (wishful thinking by the now banned user)

Typical knee-jerk 2008 = 1936 comparisons by Sinophobes. Lets not forget those Olympics held under pro-West dictatorships:

• 1968 Olympics, held under a Mexican dictatorship that shot up 200+ protesters in the Tlatelolco massacre. Mexico did not become a democracy until 2000.
• 1988 Olympics, the bid was submitted under a military dictatorship that killed 100+ protesters in the Gwangju massacre. South Korea eventually became a democracy in 1988, the same year as the Olympics.

Again, so called patterns like these has no scientific basis whatsoever.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

coins and stamps

In addition to merchandising, any special numismatic and philately issues from the greater China region (China, HK, Macau, Taiwan)? These are official promotional product from the governments and are worth noting. --Kvasir (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevance

Content must be about the subject of the article. But in this article people did the opposite, piling up issues like Tibet and human right issues without explaining why China is supposed to change (or not change, based on the context) because of Olympics. Did the Chinese Olympic Committee make promises? Or just POV of some organizations? If the relationship is just POV, then these issues should be described in the article as POV, not as facts.

Indirect relevance is sometimes OK, but a lot of contents does not make the relationship clearly sufficient in the eyes of readers. What is the significance of some pending local law? How much numerous does it add to the "numerous" human rights violations happened before it goes to action? What is the importance of the new local implementation of the 52-years-old Reeducation through labor policy? Does it change the Olympic Games in any way? If there is a middle man to make the logic work, think again before adding it.--Skyfiler (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that these are issues raised in the media make them historically and sociologically interesting, and are very relevant to this article. Presenting them in a balanced manner is indeed challenging. Zoticogrillo (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interest does not establish the significance, but lead to off-topic writing. Take the previously added metal theft as the example. To link metal theft to the Olympic, one must go through scrape metal->increasing global demand of metal->increasing Chinese demand of metal-> Growth of Chinese Economy-> impact of the Olympic Games on the Chinese Economy, assuming there is no other factors driving people to steal metal instead of, say, rob a bank. It's like discussing Why Monica Lewinsky chooses a psychology major in the Bill Clinton article. Other contents with suspectable relationship significance includes a Beijing's pending laws, people tried to snatch the microphone, and the names of an actress, an NBA athlete and a Sudan researcher. --Skyfiler (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How does "China's Involvement in Burma" relate to the Beijing Olympics? Just because one article mentions Olympics does not mean it needs to be in this page. Testarc (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sponsors?

Someone should list the sponsors of the Olympics, so good minded individuals can boycott them in a individual, personal protest against the Genocide Olympics and the Corporate Takeover of the World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.21.74 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if other olympic articles list sponsors. And seriously, if you list the sponsors here in the article, aren't you providing the product placement for them free of charge? --Kvasir (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

NK Refugees issue

I removed the below paragraph from the article before protest about the NK refugee issues could be sourced AND linked to the Olympics. This was before the torch relay in South Korea. Now that we have seen Olympic protests in South Korea regarding NK refugees, the below paragraph can return to the article. However it needs to be cleaned-up and worded so that it is relevant to the Olympic Games. As it appears right now it has no relevance to the Games. --Kvasir (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

China's Treatement of North Korean Refugees

Harsh conditions in North Korea including famine, disease, human rights violations and the difficulty of life under a totalitarian regime have forced many North Koreans to seek refuge by fleeing into China. It is estimated that between 30,000 and 300,000 North Koreans are currently in exile (usually in hiding) in China. However China refuses to grant these North Koreans refugee status under the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and routinely turns captured North Koreans back into the hands of North Korean authorities rather than affording them political protection. After forced repatriation, it is claimed these refugees face certain imprisonment in one of North Korea's extensive concentration camps, or even possible execution if it is discovered that they have converted to Christianity while in China.

Come on, there are so many refugees in the world, 'n most of them are not treated fairly. China has not yet resolved its own problems, where will the foods come from to support these refugees? North Koreans why not flee to South Korea? Synyan (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you not heard of the Korean_Demilitarized_Zone? If it's that easy N Koreans would've done it in the last 50 years. I'm not advocating this section to be added I'm just saying I deleted it awhile ago when it wasn't an issue concern with the Olympics. But now it is related when the Torch went through South Korea. Anybody wants to add it can reword it before putting it back. --Kvasir (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality in Controversy

Can someone please analyze the neutrality in the Controversy section? It seems that it is extremely biased towards anti-China sentiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.207.185 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm French and I'm shocked too by the strong bias in this article and talke page. It's mostly just a one-side story, you can only see those opinions against China, but none of those is supportive. That could not be true. Some China haters freely express their sentiment here, and some materials really have done nothing with the Olympics and the authenticity of those are also questionable.

So my advice: after so many controversial and critical topics, one about keeping politics from the Olympics should be added, it's also supported by a lot people in the world, it'll be good for the neutrality of Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.99.48.26 (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work here. Wiki is supported by some US fundings and whenever you say something good about other countries that they don't like, these Methodists just jump out and say, "pro-china has nothing to do with the 2008 summer games"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synyan (talk • contribs) 00:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's a shot at me. I've done my best to keep the controversy section from becoming too long but I haven't had time to clean it up. And I'm not American. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The western media had showed great bias during the Tibet Riot in 2008. Many news Media including CNN, BBC, had used false pictures and video tapes to report. For example, they have used picture of Nepal Policemen beating on lamas many times to report the riot in Tibet. On another instance, CNN used an old video tape where Chinese soldiers dressed like Monks to show that Chinese government ordered the soldier to dress like monks and to fake the riot. However it turns out the video is from a movie, where the army was asked to help play a large group of monks. CNN, BBC and other media had to issue apologies for those. If you want to see those picture yourself, go to this link website.Speaker1978 (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

boycotting organizations?

I looked at the other Olympics wiki pages and none of them lists boycotting organizations. I am not sure if this sentence is relevant as I can't figure out how their boycotting affects the games. "Concerns over the games include the potential for boycotts from pro-Tibetan organizations such as Students for a Free Tibet as well as from organizations such as Amnesty International upset with China's involvement in the crisis in Darfur." Testarc (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some edits are being reverted for no reason

I just discovered that edits made by User:69.243.88.127 at 17:44, 15 May 2008 were reverted by User:Chrishomingtang for no reason. It seems User:69.243.88.127 wrote some criticism about Chinese supporters' violence during torch relays in France and Malaysia. Also, the paragraph written by User:69.243.88.127 has proper citations.

No one should delete context(esp. if that's a paragraph) without proper discussions or warnings. It's considered a VANDALISM. -- GloriousGeneration (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for Chrishomingtang, but my guesses as to why he reverted it are that YouTube videos are not useable as sources, and the torch relay already has its own page. Since that section is already too long as it is, he probably thought that section could go. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I reverted Chrishomintang's edit because I didn't see your reply. But shouldn't the paragraph be included in the Torch Relay section? Torch relay violence was an issue and it was on news for many times. -- GloriousGeneration (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but try and find a non-YouTube source for it (that shouldn't be too hard, try using Google News) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the reason I reverted is that YouTube videos cannot be used as reliable sources. I used rollback so it doesn't allow me to write an editing summary. Obviously, my bad for not explaining clearly. —Chris! _ct 05:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

how can I add my link to this article

I wanted to let people know about my website www.olympic-paralympic-games.com. It tells information all about the olympic paralympic games from the past, present and the future. It there any chances that I can include my site in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intercompany (talk • contribs) 07:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn’t "tell information all about the Olympic Paralympic games". It’s a collection of aggregated links on a page full with ads. Please read WP:ELNO especially point 9. (oh yeah, please don't blank talkpages) --Van helsing (talk) 08:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

silver iodate/iodine/iodide

The article says that "thousands of silver iodate pellets" will be shot into the air. One of the two sources cited bothers to name the chemical but does so as "silver iodine", a nonsense. Silver iodide is actually effective for cloud nucleation, but not mentioned. My guess, based on a reference talking about glaciers in Thailand[26], is that what is actually described are flares that shoot a composition of silver iodate with a smaller amount of aluminum and magnesium. The idea should be that the iodate acts as an oxidizer, burning brightly with the enclosed reactive metals and sending a fine mist of silver iodide into the air all along the trail of the burning pellet. The problem is of course that this is purely guesswork and entirely unsourceable. Perhaps someone fluent in the language can find a definitive reference? Wnt (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong should be mentioned

"Opposition to the 2008 Beijing Olympics

Main article: 2008 Summer Olympics

The organization sponsors the international Global Human Rights Torch Relay that travels through 150 cities in 35 countries of Europe, Asia, North America and Australasia to support a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.[4][5]. Mattas has argued that "it is unthinkable under the Olympic Charter that the same government torturing people in one part of Beijing could be hosting the Olympic Games in another part of the same city"[6]. The head of the Canadian branch of the CIPFG is Rabbi Dr. Reuven Bulka, leader of the Congregation Machzikei Hadas, who has publicly called for Israel to put pressure on the Chinese government to cease organ harvesting by quitting the Olympic Games [7]."

Coalition_to_Investigate_the_Persecution_of_Falun_Gong thanks, 206.248.131.57 (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If Falun Gong should be mentioned in boycotting beijing summer games, then i am afraid racism problem or school massacres should be mentioned in every US summer game? that is ridiculous.. Synyan (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong is cult group, they have a clear propaganda against Chinese government. I have heard about the organ harvesting, but there is really no solid evidence on that. You think a Chinese government will harvest organs? I know individual criminal have done organ harvesting, but not the government. China does have some human rights issues but which country doesn't? The US has guantanamo bay too, politic and sports should be separated. Speaker1978 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For your reference: http://www.humanrightstorch.org/news/2008/04/20/video-global-human-rights-torch-relay/ and http://organharvestinvestigation.net/, just so you know your topic. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Side comment: When saying that Falun Gong (with it's base principles of Truthfulness Compassion, Forbearance) is an evil cult, according to the mandatory (because it's communist) atheist leadership of China, could you please put it in context, like how the Dalai Lama is pictured as a brutal slave master and how Christian-ism is forced into underground churches in China? Well anyway, everybody has to draw his own conclusions ... --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah blah blah, you clearly know nothing about China. Just because FLG claims to have values of "Truthfulness, Compassion, Forbearance" doesn't make it so, like how it pulls off ridiculous stunts to smear anyone who dares to criticise it as "CCP agents". And China is still communist? LMAO I'm sure true commies would allow free enterprises and other capitalist ventures in their territory. And FYI the organ harvesting claims has been dismissed by the US investigators [27], noted organ harvesting researcher Harry Wu [28], vs two lawyers hired by FLG who already has a conflict of interest by personally promoting their client's causes.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Communism and Fascism are nearly identical in implementation so the shift between the 2 are perhaps not so surprising. Also see here for a plausible reason why some western investigators are not so eager to give credibility against their vested interest in China. [29] + Don't forget the former Canadian ex secretary of state is not your neighbor classmate, he is also just as prominent. So all there is in fact is just 2 different sources, and we cannot really judge by the numbers of these who is right and who is wrong. I would personally encourage you to read the facts available and judge for yourself. The actual report on the organ harvesting is a good starting point, see here: [30]. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the Human Rights Torch Relay value for this page in our encyclopedia. It has gone worldwide (see: [31]) and it has an extensive media coverage: [32] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I said it is a cult, not an evil cult, it is up to other people to decide what kind of cult it is. In a way all religon started as a cult. I am not sure about Dalai Lama, Tibet was a fedual society with serfdom and minor slavery, the Communist party tends to exzagerated alot fact, but so do Falungon and Tibet Independentists. Each side tells certain part of truth. Also last time when I visited China, Christianism was not forced into underground churches, I am not sure where you get your informations. Simply believing one side blindly makes no justification. Speaker1978 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A very quick search on this topic, got me to this CBS report about underground churches in China: [33]. Of course in the midst of sources that contradict themselves, judge for yourself if it's exaggerated facts or exaggerated government reaction. See: [34] --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal organised churches greatly outnumber underground churches, I'm afraid. And Clear Wisdom is a FLG mouthpiece.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting cites

To cite German broadcasting this link could be added: http://sport.ard.de/sp/olympia/news200805/07/ard.jsp

Malte 11:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey!Before I got to edit this page on Lion King! Why not here if you search Beijing 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.24.165 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

The concerns and criticism section was getting very long, so I've split the bulk of it to the sub-page Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. For now, I've just kept the previous lead paragraph of the section. It could probably be expanded slightly, but I would strongly recommend keeping this section to 2 paragraphs maximum. Especially now that the Olympics are so close, this article is going to start getting very long... Bluap (talk)

I think the Criticism section should be shortened a little but most of it should stay since that is summary style. Nikkul (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is that, since this is the top-level article on the Olympics, and it is about to get a lot bigger, we need to avoid placing undue weight on the criticism section. Looking at the length of the sections in the rest of the article, I feel that the ideal length of this section is around 2 paragraphs (certainly no longer than 3 paragraphs). I agree that my previous trimming (to 1 paragraph) was over the top, and would welcome someone else's attempt. Bluap (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it does need to be shortened, but it is already summary style and shouldnt be moved somewhere else. Moving the entire criticism section to another page is WP:undue Nikkul (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I certainly agree with Bluap. I think I might speak for a lot of "the usual" Olympics WikiProject members when I say that Concerns and Controversies should not be the main focus of the XXXX Season Olympics page. The idea is that there is so much going on under the umbrella term of "2008 Summer Olympics" that there are subpages for everything. Everything should have fair representation on this main page, but there certainly needed to be something done about the length of this section, and making a new pages was the first step. (The next, I daresay, would be a complete rewrite.) Jared (t)  02:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you guys are going to move the concerns to a separate article, can you move the broadcast table to another page also? The open and close ceremony will need room. Benjwong (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section of the main article is identical to that in this split article. I'll just add a link there and remove all the excess content. When it comes to undue weight, it should be with respect to the main article, especially since the "Criticism" section has taken far too high proportion of the page. It's the athlete's achievements and world records that should be the main focus. Splitting it into a separate article isn't undue weight, I mean, you don't see a large section criticising the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan in the article on the 1980 Olympics.--Alasdair 18:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting 2008 Summer Olympics in Ukraine

Please, kindly add First National for Ukraine in the list of international broadcasters. Citing from their official web site (20 May, 2008): http://www.1tv.com.ua/euro-2008/euronews/08/05/20/17/29.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmdk (talk • contribs) 14:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the info.-Cbradshaw (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Free Beijing Olympics guidebook

Hi

Just thought this would be a good source for information if someone is going to the olympics. Have a look to see if its worthwhile: http://blog.asiahotels.com/free-e-book-guide-to-beijing-olympics-2008/

I think im not allowed to edit the links on the Summer Olympics page since Im new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericcho55 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sports

I don't see Track listed. What are running events, shotput under? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumelfmage (talk • contribs) 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

They're under Athletics, which is how most of the world calls "Track and Field" Bluap (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting in Mexico

Televisa and TV Azteca share the rights to host the games. They will both broadcast them in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.173.101 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Disambig. page "2008 games"

"2008 games" may also refer to gaming in 2008; so do you people agree about making an disambiguation page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiknerd (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nazis and the torch relay

Currently, the paragraph on the torch relay reads "the longest distance of any Olympic torch relay since the Nazis started the tradition at the 1936 Berlin Games". I would like to suggest changing it to "the longest distance of any Olympic torch relay since the tradition began. While it's undeniable that the Nazis did start the tradition, in my view it's a minor piece of trivia which doesn't add anything to the article. Since my original change to this paragraph has been reverted, I'm bringing it for discussion here... Bluap (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What you suggested seems perfectly reasonable, Bluap. Jared (t)  22:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversies, 2 edits

Regarding this edit: [35] I have added 2 things:

1. image on the controversial section, there are several but there should be at least one relevant
2. link to the Human Rights Torch Relay which is a parallel torch relay that covers all the continents [36] [37] to raise awareness about the Human Rights violations in China and to spread it's message that "Human Rights Abuse Cannot Co-exist with Beijing Olympic".

So far PCPP who as far as I know has strong pro CCP edits, wants it removed. If you think it should stay please let us know. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the general page about the 2008 Olympics, material over boycotts and protests does not belong here, it belongs at Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. None of the other protest groups are mentioned here, so why should there be an exception for FLG? And considering that you are a FLG practitioner and created the Human Rights Torch Relay article, putting it on as many pages as possible is an act of self promotion.--PCPP (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will restore the image, because the controversy section needs at least one image. Other then that the info is here ... if anyone else feels the need to insert it please do so. I will not engage in a revert war. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with there being an image in the controversy section. However, the parallel torch relay is probably too "deep" information for this page, which is supposed to be a general overview of the Olympics, linking to sub-articles that contain more information. Perhaps you should add it to 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay or Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics Bluap (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the image to the right, looks much better now. Observations noted. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please mention polish table tennis player Natalia Partyka as a next amputee who qualify for the Olympic Games in Beijing. I am new wikipedia user and I don't know how to edit articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.53.188 (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I see You are not interested in non-English speaking sportsmen...As always.. and then You are surprised that many hates America... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.59.48 (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC) At last! Thank you, and sorry for my maybe too hard words.

Capitol not capital

The article frequently uses the word "capital" when the word "Capitol" should be used in reference to Beijing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.8.13.210 (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. See capital vs. Capitol. The article is correct in using the former. - Eron^Talk 11:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Canoe/Kayak

Both the official 2008 Olympics website and the IOC website list the official name of this event as "Canoe/Kayak" (not "Canoeing"), as both types (Canoes and Kayaks) are used in these events (C1 500m, K2 1000m etc....). As such, shouldn't Canoeing at the Summer Olympics and all sub articles be moved to reflect this? (Canoe/Kayak at the Summer Olympics, Canoe/Kayak at the 2008 Summer Olympics etc...) Goldfinger820 (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

See my response here. Jared (t)  02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Slogan translation

The slogan "同一个世界 同一个梦想" should actually be translated as Same world, same dream. The phrase "One World, One Dream" would be closer to "一个世界 一个梦想" in Chinese. I know that what is up there are the official versions; but the correct meanings should be mentioned at least in passing somewhere. --71.141.128.46 (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram images

The 2008 pictogram images (such as Image:Athletics 2008.png) are copyright by BOCOG and therefore can only be used according to the restrictive WP:Non-free content criteria. This means that they should only be used on single pages, such as Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics (only) for the forementioned image, and so on for the other 34 pictograms. I've updated the image description pages to show a more accurate fair use rationale. I've also removed the 17 pixel versions from the "Sports" section of this article and the 30 pixel versions from many of the articles in Category:Nations at the 2008 Summer Olympics as those usage instances are contrary to items #3a and #8 of the NFCC policy. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Broadcasters....

Can we just say the NBC Universal Family of networks, next to United States in order to shorten the list? 74.243.115.149 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Participating NOCs

On participating NOCs, I noticed that Chinese Taipei was placed straight after China. This is actually an error. Even though Chinese Taipei does come straight after China alphabetically, it was decided in 1984 that Chinese Taipei would enter into the Olympic arena in the IOC directory order. Chinese Taipei is represented as TPE, with the first leter starting with T rather than C. This was done to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.130.149.154 (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not precisely true. Teams enter the stadium during the Opening Ceremonies in the alphabetical order in the language of the host nation. It differs for each Games (Korean in 1988 and Greek in 2004 had some interesting ordering for people expecting English), and it has nothing to do with the country code. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In the news on the Main Page

A proposal to add a link from Template:In the news to an Olympics highlights page for the course of the games is currently up at Template talk:In the news. The highlights page will presumably be 2008 Summer Olympics highlights, which follows the format of similar pages from previous Olympics. Comments, and editors interested in maintaining such a page, are welcome. - BanyanTree 09:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No demonstration sports?

Won't there be any demonstration sports, as with Basque pelota in 1992? Badagnani (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it appears that a wushu competition will take place. It isn't mentioned in the article yet. Badagnani (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Demonstration sports were abolished after 1992. One of the rules of hosting the Olympics is that no other major sports event takes place in the city around the time of the Games. The IOC agreed to waive the rule for the Wushu tournament but it hasn't any official link to the Olympics. Topcardi (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of paralympic races are usually included in the main athletics programme, but they aren't counted as demonstration events either... Bluap (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone recently added a note that chess will be a demonstration sport - no references are provided, and no mention has been made elsewhere. Is this accurate or just some schlub putting up bad facts? Chazerizer (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Chess?

Chess is one of the event?where to you get the news?--58.177.113.40 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Iraq re-admitted

Please, someone who is a native speaker of English, please modify the article, list of participating countries and following paragraph, since Iraqi athletes will be able to participate in the Olympic Games (see web page of the IOC, news 29 July 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.101.176 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 Beijing Olympics will also mark the third time that Olympic events will have been held in the territories of two different National Olympic Committees

I don't think that this statement is correct. In 1956, the equestrian events were held in Stockholm rather than in Melbourne, but I can't think of any other occasion when this occured. Would anyone care to provide us with details when this happened on another occasion? Moldovanmickey (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)MoldovanMickey

At the 1920 Antwerp Games, one of the sailing events had entries only from two Dutch boats, so after the first race in Belgium, they finished the best-of-three in the Netherlands. (See IOC website; "only event in Olympic history to be held in two countries") This is an entirely different situation from two organizing committees splitting the Games (Melbourne/Stockholm), or from one organizing committee having events in the territory of another NOC (BOCOG running equestrian events in Hong Kong), so grouping all three of these situations together with cumbersome text seems odd to me. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it have a home page?

There is no 'external links' section. --fs 13:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Internet censorship for journalists about-face

Is this about-face on censorship of the Internet for journalists in Beijing mentioned anywhere at Wikipedia? I can't even find a mention of the Internet in this article. Badagnani (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It has become a widely covered subject; another article here. Badagnani (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Olympic promises?

This should not be the final set of sources about olympic promises, but there were promises made regarding the Olympics: http://www.ihlo.org/prisoners/en/ I suggest things about this are added to controversies, as they are important enough imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.73.156 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

See: 2008 Summer Olympics bids#China.27s Olympic Bid Promises BillyTFried (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Calendar

What is the difference between blue bullets and red bullets in the calendar? Moondyne 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

They are wikilinks, red bullets are redlinks for articles not yet created. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel stupid. Sorry. Moondyne 01:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries! It's not really obvious, unfortunately — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

At one point I was inclined to make the bullets different colors for men, women, and mixed events, but figured it doesn't really make that much more sense, and overcomplicated the table. Jared (t)  04:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Beijing Olympics Newsstand

Full News Coverage of the 2008 Beijing Olympics Enjoy non-controversial news coverage. Updated 24 hours a day. May the best athlete win! --Isavesmart (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

About Chinese Taiwan and Tibet issues

I understand what you meant by the simply saying of Taiwan and Tibet. I understand that you know exactly Chinese territory includes Taiwan province and Tibet Autonomous Region, which are recoganized by UN and all countries' governments. However, it is confusing when you just simply say it especially to people who don't have any background knowledge about Chinese internal issues. So please use the correct official names, which is under the recoganition of UN, i.e. Chinese Taiwan province and Chinese Tibet Autonomous Region.

I will appreciate your kind adjustment.

Thanks and regards,

AlexBluesAlexBlues (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC) contribs) 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to Taiwan issues it is not appropriate to refer to Taiwanese authorities "Chinese Taipei" or "Chinese Taiwan". Chinese Taipei is the name of the Olympic team from Taiwan, but these are not the name of the government of Taiwan. References to Taiwanese governing authorities should be to "the Republic of China (Taiwan)", while it is correct if referring to Taiwan in a geographical sense to call it simply "Taiwan". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Also, you have tried several times to inject into the article the unsubstantiated claim that Tibetan independence groups are supported by the CIA. This is an inflammatory accusation for which you have not provided any support. If you have some documentation of this, bring it here for discussion. If not, you should stop making these edits.Spinner145 (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A Chinese View: The government of the Republic of China was the central government of Whole China. However after the civil war, ROC government was defeated and retreated to Taiwan province. Current situation is the legacy of the civil war. However, ROC is not recoganized by UN, and there is no ROC (Taiwan), only Taiwan province. Both sides now are working on the reunification. Therefore, using Tanwan authorities is more accurate to describe Tanwan's current situation.

It's the public secret that CIA controls the Tibetan movement by providing the fund and the military instruction. Some staff even published the books to release the detailed information. Political powers behind the movement made things worse. Dala Lama should have won the heart of the nation. However he lost it. This is absolutely a Chinese internal issue. Without All Chinese cooperation, he can do nothing. Nobody trust him in China. And We don't care any more what he is going to do, doesn't matter whether it is so called peaceful movement or violence.AlexBlues (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex, I appreciate your opinions on the PRC / ROC issue. However naming conventions are discussed at length on the page I linked to: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). I quote a relevant passage: "One subtle yet important point: Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China, yet does not address whether they are considered separate nations. Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should merely state the de facto situation that Taiwan is governed by an independent government/state/regime called the "Republic of China."" These guidlines have been exhaustively established through consensus, and it is not incumbent on individual editors to change them ad hoc.

With regards to your allegations of the CIA being behind Tibetan independence movement, you have yet to provide a reliable, verifiable source for a very inflammatory accusation. Again, let's please try to keep this as NPOV and follow wiki conventions. The link you cited is insufficient to support your allegation that the Tibetan independence movement is a CIA puppet--all it says is that nearly 60 years ago a single CIA agent spent a year in Tibet. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability and please try to seek consensus Wikipedia:Consensus before making again such changes. Thanks and regards,Spinner145 (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese View: I appreciate your hard working, but the PRC government representing the whole China, including Taiwan, is recoganized by United Nations, right? Why don't you use the legal documents from UN in stead of the information without any leagal support? In my view, you have your own peronal views on China internal issues, therefore you selected the information, which you prefer, and published them in the public website.

For the CIA involvement in Chinese Tibet, I did give the link as the source of my information. Unfortunately, this link was deleted by SB. Many people in the world condemn Chinese cencorship, but I don't see here the people make a better job than Chinese government. It's really disappointing. Anyway, I can tell you, Western medias have lost the trust to Chinese, they can't make any influence to the who country. Wiki is the last choice, but you lost again. AlexBlues (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The naming conventions on Chinese names the page I linked are the consensus views of wiki editors, not my own (look at that page's history and you'll see that I did not contribute to it). It is not cherry-picking to say that on Wikipedia we follow Wikipedia guidelines in our editing. If you can find evidence within the guidelines that I am wrong please let me know, and if you think the guidelines themselves are wrong, all wikipedia editors are welcome to suggest improvements and try to reach a consensus to change those guidelines.

I read the link you gave and as I said, it showed that an author had published a book claiming that almost sixty years ago a single CIA operative spent a year in Tibet. Even if everything claimed in the desciprtion of that book is true, it is not sufficient to support your allegation that the Tibetan indepence movement is a CIA puppet organization.

If you are willing to follow guidelines it would be great if you stay around because wiki can only be improved by people with diverse viewpoints contributing. Cheers,Spinner145 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You will see I am right. rgds.AlexBlues (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

World Mindsports Games

Could someone please add the 2008 Beijing World Mindsports Games following the Paralympics in the See also section? http://www.2008wmsg.org and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Mind_Sports_Games. As a beginning user I don't have the authority to do so myself. Thank you in advance, Verycurious77 (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not organized by the IOC but by the International Mind Sports Association (IMSA) so I don't think the event needs to be included in the article. Just my two cents. Xeltran (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not organized by IOC no. But IOC president Jacques Rogge is president of the committee of honour and GAISF president Hein Verbruggen is a member of that committee as well. The WMSG begin in Beijing just after the Paralympics have ended. The WMSG are being held in the Olympic Green Complex where the 3.000 players are staying as well. Chess and Bridge are IOC recognized mindsports, Draughts has just applied for IOC Recognition. It is the intention to organize the WMSG - maybe on the long run Intellympics - every four years together with the Olympics and Paralympics. So Beijing is likely to be the start of a new trilogy: Olympics, Parlympics and Intellympics. Two Chinese commercials voor the WMSG: http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/QgH0vz_5GAA/ http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/5BrtMB_YFDw/ I'd like to think that al this justifies a modest reference under 'See also'. I very much hope the authorized Wikipedians can agree on this. 84.86.103.21 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the others decide on this matter, too, before adding. :) Xeltran (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely some mistake?

204.152.239.217 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)The section on delegations includes the sentences:

Other delegations will be much smaller; Afghanistan, for example, will be represented by just four competitors. And some Competitors will be competing in the Olympics for the first time which includes Hayley Palmer who will swim for New Zealand[81]

Surely the second sentence here is entirely irrelevant. New Zealand have taken part before, and the fact that a particular competitor is taking part for the first time is hardly unique. This secntence should be deleted.

204.152.239.217 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting in Finland

In addition to being shown on YLE TV1 and YLE TV2 (as are the proper names of the channels, not YLE1 / YLE2), tv coverage will also be on YLE FST5. If we also include radio, coverage is additionally on YLE Radio Suomi and YLE Radio X3M. If someone could update this, it would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.219.114 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Joey Cheek's Visa Revoked by the Chinese Embassy

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Chi?urn=oly,98718 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiaozhu (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One world, one dream, welcome to the Chinese olympics. We should add that to the article if this proves to be the final word of the embassy. Novidmarana (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of Azerbaijani athlets is incorrect

According to several sources the number of Azerbaijani athlets to participate in the Olympics is 44 and not 39 as given in the article, please somebody who has acces correct this number [38] Baku87 (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Calendar

There used to be a very helpful calendar here, similar to the one in the 2010 olympics. Where'd it go? Host of the first ever Webkinz Suvivor! The UberNerd! (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I want to know the same thing. I was the one who made it, and then someone must have taken it down. Granted, it was big and bulky, but someone should put a calendar section back in, at least describing the calendar of events and linking to the actual calendar. Jared (t)  00:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The calendar was removed in this edit, presumably because the editor didn't like it being transcluded from another live page. I've been bold and restored the calendar, this time with a proper merge. Bluap (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is the calendar table in a collapsed box? I think it's important enough info to be always visible, no matter how bulky it is (it's not transcluded from another page, so it can't be a matter of decreasing article weight). Parutakupiu (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the unhide collapse field. The List of NOC was also unhide. Anyone know if the "List of NOC" is supposed to be 100% the same as the "Nations at the 2008 Summer Olympics" template at the bottom? If so, why do we have two of the same tables?? Benjwong (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken. Although it has always been a custom of WP:OLY to display all the nations participating in the text of the article. I'm not sure how to resolve this, though, because what you say makes sense. Jared (t)  20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the calendar table out of the main table in which it was nested, since there's no reason for the latter to exist anymore. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I originally put both the calendar and the list of IOCs in collapsible boxes since they take up a fair amount of real estate. They might be OK with the article as it is currently, but they article is going to expand considerably once the Olympics actually start, at which point having these tables pre-collapsed might be better Bluap (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay! It's back! Thanks to whoever put it back, it's much better now. spider1224 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on past calendars, I've started to "bullet-out" events in each row. See User:Jared/sandbox1 for the version that I am talking about. I think it's a great way to link to each event that is to be contested. In theory, 302 bullets should be in the chart, but that is nearly impossible to do with cells like Athletics where 7 finals are contested in one day. Does anyone have a fix to this, so that bullets can exist there? Maybe a 3-2-3 pattern, or something. Also, I have yet to finish the table, so if anyone wants to find the other dates, please be my guest! Thanks! Jared (t)  14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea. Perhaps the solution to the problem would be to place a single bullet in each box (not only finals = yellow), linking to a page with information about the events per sport per day. 62.90.151.249 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you've put your calender. It looks a bit bulky, if you ask me.. please consider my suggestion. 62.90.151.249 (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is probably more aesthetically pleasing, because 6 bullets per cell might be a little overkill, but maintaining pages per sport per day is something WP:OLY has never done, and something that would take a lot of work. I do believe it makes more sense to have 302 bullets in the table, so that at any one time during the Olympics, anyone can see and get more information on all of the event finals being contested that day. Certainly if there is consensus to return the table to just numbers I won't put up a fight, but I really do think this is best. Jared (t)  14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too much work. We already have the tables made (in the "Competition Schedule" section of the " *** at the 2008 Summer Olympics" articles) - it's just a matter of creating some 300 articles... Like you said, this option is more aesthetically pleasing, and it also would allow one to follow preliminary competitions as well as finals. We'd also have to link the different events in the table to the appropriate event page. Alternatively, we could create pages only per day ("#th of august at the beijing...").62.90.151.249 (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is best - having one page per competition day, and keeping the bullets the way they are. I began making the links from the "Competition Schedule" tables to the event pages. I've also created a "The 6th of August at the 2008 Summer Olympics" sample article (I could use some help with that, thanks..) Almyajid (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Either leave the calendar or move it but please get rid of the stupid discussion box about it on the main page. It makes everything look so tacky. 132.228.195.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasters

HD BELGIUM = éénHD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.24.170 (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasters for Dominican Republic: Telecentro and RNN, source [Comite Olimpico Dominicano http://www.colimdo.org/] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osplace (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasters for Switzerland = SRG SSR idée suisse on the channel SF2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.136.44 (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is too big.

This article is killing my computer. Can we possibley move more stuff into ancilliary pages. I would do it myself, but I cant.-96.237.252.71 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well what it is is the huge calendar, which is like 35 kb in and of itself. I think it should be made into templates, but they would still have to load. I think after the games is the best time to delete stuff, but for now we just have to build. Jared (t)  15:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. Please identify stuff that can, in any way, be moved to one of several pre-existing ancilliary pages, and do it. There is no removal of info, simply a streamlining of the info that is initially presented to the viewer. I don't understand locking this article, then completely ignoring any requests to change it despite this evident problem...

Why are there so many pictures?? I can count 5-6 pictures that can immediately be moved to an ancilliary article. This is ridiculous.-96.237.252.129 (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist

Since this is the most visible Olympic page, I'd like to remind everyone about the Olympic watchlist. It will be a useful tool for fighting vandalism which there will be plenty of. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 07:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympics on TV

TV Guide provides time and channel information for all Olympics-related events here: http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/summer-olympics/tv-listings/294210.

Where's the most appropriate place to put this?

Tubesurfer (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be included. No way we are putting the TV listings for every country. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 16:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of Haitian athletes is incorrect

According to several sources there are 10 Haitian athletes to participate in the Olympics and not 1 as is stated in the article. Please correct this number Spyder00Boi (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Brunei article...?

Should Brunei_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics be deleted, or a re-direct here, now that they are not taking part? The participation template greys out or omits those years where NOCs do not participate, so this separate article would be the first of its kind as far as I can see. doktorb _words^deeds 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A reference has been added to the main article explaining Burundi's absence so a separate article is not necessary. I think it should be redirected but improve the explanation in the article. 03md (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected Brunei's article to 2008 Summer Olympics#Participation changes and added useful text from the article into that section. Hope this helps. 03md (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect this page??

Currently, this page is semi-protected, which means that new users cannot edit the page. I would like to tentatively suggest that we unprotect the page. My reasoning is that this page is likely to receive a lot of attention from people who are new to Wikipedia. By allowing them to freely edit the page, we encourage the long-term aims of the Wikipedia project. A lot of the arguments in the essay For and Against TFA protection apply here. Bluap (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I for one would be opposed, just because of the amount of vandalism that I expect will be present here over the next few weeks. Jared (t)  23:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against unprotecting the article. There was hourly vandalism on the article as long ago as May, so unprotecting it during the games would be a bad idea. This is different from a TFA, it is only high profile for a day, this article will be high profile for more than 2 weeks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It sucks it is protected but the vandalism would be more than a TFA article. IPs and new users can edit the event and nation pages which are unprotected. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 23:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag Dipping

The athletes from the United States first refused to dip their flag during the 1908 Summer Olympics. I missed the opening ceremonies because I overslept and forgot to tivo it, so I have no way of checking the rumors I've been hearing all day that the American's dipped their flag to the Chinese Head of State. Are their any photos or videos, or perhaps something that could produce a usable fact. Sweetfreek (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

search it up on google72.80.187.148 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting in Mexico

Televisa and TV Azteca share the rights to host the games. They will both broadcast them in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.173.101 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but which channels will broadcast the games in HD. I think that TV Azteca 13, and TV Azteca 7, will broadcast in HD, since for at least a week the shows that used to be shown in HD are now being shown in Stretch-o-Vision also the Football games are being shown in Stretch-o-Vision. The only shows that are now shown in HD are the News, and One Telenovela. Also does anyone know which Televisa Channels are showing the Games in HD. Is it XEW Also known as Canal De Las Estrellas, XHGC also Known As Canal Cinco, or is it both. Joeloliv8 04:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw the Opening Ceremony in both Televisa and TV Azteca, and both of them broadcast it in HD. I think that the other broadcasts of the Olympics will also be in HD. --Aguilac (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening ceremony

When will the opening ceremony start? At 8:00 PM as this article says or at 8:08 PM as the article 2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony says? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony#Source needed for timing of Opening Ceremony jnestorius^(talk) 08:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

9:00 EST; 8:00 CST --frogger3140 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actual start time

I believe the actual start time was in fact 2008hrs [8:08] not 2000hrs as posted.

Ygen (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ling Long Pagoda

something should be written about it. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense

What is this nonsense in the first sentence about the "Paralympics"? That has nothing to do with the Olympics, and even if it did, it wouldn't belong in the first paragraph, much less the first sentence. Can somebody please either delete it or relegate it to a small mention way down in the article? Seriously, folks. . .a pro-handicap agenda? That's what we're going to do at Wikipedia now? Give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

By definition, the second games are the parallel games. I think its current placement neither over- nor under-emphasizes the pairing of the two events. There is no agenda and I'm really not sure why it would be such a problem even if there was. chicgeek (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Long Page Load Time

Why does it take this page so long to load? Over 30 seconds with a DSL connection. I'm referring to the article, not the talk page. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is over 100kb long. There is an ongoing discussion to split it. Xeltran (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

incidents

would a section on "incidents" related to the olympics, such as the killing the recent killing of a tourist or plots by terrorists, be appropriate? hornplayer2 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if there were an unusually large number of tourist deaths we might. If a tourist was killed in California while visiting Disneyland, we probably wouldn't mention it in the Disneyland article. The Disneyland page mentions deaths at the park itself, so it might depend if someone died in the Olympic stadium or if they died in the street. Terrorist plots are covered in the Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics article. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 22:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentionable media-related deaths, yes. Terrorists plots? Maybe after the Olympics are over and all is said and done, otherwise it would be a current event. Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics is pretty much appropriate. --eric (mailbox) 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would be nicer to look at plus all incidents would be condensed in one page. Xeltran (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

About Hymalaya

Hi, I don't know how to reply you to make the explaination. So I give you my answer in discussion board and hope you can see this.

Hymalaya is the true Tibetan name for the Mountain. Everest is the name from a British people. I think it's weird to use a British name here for a Tibetan Mt.. Since so many people concern the human rights here about the Tibetan people, why shouldn't we use the original Tibetan name here in stead of the British name to show the rights of Tibetans?AlexBlues (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia uses the common name for things in the English language. Bluap (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, in English, Himalaya refers to the entire range of Mountains, while Everest only refers to one peak. Schoop (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The summit is named as Jumulangma in Tibetan language. Everest is named after a British when Britain colonized India.AlexBlues (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

that is true. Mt. Everest is the English name for Jumulangma, which is used and accepted worldwidely (e.g., in geological and geographical litt.), while Himalaya refers to the entire mountain range between the Indian Sub-Continent and the rest of Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooths (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Beijing National Stadium designer

Why is there no explanation in the article as to why the designer has renounced the games and says he "wants nothing to do with the olympic games"?Cs302b (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Connective_trivia--Skyfiler (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Olympic games were awarded to Beijing after an exhaustive ballot of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on July 13, 2001.

does "exhaustive ballot" have some special meaning? what's "exhaustive" trying to describe (other than seemingly an unneeded word in my opinion)?

update: guess it does (having trolled about wikipedia and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustive_ballot. so i suggest a link for "exhaustive ballot" to wiki article.68.173.14.215 (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion - so made the edit. Thanks. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of English Alphabet on Official Website of the Beijing Olympics

Why, seems to be, the Chinese are true friends of American (wrong) spelling? Why they don't follow Hong Kong spelling? In Chinese Hong Kong they know better!

Should be I.E.: Equestrian Centre instead of Riding Center

                Colour instead of Color
                Centre instead of Center
                ... and many "mis takes" more...

In american english (the most common form), the spellings are different than in british english.

Why, pls. the Chinese prefer America? Namely U.S.? What about Chinese Hong Kong, India, Bangla Desh, Pakistan, many African Coutries, Cyprus, Malta, Ireland and U.K.?

Where is the protest against this poor americinglish?

A pity that China seems to know the poor American only. Forgot culture of English???

Where is the protest against surgeon who remove big part of your brain?

Seriously: Get over it. And American English is far closer to Shakespeare's English than contemporary British English is. Not that it matters. Main point: American spelling makes more sense in an international context: take away the -ous from humorous, and you get the noun -- just one of many exs.; but British punctuation is superior in most respects. A combo would be actually best. PeterH2 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

En francais: C'est dommage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.209.176 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You forgot Australia as well...Zvyx (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

YOU IDIOT! They use American English because of how popular the U.S. is! Can you leave at that? And American Spellings are not "Wrong" they are different, like African people, and English People, they barely look anything alike, but they get along despite their difference.

What are you talking about Burgerman?? If the language is ENGLISH, it comes from ENGLAND. It is annoying to keep seeing people on the Internet use the American flag when there is a link to an ENGLISH translation, when an AMERICAN speaks ENGLISH during the opening ceremony of the Olympics, and when ENGLISH things are constantly reffered to as being AMERICAN.. such as Football, the Internet and oh,... the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

"English" did not "come" from England. It "came" from Jutland, was renamed to "English" by the locals. The name is in reality misleading. American and English are no longer considered the same language just as Portugese and Spanish are no longer considered the same language. So you are right it is annoying to see people put the word English with an American Flag when they really mean American. The Internet was an American invention, the people who worked on the project were working for American companies who asked them to do so. Football can refer to an American sport (NFL) or an international one which the British used to call Soccer but stopped. Problem is, by the time the British stopped calling Soccer (Football)- Soccer the Americans had already invented and named another sport Football. That is how the name conflict was born.

How dare the Chinese use Amerenglish!

When all of you are done violating wiki's rules by making personal attacks; I'd like to state the English used at the Olympics is the Queen's English, that is the kind of British English used in every English speaking country bar America. Rotovia (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And in that point you would be absolutely and completely wrong. The language being spoken at the Olympics is American, unless you are watching BBC/Sky coverage which is a different set of presenters who are speaking something that could be loosely referred to as the Queens English althought the correct term is actually BBC English

The reason for the use of American English (AE) in China is because people were mostly taught AE in schools around China. Since China does more business with the States, it is understable that they would use AE instead of British English; and there should not be a confusion that because the Chinese uses AE, they like the States more than Britain. Another thing to point out is that there is a tread even in HK to move towards AE, as reflected in advertisments, American spelling such as "color" is not uncommon (I still remember seeing the use of "color" on a camera ads). Nevertheless, I still think the use of British Standard English is the most suitable on Wikipedia.Ingramhk (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

British Standard English the most suitable? What are you talking about? An American website, created for the American public but later ported for worldwide use and the majority of "English" speaking people in the world speaking American English yet you still find it most suitable? I wonder why that is...

The 50 million inhabitants have no more claim to "official" English than the 45 million Spaniards do to Spanish (spoken by 300M others). All languages come from ancient roots very far geographically from their "homeland". English itself has borrowed heavily from French, among other languages, which is why it has such a rich and vast vocabulary. As people move, they take their language with them, share it, and modify it. That's why Aussies, Americans, and Britons all share a language, but also enjoy their peculiar idioms.

"English" was Jute at first, but the Romans injected it with Latin. Later, came the "French" with the Normans. The reason it "rich" vocabulary is the average "English" speaking person is poorly educated in his own native language dating back to an unefficient and poor education standard in England duing and before the 1600's. In fact to this day, in most British schools today they do not learn the parts of speech or how to use them.

1. The fact is the core vocabulary of the English langauge is very small and words from other languages are used to fill in. That is not the same thing as having a rich vocabulary.

What we're really talking about are 1)spelling and 2)symbolism. For spelling, it's been my experience on wiki that spellings are generally suited to the topic - e.g. British spellings when discussing the M1 motorway, American when discussing the Wright Brothers.

Then you need to read more Wiki, almost all articles are being switched by the British public to the British spellings yet when Americans try to swap them back the Admins stop them. I have a challenge for you, check the admins and see how many are British as opposed to American. Once you see what I mean you should be asking yourself why that is since one of the primary rules of Wiki is no Cabals.

As for sybolism, it's simply a reflection of America's greater cultural influence globally and in China. When I open my Eurogames, though, the rules always have a Union Flag next to the English and all those "o-u-r"s.

As for supposed "English" things: the Internet was derived from ARPANET in the USA, football has roots that pre-date England, and the USA was never a solely English invention. And btw, if it weren't for the USA, Britons would be speaking German today.

No they would be speaking bastardized German just like they do English. Have you ever heard a person from Liverpool or Newcastle speak? Now compare that to someone from London. Sounds like different languages. Only people on Earth that have a new dialect every 20 miles and the worst part is they are not capable of switching to the Queens English when they want. Some are but very few. Look at North America though and the entire population is able to speak almost exactly alike. Its perplexing and I am not sure what it says about the British, the can not claim is enthic diversity because the America's are far more diverse.

Georgia

Did Georgia team abandon Olympics Games?

See http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Olympics/idUSPEK30568120080809

--151.57.10.240 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That headline included the word "may". Anyway, Georgia haven't left the Olympics - one of their shooters got (I believe) a bronze after that article was uploaded. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

World Records In 2008 Olympics

I think that someone should add an article or a section about the world records that have been broken in this Olimpiad, what ya think hommies?--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics highlights should have what you're looking for. Enjoy!. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 10:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom should be changed to Great Britain because that is how they compete in the Olympics. Northern Irish competitors can choose Eire or Great Britain to participate for. 82.43.150.151 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Olympics is a competition between countries which recongizes individual performances. Great Britian is not a country and no mention of it should be included. Northern Irish competitors being able to choose the Republic is a violation of the competition rules, but yet again the world makes a seperate set of rules for the British..

Controversies

Benjwong, would appreciate if you could please explain why my edits to 'controversies' regarding media access were reverted. These were cited to today's NY Times, so obviously it is an ongoing concern despite BOCOG's announcements, and as evidenced by the IOC member's quote, this is not a minor controversy.Spinner145 (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hei guys I was reading about the controversies. Yeah there were demonstrations about human rights but don't forget that torch relay also initiated some Chinese to fight aganist certain western medias such as cnn, (e.g anti-cnn.com) and the French president. My point is that, there are two sides to this thing. One is those demonstrators of human rights, and the other side is those who are aganist those demonstrators. This article needs to be more balanced by including those who are aganist those demonstrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.161.119 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing here. On the portion about the torch relay I think it might be a good idea from an NPOV perspective to mention the large numbers of overseas Chinese who demonstrated in support of the '08 Olympics along the relay route. On the other hand, Chinese protests of Western media coverage seems a bit too tangential. I think the best we can do for the 'controversies section is to set out what the controversies are in the most NPOV way possible, but given length limitations we won't be able to fully explain all points of view. Let me know your thoughts--happy to hear any suggestions you can offer to improve NPOV on this section.Spinner145 (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the controversy regarding the age of the Chinese "women" gymnasts? Aside from questionable visual evidence of appearance, height, weight, and missing teeth, there is substantive evidence that at least two of these gymnasts had their ages reported differently at previous gymnastics events than presented in their passports to the IOC. The "controversies" section cannot be complete without this, regardless of whether there is a formal protest over their ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmmiller44 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A new chapter in the ongoing controversy surrounding China's women's gymnastics team opened today, as search engine hacker stryde.hax found surviving copies of official registration documents issued by China's General Administration of Sport of China. The incriminating documents, expunged by censors from the official site and from Google's document cache, still appear in the document translation cache of Chinese search giant Baidu, showing the age of one of China's gold medal winning gymnasts to be 14 instead of 16, the minimum age for competition presented on her government-issued passport. Now that official government documentation is available (source slashdot) http://cache.baidu.com/c?m=9f65cb4a8c8507ed4fece763105392230e54f7227e8a905368d4e41dce204c413037bfa673794e5392d8242140b20a17a2a17d247c1e68e6dd999f4aaaf1cc693bcd7a742613913161c468d8dc4755d650e44d98a40e91b8e74391b9d2a2dc5f58cc&p=882a97128c805ffc57ecd3214f&user=baidu

what?

Torch Relay - Taiwan

The wording for the section on the torch being diverted away from Taiwan should remain as is. While China's point of view is that it is a province, this view is not shared by all peoples, or even countries for that matter. Stating that it is, definitively, a province is bias, just as if I wrote "the independent country of Taiwan". So, leave it as is. Kerui 18:09, 27 July 2008

i beleive the official classification by the ROC government itself is that it is a province, the government and taiwan independence are TWO VERY DIFFERENT movments.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloated Article, difficult to display

Nice article, with lots of detail, plenty of links, and little graphic flags, etc. Too bad that, of all the hundreds of pages I've visited on Wikipedia, this is the only page that freezes up my computer for around thirty seconds to a minute. Looks like splitting it is the only reasonable option. zadignose (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is your computer from 1997 or something? --Reezy (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• • No. And if a 2.81 GHz processor with 480 MB isn't top of the line, I reckon it should be able to handle most web browsing. However, I notice that today, without the several hundred little flags and graphics that were present yesterday, the problem is largely resolved. Will it stay that way? zadignose (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

bus crash

does the bus crash with the Australian doctor for the rowing team on board and a taxi with 5 Chinese in crtical condition belong here, on the concerns article, or on the highlights article? Or on the attack on American tourists aritcle? 70.55.86.69 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing Ceremony

Is it usual to use postings on forums as sources?? Rbakker99 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Usual? yes. Allowed? No. Per WP:RS, forum postings (as well as blogs) are not considered reliable sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Please ensure more NPOV in this article:

Another cosmetic enhancement in China's quest for a perfect Summer Games was using a cute girl to lip-sync over the singing voice of a girl with "chubby face and crooked baby teeth" during the opening ceremony song Ode to the Motherland.

If a press article is not NPOV, it can hardly stand as a creditable, NPOV source for quotation. At any rate, I hardly think there is anything wrong in selecting a young girl to sing for an Opening Ceremony. DORC (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

After this olympics, no one with breast implants, plastic surgery or anything fake will ever be allowed to participate again. Some media somewhere will say something. Benjwong (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

venue articles

The venue articles need expansion/improvement, since most are stubs, and several don't have the "chinese name" attached, or the official name. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to gray out/dark the colors in the 'Calendar' ..

..for days that have passed? --Apotetios (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Headline text

http://cache.baidu.com/c?m=9d78d513d9d431dc4f9ce3690c66c0166d43f1682ba1d2020ed68448e267504a4172a4fb792d4a4295876b6672b25419afb52172404262eadb8e9f4aaaeecf6c388850652c01d21a4c8458b2930064dc60c70fe9ad1be3a7b863d5ffc5d3a81e0d8b&p=8b2a941786cc43f113fecb3146&user=baidu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realized (talk • contribs) 07:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about the other side? Think about how they managed to get Olympics to the CENTER of Beijing!

Leveling living quarters with bulldozer armies, people forcibly (and no, that is not comparable to the Western definition of "force") pushed to live in the suburbs of Beijing from now on, since the space of several square miles was needed for the Olympic buildings. Absolutely nothing in the article about it. OR Chinese people have thought this is an offense and have removed these bits from the article. I would not be too surprised! -andy 78.51.89.247 (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See: Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wo... You sure care more about Chinese than us Chinese... Please, take care of yourself first and we will take care of ourselves. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Man, relax, take care of yourself.AlexBlues (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

LoL Chinese nationalist telling off the western world. So much for one world one dream I hope "24.224.182.97 (talk)" is blocked as he's clearly a Nationalist Troll (79.230.66.26 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

I'm sure you got these news from some newspaper who are afraid that the world is too peace. China has too many people especially in the city of beijing, and It's sure that some people had to displace for the construction of Olympic. The goverment compensated them for it, too. As Chinese, No one complain for it. And we all understand that it's a good thing for both our country and ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmybear121 CHN (talk • contribs) 12:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

May I remind people to be netural and polite here. The matter has been addressed in Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. It is NOT the idea of Wikipedia to attack other nations, but to be a medium to tell people this issue has rised concern in the international community. No matter what you personally think, it is irrelavent unless there are noticable amount of people with you on the same boat (which fair enough in this case, there are); but contribute by posting some good links, not some personal views and attacks. Ingramhk (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should put what he said in there, i clicked around the links and saw this article that also talks about some old grandma protesting about being removed from their Beijing home in 2k1 and now sentenced to labor camp even tho they're 71 and 74 yr old. lol http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news;_ylt=AiBDywjI9f5eX1_dIW3viDg1o5N4?slug=ap-china-protests&prov=ap&type=lgns Ssh83 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of delegates

"Below is a list of the all the participating NOCs (where available, the number of competitors per delegation is indicated in parentheses):"

I clicked on a few and the number of people listed in the articles never seems to match the number on the main page (eg see Gabon, and also Algeria). Am I missing something? Anyone know where the numbers come from? Rbakker99 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Only a few of those numbers are referenced, which is why we need to look at the official numbers that will hopefully be posted at the official 2008 Beijing Olympics site in a few days. Xeltran (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The number of people participating for the Unites States on the main page is wrong it says we have 593 well Unites States has 647 and is the biggest participants at the summer games not China. So I don't know how to change that but it should. and other countries are wrong to. I don't know where you are getting your sources but they are wrong. MaribethSaxton (User talk:MaribethSaxton|talk]]) 10:03pm, 8 August 2008

Will reply at Talk:United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics --Jh12 (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps discrepancies in number can be attributed to the difference between the number of athletes in an Olympic delegation and the total number of people in an Olympic delegation including officials, support staff and athletes? Hence the US delegation may have 593 atheletes, but a total delegation of 647?72.27.25.85 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the data from the official site [39] and compiled it into a spreadsheet and pivot table that has the number of athletes per country. The spreadsheet and pivot table can be found here [40] but they are only as accurate as the official site data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.217.128 (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope the data from the official site only gave the number of competitors/athletes in a delegation as opposed to a total delegation which is likely to be padded with officials, some of whom might not actually do anything other than watch.72.27.25.85 (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies & Ethnic Tibetans

It is currently written "Ethnic Tibetans have been banned from working in Beijing during the duration of the Games", one guy say the police told him to fire the tibetan working... nothing tell us it is systematic that Tibetan can not work in Beijing, it is certainly an action of one policeman. thus I propose to write "SOME Ethnic Tibetans have been banned" Froggy helps ;-) (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC) The statement regarding the "banning of ethnic Tibetans from working in Beijing for the duration of the games" is factually incorrect, and the "source" provided is only a single anecdote. There many Tibetans working in Beijing during the Olympics. In fact, there are even 64 ethnic Tibetans working as volunteers at the Olympic and Paralympic games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.34.206 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)