Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Editing notes, requests and Q&As

I believe this article has reached certain maturity now. With that in mind, I hope all editors involved pay due respect to other editors' contribution (which should have been the case in the first place), and provide their reasons when deleting from, or adding to, the article. This place should serve as Q&A forum where we can ask questions and (hopefully) get the answers when questions arise with regard to deletion or addition by other editors.

First, an editing note: Is there a reason why quotes from Boardman are listed in "blockquote"? It's rather unusual for a section article to adopt such a format. I would recommend put them inline. It is not sure whether boardman actually said what is listed in the first quote--the source only paraphrased him. Also the leading sentence is changed from what is in the source for the second quote. I am also not sure why the phrase "the technologies" is inserted there. I would like to revert them back to what is exactly provided in the source.

Now questions: Sports and Politics has just added a "disputed" tag to the article. Can you point out what facts are being disputed so we can try to resolve them?

Sports and politics: I have explicitly asked you to list the "facts" you deemed disputable to justify the "disputed" tag but you haven't. Now you've re-inserted the tag without providing any justification, again! Any other editors have issue with this?! (Showmebeef (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

Also S&P has deleted the paragraph: "Technology can also play a role in cycling, with about 100 percent out of the 221 percent overall improvement in the one-hour cycling record coming from better bicycle aerodynamics." I believe the paragraph is rather important as it shows technology has provided huge improvement in cycling equipment, which is what this article is all about. I would like to revert them back. (Showmebeef (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

Agree with all your comments showmebeef. What are your views on omitting the comparative medal toll, improved times and keeping the available technology under wraps in the world championships. Although far from perfect, it is the most important objective piece of information that a reader could use to arrive to their own conclusions. Is this something we could conceed, providing the other issues are dealt with?--Andromedean (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remember this is an Olympics article the hour record is nothing to do with the Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The hour record is used in the original source to illustrate the significance of improvement in aerodynamics of cycling equipment, which is relevant to this article . It has nothing to do with the fact that it's not an Olympics sport. (Showmebeef (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

The Article is about the Olympics if you want to talk about cycling in general and the hour record in general take it to the cycling pages and don't clutter up here. Sport and politics (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding comparative medal toll, improved times: there is no proof that there is a direct correlation between that and technology introduced to their bikes by the GB team. You need to quote a reputable source to make that claim. As for keeping equipments under wrap--no, that doesn't prove anything and any team can choose to do that for various reasons. Wiki mandates that you need to support your statement with WP:SOURCES (Showmebeef (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

Showmebeef No such claim could be made neither have I suggested we make it. However, it is as relevent as any other improvement in performance, especially improvements in times, it would be up to the reader to make a judgement on how much, if any, came from technology, and how much from an improvement in athletic performance. Keeping technology under wraps until just before the olympics was controversial because it was against the spirit of the rules; the UCI wanted technology to be available to other teams. A third important issue which has been quietly taken out is that all this technology can't be used efficiently peicemeal, it needs to be optimised for each rider which takes even more time, testing and expense. Hence if any one team drags their heels in releasing the technology the others don't have a chance of using it because of the long lead time. All this is clear from the references, and is all highly relevent to London 2012 and the GB team: --188.220.205.42 (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from and all your reasoning could probably serve as good basis for argument in a regular forum for debate over this issue. But Wiki is an encyclopedia and we can only quote facts or reputable sources. I had undergone the same initial phase (probably still am) when I first started editing Wiki. For the tactic of delaying the release of technology--it is mentioned in the article RE: nine months lead time. You could probably rewrite the paragraph to highlight the issue. (Showmebeef (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

• I have created this section with the expressed intention for it to be used for exchanging notes re: editing the article. Pls continue the rebate RE: controversy, inclusion issues in the above section. ps. I have moved some comments there already.

This discussion section is not for Wikipedia. If you wish to "exchange notes" on this conspiracy theory please do so away from Wikieida. Wikipeida articles are also not for "the most important objective piece of information that a reader could use to arrive to their own conclusions" that is for academic debate away from Wikiepdia. If you wish to continue this please do so away from Wikiepdia. I suggest a reading of what Wikipedia is not. Sport and politics (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe I can rightfully ignore some bellicose rhetoric here. If some don't see my effort at trying to bring some civility and order here, then they are blind. (Showmebeef (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

This is a civil discussion. It is just the content of the discussion has no place on Wikipedia as it has now devolved in to the deabte on a conspiracy theory and not facts or anything reputable. I would also like to point out the whole section is fully disputed as opposed to just individual facts. Sport and politics (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andromedean: Source you used for "The British track cycling team introduced new bicycles for London 2012" is incorrect. Maybe you meant to use that for the statement that GB "won seven out of ten events". (Showmebeef (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

The source should be the WSJ I will change it when it is unlocked. --Andromedean (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes 19:40, 24 August 2012‎

• I think it's still better to use "The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) considers..." as the leading paragraph as it introduces WADA's policy and the concept of "technology doping". A side note is that although the sentence "...people fear that sports engineering..." helps explain the rationale behind "anti-doping", it's rather assumed. In an effort to compact the article to make it less bloated and concise, I suggest we remove it.
• I think the sentence "Senior officials from Australia and France..." is rather contentious within the context. The source used doesn't directly support the point the paragraph is trying to illustrate. I suggest merging this paragraph with the 3rd paragraph "The British and German teams were the only..." Showmebeef (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of the number of world records and medals won is still entirely inappropriate. It is leading the reader to conclude that the medals were won as a result of the technology when none of the sources draw this conclusion. This makes no allowances for the fact that not all of the events at a World Championship are contested at the Olympics (if anything the comparison should be only for Olympic events), the boost any nation gets from home advantage or other changes but in place by GB (for example see [1] [2] - Basement12 (T.C) 17:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should compare only the Olympic events and I also agree that there is no exclusive evidence to support the view. Showmebeef (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of making the changes I mentioned, and some. Feel free to amend. Along the way I also took some effort to trim the piece of some fat, such as using numerals in place of words for numbers. Showmebeef (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the unfounded and leading claims from the section. I have also done some minor syntax changes and acronym expansion. The current version which I have edited it to is wholly neutral as compared to the previous version which was still pushing a POV on unfairness and cheating with no foundation. Some editors will want to put back in the unrelated guff and crutches and pejoratives which have been removed but first think a is this relevant and b is this neutral in its presentation. If not then don't add it or find a neutral and non pejorative way of adding it. Sport and politics (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please refer to my comments in the next section regarding these deletions. I would like to stress the fact that all statements in the article (before you made the changes) are backed by secondary sources so there is no POV.
• "unfairness and cheating"--the article does not make those statement.
• "put back in the unrelated guff and crutches and pejoratives"--pardon me, where is the "good faith" we have been extorting about all along? Showmebeef (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was a very useful article to quote in view that there are still some people claiming the performance wasn't controversial. In what respect doesn't it support that senior French and Australian officials were puzzled?

"France were not the only team puzzled at the extent of Britain's progress since the Melbourne championships four months ago. Although he believes the home crowd played a motivating role, Australia's high performance director Kevin Tabotta said: "There's been a bit of thought as to how the gap has become so big since Melbourne." But the French were the most vociferous. Admitting she was "puzzled", French track cycling chief Isabelle Gautheron told AFP: "They haven't dominated for the past four years, they were among the best teams in the world along with Australia, Germany and France. "Here, they're crushing everybody."

--Andromedean (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

They can be as puzzled as they like but unless they have some evidence of wrong doing it is nothing more than wild speculation unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia - Basement12 (T.C) 21:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Showmebeef That's an interesting edit you attempted there before Sport&Politics wrecked it. "Research shows that 100 percent of the 221 percent overall improvement in the one-hour record could be attributed to developments in bicycle aerodynamics." I interpreted that as meaning 100/221=45% was attributal to aerodynamics not all of it? Surely athletic improvement contributes to it as well?--Andromedean (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I interpret it as follows: there is a 221% improvement...and 100% of that improvement is due to A, so I rephrased it as "the 221% improvement is ENTIRELY (100%) due to A". The original sentence is a bit awkward. Showmebeef (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

To resolve this ambiguity I wrote to the source mentioned in the article, my email is as follows: Professor Haake I have been reading the report on Sports Engineering, An Unfair Advantage? It includes a statement attributed to yourself which says '100% of the 221% improvement in the one hour cycling record could be attributed to developments in bicycle aerodynamics.' Does this mean 100/221=45% of the improvement is due to aerodynamics?

Yes, you are correct. The data was taken from a paper where the % changes were being compared which is why it was written like this. Steve S.J.Haake@shu.ac.uk

Hopefully this resolves this confusion. --Andromedean (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the source to verify this. In that case can we just use "45% of the improvement is due to aerodynamics" so as to avoid the trap that got us (well, at least me) into? What do you think?

p.s. I took the liberty of formatting (indenting) your post to make it more readable. BTW. You can use preview to check your post (for format) before you publish it.

--Showmebeef (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The above only goes to prove the confusion to the uninitiated reader and as such shows it is not easily accessible to all users of the encyclopaedia so it has no place on Wikipedia as it is far too easily confusing as clearly demonstrated above. Remember Wikipedia must be accessible to all not just the writer or those with specialist knowledge. Sport and politics (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

clarifying a potentially ambiguous statement (although it was clear to me) is hardly a reason for exclusion since the statement is no longer ambiguous after clarification! You are really eager to censor objective information. If you wish to change anything, do the work like I have.--Andromedean (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact it needed clarifying proves it is an "ambiguous statement". Ambiguity prevents uninitiated users accessing the information so must be removed are substantially re-worded to remove all ambiguity. There is no user is "eager to censor objective information" just a necessity to rid Wikipedia of ambiguous, unfounded, pejorative, POV pushing, synthesis which is written in a biased, derogatory and sensationalist manner implying unfounded and baseless claims of dishonesty, cheating and corruption. This section does all of that and needs removing. Plenty of reasoning has been provided and more than enough Wikipedia Policy has been provided clearly showing how inappropriate this section is. It is time now to come off the "must include" wagon and accept this is not objective, (unless the objective is to try and create a picture of cheating which does not exist) and is just original research. Sport and politics (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from pejorative language implying bad faith such as "wrecked it". The interpretation you have just demonstrated how unclear and confusing the statement is. It also demonstrates the POV pushing occurring by basically portraying it as just technology leading to the lower times and that the athletes and nutritionists and track themselves had anything to do with the lower times. This is though for a place outside of Wikiepdia to debate. Sport and politics (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport&Politics you keep removing objective data so readers can't make judgements for themselves, yet you don't propose any viable alternative. I have not potrayed any improvement as being just technology, 100% of 210% = 45% of the improvement in the 1 hr distance was attribital to aerodynamics. The relative medals and record toll are also relevent and should be included. It provides a basis for the reader to make a judgement. It is precisely for this reason you wan't to remove any indication of a sudden improvement. There is no synthesis or bias, only censorship of the essential facts! --Andromedean (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean - You have repeatedly been given reasons for not including those medal counts, none of which have you refuted with any kind of arguement beyond accusations of COI and censorship. However, for your benefit, let's set them out again.... This is an encyclopaedia, the article must provide facts supported by evidence and sources. There is no claim in any of the sources used that the number of medals won was due to the technology being used, even if they were the information should be presented in a neutral point of view and look at other factors that could have resulted in improved performance. To include the numbers therefore leads the reader to draw conclusions that are not supported and thus amounts to WP:OR - Basement12 (T.C) 20:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence to justify not including medal counts, only idle speculation that the Olympic games cycling is not representative of the world championship cycling. If you wish to analyse how the GB team performed with respect to the specific events in each case, I would be happy to re-consider this view.

I am fully aware of what an encyclopaedia is used for, FACTS and that is what I provided, hard objective facts which you wish to censor. These would only appear biased to someone who has an agenda of censorship to perpetuate a view that ONLY athletic performance was involved, something very unlikely in view of the evidence provided, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of engineering would conclude. No doubt you are all fully aware of this and that is precisely why you wish to censor it. --Andromedean (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop making baseless claims and focus only on the content. Attacking other editors as having "an agenda of censorship" is not warranted on Wikipedia. These comments are beginning to have a similar tone to a previous editor who was banned for engaging in personal comments which were unfounded, I would hate to see anyone get banned again for getting carried away with themselves. Please refrain from making comments of a personal nature and only comment to on the content. I would suggest, reading of the five pillars of Wikipedia and the neutral, verifiable and synthesis policies of Wikipeida. I also suggest a reading of the civility code. There also seems to be a lack of realisation here. Sport and politics (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Please stop making baseless claims and focus only on the content"--totally agree. Let's do that.
• "Attacking other editors as having "an agenda of censorship" is not warranted on Wikipedia."--likewise, accusing other editors of conjuring up "conspiracy theory" is ALSO not warranted on Wikipedia. Showmebeef (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Wikipeida is not the place "to analyse how the GB team performed with respect to the specific events" That is conducting original research and original research has no place on Wikipeida. You also claim it is only "very unlikely" not proved by the selective sources provided and as it is not verified by the sources it is original research. Sport and politics (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes, 18:35, 25 August 2012‎

• With the exception of the "medal count", which was still under discussion at the time, all deletions made in this editing change involve statements that are supported by secondary sources. There are no POV or SYN expressed in those statements. The basic framework of that article was achieved by various editors and was free from POV, OR and SYN artifacts. I therefor ask Sports and politics' justification for making these deletions.

• Take for example, the statement when quoting Boardman: When Boardman was questioned if this high-tech warfare would put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." It was directly from the source. I specifically noted in my editing note that I want to quote "what is exactly provided in the source". Could Sports and politics please provide a reason for deleting it? Showmebeef (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Calling it "high-tech warfare" is incredibly POV and pejorative. It not actual warfare and is sensationalising. The phrase "some countries at a disadvantage" is also ridiculous POV, which countries are we referring to, and saying "disadvantage" implies team GB are acting unfairly and cheating. I would like to know why there is an insistence on sensationalism and POV here.This being an encyclopaedia it has to remain neutral and unbiased. There were no unfair advantages all no rules were broken so implying as fact is Snythesis and making claims of "cheating" is OR. Also can a single source please be provided which categorically proves without any doubt that the claims of "cheating" and "unfair advantages" and so called "technology-doping" occurred. Not a collection of strands from loads of sources which have been built up to imply all this. Currently no source categorically states Team GB "cheated" by gaining "unfair advantages" through "technology doping". The sources also need to be reliable and not things like opinion pieces, blogs and comments from losing compititors. Sport and politics (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport and politics:

• Read my question to you AGAIN and CAREFULLY! The whole quote is DIRECTLY from the SOURCE (Olympics track cycling: Will technology win the war for GB?). If you are having trouble finding it, it is in the 3rd paragraph under the heading "What are other countries doing?".
• And if you are having trouble with the phrase "high-tech warfare" and think is "incredibly POV and pejorative", then you need to raise hell with Ollie Williams from BBC Sports who wrote the article, NOT HERE!.
• "Currently no source categorically states Team GB 'cheated' by gaining 'unfair advantages' through "technology doping"--you are right on this one, because there is NO statement in the article that categorically states Team GB "cheated" by gaining "unfair advantages" through "technology doping". The concept of that could only have lived in your own mind.
• "The sources also need to be reliable..."--again, if you think that BBC Sports is NOT a reliable source, then be my guest!
• It's just so INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING to deal with someone who appears to be living in his own little world and not willing to take in any outside information. I have in the past asked you pointed questions which you either avoided or evaded with blanket statements like these that you TOTALLY cannot back up!

Showmebeef (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree it "INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING to deal with someone who appears to be living in his own little world and not willing to take in any outside information". Can all users realise the issues created with the language, read the reasoning presented by multiple users and tone down the language in this article and realise that all users are entitled to challenge contentious claims and that reasoning (which is appearing ignored) has been provided. None of the external uninvolved editors who have contributed to the RfC has said it warrants any inclusion in this article. Using something in a source which is an individuals opinion and not attributing the phrase to the person is wrong .Instead what is happening is the leaving of the statement unchallenged as if it is a fact. if it is quoted in an article then it goes in Wikipeida (If at all) as follows "Such and Such writing for So and So publication described it as x" Not cherry picking their most opinionated and biased wording and dumping it in as a fact.

Claiming the following "The concept of that could only have lived in your own mind." Is just absurd. It also clearly points out that this is just synthesis. I also fail to understand the rest of the statement. As it appears to verify that this is just synthesis.

Finally selectively over using a source to justify a position is undue weight especially a highly controversial point. The BBC source and the Engineering source being two examples.

I suggest all the currently involved editors take a break from editing this and let the RfC conclude and come back after we have watched the Paralympic games in September. otherwise the personalising nature of this is getting a little absurd and the content is being missed. Sport and politics (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please address SPECIFICALLY if any statement you deleted violated Wikipedia guideline for inclusion in the article (I need to stress again that all those statements are backed by secondary sources). Otherwise you don't have ground for making those deletions. Showmebeef (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is time to calm down. Numerous statements have been demonstrated to violate Wikipeida guidelines and policies namely on being biased and as a result of synthesis. Please also remember that Wikiepdia is not a place to try and "win" and please also be aware of the potential believing an article is owned. I am now going to attempt to ignore personalised comments and accusations and am going to continue what I have been doing from the start and that is focusing on the content. Continued personal attacks and unfounded accusations can result in users being banned. I would hate for any user to have that happen to them. It is time to step back and be rational and if need be to take a break. Clearly some users are getting a little to embroiled in trying to "win" and are forgetting to act collaboratively and in the spirit, rules and guidelines of Wikipedia.Sport and politics (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Chris Boardman has admitted that technology would have given the GB team an advantage. This is clearly placing the teams on an uneven playing field. A survey clearly states that the public are concerned about technology giving teams an advantage. Therefore, on what possible basis is this not controversial? Claims of it not being illegal are completely irrelevent, what is legal in one year can still be controversial and this is as stated in the IMechE report Sports engineering an unfair advantage? There are ways of getting round the regulations as stated in the article. I would suggest you read this. It is written by a reputable organisation and is far superior to most references used in Wiki. --188.220.205.42 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is allowed by the rules and declared legal and all team abide by the same rules it is not unfair in any way. If a runner has more expensive shoes than another runner or shoes moulded to their feet does that make the race unfair? It would be absurd to claim it does. It so uncontroversial that no one is even talking about it outside of these tiny selective sources bought up and by the sore losers. There is an opinion piece of academic discussion bought up from an industry publication (which has been held up as if it is the bible), to attempt to "prove this ". It does nothing of the sort. If nothing else can be found then it is undue weight to one piece and shows no wider notability of this and demonstrates it is not a controversy. It is not for Wikipedia to guide or lead readers or speculate on how to "get round" things. Wikipedia a is for cold hard facts not insinuation, conjecture and unfounded opinions. 15:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes, 15:32, 31 August 2012‎

• Added the fact that pricing info is not provided in addition to "time of delivery", at the UK sport site. Showmebeef (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That information is not usually provided when things are custom made. It is pejorative and only adds to the POV the team GB are some how being disingenuous by adding the sales page. It is not controversial to not include this information for custom made objects as the price and time needed to ma the items will be unknown until the bespoke requirements are known. Sport and politics (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A fully verifiable fact is quoted from a WP:IRS. Whether it's usually provided or not usually provided is irrelevant. Since it's a fact, I don't know how the label POV could be applied here. Whether it's "pejorative" to state that fact is not up to the editors, it is referred in the context of the original source:

"In 2010, the UCI threatened to ban both the Team GB and German FES bikes on those grounds. At the time, rumor circulated that British Cycling’s derisive plan was to slap a Pinarello sticker (a British Cycling sponsor) on a frame and sell it for an exorbitant amount, likely to some collector. Technically, that would have satisfied the rules, which state that no minimum production quantity or price is defined. Instead, they went a (slightly) different direction. Very quietly, UK Sport added a page to its web site where you can buy the gear."

The source may convey an opinion. But it's certainly not the editor's POV. Showmebeef (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A "fact" can be expressed in more than one way, there is also a need to meet WP:NPOV and demonstrate relevancy of the sentence other than to advance a certain POV. If it is pejorative then it doesn't meet NPOV standards and unless there is wording which is balancing of that language or the use of that language can be demonstrated as essential in the context it is used, it is not neutral and should be avoided at all times. It is up to Wikipedia to remain neutral at all times and not push any POV.

Why is there also no mention in the article of the German response to the UCI threatening to ban their bicycles. For neutrality and balance there needs to be inclusion of both not just one. The source quote above does not make any mention of times for delivery or the lack or a price being made clear up front on the website either, so that bit is not verified by the above source. Also is it right to give the above opinion the weight it is currently being given. If it was a quote from the author of the opinion in a context that would be less weight to the opinion and make it more easily acceptable in to the article. At the moment it is written in a far to heavy handed way which unbalances and biases the section. Sport and politics (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The fact is stated in its simplest form (i.e. something is NOT done) and there is no opinion extrapolated from it. That's the essence of WP:NPOV: assert facts, don't assert opinions. We are doing exactly what NPOV requires.
• "Why is there also no mention...": I don't know. The source does not. If you can find a source that mentions German's response, by all means include them here.
• "At the moment it is written in a far to(o) heavy handed way...": Well, that appears to be your own assessment--in other words, a POV. At this point, the article is fully sourced, and an effort has been made to quote directly from the sources.

Showmebeef (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sports and politics wrote earlier that:

Some of the statements removed are far to POV and incendiary such as "famously secretive" and "officially recognised as a threat". They have no place in the section as they are just POV pushing, not given as a direct quotation of an idvidiual (which they are not) there is also no balance provided to these sections.

Note that the statement "'Technology doping’ which is now officially recognised as a threat" is a direct quote from the source Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage?. It is not POV therefore no POV pushing here. Showmebeef (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The "threat" quote refers to hyperbaric oxygen chambers and individual athletes health not fair competition. there also appears to be a missing of the point that while some these section removed are now bizarrely being claimed as just my POV, it is not being seen that the wording is wholly unneeded, for the point of teh section to be given. If i was to write "Jo Bloggs a compulsive over eater and a viewer of Disney films at 0230 every morning murdered five women with an axe." Would be factually accurate but would only serve to give of the impression of Jo Bloggs being someone who is an oddball. Which is not what Wikipedia is in the business of doing. Simply stating "Jo Bloggs murdered five women with an axe" is fine and conveys the neutral facts. Adding the phrasing above is woolly and unneeded to the facts being presented so their inclusion only serves to give of the impression of the GB team being dark, shady, secretive and sly (again my interpretations). If those things are not included then no interpretations as to motives of GB cycling can be inferred so not POV of any kind can be pushed regardless of if the stuff being included is a quotation, a direct fact or both. Wikipeida is not the place to add things which dress up the neutral facts as more than that. Sport and politics (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC

There is an ongoing dispute as to weather the above section on sports technology being discussed warrants inclusion in the article. Please look at all sides of the arguments presented and the text in the history of the article here. Is this a genuine controversy or just a conspiracy theory? Sport and politics (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Just to let potential respondents know, Sport and politics has been removing editors' comments from this RfC and placing them in the section above. Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The comments are only from the currently involved editors in the dispute and not from any editor who is currently uninvolved in the dispute. Sport and politics (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment doesnt appear to be a controversy related to the 2012 Summer Olympics and I dont see why it should be mentioned, but that also applies to some of the other trivia in the article as well. Might be worth a mention in an article related to the specific sport but not here. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I echo MilborneOne. This is not an issue specific to these games, but pervades sport in general. With Oscar Pistorius' "legs", this crosses the barrier between able-bodied olympics and paralympics too. The LZR episode, for example, was last year. The article is already much too long with material that isn't all that relevant, and I genuinely feel this belongs in the specific sport article if it should be anywhere at all. --Lolo Lympian (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this article addresses the title now - what was controversial at the 2012 Olympics, and is by far the best version. Before, the article was led by introductory paragraphs on technological doping in general, and swimsuits in the previous Olympics which made it appear too general, leading to claims that it should be placed in another section altogether. The information on technological doping has now been placed at the end of the section. The swimsuits have been taken out, but could still be mentioned with respect to describing how the regulatory agencies appear to lag technological advances, so what is legal in one Olympics doesn't equate what is eventually deemed to be fair. Let me have your thought on this. --Andromedean (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many sources are synthesised or how many times the word controversy is used or how much original research is undertaken. This is still nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Sport and politics (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree it's an Olympics issue per se. Technological doping is important and one that pervades sport, with each sport having its particularities. Some of it just happened to blow during the Olympics. Timing is coincidental. --Lolo Lympian (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The extensive media coverage dealing with this subject matter leading to and during the Games makes it highly relevant to this Olympics. There are close to 15 independent sources referenced in this article alone. (Showmebeef (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

That therefore shows it is wider than the Olympics and not an issue of the 2012 Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I have previously pushed for the inclusion of several sections in this article (disagreeing with Sport and politics in both cases). Despite this inclusionist viewpoint I really don't see the case for including the discussed section. In the current version of the article the following is all that is mentioned of the 2012 Games:

"[Marginal gains based on research is hoped to] give the British team a 'decisive edge inside London's Olympic Velodrome'. The British and German teams developed their own bespoke bicycle for the 2012 Olympics [sic] All bicycles and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and passed fit for use under its sporting code."

I also read the sources given for the quoted section. None of them reports this as a controversy, but as factual information on the GB bikes. Furthermore, I have not seen this reported anywhere as a controversy of the 2012 Olympics. While I do not dispute that overly technological equipment is occasionally controversial, and in my opinion detrimental to the universality of sports, I cannot support the inclusion of this section as it is not related to the 2012 Olympics as a controversy. 85.164.140.57 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have know looked through the old version linked to below by those in arguing for inclusion. It does not change my opinion; the source with French reactions does not use phrases like "unfair advantage". This hardly seems a condemnation:

"Admitting she was 'puzzled', French track cycling chief Isabelle Gautheron told AFP: 'They haven't dominated for the past four years, they were among the best teams in the world along with Australia, Germany and France['].

'Here, they're crushing everybody.'"

85.164.140.57 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a user id? Could you post your comment using your id, unless you want to remain anonymous?

"I have previously pushed for the inclusion of several sections..."--it appears the only contribution attributed to this IP addr is the comment you posted here. Showmebeef (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not a registered user. I simply do not want to register an account, as I edit very sporadically (often in connection with the Olympics). Since you ask my main discussions have been these two (and older discussions on those subjects) where you will find various IPs. Since it wouldn't be obvious through my contribution history I figured I ought to mention my previous involvement with the article.
If you read through the comments in this RFC, you will find that all three editors who have responded to the RFC think the section does not belong in the article, and for the same reason. There are sources for the fact that technology in sports can be controversial and for the the fact that British cyclists have had access to specially developed superbikes. There are no sources claiming that this was a controversy at the 2012 Olympics, but that is the only source that is relevant for inclusion in this article. Find a WP:RS claiming this and the section may have a case for inclusion. If you manage to find a source claiming this, consider how difficult it was or how mainstream it is. If you have trouble finding a source for a controversy perhaps it wasn't one, a "prolonged public dispute or debate" would generally not be inconspicuous. 85.164.140.57 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. This talk page alone demonstrates the controversy. Tone down the language a bit from what's in the diff, I'd say (a bit of peacockery there in my opinion), but put it in. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic. This talk page does not demonstrate that the section describes a real controversy, at least in the context of the 2012 Olympics. The only controversy on the talk page is the controversy on the inclusion of the section. 85.164.140.57 (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I need to point out that Cla68 has previously expressed his support for inclusion but Sports and politics has moved that comment outside of this RFC section. (Showmebeef (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC))

Yes. But all non-involved (i.e. their first comment was to this RFC) editors (at the time of my previous comment) where in favour of removal. Any comments on the reason we have given for its removal, i.e. that it is not (demonstrated that it is) a controversy in the context of the 2012 Summer Olympics. 85.164.140.57 (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ShowmeBeef please be aware this is not a vote and any reasonable closing admin will be able to see very clearly who is on which side. Aa has been said at the time of writing no uninvolved user was in support of retention. Sport and politics (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe Cla68 does qualify as a uninvolved user as he has not been involved in editing this particular article, to my knowledge. The fact that he's expressed his opinion (for the inclusion) based on the arguments and sources presented then before this RfC was enacted does not invalid his status. (Showmebeef (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC))

Maybe. It is not particularly important as Cla68's opinion is equally important in either case. The vagueness of the term "uninvolved" is the reason I clarified that I used it as "first comment on this matter was in the RFC". I don't see why the comment was moved, when it was clearly intended to be in the RFC section. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As explained we need to see the most comprehensive version, since this addresses all the concerns, such as it isn't controversial or relevent to London 2012. By removing these parts Sport and Politics has provided a reason to remove the rest of it. Therefore for this reason I will change it to a recent previous version with some typos corrected.

From now on if you do wish it changed, please provide valid reasons, such as - The sources are not reliable and you have reliable alternative ones which contradict them, you have a source which contains information which suggests technologial changes such as improved aerodynamics wouldn't have been significant, or if you have shown the Olympic track cycling not to be sufficently representative of the world championship cycling (show the data).

Invalid reasons for removal which have been attempted (I'm not kidding), include - 'the British team did well', 'no rules were broken (just circumvented)' 'it doesn't matter how many quotes and research I find saying it's controversial - it doesn't make it controversial','improvements in the 1 hr cycling record due to aerodynamics has no relevence to the Olympic cycling because the specific event isn't used in the Olympics!' ' If I need to clarify a point with a Professor of Sports Engineering the subject is to complex to include'

Let's try to get some credibility in here folks, and stop wasting time. It's unlikely any unbiased Wikipedian will take the above points seriously. Try not to impress by using Wikipedian jargon or an overzealous intepretation of rules, I'm sure they have seen it all before.--Andromedean (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your version adds the following about the 2012 Olympics:
"The British team introduced new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, despite having them available at the world championships earlier in the year and they went on to break numerous world records and won seven out of ten events in London 2012 compared to six out of nineteen four months earlier in the UCI World Championships."
This is not a controversial statement, nor it is a factual statement about a controversy. It is a factual statement about bikes and results.
Re: "It's unlikely any unbiased Wikipedian (...)": Here you are very close to claiming that all editors who have commented on the RFC and argued for its removal are biased as you claim no unbiased editor will agree with them. On the contrary, one unbiased editor gave his reasons for removal which was shortly followed by a different unbiased editor removing the section. The removal was reversed and this editor voiced support for the reason given by unbiased editor 1. A third unbiased editor (me, my IP has probably changed again) then gave similar reasons for the removal of the section.
The reason I have given, which is very similar or the same as the first two editors' reasons, is that it is not a controversy in the context of the 2012 Olympics. What we mean is that you have sources for the claim that technology in sports can be controversial, you have sources for the claim that technological bikes are good, you have sources for the claim that technological bikes where used by some teams at the 2012 Olympics, but, crucially, you have no sources combining these facts. What this means is that you cannot back up your claim that this is a controversy. It would have been a controversy if, for example, the other teams had refused to start an event, or lobbied to change the rules or strengthen the enforcing of the rules. Alternatively it would have been a controversy if (sports) newspapers were critical to the UCI and the IOC allowing these bikes, and reported on this in the run-up to the Games. I have not seen this debated anywhere. It may have been mentioned on cycling forums, but that would fail WP:RS.
In closing, none of the evidence presented is sufficient for inclusion, and I'm confident that whoever closes this RFC will see this. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

it is stated that the French and Austalian teams suspected that technology may have been a factor in enhancing performance in 2012, although they were distravcted away from the specific reason. There are sources which link these together. I don't think this it is necessary to include these though, since no direct claim of technology enhancing performance for the 2012 games is used in the Wiki sction.

BTW It's bad enough having people on here which don't declare any potential conflicts of interest, but when anonomous IP addresses are used alarm bells start ringing.--Andromedean (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the source that comes closest to showing a controversy. However, the claims do not appear to have been maintained. If they truly believed the bikes did not comply with the rules I would have expected formal protests. As for the second part of your comment: read this. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Another interesting quote here: "Steve Haake, director of the Center for Sports Engineering at Sheffield Hallam University in the UK, said that, like it or not, such innovation can make all the difference in close groups such as the 24 runners competing behind Jamaican Usain Bolt in the 100-meter sprint.“Improvements are fair if these technologies are available to all athletes,” Haake said. “Where people don’t like it is if some countries are spending more money on research – a poor little country in Southeast Asia for example can’t do that.” "--Andromedean (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Undisputed, and irrrelevant to the article "Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics" 88.88.164.152 (talk) 07:49

In what sense is Usain Bolt and the 24 athletes behind him isn't relevent to the 2012 olympics?

, 29 August 2012 (UTC--Andromedean (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC))

The quote is not relevant to the 2012 Summer Olympics as it does not appear to be connected to it. This may be a general statement on the current situation on this event. As you have not linked to the quote I can't check this. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is called At London Olympics Technology Tries to Stay a Step Ahead--Andromedean (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm sorry to say that you have presented a better case for including the information from this article than you have of including the cycling technology case. This is at least presented as related to the 2012 Olympics as a controversy, albeit a minor one. The controversial issue of technology doping still seems to to be connected to the Olympics only tangentially. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think my omission of the source although accidental and the subsequent response serves to prove though how desperate people are to find any excuse to censor this information. --Andromedean (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC Part 2

So where do we stand on the dispute resolution? It seems that whatever report or article I find there always seems to be three or four people who wish to dismiss it as a conspiracy, and a similar number who wish to have it included as a controversy.

When any evidence is presented to demonstrate that cycling performance is inherently sensitive to technological differences, new equipment was introduced at the Olympics, or that the equipment worried other teams, or this coincided with an improvement in performance of the team with the new equipment, this is dismissed as leading the reader, synthesis, or original research. This means the article can't easily head with something highly specific to the Olympics which then becomes a good excuse to remove it all to another section.

This is really why I requested an experienced negotiator to ensure that Wikipedia rules were being adhered to, but this request seems to have been ignored for reasons which puzzle me.

There are however cases which surely must rank as blatent abuse which barely requires anything but basic policing of the board, such as a) the removal of articles with quotes and references, dismissed as original research. b) Any two or more quotes being dismissed as 'synthesis' and in particular c) the removal of the quote of UKs head of research and development of the British Cycling Team who when asked if this high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."

Now if something as well defined as that it removed for being unproven, please describe how any meaningful discussion can proceed on the other issues?

I understand this resolution stands for arounf 3 more weeks, do we go on like this for that long? --Andromedean (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Until you find a source that states that the cycling technology used at the 2012 Olympics is controversial in the context of the 2012 Olympics (either outright, or by describing protests, calls for disqualifications or calls for rule changes) the inclusion of this section will fail as synthesis. Other teams being "puzzled" isn't enough. For example: I am puzzled by the times achieved in the 100 m sprint in the Bolt era, but that doesn't mean I doubt the results or think they are inherently suspicious. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding or misusing wikipedia rules. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, then one must not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C: This is reasonable because you could combine the two to imply almost anything.

The case is entirely different, several sources state that technology was used in the London 2012 Olympic cycling to gain a performance differential. Another reliable source says that using technology to gain a performance differential in Olympic sports is controversial. Therefore, I am concluding that using Technology to gain a performance differential in the London 2012 Olympic cycling was controversial. It is a logical deduction, not original research or speculation/synthesis.

This is really why I wanted an experienced intepreter of the synthesis rules here to explain.

It is all rather academic anyway, since the covering of the British bikes and perceived superiority of the British bikes was controversial to the French team and the French public as shown in polls. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to make judgements on their rationality, or even conclude this doesn't make the subject controversial even if they were being irrational!

Finally there is at least one of the links which judges the Olympic bikes to be controversial, a direct link. So your claim of synthesis fails on all three counts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You wrote: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, then one must not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C", and "several sources state that technology was used in the London 2012 Olympic cycling to gain a performance differential. Another reliable source says that using technology to gain a performance differential in Olympic sports is controversial. Therefore, I am concluding that using Technology to gain a performance differential in the London 2012 Olympic cycling was controversial."

A:"technology was used in the London 2012 Olympic cycling to gain a performance differential"

B: "using technology to gain a performance differential in Olympic sports is controversial";

C: "using Technology to gain a performance differential in the London 2012 Olympic cycling was controversial".

"It is all rather academic anyway, since the covering of the British bikes and perceived superiority of the British bikes was controversial to the French team and the French public as shown in polls." If this is the case you should provide this info from a source as several editors have requested sources to verify that this was a controversy at the Olympics.
"Finally there is at least one of the links which judges the Olympic bikes to be controversial". Which link? I have not seen this in the sources you have provided.
In addition to the synthesis problem opponents of inclusion have put forward WP:WEIGHT as an argument, presumably because the issue has not received (or that it has not been demonstrated that it has received) sufficient coverage. I am not sure how to interpret this policy, but I think it would be advantageous for the case for inclusion if e.g. a couple of news articles about this case were found. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

88.88.164.152 Here we are saying that if A leads to B and B follows to C then A must by definition lead to C. This is not the same thing as synthesis as defined in Wiki, where a conclusion C is inferred based on an ill defined assumptions.

A = Using all technology to gain an advantage in the olympics is controversial B = cycling technology was used in the London 2012 olympics to gain an advantage C= cycling technology used in the London 2012 olympics is controversial.

See Law of Syllogism --Andromedean (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you have a source for A and a source for B, and then you combine them to form C without providing a source for C. It does not matter how logical this may be, and in any case B doesn't logically follow from A. The reason it doesn't matter is that while logically it ought to be a controversy in order to actually be a controversy it has to be widely reported and discussed. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I will rewrite the article as per your request, but please be aware that I have done this many times and sport and Politics keeps reverting to an older version which makes it appear as if the issue is not relevent to the olympics. If you have the power to stop this, please do then we can progress more quickly. --Andromedean (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what request you are referring to, I asked to see the sources and you can easily link to those on the talk page. Since you ask I have no power to stop reversions. You can perhaps report it as an edit war. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

88.88.164.152 - you say "I am puzzled by the times achieved in the 100 m sprint in the Bolt era, but that doesn't mean I doubt the results or think they are inherently suspicious. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)." That is because the athletes didn't visibly use a different technology (e.g. new drug if you like) immediately before the era, then surely you would have said yes it was controversial. However, this is clearly what happened here, technology doping in this case, new bikes were used specifically for the London 2012 olympics and the increase in performance appeared immediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs)

The point of the "puzzled" bit was merely to indicate that "puzzled" =/= "claims to be in violation of the rules" (or similar). Also, a new bike is not neccessarily breaking the rules; a new drug is. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have revised the most recent revision made to the section. I have toned down the section and added necessary quotation marks to give the correct context in the section. I have also removed the final paragraph entirely as it is in no way related to the 2012 Olympics it is just a general commentary on technology and its perceived effect on sports. Some of the statements removed are far to POV and incendiary such as "famously secretive" and "officially recognised as a threat". They have no place in the section as they are just POV pushing, not given as a direct quotation of an idvidiual (which they are not) there is also no balance provided to these sections. Sport and politics (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport & politics, I have been asked by an editor to include all the quotes and references which could justify a controversy. I will kindly ask you one last time not to revert it until we have fully discussed it. --Andromedean (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)This will allow us to discuss the version with all the quotes from the articles in, or else it makes it difficult to justify, if there is a consensus and good reason to remove bits I will later consider this. I don't like the way you barge in immediately and gradually hemorrhage a text which then allows greater justification for total removal. This is what happened last time, and it has created a lot of work on my behalf. Please don't encourage in an edit war, give the text a chance.--Andromedean (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you Andromedean please refrain from acting like the owner you are clearly demonstrating ownership by stating "if there is a consensus and good reason to remove bits I will later consider this. I don't like the way you barge in immediately and gradually hemorrhage a text". I am not sure when the approval of other editors was required as to what the current text of the article states was required and weather or not another editor "liked it" or not. It is not up to any editor to state their approval is needed with wording such as " I will later consider this". If there is consensus any editor has the right to remove and modify text, not just the person who added it. That is a demonstration of article ownership. Also I would suggest before you start making claims against other editors you yourself refrain from doing what you are claiming other editors are doing. If there was a genuine want of consideration of a section of revisions then post it here fist and not on the main article. As has previously been stated very few of the impartial editors (currently only one at the time of writing) have put forward any argument or justification to retain this. Numerous other impartial editors have provided a range of reasons for removal and non inclusion. I would suggest no one involved edits this article again until this dispute is wholly resolved, not you not me not ShowMeBeef not the IP editors. Then maybe true discussion can take place and not edits with ownership threats attached. I have also provided full justification for the removal of the sections you seem intent on inclining with no other justification other that it is liked by yourself you added it and i don't like see others "tampering" with my "hard work" (ps the stuff in "" marks are not quotes). Sport and politics (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read Andromedean's version of the article and remain unconvinced by the sources. At most a section on unwarranted French reactions to several British results in different sports could be made based on these two, but I don't think it is high-profile enough and would give undue weight to unfounded allegations, similar to the Chinese swimmer non-case. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquette case announcement

:Request for Wikiqette assistance We have discussed Sports & poltics attempts at removing, editing or shifting the sub-section Technologies used for Olympic sports on this talk page at some length Please be aware that I have now provided a full report here. and I did give him one last chance above. Be thankful I am not asking for a ban on the other section, since I find these tactics particularily abhorrent being underhand and time consuming for everyone concerned. --Andromedean (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC) I think the above comments and these comments I am posting here now should be removed, as they are nothing to do with the content dispute here, if users are involved in the wikiquette referral they will be informed. This is beginning to come across as a personal vendetta to remove an editor Andromedean dislikes challenging the inclusion of "their" section. Also who are "we". This is not this place to be discussing editors. Discussion of editors is not for article talk pages that is for the talk page of the user concerned. Sport and politics (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

'You want a section headed 'Unwarranted French reactions'? Surely you are joking? You spend all this time accusing me (or defending S&P accusing me) of 'opinion' and 'synthesis' then this?

Seriously now, with the four references supplied from three seperate countries, each of which contain all the essential elements for inclusion, a) controversy, b) technological advantage, and c) participation in the London 2012 Olympics, this should have brought any honest, rational discussion from the controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics section to a close, since it can't fail through any intepretation of synthesis or limited reporting rules.

Britains Mysterious Olympic Bikes London 2012: Team GB 'magic wheels' saga keeps on rolling Fuming French accuse UK of Olympic dirty tricks cycling - London 2012 Games - Olympic Games - UK French Olympic 'cheating' claims rile British PM--Andromedean (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out by multiple users who have provided substantial reasoning as to why this whole section is just POV pushing synthesis which should be removed. It has been substantially pointed out this is not a controversy (reasoning has been provided over and over by many editors on this point). No Rules were broken, no sources directly prove or state that "technology doping" actually took place (demonstrating the level of synthesis and undue weight being given to one piece of academic research being engaged in, which multiple users have pointed out). The latest sources are just coverage of more complaints by sore losers.

Did the man who beat Oscar Pistorious actually cheat as was claimed By Pistorious after the race? No. Was a lot of coverage given to the comments by Pistorious? Yes. Does that warrant inclusion as a controversy (on a similar page for the Paralympics)? No. It belongs on the pages of Oscar Pistorious and the man who beat him, if at all. This "technology doping" synthesis and original research is exactly the same. The comments are controversial. What they are claiming though is not controversial it is just "I don't like that they beat me, hurmph!". Similarly Ye Shewin, swam very very fast and beat the expected winners in her races. Lots of coaches and other competitors made wild accusations and they were controversial claims. Are they included here? No. Why? Because they are without foundation and only original research and synthesis could be used to back them up. An Identical pattern of editing is occurring by trying to justify the inclusion of this section "proving technology doping and therefore cheating and therefore GB Cycling did not deserve to win, was engaged in the GB cycling". it is just unproven nonsense intent on making a fuss because some competitors lost and GB Cycling did well. It is time to realise that this section is not worthy of being included on Wikipedia as it is just without foundation as to what it is trying convey.

RfC's are open for a 30 day period and this one just like every other RfC will be appropriately closed by an appropriate administrator at the end of the 30 day period.

Sport and politics (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

bicycling.com: Describes the British bike program. Controversial that the bikes were unpurchasable from 2001-2010, hence link of controversy to 2012 is tenuous.
The Guardian: Describes unfounded French claims
sports.yahoo.com: Describes various French claims in several sports, not exclusively against Team GB, as well as a different claim against Team GB. Seems sensationalist and incoherent; it is just a list of claims that a lot of British results are dodgy.
france24.com: British PM responds (also mentioned in the above) to unfounded claims which included claims of illegal drug use.
The above sources you have provided lead me to the conclusion that the French claims have received more (but still limited) coverage as being controversial claims, than they have been reported as reasonable claims describing a genuine controversy. I am not advocating the inclusion of this case in the article as "unfounded French claims" (with a more encyclopedic title), but I am saying that that is more reasonable than to include it as a controversy in the sense that the British cyclists have done something (that has been widely reported as) controversial.
I may see it differently if I had access to and could understand French sources (it may have been a more high-profile case there). If you know any such sources that may convince some editors, but as I said I won't be able to read them. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm still searching for these, do we really need any more nails in the coffin? The point is that you aren't willing to accept the literature, you have an agenda and wish to intepret it. I am willing to play either way, since the evidence is strong that technology gave the British team an advantage, but we will have to conform to Wikipedia rules, if the literature and Chris Boardman says something they said it, you can't change it because you don't ike it.

Here is James Dyson in the Telegraph

"Sport technology is controversial. Team GB cyclists triumphed at the Olympics but not without French whispers of wheel wizardry. Does technology give an unfair advantage? Of course there should be rules, but there should be leeway to push technological advancements"

Did James Dyson say that sports technology was controversial in the context of British cycling at the London 2010 Olympics yesterday? Yes he did, because it can be perfectly legal and controversial at the same time, as we are observing now with the para-olympic 'blade' saga.--Andromedean (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

--Andromedean (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on the sources now available, and particularly the one you just provided, I can support inclusion of parts of the text currently in the article, specifically:

Technology in track cycling

The British team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year. They subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected. In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play, especially regarding the use of technology. Isabelle Gautheron, director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested Britain's gold streak may have been aided by "subterfuge, and cutting edge technology" to produce the quickest bike. The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that "the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment. They have new bikes, new skinsuits and different wheels." Chris Boardman, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, was asked if the British team's "high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage", he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're [the other countries are?] not." [I am not convinced that the specific claims ought to be included by quotes, I think a general statement suffices for a controversy with this degree of coverage, i.e. remove everything after foul play and add "especially regarding the use of technology" (move "technology doping" link accordingly).]

Cycling frames used by team GB are built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are also used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailing boats. Chris Boardman laughs of claims 'magic wheels' led to GB's cycling success. [is this neccessary; I would say "no"]

All bicycles and rider equipment at the Games were declared legal by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and passed fit for use under its sporting code. In compliance with the code the British equipment is available for purchase at the UK Sport website. The UCI sporting code states that bikes used in competition have to be available to the public to purchase. In 2010, the UCI threatened to ban both the Great Britain and German bikes on grounds that they were not available to the public at large. UK Sport then added a page to its web site selling the equipment. The World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA) also 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’. The decision to allow or ban a new technology, specifically relating to sports equipment, is the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body. [removed]

Added link to technology doping at "foul play". I fail to see how the removed part is relevant to these games and remain opposed to its inclusion. Of course, the info on WADA in the struck-out part ought to be available at technology doping, which is linked to. British cycling's failure to comply with the rules until 2010 can also be mentioned there in the Cycling section. For 2012 they are in compliance with all rules (added a the bold part to clarify this), and to include that much info on past transgressions fails WP:NPOV. Of course, "technology doping" does not currently have the required info, but that is a reason to add it there, not a reason to add it here. so add it there. I also doubt the neccessity of the second paragraph, but won't fight you over it.

I also think info on the claim (can we source this to the poll) that 70 %(!) of the French public believed that the result where tainted by cheating ought to be included, and Cameron's response stating that the unfounded suspicion is against the Olympic spirit must be added as it shows that the French comments are themselves seen as controversial.

Also, the reason you are still searching for sources is that you have made a very poor case for inclusion; in part because you include way too much, and in part because a fundamental lack of civility when discussing. You continue to claim other editors have agendas. This is hardly the best way to get editors to read the sources you provide with an open mind. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore the section doesn't belong in the Prior to the Games section. I have moved it and removed the most egregious cases of extraneous material. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

88 Well at least we are getting somewhere since we now both agree it should be included under the controversy section, although it seems unlikely a valid reason could have been used for its exclusion.

The remaining issues are

you still wish to edit the article in a form were the reader would be misled into believing that the British had complied with the spirit of the law and that bikes were available for purchase prior to the games so they can be evaluated by other teams. There is no evidence to suggest this was possible and this should be made clear. I also think that threats by the UCI against the British are also relevent, since the new rules were introduced since the London Olympics.

That the new bikes were introduced directly before the London Olympics and kept under wraps for the world championships also seems to be relevent. I would like the reader to see the comparative results between these two championships since this would allow them to make an informed decision if the French belief that technological changes might have any justification. The inclusion of the '45% improvement in the 1 hr time due to technology' would also provide the reader with an idea how critical technology is.

Finally, the reference to public attitides on technology in sports is highly relevent to this issue being a controversy.

I had hoped that an experienced unbiased third party may be able to advise on these issues, if not it seems unlikely we can make much progress in my view.--Andromedean (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"[T]he reference to public attitides on technology in sports is highly relevent to this issue being a controversy.": Which is why I suggested including the poll and Cameron, instead of the non-informative quotes currently in the article.

"I also think that threats by the UCI against the British are also relevent, since the new rules were introduced since the London Olympics.": Not here, they have complied with the rules since 2010.

Re spirit of the law: There is presumably a reason why there is a delay of a couple of months before the equipment must be available for purchase by third parties. It is understandable that they want to produce them for their own athletes first. In any case it is more misleading to include information that implies that team GB was very close to cheating as this is a minority view found (almost) exclusively in France.

"That the new bikes were introduced directly before the London Olympics and kept under wraps for the world championships also seems to be relevent. I would like the reader to see the comparative results between these two championships since this would allow them to make an informed decision if the French belief that technological changes might have any justification. The inclusion of the '45% improvement in the 1 hr time due to technology' would also provide the reader with an idea how critical technology is." Which is the reason why you will shortly add this information to a suitable article, to which I have provided a link in the article.

Stop implying other editors are biased. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

":The inclusion of the '45% improvement in the 1 hr time due to technology' would also provide the reader with an idea how critical technology is." Which is the reason why you will shortly add this information to a suitable article." Will I? It could certainly belong there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I worded that poorly. I meant that you ought to add it there as this is the wrong place for it. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying my opinion: I do not think it is neccessary to include the section in the limited capacity I have posted above, but I can see that it is possible to make a case for it. Thus I will not argue for or against the inclusion of the limited section. I am completely opposed to including the full section. I have nothing else to add to this RFC. The opinions of the other editors who have posted in the RFC advocating complete removal or retension should not be dismissed. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on removal of objective evidence on Olympic bikes

- should objective information related to the technological improvements made to bikes used for the London Olympics, details of the rules, and the public attitudes to technology in sports be removed to another section

85.167.110.93 In view that there is mainly the two of us involved now and restricted to the above titled dispute it would seem that this could be negotiated by a third party as was suggested. Hopefully this will bring this subject to a conclusion.

I don't think the dispute has changed that much, in that if the objective evidence is removed it will just make it appear as if the Controversy is sour grapes, or patroitism on behalf of the losers.

Let me try to summarise the points we need to resolve in more detail.

the question is do we keep one or more of the following points in the 'Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics' section, move it to a general section on technology doping, or remove it completely?

I don't think these points are in dispute just where to put them.

1)the British introduced new bikes for the Olympics whilst keeping them 'under cover' for the world championships 3 months earlier.

2)details how the British cycling team performed in the World championships relative to the Olympics with the new bikes (medals/times/position in cycling table)

3)the background to the new rules regarding bikes introduced between the Olympics in view that these became most relevent in the London 2012 Olympics and in view that a [[3]] is by definition a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.

4)just mention that Bikes had to be available to the public and the British complied with these rules, or mention that the bikes in practice wouldn't have been available to any outside parties until well after first use in competition, in this case the 2012 Olympics.

5)include a French Internet poll and the British prime-minister's views regarding the British 'cheating' immediately after the British Won at the Olympics or/and the results of a University based 20,000 person survey on attitudes to technology and fairness in Olympic sport mentioned in an Professional report released immediately before the 2012 Olympics. Sports Engineering an Unfair Advantage? (July 2012)

6) Do we provide an indication of how important technology can be to improvements in performance (45% change is due to aerodynamics alone in the 1 hr time according to the above report)

There may be a dispute however regarding how wide the technology controversy was. Was it specific to the French officials and public, American cycling magazines and the official cycling bodies such as the UCI or does the survey suggest it is far more more widespread? --Andromedean (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

See below for the responses to the six points raised above which have previously been discussed on this talk page.

Point one: The world championships and the bicycles used only by the British is biasing towards the GB team and fails on undue weight of a minor event, as other nations also had specialised bikes for the Olympics. there is also no reasoning provided as to why different bicycles were used. It could have been to difficult to transport the bicycles from Great Britain to Australia so they had to use different bicycles when at the world championships.

Point two: Is not relevant as it ignores the fact that GB were the hosts of the Olympics and that only one riders per nation is allowed in Olympic events. Where as Multiple riders are allowed in World championship events.Also different events make up the Olympic cycling Programme and the World championship Programme and some competitors will have had a different combination of events at the Olympics and the World Championships so their individual performances will different as they are competing in different events.

Point three: I do not understand what is trying to be said in that point. It appears to attempt to make out that it was controversial to develop new bicycles for the Olympics. As has previously been pointed out that can only be asserted by synthesising sources through Original research and giving undue weight to minor sources and individual opinions.

Point four: Is just a stating of the rules that bicycles are allowed to be used in competition first before going on sale. There is nothing unusual in that. MotoGP bikes have to be made available to the public at large but they are never released before the start of the MotoGP season. There is therefore no controversy there at all, it is just standard practice. there is also no mention of if other nations did the same or not, where as Germany received a similar warning to GB.

Point five: How reliable is the "French Internet poll" and why should it be given a place in this article. One poll conducted in one country is not representative of the views of the wider participating nations at the Olympics. The prime ministers comments fall in to the same category as one US politician. This is not a commentary on this or that said by politicians or heads of government/state.

Point six: The information has been demonstrated to be far to confusing and not helpful to the understanding or accessibility of the article.

Sport and politics (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:3O clearly can't be used, but the 3O editor is welcome to join the discussion as far as I am concerned (fresh voices would be desireable). To Andromedean re "it will just make it appear as if the Controversy is sour grapes, or patroitism on behalf of the losers": Have you considered that this may be the case? 85.167.110.93 (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

S&P Not sure why WP:3O clearly can't be used. As pointed out by someone else, you seem to be vey knowledgable and astute with using the rules for a new user!

I agree with S&P for point 5 although for slightly different reasons. Internet polls right after a controversial event mean little, prime-ministers statements far less. Including this was a suggestion by 88! I wouldn't be against changing my mind on this, although the unbiased 20,000 person poll is by far the best one to quote even if it doesn't explicitly address this incident, it very much encompassess it.

As you say we have been over these points many times so there is little to be gained by keep arguing. That is why I strived to arrive at a solution and asked for a third opinion, at least it will save us all a lot of time, whatever the eventual resolution. --Andromedean (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse me if a use a version which includes points 1 to 6 since it gets vary confusing, simply referencing it in the middle of a lot of text on a talk page is useless, feel free to put a dispute notice on it, but not all of them!!

--Andromedean (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As you both enjoy quoting the Wikipedia rule book, I have just found an interesting one which should resolve most of the differences. [called making neccesary assumptions.]--Andromedean (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is indeed an internet poll it should not be used, I was under the impression that it was a proper survey, as I have never seen the results of internet polls reported in ostensibly serious articles. I do not see how MNA supports your position. We are three editors, hence no 3O. (This requirement was removed without consensus just prior to your making your report and was subsequently reinstated, not your fault.) 85.167.110.93 (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to answer my question above. If you haven't or will not consider the possibility that "the Controversy is sour grapes, or patroitism on behalf of the losers" then discussion with you seems rather futile. I have certainly considered both the possibility that the controversy is based on actual evidence of (at least borderline) foul play and the possiblitity that it is based solely on the how the losers felt. I have found the latter to be the case and if a section on this is included it must show this. I am objective in the sense that I am neither British nor French, nor have I followed track cycling, and thus I have no prior bias regarding the technology used in the sport. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sour grapes and patriotism could be the conclusions a reader would arrive at without the benefit of three or four extra pieces of information which are why we should include the evidence that technology gave the British cyclists an advantage, combined with the background to British Cyclings dispute with he UCI, the latter of which have striven for an even playing field. To underline this we should include the university survey which suggests that the public belive this that using technology in Oylmpic sport is unfair. After these factors are included the French and the Australian reactions are understandable.

BTW was this section moved out entirely at some stage last night? I couldn't find it, and although it is still here this morning, I notice Sport & Politics has quickly reverted the points out which and other editors have requested for the sake of the discussion. --Andromedean (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are points "we need to discuss" add them here as opposed to sticking them in the article in the full knowledge they need to be discussed before they are added to the article. Also wWikipedia is not in the business of "the conclusions a reader would arrive at". wikipeidia is not for conclusions to be inferred or drawn from it adding extra information to "counter any perceived other conclusion" (not a quote). Wikipedia is for objective unbiased factual information which does not push any single or multiple POVs this is not a debating society or academic discussion board. The content wishing to be included fails the accepted standards of Wikipedia and is only there to serve pushing the POV the GB cycling cheated, the longer this goes on the more of an axe to grind against GB cycling is appearing to be shown. Multiple users have said this section should be removed and have provided detailed policy and guidelines as to why this should not be included. Sport and politics (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know you are the only person who believes it should be removed entirely, 88 supports it's inclusion in some form, and it has changed significantly since other views were expressed. I can't see any rational reason for moving any of the sections, and others have objected to your editing of it, it biases the discussion. I'm not sure if the references work in the discussion section, these are essential viewing for everyone.

The British team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year.[1] They subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected.[2] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[3] Isabelle Gautheron, director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested Britain's gold streak may have been aided by subterfuge, and cutting edge technology to produce the quickest bike. Also France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, demanded that his British rival divulge the U.K.'s secrets.[4] The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment. They have new bikes, new skinsuits and different wheels.[5] Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[6]

British Cycling is secretive about its cycling technology, with the bicycle frames being the most controversial custom piece of kit. These are built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats [7][8][9]

The British and German teams were the only ones able to develop their own bikes that were not the product of a traditional manufacturer.[10]. British Cycling used custom bikes from 2001 until 2010 without marketing the bicycles.[11] However, the UCI sporting code states that bikes used in competition have to be available to the public to purchase, and in 2010 the UCI threatened to ban both the Great Britain and German bikes on grounds that they were not available to the public at large so UK Sport added a page to its web site selling the equipment, with an undisclosed time for delivery.[10] However, all 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.[6] The UCI also amended its interpretation to allow a nine-month period after first competition use of a product to bring a product to market.

Research shows that people fear that sports engineering could: overshadow the triumph of human spirit and effort, make certain sports easier, create unfairness so the "best athletes" might not win, and ensure that rich athletes and countries have an advantage over the poor ones.[12] 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 recognised as a threat, whilst the decision to allow or ban a new technology, specifically relating to sports equipment, is the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body.[13]:p. 15' --Andromedean (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Basement12, MilborneOne and Lolo Lympian are three other users who have stated they favour removal of the section from this page. Sport and politics (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sport and politics, an RfC usually runs for 30 days. I suggest you stop edit warring to remove the material until this RfC closes. Cla68 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The RFC must be allowed to continue and we need to see what the conclusions of the RfC are.

Andromedean who is intent on attempting to ignoring the RfC and go to other forms of dispute resolution and claim i am "gaming the system" am behaving in bad faith, is not helpful on conducive to collaborative constructive editing. This works all ways and all users, Andromedean included, must remember that the RfC is ongoing and that should be respected. Andromedean needs reminding as well they should not be adding material to the article they know to be controversial and under dispute. especially when the only reason they are giving to adding it to the article is "version added addressing full range of issues so they can be discussed". That reason demonstrates it should be added to the talk page first so it can be discussed rather than adding it to the article as it is known to be controversial and in need of discussion before being added. Sport and politics (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

To Andromedean: My question was a yes/no question, so you have not really answered it.
To all: I feel I have no more to add to this discussion, except to defend my removal which I have done below. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Andromedean, one of the key problems now is WP:WEIGHT. Specifically, your draft will make the second longest (16 lines on my screen, only "Brand protection" is longer) section on a single issue. It is clear that the issue has been nowhere near as widely reported as the "Brand protecion issue". (In fact it is one of very few cases in this article which I hadn't seen discussed before I read it at Wikipedia. It is certainly far from the plastic games fiasco.) For this reason it is neccessary to cut out some detail, as well as removing some material better suited for other articles as discussed below for the part I removed. A survey on the use of technology in Olympic sports would be another example of something belonging in "technology doping", an article in need of improvement. By the way, I added a link from "doping in sport" to "technology doping" in the "see also" section. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The part I removed and why I did so

This was removed:
The UCI sporting code states that bikes used in competition have to be available to the public to purchase. In 2010, the UCI threatened to ban both the Great Britain and German bikes on grounds that they were not available to the public at large. UK Sport then added a page to its web site selling the equipment. The World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA) also 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’. The decision to allow or ban a new technology, specifically relating to sports equipment, is the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body.
The first part regarding rules of availability of the bikes was changed to make it clear that the British team is complying with this rule, without unfairly mentioning past transgressions. The second part introduces the concept of "technology doping" and also provides a brief history of the concept. This is clearly misplaced, in fact technology doping is an article and the information belongs there. Limited information on the concept should also be included at the recently moved article Doping in sport. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for informing us why you changed it 88.88.164.41; however, that part was already removed by Sport & Politics, you haven't done anything, have you? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics&oldid=510920217 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talking about the remove part of this. I realise my IP changes occasionally, but it should not be to hard to follow as there has only been one active IP involved in the discussion at any given time. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I realise this, the reason why I asked is because you already gave a full explanation on the 3rd September when you moved it then, but Sport and Politics moved it seemingly without explanation several days later, I don't think you have touched this for some time now.

With regard to the text, obviously I don't agree with removing the full context, perhaps we could agree to removing some of it. The part about introducing new bikes just before the olympics, and the 20,000 person University survey on attitudes to technology in olympic sport, are highly relevent to the context. Keeping these are essential in my view.--Andromedean (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason I repeated it is that I felt it was a bit drowned in surrounding discussion. In this section I wanted feedback on the bit I actually removed. Do you agree that technology doping is a more suitable location for (at least) the bit about WADA? I also think the bit about not following the rules in the past is better suited to a "cycling" section in the "technology doping" article and/or a "rules on technology" section in Track Cycling. In my view moving information to a different article is a subset of keeping it; you may link to it and readers will be able to find it easily. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

88 Your concerns about it being drowned are noted. However, protests don't happen every time someone loses, there is a background to this story which places the controversy into proper context. Without these we are biasing the reader into believing the protests were irrational, since the article appears contradictory without the context. I think that is the only reason why you wish them to be removed. I have found a brief reference which may help.--Andromedean (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean no one here is agreed for you to make your unilateral changed, in fact many are opposed. You are the only user advocating including it the format you have just added, it is not bold, it is disruptive and it is edit warring and POV pushing. You are engaging in disruptive edit warring by making unilateral and without consensus changes to this article. Please refrain from making your own unilateral changes which have clearly not got any consensus to be included in the article and are the subject of an ongoing RfC. Claiming they have consensus when they are being discussed is wrong. Claiming something "needs adding to be discussed" ignores this talk page which is where it is added first in those cases. Let the RfC continue and let the process complete. Failure to respect the process of Wikiepidia and continual edit warring can result in a ban from editing Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sport and politics, I agree with Andromedean's edits to this article, so please stop personalizing this discussion and please stop revert warring. Please get your editing in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Users are entitled to agree all they want but many others have expressed total disagreement. It is also sounding like Pot Kettle Black here "with please stop personalising the discussion" when other users have done so in a way which is continual and in bad faith and has been raised here. I am simply pointing out behaviour which should not be undertaken. I am not attributing motives as others have done. Also just because you also like the edits doesn't mean you and Andromedean form the consensus that they must be included. There is an RfC here which you have said should be respected Cla68 but you are happy for Andromedean to ignore. I think that is a little bit of hypocrisy on your behalf Cla68. The Rfc is ongoing and that needs to be allowed to complete with no users attempting to circumvent the process. Sport and politics (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sport and Politics, please provide a diff in which I have revert warred with anyone here. Do you need any examples in which you have done so? Please attempt to collaborate, compromise, and cooperate, as per Wikipedia's policies. Cla68 (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The amount of background you wish to include on the concept of "technology doping" would in my opinion be suitable only if the concept itself was challenged. This would be similar to the Osaka Rule in the article, where the rule itself was challenged in court, thus the rule itself is controversial and background on the rule is essential. In this case the rule is not in question thus the background of the rule is better placed in a different article which we can link to, so it is in no way censored.
Stop with your implications of hidden agendas; if you truly believe it you are free to take it to WP:ANI, and if you do not believe it you are disruptive. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Update: I have warned Andromedean that I will report him to WP:ANI if, and only if, he accuses other editors of bias, agendas or censorship at least one more time and he does not report such suspicion at a suitable location. 17:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

88 Why bring that up now when we discussed it yesterday? Is it the Cycling regulations you disapprove of. If you believe you are going to Bully me into not writing the section below you are living in a fantasy world. If Wikipedia bans me from saying this, who would ever wish to contribute or use it? Please report me, it will put us all out of our misery!

88 Your concerns about it being drowned are noted. However, protests don't happen every time someone loses, there is a background to this story which places the controversy into proper context. Without these we are biasing the reader into believing the protests were irrational, since the article appears contradictory without the context. I think that is the only reason why you wish them to be removed. I have found a brief reference which may help.--Andromedean (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs)

The problematic statement is "I think that [biasing the reader] is the only reason why you wish them to be removed". While this is minor compared to some of your earlier statements the number of times you have made such accusations is unacceptable. I have stated what it will take for me to report you, and you haven't crossed that line yet. I hope you won't. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Rather than arguing and attacking me, why not attempt to come to an acceptable solution? I recognise the more you have attempted to remove the article the more information I have found to justify it and the passages seem more critical of the team. However, this is just what it says in the literature, there is nothing I can do about it. Both your tactics seem to be getting rather desperate. --Andromedean (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

With regard to to RFC, why can articles not be changed due to the discussion? I can't see anything in the rules which say they can't. Otherwise, surely the article would be automatically frozen during an RFC. Anyway we have both changed it. --Andromedean (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I focus on content almost exclusively. The exception is repeatedly asking/telling you to stop accusing other editors, which I have typically done at the end of a comment otherwise concerning content. There may be some comments where I have failed to focus on content, but in that case they are probably a response to a similarly side-tracking comment. If you consider a warning that I may inform other editors of your comments as an attack, perhaps you should review those comments. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to the following: "Is it the Cycling regulations you disapprove of"
I don't disapprove of any particular rule. I am against including the background information on the concept "technology doping". I think this information belong on at a different page which we can link to. If British Cycling had stated that "technology doping is a concept detrimental to our sport; technology should be and is a part of cycling" and thus started a controversy at these Games some background information on the history of the concept should be in the section describing such a controversy. Incidentally we have a case similar to the described hypothetical case for these Games, the rule in question is the Osaka Rule. Furthermore, I think detail on breaking the rule on bike availability in the past is irrelevant to this article as the rule has not been broken in this case. Although this is a response to Andromedean I would also welcome Cla68's views, particularly on the inclusion of background information on the concept of "technology doping" belong in this or a different article. 85.167.36.2 (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have moved some information to technology doping, as there has been no new input regarding this. I also removed the quote from the UCI Code as that seemed like too much detail. I am still opposed to some parts (as discussed earlier), and neutral to inclusion of the section after shortening it. 88.88.166.111 (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see the following changes have been made, (italics added bold removed).

Technology in track cycling

The British team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year.[126] They subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected.[127] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play. Especially regarding the use of technology [128]

Isabelle Gautheron, director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested Britain's gold streak may have been aided by subterfuge, and cutting edge technology to produce the quickest bike. Also France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, demanded that his British rival divulge the U.K.'s secrets.[129] The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment. They have new bikes, new skinsuits and different wheels.[130] Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[131]

British Cycling is secretive about its cycling technology. These are built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats [132][133][134]

The Union Cycliste Internationale UCI sporting code states that bikes used in competition have to be available to the public to purchase, however, it amended its interpretation to allow a nine-month period after first competition use of a product to bring a product to market, and there is no limit on delivery time.[135] The UCI code also states that Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine. All bicycle and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the UCI and passed fit for use under its sporting code.[131]

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 recognised as a threat, whilst the decision to allow or ban a new technology, specifically relating to sports equipment, is the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body.[136]:p. 15 A report released immediately before the Olympics quotes an extensive public survey that shows that people fear that sports engineering could: overshadow the triumph of human spirit and effort, make certain sports easier, create unfairness so the "best athletes" might not win, and ensure that rich athletes and countries have an advantage over the poor ones.[137]

Once again I am worried about the removal of context, since it isn't clear why they should be protesting about technology at all if technology changes were declared legal. The contradictory nature of the rules and what was officially declared legal needs to be mentioned, as well as public the perception of competing on uneven terms, since this is central to the controversy. The gradual hemorrhaging of text is also worrying. Everyone hasn't the time to attend to this on a daily basis. that doesn't mean the aren't interested.

--Andromedean (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Re the last point: Nor does it mean they can expect their version to be unchallenged until they return.
Note that the main change is a move to a different article. The section is not a section on technology doping, but a section on a specific issue. Re "it isn't clear why they should be protesting about technology at all if technology changes were declared legal": Indeed it isn't clear; but we cannot try to make it sound like the other team almost broke the rule when in fact they followed it perfectly, nor can we bias the readers against a team because they were one of several teams that did not comply with the rule in the past. As the doping allegation below shows this was a series of unfounded, baseless claims. This is the reason I think Cameron's comment that the claims violated the Olympic spirit are at least as important as quotes of the French claims. 88.88.166.111 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have just looked at the reference after Especially regarding the use of technology [128] I can't see any use of the word 'technology' in this article, and certainly not after that quote in fact there is also a suspicion of drug doping in that document as well. Whilst I haven't implied that in my edits, partly because I don't think there is much evidence to substatiate it, entering 'technology' there seems to be the excessive use of synthesis, that's why I had attempted to stick to quotes. --Andromedean (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved the ref. That the use of technology was the main issue is clearly detailed in the section. Indeed there is an allegation of doping in that article. That is one of the main problems with that article. It is just a long list of allegations without any proof. 88.88.166.111 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

there is plenty of evidence to suggest that technology was a factor as indicated in the other articles, and this reference backs it up. I am simply attempting not to re-intepret what the article is stating by using direct quotes since the word technology wasn't used after the quote. I am happy to play along with the rules of either having rigorous rules on synthesis, OR a liberal intepretation of the articles, but not on some combination of the two which allows you to remove the bits you don't like. The original quote is factual from the source. You have no basis for suggesting it was all wild speculation.

--Andromedean (talk) 07:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the quote from the UCI rules because it was excessive detail about a rule that the rule maker stated had not been broken. They should know how to interpret their own rules better than you or me, and certainly better than readers being given a quote of just one part of the rule. Readers can, if they so desire, read the entire rule themselves. 85.167.109.59 (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)