Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Overhaul

General

Concerns and Controversies - Something to keep in mind

In order for something to be labeled a concern and controversy there needs to be more evidence than it simply existing. Reliable sources need to be shown actually complaining about the issue and not just reporting it. I haven't had time to go through most of the sources to evaluate this, but in order to satisfy WP:OR and WP:NPOV this is a requirement. If a reliable source isn't actually complaining about it, it becomes original research in that an editor is putting forth the theory that event X was a concern or controversy without a reliable source making that judgment first.--Crossmr (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Got a question. If the source thats being used contained errors or misleading information, are we allowed to point it out or do we have to wait for another source and quote it? ie. Associated Press tested the air in Beijing using a 2 hr sample method and placed it against a 24hr sample method benchmark. is it ok for us to point it out? Shaoquan (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You can state that that is how they performed the test, but if there is any kind of focus put on it or language used to try and create a bias with that information, a reliable source would first have to do that (another media outlet, noted expert in the field, etc)--Crossmr (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring and cleanup

I just undertook another major cleanup of the article today. I restructured it by creating two major sections into 'organising concerns' and 'participants' issues', into which I moved related sub-sections. I also renamed a few sections, and severely trimmed back the section on hospitality and broadcasting issues, removing a lot of stuff which was directly copied verbatim from the source articles (although not all my edit summaries state which elements were copyvio), but which was not terribly encyclopaedic. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I managed to get the air quality table into pretty good shape today. The article is progressing quite well.   — C M B J   04:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
yes and by 2013, this article will be in good shape. i hope the london olympic does just as well! btw, do you think the political issues that took place prior to the games should appear as section 1? and then followed by issues relating to BOCOG organizing the games. and then events happing during the games. and finally whatever stuff happened after. for issues that stretched across the length of the game, we place it at the earliest time when it started. ie air pollution would be near the top after tibet and torch replay. Shaoquan (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Archival

In an attempt to increase efficiency for everyone actively contributing to this article, I have archived large portions of this talk page. The {{resolved}} tag may be used on each of the remaining sections when discussion is completed.   — C M B J   06:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Organization and broadcasting issues

Fireworks

Right, here we go with an analysis of the top 10 GNews hits:

Pertinent quote: "a number of state owned Chinese media outlets are reporting that near the start of the ceremony a 55 second edited sequence was inserted into the live TV coverage."
Quote: "Now Cai Guo-Qiang has issued a statement on the fake fireworks "controversy." Does this mean that the Students for a Free Tibet protestors were fake "... Just a blog - in other words, fails WP:RS.
Pertinent quote: "The incidents add to the controversies in an Olympiad that China says is its coming-out party on the world stage. Foreign media have prodded Olympic organizers about the haze sitting over the capital and restrictions on accessing Web sites related to Tibet and China's human rights record." -note that it is referred to as an "incident"
Pertinent quote: "there was growing anger in Beijing at the revelation that she lip-synched the rousing patriotic anthem, while the real singer was a little girl whose looks just didn't make the grade." On the fireworks, it said ""Seeing how it worked out, it was still a bit too bright compared to the actual fireworks. But most of the audience thought it was filmed live - so that was mission accomplished," said Mr Gao".
Pertinent quote: "Chinese newspaper 'Beijing Shibao' reported that some of the fantastic fireworks images above the stadium were not actually live, according to an employee" ... no controversy, and not presented as such
Pertinent quote: "Oh, there were controversies to be sure: Fake fireworks, lip-synching children, age fabrication and the ever-present issue of Chinese censorship were all" Just a blog (and we know how direct people tend to be when writing blogs) - in other words fails WP:RS.
Pertinent quote: "If in doubt, you should ask Bill Gates, or the Chinese Olympic Commitee in charge of Fake Fireworks, or the US government, or a certain presidential ..." Is a trivial mention in this swipe at Microsoft. No "controversy" here as far as the fireworks are concerned.

page gone

Pertinent quote: "let’s not forget some honest if not necessarily beautiful Olympic moments. There was the intense curiosity about the age of some of the Chinese athletes, the lip-synch singing by a pretty girl instead of the actual singer, the fake fireworks edited into the opening ceremonies, and that red-hot (nationalist?) competition between China and the U.S. concerning most gold medals vs. most overall medals won" that's all it says....
Quote:"... of the massive outpour of poor quality, poisoned and forged consumer goods the People’s Republic of China has a new export article ‘fake fireworks’ ... The Epoch Times is an anti-CCP propaganda sheet run by Falun Gong, and not a reliable source

It will be impossible to be exhaustive about it, but I think it is pretty representative of the population of articles out there, bearing in mind it is a news search about "fake fireworks" (and not "lip synch"), already a slightly pejorative term. There is one article which I believe puts it into good relative weight - an example of british perspective and neutrality: IMHO, this article in The Telegraph says it all, and weights the two accordingly - one paragraph in sixteen allocated to this issue. Now let's get some more opinions in. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

bloody... well, that is some good work. I read most of those before and got the same impression you have come to. Nothing points to controversy. Unless I am miss reading, look pretty cut and dry. --DanteAgusta (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • On the richter scale, it seems to come in at about "bit of a stir" (1), and certainly below "concern" (3), "controversy" (5), or "scandal" (7+). Ohconfucius (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this source was missed. Badagnani (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • yes, but it said: "[There were accusations that] viewers were misled by the use of computer-generated fireworks during a sweeping helicopter shot leading up to the Bird's Nest. Organizers note the fireworks were there, but the footage was created in advance due to the danger of shooting live from a nearby helicopter. NBC Response: An NBC Sports spokesperson says U.S. viewers were informed of the manipulation.", so as there was no misleading, where's the controversy?
  • Quote: "The media's coverage of the Olympics has been about nitpicking as much as possible the ways in which China has faltered as a host country. Beginning right after the opening ceremony with articles condemning fake fireworks and lip-syncing children, the press seems to be promoting the image of China as a swindler with a hidden agenda, fooling the world by putting on the mask of an upstanding society." from the Daily Californian - it was no controversy, just sour grapes, and an American journal dared to say so! I suspect a number of the more hostile US journalists actually wrote what the audience at home expected them to write about, the human rights, the oppression, the all that was wrong about China, so it's a pretty one-sided picture. [re-edited] Ohconfucius (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

NBC broadcasting

  • I'm going to wipe this item, as the only 'controversy' seemed to be their decision to time-shift almost everything but the swimming and basketball, and I think it was more or less decided it wasn't a big deal as far as the games themselves were concerned. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Events controversy

Doping

I nominate this section to be removed because according to the IOC comments, actual reports of doping incidents has not been significant in comparison to 2004 and 2000. In addition, none of the high profile atheletes (Phelps and Bolt) has been caught with doping. While there remains a possibility that there could be drugs that go undetected, wikipedia is not future wikia. The small number of atheletes that were caught doping has been addressed in the medal table article which explained their disqualification. Since this is not a controversy, it can be removed. (19:30, 26 August 2008 64.229.239.26 (Talk))

Sounds fine, since there is another article on Doping at the Olympic Games. I think the reference to that article should be retained though. (Also, just a thought... this is apparently the first Olympic Games where horses have been tested and disqualified for drugs offences of sorts. Is that a controversy?) Tsuchan (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The concerns cited by BBC should receive inclusion, at least somewhere in the article.   — C M B J   09:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Protests

Chinese counter-protests

I nominate the section on Chinese Counter-Protests to be removed from the article since they do not sufficiently relate the the Olympic Games. Nor were they held due to the Games. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I almost agree. Most of the section strays too far from the Olympics. A poll is "quoted" but there is no citation. Precious little of the latter half (or more) of the paragraph is even referred to in the Washington Post article which it cites: "For Chinese, a Shift in Mood, From Hospitable to Hostile". And the word "nationalism" to describe the reaction of Chinese people to a sudden and prolonged manifestation of global anti-Chinese sentiment is pejorative.
But for me, the solution is to restructure the whole section called "Protests". It's an inappropriate name for a start, because there are effectively several sections about protests in this topic. For this particular section, I think I'd rename it to "Olympic Torch Relay", and include the following points (as an illustrative outline only):
  • On its trip around the world, the torch relay passed through xx countries, and met with protests in yy countries, from various groups, in particular representing
  • Tibetan independence (one sentence summary + references)
  • Opposition to China's human rights record (one sentence summary + references)
  • There were calls for a boycott of the Beijing Olymmpic Games and Western leaders found themselves obliged to state their position.
  • Perhaps bullet-examples of how key leaders responded
  • Chinese people's responses, based on a feeling that they had been unfairly vilified, included:
  • Supporting the torch relay in its passage through countries
  • Protests in major Chinese cities, focusing on iconic foreign-owned firms
  • An internet Instant Messenger campaign, prefixing usernames with [Love-Heart]China
Tsuchan (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Although most of the content in the "Protests" section's introduction could be beneficially pruned as off-topic, a possible alternative treatment of this section might be to entitle it "Pre-Games Controversies". For me, and on the basis of relevance, the only other candidates for preservation are:
  • British Olympic Association's "gagging clause" (But I don't favour it, for exactly the reasons detailed in the same paragraph, which removed the controversy. (Anyway, the referenced Guardian article isn't found. If the section is to be kept, consider referencing this Associated Free Press Article instead [1].
  • Steven Spielberg quitting his job as artistic advisor over Chinese inaction over Sudan. (I don't favour this either. The argument for keeping it is that media coverage and Spielberg's profile did qualify it as a controversy; the argument against is that he was grandstanding and pretty much a one-man protest.)
Tsuchan (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
all those counter actions by Chinese people are worthy of mention in articles that pertain to their protest. ie. Tibet Riot or Torch Relay. I understand your logic of if A relates to B and B relate to C, thus A relate to C. But this drags the discussion way too off topic. If we have to mention it, we can just add one line saying "in response, some Chinese activists have launched counter-protest to voice their cause." and link it to an article. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I see your argument for dealing with it in a single line, although not so much for 'C' being off-topic. Rationale: this is the topic about Controversies over the 2008 Olympics. So if the Torch Relay is part of the Olympics (I personally think it is), the controversy about the Torch Relay itself was probably greater than the sum total of all the other controversies. And in that case, it would seem justifiable to devote a little depth; and inequitable to paint a picture in which one might say China got metaphorically duffed-up by the protests of others, but had no response. I think that if we do put a single line about the Chinese response, we should probably just put a single line about the Torch relay protests themselves; because I see the relationship not so much as a straight line A-B-C as you describe, but more as a 'T'-shape
B--C
   |
  A
Tsuchan (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Environmental and Health Issues

As there is now a flag on this section in mainspace to say "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Environment of China", it seemed appropriate to make a discussion section to agree a consensus. Tsuchan (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I put the tag up because I felt that these, although impact the games, are perennial problems which should be dealt with in the Environment of China article. That is not to say it is totally unrelated and needs to be completely removed. The government spent a lot of effort to clean up before the games, and the statistics cited directly relate to the games. Note that the relevant section in the 'Environment' article is only 2 paragraphs, so wherever this data came from, a lot more could be done to improve that article. For thie article, perhaps we can mention in small detail the background of the various polluting issue, but focus on the clean-up efforts for even greater pertinence. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you stating that you believe that issues of air quality were not a concern that was widely reported before and during the 2008 Summer Olympics? Badagnani (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
They may or may not have been a concern in the past, and I am not making a judgement on this one way or another. All I am saying was that the Environment of China article has a long way to go, compared to the effort people have put in to populate this article. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not think this should merge with Enviro China article since it pertain more to the Olympic only and not environment in China in general. Although this article is also very large, it may be appropriate to make these Health and Environment Concerns of the 2008 Olympic Games an article by itself. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Air Pollution Concerns

  • Comment - If "concerns" and "controversies" were in separate topics, I think the sections on Air Pollution Concerns would be completely valid. It would probably be useful for the "Environment of China" topic to link to the "Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics" topic. The concerns about the air quality were real and serious. I think (without having checked the citations) they are well documented, proportionate and relevant. The chart of Beijing Air Quality during the Olympics is informative, it has research merit, and it's difficult to imagine how it could fit outside of a topic specifically about the 2008 Summer Olympics. Tsuchan (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I tend to agree and I think the merge recommendation is a little on the ridiculous side. Air pollution was probably raised by just about every journalist at some point when they were writing about the games.--Crossmr (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. It should not be merged with Enviro China. Pollution deserve its own section in the controversy article. There was alot of reports and concerns about it before the games. Many teams took some serious actions to avoid it. Definitely deserve Wiki:DUE influence. Shaoquan (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
So what's the feeling then? Should divide the components of this topic into two topics: "Concerns" and "Controversies"? Or should "Pollution at the 2008 Olympic Games" be a topic of its own? Or should we labour on with this double-rolled topic? In any event, it's not a controversy, because every agreed it was a serous problem. Tsuchan (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If we continue to keep concerns, then keep it here. Before splitting the page though, we need to go through the content with a fine tooth comb and ensure everything truly is a concern or controversy per my comments above about OR and NPOV before making that kind of decision.--Crossmr (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It is definitely a concern. I just finished expanding the air pollution sections. The section now covers the period during and after the games. I based on my info from Xinhua though... but otherwise western media pretty much dropped the coverage and I couldnt find much on it. Also, I personally calculated the average value of API during the games based on the table there. does this count as "Primary research"? or is it ok since the base data is corroborated and averaging is just presentation of data rather than "research"?? Shaoquan (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Shaoquan... I can't fully study your article tonight, because my eyes are no longer focusing. But about the calculation, it's not the primary research that I worry about so much as wanting to check your maths. But I can't find how you got the figure of 48.71. Could you give more details about which figures on which page you averaged please? In any case, I think you could adopt a simpler approach along the lines
"Throughout the period of the Olympic Games, a Chinese Environmental Protection official said the Air Pollution Index (API) averaged 56, against 81 for the same period in 2007. (However both these values correspond to an Air Pollution grading of 'High', which holds the possibility of chronic health effects in the case of persistent exposure)"
A few other small suggestions at the moment... you API link, links to "Application Program Interface". I think you want to link it to Air Pollution Index. I also recommend unifying the article in past tense (since it's in the past) and I suggest omitting the translation from RMB into USD, because it's only accurate at the time you're writing: today 140bn RMB is US$20.5bn, but on this date last year it was US$18.5bn. Hope this helps. Tsuchan (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
lawlz, ya i m not pro when it comes to editing wiki pages. the article i quoted was dated aug 19. the average i put there is for the whole game which includes up to 24th. technically speaking it is "wrong", since both the officials and i think by world standards, they use how many days are good, bad, very bad, etc... i will rephrase it later. Shaoquan (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
ok, fixed. It sounds more clumsy now, but I must stressed that using the average over many days does not seem to be the intended use by the WHO. Shaoquan (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The PM10 figures reported by AP and BBC is misleading. They took their measurments during day time and matched it against the WHO guideline of 50. But WHO specify that the samples has to be taken over a period of 24 hrs and then averaged. The BBC source acknowledged this. I also checked gov of Canada, they also use 24hr averages. AP stated they used a 2hr average. Should someone add a foot note to that table? Of course, I am ASSUMING pollution to be higher during day due to human activities and thus BBC and AP royally screwed us in the rear. Shaoquan (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I just removed my earlier "fact" which was errored. I've also removed a line on air pollution that compares Beijing to NYC because it gave the false impression that Beijing had better air quality than NYC. the data from AP is not sufficient to make such judgement. Shaoquan (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Marine Environment in Qingdao

  • Comment - If "concerns" and "controversies" were in separate topics, I think the section on Marine Environment in Qingdao would be valid. The algae really did threaten to prevent sailing events from taking place, and the section provides a good summary. I only suggest this title is changed: it's not about the Marine Environment in general, but the "Threat to Sailing Events from Algae Bloom [in the Qingdao Olympic Sailing Center"]. Tsuchan (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The proposed heading seems a bit verbose, but could go either way. Some of these proposals (as this one) seem like fairly minor issues, in contrast to the repeated excising of 8 or 10 entire paragraphs, without prior discussion nor consensus, that has occurred over the past week or so. Badagnani (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then I will change the title to the abbreviated title proposed, and change the article to past tense. Tsuchan (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Weather Forecasting

Comment - I suggest the section on Weather Forecasting should be removed. It talks about using silver iodide to induce rain. Justification for removal: it is neither a 'controversy' nor a 'concern'. The use of silver iodide to induce rain in this way is not a novel idea as the section's link to the Wikipedia's article on the subject testifies. Tsuchan (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a serious concern because it showed the extreme lengths this Olympic host city felt it needed to go to "cleanse" the habitual pollution from its air by shooting chemicals into the sky to artificially cause it to rain. A marathon champion even chose not to participate in that event for the very reason of this notorious air pollution. It was a highly unusual situation that was not encountered in any former Summer Games. Badagnani (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
as you said, its air pollution, not weather forecasting. if it is already addressed in the pollution section, it need not to be repeated. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is silver iodide mentioned in the pollution section? I've looked through it several times, but cannot find it. Badagnani (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
unless you guys just removed it, but in prior verions it metioned how the gov launched thousands of rockets to induce rain. Those rockets contain silver iodide. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It's inappropriate to ask for an entire section to be removed from the article, claiming that the same information is already contained in another section, when it is not. Badagnani (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
To clarify for my own part, I said there was a link to a separate topic about Silver Iodide. That topic speaks of its use to induce rain. I find no justification for any part of the Weather Forecasting section to be anywhere in this topic. Tsuchan (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree this section should be removed as Tsuchan has said -> Weather Forecast is not a controversy. Pollution is, and has beenseperately covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems that all concerns have been satisfactorily addressed: I'll affect the removal later today if there are no dissenters. Tsuchan (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It was stated just above that the justification for removal (that the topic was already covered in another section) had no basis, and thus the removal of the entire section is still objected to. Badagnani (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this section should be removed. Why Weather Forecasting is even been put on this page is unknown.--DanteAgusta (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I answered your concern, Badagnani, clarifying twice that silver iodide is covered in its own topic, not in a different place in the page. If there no other objection further to my clarification, and if there is no reasoned argument forthcoming as to why any content in a section on Weather Forecast has a place on a page about "Concerns and Controversies about the 2008 Summer Olympics", it seems we have consensus. I'll wait until later in the day to make sure that's the case. Tsuchan (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It's generic, and what's more, is not a concern nor controversy. It should go. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that section seemed like a non-sequitur to me. =Axlq 14:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Removing silver iodide entirely from the article does not improve the article. It was a concern because it showed the extreme lengths this Olympic host city felt it needed to go to "cleanse" the habitual pollution from its air by shooting chemicals into the sky to artificially cause it to rain. A marathon champion even chose not to participate in that event for the very reason of this notorious air pollution. It was a highly unusual situation that was not encountered in any former Summer Games. Badagnani (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
May be we can add a line in the Pollution section about the silver iodide usage, but I think Weather Forecast can be removed. The athelete did not withdraw because he fear its gonna rain or shine. He withdrew because he thought the smog was gonna kill his lungs. That would be an issue with Pollution not Weather Forecast. Shaoquan (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It's useful to have had plenty of feedback about this section. I think it comes down to this: there is a strong view that the Weather Forecasting section is not a controversy or a concern to the 2008 Summer Olympics. Bagadnani has not disagreed about this, but wants to set on record that using Silver Iodide to make it rain is unusual, which is noted. He also mentions a marathon champion who did not compete because of poor air quality; but since there is no suggestion that the silver iodide deteriorated the air quality, the marathon runner isn't a candidate for this section anyway. On that basis, I will remove the Weather Forecasting section per the consensus. Tsuchan (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Tsuchan (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is absolutely not consensus that the proposed use of silver iodide should be blanked entirely from the article; please do not assert so, then blank such section against consensus, as you have just done, as this does not show good faith. Removing all mention of silver iodide does not improve the article. The proposed use of silver iodide was a significant part of the concern over air pollution in China, because it showed the extreme lengths this Olympic host city felt it needed to go to "cleanse" the habitual pollution from its air by shooting chemicals into the sky to artificially cause it to rain. A marathon champion even chose not to participate in that event for the very reason of this notorious air pollution. It was a highly unusual situation that was not encountered in any former Summer Games. At least one editor had proposed moving the information about the silver iodide (making two editors who believed that it should continue to be mentioned in this article); this suggestion was ignored, and all mention of silver iodide was blanked. Badagnani (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll be certain that the cloud seeding gets thorough coverage in the section about air pollution.   — C M B J   21:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - It would be most sensible and logical for you to remove the inaccurate "resolved" symbol pending your doing that, then, thanks. I'm also not sufficiently convinced that concerns regarding the effects on the Games of rain or lack thereof, dust storms, etc., were not an item of concern prior to the Olympics, enough to blank this section from the article entirely. Badagnani (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
As you wish, the {{resolved}} tag has been removed until cloud seeding and rain dispersal rockets are integrated into other sections.   — C M B J   22:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I really havent seen much "complaint" about the Weather Forcast part, but firing over 1000 rockets into the air is a significant operation and there has been reports about it. IMO it is best to put this with the Opening Ceremony since this is part of preparing/presenting the games. Shaoquan (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ticket sales and accommodations

I'm starting a talk section on "Ticket sales and accommodations" for discussion leading a consensus about pruning it. Tsuchan (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hospitality price hikes and vacancies

  • Comment - I suggest the first paragraph, starting "Like previous Games, hotels and airlines have hiked their prices", should be removed. Justification: the first three words say it: "Like previous Games...", this is not a concern or a controversy: it's usual. For the same reason, I suggest the title to the section should be changed to reflect the actual subject " Tsuchan (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - If we remove "Price Hikes" because it isn't a controversy, I guess we need a careful think about what's left. If it's "Foreign visitors lower than expected" then this may be considered a news article (in which case it should be dropped). Maybe we need to look at the article's reasons for why visitor numbers are lower than expected. One suggestion seems to be that the price was set to high: supply and demand operational - nothing uniquely relates that to the Olympics Institution or Organisation. Another suggestion is that it was because of the tightening of visa rules. I know that the visa rules were tightened, because I myself applied for a visa myself on the first day new rules were introduced. But as for this being the reason, the citation is purely anecdotal, hearsay... there's nothing to support an encyclopaedic reference there. Actually we could all offer our speculation... there's a global economic slowdown and likely recession, fuel prices are hiking travel costs, potential overseas visitors couldn't source tickets. My own view is that this entire section either needs to be redrafted giving real evidence and references worthy of an encyclopaedia, or else dropping because it's a news article or meta news article. Tsuchan (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I see absolutely nothing of concern or controversial about these parts. Hotels, restaurants all function by the laws of supply and demand, so it would be utterly far-fetched to write about it as if it was a problem. People may complain about the prices, but it is usually to no avail - you bite the bullet if you really want something. Touting and other speculators are a specific issue, and may be relevant depending on the consequences. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The tightening of visa requirements has been presented in major newspapers[2] as a reason for poor business in Beijing. Badagnani (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
They report it because they are newspapers making comment. The problem is about *how* it's been presented in major newspapers. The citation you have given contains one sentence about visas "But many businesspeople think that because of stricter visa rules and other hassles..." and the important word in that extract is "think". The newspapers and the hoteliers are only giving views. If they had commissioned a reputable research company to carry out a scientific poll, that would be a different matter. Tsuchan (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm calling it a day for today. I'll start on cleaning this section up with the said focus on visas probably tomorrow, conditional upon finding sufficient sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Badagnani here. Raising of prices and tightening visa requirements is a mild controversy, and efforts should be taken to find better references. =Axlq 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
In order for this to be a controversy, we need someone to complain about it. So far the reports has shown what the prices are and that expected demand has not met, but has anyone complained that its too expensive? Or did the people complain about the visa causing them a headache? The way the article is right now, it leaves people the assumption that maybe the controversy is complain about over pricing, but we dont have any facts to nail it. Or is the Chinse business owners complaining about loosing money or did they even lose money? Failing to meet sales target dose not constitute a controversy. Shaoquan (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, certainly the news articles (have you looked for and read them?) show complaints regarding these issues. Badagnani (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
um... i still havnt read the ref's but if i had to guess what the concern/controversy is, i will have to guess its the visa requirement? no where in the article said a foreigner complained about pricing, so it cant be that. and obviously the businesses will not complain about themselves if they are the one that jacked the price in the first place. so pricing matters can be removed or reworked cause its NOT a concern/controversy given the way its being presented right now. and the airline has not complained so i donno why its there. Badagnani, its not my duty to look for the controversies, its the author's duty to show it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaoquan (talk • contribs) 08:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I reworked the section and called it tourist volume short fall because the original title is misleading. it makes people think its the over pricing of the hotels that caused the problem when that was not the case supported by links. most of the media seems to blame the visa requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaoquan (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Line Chaos

  • Comment - Is line chaos a concern or a controversy? I'm ambivalent about this section. I am deeply moved by the Washington Post article, but it seems to have been a one-off event, limited in scale. I feel that this section is really just a news story. I vote for it being downgraded to a bullet point or sentence, under a general title of "Organisation of the Olympics". Tsuchan (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The HK press were complaining about the police action as being against press freedom, so I've copyedited it and merged it under media censorship. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
But is the matter of significant influence? I mean, we can not possibly include in this page every incident where a reporter or visitor has been insulted (purposely or not) during the games. I think the other section on censorship has already noted the point that in general censorship during the Games still applies to reporting that do not pertain to coverage of the Games. Unless this story proves something new or significant, its just gonna be a laundry list of reporters getting manhandled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You may be right. I just put it in a 'more relevant' place, but that does not imply I will vote not to delete it at a later stage, so as to avoid giving undue weight. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • For the time being, I expanded the line chaos story a little bit. The previous version only mentioned that the reporters are the one being pushed around. I've added what the Chinese press said about the incident as well as the interpretation by SCMP, whos reporter was detained. I think this gave a fair view of the story from all sides. Shaoquan (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive Internet Fraud

  • Comment - I have a problem with the adjective "Massive", used in the title. It's pejorative and undefined. I think "Internet ticket fraud" is an accurate, dispassionate title. I believe the subject itself has to be included, but the sub-section needs a "massive" (^_-) overhaul. The last sentence makes that point: "Events have subsequently shown that international Olympic and law enforcement authorities did not, or were unable to, stop it from happening." [no citation] Tsuchan (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have now cleaned it up somewhat, and retitled it. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the sentence about "authorities did not, or were unable to, stop it from happening." also sounds somewhat offensive. "did not" imply that the authorities are endorsing or purposely ignoring the actions. This is not based on facts but rather personal opinion. In fact the Chinese version of the 2008 Olympic Games page showed (with reference) that the several sites were shutdown as a result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.239.26 (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Strange, I thought I had removed it. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Empty Seats

  • Comment: - For me, this section deserves inclusion. I have some concern that this is a circumstance that happens at all major sporting events these days (corporate entertainment tickets go unused). But on the other hand, I thought the scale of empty seats was astonishing. I think this sub-section would be much improved if a source could be found to quantify the scale of empty seats - either to record a benchmark, or to give a comparison to past Olympics. Tsuchan (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Just my own thoughtsItalic text
Is anyone going to cover NBC's constant politicizing of their coverage; especially during the opening and closing ceremonies and the first few days of athletic display? NBC's coverage was more interested in manufacturing political-based issues than to focus on the artistic mastery of both the entertainment of ceremonies and the athletic display.
American's were early-on country to challenge gymnast ages.
Why such an issue over Tibet and China's renegade province of Taiwan such an international issue, yet the United States is not equally an issue? The majority population in Hawaii and Alaska both want to break from the union, no room to point fingers at Tibet
Tibet's "struggle" is not a view shared by all in the same light, in China or abroad. Internationally there are just as many who want to see Tibet free as there are those who want to see the rebel's uprising put down.
Mass displacement? And would someone like to point out to a single, first time host city, who did not move, relocate, disperse, or "displace" a large number of people? China has a larger population than any other country. People can look at quantity all they want, but that's a jaded result. A neutral counter-point is %, what percent of people were effected?! The number is far different when taken from that point of view: approximately ≤3% (if you believe the CHRE) of the city's population was effected. that number is equal and in many cases LESS than the number of people moved, relocated, and/or evicted in other games. If you believe China's numbers, then less people, less than 3 hundredths of a percent, were moved for this, the least ever.
Air Pollution in Beijing is no worse than a dozen American cities on an equally bad day. LA, Chicago, Northern New Jersey, Atlanta, .... The shifting temperatures from day to night, extreme heat, and cold rain, were listed by many athletes, including Americans, as being far more demanding and taxing than air quality.
The "Beijing 2008 Ticketing" fraud had nothing to do with China; and therefor should be deleted from this article or spun-off and expanded elsewhere.
As for "No Re-entry, such is common on many if not most events. Being such, it's not an Olympic controversy but rather an almost-every-event-in-modern-memory controversy.

Lostinlodos (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hu Jia

Blurry 'ell, what should I be dooing now? posting a comment and obtaining User:Badagnani's approval each time I remove something? He should really get real. He didn't even give me the time to justify my edit and edit summary with a comment before it was swiftly removed.

The section heading has already been changed. This section is not and should not just be about Hu Jia. Hu may be only one of a few activists who were rounded up by the authorities, and do not believe this article should be focusing on him. It's not as if there are no details on Hu Jia already in the article. I would have no objection, a priori, to listing the names of some other dissidents arrested, but this reinstated part clearly amounts to a coatrack. Editors may need to be reminded that just because something is sourced, it may still not be directly relevant. Perhaps I left too mucg about Hu Jia, thus inviting the deleted paragraph's reinsertion. I have once again removed the offending paragraph for now. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The text seems quite relevant to this article. Also, if you would kindly moderate your tone, it would be very good. Badagnani (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I see, his comparison to the 1936 Summer Olympics is clearly relevant, but how Hu returned home is not entirely relevant. Anyhow, "ordeal" is in breach of WP:NPOV. Anyway, I did not remove "a large area of text". It was only a sentence. And have you looked at the source? - its Pravda- not exactly the most reliable. Are you going to start accusing me of "blanking" again? Get real! Ohconfucius (talk) 02:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I would not see a problem with this if it was not for the source. If another could be found. Then that would be good. --DanteAgusta (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have put back a simple, factual sentence about his release. I think we can use Pravda to support this much, but think it should go no further. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have gone back to look at the source again. It is entirely irrelevant as it dates from March 2006, probably relates to another arrest. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Er, that is a good point. lol. Don't think that source is gonna work. --DanteAgusta (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I also removed the preceding sentence about his wife being under house arrest after his arrest. It may have been the case, but the source is a Time article from 2007 (dated by the url) which talks presumably about a previous arrest. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Did the people who put those up look at the dates? I mean, I missed it when reading it. But if I was going to put up a source, I would be checking everything I can. --DanteAgusta (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Certainly a pitfall which can arise when taking current information from an 'overview' article, I guess that's why someone put the {{citecheck}} tag on the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sea of Japan naming dispute

In the closing ceremony, the name Sea of Japan was marked on the map of East Asia. Korea has sent messages of disappointment to the People's Republic of China. Should this be included in the discussion? Mydoctor93 (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A few issues

I have a few issues with the following sections:

  • Correct English and etiquette - how is this controversial?
  • Racism - a controversy yes but barely related to the Games themselves and a trivial news item more suited to Wikinews.
  • State training and expectations of Chinese athletes - while this is controversial, a lot of content strays from being relevant to the 2008 Olympics and talks about athletics training in China in general.
  • Alleged crackdown on minorities - although referenced, it's pure speculation.

Does anyone else have any comments on this? --Joowwww (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

1. English etiquette and racism were not criticisms but it were concerns
2. it is a controversy because of the atheletes were said (by the western media) to be mistreated (ie not allowed to return home, or over stressed)
3. crackdowns, although partially speculated, remains at least a concern. likewise ppl speculate USA invaded iraq for oil. there is no concrete proof, but it still is a concern/criticism. Shaoquan (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I would refer you to comments in /Archive_1, where more than one editor expressed the view that perhaps 90% of the stuff which inhabited this article [at the time] were extremely contrived, or were not relevant to the olympics. I am not in total disagreement with that view (or indeed yours), although you will find some quarters very protective of every paragraph in the article. Activity on this article has peaked, and many seem to have lost interest since the games closed. I have pruned it back somewhat, and refocussed it. Taking some "strategic distance", I aim to get back to this in a few weeks, to see what further cleaning up can be done. As your head seems to be clear, why don't you start having a go in the meantime! Ohconfucius (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Overhaul (Act II)

Let's kick things off by starting from the bottom up. The first target will be the Tourism and hospitality issues section.   — C M B J   02:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

New Medal tally section

A user recently added that section, discussing the US's way of tallying medals to make it look as if it had "won" the Olympics (if such a thing even means anything). If the section looks short, it's because I already took out a bunch of OR. Anyway, I am proposing removing this section entirely, as the sources given in that very section do not suggest that it is a "controversy" at all.

Of the four sources given...the first source is a blogger, so it's not very useful. The second source says that the US has been tallying medals in this way for the past several Olympics, and the source doesn't really criticize that practice (so no controversy there). The third source is actually talking about how just about every group has thought up some bogus way to tally their medals, so again it doesn't prove anything about there having been a US-related controversy. The fourth source is a primary source (just the IOC's regulations about medals), so it doesn't contribute anything to perception of there having been a controversy.

If there are no objections within the next few hours, I'm going to delete that section. (I'm almost a little sad to do it, after the 10 minutes or so I spent cleaning it up and fixing the refs...just goes to show me I should look at the content first, before I deal with cleaning up the form...oh well.) —Politizer talk/contribs 03:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I got impatient (as usual) and went ahead and removed it now. It can still be found in the article history if someone wants to restore it. (Klutzulmaniack, if you need instructions for how to do that, leave me a message and I'll show you how, but make not do restore the content until after a consensus has been reached here.) —Politizer talk/contribs 03:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It's old hat. We covered the ground before and agreed that it was not a controversy, nor about the olympics itself. There is no 'commonly agreed way' of showing the medal tally, so the Americans can show the table howsoever they want. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. The user who added the medal tally section (I believe the same user who added it the last time you covered that ground) has just flipped out on me (apparently I'm "protecting" the American capitalist dogs from his beacon of truth), so there's a possibility he'll try adding it again, just a heads-up. If I see it pop up again, especially if it's in the same wording as before, I won't hesitate to remove it. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Major cleanup

I think now that most of the urgent cleanup (from the tags) is close to being done, it's time to start thinking of doing a big sweep to reorganize this article. Some sections have grown out of control and include information or entire paragraphs that would probably be better off in a different section, and some other sections are so small they might be able to be merged into something else. There is also some redundancy, while maybe not bad, we should definitely at least take a look at (i.e., one section on boycotts by major political figures, and another section on boycotts related specifically to Tibet). I propose that we go through each section, one by one, and think carefully about every statement or paragraph in that section and where it belongs, and also do some rewriting within sections to keep them more cohesive. If you want to split up the work or take dibs on a particular section, here is the place to do it. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 14:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

We could also throw in some images to break up what is currently an intimidating wall of text. There's no point dealing with that, though, until the article itself has been reorganized (as proposed above) since merging or deleting sections and moving around large amounts of text will undoubtedly affect where we want to put the image. So in the meantime, here are just a few things I came across that I figured we could put in once we get to that point:

That's all I've got now; I haven't found images yet for anything in the Human Rights section. Anyway, if you have thoughts about any of these images, or images that might be better in one of those particular sections, please comment directly under that bullet point. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 14:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • On the whole, I agree with the idea of the images. Let's keep looking for an image for the women's gymnastic team, and I think we now have an appropriate number of images overall. I would say that perhaps Spielberg's image is the only "odd one out" - he wasn't there in Beijing ! Ohconfucius (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see you're here working on the article again. I'll try to pitch in over the next week or so.   — C M B J   04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been mostly at 2008 Chinese milk scandal. Do come around, I'd appreciate your input. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm still around, and I have been checking up on this article every few days. I'll do some more cleanup as soon as I can.   — C M B J   09:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Mistranslation Taiwan's Olympic name

During the lead up to the competition, Taiwan had to complain that it's official Olympic name "Chinese Taipei" was being mistranslated into Chinese in China as "Taipei, China". It was straitened out before the games with China agreeing that China's media would use the correct translation. Worth mentioning? Readin (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

all date formats to dmy

Kindly note the use of ISO 8601 date format is not encouraged in running text and is only endorsed for use in tables where it may be necessary to sort. All of the in-line dates used in this article already use the dmy (international) format, as do many date instances in the reference section. Furthermore, since the deprecation of autoformatting, there is the need to harmonise date formats withing articles, in compliance with WP:MOSNUM. The instances of ISO dates within the {{tl:cite news}} and other similar templates exist due to the now deprecated autoformatting/linking function within those templates. Again, as with the rejection of any form of autoformatting by the community (see WP:DATEPOLL), I suspect use of the {{date}} template, as suggested by the user who reverted me, would add to the complexity of the editing experience, and go against that consensus. Therefore, through application of WP:BOLD, I had changed these to one of the prevailing [dmy or mdy] formats, in this case dmy. I intend to undo that revert in due course. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted you because you failed to provide an explanation or justification for your wholesale modification of the article at the time you made it.
Kindly note that WP:MOSNUM does not advocate against autoformatting dates, only linking dates for the purpose of autoformatting. Also, no consensus emerged in WP:DATEPOLL regarding autoformatting, therefore that poll doesn't support your argument about consensus. You are welcome to entertain suspicion about a template adding to the complexity of editing, but I find that suspicion to be groundless; it's no different than using citation templates, and there is no requirement to use such templates. Finally, if you want to advocate a consistent experience for reading dates in the article, my view is that autoformatting is the way to go.
Feel free to undo my revert, although I plan to make the dates consistent using autoformatting in due course. =Axlq 15:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In accordance with how things have always worked here on WP, the status quo ante prevails where a consensus is not reached for the adoption of a new proposal: following votes in August 2008 to deprecate date autoformatting, and endorsed it overwhelmingly (i.e. by a supermajority) in December 2008

    While there may be some belief within the community that an autoformatting system may be desirable for readers, the threshold for general acceptance of the principle was clearly insufficient. Many are still wary of the pitfalls and risks of development of a replacement - whether expressed in terms of 'there is no problem to solve' or simply the rejection of the failed system such as 'I dislike date linking'. Then, there is the 'inegalitarian' argument which is also a significant concern. Of course, I look forward to the day WP developers will have created a WYSIWYG UI for editors (like MS Word), I would embrace it along with all the functionalities which could be embedded therein. At present, editing with all the links, formatting, transclusions, references etc can be a real tough experience. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am still skeptical of these claims. Template talk:Date mentions nothing about this autoformat template being deprecated; as far as I can determine, only two things were deprecated: date-linking and the YYYY-MM-DD format. Would you please point me to this consensus about deprecating autoformatting? None of my searches have revealed any consensus in that context. =Axlq 19:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The pertinent decisions are here as follows:

Tags

I'm going to pull the tags at the top of the article in view of the considerable changes since they were put up. If anyone still thinks any of those are still relevant, they are welcome to retag them, giving reasons here on this page. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to the removal of the tag, and you did some great work cleaning up the article last night. I have just a few things I noticed that are only very small quibbles but might be able to be cleaned up:
  • here you moved the one-sentence final paragraph of the Allegation of underage gymnasts section onto the end of the last paragraph. I see why it would be nice to do that to simplify the text, but at the same time, I think having the sentence at the end saying the gymnasts were cleared was a good way to make it prominent; I personally have no opinion one way or the other in that issue, but as you probably know, some editors have been pretty disruptive in editing articles about that controversy, and making the end result more prominent within the section might help ward off some of that disruption.
  • The section title Alleged crackdown on minorities seems a little misleading to me; from the title I was expecting it to be something about the crackdowns on protesters among China's ethnic minorities (the most noted being, of course, in Tibet); this section is actually about the bar incident in Sanlitun, the patrons of which are pretty much all foreigners, and in fact the wording of the alleged order itself seemed to be targeted mostly towards foreign visitors, not domestic minorities. (In fact, I had been about to write a small section on that incident and its coverage, thinking it wasn't in the article, until I stumbled across this section.) I don't have a suggestion just yet for what the section could be renamed to.
  • Along the same lines as the above comment...some of the section titles are a little ambiguous. For example, Racism is, of course, about the Spanish athletes' racism towards the Chinese hosts, but there is no clue in the section heading, and racism could have been going the other way around (again, I clicked on that section heading looking for what turned out to be in Alleged crackdown on minorities). Some work on renaming a few confusing section headings might clear up some confusion.
Great work with all the cleanup last night, —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 14:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, if those Chinese gymnasts were of age, then I am the king of Siam. The next task of the committee that "cleared" a team of prepubescent girls that were so blatantly underage is to help OJ find the "real killers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.154.101 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation

I think there is a problem with citation number 7^ Newman, Saul. "Why Grandpa boycotted the Olympics". Haaretz. Retrieved 9 August 2008. I could not access the site the link directed me to -- got a time out. Is there a archive of this anywhere? J.Dong820 (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Article inherently racist, inflames the feelings of Chinese People

Please delete the article. The 2008 Olympics in Beijing is widely regarded as the best ever. Please keep in mind the feelings of the Chinese people when posting Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.95.126.176 (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The issues discussed in the article are notable (meaning that they received significant attention in multiple reliable sources). Wikipedia bases its guidelines for inclusion on notability, not whether or not a group of people likes the topic.
Originally, all this content was in the 2008 Summer Olympics article; it was moved here to avoid distracting from the rest of that article (because including all this information in that article would have been giving undue weight to this information, compared to the other Olympics information).
There is nothing "racist" about describing disagreements that really happened. Nothing in the article is saying "Chinese people are bad". I suggest you actually read through the article before criticizing it based on your patriotic feelings. For example, in the section Participants' issues, more than half of the incidents described did not involve Chinese athletes!
Finally, do you have a source for your statement that "the 2008 Olympics in Beijing is widely regarded as the best ever"? rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics/Archive_2&oldid=1136635337"