Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

UK sources blaming the milk power incident on the olympics

Malick made an edit that point the milk powder incident not coming out because of the olympics. But the sources say they are a speculation. The two UK sources ( source1 and source2) are just assuming at best. Benjwong (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• We can speculate on WP if reliable sources back up the speculation. The Times and the Telegraph are pretty damn reliable. It deserves to be mentioned - read the last few paragraphs of the Telegraph article in particular. After all, isn't China known for cover-ups? Like Sars and half a dozen other scandals over the past few years... Other people's thoughts are appreciated on this matter to get a consensus:) Malick78 (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I was skeptical at first but the sources do more than speculate that the Olympics were a factor, especially the sentence that says "China had issued a list of 21 topics banned from the media during the Olympics — eighth on the list was coverage of food-safety scandals. " I don't think it could be claimed that the Times and Telegraph aren't reliable sources and i'm sure more could be found, so I think this should remain. I will restore it for now. Basement12 (T.C) 17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source talking about a possible government directive from the The Sydney Morning Herald. - Basement12 (T.C) 17:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this even belongs on this page if it comes out half a month after the olympics. Now if they reported the news august 25th exactly the day the olympics ended, then that would be very suspect. Benjwong (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind the Paralympics are still going. The sources show a link, due to the possible government directive, so it is relevant. Basement12 (T.C) 01:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If they are ok with releasing the news during the paralympics, then I definitely don't see a directive from the government to delay it. They are equally trying as hard to make a good impression with the paralympics. Also this incident is not even comparable to the powder incident of 2004. I am fine with the criticising of the incident, except the tie with the olympics is really out there. Benjwong (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Who says they wanted to release the news now? They have been put under pressure by members of the New Zealand government. The sources say that there was a directive to stop news coming out during the Olympics, the Sydney Herald even has a translation of it on their website. I'm not sure on what grounds you are saying it isn't tied to the Olympics? Do you think that list of edicts doesn't exist or that this instance wouldn't be an example of point 8 on the list "All food saftey issues, such as cancer-causing mineral water, is off-limits"? If it is shown that there was no deliberate delay due to the Games then the information should clearly be removed or altered but at the moment at least 3 reliable source newspapers are saying that there was. Basement12 (T.C) 03:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong: Please look into the various news sources. The tainted milk had passed the protein test earlier in the summer and Sanlu finally became aware of the melamine in early August, one week before the Olympics! It's more than reasonable for anyone who knows China to assume that they want to suppress the news at that time (and now we have sources). I've seen reports that Sanlu recalled their products by their own efforts (not publicity, not government) weeks ahead of the news breaking out. Today's news claims the last straw (in suppressing the news) was the NZ government directly talking to PRC government last week. HkCaGu (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see what you mean. What I had a hard time with earlier is the contradiction... to release the news while still showcasing some games (paralympics), yet at the same time claim they are delaying the powder incident publicising. There is no delay. It is publicised already. Actually the edict is the real concern tied to the olympic, not so much sanlu. Benjwong (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• The edict killed no one, Sanlu killed 2 babies. Let's mention Sanlu. I think however, Benjwong, that you could have been more constructive in this matter. You deleted my edits without trying to ask why I added the info, you even made no edit summary. Please learn some wikiquette for the future. Malick78 (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how much anti-chinese vandalism we deal with daily? I looked at the sources and it sounded like speculation, and deleted it. If not for Basement and HKcagu re-explaining the edict, I would still be deleting it. Benjwong (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Benjwong makes a good point, there has been a lot of anti-Chinese vandalism, and pro-Chinese vandalism as well, surrounding the 2008 Games pages, it took reading the sources very carefully and looking for more to convince me entirely. You should still have added something to the edit summary, since the sources showed that the edit was made in good faith, but at least you brought the discussion here the second time :)Basement12 (T.C) 05:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let's take a step back from the conspiracy theorists and presumption of guilt against China, and look at the evidence at hand. I have researched the 2008 baby milk scandal issue extensively. The articles drawing the inferences are purely speculative and rely on circumstantial evidence at best. While it may be reasonable to mention somewhere about allegations that food poisoning reports would be suppressed, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that official concerns specifically over contaminated infant formula existed at the date of the summer olympics. As such, references to the scandal should be removed. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• The possibility of a cover up, due to the Olympics, is mentioned in 2008 baby milk scandal. It is rarely possible to conclusoively prove such cover-ups but the precense of the material in at least three well respected newspapers including a transcript of the directives given by the Chinese government in relation to the games, which includes food scares, shows a link to the games. There are a number of sources demonstrating the concerns existing pre-games contained within 2008 baby milk scandal if you wish to add some here. Basement12 (T.C) 15:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, I wrote 95% of that article. It's so easy to get emotional about this issue because it is a tragedy which could have been prevented. But trying to be objective, I still think the link you claim is extremely tenuous. ;-) I didn't revert you, but I substantially reworded the offending paragraph. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• I realised you wrote a lot of it, thats why i mentioned that the Olympic link was included there. I think that if the directive on subjects that should not be reported exists, and the sources seem to say it does, it doesn't take a giant leap in logic to connect the two. The rewrite is fine, but i'd suggest removing "western" media as it seems to me to be hinting at some kind of bias against China. Basement12 (T.C) 16:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I still think the paragraph should be removed wholescale although it is limit acceptable in its current wording. It still does not frame it properly in the context of the article, so I may try rewording it again when I have time. The very small leap of logic you talk about is enough to make it original research, IMHO. The existence of the motive is insufficient to prove that is is pertinent to mention it here - it still amounts to a conspiracy theory. The The 'Western media' mention is undoubtedly systematic bias due to the lack of sources which could be read by en.WP editors. I would accept it should be removed as soon as anybody writes that this speculation is not isolated to Western media. Ohconfucius (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here is a link to the NY Times saying that "The delays have led to widespread speculation in China that Sanlu and some government officials were trying to cover up the problem during the Olympics because Beijing had pressed Chinese journalists and companies not to release negative news." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/world/asia/24milk.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin This might be as close as we can get to verifying this in an English language source. FWIW, I've also read reports that some people in China suspect it was covered up during the Olympics reported in the South China Morning Post which couldn't necessarily be called 'Western media', but its content isn't available free online.Spinner145 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lift the Block

{{editsemiprotected}} I wish to have the block lifted because I have many information about the 2008 Olympics, but because of the Semi-Protection of this page, now I can't. So please change the Semi-Protection Page to a free page. 24.1.4.241 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd read the tag you added you would have seen it is to request an edit and says "the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"". To request the page be unprotected you need to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - Basement12 (T.C) 23:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

closing ceremony flag bearers

The Closing Ceremony flag bearers should be somewhere. 70.51.9.124 (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section commented out

I've commented out the Legacy section temporarily because of NPOV problems that have been brought up before (see Archives). I will try to briefly explain the problems in that section, so that anyone interested can work on repairing those problems and possibly restore the section in the future.

1. In the short term, the 2008 Olympic Games have been generally accepted by the world's media as a logistic success. That sentence claims that "the world's media" has called the Olympics a success, but only cites one source. That's obviously a problem--a single source from LA times doesn't really represent the opinion of the entire world. Furthermore, the one article that is cited is not even a good one—it's a guy's column, and is not at all scholarly; it mostly sounds like the guy's personal impressions and feelings.
2. Contrary to fears before the game, no terrorists struck Beijing; no athlete protested at the podium; and thanks largely to favorable weather conditions the city had the best air quality in ten years. First of all, whoever wrote this section didn't provide any sources to prove that these things really were fears before the games. (I'm not doubting that they were fears for someone; but you still need to source it.) Furthermore, this has been labeled in the previous discussion (again, see the archives) as "cherrypicking," which is absolutely true: you could call ANYTHING a success if all that it took was naming one or two bad things that didn't happen.
3. For the Chinese people, the Olympics itself, as well as the medals won by Chinese athletes, were a great source of national pride. Again, someone in the archived discussion has addressed this before: this sentence isn't saying anything useful. Of course the medals were a source of pride; every country is proud when it wins medals. It may be useful if you can talk quantitatively about how national pride in general was increased because of the olympics, but you need to cite a source if you're going to say that.

For the reasons above, it is obvious that that section as it currently stands is a) not written from a neutral point of view; and b) not contributing useful, encyclopaedic knowledge to the article. I have not deleted it, because I understand people may want to work on improving it; for that reason, I have left it in the article but commented it out so that it will be invisible to readers until it is in a better state. If you would like to improve that section, please do not restore it to the article until you have sufficiently addressed all of the problems outlined above and in the archived discussion. Thank you, —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I checked the sources and writing of the paragraph myself, changing it from a very POV wording to where it is now. Hiding the section is probably not the best way to go about getting it fixed, instead it should be left visable but tagged with which improvement tag you deem necessary so that users can more easily see what is there and needs work. The section does not refer to the Games on the whole as a success, merely that it was a logistical success. The term "world media" was used I think to demonstrate that t wasn't just Chinese media calling it successful, as without doubt they would have regardless. The sentence "Contrary to fears before the game..." doesn't refer to this making a successful Games merely saying that these issues weren't a problem as predicted and sourcing the possibility of poor air conditions or terrorism is simple enough, see the concerns and controversies section or article. As such this isn't really POV/cherry picking, as far as I know there were no major problems that arose during the Games if there were feel free to add them (perhaps the possible link to the baby milk scandal could be moved here as it came up post games). The pride sentence doesn't add much i agree but it isn't a major issue as like you say all nations will feel pride at their athletes success (it could be sourced and numbers added but is hard to quantify pride itself). There is little "encyclopaedic knowledge" that can be included at this stage, the Paralympics finnished only 2 weeks ago so the legacy has not had much time to develop, the comments on predicted economic impact and future government leverage are all that is available and I think saying that some initial concerns did not prove problematic is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The old comments were archived because users had stopped commenting on them, presumably meaning they were satisfied with changes that were made at the time. I will restore the content and i'd suggest that in future you first try to fix any issues you find yourself rather than hiding content and leaving it for others to deal with. Basement12 (T.C) 03:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I agree with you that commenting out the section was probably not the best solution. I have added a POV cleanup template to the section (with a link to this thread in the talk page), as you have suggested. Thank you for your comments. —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 16:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This "Legacy" section reads more like a piece of propaganda written by the CCP than anything else.James Monroe (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Participating NOCs

Why does Sweden have "97 and 11 teams", whilst the remaining 203 NOCs don't have this? (I would change it, but I can't see how. :() 90.199.71.244 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Phileasson (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Miss Yang, 7, had reportedly won a "grueling" competition to be chosen as the performer, but was considered to be insufficiently photogenic, and a member of the Politburo who oversaw the final preparations ordered that Miss Lin appear in Miss Yang's place** Is hearsay enough proof for this?

Opening Ceremony

P5726, you have repeatedly attempted to delete the content relating to the portion of the Opening Ceremony where the flag of the PRC was carried out by children dressed in the costumes of China's ethnic minorities. The article linked clearly establishes all of the content relating to this portion of the Ceremony. Why do you say this information is "unverified"? Unless you have credible evidence that the information in the linked article is inaccurate, you should refrain from deleting content.Spinner145 (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The incident was widely reported by mainstream media, and I find no evidence that it was ever denied by the Chinese. In fact several articles, such as this one, include the Chinese response:

Wang Wei, vice-president of Beijing's organising committee BOCOG confirmed news reports, saying the practice was "completely normal."

-- Tcncv (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening Ceremony

I remember that when we were watching the Olympics on TV, you could see all those people in the parade walking onto the ink pads, and there was a giant piece of paper which all the people walked onto, creating a giant rainbow muralish thing. Is this worth mentioning? At http://rachelgogel.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html, there's a picture of it and she describes it a little--Angelstarstar (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The opening ceremony was full of interesting activities, too many to cover in the main article. However the Opening ceremony section of this article references the 2008 Summer Olympics opening ceremony article, which provides much more detail. In fact, the fourth paragraph of the Parade of nations section covers this specifically. If anyone can find a freely available photograph showing the mat, I think it would be a nice addition to that article. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok I see. I will try and find one.--~*Angelstar*~ 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelstarstar (talk • contribs)

FA Push

There are a couple of editors who would like to make a push to get this article to FA. I feel that it is best to run it through the GA process first (so that an outside, experienced editor can look through the article and give quality advice). Due to the backlog of article as WP:GAC I would suggest nominating it now and working on it as we go. Unless there are any dissenting opinions I will go ahead and nominate it. Below are the sections of the article. Please take on the sections you are intersted in, with the assumption that you'll be responsible for all sub-sections as well. Let's try to keep communication on the article here on it's talk page. Here are the sections: Bid, Development and preparation, Torch relay, The Games, Participating NOCs, Sports, Medal table, Concerns and controversies, Legacy, See also. Take a look at 1896 Olympic Games (currently FA), and 1956 Winter Olympic Games (currently GA) for insight into what should be covered in this article. I think we'll need to add a section on Venues and the Sports section may need to be drastically expanded to give a synopsis of each sport (if we want to go that far), that's open for discussion. I do think a Venue section will be important for comprehensiveness since there were a lot of unique venues at these Games. So please indicate what sections you'd like to take on keeping in mind your own time commitments, also comment on the possibility of going through GAC in preparation for a run at FAC. H1nkles (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help out wherever I can. I can work on anything that needs working on. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to help, too. Though I don't think I will have time to take on one particular section.—Chris! _ct 20:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can't take on a particular section that's totally fine, just edit where you can. If someone does take on a section and you want to make significant changes to that section, then please check with the editor first. S/he may have plans for the section and we don't want edit warring to ensue. Happy Editing! H1nkles (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done some quick clean up work on the "bid", "venues" and "transport" sections. I'm finding that in a lot of cases, random trivial things have been thrown in with little regard for organization (in the venues section, the fact that the games were the most expensive ever was mentioned on three seperate occasions) or neutrality. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree that organization is poor. Bid and section 2 should be in a big section called organization. The bird nest should not have its own section. Opening/closing ceremony should have own sections. Participating NOCs should be higher up. (may be combined with organization or as its own section) Concerns and controversies and Legacy should be combined. These are just my opinions, so feel free to offer an alternative.—Chris! _ct 01:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Question - should the participating NOC table be split off into a separate list? Geraldk (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Done a first run-through of medal table, concerns and controversies, and legacy sections. Could use a second pair of eyes to find what I missed. Geraldk (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A peer review would be quicker? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 08:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I requested a PR for further ideas while improvement is ongoing. Geraldk (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geraldk for your great efforts recently on this article, I've been unexpectedly swamped with real life concerns and haven't been able to pull my weight as I said I would and so I commend you for putting the energy into this. I'll try and provide a PR and do some clean up as I go through the article. H1nkles (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I think the article needs some kind of section about the actual events, (ie. highlights) which it currently lacks. I'll try to add something, but does anyone have an idea for a less POV title than "highlights"? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When I ran the 1956 Winter Olympic Games article through GA review I was advised to break up the highlights section into the various sports and incorporate them there. Most of the "Year at Summer/Winter Olympic Games" articles have some sort of a highlights section. After I folded the sports-related highlights into a breakdown of the various sports section it seemed to flow much better. Now that said we are talking about an article on a much larger scale. I don't see a "Sports" section in this article currently, and to be honest, to cover all the sports competed at these Games would be an article in and of itself. So to answer your question, I don't know. It's hard to do a highlights section because we must answer a difficult question: how do you pick the "highlights"? Sure there are a few obvious ones but we must be careful of nationalism or overemphasizing a few "popular" sports (like gymnastics, track and field, swimming) at the expense of lesser profile sports (equestrian, kayaking, sailing). I think some readers could pick out Table Tennis highlights that other readers would yawn at. No easy answer there but I think if we include a highlights section we should tread carefully. H1nkles (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it will need some sort of section. I do think we can do it sport by sport, but only if we keep the descriptions very short. As in a sentence or two. There also may be areas we can trim, a la summary style, and assume people will click through to main articles for more information. For example, the following sections could do with some trimming: concerns and controversies, venues (the long portion about the bird's nest), media coverage. Also, if we spin off the list of participating nations into a separate list, which I think we should anyway, that could save some space. Geraldk (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason I brought it up was that Bolt and Phelps are mentioned in the lead, but not in the actual body of the article. So, a small section, perhaps even just a list of the top 10 medal winners? The IOC places greater emphasis on individual athletes than nations anyway. There is a table in List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners. If the embedded images were removed, it could easily be used here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a much better idea than mine. I nominate you to implement it. Congrats. Geraldk (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead links

I'm doing a copy edit of the article and I've noticed several dead links in the reference section. Unfortunately I'm not yet versed in how to repair these links but I wanted to list them so that someone could make the necessary fixes: 12, 22, 28, 37, 40, 45, 48, 50, 63, 65, 93, 95, 105, 107, 110, 112, 115, 116, and 127. I found these with the checklinks tool so I have to verify some of them but if all of these are dead then this is a significant fix that needs to be done. I'll verify first though. H1nkles (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it means you have to find a different source. That's always fun. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Replaced: 12, 37, 40, 63, 95
• Still works (for me, at least): 22, 28, 93
• Removed: 48, 65
• Haven't checked yet: 105, 107, 110, 112, 115, 116, and 127 (note: I added and removed some refs, so those numbers may have changed). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds good the checklinks tool can be a bit cumbersome to use. I'll do some checking of my own. H1nkles (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• I checked the remaining links and removed a few, and fixed two. I'll run it through checklinks again to ensure we got all of them. I have more comments on the article but I'll wait until I have sifted it a little further. H1nkles (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Flags

Hi. A discussion about whether using all of the flags in the participation section of Olympics articles is appropriate/useful is taking place at Talk:2004_Summer_Olympics#Too_many_flags.21. GDallimore (Talk) 11:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

2010 prediction

I don't know if this piece of trivia is necessary but the movie 2010 which was made in 1984 correctly predicts the year of 2008 as being the year that the Olympics is in Beijing by having a Olympic poster in a boys bedroom with Beijing '08 printed at the bottom of the poster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.75.110 (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be great for the article! Maybe in a triva section, someonwhere it can fit in.--Cooly123 20:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Online presence

There should be mention of this being the first olympics to have live internet streaming of the events (nbcolympics.com etc..).--Cooly123 00:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

I am surprised this has not been updated and it has been nearly 2 years,--Cooly123 00:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Statistics

The number of athletes is stated to be 11,028 but unlike in other Summer Olympic Games articles, the number of male and female athletes is not disclosed. Is there any reason for that? BTW, do someone know where to find these figures? The official site doesn't seem to have them either, nor does the site of the IOC. Thanks 4november (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[1] - This figure only included those that actually physically competed. Topcardi (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Belize (3)

Click on Belize and it says their delegation had four members, not three. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.167.54.37 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Olympic truce broken by Russia

Traditionally, the Olympic games' opening ceremonies carries an "olympic truce" for all participating countries to temporarily hold off any wars and grudges among each other for the entire olympiad. This was indeed violated on Aug. 8th the same day when the Beijing games opening ceremony took place, when the Russian army invaded the Republic of Georgia to occupy parts of the country, the break-away republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be assisted by the Russian army. It affected Russian and Georgian olympic athletes, news reporters noticed a gloomy mood among the Georgians who felt distracted on the news from their homeland. The article should added the significance of a brief war to broke out during the olympic games' truce.+ 71.102.7.77 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Music used from Generals

I once heard that one track from the OST of C&C: Generals was used in this Olympics. Is this true? And which one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.55.86 (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Luck Beijing

This article makes absolutely no mention of the Good Luck Beijing test events – a series of sporting events from July 2007 to May 2008 which were designed to test the venues and preparations for the 2008 Games. Where do people think the best place to put this information is? The only logical thing I can think of is putting it in its own section in the organisation section. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 12:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Countries That Won Medals, and How Many

Could somebody add a list of NOCs that won medals, and how many for each NOC? I think it would be a nice addition. 97.96.65.123 (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the section 2008 Summer Olympics#Medal table it has a link to 2008 Summer Olympics medal table. David Biddulph (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I never notice the most blatantly obvious things... 97.96.65.123 (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Women-only sports

In the article, it says that there were one sport (softball) and one discipline (synchronized swimming) open only to women. In fact, there were these and one additional discipline--rhythmic gymnastics--open only to women, which should be reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.51.227 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Security

I found:

• "Vol. 4 No. 2." China Security. Spring 2008 which includes stuff discussing security at the Olympics

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Colombia

Colombia send 67 competitor to the 2008 summer games, not 64. Please correct that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.31.13.11 (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Date "rule" of the Olympics

I remember being told years ago that when the Olympics were held in the Asia-Pacific region (Seoul, Sydney, Tokyo), they started in September/October because of the unusual Summer weather. Beijing 2008 doesn't follow that "rule." Were there any IOC rule changes regarding when the Olympics can start? There must be someone who's knowledgeable about these things. 173.63.190.247 (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Medal Winners

How is the rank determine for the Medal winners? I know it is not total, but using the 5/3/1 system Germany should be 6th (125) and Australia 5th (132) 65.215.93.238 (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

number of gold, then number of silver, then number of bronze. simple as that. Ravendrop 16:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Add here or

• When Beijing Cleared the Air July 22, 2012, or maybe greenhouse gas or ... ?

99.112.212.152 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Resolute (talk · contribs) 17:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General

• Images are fine. Most are licensed freely, two have valid FU claims.
  • It is not a requirement for GA, but alternative text is recommended

• Sources all appear reliable, and there is a good mix of sources around the world.
  • Refs 15 (ndtv.com), 70 (olympic.org), 62 (thrfeed.org), 89 (teamusa.org) and the external link to issuelab.org are all dead.
    • So is ref 69, even though it didn't show up in the checklinks report. I would probably take a look at all olympic.org links that don't have a webcite archive and search for replacements as needed.
  • Spotcheck of several references reveals no issue with close paraphrasing
  • Ref 28 does not support the claim regarding the free Tibet banners.
  • Ref 44 supports all claims, except that the torch could stay lit in temperatures as cold as -40c. Please find a source that supports the temperature or remove.
  • I checked about 30 references, and found no issues with the rest. Will likely check more as I do a read through of the prose.

• The number of Olympic and world records, and Phelps' performance is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body. This strikes me as a rather glaring omission. I would suggest adding a short paragraph of key individual results into the "medal count" section or as its own sub-section near there.

• Small nitpick: Given the Month-day-year date format, you should be adding commas after the years. e.g.: "...August 8, 2008, in the Beijing National Stadium".

That is it for a start. Though there are some concerns, I think all are easily fixable at this point. I will continue with a review of the prose, hopefully later today. Regards, Resolute 17:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, prose...

Lead

• "...and these Olympics had the largest television audience in Olympic history." - Is this still accurate after the London Games?
• "There were 43 new world records and 132 new Olympic records set..." - Remove both usages of "new". It is a given that any record set is a new record.
• "...Olympics and for most career gold medals for an Olympian by winning eight swimming events." - Remove "for an Olympian", it's redundant.

Marketing

• The paragraph on the motto is a little disjointed. It starts with the unveiling and an explanation, then the Tibetan protest, then back to explaining it. I would suggest moving the protest parts to the end of the paragraph, and perhaps break the mascots and pictograms into their own paragraph.

Torch relay

• The second, third and fourth paragraphs of this section need better organization. It goes from the relay to a random Tibetan protest to the relay to the conclusion that it was a "PR disaster" back to the relay, to another protest and again the relay. Since the protests were on the international part of the relay, I would open with the domestic journey in one paragraph, then the international journey with the protest, and finally the consequences of the protests.

Opening ceremony

• Should include the time zone as part of the 8:00 PM start time. (as is done in the closing ceremony section)
• "The opening ceremony was lauded by spectators and various international presses as spectacular and spellbinding." - since you are quoting other sources, "spectacular" and "spellbinding" should be in quotes.

Medal count

• "Athletes from China won 51 gold medals, the most of any nation at these Olympics, becoming the first nation other than the United States and Russia (Soviet Union) to do so since the 1936 Summer Olympics." - To do what, lead in gold medals? Also, I would break this sentence into two: "Athletes from China won 51 gold medals, the most of any nation at these Olympics. China became the first nation other than the United States and Russia (Soviet Union) to lead in gold medals since <country> in 1936."
• The use of "athletes", especially to begin sentences, is quite repetitive. Can you reword some of this to add variety to the prose?
• (added Dec 3) "In the uneven bars final, Chinese gymnast He Kexin and American Nastia Liukin tied with final marks of 16.725, and earned identical A and B-panel scores of 7.70 and 9.025, respectively. The gold medal was awarded to He and the silver to Liukin due to recent rules changes in the tie-breaking system." - needs a source. Also, "recent" is a temporal statement that should be avoided. I would just say "...due to changes in the tie-breaking system made prior to the Games."

Participation

• "China and the United States had the largest teams, with 639 for China and 596 for the United States." - In this case, you need to specify that it was "639 athletes for China and 596 for the United States."

National participation changes

• The paragraph on Irag is written in proseline. I would suggest rewording the start of the second paragraph: "The IOC reversed its decision five days later and allowed the nation to compete..."

Legacy

• "... (though Sweden's Ara Abrahamian tossed his bronze medal in disgust over judging)..." - It would help to know what sport Abrahamian participated in.
• "The Olympics seem to have also bolstered some domestic support for the Chinese government..." - Seem to have? Some? Can this be stated more definitively? Same with the rest of this paragraph. It feels somewhat like an editorial.

Overall

• Looks good overall. Some small prose concerns, and some references needing to be updated, and I think this article will be there. Accordingly, I am placing on hold for the time being. Regards, Resolute 02:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've cleared up two of the three Lead issues and will probably be able to do much more tomorrow night. Thanks for starting the review! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Opening ceremony, Participation, National participation changes, Legacy, and Lead sections are all taken care of. I will conclude revisions tomorrow or Monday. Thanks for your patience, and my apologies for taking so long. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Mostly there. I think all I have outstanding now is the medal count section. Also, current reference 64 (The Live Feed) is dead. But we're almost there! Cheers, Resolute 03:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Date formats are all now consistent, and the ref is fixed. We are now down to two sentences beginning with "athletes", and I could easily get it down to just one, if you prefer. I am working on finding a source for the gymnast thing, and will have alternative text within the next few days, as well as key results for the article body. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have left this hanging for so long. I will be back this week to finish up. Ta! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I've implemented all the above suggestions. If I've missed anything, or if you think anything could be done a little better, just let me know. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that looks better. I think there could be room to add more info on various important medalists, but I might consider that a one difference between GA and FA. All of my original comments are resolved, however User:MOTORAL1987 has begun to add a table listing participating nations by number of athletes at 2008 Summer Olympics#Number of Athletes by National Olympic Committees but that remains incomplete. I would suggest working with them to either complete or replace/remove the table, at which point I will pass the article. Cheers! Resolute 16:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and just hidden it for now. I'm not sure what direction that table will take, but that is a discussion for the Olympics project members. With that, I have no further objections, and am promoting this article. Cheers! Resolute 23:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The lead contradicts the infobox as per the number of atheletes.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 02:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Number of Athletes by National Olympic Committees Section

Can I please have some assisantance to complete this section as filling in the number of Athletes for 204 countries is a lot for one person to do. Thanks very much! (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC))

Vandalism In The Lead Section

There is some obvious vandalism in the lead section. It claims the 2008 Olympics was held in Spotswood, New Jersey among other inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD8B:5A60:75CF:F685:9CFA:E25F (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Thank you for noting this. Cheers! Resolute 14:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

There is another obvious mistake in Medal Count section. It claims India was first in rank:

Rank Nation→ Gold Silver Bronze Total 1 India→→ 51 21 28 100 2 United States 36 38 36 110 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.50.66.200 (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090818060103/http://www.ndtv.com:80/convergence/ndtv/showsports.aspx?id=SPOEN20080060086&ch=8/4/2008%209:09:00%20PM to http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/showsports.aspx?id=SPOEN20080060086&ch=8/4/2008%209:09:00%20PM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201090922/http://bt.com.bn/en/sport/2008/08/10/brunei_not_in_china_because to http://www.bt.com.bn/en/sport/2008/08/10/brunei_not_in_china_because

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090119044023/http://www.radio86.co.uk:80/china-insight/world-viewpoints/9348/top-events-of-2008-after-the-games-chinas-olympic-legacy to http://www.radio86.co.uk/china-insight/world-viewpoints/9348/top-events-of-2008-after-the-games-chinas-olympic-legacy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

2008北京

加油 Lingonn84 (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726173819/http://www.radio86.co.uk/china-insight/world-viewpoints/9348/top-events-of-2008-after-the-games-chinas-olympic-legacy to http://www.radio86.co.uk/china-insight/world-viewpoints/9348/top-events-of-2008-after-the-games-chinas-olympic-legacy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080827091942/http://olympics.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mauritian_delight_at_first_ever_medal/articleshow/3394390.cms to http://olympics.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mauritian_delight_at_first_ever_medal/articleshow/3394390.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080827091942/http://olympics.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mauritian_delight_at_first_ever_medal/articleshow/3394390.cms to http://olympics.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mauritian_delight_at_first_ever_medal/articleshow/3394390.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090428200852/http://en.beijing2008.cn/culture/ceremonies/n214143744.shtml to http://en.beijing2008.cn/culture/ceremonies/n214143744.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090428182913/http://en.beijing2008.cn/news/official/ioc/n214520633.shtml to http://en.beijing2008.cn/news/official/ioc/n214520633.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714220216/http://2008games.nytimes.com/olympics/story.asp?i=20080824121844314602808&ref=rec&tm=&src=DOLY to http://2008games.nytimes.com/olympics/story.asp?i=20080824121844314602808&ref=rec&tm=&src=DOLY
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625133402/http://www2.canada.com:80/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=c06e4f24-ea77-467c-960e-abc94721e094 to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=c06e4f24-ea77-467c-960e-abc94721e094

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)