Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics

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

Only one ceremony[edit]

Maybe there is a difference between Canadian English and the various other versions I am used to, mainly Australian English, but also American and English, but I saw only one ceremony. Can someone please explain the plural usage? HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've learnt on another Talk page that it is common in Canadian English to refer to an event such as the Opening Ceremony as consisting of several smaller ceremonies. It's a usage I haven't encountered before, but English in my country has quite a few oddities too, so who am I to argue. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Press[edit]

There seems to be alot of hooha about the way that the British Press is saying that Vancouver is worse than Atlanta... or that the warmest winter in 100 years should have been anticipated. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some links? Cla68 (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/london-eye/a-gold-for-moaning/article1472840/
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ghDV4zweU600gqmOkyWPQNz0Iw_w
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5idCgTJa8BIpirK-I1Yg_cAVoMbHg
http://www.theprovince.com/business/These+hardly+worst+ever+Games/2580366/story.html
http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/blogs/brucearthur/2010/02/these-are-not-the-worst-games-ever.html
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hW2fvZUhbZU_9DDXjP_sm_urNK1Q
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/17/eveningnews/main6217843.shtml
http://www.torontosun.com/sports/vancouver2010/news/2010/02/17/12919981.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article7031487.ece
etc ad infinitum
70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would need to find references that show....
1. That it IS the warmest winter in 100 years
2. That it is a problem

HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a controversy article, all I need to show is that there is controversy, and the claims that show the controversy. This isn't a meteorology or climate article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No you do have to back up your claims about the warmest winter or whatnot, even if it is true. Wikipedia needs sources if it is true.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already shown the British Press Brouhaha. 70.29.210.242 (talk)
Warmest winter:
70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lousy food[edit]

Are we just going to nitpick ever single complaint that people have about the Olympics. Complaints about environmental destruction and Native opposition, I can understand that. But seriously, complaints about food?!?! I don't understand why that should even be on the page.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It made the news. That's the reason. Cla68 (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Why don't we add every single criticism made reliable sources to the article? IMO, that's not a very convincing argument as to why something as irrelevant as lousy food belongs on the article. Seriously, there are much important issues like the security breaches not food.http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/02/18/bc-second-bc-place-security-breach.html  єmarsee  • Speak up! 07:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, lousy food may not be a big deal to some people. In the country where I live, however, if the food was lousy at a major event it would be a big deal. I guess it depends on the person or people. Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. However the section heading could either be more neutral or be put in quotations. One thing's for sure, the 2nd security breach needs to be mentioned. єmarsee  • Speak up! 07:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the security breach. Cla68 (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of food is too subjective an issue. Some of the kids at the high school where I teach complain about everything that is served there. Some Olympic competitors are from the same age group. Not worth covering unless someone gets food poisoning and the official caterers are clearly at fault. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it shouldn't be reported unless a RS cites that the complains had a real basis. Also, if a RS says that the complaints had a real effect on the event, even if it was a baseless complain. Even better if it's a measurable effect.
(for example, one week after opening, the 2004_Universal_Forum_of_Cultures had to change its policies about food, due to complaints from visitors [1] (the controversy appears at the Spanish version of the article, and I will now go and source it with this link) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta agree with the above, even if there are dozens of sources calling the food at venues lousy, it's hardly encyclopedia. It's concessions at a sporting event, not big news that it's not stellar. Far too subjective of a topic to get any treatment in Wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I work(ed) at one of the venues, your choice of food was the Catered food (Which was small portions) or McDonalds (The official restaurant.) The RCMP, the Volunteers and pretty much everyone complained about the food at some point. Yeah it's not encyclopedic, and hardly controversial. The only thing "controversial" about the food was that nobody knew which was supposed to go into the compostable bin and which was supposed to go into the garbage bin.


Worst Olympics ever[edit]

Pretty much every media source was blaring this today 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Every media source in my country was still excited about the one gold medal we have won. How about someone finding a reference that actually draws some comparisons with other Olympics? I've been paying attention to Olympic Games since 1956. Every one has had it's detractors, but far too often they have been the political opponents of those in charge. Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is Canada a political opponent of US and UK? The "worst Olympics ever" comment came from BBC and CNN. They had a whole expose where they talked about the death of the athlete, poor organization, poor track and equipment readiness etc 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, as I said, all you need to do is find a source that demonstrates "worst ever" by validly making comparisons with other Games. You would probably need to start with Innsbruck, 1964, where two athletes died..... As I said, every Olympics has had its detractors. By political opponents, in this case I meant those within Canada who maybe didn't want the Games there in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the next city can host an Olympics without having to treat the IOC executives to limo rides and five-star hotel stays. Shouldn't the athletes be in the five-star hotels while all the IOC and various sports association employees stay in the dormitories? Aren't the games about the athletes? Sorry, I know we're not supposed to debate the topic here, but sometimes I can't help it. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Along the same note, imagine trying to make the figure skating judges stay in a dormitory instead of in a nice hotel. I bet the ensuing ruckus could be heard by the space station astronauts. Sorry, venting completed. Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://english.pravda.ru/sports/games/19-02-2010/112308-vancouver_mutton-0 , more negativity from Russia, still fails to draw a comparison.
Honesyly i still can't understand the Argument (the one that cites lack of practice) about the luger. It's terrible that he died, yes. Maybe the track was too fast or unsafe, and if that proves true then that would be a valid argument certainly (though so far it is apparently athlete error). The idea that more practice runs could have helped when he died during a practice run makes . .. no sense to me.

Slovenia may sue Vancouver Olympic organizers over Petra Majdic's injury[edit]

See http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Slovenia+Vancouver+Olympic+organizers+wake+cross+country+injury/2587935/story.html

She sustained four broken ribs and a collapsed lung and still was able to finish third in the final? I can see this being a major story. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Is the "Concerns and" part really necessary in the article title? Is there really a difference between "concerns" and "controversies" in this sense? Funnyhat (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russia[edit]

So, shouldn't there be info on the controversy due to the poor performance of Russia at the Games? Apparently there are loud shouts calling for heads to roll. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That probably should go in this article. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would need reliable sources to back that up. єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it has only been reported on in Russian sources, then Russian sources are fine. Cla68 (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Coverage issues[edit]

Several outlets have expressed severe complaints about NBC's intentional tape delay of broadcasting for the west coast, ice dancing over hockey on primetime OTA coverage: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/02/nbcs_olympic_coverage_manages.html?sc=fb&cc=fp but there is nothing in the article about this stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.221.224 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judges in figure skating[edit]

Is there really enough "controversy" about #Judges in figure skating for it to merit a section? I don't consider one news article to be significant coverage. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with this section is that it's blatantly biased, addressing only the Russian POV. It's really no great surprise that Plushenko didn't like it, or that Russian politicians spewed propaganda about it. While the "controversy" was covered in plenty of sources, most that I have seen present a more balanced view, i.e. "Yes Plushenko landed a quad, so what? The judges thought Lysaceks overall performance was better." Most of the commentary I've seen from non-Russian sources (Canadian and European as well as American) has agreed with the outcome. I'm neutral on whether or not this should be covered here; but if it is, it need to be NPOV. It's also worth pointing out that there has probably been less judging controversy in 2010 than in the entire history of Olympic figure skating. An Olympics without any complaints about the skating judges — now that would be notable. Wine Guy~Talk 07:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to revamp the section. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 01:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Wine Guy - "An Olympics without any complaints about the skating judges — now that would be notable." There are complaints at every Games. Let's not get too carried away with this stuff. We have to be strictly non-POV, and stick purely to what is said in the references. HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did the rewrite. It's a very long section now. Feel free to chop it down. I hope its neutral enough. There's a lot of quoting. ANd I think the length of the section makes the article very imbalanced. Just great.... ~Itzjustdrama ? C 01:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to reducing the length of the section, however until then I'm keeping it since it has been there for a while. GoldDragon (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Ice Dancing Costumes[edit]

Russian ice dancers Domnina and Shabalin came under fire for their decidedly inauthentic and tacky "aboriginal" costumes. (http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-features/news/newsid=436204.html). There is also massive controversy over their use of ropes on their costumes used to help with lifts and transitions. (http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/blogs/postblog/2010/02/russian-ice-dancers-stun-with-bizarre-costumes.html). There were comments made on both points in the official commentary on the events as well as in other media outlets. Do you guys think either of these should be added? CallidoraBlack (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can spin off all of the figure skating controversies into a separate article, including the judging and costumes. GoldDragon (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The controversies can be writen about in detail at Figure skating at the 2010 Winter Olympics, I would think. Resolute 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian women hockey players drinking and smoking[edit]

That section of the article is a total beat-up. Both the references talk about how it wasn't really a serious issue at all. They don't mention anyone who was actually upset by the incident. I think it should be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As silly as it is (and tho I thought they were in extremely poor taste, it is somewhat silly in the great scheme of things) it got lots of press coverage and led Hockey Canada to officially apologize for the actions. That is no small beer. Personally, it was the smoking that disgusted me. Even movie reviews these days have parental warnings for smoking ... what were they thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.32.180 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you can't say things like "some members of the Olympic community attempted to rationalize the behaviour." That is highly prejudicial language. Furthermore, the constant use of (bracketed interjections) is just bad writing (Wikipedia really suffers from that) and is highly grating (I'm going to fix it... again.) EvanHarper (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that is exactly what they tried to do, they didn't defend the women, they rationalized it ("you have to understand ...") No one comes out and defends smoking. Brackets grate on you. Tough. Live with it. The WHOLE WORLD uses them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.32.180 (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to understand the concept of neutral language, and your prose is poorly written. Please do not turn this into a "thing." EvanHarper (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian referee DQ's ohno[edit]

I couldn't beleive that a ref whose country has a stake in the final was allowed to officiate the 500m mens fianl. Ohno was robbed. 74.132.244.42 (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's short track, people are DSQ'd all the time. There were death threats to the ref/judge who knocked out the South Korean women's short track relay team. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the start of every Olympic Games a referee each takes an oath on behalf of all officials to do their job fairly and impartially, etc. I think we just have to trust them. In my experience, some "home" refs can actually be tougher on their own country's competitors. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean short-track team disqualified, and other rubbish[edit]

That the Korean media wasn't happy that its team got disqualified is hardly encyclopedic. If there was any evidence at all that the DQ was unfair or wrong, such mention could be justified, but I consider such "facts" as sitting better in an article headed "Local media plays parochial line to satisfy market audience". The same applies to every case in this article where the home media, or coach, or national association expresses unhappiness about a result. It's NOT encyclopedic. Such entries should be removed. They are just rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more! Yes, HiLo48, such entries should be removed, typically the Korea short-track one. --Lvhis (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove that one to here as below and wait for completely deleted --Lvhis (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC) :[reply]
Completely deleted the one "Korean short-track team disqualified". --Lvhis (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Own the Podium[edit]

I tried editing this yesterday but someone removed the edit saying it sounded like the defence of a child with hand caught in the cookie jar or some such. LOL well I suppose my own fault for not sourcing properly, even though the facts are still facts. Anyway, I re-added the statements, or the gist of them at least with proper sourcing - have a look and clean up the wording if you'd like... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.98.252 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figure Skating[edit]

It's already discussed above, but it looks like we must continue.

In sports like figure skating, where there is a subjective, human element in judging, there is ALWAYS disagreement about results, whether it be part of the Olympics or just a local comp. It is NOT a special feature of the Vancouver Olympics.

Not every city or country has an obsessive interest in the sport. Mine doesn't, although it has participated in every Olympic Games. Our local media hardly mentioned the skating arguments. Those from the countries involved, and where figure skating is higher profile, must keep things in a global perspective when writing for Wikipedia.

Because of the above, I don't believe the figure skating disagreements belong in this article at all. If someone does, please write ONE paragraph on it. It's ridiculously big right now.

HiLo48 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the size issue might be my fault. I'm not going to weigh in on whether it belongs in the article or not (I don't really have an opinion), but I will write a smaller section if it will be included. ~Itzjustdrama ? C 19:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If something is to be included, is there a way to highlight what made it a particular issue for these Games, rather than just another example of the kind of arguments that so often surround judged sports? (What exists right now could be the basis of a separate article on judged sports, or figure skating. It would be a shame to totally waste that content.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs split between Sports and Political items[edit]

In my opinion, this article was a POV fork from the start, but now the original content which was split off, the political material, has been pushed down the page and heavily diluted and deleted/adjusted so as to downplay it. The section on the main page outlining this material has been similarly fooled with, and likewise sports and political/organizational controversies jumbled up, and tehre is no chronological order of any kind (and NB most of pre-Games controversies were political and/or organizational/financial, not sports-related controversies). This article needs a split to separate these two bodies of materials:

Seems clear enough, though it also seems clear there are as is evident from this article's creation and edit history, and also in the main article, there are those out there who wish it to NOT be clear....Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gee Skookum1, you actually made a good point there about splitting the article (I agree with you), but then totally spoilt the effect with the attack on other unnamed editors in your last paragraph. If you had stopped at the second last comma, you would have a considerably greater chance of achieving your goal. The last bit just gives people further material to argue about, quite unnecessarily. As you are trying to achieve with your primary point above, just stick to the one significant approach for improving the article. If you believe action is required on other editors' misbehaviour, that should happen elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs a split myself. It isn't so big as to necessitate the split, and converting one POV fork into two doesn't solve an issue. It does need a rewrite, as some topics are given undue weight, or covered in far too much detail than is necessary. The (again) deleted commentary on figure skating being one of the most blatant examples. Resolute 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not so big as to necessitate a split because so much material's been purged from teh political content that shouldn't have been (though it really IS plenty big). But don't go pretending that separating sports news/controversy from political/financial controversies is a POV fork; it's a correction of a mis-use of this article by the jumbling of two very different topics; and actually maybe three, as Financial issues of the 2010 Winter Olympics/Financial controversies concerning the 2010 Winter Olympics, though among the political materials (usually), is a full topic in its own right. Dissent against the Games, and political problems arising from its organization/politicization, and such matters as the "free speech zones" (which were cancelled by the ISU at the last minute because the heat of hte world press was breathing down their neck), are a very different thing from the death of the Georgian luger or the failure of the Olympia ice machines or the worries about Cypress not having enough snow. Maybe to you they're in the same category, but that's sad for you if you can't see the difference.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I can easily identify POV forking when I see it. It's quite obvious you aren't getting your way here or at 2010 Winter Olympics, so are trying to create another article to push your viewpoint. Truthfully, I think stupid things like the Olympia breaking down are so trivial as to not even warrant mention. The issue isn't that the political aspersions you wish to cast are so much more important, but that this article is buried under trivialities passed off as "controversies". Resolute 16:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Trivialities" is your POV judgement of things that received a lot of press copy, including internationally and not just within BC (which is notable enough!). When are you going to stop being "resolute" about resisting COMMON SENSE. Common sense says that sports related controversies, whether the design of the luge track or doping scandals or arguments over rules like in the biathlon, are a horse of a completely different colour from civil rights issues, protest organizations and their positions (and related publications...), and the political/fiscal consequences of cost overruns. THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPICS. If you can't see that, you're out of your depth and/or just trying to resist un-diluting the politically-controversial material which prompted someone who didn't want to see it in teh main article to move it to here, and those who've persistently deleted or downplayed it in preference to sports-controversies. Your POV seems to be that the politically controversial material is "trivialities" while the sports news is more important.....because that's definitely what YOU are pushing. By your own words just now.....this article is about two completely different sets of materials (maybe three, i.e. fiscal/financial/cost overruns), and the distinction between them should be as clear as night and day; unless you refuse to take off your contrarian sunglasses....Skookum1 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's NO WAY that the luger's death is the same kind of topic as the financial crisis over the Athletes' Village, or the anti-Olympics political movement in BC in the lead-up to the Games. There's NO WAY that complaints about the shoddy quality of athletes' housing in Whistler falls in the same topic area as the detention of Amy Goodman or Chris Shaw, or the anti-Charter intrusions of the ISU into people's houses to take down window signs and even look for anti-Olympics fridge magnets, or the idea that "free speech is OK so long as you do it where we tell you". The most widely-reported controversy, backed up by a post-Games UN report on the Olympic Games in general which echoed the problem in all Games, was the pronounced disparity between the social conditions in Vancouver, with its accelerated difference between the ultra-wealthy and the ultra-poor, copmounded by the damages to government services and programs that were made to pay for the Olympics (and are still being made). Those aren't "trivial", they're part of the history of these Games and it's not for you to decide otherwise simply because YOU don't care. This article was a POV fork because it wholesale dumped the entire controversies section from the main article here, without any content left behind (and actually improperly titled, which could have led to it and all its contents deleted wholesale), and the rationale behind its creation was to "give a more positive impression" of the Olympics, which is a POV rationale. Its current jumbled state, without any chronological sequence and political items tucked in between trivial items like the ice machine, is deplorable; but to you, apparently, it's just fine and any change to correct its problems - by separating the different kinds of materials proeprly - is allegedly POV. But it's you that's POV, insisting that widely-cited and widely-reported materials of a controversial nature are "trivialities". Last time I looked, you weren't a citable reference, not even for op-ed.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum, again, come on. It is obvious that you feel passionate about this issue - but you cannot repeatedly berate other editors just because they disagree with you. Stick to the subject and make your arguments for or against it, not the editors involved. --Ckatzchatspy 23:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there isn't that much in the article to make a split desirable. What I would suggest, however, is using chronological order for the various and sundry issues mentioned in it. PKT(alk) 01:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to PKT: it's only "that much" because so much was obliterated from it after being transferred here; and it's only "that much" because so much else is missing still...and the problem is still like mixing apples and oranges; it's like mixing the athletes' section with the venues; two different concepts do not belong together, no matter how short the resulting article; but neither will be short - no shorter than any of the venue articles, for example.Skookum1 (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cowichan sweater controversy[edit]

Although the Bay and the breaking of its windows and colonialist legacy is already mentioned here, and in passing in the main article, the controversy over the cooptation of the concept fo the Cowichan sweater and its manufacture in China got a lot of press; eventually the Bay insisted the design wasn't a knock-off of the Cowichan sweater but "inspired by it", and also agreed to start selling REAL Cowichan sweaters in its stores to mollify the Cowichan Tribes, the controversy remains. Here's a few citations about this controversy, though there are lots of others:

All of these are from the first page of this google, though there are lots and lots more. I suppose there are those out there who would adjudge this controversy as "not notable" or "fringe" or who would profess that because they haven't heard of it, it's clearly not notable. But it's certainly notable to the Cowichan people, and to anyone who's ever owned a real Cowichan, and it's notable enough to get Global's and the Canadian Press' attention, so should be included. Apparently, by what's been said to me by some, that even wanting to have stuff like this in this article, or the main article, is a POV agenda, or "Undue Weight" and not "positive coverage"Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing POV censorship/whitewashing[edit]

Well, true to form and as disputed by those defending my complaint that this page is being actively censored and p.r. washed, who attacked me for suggesting that they were censors ("if the shoe fits...."), there is no sign on this page of a WHOLE BUNCH of material which was originally on it, including the notorious Amy Goodman incident at the border; it's all been buried beneath largely meaningless minor "controversies" to do with events during the Games, and largely omits the huge amount of political opposition and related political and financial controversies which had been the point of the original section in the main article, which some earnest eager-beaver had migrated here because they didn't like seeing all the "negative" material on the main page; now that "negative" material has been either purged from this page, or trivialized in the extreme and/or white-washed; even section titles were "adjusted" by this or that editor. To me there's clear evidence of COI activity on this page, whether by VANOC or its p.r. agency there's no way of sayin;g but the euhemerization of this page since its creation is truly noxious and will live in my memory as a black mark against those who invoke Wikipedia policy to justify POV agendas, and who attack those who point out their iniquity on the basis of alleged violations of wikiquette; taking umbrage and alleging "personal attack" when someone (me) points out evidence of censorship is just hiding behind Wikipedia's flag of truce and nicety....Has Five Ring Circus still been left out of this article as "fringe" in nature? What a crock, adn what a huge disappointment at how willingly people are either led to deceive, or who would attack those who point out when others deceive. Even my simple point that this page should be split between the two COMPLETELY UNRELATED contexts of sports controversies and political controversies was turned into a personal attack on ME, and apparently abandoned because of the way I had proposed it. What a bunch of crock....I've been editing geography and history articles and trying not to notice when somebody fiddles with this article....but thte fiddling goes on, and the legacy of p.r. agency interference with Wikipedia only deepens and deepens. this article should be SPLIT and the argument that there's not enough to warrant two separate articles is mneaningless hogwash/posturing. If you don't like my tone of voice here, that's just dodging the issue of what's gone on here, and attackign me doesn't change the fact that what's been done to this page utterly STINKS. I know even when I get publishing figures for Five Ring Circus (now in third or fourth printing, I believe, which is anything but a sign of a "fringe" publication), I iknow that there will be those here who argue for its exclusion "because its POV".....hilarious, from the same people who defend using VANOC publications as the only legitimate source for some figures (even despite criticism from third-party sources that VANOC's figures and facts are fudged and distorted and worse). This article's content has been turned from a chronicle of the controversies surrounding this organization into a compilation of overblown materials on athletes smoking and hanging kangaroo flags and obfuscations/apologisms about the very heady and jingoistic tone of the Games. Tragic, and disappointing....Go ahead, attack me for pointing out this article's huge censorship problems, and complain about being called censors. If you don't want to be called that stop behaving that way. I'm not going to bother trying to re-add what's been purged and distorted; I know you're all out there, some on payroll, monitoring this to keep the Olympic name clean and pure, even though clearly it's not......no doubt I'll be attacked on my userpage again for daring to call bullshit, and my "rants" will be used as a reason to discredit criticism of this page's dire problems.....disgusting, disgusting, disgusting.....this page is just pablum now, and not encyclopedic in any way; and totally evasive of the truth and wantonly omitting or distorting what people said and believed, and drowned in a sea of sports trivia.....crock, crock, crock. Go ahead, enjoy your playpen until it's so meaningless it deserves deletion.....all this is now, mostly, is a directory of minor sports trivia, and little else; the much-shortened bit on political opposition at the end is a mere sop and should be its own article, and substantially larger than it's been cut down to here.....but no, let's blame Skookum1 for not playing nice, that way we can continue ignoring him......Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typical absurdity of the arguments made against me that it was alleged that my proposal to split this page was a POV fork, when in fact it was created as a POV fork. I just looked at the original edit, and it turns out - again fittingly - to have been made by a sockpuppet, User:YellowPops (sock of User:Polyepsis, also banned).....the "original version" of this page, the first POV fork, is now deleted as it was mis-titled, but differed substantially from the this one in still having a lot of the political content that was pointedly missing from this one since its inception. I'm sure looking through the list of people who've fussed over this article we'd find at least a few SPAs, maybe another sockpuppet or two, and all kinds of IP addresses who made political edits; the long-standing political controversy/opposition material in the main article, which was the substance of teh first (mistitled) version of this page, was not present here from the start, and of course is now buried deep in the edit history of the main article, and the original POV fork is of course now no longer accessible......into the digital trash bin....this whole affair reminds me of a line in Rollerball, where the archivist charged with keeping records of history comments that "we lost the whole 13th century [in a disk crash]....just a few corrupt popes, and some petty wars".....this page was created to bury political controversy beneath meaningless sports trivia, adn the same was/is being done on the main article....and continues.....I don't have the stomach, or the energy, to fight it any further; but what a waste of time, even thinking that Wikipedia guidelines can preserve the truth from being engineered by p.r. firms and/or rah-rah fans and "I only want to see positive coverage" drones........Skookum1 (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cooptation? What is it?[edit]

Well? HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. There is such a thing as wiktionary, y'know - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cooptation. I"m not in the business of giving lessons in basic English lexicon. Educate yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. Too subtle for my own good there. My point is that, whatever it means, it's a word that would not be in the vocabularies of most readers. Can you find a plainer Eglish alternative? HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"not be part of the vocabularies of most readers"??? What are they NOT teaching in schools these days anyway? It's a perfectly common word, and so is "coopt", which it's derived from. The equivalent and less subtle term is "steal" or "appropriate"....."Appropriation of national anthem lyrics" then, or would you also opine that "appropriation" is not, also, a common enough word for "most readers"? sheesh.Skookum1 (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's no news copy of it that I'm aware of, but the VISA commercial(s), with Morgan Freeman narrating, also used a line from O Canada, I can't remember which one right now; Macdonald's version of coopting Canadian national identity / patriotism was the "it's our game" theme, can't remember if there were any lyrics-"borrowing" there, but jingoistic is almost too mild a word for the yahoo-enthusiasm in both series of commercials....and the scenic shot of Vancouver at the end of the Macdonald's commercial was a digitally-altered landscape; those weren't the North Shore Mountains, and the shot was too brief for me to see if there were any missing buildings, but it sure looked to me like there were (no Hotel Vancouver, or Wall Centre, for example). But all we can include is "citable", and if the Canadian media or whomever didn't report, or catch any of this.....well, to me they're not reliable sources anyway....point is that the jingoistic tone of the Game's coverage, and of the sponsorship, WAS of issue in blogspace, and in some op-ed columns (in papers not controlled by "Friends of VANOC")Skookum1 (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like appropriate. That would work.
As for the jingoism, yes, I find it an unpleasant aspect of these events too, but that's just my opinion (and obviously yours too), so we need a reference. Blogs are no good but an op-ed could work. Go for it. I'm pretty open minded on what makes a good source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral" does not mean "soft-soaped"[edit]

Re this edit, Ckatz, you're taking on a POV agenda in negating what the CBC headline ITSELF says and is part of the content of the citation. It's also current in other press copy and public debate in BC, i.e. that a lot of Olympic contracting was going to American companies and/or friends of the Liberal Party (often the same thing). Wikipedia's job is to report what the press, and what public debate, has been saying, not to decide whether or not the issues as presented should be "neutralized" (="castrated"). I'll dig up the Tyee's article about this (I think there was more than one, in fact), but if you want this to be "neutral" you're welcome to include VANOC's defensive statements that the Canadian contractors did not meet bid deadlines (another contrary account says that they were never informed of those deadlines, i.e. not given the opportunity to bid) but were welcome to submit again, or whatever it was the VANOC spokesman said in the cited material; but there's more, as I said, in other BC press copy (and WAY more in BC blogspace). Being picayune about censoring - yes, censoring - wording as used in the media and as spoken/written in public debate is not being neutral, it's soft-soaping, and trying to smudge the facts so that those who don't like them or would like to silence them can approve of "balance". But balance does not mean giving equal weight to untruth as to truth, or favouring silence or "soft language" over things as they were said and debated. The "neutral" path here is to present VANOC's defense; but not to "soften" what the sources are saying in order to pretend to be "neutral". Nuetered is more like it....Skookum1 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything in The Tyee as of yet, but know I've seen something somewhere about this, maybe in one of the news blogs (which in BC cover news that CanWest and CBC explicitly won't and are used as refs in certain other articles, legitimately) or smalltown papers (perhaps, come to think of it, the Whistler Pique or one of the Squamish papers). But I did find this though it's just a news item, and not a controversy (other than VANOC not sending their condolences, but only basic humanity suggests that they should have, and nobody expects that from them). It is relevant, however, to the contracting-out to US companies, that the official auctioneer of Olympic Games memorabilia is Gameday Auction, another branch of Gameday Management....nobody's made a fuss about that, so it's not a "controversy" but it is an example of US companies winning bids for government/Olymipc contracts in BC...which was the main gist/thrust of the CBC article whose content/headline you "neutralized".Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skookum, I've got respect for your work based on our interactions over the years. However, I have to say that your comments here and elsewhere in recent weeks are crossing the line... you're repeatedly accusing people who disagree with your preferred text as being biased, or POV, or having some sort of agenda. That isn't helpful in terms of the colloborative process, nor is it going to help you gain support for any valid concerns you may have. --Ckatzchatspy 04:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does always seem to boil down to not fixing POV problems by pointing the finger at me for pointing them out, and pointing out that - whether deliberate or not - soft-soaping of materials (even farther than already soft-soaped by mainstream media) is a POV activity; and re WP:Duck if something has the effect of being censorship, it IS censorship. Deliberate or not. The POV page expressly says that understanding NPOV means stepping back from one's own perspective, but while *I* do that, it doesn't seem the people accusing me of hurting their feelings for pointing out the shortcomings of their edits are capable of doing so; and in some cases I strongly feel (not yours) that the complaints are disingenuous, and that the edits are not so innocent. In other cases, such as yours, I think they're just overly done, as there was no reason at all to remove the line about pro-American bias in contracts except to curry to some kind of neutered version of teh truth that does not reflect the source. Blame me all you want for "not playing nice", it doesn't change the fact that such edits are not neutral in nature. "Neutralizing", yes, but not "neutral". Unconscious POV is still POV, unconscious censorship, or innocently-compliant self-censorship, is still censorship. Give your head a shake, and don't point the finger at me for pointing this out. The solution here is to provide Vanoc's denials, not to take words out of the mouths of those who've said them (in this case, CBC headlline-writers). Wikipedia should not be castrated to keep the sensitivities of p.r. campaigns happy, or to keep controversial statements out of articles on controversy....Skookum1 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article ever serve a real, objective purpose?[edit]

Right now it's no more than a grab bag of complaints made by generally single issue, obsessed editors about almost random things that happened at those Olympics, with no attempt made to be objective, or to put those complaints in any sort of non-parochial perspective. No questioning as to whether those are reasonable complaints, just an ugly list of them. No criteria are defined for items added to this article to meet. It does not reflect well on Wikipedia at all. I'm tempted to recommend it for deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter 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 12:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 27 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter 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 07:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter 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 05:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter 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 23:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2010_Winter_Olympics&oldid=1206768138"