Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Protection

The wrong version of the article has been successfully protected.

I've fully protected the article for one day, let me know if it needs to be extended. Please discuss proposed changes here instead of edit warring (see WP:BRD). Consider dispute resolution steps, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Taoufik Makhloufi

He was originally thrown out of the games (already qualified for 1500m final) after "not trying" in 800m heat. Algerian officials later gave medical certificate about the failure to finish and he was re-instated. He then won gold in 1500m. Does this qualify? BleuDXXXIV (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No it does not qualify its just in interesting story bout jumping to conclusions by the authorities. Sport and politics (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

At any rate, the issue would be the 800m. That should be controversial enough in that he was reinstated when he should have been disqualifiedLihaas (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's quite a big issue compared to most of the crud that's included... And to clarify that's mostly a vent against the crud rather than an endorsement of this. Also "should have been disqualified" - Lihaas? Remain neutral please - Basement12 (T.C) 01:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Somewhat brilliantly the Wikipedia article Create, read, update and delete is the top Google result for crud. To further clarify my comment I mean the top link here - Basement12 (T.C) 01:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• Algerian Makhloufi claims controversial 1,500 gold
• Algeria's Makhloufi overcomes controversy to win 1500m
• Makhloufi overcomes controversy to win 1500m
• Makhloufi claims controversial gold

Given that those are the actual headlines, in actual reputable news organisations, then this is so clearly worthy of inclusion it's unreal. But I sense yet another tedious round of claims that the press should be ignored because they know nothing about what is and is not controversial coming, and to call this a controversy will be Original Research, and other ill-informed nonsense. FerrerFour (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh good another of these 'I think it is', 'I think it isn't' debates. Surely as the games are still going on lasting notablity cannot possibly be known. This is controversial now, in the news now, has verifiable, reliable sources etc. Even Lord Coe is concerned! This can always be revisited later (if anyone is bothered by then) and additions/deletions to content will not muster such tension amongst editors.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The material can be included on the Wikipedia article about the 800m race at the Olympics, surely. Wouldn't that be a better place? Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That would only help readers who already knew the controversy had its genesis in the 800m. It wouldn't help those who remembered the controversy was about the winner of the 1,500m, nor those who could only remember that it involved a distance runner being disqualified and reinstated. There's no reason why it can't be in all three. FerrerFour (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

How about including it on just the page for Taoufik Makhloufi. Sport and politics (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be included here in the main controversy section as opposed to the 800m page or Makhloufi's personal page since it's along the same line as the badminton players or the Brit sprint team--if we agree to move this section to its event page or personal page, then we should do the same thing for the other incidents. Although I would agree that adding this incident to his personal page would be a good idea. (Showmebeef (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

GB Football team

To the anonymous IP that is repeatedly deleting the section Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#Great_Britain_in_football because it is "nothing to do with the Olympics" and "not contentious", might I remind them that the GB football teams were formed precisely in order that GB footballers could play in their home Olympics. The formation was strongly opposed by the Football Associations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, over a sustained period. And continues to be opposed. There is no doubt this was Olympic related and controversial. Sionk (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• It has nothing to do with the Olympics as a whole and is a GB thing. Not notable to anyone outside of the UK. Rightly and soley belongs on the 2012 GB page and the GB Football page where I believe it is already mentioned in detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.173.122 (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• • So have you made up your own rule that if something is controversial within a single nation, it is not notable? That doesn't make sense. It was a sustained and ongoing disagreement. Sionk (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Other opinions would be welcome here. The section was removed in its entirety here, here and here. Obviously I'm unable to revert for the third time or I'll fall foul of the three revert rule! 89.240.173.122 seems unwilling to see sense, unfortunately. Sionk (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly was a big talking point, and got a lot of press coverage in the UK, but in essence it is just another issue over team selection and I'm sure that we could find half a dozen such stories for each nation; Others I remember off top of my head are #Aaron Cook or the women's 800 metres [1] for Great Britain and the relay for Ireland [2]. I'm not sure this reaches my arbitrarily applied, mental threshold for inclusion (with the lack of any set guidelines that's all I've got to go on) but it's more worthy than a lot of the junk that's been added (and removed and added and removed...etc) so I won't fight the case too much as long as it doesn't open the door for every other selection dilemma - Basement12 (T.C) 02:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The GB football thing was definitely a bigger deal than any of the other team selection things, and I lean toward including it here while moving the others to the GBR page as simply not notable enough for this article. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. GB football was the only team selection issue of another NOC that was reported in my country (Norway). 85.167.111.129 (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The formation was opposed by the other FA's because it threatened their independence. Judging by the content at Great Britain Olympic football team#Reformation for London 2012 and Great Britain women's Olympic football team#London_2012 the issue had been rumbling since 2005, which meets the criteria of being a prolonged disagreement (particularly by the Scottish FA) by any standard! I could add a link to both of these articles, but it would seem less messy to simply replace the deleted paragraph. Sionk (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is the biggest of the selection stories; if/when it goes in we should make clear that in the end Stuart Pearce was free to select whoever he liked. However on a more general note I do have concerns that when compared to Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics this article is descending into too many trivial and/or single nation issues. This page is supposed to be a WP:SPINOFF of 2012 Summer Olympics article to include content that became to long for the main article. Anything we include here should therefore be something that we believe is worthy of that main article and this (plus many others) doesn't meet that threshold - Basement12 (T.C) 09:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I still see this as something different from a controversy. It's a series of inevitable consequences caused by the reality of the complicated status of the UK, combined with the decision to enter the football competition this time round. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Because of the special status of the UK in football the decision to enter a team (and the selection of players for the team) was controversial. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And there you've clarified the problem. We really have two issues, entering a team, and team selection. I argue that once the decision to enter a team was made, some sort of disagreement over selection was inevitable. So, what are we concerned about? Entering the team? Hardly. As the home country, the UK was entitled to enter. Nothing controversial there. So we're left with selection. As I said above, it was inevitable that some would disagree with the process. That's not enough to call it a controversy. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The decision to enter a British team was certainly uncontroversial for the IOC as the team was qualified as hosts. It was, however, controversial in the UK. The host nation is not required to use it spot and there were calls not to enter. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So, certainly not an international controversy. A controversy to some in the UK, in your opinion. Which, of course, you're entitled to. But I do think there's a lot of POV and synthesis on display here. Is this really a big enough issue? HiLo48 (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above this is the only selection issue about another NOC that was reported in my country, thus it is the only one I know of that was reported internationally. In my opinion all other selection issues belong on the Nation at the xxxx Olympics article, but a case for the inclusion of this one can be made. It was, of course, made especially notable because it affected the host country in a popular sport. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, who is deciding that controversies within a nation should not be included? If that is the case, there should be a very major cull of the article. As the host nation, surely internal controversies are particularly relevant. The GB football teams were put together specifically as a 'one off' for the London Olympics. Which other countries had this problem? From what I understand, the Scottish FA refused to even sit down and discuss it, for 7 years! Sionk (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Britain and Argentina

Seriously this does NOT BELONG on here! Nothing to do with the OLympics the only reason it has flared up is because of the 30th anniversery. It just so happened that London is hosting the Olympics. Context. No one in Britain went nuts about the Hockey player because of the overall context (yes it did get a mention in the press, but it wasn't headline stuff) and that has nothing to do with the Olympics. It happened before the Games, and was a coincident that the Games are taking place in London this year and should be seen in context of claims of owning the Island rather than being on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.173.122 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree it was using the Olympics as a political statement phrasing in the ad such as "to train for the Olympics on British soil we train on Argentine soil" when running round Port Stanley. It is clearly using the Olympics in London as a political platform. Sport and politics (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Only made because of the Olympics being on in London during the 30th anniversery. But I hope you agree it was a small part of a bigger incident and would be better explain on the aftermarth of the falklands.89.240.173.122 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That is the political statement hijacking the London Olympics the use of direct referencing of the Olympics does make it relevant to the Olympics. If there were no London Olympics then the video would not have been made, as it would not have been able to have an Argentine Athlete rambling on about the London Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Using the Games for a political statement is completely unacceptable and is the very definition of controversy. (Natt39 (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

Totally agree that this should be included here. Any political statement linking it to the Olympics is against its spirit and is considered controversial, just like the stunt that the S Korea soccer player pulled at the end of their soccer game with Japan. (Showmebeef (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

It was reported in my country (Norway), and the claim that it is irrelevant to the Olympics is erroneous. (The ad contains clear references to the Olympics) It clearly belongs in the "Prior to the games" section. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing athletes

I'd like to add a section on the competitors and members of Olympic delegations that have gone missing while in the United Kingdom. Competitors from the DR Congo, Eritrea, Guinea the Ivory Coast and Cameroon have absconded so far. I'm adding details to the individual "X at the 2012 Summer Olympics" pages. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there actually any controversy over this? It's a thing that happened (and certainly should be on the individual country pages), but I'm not seeing the controversy. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversial Relegation in Women's Cycling Team Sprint

The current article on the relegation of the Chinese team to the silver medal indicates that they were disqualified for allegedly making a lane change. However, that's not a controversy if the judges can prove that they indeed made some sort of illegal lane change. But the judges didn't. There was nothing that the judges showed to the Chinese team coach Daniel Morelon when they declared that the Chinese pair were disqualified. According to Morelon, "After the race, I came to the referee, they did not show any video replay to me...". (see China appeals relegation of Chinese cyclists). And besides, as stated in the article, "According to a communique issued by the IOC, National team of China was relegated to 2nd place in the heat for early relay[sic], based on Art 3.2.153. However, the communique did not specify how Chinese cyclist break the rule". In fact, the Chinese stated that "we watched the video of the race many times after coming back to the Athlete's village, We analyzed the regulation and rules of the game, We believe that Chinese cyclists did not break any rule". So judges made the decision to disqualify the Chinese pair for breaking some rule, but they didn't explain how exactly they broke the rule, nor did they show any proof for it. So these facts are what's so controversial about it.

People also argue that if the Chinese should be re-instated, then the British pair of Pendleton and Varnish, who were disqualified earlier, should be too. But that's a different infringement and they are comparing apples to oranges. The British pair were disqualified for making a takeover infringement, and there is photo evidence that clearly shows that, see the photo in this article "I'll be back: Heartbroken Varnish vows to return stronger after Olympic dream dies" where it shows Pendelton overtook Varnish by half a wheel before they passed the changeover line.

So the British pair of Pendelton and Varnish were rightfully disqualified, as there is clear evidence to support that, but the Chinese pair of Guo and Gong were NOT, at least there is no evidence whatsoever that the judges can provide to prove that. (Showmebeef (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

This assumes that as part of the rules the judges are required to show the team the evidence, is that really the case? That may, perhaps, make it a controversy. Fyi the Great Britain and China teams were relegated for brreaking the same rule, your post seems to suggest it was for different offences - Basement12 (T.C) 09:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if a gold medal is stripped based on a technicality that could only be determined by a photo finish, like in a 100m dash where results are judged town to the 1/1000th of a second, won't it be required? We are not talking about a race where the results were agreed by the competitors. We are talking about a race where a gold medal was stripped, where the results have already been broadcast over the globe. If the British pair was provided with a photo finish for their apparent violation, won't it seem odd, and controversial, when even a video replay was denied to the Chinese pair?

Thanks for pointing out that both the British and Chinese teams were relegated for breaking the same rule. I first thought the Chinese were cited for breaking some lane change rule, as indicated by the existing article here. A closer look at the communique shows it's an "early relay", which most likely means "overtake infringement". I will re-word them as I prepare for a re-write of the article piece. (Showmebeef (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

Five to ten lines per controversial result hardly seems excessive

There are a number of cases of controversial results described in the article. With the exception of the badminton farce (which is a big one) and boxing officiating (of which I know nothing) these section are short and describes the facts of the matter. Several describe official protests, others public but unofficial complains by the losing team and others calls for rule changes after athletes admitted breaking or bending the rules. I don't think 5-10 lines is excessive coverage of these cases. It may be that one or two of them are not notable or controversial enough to remain in the article, but a swift scan of the cases did not give me that immediate impression.
Update: Having read to the section again the only case I can see for removal is "Men's team artistic gymnastics judging", simply because both GB and Ukraine seem to have immediately accepted the ruling, thus the case never moved beyond the field of play. The only way to shorten the other cases would be to reduce all cases except badminton to a linked list format with the cases described only in the event articles. While this would work, it would in my opinion give too little weight to the sporting controversies. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to why this "self-imposed" 5-10 lines per incident rule here. I think it should be "whatever it takes to fully describe and explain the controversy", if the controversy if deemed worthy of inclusion here. If you take a look at the controversy section for the 2008 game, that article is way, way longer and detailed than what we currently have here. Are we employing different sets of rule and standard here?? (Showmebeef (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

No rule. I am merely describing (and supporting) the status quo, where all the sections have a length of five to ten lines on my screen. I do not see why there are so many calls to remove these sections as they seem to be covered in sufficient, not extraneous, detail. I do not see how most of them could be shorter, unless the whole section is turned into a list. 88.88.163.29 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Volunteering for the Olympic ceremonies

Particularly at the opening ceremony, there was a point where to stop the ceremony overunning, volunteers who had practiced for months were told by the government that they were to be cut out. However Danny Boyle stuck to his guns and got the issue resolved. This was not a minor issue. I think only a biking event was cancelled in the end. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 17:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources...? It may not have been a minor issue but it certainly wasn't a big issue either and I doubt it counts a conroversy - Basement12 (T.C) 17:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Romney

It doesnt appear that the whole Romney visit/gaffe controversy is mentioned in the article. Recall Romney paid a quick visit to London and did an interview in which he made some comments about how the Olympics would be run by the British and their local Olympic committee. His comments were interpreted as an unwarranted critique and received criticism and rebuke by the British, and even drew a sharp comment from the Prime Minister David Cameron. This was an Olympic-related controversy and should be mentioned here. -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be Olympic related but this is not a commentary of everything and anything that individuals say when on a trip or on a tour or when they meet someone. This is just one US politician saying something about the Olympics it is not a controversy and it is not notable and it is just ephemera. It does not warrant inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't deliberately misrepresent what people say in order to create a false argument. This user's post is in no way a suggestion to document "everything and anything that individuals say when on a trip or on a tour or when they meet someone". Neither was this "just one US politician", it is one of two people who will be contesting the US Presidency in a few months. If you have some evidence that this was not a controversy, then please provide it. The dictionary definition of a controversy is "Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated". Mitt Romney's remarks generated prolonged and heated disagreement in public fora, that much is obvious. So inclusion seems justifiable at this point. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a controversy, and your distaste of Americans does not make it so. How transparent you are... 69.141.182.220 (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The slashing of this article and the dictionary definition of "Controversy"

While I admire the zeal with which some people are hacking away at this article to remove what they claim isn't controversial, can we just pause and reflect on the actual dictionary definition of the word controversy, which is:

Noun: Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated

While I am sure there are many other examples in the article history, with this verifiable and universally understood definition in mind, recent removals such as this and this look like nothing more than whitewashing.

It cannot be disputed by anyone with a TV or an internet connection that the issues these sections describe did indeed provoke prolonged heated public disagreement prior to the games, so I would like to know on what basis that they are now erased from this article as if they never happened.

Or if the intention is to redefine the word controversy for Wikipedia to mean something else, can that be addressed here head on, rather than by unilaterally deleting whole sections in this haphazard manner, especially as the edit summaries that accompany these deletions are simply not accurate, suggesting at the very least that there is little care being exercised. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed sections for three reasons;

• (1) Not controversial
• (2) Not directly related to the 2012 Games
• (3) Better placed in a different article

• So, for example, the doping ruling was controversial, but was only linked tangentally to the 2012 Games because it was the next event it would affect. Similarly, the possible barring of foreign politicans was only relevant because it was the Games they might possibly be visiting (not to mention that they may not have attended anyway). The Munich tribute was related to the Games, but has been at many recent Games too, and even had its own article - it didn't need to be repeated here. The criticism of NBC was mentioned in two other articles - the NBC Olympics coverage article and the opening ceremony article. I stand by all of my removals for those reasons, but if you can convince me I was wrong for any section, I'd be happy to see them put back. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Incidentally, of the two examples you mention (which weren't my removals), I agree with the first (though it would have been a different story if the strikes had actually happened during the games) - as it stood it was just a list of actual strikes that didn't affect the games, and proposed strikes which would have, but didn't. As for the second, the first paragraph isn't a controversy but I would not object to the second being included. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• That is one of WP's problems in that a group of editors can reach a compromise or majority opinion on article content, and then an individual with different ideas can come along and boldly do something completely different, such as nominate the article for deletion or remove a lot of its content. Nothing personal Black Kite, Nyttend, or Drmies, just please try to discuss things first before taking drastic action. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel that what HeCameFromTheShadows linked to is significant enough to remain, as public reactions were mentioned, as oppose to some stuff in the article that don't have public reactions and aren't controversial at all. --Activism1234 22:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That dictionary definition is nice. Please note the word "prolonged". The problem is that none of these controversies is, as yet, prolonged. We've also had a lot of contributors not interested in a formal definition, only the use of the word "controversy" in some newspaper somewhere in the world. Newspapers require a lot more words every day than we will ever have in this whole article. A mention in a newspaper is therefore not enough. We MUST make judgements. That we have to do so highlights one of the problems with this article's existence. We won't include every instance of the use of that word somewhere in the world. Which ones do we include? The prolonged ones? Then we have no article. That would suit me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be facetious here but we do not have a definition of the word prolonged. It is 24 hours, 24 days, 24 Weeks, 24 Months etc. Also what is the definition of "heated" two people complaining or a two NOC's or hundreds of people on twitter. There needs to be common sense judgements made on this subject and if people disagree then discuss it. Then there will be sensible article removed from ephemera. Sport and politics (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I humbly submit that 24 hours is NOT prolonged. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Well, I went to work on the article upon seeing the cleanup tag. Of course, it reflects my opinion as to what's important. I'm not based in the UK, so take that for what it's worth. Also, I had a look at the Beijing controversies article before and after the cleanup there before I went about the changes here. I've rearranged a few things, and removed a few that I feel are either more specific than to the Games overall, or are not significant controversies (or indeed controversies at all). TO a degdee, I tend to agree with the views expressed by Black Kite above.

With such a multi-levelled structure, I feel that tthe games' article structure should follow the subsidiarity principle. The boxing section was just a mess that had no common thread, and seems quite adequately and properly dealt with at the subsidiary article. I've been notified that one of my changes - that relating to female competitors in every national squad - has been reverted. Obviously I didn't see why it should belong, as there is nothing at all controversial in the write-up, but if consensus is in favour of keeping it, then I'll concede However I don't see much discussion, but anyways... --Lolo Lympian (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The section on female athletes can be improved. Three NOCs where put under a lot of pressure to include female athletes and eventually did so. Do anyone know when the decisions where made? I think Saudi Arabia was as late as July, but the other NOCs may have decided much earlier. 88.88.163.29 (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Developing that section into something befitting the controversy surrounding it could well be the solution. --Lolo Lympian (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have added some sources to it. I don't really know enough about the issue; I added it per the discussion here and the amount of coverage it got in the weeks leading up to the games for future improvement. 88.88.163.29 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Politics Scotland

First Minister has said that this would be Scotland's last games before going on itsown. He ws condemned as stirring up trouble ("killjoy") by the media. [3]Lihaas (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that qualifies as a controversy for this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

For well known political reasons those mischievous Scots are using every possible platform to promote independence. The Olympics is just one of many. This is a UK issue, not an Olympic one. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree, also thius is not abouot the olympics at all.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

But using the Olympics as a political platform is alwasy controversial. Munich, Mexico City, Los Angeles, Moscow...It generated criticism as well.Lihaas (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This has little if anything to do with the Olympics. Its just a politician being given too much air time and pushing his agenda. Sport and politics (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Scotland's participaation in the lympics and how has little to do with the olm[piycs? This is akin to the CIS folding (or USSR for that matter, which is even bigger and that too if it had just hosted the Games in 1988)Lihaas (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The debate surrounding the Constitutional make up of the United Kingdom is not an London 2012 Olympics issue. If it is please can you demonstrate how it is? As for the CIS and the break up of the USSR that lead to the competing under the Olympic flag as a unified team which is covered not as a controversy but as a fact of the 1992 Summer and winter Olympic games. The fact of the 2012 Olympics is the Great Britian is made up of Englad Scotland Wales and Norther Ireland (I know there are overseas territories and crown dependencies etc but I am not going to list them as well.) It could be an issue for the 2016 Rio games. Sport and politics (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with with the constitutional makeup, it has something to do with a warning that thsi is the last time the GB team would comprise as it is. For exapmle, defending champion Andy Murray will no longer be there to defend the GB emedal in mens single and further the mixed doubles quest (where there is no opther option)Lihaas (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It is pure speculation as it is not known if the referendum in Scotland will result in yes or no or even what the referendum will be like will there be Devo Max on the ballot? This section is just one man pushing his agenda and to include it would be to give him undue air time. Sport and politics (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy Murray will still be able to compete. Whether it be for GB or for Scotland is irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoa hold on a moment... If you're saying this is not an Olympic Controversy issue, then you better remove the part about Dokdo/Liancourt rocks! 69.141.182.220 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's different that was a competitor using the games as a political platform during the games, breaking the IOC code potentially. Alex Salmond is just one guy with an agenda to push and is trying to bring the Olympics in to push his agenda. The 2012 Olympics have nothing to do with what Alex Salmond says. Sport and politics (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Osaka Rule - Relevance to 2012 Olympics

The arguments presented for the inclusion of a section on the Osaka Rule should be considered, in particular the fact that the IOC was forced to accept certain athletes' participation at these games. 85.167.39.6 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As I have pointed out this is not a 2012 Olympics specific issue, It stretched back to Dwain Chambers In Beijing and Christine Ohorogu in Beijing. Both were Olympic Life Banners and both went to court to get in to Beijing. One succeeded one failed. One then went to CAS. This will be an issue for Rio 2016 so it is not confined to London 2012 so it has no place here but it does on the Olympic Games page. Sport and politics (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have conceded that the BOA by-law belongs at Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics and added it there. While the issue of dopers taking part in the games exists at all games, the Osaka Rule does not.
The Osaka Rule controversy is specific to these games: The rule was created at an Executive Board meeting prior to Beijing, but did not take effect until later. The rule may have prevented some athletes taking part in 2010, but if it did it was not controversial as affected athletes did not protest or take it to court. Finally, the controversy of former dopers' participation will remain, but not with the Osaka Rule as a back-drop. There may be cases for CAS in 2015-2016, but such cases will be challenging a provision in the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, and not a controversial IOC rule in the Olympic Charter. The new rule will be different (based on the draft) and made by a different organisation. 85.167.39.6 (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Court cases leading up to the creation of the Osaka rule were an attempt to get athletes in to the 2008 Olympics. It does not belong on this article and it is an ongoing issue which will affect the 2016 Olympics. This is not an issue confined to these Olympics and as such it is not relevant to the topic of this article. Sport and politics (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Osaka Rule was not created because of court cases in the run-up to the 2008 games. The Osaka Rule is not an ongoing issue. Participation of dopers is an ongoing issue of which the Osaka Rule is a part. The Osaka Rule is a controversy only at these games. 85.167.39.6 (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The rule is still being discussed and the 2012 games have finished and the rule or similar incarnations were as a direct result of the challenging in court in the run up to the 2008 games. If there is to be an "Osaka Rule" it will be in place for the 2016 games so it is clearly an ongoing issue. Sport and politics (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you add links to the 2008 court cases? I can't find them, and they are not given as a reason for the Osaka Rule creation as far as I can see. 85.167.39.6 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see this archived discussion for the previous discussion on this topic. Sport and politics (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already linked to the previous discussion. The case linked to~in it is related to the BOA by-law, which is now mentioned at Great Britain's article, and is only tangentially related to the Osaka Rule. I do not dispute that past dopers' participation will remain controversial, I am saying that the Osaka Rule controversy, as a particular incarnation of this issue, is specific to the 2012 Olympics. 85.167.39.6 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the "Osaka rule" an actual controversy and if it is, is it actually related to these Olympics and not an ongoing thing which pre and post dates these Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The athletes that would have been banned from the 2012 Olympics did not like it, took it to court and won. The IOC actively defended their position in court, is unhappy about the result and thinks similar provisions should be included in future WADA codes. They have, however, given up on the Osaka Rule they added to the Olympic Charter, so the specific issue is finished. There may be some debate post-games about affected athletes winning medals, especially if one is caught. (Subsequent discussion will, in any case, be related to these games.) The court case was, of course, pre-games, but it is related to these games. I have listed the discussion at WP:3O. 85.167.39.6 (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I just realised that the sources I rely on was in the article, not in the discussion: The award and media — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.111.129 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I'm volunteering to give the requested 3O, if that's OK. Please sit tight while I take a look and I will give an opinion shortly. Formerip (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

1. It is argued on the one hand that the Osaka Rule controversy relates to the 2012 games because it determined the eligibility of some athletes for the games. On the other, it is argued that the Rule relates to Olympic participation generally, and is not specifically to do with the 2012 games.
2. It seems clear that the Osaka rule was not intended to cover solely the 2012 games, but also all future games.
3. However, because it was overturned, the rule, in a sense, has no effect on any games.
4. If we consider the "Osaka controversy" (rule + overturning), this has an effect (or, if you like, no net effect) for all future games (as things stand - we can't know what further developments might be ahead).
5. However, it has created uncertainty as to the eligibility of particular athletes only in relation to the 2012 games.
6. So, material relating to the controversy is appropriate for the article.
7. This could be the basis for content in the article. However, it explains the history of the rule without mentioning that the 2012 participation of some athletes depended on the 2011 ruling. This information is of crucial importance, because it links the controversy to the 2012 games in particular.
8. Please note that third opinions are not binding. If either of you is unhappy, consider pursuing another means of dispute resolution, such as formulating a WP:RFC.

Formerip (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Was not involved, but thanks for the detailed breakdown and highly enlightening post! Zhanzhao (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Draft - Feel free to edit

The IOC amended the Olympic Charter in June 2008 in order to bar athletes suspended for at least six months for a doping offence from competing at the Olympic Games following the end of the suspension. This provision, known as the Osaka Rule or Rule 45, was challenged before the Court of Arbitration for Sport. In October 2011 the court found that the provision was not an eligibility rule, but a sanction not mandated by the World Anti-Doping Code and thus invalid. Several athletes were allowed to compete at the 2012 Summer Olympics as a result of the ruling, including defending Olympic Champion(s) LaShawn Merritt (others in this category?) and future? gold medallist(s) Jessica Hardy (others in this category?). This was followed by a ruling in April 2012 where the court found that a British Olympic Association by-law preventing the selection of athletes sanctioned for doping for participation in the Olympic Games was invalid for similar reasons. The rulings have led to calls from the IOC and the BOA to include a provision similar to the Osaka Rule in the next Anti-Doping Code, which will be in effect by the 2016 Summer Olympics.

Signed to avoid SineBot85.167.111.129 (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Draft added with changes given in edit summary. 88.88.163.29 (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Men's Cycling Team Sprint

This section is clearly not a controversy as what was said about crashing deliberately is disputed as to if it was even said. No investigation of the incident occurred. The statements we retracted even if they were said and the result was not affected. This section is another in a long list of non-controversies for the bin. Sport and politics (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. The fact that the cyclist admitted something that could have gotten his team disqualified, then the team had to quickly try to cover it up, is a controversy. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ditto and more so in the light of the women's adminton saga(Lihaas (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)).

The badminton yes I agree that is a controversy, but I disagree that a single crash in the cycling which may or may not have been on purpose and weather or not the claimed saying was actually said or not is actually a controversy. There was no investigation and no action taken. The badminton was investigated and 8 of the top players in the World were thrown out, that was a controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You should research before start questioning whether he said it or not. There are videos on youtube of him saying in english, "I just did it, just to get a restart, because my first start wasn't the greatest. So I thought, get a restart."[4] I think what he meant is pretty clear. Also just because the governing body refuse to investigate does not imply it is not a controversy as it is a clear violation of the Olympic spirit. 71.90.101.106 (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You should do some research too - it's been said by the team that this was a case of lost in translation, which is most likely referring to the fact his first language isn't English, given he was born and raised in Germany. FerrerFour (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The claims that this is a "controversy" are sounding like simple Original Research not backed up by the facts. This is because the sources contradict each other other. One says he did it deliberately, another says he didn't. One says he said this and that, while another says it was all a misunderstanding lost in the way he said things. This is all contradictory and to make assumptions and claims based on contradictory evidence is Original Research. There is no proof of anything in this at all. Sport and politics (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

His claim of mistranslation as a reaction is part and parcel of the controversy.

Further, virtually wthe whole page doesnt explicitly mention "controversy" so thats could be construed as coOR too. His explicit statement as such are reason enough to make it a controversy on the same level.Lihaas (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Reason enough only by your interpreting of the sources which is synthesis.

Can you stop talking rubbish please? If sources say different things, then you simply reflect that in the text in a balanced way. That is NOT original research. And no, if sources actually use the words "controversial" to describe an incident, as many do in this case, then that's pretty much the complete opposite of original research. It's pretty clear that you've never even read the Original Research page based on all these misinformed claims about what it is and isn't. FerrerFour (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The story is a non-story if the sources cannot make out clearly what happened or the reasons why it happened. The content of this article needs to be clear, concise, on topic, notable, relevant and be easily understandable. This is clearly not clear, not easily understood, and not notable. This is again anoter piece of journalism. Claiming that it is a controversy based on cherry picking from the sources is synthesising the answer. Claiming it is something based an opinion is Original Research. there has to be positive evidence proving something is what it is and not to try and claim it is not something. These sources are though giving contradictory evidence and are proving nothing. The opinion that this is a controversy is Original Research. Once again please refrain from making personal comments on contributors. Sport and politics (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please just stop talking absolute rubbish. It's beyond obvious that you don't have the first idea what Original Research even is, neither do you have any idea what notabiity is. The idea that we can't include information if the picture of what actually happened is not clear, is again just total and utter rubbish. Why don't you all give us a laugh and go and suggest the deletion of the Area 51 article based on this bizarre theory of yours. After all, nobody's all that clear what the truth is behind that topic are they? FerrerFour (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

By the reading of the comments above there seems to be a very flimsy grasp (if any at all) of what Wikipeida is not. There has been adequate explanation of why it constitutes OR, Synthesis and why it is not notable. This is beginning to look like I like there for I want it in. The difference between this and Area 51 is that Area 51 has a large volume or sources which give a large amount of verifiability and notability to the article. It gives a balanced argument to the whole article. Nothing in anywhere similar exists for this non-story. Sport and politics (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

UTC) UTC)

I shouldn't trust your reading skills if I were you, if you've ever read any of the policies you keep linking, you've clearly not understood them. There is no difference in Area 51 and this item given what you were claiming - you said that if sources are not clear on the story, it should not be covered. Which is garbage. A balanced treatment of this item is possible because there are plenty of sources out there. The only IDONTLIKEIT going on here, is your stupid outright rejection of sources because they're 'journalism' and bizarre belief that using sources as the basis for content is Original Research (totally the opposite), based on you not really understanding that notability governs titles not content, not really understanding that NOT#NEWS doesn't apply to non-routine reporting, and not really comprehending that RECENTISM cannot be assesed when the issue is still recent! You know nothing about any of this it seems, yet it doesn't seem to stop you waffling on as if you do. FerrerFour (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal comments on contributors. I have made clear and thoroughly explained points to set out my position on the information. If you disagree, please do so in a way which addresses the substance of the information being discussed and not the individual making the contribution. Failure to stay on the substance of the discussion and to continue to focus on the individual contributors may result in referral for being uncivil and making personal attacks. I also suggest reading the things to avoid on a discussion pageSport and politics (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The main issue here is the contributor, namely your continued failure/refusal to understand many basic policies even when they're explained to you, while continuing to blindly insist that you do. I have addressed the substance many times, but it is essentially pointless when you don't have the competence to participate in the debate in a meaningfull and logical manner. FerrerFour (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Number of sources does not imply whether an event is notable or not. However amount of social coverage is an indication of notability.65.42.208.133 (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide something verifiable for that? Sport and politics (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You can take a look at the comment sections of the 2 links here:

YouTube: Philip Hindes admitting deliberate crash In this video of the actual interview, there is no mistake in what Hindes said, in plain English (as opposed to the lost-in-translation spin).

daily Mail: Top British cyclist wrapped in cheating scandal after teammate admits he fell on purpose so he could restart race - but they can KEEP gold medal. There are 27 comments there as commenting was disabled. But you can take a look at the voting on each of the comments to get a sense of what people think about this incident.

BTW, there are several attempts to remove the inclusion of this highly controversial incident. I hope people would have enough decency to leave it alone in this article. (Showmebeef (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC))

• Wow showmebeef how dense do you have to be. Citing a blog at the bottom of a news report is world class not. People always write things supporting the main point of the article of things like this. POVing for it to be bigger than it is. It is not. Go and learn what is conterversal. The UCI said nothing. They can't prove anything all they have is his word. Therefore not even remotely notworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.173.122 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Somehow people who lack manners just can't hide it--I'll resist getting into personal attacks here (besides, attacking an IP address is tantamount to digital heresy). If you bother to read the 2 preceding comments, you would realize that "Sport and policy" asked to "provide something verifiable" in response to an earlier comment that "amount of social coverage is an indication of notability", I provided those 2 links so S&P can have a sense of the "amount of social coverage".

As for what is controversial (as oppose to "conterversal"--somebody really need to learn how to spell first before engaging in a debate), well, this incident is as controversial as the badminton players who play to lose in order to gain a more desirable seating. Period! You said that "they can't prove anything all they have is his word"--well, if he openly admits that he fell deliberately in order to gain a edge with a restart, with a video of the interview to support it, what else do you need?

And here you are again mindless deleting sections not to your liking! Well FYI this is Wikipedia--you need to have some consensus to change/delete something. (Showmebeef (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

• Is the YouTube video of the actual interview, Philip Hindes admitting deliberate crash, in which Hindes flatly admitted that he fell deliberately to get a restart, considered to be good source in aiding to dispel the claim that his admission was "lost in translation"? If it is, I would add that reference to the article. (Showmebeef (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC))

We really shouldn't be going to primary sources like that to advance a position--such as dispelling a claim. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just don't know how we can stop those ridiculous lost-in-translation claims when a video of his interview is readily available online. The video is originally from a reliable source. I don't understand why it's not a good idea to reference it. Did I miss something? (Showmebeef (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 05:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not our job to stop ridiculous claims. If there's a reliable secondary source that says the claims are wrong, then we cite that secondary source. Otherwise, we shouldn't be commenting on the veracity of the claims (regardless of how ridiculous they are). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that we should not be the ones to make judgement. My intention is really to provide the source material, in this case the readily available video of the first person account, instead of a second person interpretation of what he said, or what he could have meant. It's really up to viewers who watch the video to draw their own conclusions. (Showmebeef (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC))

Can you please provide a link to the original reliable source. Sport and politics (talk) 09:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The original content is from BBC Sports. Is there any reason to doubt the authenticity of it? I can understand the rationale of shying away from amateur videos on the YouTube. But this is obviously not the case. (Showmebeef (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC))

To address your question directly--no, the original source (the video of the interview by BBC Sports) is no longer available on the BBC Sports website. Is the copy of the original that is currently available on YouTube considered reliable? I personally think it is as the technology to doctor a video is pretty sophisticated and not readily available. But I'm OK if there is objection to using it, as the secondary sources have provided transcript of the interview which I have included in the article. (Showmebeef (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC))

Protection

The wrong version of the article has been successfully protected.

I've just fully protected the article for 12 hours because of the edit warring over a section tag. PLEASE discuss proposed changes here instead of edit warring (see WP:BRD). Consider dispute resolution steps, as well. Let me know if it needs to be extended. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the article now more clearly addresses the previous critisisms about controversy and should be retained for discussion.--Andromedean (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the article still needs to do without the section entirely along with quite a bit more which needs ditching. Sport and politics (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've begun pruning the article but fully expect reverts to occur so please be prepared to protect the page again. Perhaps until the RfC above has completed. Sport and politics (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If you are expecting reverts, why don't you discuss your proposed deletions first? Cla68 (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)s

It already has been discussed. I am just expecting reverts due to the nature of the editing in this article. Sport and politics (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It is unlikely a meaningful discussion can take place if many of the reasons why the subject is controversial have been taken out, I would strongly recommend editors to comment against the article which contains all the necessary information here, or better still revert to this and lock it for extended discussion together with an expeienced arbitrator who understands the rules, or else this will carry on going round in circles forever.--Andromedean (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no stopping any user posting a diff here to a previous version of the article. I also agree with locking the article and getting in a load of outside help to end this spiral once and hope fully for all.Sport and politics (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hijab

Hijab section reverted

Sport and politics, you reverted this section I added. I think the source makes clear that it was a controversy. I think the section should be included, and I think you stop revert warring properly sourced text that people are adding to the article. Cla68 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a "so what" section. It is a nothing section and gives the "protest" undue attention. The whole section is predicated on the fact that the under Olympic charter allowing the wearing of the head scarf was a breach of "religious activity" rules. tThis wasn't even demonstrated to have breached the charter it was only claimed to have, not proved to have. What about the athletes who did the sign of the cross or the athletes who celebrated by getting on their knees and making prayer gestures. No complaints were made about those "religious activities" and they were occurring all the time throughout the games. To single this out and single out one minor protest is selective and biased and doesn't present the whole picture. The section is not about a controversy. It is about a tiny politically motivated protest.

Also again it is not revert warring when acting in a bold fashion to remove cruft from an article. If you do not want a section you added removed make sure it is actually a noteworthy section for inclusion.Sport and politics (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport and politics, it's not you who decides what is or isn't a controversy, it's the sources. That was sourced to Sports Illustrated which defined it as a controversy. Please stop revert warring additions to this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Its also not for you Cla68 to pick only one source that covered this minor "protest" and give it undue coverage and weight. Cla68 this article is overloaded with things which are not controversies. Controversies need wide coverage just one sports magasines opinion doesn't make it so. A wide range of sources demonstrating and all saying it is a controversy does. This section is another one of them which is not a controversy, if you want to have a wider debate on what belongs in this article please feel free to start up (another) debate on the topic. You have also failed to see the point that singling out just the headscarf is biased. Finally please stop making personal insinuations of ownership. Sport and politics (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground, it isn't about who is right and who is wrong. Nor is it a place to be throwing insults at each other. Work cooperatively and find common ground here guys, find a mutual agreement and then implement that agreement. Thank you. Wesley Mouse 14:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wesley Mouse, I haven't made a single revert to this article even though several sections I added have been deleted, all by one editor. I think I'm doing my part to try to improve this article and I'm not insulting anyone. Do you have an opinion on whether the section should be included? Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As I have mentioned a few times in the past, I can't get too involved on this particular topic as I am a volunteer at the games themselves - and that would be a conflict of interest. The only editing I have done to London 2012 articles is minor fixes like spelling, broken links; which are not a COI breach. Not all incidents are noteworthy of inclusion though, and one needs to assess whether such an incident would be a vital piece of encyclopaedic value to the general reader, and not just to the majority fan of the Olympic and Paralympic games. Wesley Mouse 23:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to note though that the source you used for the content has been deleted from the website, so even if the content was restored it would have no source to verify it now. Wesley Mouse 23:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if an article is available on the web or not. It just matters if it is cited correctly. A number of magazines and newsapapers don't keep their articles available on the web because they want people to buy the paper copies. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound ridiculous here but how is an internet based encyclopaedia supposed to verify the source as being factually accurate and a reflection of what is being claimed, if its only available in "hard copy" and no web based sources are available? Sport and politics (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What difference does it make if it's on the website or not? Cla68's reference cites the print edition. There is absolutely no requirement that the material be available online. Read WP:RS to see this. I think that the section should go in. It's cited to a reliable source, the source describes it as a controversy, the scope of this article is controversies. I don't see the problem.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For instance, see Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. from WP:SOURCEACCESS. This is not merely a guideline, it's a policy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read that policy. I am simply asking how it can be easily verified and shown to be true if a fee has to be paid to back up the claim, and the original citing link is now broken. As I have also said this was just a minor protest of a highly political nature and only covers one "religious display" and no other so it is biased in its singling out of the headscarf and not the signing of the cross or prayer celebrations. It has also been pointed out the source is no longer available where cited, meaning either another source needs finding or another copy of the source needs providing. Sport and politics (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read it, didn't you see that it explicitly says that ease of verification means absolutely nothing? Why don't you try assuming good faith of a respected and established editor? Also, unless I'm missing something, we're talking about this diff, and that is a citation to the print edition of Sports Illustrated. How is the source "no longer available where cited"? You could go to the library and look it up if you don't believe it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is a "controversy" and "prolonged public dispute or debate" has occurred why can only one source be provided to back it up. Also can it be demonstrated why there should be coverage given to this minor political protest? Also why is there only coverage of the headscarf and not other "religious displays"? Sport and politics (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you also get off the personal comments as this does not aid in the discussing of the content. Sport and politics (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have some policy that says that there needs to be more than one source to back up a paragraph when the paragraph is cited to the source? I don't understand the basis for your argument that it should be removed, other than that you called it "cruft". How is inserting the material against policy? How is removing it while calling it "cruft" supported by policy?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the Article the article is for "controversies" if it is not being widely debated and not receiving coverage then its not a controversy. Also how is it unbiased to be selective in only covering the headscarf and not other religious displays. It is cruft it is is not a "controversy" and is not generating "prolonged public dispute or debate". Finally I am not going to play games of produce this and that on demand when I have fully justified my position. Sport and politics (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

<--Did you even look for sources? [5], [6], [7], and the search you could have done yourself.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is a desire to engage in a "personal comments" debate please do do on talk pages of users not talk pages of articles. it is also up to all editors to provide a wide range of source and not to demand them from others and decry them for not doing so. Sport and politics (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're referring to. Could you clarify it for me?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And you might try to compare and contrast your argument for removing the hijab stuff with an argument for including this cruft here: Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#Non-public_archery_event.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is another example of a section to remove, this article is still straining under the weight cruft. Sport and politics (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please remain calm folks, we are here to build an encyclopaedia after all. And I went on the SI website and also did a search for the material, and it brought one link up, but when I clicked on it to read it said "this blog has now been deleted". If it is a blog then I'm sure it would be unreliable. But if it is also in hard copy format, then yes it is permitted as a reliable source using {{cite book}} or {{cite news}} - but I have better things to do with my time than to go to a library at 2am in the morning just to find a copy. Wesley Mouse 00:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the additional references that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah found and appreciate his help which has helped improve and expand that section. Sport and politics, before deciding that something is not a controversy, please do as Alf.laylah.wa.laylah suggested and Google it first. Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please ensure that before adding a section it is backed up by a range of reliable sources as opposed to demanding other add them when they dispute a sections relevance.Sport and politics (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail, the issue itself has been a bit of a controversy. But that's inside information ;-) you didn't hear it from me. Wesley Mouse 01:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport and politics, I'm still interested, if it won't seem to confrontational to ask, in why you think there needs to be a "range of reliable sources" as opposed to just one, before a paragraph is included.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To demonstrate if a genuine controversy exists outside the author of the article and to demonstrate "prolonged public dispute or debate", which would demonstrate and prove the section warrants inclusion as a controversy in this controversies article. Sport and politics (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing's only been over for a little more than two weeks. By that standard, the whole article ought to go to AFD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone else beat you to an AfD on this article as shown at the top of the talk page. What I am saying though is genuine controversies are easy to demonstrate and prove as being actual controversies if this section cannot do so it cannot be included in an article on controversies. "prolonged public dispute or debate", prolonged that's up for debate as to its interpretation, but if public dispute and debate cannot be demonstrated easily then how can this be a genuine controversy and something being made out to be a controversy.Sport and politics (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the article should be deleted. I just don't understand your criteria for "prolonged public debate or dispute." Would you care to explain them?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be some definition of a controversy and more than one user before me has used it as a definition. If others have a different definition they would like to share please do and a discussion on the definition on a controversy can be started. Sport and politics (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

abundantly overflowing who, which, what, where,tagging in the hijab section

Perhaps Sport and politics might articulate the specific concerns which prompted all the tags in the hijab section on the talk page so that editors might address the concerns here? I think that one section per tag might be the best way to go, since there are a lot of them and it would make it easier to keep the discussions straight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The tags are self explanatory which Countries and Who are the activists etc.

The second paragraph is all negative comments and POV language, demonstrating a bias in the language. Including the political protest is biased as it gives too much weight to the protest to adavnce one POV. "The first line Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practicing gender apartheid " doesn't say who the critics are or who is being quoted calling it "gender apartheid". Not providing a balance in the article eg the IOC desire to allow for all to participate is also missing.

Sport and politics (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Religous clerics and religious activists in some[which?] countries wanted more modest uniforms.

This section is to discuss this "which" tagged line:

Religous clerics and religious activists in some[which?] countries wanted more modest uniforms.

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Here's explanation. There is no mention as to which clerics, activists, etc. The "which" tag was removed without correcting the problem. I am restoring the tag since the question (to "which," specifically, does the article refer) is not yet answered within the article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the sentence reflected the fact that the source itself doesn't say which countries. I rewrote the sentence to reflect this and removed the tag.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Other critics[who?] charged that allowing the headgear violated IOC Rule 50 which prohibits religious displays in olympic venues.

This section is to discuss this "who" tagged line:

Other critics[who?] charged that allowing the headgear violated IOC Rule 50 which prohibits religious displays in olympic venues.

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned by Cla68 below, the source itself doesn't say which critics. I've rewritten the sentence to reflect this. The mysteriously vanishing source seems to be unvanished from the internets, so I put a link to it in the reference for everyone's use and enjoyment.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practicing gender apartheid 1

This section is to discuss the "who" tag in this sentence:

Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practicing gender apartheid

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned below by Cla68, the SI article doesn't say which critics. I've rewritten the sentence to reflect this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practicing gender apartheid 2

This section is to discuss the "which" tag in this line:

Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practicing gender apartheid

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I just removed this tag, because the "which" is answered in the sentence. Which countries? Those which required the headgear for female representatives. Any country which does is in the which.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

POV-section tag on hijab subsection

How is anyone supposed to fix this if the editor who placed the template won't say what the neutrality problem is, as is supposed to be done on the talk page? Can we please have a clear statement of the POV problem here?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph is all negative comments and POV language, demonstrating a bias in the language. Including the political protest is biased as it gives too much weight to the protest to advance one POV. "The first line Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practising gender apartheid " doesn't say who the critics are or who is being quoted calling it "gender apartheid". Not providing a balance in the article eg the IOC desire to allow for all to participate is also missing. Sport and politics (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point down here any better than I understood it up there. Surely negative comments are to be expected in an article on controversies, n'est ce pas? Also, the political protest is necessary to help show that it really is a controversy. I don't understand either how it is that the sentence not saying who the critics are or which countries are involved has to do with pushing a point of view. This may well be necessary information, and you should feel free to add it in, but I don't understand what point of view it's pushing. Could you be more specific?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Sports Illustrated article didn't name the critics. So, to resolve that concern I suggest saying, "According to Sports Illustrated, critics also suggested..." Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that that's a good idea. I thought it was something like that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is there is no balance in the section, its only anti-IOC and wearing of the headscarf being a bad thing and there is no mention of other religious activity. Sport and politics (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Then, if you can find reliable sources to counter-balance it, add them. - Chrism would like to hear from you 10:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is only anti-IOC. The first paragraph says that the IOC let the women wear their hijabs. Is that good or bad? I have no idea, so it's not anti-IOC, but it is a controversy. It also includes a criticism from people who wanted hijabs allowed. The second paragraph describes the views of people who did not want hijabs allowed. That seems like balance to me. The views of the IOC speak for themselves here. They allowed the hijabs. Predictably, when they forbade the hijabs, some people liked it and some people hated it. When they changed their mind, the groups switched their opinions. How is this lacking balance? Also, this subsection is about hijabs rather than about religious activity in general. Perhaps if you have sources you could start something on religious activity, but I don't see how that affects the balance of this particular subsection.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alf here. I also don't find it WP:UNDUE to include this info. If you can find reliable refs that include a counter-attack on what's written here, by all means, feel free to insert it. Controveries at the Olympics, organized by the IOC, may naturally sound anti-IOC to some people, but at the end of the day, they're controversies for a reason. Furthermore, some of the tags are ridiculous, such as the "which" tag about which countries require the hijab. Is a list of all these countries expected on this article?? Of course not. It's fine without it. --Activism1234 22:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So what do we think, folks? Can we remove the POV tag?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we can.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I took it out, because there seems to be consensus here. If I've misread the situation, please feel free to reinsert and discuss some more!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"funeral" vs. "funerary" in the hijab section

Regarding this diff; Activism1234 likes "funeral" as an adjective better than "funerary." They're both adjectives, it's true, but I find "funeral" a little jarring. Perhaps we could compromise on "funereal," which is only an adjective, and not both a noun and an adjective like "funeral"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think what it comes down to is what the music really was - was it funeral music specifically, or was it similar to funeral music (funereal)? If the ref can't provide this, I'd just go with funereal. --Activism1234 22:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the adjective "funeral" means "like stuff at a funeral" rather than "specific to funerals" so there's no way to make that distinction with a single word in English. The source says "funerary," and all three of them are synonyms. I changed it to "funereal" because "funeral" as an adjective is peculiar in English.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Query

Is there going to be a Paralympics controversies article? Simply south...... eating shoes for just 6 years 11:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have enough information to start a page Controversies at the 2012 Summer Paralympic Games please do so. Please be aware though of the potential problems which can be caused by the inclusion of some information and please ensure that all information is written in a n unbiased way, does not give undue weight to sources or incidents and is factually accurate and wholly verified by the sources provided with no original research or synthesis. Sport and politics (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone else did. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 6 years 21:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Technologies used for Olympic sports

I've included a section on how technology/engineering in equipment and clothing has been used to gain a competitive advantage, foccussing mainly on the GB cycling team, but it could be extended to include other athletes and sports. This is mainly about how the bike, helmet and clothing is used as a package to reduce aerodynamic drag, and is distinct from how technology has been used to train athletes so they perform more efficiently. The latter is far less controversial and hardly modern. However, positioning of the athlete to create a more aerodynamic package is rather borderline between the two since it becomes part of the package and certain stances have been declared illegal in the past. I have anticipated counterclaims that the other teams have the same opportunity and could have bought the equipment etc, so I have defended the criticism in some detail with as much objectivity as possible. --Andromedean (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any semblance of controversy other than just the original research and synthesis being displayed. The GB cycling team did very well and mainly the French need to get over it. Complaining as the French did is just being a sore loser so it is not a controversy. The "Magic Wheels" comments by Gregory Bauge are just him being a sore loser. TeamGB cycling has embraced new technology, wind tunnels and the most efficient & legally allowed positions on a bicycle. Its time the rest of the world caught up, this is not a controversy. Just because one team did really well doesn't make it bad it just means they are better than the rest which is not at all a controversy as it was all done perfectly legally. I am not entirely sure what you are alluding to when you refer to "create a more aerodynamic package is rather borderline between the two since it becomes part of the package". The cycling positions were not queried by the commissars and were all legal, this is in no way controversial as zero rules, of any kind were broken . The section is not needed in this article at all and has such been removed. Sport and politics (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with S&P. This is more of a conspiracy theory than a controversy - Basement12 (T.C) 23:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The knee jerk reaction of removing this key and well researched controversy which goes to the heart of Olympic principles is completely unwarranted. May I remind users that articles must be unbiased. Allowing competitors to compete on unequal terms is highly controversial and surely must be included.

Controversies are not purely limited to what the Olympic officials decide, although I have provided evidence GB cycling have fought long and hard with the authorities, and their technology and positioning have been banned in the past. (see Graeme Obre The opinion of the sporting experts and Engineers and even the Cycling's performance director Dave Brailsford who admitted that he 'damn well hoped' that technology would provide an edge should be paramount.

May I strongly suggest that if this is tampered with again a full and well researched explanation is supplied why you don't believe the extensive funds and intensive research into improving the aerodynamics of the equipment would not yield potentially large enough differences so that medal positions would be altered irrespective of the abilities of the athletes. If you do find one I suggest you find a good reason how such funds could be justified, which would be itself controversial.

The 'magic wheels' term is a strawman argument to distract the user from the very real differences the bikes may have.--Andromedean (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is referencing a direct source you use in your text.Sport and politics (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the sources Andromedean used, and several of them appear to validate this as a controversy. Instead of revert warring with Andromedean's good-faithed efforts to improve this article, I suggest the other regulars here look themselves at the sources and prune out any synthesis and leave what remains in the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68 that this article has multiple sources to back up its claim and it is controversial along the same line as the use of polyurethane suits. Note that there is a whole section regarding the swimsuit controversy at 2009 World Aquatics Championships. They were legal then and but were officially banned starting from the 2011 World Aquatics Championships. So the fact that it is legal (now) doesn't mean it is not controversial. Instead of engaging in an edit war, the editors who criticize it for including too much synthesis and original research should help to trim them instead of simply removing it, or at least give the original editor a chance to do it on his own. (Showmebeef (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

There is nothing in that section that marks this out as a controversy other than the use of the skinsuits which is refrenced to a blog, hardly a reliable source. Other than that the section refers to the development and use of equipment that has been approved by the governing body (and says that other teams are trying to do the same), unfounded claims by opposition teams with no greater basis in fact than the ones made by American swimming coaches against Ye Shiwen) and a threat of a ban that never came about. Synthesis and a lack of any controversy aside it's also entirely biased making no mention of the ridiculous number of small measures put in place by the British team (for example I've seen specialist pillows, hand washing and leg warmers mentioned in the press and on tv) to gain any tiny advantage possible. I can't see any basis for this section to be included - Basement12 (T.C) 17:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to address the issues you raised first and then state my position. You seemed to imply that Andromedean uses blog only as his source (..other than the use of the skinsuits which is refrenced to a blog, hardly a reliable source). This is not entirely accurate--he has referenced several reputable sources, including BBC Sport, BBC news, Guardian, and publications by professional institutions. Also your comparison of this case to the Ye Shiwen incident is without merit as there isn't semblance at all. In Ye's case, the allegation of doping is totally baseless--Ye has been involved in international competitions since 2010 (and amassed more than 10 medals) and has never failed a test. Hers is a very clear-cut case and there is no controversy at all. However, the case we are discussing here have a lot of gray areas. The key question to ask is whether the technology-enhanced equipments (be they skinsuits, handle bar, saddle, helmet, or what have you, or be they currently legal or not) provide a significant (unfair) advantage over other athletes or not. That's the key question raised against the polyurethane suits. We know the suits were legal for a period of time, but were ultimately judged as having provided unfair advantage and banned. So does the technology as discuss in this article provides an (unfair) advantage? As for whether it provides an advantage, Chris Boardman, Head of R&D, British Cycling, is not shy about it: "Well, I'd like to think so. We haven't done our job if they're not", as he is quoted in Olympics track cycling: Will technology win the war for GB?. Whether it's significant and unfair is up for debate.

Now that Andromedean has provided yet another source from a professional institution which provides troves of information on this particular subject. I think we should all take our time and digest the information from the article. It would help us draw the fine line as to whether to (ultimately) include this article in the section. Meanwhile I still propose that the article be included (currently) in this section as it provides a platform for discussion and improvement. (Showmebeef (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

I have just discovered that my Professional body published a report called Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? on this very subject last month! This covers many of the topics discussed, so I will try to reference some extracts from it to make the section more authoritative. Bear in mind when reading it that the Mechanical Engineering profession are hardly unbiased and keen to promote this relatively new field of work. However, I agree with the report. It also seems to confirm the continual conflict between the sporting bodies whose job it is to maintain a level playing field, and the Engineers who are constantly attempting to improve the hardware, and training aids to give their sports team an advantage. Let me modify it tonight and see what you think. --Andromedean (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a controversy, there was nothing made of rich countries spending money on sport, during the Olympics. Other than it lead to success in some areas. I have never known being successful with in the laws of the land and with in the sporting rules codes and regulations to be a controversy, the competitions were all carried out fairly, without bias and within the rules. This also devalues the actual efforts of the competitors as it basically said you don't deserve your result because its all about the technology. This is rubbish. Also is it a controversy that America has Sports Scholarships to Colleges and Title IX. Is it wrong that China has sports academies for young children. How is this also related directly to these Olympics and is not related to the wider progression of technology of sport. I think far wider comments on this conspiracy theory are required as that is all it is . Bringing together all of these unrelated sources to say basically spending money on new technology is cheating. Its not a controversy. What was a controversy were the swimsuits banned in 2010. They are banned but nothing to do with these Olympics. Technology has been around for decades and using the full flexibility of the rules has been around for ever and a day. This is nothing more than making a conspiracy theory out of synthesis. Adding this nonsense devalues the article and distracts from the real controversies, which occurred such as the Boxing referee who declared a boxer the winner after he was knocked down six times. The Ticket scalping by overseas (non UK) Olympic committee members and the ability to buy votes for the bidding process as exposed by Panorama. This kind of conspiracy theory is not needed here at all no matter how much academic debate, industry comment and magazine opinion are produce. This is not a controversy and as such does not belong in a controversies article. Sport and politics (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep/Include. The sources back this up as a controversy along the same lines as the compression swimsuits at the last Olympics. As a further comment, when editors add text that is, for the most part, sourced correctly, it is unecessarily hostile, confrontational, unproductive, and unhelpful to delete it on sight just because you disagree with its inclusion. When someone takes the time, and it is time consuming, to add sourced content to an article, help them, don't hector them. Wikipedia works best by collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. Not by revert warring, arguing, and criticizing. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You have contributed to the above please leave the RFC for outside editors. We already know your position re-stating it is not needed. Please let others from outside comment. I would also like to point out that Wiki Policy is blind of "time and effort" put in from an editor. This is very poorly written prose and is based on assumptions and using incredibly synthesised phrasing such as " can quickly become controversial, especially if they...". This shows it is not based on cold hard fact, its using the article as a forum to push this. In my opinion its nothing more than a conspiracy theory attempting to dress up as a controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is even being questioned. Are we reading the same material? There are a few quotes from the report Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? which may be of value.

"the use of new technologies and engineering advances can still cause controversy."

"New technologies that drastically push boundaries can quickly become controversial. "

"The push and pull between tradition and technology in sport has been going on for over a century. However we are approaching a major crossroads in which the pace of change threatens to cause a new wave of ethical difficulties for sports regulators"

" From this point on, physical apparatus created by sports engineering would be subject to the same scrutiny as biological & chemical HETs. ‘Technology doping’ was now officially recognised as a threat.

"This means that in the 2012 Olympic Games technology usually associated with Formula One will be making cyclists faster, composite materials will help pole-vaulters leap higher and 3D mapping will make swimmers’ suits more hydrodynamic."

"The UCI’s response was the Lugano Charter, an extraordinary document that aimed to reassert the primacy of tradition over technology. The Charter said that the line had been crossed “beyond which technology takes hold of the system and seeks to impose its own logic”. The bicycle was “distancing itself from a reality which can be grasped and understood”"--Andromedean (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree we need to see the whole article in 'web' format so we can clearly assess it.

I think it is also interesting that the GB team kept the bike under wraps until the Olympics as stated here, isn't this at least against the spirit of the rules? We should include something on this in addition to the GB performance in the Cycling World Championships earlier in the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean there appears to be unintentional synthesis of sources here creating something where it doesn't actually exist and giving an unbalanced POV and biased slant on the whole section. Sport and politics (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sport and Politics, I've never seen an RfC in which "involved" editors were prohibited from participating (Sport and Politics moved my comment from here to above). What I would suggest instead is making two subsections below: "Uninvolved" and "Involved". I have seen this done before and it seems to work ok. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sport and Politics: I also think it would be extremely hard for other editors to read the article in html format and that they won't be able to click and jump to the sources listed. If you want others to comment on the article, you should undo the delete so they can read it in plain "web" format. (Showmebeef (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

The sources are in the diff if you want to add the text here please feel free. The sources are not what is at issue here. What is at issue here is if the actual item warrants inclusion. There is also little chance of an objective debate from uninvolved editors if the users who are at odds with each other fill up the RfC with their sides of the discussion and their claims and counter claims. Its an attempt to keep the RfC as clean and objective as possible. Otherwise the RfC will lose its value and purpose. Sport and politics (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport & Politics: Thank's for tidying up the article. .

You claimed that there was nothing controversial going on, yet have removed any mention of controversy regarding the use of technology, despite repeated claims in the reputable literature that using technology in sport to gain an advantage in hghly controversial. Have you now accepted this fact?

You have also removed the paragraph explaining the relative improvement in GBs position between the world championships and the Olympics, and the decision not to use available technology during the World championships earlier in the year. Of course this means that the other teams wouldn't have the time to react or complain. Although, this doesn't conclusively proove technology was a factor, but it strongly indicates that it might have been, and explains why other teams suspicions weren't founded on paranoia, as you claim.

You have wrote

Team GB won seven out of the ten golds contested on bicycles which were exclusivly developed for the London Olympics. [28] The GB bicycles and rider equipment at the Games was declared legal by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and passed fit for use under its sporting code[29]

Changed from

The British teams sudden dominance attracted suspicion from competing teams [11] partly because the bikes were newly introduced for the London Games, and the British team subsequently won seven out of the ten golds contested[12] compared to six out of nineteen four months earlier in the UCI World Championships[13] during which the team opted to keep them under wraps [14]

When all the evidence points in one direction, isn't it up to authors to carry out research to attempt to refute it rather than just adding question marks adding further work for other authors to further justify every minute detail. For example have you contacted the cycling journal for their sources?

All the banners and questonmarks make the article look like idle speculation rather than a topic in which there is good quantitative data to show that an absolute and relative improvement in times are possible due to technology, that technology was applied discrimately between the teams in an attempt to gain an advantage, even the person in charge even admits this! There is also clear evidence of flouting the rules.

A point aside, are there any rules on Wikipedia were individuals are required to declare conflicts of interest (Nationality, Profession etc), since this might be highly relevent this and other articles on national reporting of spoting achievements and controversies. --Andromedean (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"When all the evidence points in one direction, isn't it up to authors to carry out research to attempt to refute it rather than just adding question marks adding further work for other authors to further justify every minute detail" No -it is not up to editors to interpret the evidence at all, one way or the other, that is the point of WP:SYNTHESIS. The section cobbles together a few opinions and comes out with a WP:POV conclusion of a controversy. Taking comments made by defeated athletes and coupling them with a range of older articles talking about the advantages of technology is not an acceptable way of constructing a section. No mention is made of how any other nation has benifited from similar technology, to the point where the entire thing reads like a biased attack on GB. As I've said previously no time is spent considering the measures that the British team put in place aside form bikes/skinsuits etc to help them win. Pointing out an improvement over the World Championships is barely a valid argument; the advantage of being at home isn't considered, a comparison to the results in Beijing is also ignored. The mention of the LZR swim suits is entirely irrelevant here and is just used as a crutch for a separate discussion on cycling technology. Your implied lack of good faith in the above comment is also not a good sign. To summarise the tone of the section; Technology helps athletes. Britain did well. Britain used technology. No rules were broken. = Britain bad. - Basement12 (T.C) 13:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The re-wording of the section is because the section is not written in a neutral way. It is written in a way which implies GB Cycling and Germany Cycling are cheats. There was a similar section on Ye Shewin a Chinese Swimmer who won Gold Medals at London 2012. That was removed due to possible BLP violations & for it being nothing more than sore losers and a conspiracy theory. No rules were broken by her and no positive drugs test were attributed to her. This is exactly the same here, no rules have been broken by GB Cycling or Germany Cycling and none of their cyclists were found to have been taking any substances banned by WADA. The use of phrasing such as "The British teams sudden dominance attracted suspicion from competing teams" and comparing performances from the World Cup and the Olympics are not neutral and fuel a negative slant that team GB are cheats. There has been no substantiation that team GB cheated in anyway. The only thing that happened was mainly the French disliked being beaten by the British and were pretty sore losers over it. As for any CoI and declaring things that is not needed here as the section is not neutral in anyway it is biased and pushes the POV the team GB and Germany Cycling cheated. As for the banners implying it is "idle speculation" that is all it is, with a Team GB and Germany Cycling cheated POV slant and Synthesis of Information from Original Research carried out. There is also no "clear evidence of flouting the rules" that is the main bulk of the synthesis. The synthesis implies there is "clear evidence of flouting the rules" when in fact there is none. In answer to the point "isn't it up to authors to carry out research". No it is not. It is up to all editors to ensure the article is written in an unbiased, neutral way and in such a way that does not give undue weight to a specific POV. Carrying out own research is Original Research and must not be carried out and included on Wikipedia. It is not up to individual editors to present it so that "all the evidence points in one direction" that is POV pushing and being biased. Finally the statement "even the person in charge even admits this!" is just unfounded. That makes it sounds like he said "Yes. We cheated and the UCI know about. Look, we got away with it." That is not what happened all. All that happened was GB Cycling decided to use the rules where they could to gain as much of a LEGAL and FAIR advantage as permitted by the rules. It is not controversial that they had the money to spend on it either as other nations which did well at the Olympics e.g. China in the Table Tennis and Badminton were they won all the Gold Medals or the Untied States in the Swimming where they won 16 Golds 9 Silvers and 6 Bronze or Russia in the Rhythmic Gymnastics and Synchronised Swimming where they won all the Gold Medals. They all spent vast sums. At NO POINT were any rules broken by GB cycling or Germany Cycling.

This is no different to a Marathon runner having different food and rehydration mixes in his bottle to another athlete or wearing footwear that was moulded to his feet. It would be ludicrous to say that the winner of the Marathon only won because he and his nutritionist were gaining an unfair advantage by giving him top of the end drink mixes and food which were allowed by the rules and his extensive training was irrelevant. It would be mad to say he only won the marathon because he was wearing better shoes than the person in second. That is what this section attempts to imply and it is an unfounded claim which is just a conspiracy theory, with no place on Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think some contributers are acting in good faith because they are claiming the references don't say what they clearly do as a simple search would confirm, and there are no attempts to find the answers to any genuine questions they ask, just to be obstructive, add work to others and try to slowly dilute the content so it becomes none controversial. Just one example

However, cycling has seen the most impressive technological contribution. For example, 100% of the 221% improvement in the one hour cycling record could be attributed to developments in bicycle aerodynamics. [3]

was changed to

In cycling technology has contributed to changes in bicycles. [20]

Yeah they added tyres and a chain!!! Is the Pope a Catholic?

You are clearly acting irresponsibly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "100% of the 221% improvement" is confusing and misleading as it implies that anyone who sits on a highly aerodynamic bicycle will do better than a top athlete on a regular bicycle. It implies the rider makes no difference to the end result. Also the hour record is nothing to do with the Olympics as the One Hour Race is not on the Olympic Programme.

"However, cycling has seen the most impressive technological contribution" is a claim made without proper foundation, context, clarification, reference point, validation or verification. It is also not neutral as it again implies it is the technology and not the cyclist that achieves the results. The implications of that sentence is to basically say the bicycle not the cyclist should get the medal, as anyone could sit on and pedal, it makes no difference to the end result.

I also fail to see any substantiation of the claims of irresponsibility or that I am not acting in Good faith. I also cannot see that Andromedeanis not acting in Good Faith. Please can all contributors remember not to comment on the contributors and only to comment on the content.

I would also like to point out it is the responsibility of ALL editors NOT everyone else to ONLY add material which is from a neutral and unbiased point of view which is verified by a reliable sources which reflect the ACTUAL and not IMPLIED or PERCEIVED content being added. Sport and politics (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mean that, it means what it says, that aerodynamics reduces times (or increases distances in this case) independantly of a riders own physical ability. So if two riders are of approximately equal ability the one on the more aerodynamic cycle would most likely win, and potentially a lesser rider could beat a better one depending on the level of difference. I don't believe you don't understand this! The fact that a 1 hour contest is not used in the Olympics is hardly relevent, aerodynamics is clearly going to benefit any cyclist travelling at speed! --Andromedean (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I do see that. It appears what is missed here is that is not a controversy. Just because someone has better equipment, better training facilities and better nutrition doesn't make it a controversy. It is just a fact. It is also not cheating. It is also not an unfair advantage. It is also not the fault of the athletes with the stuff or the athletes without the stuff. It is also not the fault of the governing bodies and the sporting codes. it is also is not immoral or unethical. It is also not against the Olympic code or Olympic spirit. This is not a controversy. The implications are spending money to reach the top is cheating. When it is not. It is an implication the spending money to advance technology is cheating. When its not. It is also implying that using all of the rules, what the rules say and legally interpreting the rules in a way others have not is cheating. It is not. No cheating or any unfair advantages occurred and this is in no way a controversy. The section is based on synthesis of sources which do not say cheating occurred or any unfair advantages occurred. What the sources say is that technology is advancing and is meaning that performances are getting better. It is not explicitly saying GB Cycling cheated or gained an unfair advantage. Also the Engineering article poses a question and pushes a POV, it doesn't say that GB cycling actually gained an unfair advantage or cheated. This section is not encyclopaedic and should not be included. Sport and politics (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC):

I must admit reading it again it doesn't look very controversial. ..........Oh I forgot you have taken out the controversial bits!

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) considers prohibiting technologies if they are ‘performance-enhancing’ or ‘being against the spirit of the sport’. In 2006 WADA initiated a consultation on ‘Technology doping’ which is now officially recognized as a threat. The decision to allow or ban a new technology, is also the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body. However, these regulations can be breached. [1] --Andromedean (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you inform us what a team would be required to do to 'technology dope'. Perhaps you think it means putting an engine in the cycle?

Seriously, the behaviour of these agencies themselves come under question here after what they said they would do. What is going on here, how have they been influenced, why are they turning a blind eye? This is far more controversial than I realised after first writing the section, it is down right scandulous! No wonder seventy per cent of the French say that the British cyclists at London 2012 have cheated.--Andromedean (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not a controversy as it is not the fault of Team GB Cycling Germany Cycling any of the officials working at the Olympics or any of cyclists. The section has been re-written in a neutral way which does not give off an impression that GB Cycling or German Cycling cheated in any way. There are forums on the internet where "technology doping" can be discussed and how it can be achieved. Wikipedia is though not the pace for this. I am not going to engage in any discussion or debates over what is & isn't and what could & couldn't be considered or is "technology doping" that is not for Wikipedia. As for the claims of corruption in sporting agencies that is again not for here unless actual corruption can be fully substantiated and proved not implied and conjectured. then that again has no place on Wikipedia. That is for a debate or forum somewhere else. Finally the claims made by the French regarding "cheating" by GB cycling are unsubstantiated conjecture and are once again not for discussion or debate on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for fully verified and reliably sourced relevant subject matter. Wikiepdia is not for synthesised conjecture, biased opinions and things which are frankly made up by sore losers. Sport and politics (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In which case I suggest you actually read the report Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? and re-insert the material stated in it which you have take out.

--Andromedean (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to be entering in to an academic discussion on the meanings of the source or the POV of the source or the meanings of sources in general. Discussion and debates of that nature are not for Wikipedia. If there is a want for a debate and a discussion on issue of this nature please do so in the appropriate forum or discussion board, not here on Wikiedia which in an encyclopaedia. Sport and politics (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Just a quick note here (as it's getting late) after I edited the article. I really don't know how Sport and politics can claim he's acted in good faith when he edited this piece. There are several places he asked for citation when it is clearly in the referenced source. Similarly he proclaimed that the original editor made synthesis when quoting Boardman--the original paragraph is straight from the source. I don't really know what's the basis for that. Also look at the last paragraph which he's edited--it's just plain sloppy writing--with grammatical mistakes which I left it there, again asking for citation when it's clearly in the source.

I want to comment on the new postings here but I am running out of time. I will try to post tomorrow. (Showmebeef (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

The whole section should just be removed as it is a synthesised conspiracy theory with no place here on Wikipedia. The section as originally worded was biased insinuation which asserted that basically GB cycling and Germany cycling were cheats. Nothing of the sort occurred. To make that claim, assertion and insinuation by using sources which do not say that is synthesis.

I have acted in nothing but good faith and shouldn't have to make that clear, with other users making unfounded claims of bad faith. I have attempted to clean up the section by removing the weasel phrasing insinuation and bias. Although I still favour its total removal. If other editors want to demonstrate their good faith they should be bold and improve the section, rather than focusing on other contributors. If there are grammatical errors fix them, don't complain about the editor who made them. Be constructive not disruptive.

I would also like to remind all editors to always assume all editors are acting in good faith. Another user was banned for not acting in good faith and making unwarranted personal accusations against other editors on this topic. If there is genuine and verifiable evidence of bad faith editing please discuss that on the editors talk page and not here. Also please provide policy and diffs when making any claims. If that cannot be done then keep all personal comments personal and do not share them.

Finally Wikipedia is not a place for synthesis or unsubstantiated claims. The places where sources have been asked for are for bits which are not directly covered by the sources or it is not clear from that the source covers that claim being made. If it can be shown the sources cover the bit asking for a source then name the source and add the source to that bit as well. Alternatively add a fresh reliable source directly verifying the text. Do not comment on other users. Focus on the actual content being discussed here. Internet forums and discussion boards can be found which are away from Wikipedia if there is a want to continue chatting about this conspiracy theory and other claims which have been synthesised in this section. Sport and politics (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I think we can all agree that technology can be used to the advantage of Olympic athletes, and there is no issue with including a well referenced section on such a topic if it is shown to be relevant to these Games. However, the issue here is that the section as its stands amounts to synthesis and an attack on one or two particular nations. What we have are;

A) sources that deal with how the use of technology can be an advantage in cycling and also sources that detail steps that must be taken (sale to the public etc) to ensure bikes conform to the rules; B) details on the British team's success at these Games and some sources saying they have spent significant amounts of money on developing technology. What has then happened is that A & B have been put together to come out with our C(ontroversy) - that GB, and to a lesser extent Germany, have in effect cheated to obtain success. A + B, therefore C.

For this section to be included in its current form what we need are reliable sources (not blogs or fringe opinions in obscure journals/magazines/etc that would constitute WP:UNDUE) that state categorically that the achievements of riders at these Games were due to the use of bikes/other technology that if properly looked at would be against the rules, preferably with an explaination of exactly how the specific technology in question benefitted them. The section needs to be written from a neutral point of view, if no rules were broken, as currently appears to be the case, then singling out the British (and maybe German) team isn't acceptable; having the resources to build better bikes than the other nations isn't doing anything wrong and you can bet every other nation was trying to do the same with the money they had. It is no more controversial than a nation having the money to build better training facilities or provide better coaching - on some level most sporting achievement comes down to the funding.

What we may be able to work towards is adding some of the information on cycling to Technology doping. - Basement12 (T.C) 15:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this break the sections get very unwieldy. I don't think we need to get distracted on what is technically legal or not. We are not prosecuting teams only deciding what is controversial. I have included information which shows that 'technology doping' is considered highly controversial by the public, not only because of the competitive advantage but also due to the way it makes the sport easier to break records which is hardly fair on past athletes, it is also unfair on poor nations which can't afford to compete. So hopefully that wraps this issue up and we can move on now. May I also suggest if anyone has any issues with they remainder of the article they actually read the references and search for what has been copied from them, rather than claiming they are incorrectly referenced. Could they also perform their own work if they wish to refute anything rather than just insulting reputable sites from well informed contributors and adding unwarranted 'synthesis' typpe comments.--Andromedean (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"We are not prosecuting teams only deciding what is controversial" - No, we should not be deciding anything that's one of the problem's here. The issue is nowhere near wrapped up, in fact you've readded other information that makes it worse. The whole paragraph that begins "The British teams dominance" is entirely inappropriate as it juxtaposes their success with the idea of the controversy without providing any sources that link the two. Implying that the increase in medals is part of the controversy is pure WP:OR, one of your own sources even says "that haul of medals is in itself hardly a surprise". The mention of the French team's comments needs to be removed entirely as they were just wild accusations akin to those made against Chinese swimmers by the Americans (which have been wiped from all WP articles as a violation of BLP policy). Please stop trying to avoid the issues by padding out the section with a load of guff with no direct relation to these Games - Basement12 (T.C) 18:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"I think we can all agree that technology can be used to the advantage of Olympic athletes"--agree. However, I disagree with your postulate of what makes this subject controversial: "What has then happened is that A & B have been put together to come out with our C(ontroversy) - that GB, and to a lesser extent Germany, have in effect cheated to obtain success. A + B, therefore C." I don't think that's how that makes it a controversy. Instead,it's like this:

A) Technologies can be used to gain advantage in a competition, which at times can be significant and unfair to other competitors who are not using these technologies for various reasons.

B) There are times the governing bodies can't response quickly enough to institute rules to clearly identify these advances as significant and unfair and install rules to remove or reduce these advantages.

We are in a period of time with a trend where millions are spent to create a technological edge in the sports of cycling where it takes 1/1000 sec to determine the results, and this trend has climaxed at the London Olympics. And this is also a time that the cycling governing body does not have a clear definition of "technology doping" when it comes to cycling equipment. When certain teams lead in this effort, and safe guide its finding so others are left without access to them, that's what makes it a controversy.

This is the nature of doping, in particular "technology doping" where the governing bodies are always doing catch up work--something new appears that is deemed to create a significant and unfair advantage, it takes time for it realize the significance and come up with a counter measure to combat its effect. This is exactly the path it took for the LZR Racer to be recognized (2008 Beijing Olympics and 2009 World Aquatics Championships) and ultimately banned.

To sum up,

1. I agree that we shouldn't put too much emphasis on the British team, or the German, Australian, for that matter, when covering this topic. I think we should put the emphasis on the trend leading to this Olympics.

2. I don't agree on the premises that since no rule is broken, therefore this is not a controversy. When LXR Racer swimmer suits were first introduced, and up until 2009 ruling, it broke no rule. Yet it was a huge controversy.

3. Does it belong here? I say yes. As mentioned, the LXR Racer was deemed a controversy, which peeked at the 2009 Aquatics game where nearly all modern records were broken and which earned its name of "Plastic Games" and a "controversy" section on its Wiki page. Same reasoning apply here.

BTW. The Ye Shiwen case was again brought up and compared here to this case. I've stated earlier that the comparison was without merit--Ye's achieved what she has through training and training only (well, you can count her large feet and hands as a factor, but she's born with them, just like Phelps and Thorpe). The comparison would only be valid if the following hypothetical scenario is true (for illustrative purpose only):

The Chinese sports authority has spent millions into the research of some food supplement which prove to provide an advantage to its swimmers. However, the supplement contains no substance that is currently listed as a doping agent. It chose to not use the supplement in the 2011 world championship but wait until the London Olympics instead. Subsequently, it's medal haul has increased from 2011's 3 to 7 (not just to Ye but across the board) this time at London. If this scenario is true then I would call it a controversy and I don't think anybody would have a problem of including it here in this section.

Sorry to conjure up this hypothesis, but my point is the comparison of Ye's case to this one is without merit--the removal of Ye's case from this section does not imply that this case should be too. (Showmebeef (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

I use the Ye comparison only for the comments made by the French team not the issue as a whole. What the French team insinuated was that the wheels the British were using were different from everyone else's, this was denied by the both the manufacturers and the British team and the French have no evidence whatsoever for it - therefore we should not be including such unfounded accusations in an encyclopaedia. I'm not disagreeing that this could be a controversy but it's link specifically to these Olympics is tenuous; it's an issue that has always been present within the sport and, as with the swimsuits, it is one that involves a huge number of competitors from a huge number of nations so unless a certain team actually broke a rule there no reason to single them out - Basement12 (T.C) 22:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

We do need to make our minds up what constitutes a controversy because you refuse to include the quotes in the literature which says it is. You and Sport&Politics have removed them! Do you want them back in or not? Make up your mind. However, you do wish to divert the subject onto a different heading. Whether the technology is currently legal, and if not by synthesis assume that everything that is legal must not be controversial! It is you and Sport&Politics who are making assumptions and have the political agenda here. An agenda to censor the essential fact that technology can provide a relative advantage to an athlete, and this can easily change placings in an event. --Andromedean (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring and misrepresenting our views. By my count four different editors have removed the section. No one is doing this because they doubt that technology can play a role, they are doing it because of the biased and POV way in which the section is written. Not one source used indicates that the increase in British medals has anything to do with the technology, not one source suggests that other teams are not spending everything thay can on their on technology. I have therefore removed this section and reworded the rest to indicate that the advantage Britain and Germany had was building their own custom bikes. Readers can access the sources and draw their own conclusions, it is not for us, as an encyclopaedia to lead them one way or another - Basement12 (T.C) 20:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No source could conclude this with 100% certainty, how could they without the details of the tests, they may have had asudden surge in form, however the bikes are most likely since this was te one variable which was changed. Moreober, this is what would be expected from what Boardman said, and that's exactly what happened. Why not state the medals before and after the bikes were introduced and let the reader make up their own mind? The fact that GB didn't opt to use the bike even though it was available is also significant, since this prevents their opponents from reacting, something which was certainly against the spirit of the rules.--Andromedean (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

showmebeef note: moved here from "Edit Notes" section

I have little doubt that people with national interests at heart will attempt to use any lame excuse to censor this article. The fact remains this was a genuine controversy and related far more to the London Olympics than any other, not least because the governing bodies had laid rules down to stop technological doping by the time of the London Olympics, and the teams used underhand methods of flouting them. No other example exemplifies this more than the British cycling team who were setting records every time they rode, despite indifferent performances in the four years before the new bikes were introduced--Andromedean (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop making unfounded claims of conflicts of interest here and remember to assume good faith at all times from all contributors. Just because a contributor makes comments and expresses a view on the content which is disagreed with by other contributors does not give the contributor who disagrees the right to make unfounded claims and not assume good faith.

There is also no conclusive and hard evidence presented to support the claim "governing bodies had laid rules down to stop technological doping by the time of the London Olympics, and the teams used underhand methods of flouting them. No other example exemplifies this more than the British cycling team who were setting records every time they rode, despite indifferent performances in the four years before the new bikes were introduced". There is simply no evidence to support this. All there is though is insinuation, synthesis, POV pushing and frankly jealousy from the teams beaten. Please stop making these baseless claims as if there are incontrovertible facts. They are not for here on Wikipedia, those kinds of claims are for discussion boards and forums away from Wikipedia where this conspiracy theory can be debated to death without challenge. It is also not "people with national interests at heart will attempt to use any lame excuse to censor this article" that is just not what is occurring here. What is occurring is the upholding of encyclopaedic standards and maintaining rules laid out preventing wild unfounded claims created by synthesis from being allowed to be added and presented as fact.

I would also like to point out the "fact" of this being a "genuine controversy and related far more to the London Olympics than any other" is wholly untrue (even if some contributors genuinely believe it to be the case), this is simply an opinion, based only in original research and synthesis. This is just a conspiracy theory and nothing more, with no place on Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmebeef (talk • contribs)

On what basis are you declaring that this article is "based ONLY in original research and synthesis"? Can you list them to support your claim? Also you have not provided anything to support the "disputed" tag that you have slapped on this article repeatedly.

Efforts have been made by various editors to eliminate OR and SYN and all statements have been supported by secondary sources. If there are ones that are not, point them out and let other editors improve on them. Labeling it as a "conspiracy theory" won't make it one no matter how many times you repeat it! (Showmebeef (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC))