Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games

Unexplained revert

The socalled Australian head of state dispute has no relevance to this article, so why revert because there is said to be a dispute about "whether it should be in italics".[1] Qexigator (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed mention of an Australian head of state dispute, as it's irrelevant to this article. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a talk page discussion, but please next time use a neutral heading - it wasn't an unexplained revert at all. The article lists the offices of the openers, and as note (a) indicates, "Names & offices in italics reflect an opener who was not head of state when he or she opened the Games." So why is William Deane in italics? Presumably because as Governor-General, he is not regarded as the head of state. But some people would say that he is. Hence the need for the explanatory note and link. StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

"Some people would say that he is", is irrelevant. Some people say that Barack Obama was born in Kenya & never should've become US Prez. Some people say that Al Gore should've been US Prez & not George W. Bush. It's best we keep out such fringe PoVs. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm - I recommend you head over to the Rfc at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics & check over the Rfc at Australian head of state dispute, as both will have an effect on this article. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have participated in the RfC. I suggest that the original wording of this article be restored until the RfC is concluded. StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Although it's not clear how the RfC impacts this article. One editor in the RfC said "For now, and this may change as a result of current political debate, the Australian government clearly says the Queen is their head of state." But as I have noted in the RfC, this article is about the situation in 2000, when there wasn't that sort of "clarity". StAnselm (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

What is the basis for the supposition that in 2000 there wasn't that sort of "clarity" ? Qexigator (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The only "official websites" we have saying that the Queen is the HoS are from after 2000; before 2000, the Commonwealth Government Directory listed the GG as the HoS. StAnselm (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've mentioned this article (and Constitution of Australia) at the WP:Politics Rfc. We can't be having these disagreements going on throughout Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is, SA, the linked article is misnamed, in other words Wikipedia is, unfortunately, the source of this misinformation. There has not factually been a dispute of a kind that could be remotely relevant to the Games list. The governor-general opened the games as the queen's representative, just as previously had the governor general of Canada. There is in fact no need for any footnote. Qexigator (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It's relevant to this article because of note (a). If that was reworded or removed, it could take away the necessity of a reference to the dispute. (I guess we have the italics because of the IOC rules.) When we say Deane opened the Games "as the Queen's representative" it means something different to the way the Duke of Edinburgh as the "Queen's representative" when he opened the 1956 games. In fact, this website suggests that IOC rules requiring the games to be opened by the Head of State of the host nation were "adhered to, at least in part". It then cites John Howard as saying that as the Queen's representative, the GG is "effectively" Head of State. StAnselm (talk)

What possible relevance could the non-dispute in Australia at that or any time be to the IOC, which seems to be unsourced guesswork, or the games. There is no good reason for the footnote, why try vainly to defend it? Qexigator (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Precisely because there was significant debate in 1999 and 2000 over who should open the games - the Queen, the PM, or the GG. It should be reflected in a footnote that putting Deane's name in italics is simplifying things, and that he was chosen because in some sense he was the HoS. Unfortunately, the relevant edition of Hansard is available only in Snippet View in Google, but this all came out in parliamentary debates. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

SA: What is your problem, you seem to be somewhat ill-informed or muddled about this. Qexigator (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal attacks. You were removing content here without supplying a reason; naturally, I wasn't to know about the RfC going on. StAnselm (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my polite supposition. Qexigator (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The governor-general was representing Australia's head of state, the Australian monarch. A recently closed Rfc at WP:POLITICS reached a consensus that the Australian monarch is the Australian head of state. GoodDay (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

SA: It can safely be left out. I see nothing in Deane's article (linked) to support any footnote that he or others disputed over his representing Queen of Australia Elizabeth II there, as stated. Qexigator (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The article I linked to was by Helen Irving (Cambridge University Press), which is a reliable source specifically discussing the opening of the 2000 games.[2] Certainly, Deane's name should be in italics (per the RfC result), but the Irving article is indicating the difference of opinion at precisely this point and I have quoted it faithfully. There are lots of other footnotes in this article clarifying the various heads of state. StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, in the wake of the Rfc at WP:POLITICS. The We don't know argument shouldn't be pushed here, anymore. However, I'm not fond of edit-warring, so more folks will have to look in on this. GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

SA: The footnote does not clarify. If Irving's opinion is notable it should be in the AHOSD article and in Deane's, and anyhow the issue is irrelevant to the Olympic games and no better than trivia. If you see something in Irving that supports your position, please quote. Qexigator (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It clarifies the italics, of course. Irving probably should be in the AHOSD article, but that is irrelevant here. StAnselm (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh so the comment was in jest: I would never have guessed. The italics! LOL , and G g Canada needs no footnote, nor other italicised names. Obviously, if not in AHOSD and Deane, cannot be relevant here, as your failure to quote confirms. So you can now safely stop reverting, whether to amuse yourself or because your sense of relevance has failed you, now that the Rfc on the point has been settled, as you well know. Qexigator (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I had mentioned the italics four or five times previously. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, StAnselm. I had hoped that the results of the Rfc at WP:POLITICS? would've ended any edits that directly or indirectly encouraged confusion on the Australian head of state matter. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought maybe the issue of footnotes like this one might be address in the RfC close, but it wasn't. StAnselm (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You're being a tad stubborn, here. Are we going to have to open another Rfc, then another, then another (which will have the same monarch=head of state result) in order to get you to stop pushing the We don't know edits? Perhaps a comment from administrator JzG, will help GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

An RfC may be appropriate, but we should wait and see what happens to the Australian head of state dispute article, which the current (consensus) version of the page links to. If that remains as is, we have three obvious options: (1) retain the current version (with "dispute"), (2) replace the footnote with one like the one I proposed citing Irving, (3) remove the footnote altogether. StAnselm (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

+ The work SA cites above was in no way connected with the 2000 Olympics. It was neither comtemporaneous reporting of an event, nor a carefully reasoned, indepth, academic analysis, and would not rate citation in AHOSD or Deane's article. Qexigator (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly connected to the 2000 Olympics, and specifically treats the incident. The fact that it is not contemporaneous merely indicates the enduring significance of the issue. It is a reliable source published by Cambridge University Press. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I see rhat comment as evading the issue, possibly due to some sort of muddle about the purport of the list. The author and the publisher may be "reliable" for RS purposes (not necessarily, in this instance, for all purposes outside Wikipedia), but the content is irrelevant to this article. Try it at Deane's article, where it might be marginally acceptable, but not here. One thing that has been established for Wikipedia: the question of who is Australia's head of state is not "in dispute", and you have supplied no contemporaneous report that it was, only one later unsupported academic padding a book. Qexigator (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, as you well know, there are contemporaneous sources as well. The content is not irrelevant, as there are other footnotes explaining/clarifying the HoS status with regards to Germany and Switzerland. StAnselm (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I've requested more input from WP:POLITICS, as this dispute is related to the recently closed Rfc there. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

As Miesianiacal said below, RfCs do not decide facts. What the RfC concluded, I think, was that we can say the Queen is the Aust. HoS in WP voice. That's why we have Deane's name in italics. But we still have an article on the "dispute", and it is reasonable to refer to it in this context, especially with RSs locating the debate in the context of the Opening of the 2000 Olympics. The recently-concluded RfC did not decide one way or the other on the existence of the debate article. StAnselm (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I can tell that you're not going to give in on this matter & will edit-war to keep your preference in the article. It's best I let others deal with this situation, as I don't have patients for it. GoodDay (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

While GoodDay has no right to trumpet the results of an RfC as though RfCs decided facts, there is no need for the footnote. It is not pertinent what people in Australia think about who's head of state. What matters is what the IOC says on the matter. The committee's factsheet on the opening ceremonies states "According to the Olympic Charter protocol, the duty of declaring the Games officially open falls to the head of state of the host country. Those who have performed this task are royalty and presidents, or their representatives, whether it was a vice-president, a member of the royal family, or a governor-general." Clearly, the IOC considers presidents and sovereigns (whether kingly, princely, or ducal) to be heads of state and vice-presidents, other members of royal families, and governors-general to be representatives of heads of state. That can, of course, be explained in the article using the provided source. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, what the IOC considers is only part of the story - see this extended discussion, for example. We currently have footnotes regarding the status of Germany and Switzerland, so this one is not out of place. StAnselm (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The situations in Switzerland and Nazi Germany are not comparable (and those notes could be better written). If you could prove there was some kind of confusion in or before 2000 as to who was head of state and should open the Sydney Olympics, then that should be added. Otherwise, you're drawing a connection where there is none. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that I could prove that, but are you really saying the entire proof should be added to this article? Wouldn't that make it undue weight? StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If there's to be any footnote, it should note that confusion/debate specifically; the IOC requires the head of state or a representative thereof to open the games, there was confusion and/or argument about who was head of state before the opening of the 2000 summer Olympics. That's much more pertinent than a general remark about a wider debate among a few academics. The footnote doesn't have to go into great detail; only the fact of the argument/confusion should be given. Readers wanting more information can either read the sources or more detail can be added to another article and linked to from the footnote here. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the Australian head of state dispute article should mention the Olympics, since the issue was discussed with reference to who should open the Games. But the future of that article is a bit cloudy at the moment, with a merge discussion in progress and a possible move request in the pipeline. StAnselm (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no need for me to add to what Mies. has so clearly explained. Qexigator (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

AHOS "dispute" way off topic

extended discussion (SA comment above). How naive are we to be? Sadly, that comment again reveals a muddled understanding of the issue. Cane Toad (Why to vote No) Republic by David Flint (a law professor) (Oct.1999) does not support the "dispute" footnote. It was a polemic in connection with the Referendum, not the Olympics: "a pragmatist's account of an unsatisfactory proposal...a fleshing-out of why the constitution is so serviceable and how it is that, in Justice Michael Kirby's phrase, the crown has functioned to temper narrow nationalism and to soften brutal majoritarianism." (from Christopher Pearson's Foreword). Page 46: "Under our law and practice, it was open to the prime minister to advise the governor-general so that he might deliver it himself. Similar principles apply in relation to other ceremonies, for example a public building - or the Olympic games." Qexigator (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Would it be alright then, to replace StAnselm's edits? GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not? That is the simplest way to rmv the blatant muddling misinformation Qexigator (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Consider it, done :) GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The footnote linking to the dispute article is the current consensus for the page. Consensus can change, of course, and it looks like it might. But at the moment there is still an Australian head of state dispute article, and since the dispute does relate to the Olympics, it is reasonable to link to it. As I mentioned above, it is not my preferred version - I think the Irving citation would be better. As I also mentioned above, I was waiting to see what happened to the dispute article, but maybe I should just go ahead with the RfC here. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

On the assumption that you're going to continue to revert, in order to keep a link to the article-in-question? then perhaps indeed you should open an Rfc, on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Footnote for Sydney Olympics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should there be a footnote explaining/clarifying/expanding on William Deane opening the 2000 Olympics, and his name being in italics? If "yes", should the footnote link to the Australian head of state dispute article? StAnselm (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarify - Deane's name can be in italics, without a footnote. The italics is used for those representing the head of state. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this RfC is not about whether his name should be in italics - AFAIK, no-one is disputing that. The RfC wording is correct, I think: "a footnote explaining... his name being in italics" - in other words, the footnote would (among other things) explain why his name is in italics. StAnselm (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

None of the other HoS representatives have a footnote explaining their names being in italics. Deane is not a special case, here. Anyways, the Rfc continues forward. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose footnote & Support italics. The Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. PS - An Rfc at WP:Politics was closed recently, its result was to go with the monarch as head of state. Therefore, we shouldn't be 'fogging' up the Australian head of state's identity, here. Also, Deane's name should be in italics, as he's representing the head of state. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose footnote There has not factually been a dispute of a kind that could be remotely relevant to the Games list. The governor-general opened the games as the queen's representative, just as previously had the governor general of Canada. There is no need for any footnote. There is nothing in Deane's article (linked in the article) to support any footnote that he or others disputed over his representing Queen of Australia Elizabeth II. It seems that the footnote was inserted in the first place[3] as a result of an inadvertent misunderstanding of the situation, and is now being retained[4] as if there were "consensus". Cane Toad (Why to vote No) Republic by David Flint (a law professor) (Oct.1999) does not support the "dispute" footnote. It was a polemic in connection with the Referendum, not the Olympics: "a pragmatist's account of an unsatisfactory proposal...a fleshing-out of why the constitution is so serviceable and how it is that, in Justice Michael Kirby's phrase, the crown has functioned to temper narrow nationalism and to soften brutal majoritarianism." (from Christopher Pearson's Foreword). Page 46: "Under our law and practice, it was open to the prime minister to advise the governor-general so that he might deliver it himself. Similar principles apply in relation to other ceremonies, for example a public building - or the Olympic games." Qexigator (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thanks for opening this up for an RfC. As discussed at length on the WP:Politics, the Queen of Australia is Head of State. Looking also at the 1956 games, no basis for declaring a dispute here. Travelmite (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support both. There certainly is a dispute about the Australian head of state, as attested by the Australian head of state dispute article. After extensive discussions, there has been no consensus to delete, merge or rename the article. Per MOS:UNDERLINK, articles with relevant information should always be linked. So the question is, is the identity of Australia's head of state relevant to who opened the 2000 Olympics? Or to put it another way, was Deane's opening of the Olympics relevant to the HoS dispute? It most certainly was. This is attested in multiple sources.[5][6][7][8] In fact, it is hard to find a reliable source that says Deane did, in fact, open the games as the Queen's representative. For a long time the Prime Minister John Howard was going to do it, and this course of action was approved by the IOC; there was a public outcry and Deane was subsequently invited to do it. Hence, although the italics are reasonable, it is appropriate to clarify them in a footnote. Even though the Queen might be Australia's Head of State, and Deane was her representative at the time, it is unclear that he was representing her when he opened the Games. StAnselm (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Interesting citations, perhaps, but beside the point. Once again, that comment evinces some sort of muddle, failure to follow the discussion, and conjectural synthesis. Just as the use of italics in itself was never a reason for a footnote, nor is the continuing use of "dispute" in the title of the AHOSD article, since the article explains that there was not a dispute in a way that would be relevant to this article, and the Talk page explains why "dispute" is nonetheless in the title. That article has no information relevant to this List, nor do the publications cited by SA above, beyond including a mention of the Olympic Games. The explanation Even though the Queen might be Australia's Head of State, and Deane was her representative at the time, it is unclear that he was representing her when he opened the Games may be in good faith, but it is unworthy of a serious attempt to determine the content of this article, given that the article's purpose is to list the games, not dump tangential references to internal political discusssion, of no significance to the Olympics (or the competitors), and actually resolved with the g-g opening the games as the Queen's representative, as in the case of other Commonwealth realms. If robotic AI (websearch) produces texts where "Olympics" and "dispute" appear in proximity EI (editorial intelligence) should be exercised to discern relevance to article content. Qexigator (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, use a footnote, or stop using weird style that doesn't mean anything to anyone but those imposing it. I guess that said it all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Question Maybe, SMcCandlish, it would help if you could explain what you mean by "weird style that doesn't mean anything to anyone". Also why, "use a footnote" for the 2000 line, given that, as explained above, none is needed? Qexigator (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I misunderstood the layout viewing this on a mobile device; I see that there is a footnote explaining the italics. I thought Deane was being inappropriately singled out for italic treatment. I'll re-comment below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support both: Few people but Australians are aware of the .au head-of-state disputes. Yes, I'm aware that many do not believe it's a legitimate dispute, but it's not WP's job to make up the readers' minds for them about such a matter. So, the link is of value. Given that it's a minority viewpoint, the italics should be retained, indicating that the majority view is that he was not a head of state opening the games.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Those remarks suggest that the commenter has also not noticed the comments above explaining that this is not a question of making readers' minds up, but avoiding dumping on the list irrelevant information, selected as it were at random out of a mass of other equally irrelevant information. Qexigator (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support footnote if it contains what's proposed above (which was my suggestion earlier). However, I do not support the footnote presently in the article and which keeps being returned by revert. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Noted.[9] Qexigator (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

What are you trying to draw my attention to there? The addition of a 'History' header doesn't seem relevant to what I wrote. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The diff is the added text not the header, as you must be able to see. Qexigator (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, well, yes, I suppose. But, that's only half of what I suggested and not the half that's really pertinent to this RfC: the note. We're still waiting for StAnselm to provide the sourced information about the supposed confusion surrounding who would or could open the 2000 Olympics. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

As above said, any such note is de trop: given that the article's purpose is to list the games, we should avoid dumping on it tangential references to internal political discusssion, of no significance to the Olympics (or the competitors), and actually resolved at the time with the g-g opening the games as the Queen's representative, as in Canada. This Rfc is straining agf. Qexigator (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I, of course, disagree. A minor note stating there was some confusion about who should open those games in particular and which points elsewhere for more detail isn't out of line, in my opinion. I don't particularly care if there's no note, but, I think making note of the aforementioned would be of some service to readers. If the information can be sourced, that is. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Only 6 individuals have participated in this Rfc & the Rfc opener has been mostly absent, accept to revert any attempts at removing his preferred footnote. I believe this Rfc should be extended via re-listing. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've requested closure for this Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remaining issues

Hello EdJohnston. The editor StAnselm has attempted to add a citation tag to the Deane entry. Is he correct in doing this, in light of your closing of the RFC? GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Noting the closure of the RfC, and given that, per the article, the IOC factsheet on the opening ceremony states: ... the duty of declaring the Games officially open falls to the head of state of the host country. Those who have performed this task are royalty and presidents, or their representatives, whether it was a vice-president, a member of the royal family, or a governor-general, and that Deane was g-g at the time, it is obvious that there can be no more need in his case for a citation saying that he was representing the Queen *at this event*[10] than in the case of any other g-g. Qexigator (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm, has now attempted to insert a verification note into the Dean entry. Is this alright? GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The link does not mention Deane at all, so clearly it's a failed verification. StAnselm (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

See here:[11] Qexigator (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think we need EdJohnston's advise, again. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously that reference would be an improvement on the current one since it actually mentions Deane, though I don't think it fully supports the entry, since it doesn't say Deane was representing the Queen. I think we simply disagree as to whether the citation has to say that, but it seems significant that no-one can find one that does say that explicitly (as opposed the implicit one you've suggested). StAnselm (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Noted, that, for reasons that we may surmise, this [12] is the latest of a series of dilatory reverts, obstructing a very obvious correction, as painstakingly explained above. Qexigator (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed Qexigator, he continues to do so here. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:StAnselm did another revert here. He states: "Did you actually click on the link? It doesn't mention Deane at all." The problem could be the link to the IOC's web site, which is not the best one to use. That link might be replaced with this link to australia.gov.au that clearly mentions Deane opening the games. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I would place that into the article. However, StAnselm has already warned me of edit-warring & I'm not certain of what his next move would be. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

At present, the article describes William Deane as "Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, representing Queen of Australia Elizabeth II". User:StAnselm, is there any part of that which you don't consider to be supported well enough by sources? Presumably you agree he was the Governor-General? Do you not think that Elizabeth II was the Queen of Australia at that time? See Monarchy of Australia. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct: it's the word representing which is not well enough supported by sources. Not everything a GG does is as representative of the Queen of course; there is no reliable source that explicitly says he opened the games as the Queen's representative (and plenty of evidence that at last some people thought he was not doing so). StAnselm (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you give a reference for anyone thinking he was *not* representing the Queen? And, if this is an important matter, is his opening speech on file anywhere? EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I can give a few references:

• "Howard said he would inform the Sydney Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) that they should ask the International Olympic Committee to invite Governor-General Sir William Deane to perform the opening ceremony as Australia's vice-regal head of state."
• "The international Olympics Charter specifies that this function should be performed by the head of state of the host country, but even conservatives in Australia appear reluctant to see the Queen play this role. In response, some have argued that the Queen is not in fact Australia's head of state, that it is the governor general who is and that he, therefore, should declare the games open."

StAnselm (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and Deane's speech was "I declare open the Games of Sydney, celebrating the XXVII Olympiad of the modern era." StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

So your opposition, is a continuation of promoting the "We don't know" argument, concerning the Australian head of state's identity? This was all settled a few months ago at WP:POLITICS, where in an Rfc, the community overwhelmingly went with identifying the Queen as head of state, after analyzing many sources. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No, EdJohnston asked me for references and he gave them. The argument is straightforward. It was John Howard's decision, and it doesn't seem like he thought the opener would be representing the Queen (of course, he wanted to open the Games himself, but realised it was an unpopular move). In any case, you have not been able to provide a source that says Deane was representing the Queen. StAnselm (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you not demanding similiar references for the other individuals who've represented Elizabeth II? Why are you concentrating on only Deane's entry? Why didn't you bring these concerns up before & during the footnote Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

As I think you know, I'm Australian, and so I'm (a) more interested in, and (b) more familiar with the Sydney Olympics situation. But yes - other references need to be changed. Footnote 51 talks about Michaëlle Jean opening the Vancouver Olympics, but makes no mention of her doing so on behalf of the Queen. (I'm not saying anything about whether such a source exists or not - but it should be in the article.) StAnselm (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The old "I know what's best" stance, I see. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

StAnselm, what exactly are you protesting about? Why aren't you making the same complaint about the other individuals who are representing Elizabeth II? GoodDay (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics, concerning the William Deane & the 2000 Summer Olympics. Hack & Basement12 seem to be as perplexed as the rest of us, about StAnselm's position. GoodDay (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Shall we remove StAnselm's verification tag?

I don't see any solid reasons being established for keeping StAnselm's tag(s) in the 2000 entry. Shall we remove them? A passer-by would see it & quickly ask "Verify what??". PS - Are we going to have to open an Rfc on this question, too? GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

My view is as previously shown in comments above, such as "Pointless reverts" [13] (...the latest of a series of dilatory reverts, obstructing a very obvious correction, as painstakingly explained ...) and "Unexplained revert"[14] (What is the basis for the supposition that in 2000 there wasn't that sort of clarity?)[15]. Qexigator (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

In a few hours. I'll be removing his PoV-pushing tag, again. IMHO, StAnselm is merely disrupting the article, to promote that the Queen isn't Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It may merely be a disabling preference to let there be disruption than to admit to having erred or strayed. Qexigator (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Appears that way. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Until StAnselm is satisfied? he'll just keep restoring his verification tag. What does EdJohnston think? GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added four references and removed the verification tags. Any further disruption from StAnselm should be treated as such - Basement12 (T.C) 13:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130117121331/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.olympic.org%2Fathens-2004-summer-olympics to http://www.olympic.org/athens-2004-summer-olympics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Future games, openers

I noticed that we have listed the game openers (i.e. heads of state or their representatives) of future Summer & Olympics games, on this list. I attempted this at the respected articles of those games & was reverted. Why can they be listed here & not on those articles? An example 2028 Summer Olympics. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Governor General of Australia or Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia?

I believe it should be "Governor General of Australia". --BonsMans1 (talk•contributions), 16:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

As long as we're consistent, go for it. PS - I think it was written out in full, to follow the patterns of the others. Example: "President of the Italian Republic", rather then "President of Italy". GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Future Olympic Game openers

I've notice 'at least' two editors having a little edit spat over whether or not to include future potential Olympic Game openers. Perhaps they should settle that dispute 'here'. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL, that's what i'm see. --Aleenf1 05:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kapieli2017: I've noticed that you ignore messages on your talkpage, so I'm pinging you to 'this' discussion. If you ignore the ping & reinstate your contested additions? Aleenf1 will have my support in reporting you for edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Is clearly this is not edit-warring, rather than violation of WP:NOT. Stubbornly revert without discussion, been blocked once and still repeating, clearly not here. --Aleenf1 06:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm thinking a report to WP:AN would be best. GoodDay (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

As you can see @Aleenf1:, the Kapiei2017's disruptive behaviour continues. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

As usual, you can report to WP:AN. No need to talk further, as he/she ignored --Aleenf1 02:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

First President of the Hellenic Republic

I just put in President's Adjutant of the Hellenic Air Force, Colonel Georgios Dritsakos to accompanied His Excellency the President of the Hellenic Republic Constantinos Stephanopoulos to proclaim open the Games of the XXVIII Olympiad, Athens 2004, the Olympic Homecoming of the modera era. 100.2.149.243 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)