Talk:2008 Summer Olympics

It has been proposed below that several sections of 2008 Summer Olympics be split into new, smaller, and independent articles.

Discussion to support or oppose the move is present on this talk page, under the heading "Split proposals". If, after a few days, a clear consensus is reached, please split the sections to the new pages and remove this notice.

Sports

clayton is awesome!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.145.179 (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we edit Foorball to says Football(Soccer) since the majority of viewers to this page are American. I clicked thinking this was American FOotball not soccer. Add this for less confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.104.222 (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Majority of readers of English Wikipedia are Americans? Err, since there isn't any published official statistics, we shouldn't really hang to this statement. Anyway, the official Olympic Sports name is Football, so let's just stick to that. Xeltran (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

In the calendar in 2008 Summer Olympics page it is shown as Football (soccer). There should be no confusion anyway, as American Football is not an Olympic Sport --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

One more comment. Please put new text under old text. i.e. new subjects go at the bottom of the page. When someone starts archiving the page comments, they will begin at the top, so please put the new stuff at the bottom. Thanks. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of English Alphabet on Official Website of the Beijing Olympics

Why, seems to be, the Chinese are true friends of American (wrong) spelling? Why they don't follow Hong Kong spelling? In Chinese Hong Kong they know better!

Should be I.E.: Equestrian Centre instead of Riding Center

                Colour instead of Color
                Centre instead of Center
                ... and many "mis takes" more...

In american english (the most common form), the spellings are different than in british english.

Why, pls. the Chinese prefer America? Namely U.S.? What about Chinese Hong Kong, India, Bangla Desh, Pakistan, many African Coutries, Cyprus, Malta, Ireland and U.K.?

Where is the protest against this poor americinglish?

A pity that China seems to know the poor American only. Forgot culture of English???

Where is the protest against surgeon who remove big part of your brain?

Seriously: Get over it. And American English is far closer to Shakespeare's English than contemporary British English is. Not that it matters. Main point: American spelling makes more sense in an international context: take away the -ous from humorous, and you get the noun -- just one of many exs.; but British punctuation is superior in most respects. A combo would be actually best. PeterH2 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

En francais: C'est dommage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.209.176 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You forgot Australia as well...Zvyx (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

YOU IDIOT! They use American English because of how popular the U.S. is! Can you leave at that? And American Spellings are not "Wrong" they are different, like African people, and English People, they barely look anything alike, but they get along despite their difference.

What are you talking about Burgerman?? If the language is ENGLISH, it comes from ENGLAND. It is annoying to keep seeing people on the Internet use the American flag when there is a link to an ENGLISH translation, when an AMERICAN speaks ENGLISH during the opening ceremony of the Olympics, and when ENGLISH things are constantly reffered to as being AMERICAN.. such as Football, the Internet and oh,... the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

How dare the Chinese use Amerenglish!

When all of you are done violating wiki's rules by making personal attacks; I'd like to state the English used at the Olympics is the Queen's English, that is the kind of British English used in every English speaking country bar America. Rotovia (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the use of American English (AE) in China is because people were mostly taught AE in schools around China. Since China does more business with the States, it is understable that they would use AE instead of British English; and there should not be a confusion that because the Chinese uses AE, they like the States more than Britain. Another thing to point out is that there is a tread even in HK to move towards AE, as reflected in advertisments, American spelling such as "color" is not uncommon (I still remember seeing the use of "color" on a camera ads). Nevertheless, I still think the use of British Standard English is the most suitable on Wikipedia.Ingramhk (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Calendar

There used to be a very helpful calendar here, similar to the one in the 2010 olympics. Where'd it go? Host of the first ever Webkinz Suvivor! The UberNerd! (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I want to know the same thing. I was the one who made it, and then someone must have taken it down. Granted, it was big and bulky, but someone should put a calendar section back in, at least describing the calendar of events and linking to the actual calendar. Jared (t)  00:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The calendar was removed in this edit, presumably because the editor didn't like it being transcluded from another live page. I've been bold and restored the calendar, this time with a proper merge. Bluap (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is the calendar table in a collapsed box? I think it's important enough info to be always visible, no matter how bulky it is (it's not transcluded from another page, so it can't be a matter of decreasing article weight). Parutakupiu (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the unhide collapse field. The List of NOC was also unhide. Anyone know if the "List of NOC" is supposed to be 100% the same as the "Nations at the 2008 Summer Olympics" template at the bottom? If so, why do we have two of the same tables?? Benjwong (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken. Although it has always been a custom of WP:OLY to display all the nations participating in the text of the article. I'm not sure how to resolve this, though, because what you say makes sense. Jared (t)  20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the calendar table out of the main table in which it was nested, since there's no reason for the latter to exist anymore. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I originally put both the calendar and the list of IOCs in collapsible boxes since they take up a fair amount of real estate. They might be OK with the article as it is currently, but they article is going to expand considerably once the Olympics actually start, at which point having these tables pre-collapsed might be better Bluap (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay! It's back! Thanks to whoever put it back, it's much better now. spider1224 14:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on past calendars, I've started to "bullet-out" events in each row. See User:Jared/sandbox1 for the version that I am talking about. I think it's a great way to link to each event that is to be contested. In theory, 302 bullets should be in the chart, but that is nearly impossible to do with cells like Athletics where 7 finals are contested in one day. Does anyone have a fix to this, so that bullets can exist there? Maybe a 3-2-3 pattern, or something. Also, I have yet to finish the table, so if anyone wants to find the other dates, please be my guest! Thanks! Jared (t)  14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea. Perhaps the solution to the problem would be to place a single bullet in each box (not only finals = yellow), linking to a page with information about the events per sport per day. 62.90.151.249 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you've put your calender. It looks a bit bulky, if you ask me.. please consider my suggestion. 62.90.151.249 (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is probably more aesthetically pleasing, because 6 bullets per cell might be a little overkill, but maintaining pages per sport per day is something WP:OLY has never done, and something that would take a lot of work. I do believe it makes more sense to have 302 bullets in the table, so that at any one time during the Olympics, anyone can see and get more information on all of the event finals being contested that day. Certainly if there is consensus to return the table to just numbers I won't put up a fight, but I really do think this is best. Jared (t)  14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too much work. We already have the tables made (in the "Competition Schedule" section of the " *** at the 2008 Summer Olympics" articles) - it's just a matter of creating some 300 articles... Like you said, this option is more aesthetically pleasing, and it also would allow one to follow preliminary competitions as well as finals. We'd also have to link the different events in the table to the appropriate event page. Alternatively, we could create pages only per day ("#th of august at the beijing...").62.90.151.249 (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is best - having one page per competition day, and keeping the bullets the way they are. I began making the links from the "Competition Schedule" tables to the event pages. I've also created a "The 6th of August at the 2008 Summer Olympics" sample article (I could use some help with that, thanks..) Almyajid (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Either leave the calendar or move it but please get rid of the stupid discussion box about it on the main page. It makes everything look so tacky. 132.228.195.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting in Finland

In addition to being shown on YLE TV1 and YLE TV2 (as are the proper names of the channels, not YLE1 / YLE2), tv coverage will also be on YLE FST5. If we also include radio, coverage is additionally on YLE Radio Suomi and YLE Radio X3M. If someone could update this, it would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.219.114 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Benjwong, would appreciate if you could please explain why my edits to 'controversies' regarding media access were reverted. These were cited to today's NY Times, so obviously it is an ongoing concern despite BOCOG's announcements, and as evidenced by the IOC member's quote, this is not a minor controversy.Spinner145 (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hei guys I was reading about the controversies. Yeah there were demonstrations about human rights but don't forget that torch relay also initiated some Chinese to fight aganist certain western medias such as cnn, (e.g anti-cnn.com) and the French president. My point is that, there are two sides to this thing. One is those demonstrators of human rights, and the other side is those who are aganist those demonstrators. This article needs to be more balanced by including those who are aganist those demonstrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.161.119 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing here. On the portion about the torch relay I think it might be a good idea from an NPOV perspective to mention the large numbers of overseas Chinese who demonstrated in support of the '08 Olympics along the relay route. On the other hand, Chinese protests of Western media coverage seems a bit too tangential. I think the best we can do for the 'controversies section is to set out what the controversies are in the most NPOV way possible, but given length limitations we won't be able to fully explain all points of view. Let me know your thoughts--happy to hear any suggestions you can offer to improve NPOV on this section.Spinner145 (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the controversy regarding the age of the Chinese "women" gymnasts? Aside from questionable visual evidence of appearance, height, weight, and missing teeth, there is substantive evidence that at least two of these gymnasts had their ages reported differently at previous gymnastics events than presented in their passports to the IOC. The "controversies" section cannot be complete without this, regardless of whether there is a formal protest over their ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmmiller44 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Beijing Olympics Newsstand

Full News Coverage of the 2008 Beijing Olympics Enjoy non-controversial news coverage. Updated 24 hours a day. May the best athlete win! --Isavesmart (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Torch Relay - Taiwan

The wording for the section on the torch being diverted away from Taiwan should remain as is. While China's point of view is that it is a province, this view is not shared by all peoples, or even countries for that matter. Stating that it is, definitively, a province is bias, just as if I wrote "the independent country of Taiwan". So, leave it as is. Kerui 18:09, 27 July 2008

i beleive the official classification by the ROC government itself is that it is a province, the government and taiwan independence are TWO VERY DIFFERENT movments.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

About Chinese Taiwan and Tibet issues

I understand what you meant by the simply saying of Taiwan and Tibet. I understand that you know exactly Chinese territory includes Taiwan province and Tibet Autonomous Region, which are recoganized by UN and all countries' governments. However, it is confusing when you just simply say it especially to people who don't have any background knowledge about Chinese internal issues. So please use the correct official names, which is under the recoganition of UN, i.e. Chinese Taiwan province and Chinese Tibet Autonomous Region.

I will appreciate your kind adjustment.

Thanks and regards,

AlexBluesAlexBlues (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC) contribs) 15:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to Taiwan issues it is not appropriate to refer to Taiwanese authorities "Chinese Taipei" or "Chinese Taiwan". Chinese Taipei is the name of the Olympic team from Taiwan, but these are not the name of the government of Taiwan. References to Taiwanese governing authorities should be to "the Republic of China (Taiwan)", while it is correct if referring to Taiwan in a geographical sense to call it simply "Taiwan". See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Also, you have tried several times to inject into the article the unsubstantiated claim that Tibetan independence groups are supported by the CIA. This is an inflammatory accusation for which you have not provided any support. If you have some documentation of this, bring it here for discussion. If not, you should stop making these edits.Spinner145 (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A Chinese View: The government of the Republic of China was the central government of Whole China. However after the civil war, ROC government was defeated and retreated to Taiwan province. Current situation is the legacy of the civil war. However, ROC is not recoganized by UN, and there is no ROC (Taiwan), only Taiwan province. Both sides now are working on the reunification. Therefore, using Tanwan authorities is more accurate to describe Tanwan's current situation.

It's the public secret that CIA controls the Tibetan movement by providing the fund and the military instruction. Some staff even published the books to release the detailed information. Political powers behind the movement made things worse. Dala Lama should have won the heart of the nation. However he lost it. This is absolutely a Chinese internal issue. Without All Chinese cooperation, he can do nothing. Nobody trust him in China. And We don't care any more what he is going to do, doesn't matter whether it is so called peaceful movement or violence.AlexBlues (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex, I appreciate your opinions on the PRC / ROC issue. However naming conventions are discussed at length on the page I linked to: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). I quote a relevant passage: "One subtle yet important point: Wikipedia treats the Republic of China as a sovereign state with equal status with the People's Republic of China, yet does not address whether they are considered separate nations. Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should merely state the de facto situation that Taiwan is governed by an independent government/state/regime called the "Republic of China."" These guidlines have been exhaustively established through consensus, and it is not incumbent on individual editors to change them ad hoc.

With regards to your allegations of the CIA being behind Tibetan independence movement, you have yet to provide a reliable, verifiable source for a very inflammatory accusation. Again, let's please try to keep this as NPOV and follow wiki conventions. The link you cited is insufficient to support your allegation that the Tibetan independence movement is a CIA puppet--all it says is that nearly 60 years ago a single CIA agent spent a year in Tibet. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability and please try to seek consensus Wikipedia:Consensus before making again such changes. Thanks and regards,Spinner145 (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese View: I appreciate your hard working, but the PRC government representing the whole China, including Taiwan, is recoganized by United Nations, right? Why don't you use the legal documents from UN in stead of the information without any leagal support? In my view, you have your own peronal views on China internal issues, therefore you selected the information, which you prefer, and published them in the public website.

For the CIA involvement in Chinese Tibet, I did give the link as the source of my information. Unfortunately, this link was deleted by SB. Many people in the world condemn Chinese cencorship, but I don't see here the people make a better job than Chinese government. It's really disappointing. Anyway, I can tell you, Western medias have lost the trust to Chinese, they can't make any influence to the who country. Wiki is the last choice, but you lost again. AlexBlues (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The naming conventions on Chinese names the page I linked are the consensus views of wiki editors, not my own (look at that page's history and you'll see that I did not contribute to it). It is not cherry-picking to say that on Wikipedia we follow Wikipedia guidelines in our editing. If you can find evidence within the guidelines that I am wrong please let me know, and if you think the guidelines themselves are wrong, all wikipedia editors are welcome to suggest improvements and try to reach a consensus to change those guidelines.

I read the link you gave and as I said, it showed that an author had published a book claiming that almost sixty years ago a single CIA operative spent a year in Tibet. Even if everything claimed in the desciprtion of that book is true, it is not sufficient to support your allegation that the Tibetan indepence movement is a CIA puppet organization.

If you are willing to follow guidelines it would be great if you stay around because wiki can only be improved by people with diverse viewpoints contributing. Cheers,Spinner145 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You will see I am right. rgds.AlexBlues (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

About Hymalaya

Hi, I don't know how to reply you to make the explaination. So I give you my answer in discussion board and hope you can see this.

Hymalaya is the true Tibetan name for the Mountain. Everest is the name from a British people. I think it's weird to use a British name here for a Tibetan Mt.. Since so many people concern the human rights here about the Tibetan people, why shouldn't we use the original Tibetan name here in stead of the British name to show the rights of Tibetans?AlexBlues (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia uses the common name for things in the English language. Bluap (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, in English, Himalaya refers to the entire range of Mountains, while Everest only refers to one peak. Schoop (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The summit is named as Jumulangma in Tibetan language. Everest is named after a British when Britain colonized India.AlexBlues (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

that is true. Mt. Everest is the English name for Jumulangma, which is used and accepted worldwidely (e.g., in geological and geographical litt.), while Himalaya refers to the entire mountain range between the Indian Sub-Continent and the rest of Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooths (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about the other side? Think about how they managed to get Olympics to the CENTER of Beijing!

Leveling living quarters with bulldozer armies, people forcibly (and no, that is not comparable to the Western definition of "force") pushed to live in the suburbs of Beijing from now on, since the space of several square miles was needed for the Olympic buildings. Absolutely nothing in the article about it. OR Chinese people have thought this is an offense and have removed these bits from the article. I would not be too surprised! -andy 78.51.89.247 (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See: Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wo... You sure care more about Chinese than us Chinese... Please, take care of yourself first and we will take care of ourselves. 24.224.182.97 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Man, relax, take care of yourself.AlexBlues (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

LoL Chinese nationalist telling off the western world. So much for one world one dream I hope "24.224.182.97 (talk)" is blocked as he's clearly a Nationalist Troll (79.230.66.26 (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

I'm sure you got these news from some newspaper who are afraid that the world is too peace. China has too many people especially in the city of beijing, and It's sure that some people had to displace for the construction of Olympic. The goverment compensated them for it, too. As Chinese, No one complain for it. And we all understand that it's a good thing for both our country and ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmybear121 CHN (talk • contribs) 12:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

May I remind people to be netural and polite here. The matter has been addressed in Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. It is NOT the idea of Wikipedia to attack other nations, but to be a medium to tell people this issue has rised concern in the international community. No matter what you personally think, it is irrelavent unless there are noticable amount of people with you on the same boat (which fair enough in this case, there are); but contribute by posting some good links, not some personal views and attacks. Ingramhk (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting in Mexico

Televisa and TV Azteca share the rights to host the games. They will both broadcast them in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.173.101 (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but which channels will broadcast the games in HD. I think that TV Azteca 13, and TV Azteca 7, will broadcast in HD, since for at least a week the shows that used to be shown in HD are now being shown in Stretch-o-Vision also the Football games are being shown in Stretch-o-Vision. The only shows that are now shown in HD are the News, and One Telenovela. Also does anyone know which Televisa Channels are showing the Games in HD. Is it XEW Also known as Canal De Las Estrellas, XHGC also Known As Canal Cinco, or is it both. Joeloliv8 04:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw the Opening Ceremony in both Televisa and TV Azteca, and both of them broadcast it in HD. I think that the other broadcasts of the Olympics will also be in HD. --Aguilac (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

World Mindsports Games

Could someone please add the 2008 Beijing World Mindsports Games following the Paralympics in the See also section? http://www.2008wmsg.org and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Mind_Sports_Games. As a beginning user I don't have the authority to do so myself. Thank you in advance, Verycurious77 (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not organized by the IOC but by the International Mind Sports Association (IMSA) so I don't think the event needs to be included in the article. Just my two cents. Xeltran (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not organized by IOC no. But IOC president Jacques Rogge is president of the committee of honour and GAISF president Hein Verbruggen is a member of that committee as well. The WMSG begin in Beijing just after the Paralympics have ended. The WMSG are being held in the Olympic Green Complex where the 3.000 players are staying as well. Chess and Bridge are IOC recognized mindsports, Draughts has just applied for IOC Recognition. It is the intention to organize the WMSG - maybe on the long run Intellympics - every four years together with the Olympics and Paralympics. So Beijing is likely to be the start of a new trilogy: Olympics, Parlympics and Intellympics. Two Chinese commercials voor the WMSG: http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/QgH0vz_5GAA/ http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/5BrtMB_YFDw/ I'd like to think that al this justifies a modest reference under 'See also'. I very much hope the authorized Wikipedians can agree on this. 84.86.103.21 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the others decide on this matter, too, before adding. :) Xeltran (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense

What is this nonsense in the first sentence about the "Paralympics"? That has nothing to do with the Olympics, and even if it did, it wouldn't belong in the first paragraph, much less the first sentence. Can somebody please either delete it or relegate it to a small mention way down in the article? Seriously, folks. . .a pro-handicap agenda? That's what we're going to do at Wikipedia now? Give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

By definition, the second games are the parallel games. I think its current placement neither over- nor under-emphasizes the pairing of the two events. There is no agenda and I'm really not sure why it would be such a problem even if there was. chicgeek (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasting in Spain

The public Spanish network TVE has a High Definition channel TVE-HD which can be tuned in the Digital+ pay package. I can't edit the broadcaster box. Please somebody add this.

Number of delegates

"Below is a list of the all the participating NOCs (where available, the number of competitors per delegation is indicated in parentheses):"

I clicked on a few and the number of people listed in the articles never seems to match the number on the main page (eg see Gabon, and also Algeria). Am I missing something? Anyone know where the numbers come from? Rbakker99 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Only a few of those numbers are referenced, which is why we need to look at the official numbers that will hopefully be posted at the official 2008 Beijing Olympics site in a few days. Xeltran (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The number of people participating for the Unites States on the main page is wrong it says we have 593 well Unites States has 647 and is the biggest participants at the summer games not China. So I don't know how to change that but it should. and other countries are wrong to. I don't know where you are getting your sources but they are wrong. MaribethSaxton (User talk:MaribethSaxton|talk]]) 10:03pm, 8 August 2008

Will reply at Talk:United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics --Jh12 (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I took the data from the official site [1] and compiled it into a spreadsheet and pivot table that has the number of athletes per country. The spreadsheet and pivot table can be found here [2] but they are only as accurate as the official site data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.217.128 (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely some mistake?

204.152.239.217 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)The section on delegations includes the sentences:

Other delegations will be much smaller; Afghanistan, for example, will be represented by just four competitors. And some Competitors will be competing in the Olympics for the first time which includes Hayley Palmer who will swim for New Zealand[81]

Surely the second sentence here is entirely irrelevant. New Zealand have taken part before, and the fact that a particular competitor is taking part for the first time is hardly unique. This secntence should be deleted.

204.152.239.217 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies & Ethnic Tibetans

It is currently written "Ethnic Tibetans have been banned from working in Beijing during the duration of the Games", one guy say the police told him to fire the tibetan working... nothing tell us it is systematic that Tibetan can not work in Beijing, it is certainly an action of one policeman. thus I propose to write "SOME Ethnic Tibetans have been banned" Froggy helps ;-) (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasters

HD BELGIUM = éénHD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.244.24.170 (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasters for Dominican Republic: Telecentro and RNN, source [Comite Olimpico Dominicano http://www.colimdo.org/] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osplace (talk • contribs) 03:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Broadcasters for Switzerland = SRG SSR idée suisse on the channel SF2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.136.44 (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Long Page Load Time

Why does it take this page so long to load? Over 30 seconds with a DSL connection. I'm referring to the article, not the talk page. TheDarkOneLives (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is over 100kb long. There is an ongoing discussion to split it. Xeltran (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Joey Cheek's Visa Revoked by the Chinese Embassy

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Chi?urn=oly,98718 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qiaozhu (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One world, one dream, welcome to the Chinese olympics. We should add that to the article if this proves to be the final word of the embassy. Novidmarana (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Results

Is Wikipedia going to have a page which documents the complete results of events once they happen. There have been several soccer matches played already prior to the Opening Ceremony, however they seem to be scattered across multiple pages. Is there a single Olympics Results page being created?

Rhettrospective (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Rhett B

For the 2006 Winter Olympics, we had a highlights page: 2006 Winter Olympics highlights. I hoped that the same thing could be produced for this games, although I'm not sure what others think. It would be at 2008 Summer Olympics highlights. Jared (t)  13:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I guess someone already started it! Perhaps you can reference that pages from time to time. Jared (t)  13:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it a bit suspicious that Chiina has the most gold medals. They must be cheating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.132.231 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is too big.

This article is killing my computer. Can we possibley move more stuff into ancilliary pages. I would do it myself, but I cant.-96.237.252.71 (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well what it is is the huge calendar, which is like 35 kb in and of itself. I think it should be made into templates, but they would still have to load. I think after the games is the best time to delete stuff, but for now we just have to build. Jared (t)  15:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. Please identify stuff that can, in any way, be moved to one of several pre-existing ancilliary pages, and do it. There is no removal of info, simply a streamlining of the info that is initially presented to the viewer. I don't understand locking this article, then completely ignoring any requests to change it despite this evident problem...

Why are there so many pictures?? I can count 5-6 pictures that can immediately be moved to an ancilliary article. This is ridiculous.-96.237.252.129 (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of Azerbaijani athlets is incorrect

According to several sources the number of Azerbaijani athlets to participate in the Olympics is 44 and not 39 as given in the article, please somebody who has acces correct this number [3] Baku87 (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Split proposals

This page is currently 109 KB long, which for an article that should have the potential of being featured in the future, is completely unacceptable, especially when considering that the Olympics have not even started yet (football did already start though...). The page takes forever to load and even more to edit. We need to drastically trim this article down, especially for those lengthy lists or tables that can easily be moved to their own separate pages. I've proposed the splits of the following:

• Broadcasting → List of broadcasting rights at the 2008 Summer Olympics 2008 Summer Olympics broadcasting rights
• Participating NOCs → List of participating NOCs at the 2008 Summer Olympics or List of participating National Olympic Committees at the 2008 Summer Olympics

• If all articles need to start with 2008 Summer Olympics..., how would you start this? 2008 Summer Olympics participating NOCs ?? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Calendar → Calendar of the 2008 Summer Olympics 2008 Summer Olympics calendar

This would be a great start. Thanks Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 07:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Before this goes any further, another suggestion might be a good compromise, because I do recognize the issue of large pages. Perhaps what we could do is move the Broadcasting table to 2008 Summer Olympics broadcasting (to keep with convention). That would eliminate a large chunk of the page. Then, since we already have {{NOCin2008SummerOlympics}}, we could just wipe out the list of national competitors. Finally, the calendar could be moved back to 2008 Summer Olympics calendar, with maybe a mini-calendar on the main Olympics page. I'm not sure if this is essentially what was proposed above, because as per my concerns below, there really wasn't a proposal laid out here in full. Comments/objections to this being the "actual" proposal? Jared (t)  16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much what I meant, except for the "we could just wipe out the list of national competitors". Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the splits proposals by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as I am the nominator. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 07:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. This will be one of the most, if not the most, visible and viewed article on Wikipedia for the next three weeks. The loading time even for me with a cable connection is 10 to 15 seconds sometimes. It will be major problems for those with slower connections. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 07:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - article is too long, too slow to load and can take too much page scrolling to find what you want. Main page needs to carry essential data, and details not critical to describing the event itself, can be held elsewhere. Perhaps the section on Transport should have it's own page too? --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Well, considering the notability and global importance of the event, almost every section of the article probably needs its own page. For now though, I would like to handle only the huge sections that are the main cause for the loading and technical problems. Then I believe we should go ahead and decide for some of the other sections, case my case (all in my opinion of course). Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - As the event progresses, the article would become much more longer/larger and as observed in the past sports events, the article would attract a lot of viewers. Strongly support moving supplementary information to separate pages. --Natrajdr (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose – 109 KB is not long at all. Python eggs (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment No offense, but was that a bad joke? WP:SIZE says that articles larger than 100 KB "almost certainly should be divided". I'm glad if you have an extremely fast internet connection, but most people do not have access to that kind of equipment. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - that is 109 KB even before opening ceremony, elimination rounds, semi finals, finals, medals (and medal count) and closing ceremony. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 09:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The 109KB is irrelevant. Featured articles look at the length of readable prose. This article has lots of formatting in the tables, bumping up the KB. The actual amount of readable prose is actually fairly small.

• Oppose. First off, the calendar used to exist at 2008 Summer Olympics calendar, where I created it, but someone had the necessity to move it here, removing the transclusion I had for it on this page completely. (I wouldn't oppose moving it back to that page, but ONLY if it stayed transcluded here). Basically, the size of this page is due to our using templates that repeat, or structures that look cool, but take up a lot of room. Everything should stay here for now, or at least in part, but for god sake don't keep getting rid of stuff, because there won't be anything left! Jared (t)  14:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Having been cleared up on the issues, I have no choice but to support the effort! Jared (t)  20:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The 109KB is not irrelevant. It might not matter for featured article status, but it almost certainly will matter for the thousands of people who visit this page in the next two weeks who don't have super fast internet connections. Benjaminx (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support - considering this page is going to be one of the most viewed on Wikipedia in the coming weeks I think is a necessity to pair it down. I think splitting the Broadcasting is a great first start because it is a simple and easy transition. Scottydude _talk 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article has the thoroughness that the subject deserves. A great deal of the text in the article is references, not a bad thing. I think we need to remember the 100K guideline is just a guideline. Posterity will edit the article down after the Olympics are over, there is no need to be hasty about splitting it up right this minute because of concerns about the readers of 2010. I don't see any good argument for making this nicely thorough article less so by forcing readers to go to sub-pages (which in the long run will slow down their reading even more). Tempshill (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Make it easy for users to see the links to other pages and divide it up to keep it from getting too long and slow to load. Separate pages can expand on the thouroughness (sp?) of the sub-topic. Cs92 (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Seriously too big for my poor 512kps connection (pretty much a standard connection in Australia), along with many other fellow Wikipedians that have already been talking on this talk page about this issue. Jordsta (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Yep it takes a while to load. However, its important that clear links are placed near the start of the article to help readers find what their interested in. Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 08:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Simply being long is not grounds to split an article. The information is relevant and split pages will only seek to create confusion to access information. I have tried the page at a number of different internet speeds and foudn it loaded well within an acceptable timeframe Rotovia (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support just as long as those the split pages are easily accessible from the main olympics page hornplayer2 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Since the idea to split the page was first proposed, I suspect the page has gotten even bigger. Was some split off, only to see the page grow again? I'm not sure, but I just commented at the end of this page that my browser basically freezes up for half a minute or more when I visit the page, which is pretty much ONLY true for this page. I suspect that the problem is not just download time (I've got a very fast connection), but the resources used to display the page. Tiny little flags are cute, but combined with all the other material on the page, it makes for a real drag. zadignose (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Comment. Basically, I don't understand this proposal fully. Is someone suggesting, and many people agreeing to, the removal of entire sections of writing, tables, and pictures from this article? I understand that not everything can fit here, but if the end game is to make this page smaller, we can't do it without sacrificing the "quality" of this page. Honestly, splitting an article seems like the quick fix, but it just makes more problems, so why not rewrite some stuff here, or make smaller tables. Do we really need an "HD" section in the Olympic broadcaster's table? Do we really need the table?! There are some ways we can fix this without having to shove stuff on other pages first, and I really don't think having more pages to tend to is the answer. Jared (t)  14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Please move the subsection pictures away to an ancilliary articles. Please. please please please. please. they can be moved IMMEDIATELY. please please please please please. Do not lock this articel and ignore requests on talk page.-71.184.193.44 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The naming of the new articles should all begin with 2008 Summer Olympics.... --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I decided to be bold and make the NOC's table a transclusion from a template instead, shaved 10KB off the page size. ViperSnake151 16:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist

Since this is the most visible Olympic page, I'd like to remind everyone about the Olympic watchlist. It will be a useful tool for fighting vandalism which there will be plenty of. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 07:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening ceremony

When will the opening ceremony start? At 8:00 PM as this article says or at 8:08 PM as the article 2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony says? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:2008 Summer Olympics Opening Ceremony#Source needed for timing of Opening Ceremony jnestorius^(talk) 08:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

9:00 EST; 8:00 CST --frogger3140 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV? I think not

This page reads like Chinese propaganda. No information about concerns over Chinese human rights abuse other than journalistic restrictions. Human Rights Watch "allegations" are not allegations as the page states - they are documented facts. The controversy over Tibet is not whether protesters will disrupt the games, but whether China should continue to occupy Tibet.

82.70.211.221 (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Chris Owens, August 8 2008.

How dare you spoil the big party for one billion Chinese!! But seriously, that is a problem with many China-related articles on Wikpidia these days, as any criticism of China is anathema for some editors. Novidmarana (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason that subjects like Chinese human rights are not mentioned in detail here, is that same reason that the Occupation of Iraq and Guantanamo Bay are not mentioned in each US sporting event article. There are other articles that adequately cover those subjects. For example: Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The controversy over Tibet simply doesn't belong to this article, this article is about the Olympics.--Seba5618 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the press, which means the reliable sources, don't agree with you. If the reliable sources are constantly linking the two, then it does belong here. Ignoring that aspect of the coverage is a violation of NPOV.--Crossmr (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume that by "press" you mean western press. In any case I didn't really meant what I wrote, I'm OK with the current size of the controversy section and I do agree that it is necesary to avoid POV. Still, I don't see how to merge this section on the rest of the article without losing consistency.--Seba5618 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The press is the press, regardless of where they are from. There are a lot of people in the west, and their media also finds a lot of televisions, papers, websites, etc around the world. This is a far cry from some single extremist news organization where it might be okay to refer to them as the "press".--Crossmr (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is complete disregard concerning the geographic origins of press releases, I recon you would reflect the views of the Chinese propaganda machine to the last as well? NPOV is not merely an issue of quantity of citable sources. It is also about ensuring there is a fair and balanced coverage of views expressed by both sides of the debate. As far as the current version of the article stands, this has clearly been accomplished already.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Highlights Section??

Do we want to add a Highlights section to this page, similar to one in 2006 Winter Olympics, and possibly linking to a more detailed Highlights of the 2008 Summer Olympics? I realise that it would become a bit of a dumping ground for information during the games, but I think that it would provide a centralised location for brief snippets of the games, which we could then clean up to a proper summary post-event. Bluap (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That is probably the best way that we can control the dumping of results. And conveniently, the page has already been started! It is at 2008 Summer Olympics highlights. That's how most of the subpage names here are structured, I suppose, and how the 2006 one specifically was too. Jared (t)  14:10, August 8, 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold, and added the section. Bluap (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If there is a seperate article, then there is no need for a section, at least not now. As the games go on, this article will grow exponentially, as will the highlights article. If there is a need for such a section, I suggest adding it after the games so you can control the size of it and you don't have to worry about it constantly being updated with up-to-the-minute results, rather than actual highlights. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympics on TV

TV Guide provides time and channel information for all Olympics-related events here: http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/summer-olympics/tv-listings/294210.

Where's the most appropriate place to put this?

Tubesurfer (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be included. No way we are putting the TV listings for every country. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 16:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Number of Haitian athletes is incorrect

According to several sources there are 10 Haitian athletes to participate in the Olympics and not 1 as is stated in the article. Please correct this number Spyder00Boi (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Brunei article...?

Should Brunei_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics be deleted, or a re-direct here, now that they are not taking part? The participation template greys out or omits those years where NOCs do not participate, so this separate article would be the first of its kind as far as I can see. doktorb _words^deeds 21:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A reference has been added to the main article explaining Burundi's absence so a separate article is not necessary. I think it should be redirected but improve the explanation in the article. 03md (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected Brunei's article to 2008 Summer Olympics#Participation changes and added useful text from the article into that section. Hope this helps. 03md (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect this page??

Currently, this page is semi-protected, which means that new users cannot edit the page. I would like to tentatively suggest that we unprotect the page. My reasoning is that this page is likely to receive a lot of attention from people who are new to Wikipedia. By allowing them to freely edit the page, we encourage the long-term aims of the Wikipedia project. A lot of the arguments in the essay For and Against TFA protection apply here. Bluap (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I for one would be opposed, just because of the amount of vandalism that I expect will be present here over the next few weeks. Jared (t)  23:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against unprotecting the article. There was hourly vandalism on the article as long ago as May, so unprotecting it during the games would be a bad idea. This is different from a TFA, it is only high profile for a day, this article will be high profile for more than 2 weeks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It sucks it is protected but the vandalism would be more than a TFA article. IPs and new users can edit the event and nation pages which are unprotected. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 23:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Flag Dipping

The athletes from the United States first refused to dip their flag during the 1908 Summer Olympics. I missed the opening ceremonies because I overslept and forgot to tivo it, so I have no way of checking the rumors I've been hearing all day that the American's dipped their flag to the Chinese Head of State. Are their any photos or videos, or perhaps something that could produce a usable fact. Sweetfreek (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

        search it up on google72.80.187.148 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Live Broadcast in USA.

Where would be the best place to put info regarding the press blackout of the opening by NBC? Just searching the web it appears alot of people (including me) were disappointed/angry by NBC's refusal to show it live and re-air it latter. Ifandbut (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in the article United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics Bluap (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Was it not live? They did replay it all night though. --eric (mailbox) 22:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people are really complaining about the opening ceremonies not being live; after all, the time difference between EDT and Beijing is 12 hours, so if it's aired live, people would have to tune in at 8 am friday morning -- most people were probably at work. Viewership for a live broadcast would be limited and the advertisers would've balked about that. I think there have been gripes about a tape delay for the west coast, though; I'm not sure about all the details here. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies

This section needs to be fully rewritten with better prose, and needs to provide neutral coverage for a broader spectrum of notable topics. I have also re-added the statement regarding persecution of Christians, and I will attempt to aid in further improvements of the section later tonight.   — C M B J   02:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel that we should try to keep this section as short as possible, reserving the sub-article Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics for a broad scope. We can't mention every single aspect of human rights in China in this article, which is supposed to be about the Olympics. We definitely want to avoid placing undue weight on the concerns. Bluap (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue I have with this section (and the reason I kept deleting it) is that it's EXTREMELY America-centric. America has been the loudest among any nation about so-called human rights violations, air pollution, Internet restrictions, blah blah blah. We need a global view, not just what America thinks. Wikipedian06 (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

While that may be, if the most reliable sources come from there, then it will get the most coverage. We're not here on wikipedia to create a point of view, only to accurately reflect what the reliable sources. Neutral point of view doesn't insist upon presenting something completely fair and balanced. It insists on presenting viewpoints held by the reliable sources with the weight that they're given coverage. If the majority of sources are US sources (and lets not forget the torch was snuffed in other venues) then the majority of text will be from a US view. What you can do is ensure that the sources are labeled as to where they come from.--Crossmr (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of rewriting this section in as appropriate of a tone as possible.   — C M B J   06:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The section has been rewritten, and now includes sources from Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Japan, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It is not perfect, but it is undoubtedly an improvement. Further editing should include improved prose, and slightly more verbose and well-written explanations of the most influential topics; such as the proposed boycotts, Tibetan unrest, and media censorship. The section should remain focused on concerns and controversies that pertain to the Olympic games, and delicate caution should be taken to avoid WP:UNDUE. Some of the information would be more neutrally and tastefully presented in other areas of the article.   — C M B J   11:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Bluap (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section of this aricle deserves to be moved else where, even to its own article. Reading from Top to Bottom up til this point the entire aritile was neutral and informative. It did not share any views only facts of events from a world view, even the points about the Bruni pull out and ban on Iraq participation. This section deviates from this voice and tone and creates its own view that seems out of place. - TLD, Dallas, Texas, 8-10-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.39.78 (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: not all related parties are American, and this statement is exclusively addressing a controversy pertaining to Christianity.   — C M B J   09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit has been reverted for a second time, as the related groups are not all American. Furthermore, several of the controversies related to Christians are distinct from those of other religions.

Both the Tibetan and Uyghur peoples controversial in relation to the Olympics. We could generalize the two ethnic groups and simply say that "indigenous peoples" were the subject of controversy, but it would not be nearly as informative. I understand that Christians are not the only religious group facing persecution in China, just as Tibetans are not the only controversial indigenous people. All four references for this statement specifically refer to Christianity, and there is a corresponding section in the child article.

The "equivocal religious freedoms" statement already covers generalized religious discrepancies, but does not adequately describe more detailed aspects and concerns.   — C M B J   09:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now reverted a third edit. Please consider WP:WAR and WP:3RR.   — C M B J   12:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actual start time

I believe the actual start time was in fact 2008hrs [8:08] not 2000hrs as posted.

Ygen (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ling Long Pagoda

something should be written about it. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

limited reception to other parts of the world

Man, why you make praise about transmitting the games in HD if you cant make the other parts of the world seeing it!, the broadcasting has been very limited and disappointing. I live in Panama and we here depends on small sections that are paid to US broadcasters to see it! And what we see? NOTHING! We only can see when our athletes play, nothing else from this big event. So whats the point? Why cant they transmit at reasonable prices for small countries so we can see at least something of the events? I cant see nothing in internet either because I not belong to any zone (Europe or USA) that the broadcasters belong!

When we will have a Super Low Definition Open Source Broadcast for the World, this situation isnt fair! I am so pissed, I wanted to see archery at last.....

And I have only see the opening ceremony, and because its the only thing we have, its looping in our local channels. I have Cable and I get nothing neither.

Please London! Dont make the same mistakes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.140.43.196 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, but then, the broadcasters already paid for the exclusive rights to broadcast the Games in specific countries. Xeltran (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly can't watch the EU's streaming video online outside of their territory! Perhaps a distinction should be made between satellite TV and computer TV?kencf0618 (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the decision of the local broadcasting company to choose which programme they show on TV. And mostly the local company/ies will only show when their country/region is playing (i.e. The TV in Hong Kong show mostly when China or Hong Kong is playing. Maybe the TV companies just want to annoy us, maybe not. I am a big fan of badminton, and i know for sure there's matches all day, but i can only view it when China/Hong Kong, China play, not when only countries play Ingramhk (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_origin Lihaas (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia

Did Georgia team abandon Olympics Games?

See http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Olympics/idUSPEK30568120080809

--151.57.10.240 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That headline included the word "may". Anyway, Georgia haven't left the Olympics - one of their shooters got (I believe) a bronze after that article was uploaded. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To what extend is the pollution going to affect record times?

Are there sources supporting it? Because it sure sounds like it. I saw a portion of BBC saying that pollution yesterday in Beijing was about 8 times more than in London. --Leladax (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We shall soon see about that, but of course ultimately we will only report this correlation when there are reputable sources making the same deduction.--Huaiwei (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, many media has a certain bias when reporting, not only do they reflect the society, so do they impose certain ideas onto the people. Despite the talk of severe pollution, there has already been new records set, e.g. swimmer Michael Phelps, Weightlifter Chen Xiexia. Obviously these are not altheltics event (and we will have to see the results later), but let us not forget that a lot of events dont have world records for breaking, e.g. Canoeing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingramhk (talk • contribs) 02:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

While it was mainly predicted that heat, humidity and pollution would affect the outdoor endurance events, the Women's 10000 metres was run in a new Olympic record time and the second and third fastest women's 10,000 metres times in history. We should not be expecting the same record pace for the marathon, as marathon records are almost never set in August due to the heat. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 06:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

incidents

would a section on "incidents" related to the olympics, such as the killing the recent killing of a tourist or plots by terrorists, be appropriate? hornplayer2 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if there were an unusually large number of tourist deaths we might. If a tourist was killed in California while visiting Disneyland, we probably wouldn't mention it in the Disneyland article. The Disneyland page mentions deaths at the park itself, so it might depend if someone died in the Olympic stadium or if they died in the street. Terrorist plots are covered in the Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics article. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 22:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentionable media-related deaths, yes. Terrorists plots? Maybe after the Olympics are over and all is said and done, otherwise it would be a current event. Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics is pretty much appropriate. --eric (mailbox) 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would be nicer to look at plus all incidents would be condensed in one page. Xeltran (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Beijing National Stadium designer

Why is there no explanation in the article as to why the designer has renounced the games and says he "wants nothing to do with the olympic games"?Cs302b (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Connective_trivia--Skyfiler (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Olympic games were awarded to Beijing after an exhaustive ballot of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on July 13, 2001.

does "exhaustive ballot" have some special meaning? what's "exhaustive" trying to describe (other than seemingly an unneeded word in my opinion)?

update: guess it does (having trolled about wikipedia and found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustive_ballot. so i suggest a link for "exhaustive ballot" to wiki article.68.173.14.215 (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion - so made the edit. Thanks. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sports section

Am I right in thinking trampolining has been missed out? Craigy (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trampoline is a discipline of gymnastics; information is found at Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics. - Eron^Talk 19:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Thank you! Craigy (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

umm, sorry. Trampolining counts separately for the olympics. see this: http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/Schedule/index.shtml It starts tomorrow. Lihaas (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Beijing 2008 site shows the results separately, but trampolining is still a discipline of gymnastics, as is rhythmic gymnastics. There is currently only one wikipedia article on it, as linked above. We could certainly split it out, but we should do the same for the different disciplines under cycling and canoeing as well. - Eron^Talk 21:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two articles, Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's trampoline and Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's trampoline. These two event pages are both linked from the same higher-level Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Argh, missed that. Thanks. - Eron^Talk 21:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Participating NOCs section

I am concerned about this text in the Participating NOCs section:

Since the People's Republic of China does not recognise the independence of Taiwan (Republic of China), the Taiwanese athletes are forced to carry the Chinese Taipei flag instead of their national flag. They are also referred to as Chinese Taipei (TPE) instead of ROC (Republic of China) because the Chinese do not accept them using their "own" name. If Taiwanese athletes win gold it will not be the anthem of Taiwan that would be played at the medal ceremony. Hong Kong however is displaying their national flag although they are not a sovereign state.

This makes it appear that the only reason for the designation of Chinese Taipei, and the use of the National Olympic Committee flag rather than the ROC national flag, is because these Games are in China and Beijing objects. This is patently untrue. The National Olympic Committee of Taiwan was redesignated as the National Olympic Committee of Chinese Taipei in 1979, and athletes from Taiwan have participated at the Olympic Games under the Chinese Taipei name and flag since 1984.

This looks like POV pushing, blaming the current Games organizing committee for a situation that has existed for decades as a result of international politics surrounding the status of Taiwan. I note that Taiwan participated as Chinese Taipei in the Athens and Sydney Games, for example, but there is no explicit mention of this on the relevant articles. I do not see why this needs explicit mention in this article. - Eron^Talk 21:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree Eron. Several editors have tried to push an anti-China spin on this article. This should be rectified to be as neutral as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.143.65 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The text has now been changed to "Since Taiwan (Republic of China) is not internationally recognized as a sovereign country, the Taiwanese athletes are pressured to use the politically neutral name "Chinese Taipei" and to carry the Chinese Taipei flag instead of the Flag of the Republic of China. They are also referred to as Chinese Taipei (TPE)[137] instead of ROC (Republic of China). If Taiwanese athletes win gold it will not be the anthem of Taiwan that would be played at the medal ceremony."

This is still inaccurate and POV. Pressured by whom? If anyone is applying pressure, it is the IOC and they have done so since 1979. I cannot see how this is especially relevant to this article. If we are mentioning Chinese Taipei's name here, we should also edit the 2004 Summer Olympic Games article to note that, due to pressure from the host country Greece, athletes from the Republic of Macedonia competed under the name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It would be equally relevant - and equally incorrect. - Eron^Talk 21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A simple mention of RoC is represented as Chinese Taipei (like in any other Olympics) would suffice. It could also be removed since the situation has not changed and it adds nothing notable that is different from previous Games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.143.65 (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny reading - so Beijing doesn't give a damn if Taiwanese athletes fly the Flag of the Republic of China at the Olympics? It's the IOC's own idea as well as forcing the Republic of Macedonia to be called the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Greece couldn't care less about Macedonia's name!

WRONG! If IOC is applying pressure to Taiwan it's because someone else (guess who) is squeezing IOC. IOC is just a sock-puppet for PRC in this matter.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and readers seek knowledge. One of the above contributors suggested that information regarding matters indifferent from the previous games should be stripped from the 2008 article. So readers should always go back to the 1896 article and chew through all the intermediate Olympic Games articles to get answers regarding questions to the present games? That is a rather arrogant attitude, especially towards newbies. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean? "Strange that you both are from Canada ;-)" [4]. That's a pretty brash accusation if I am correct in what you are inferring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.143.65 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation, that's all. Have a look at the Smiley article! --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My concern with this section is that it is pushing the point of view that the only reason athletes from Taiwan are not competing under their national name and flag is because the Games are being held in Beijing and that China would not allow their participation otherwise. The inclusion of the sentence about Hong Kong contributes to this, as it seems to draw some sort of comparison between the treatment of the two. The comment above that "IOC is just a sock-puppet for PRC in this matter" is a clear statement of this point of view.

The problem is, this point of view runs contrary to the facts. The fact is that the National Olympic Committee of Taiwan changed its name in 1979, that the name it has used at the Olympics has been Chinese Taipei since 1984, and that the fact that the current Olympics are being held in China has nothing to do with this designation. Similarly, Hong Kong established its own Olympic Committee in 1950 and has competed at the Olympics since 1952, independent of its status with respect to both Great Britain and China.

I'd like to understand what the relevance is of highlighting the status of two out of 204 participating NOCs, beyond an attempt to push a POV that is critical of China's stance towards Taiwan - a stance which is not relevant to this article. - Eron^Talk 03:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the paragraphs, with explanation in the edit summary--pretty much the same reasoning mentioned by Eron. HkCaGu (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And that removal has just been reverted here, with the note that "The paragraph is a consensus of several contributors." I'm not going to re-revert now, but I will restate my question from above: What the relevance is of highlighting the status of two out of 204 participating NOCs, beyond an attempt to push a POV that is critical of China's stance towards Taiwan? The fact that the paragraph represents a consensus of several editors does not mean that it is not POV. I still cannot see why it is in the article. - Eron^Talk 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the Chinese Taipei arrangement has nothing to do with whether Taiwan is an independent and/or recognized nation. It has to do with the history of two governments fighting for the "seat" of China just like in the UN and everywhere else. For decades after 1949, PRC would not compete because they didn't think ROC was legitimate or "two Chinas" was acceptable. In the same time period, ROC competed as "China", until 1976 when Canada wouldn't issue them visas to "represent China", and then in 1979 the PRC won favors of the IOC and resulted in the subsequent CHN/TPE arrangement--all of this while the Chiangs are in power and the Taiwan independence movement was highly suppressed. Since then, the ROC government had changed hand twice from KMT to DPP and back to KMT. Neither parties wanted to fight for "a better deal" like they wanted for UN, WHO etc. because IOC is something they already continue to participate in and not excluded.

I don't see a "consensus of several contributors". I only see one person tending to add something which others tried to tone down, correct, and reduce. Many sentences contain POV, especially the inclusion of HKG, which may have its own flags but not anthem (it was GBR's and CHN's that get played). And BTW it's not "the anthem of Taiwan"--it's the controversial (today) KMT party song then ROC anthem from across the strait.

The info is only relevant in the Chinese Taipei article, not in this 2008 article--at least in this form. After all the sovereign, independent (de facto) nation of ROC is indeed allowed to send an Olympic team, albeit under a different arrangement like FYROM.

If there's anything worth noting (like the torch relay controversies), it'd be the controversy of how (and by whom) to translate Chinese Taipei into Chinese (Zhonghua Taibei or Zhongguo Taibei). This previously untouched "can of worm" finally got "opened" because Chinese is an official language of the 2008 games--something not happened before. HkCaGu (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the reason why Taiwan cannot participate as the Republic of China or as Taiwan is because of pressure from China to the IOC and its members. This is not specific to the 2008 Summer Olympics. But I think it is necessary to note in the article that visitors and expatriates from Taiwan were allowed to display their national flag in the previous games, since those games were not held in China. Was Macedonia allowed to use its own name in games other than the one in Athens? The Observant (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The text currently in the article does not mention visitors and expatriates from Taiwan; it only discusses competing athletes from Taiwan. These athletes have not competed under the name Taiwan or under the national flag of Taiwan since before 1984. - Eron^Talk 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the first time in olympics that supporters cannot display the national flag of the Republic of China, and therefore necessary to be noted. The "Chinese Taipei" designation and the NOC flag of Chinese Taipei have been in place since the early 1980s. It is not notable particularly to the Beijing games. The Observant (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree re the significance of a ban on display of the Taiwan flag. I would like to find a clear reference to the ban; what I have found (and put in) is a reference to an article describing what spectators are planning to do to circumvent the ban. I'd be interested to know if anyone has found a reference to the ban itself. - Eron^Talk 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The ban has nothing to do with the Olympics, and there is no way you can document the ban. You simply can't display the ROC flag anywhere in mainland China (except at certain historical memorials) without being hauled away for a long time. (The PRC considers ROC no longer legitimate government, but still holding out a province which makes the flag rebellious.) In past Olympics, displaying the ROC flag might get you hauled away from the venue, but out on the street you can do just anything. In Beijing this time, even a "Free Tibet" banner somewhere in the city won't be tolerated. Additionally, I don't think any Taiwanese fans/supporters (of the athletes) are planning to bring in a ROC flag anyway. They're not political activists after all, and they are not that stupid to have to be told that they can't bring it.

In conclusion, taking away the "unlike previous games" phrase makes the mentioning of TPE's status irrelevant. HkCaGu (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is strange how some people dislike an after all tame paragraph. They produce subarguments in order to erase it. You can find more arguments at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What is it that disturbs your circles? I often come across Wikipedians who fail to comprehend that ordinary people look up in the Wikipedia to get knowledge that these Wikiusers take for granted. People might wonder why some teams are not using their own flag, or they might wonder where the Taiwanese athletes/spectators are. 2008 Summer Olympics#Participating NOCs is the perfect place to inform these people (contrary to the South African swimmer story - it must be misplaced). You might think that it's common knowledge or that ignorant people can just click on the Chinese Taipei hyperlink to learn about it. It's not very user-friendly to hide information behind wikilinks and if you're looking for the Taiwanese NOC you have no Taiwan => TPE hyperlink. If the problem is that it's not unique for Beijing 2008 you'll have to work overtime to erase information mutual with the previous Olympics. If it's about the relevance of highlighting the status of a few then remember - Olympic Games highlights the few, namely the medal receivers. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Map of participating countries really useful?

What is the value of the Image:2008 Olympic games countries.PNG, the resoultion of which prevents the new (tiny) nations from being shown? Two of the four colour-coded categories seem to be redundant and it seems to show simply that, of all the worlds's countries, only Western Sahara is not participating, a fact not explained/ confirmed in the text. Is this image required by Wiki guidelines or by precedent? Could it be improved to be in any way useful? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the Image:2008 Olympic games countries.PNG is not useful in that resolution. A text explaining it would be better. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. We need some words to tell and explain why some countries are not represented at the 2008 olympics. Some do not have an NOC, some NOCs are not member of IOC, and some are barred by the IOC to compete. The Observant (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the map is that it's part of a series of similar maps added to each Olympic Games page; clearly, the maps for earlier Games are much more useful than the ones here at the point where almost every country has competed. It's hard to really show which countries aren't participating at this point, because the ones which aren't participating (Vatican City and Brunei) are tiny enough not to really show up. However, a curious reader could actually look at the higher resolution version, and see that, as well as the blue coloring for Montenegro, the Marshall Islands, and Tuvalu. Western Sahara and Kosovo are also shaded gray on the map, but neither are indisputably sovereign and the IOC hasn't recognized NOCs from either (and, at least in the case of Kosovo, has indicated that it won't until Kosovo's independence is recognized by the UN). Such textual explanation would be helpful, and there is some right next to the map. I'm not really sure what you mean by the redundancy comment--which two categories do you think are redundant? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 06:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Janet. Your explanation confirms my suspiciions. I was certianly curious enough to open the tiny picture and I could see only Western Sahara (not named) and Beijing as not green. Are you sure Kosovo and Montenegro stand out, or that The Marshall Islands or Tuvalu can even be seen? Vut your text above has told me all that I needed to know and I would suggest you add it, whether or not you keep the useless tiny world map. Martinevans123 (talk)

p.s. is Aruba a (non-participating) country? Or is it classed as a "Protectorate" and thus excluded? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that - Aruba's taking part in these Olympics. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So I see, my mistake. In any case I guess, in general, that country "status" is irrelevant - it's having a recognised NOC that counts. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I bet nobody can tell from the map that Macau is not taking part. The Observant (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Hong Kong, Macau has not established a recognized National Olympic Committee separate from that of the People's Republic of China; thus, the IOC considers competitors from Macau to be eligible for competition under the CHN NOC. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be possible for competitors from Macau to participate in the Olympics in the Chinese team. Nor did they participate in the Portuguese team. The Observant (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly right. Like Aruba, Puerto Rico has its own NOC, as does Hong Kong. Macau, however, does not. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Macau has its own NOC too. It is a member of the OCA, but has not yet been admitted to the IOC. The Observant (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously a bit complicated with the overlap/ separation between (1) countries which consider themselves an automomous nation (2) parent countries of these which do not (3) nations with a recognised NOC (4) nations without an NOC (5) nations with a non-recognised/un-registered NOC (6) whether or not country allowed to compete as part of a parent nation. I'm not sure the thumbnail-sized world map (with the key only visible when image os opened separately) can really do this complexity justice, especially wwhen (a) exceptions so few (b) size of the nations involved mostly so small (c) low resolution of the map. If the map must be kept, could it's resolution and size on the page be increased, but also all explanatory detail included in the text? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would a separate list like the list of IOC members (but specific for the 2008 Olympics) help? The Observant (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can tell the difference between the blue and green when the map is viewed at high resolution, but not when it's at the size which it has to be on the main article. As I understand the IOC position at the moment, Western Sahara should be colored green (as part of Morocco) and Kosovo should be colored green (as part of Serbia). The only gray that should be on the map would be dots for the Vatican City and Brunei. Thus, the map should be essentially all green -- which is what it currently appears to be. This shows that practically the entire world is competing, and provides a contrast to other games, especially the early ones and the ones hit by boycotts. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in that context, the map may have value. But how many readers will see the maps in series/ contrast like that and indeed how easy is that to do? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

New Caledonia

The map appears to show that New Caledonia is not participating. Is this correct?
My understanding (see this page for example) is that it competes as part of France. Surely it should be green, just like French Guiana or Greenland, which are described as competing as part of France and Denmark respectively? --David Edgar (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those 44 pixels do appear to be grey, don't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How many territories are taking part as part of their sovereign powers, in similar manner as New Caledonia and Greenland? The Observant (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

World Records In 2008 Olympics

I think that someone should add an article or a section about the world records that have been broken in this Olimpiad, what ya think hommies?--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics highlights should have what you're looking for. Enjoy!. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 10:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloated Article, difficult to display

Nice article, with lots of detail, plenty of links, and little graphic flags, etc. Too bad that, of all the hundreds of pages I've visited on Wikipedia, this is the only page that freezes up my computer for around thirty seconds to a minute. Looks like splitting it is the only reasonable option. zadignose (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is your computer from 1997 or something? --Reezy (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• • No. And if a 2.81 GHz processor with 480 MB isn't top of the line, I reckon it should be able to handle most web browsing. However, I notice that today, without the several hundred little flags and graphics that were present yesterday, the problem is largely resolved. Will it stay that way? zadignose (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom should be changed to Great Britain because that is how they compete in the Olympics. Northern Irish competitors can choose Eire or Great Britain to participate for. 82.43.150.151 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you referring to? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal count rankings

How should we do this? Currently it is ranked by countries with the most gold medals rather than total number of medals awarded. I had thought that the latter approach was more common than the former, although I don't have a strong enough opinion that I care enough about this to argue either way about it. What are people's thoughts? thx.Spinner145 (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The table is ranked by gold medals, this how the IOC, IAAF and BBC rank the countries, The US however ranks by total number of medals. This is why the table is ranked by total number of golds. -- [[ axg ⁞⁞ talk ]] 09:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The table is currently ranked by total medals. US POV? 70.55.86.69 (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we should change that to the official one. We shouldn't bother referring to Yahoo's medal count, instead, go for the OFFICIAL site of the Beijing Olympics. Xeltran (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, funny how people are even thinking about the idea of ranking by total medals. The medal count has and will always be by gold medals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.139.57 (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah, we all know that has and always will only award gold medals too, right? lol. Again, I've seen it done both ways, but I think I agree actually, that the nubmber of golds seems to be the most commonly used ranking.Spinner145 (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes its always been done by gold medals. It must be an american in charge of the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daz1865 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we have the change to ranking by gold medals done? I feel the ranking by total medals is very US POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.5.120 (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

bus crash

does the bus crash with the Australian doctor for the rowing team on board and a taxi with 5 Chinese in crtical condition belong here, on the concerns article, or on the highlights article? Or on the attack on American tourists aritcle? 70.55.86.69 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Please ensure more NPOV in this article:

Another cosmetic enhancement in China's quest for a perfect Summer Games was using a cute girl to lip-sync over the singing voice of a girl with "chubby face and crooked baby teeth" during the opening ceremony song Ode to the Motherland.

If a press article is not NPOV, it can hardly stand as a creditable, NPOV source for quotation. At any rate, I hardly think there is anything wrong in selecting a young girl to sing for an Opening Ceremony. DORC (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

After this olympics, no one with breast implants, plastic surgery or anything fake will ever be allowed to participate again. Some media somewhere will say something. Benjwong (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing Ceremony

Is it usual to use postings on forums as sources?? Rbakker99 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Usual? yes. Allowed? No. Per WP:RS, forum postings (as well as blogs) are not considered reliable sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Split Games

Quote: The 2008 Beijing Olympics will also mark the third time that Olympic events will have been held in the territories of two different National Olympic Committees (NOC), with the equestrian events to be held in Hong Kong.

I know about Melbourne/Stockholm in 1956, but our lists that I've seen don't give any insight into what the other one was. What was it? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, part of one of the sailing events in 1920 Antwerp Games were held in the territorial waters of the Netherlands. A very minor distinction, to be sure, but there it is. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 06:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Very interesting. Part of one event, eh. Was that always intended, or was it a kind of accident of history? I guess the difference is that the Netherlands was not an official "co-host nation" (if that's the correct term) in 1920, whereas Sweden was in 1956. Or am I wrong? It seems to me that if this information is mentioned at all in the Beijing 2008 article, and particularly in such a prominent position, it's more than just tantalising - it's getting into the area of psychological cruelty - to not provide the details. I looked around a few places, in vain, and had to end up asking here. What could we say about this, and where would it best be said? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the explanation was that the Dutch crews got tired of racing in Belgium, and since the event's only entrants were the two Dutch crews, they went home and had the last two out of the three scheduled races for the event back home. I don't believe it was planned beforehand. Our coverage of that is rather spotty... I don't think it's even mentioned on the event page or the sport page, but does get a note on the 1920 Summer Olympics and 1956 Summer Olympics articles. It could probably be added in a couple places. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The 1956 games was actually two separate events. Melbourne and Stockholm are two separate hosts of two separate events, instead of co-hosts of one same event. The 2008 games is one event, albeit held within two different NOCs like 1956. And unlike 1920, however, the 2008 split requires IOC approval and involves a separate NOCs to host one of the items. The Observant (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This gets more interesting. So, which of A and B would it be more correct to say:

• (A) there were 2 "Games of the 16th Olympiad" (Melbourne and Stockholm), but only 1 "Games of the 29th Olympiad" (but shared between 2 NCOs, Beijing and Hong Kong)
• (B) there was 1 "Games of the 16th Olympiad" (divided into 2 events, held in Melbourne and Stockholm), and 1 "Games of the 29th Olympiad" (shared between 2 NCOs, Beijing and Hong Kong)? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that option B is correct. There is one Olympic Games. While the host NOC is important, the key organization is actually the Organizing Committee - this year BOCOG - which is the body that actually puts the Games on. National Olympic Committees generally focus on their own athletes and teams; while they may help out with the bid process, they are not hosting organizations.

One perk that host NOCs do get is the right to field athletes in every event. This varies a bit from sport to sport, but for the most part all sports have a provision in their Olympic qualification rules which allows the host country to automatically qualify for the events. I would guess that for Beijing 2008, this privilege extended only to athletes from mainland China, not to Hong Kong.

While the matter is complicated a bit by the presence of national boundaries, the fact that the Games are geographically divided isn't really that uncommon. For the 1976 Summer Olympics, sailing events were held in Kingston, several hundred kilometres and one province away from the host city of Montreal. The upcoming 2010 Winter Olympics will be divided between two host cities, Vancouver and Whistler. (Which may be a very challenging divide to cross.)- Eron^Talk 00:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that. The rowing, kayaking and canoeing events in 1956 were held on Lake Wendouree (currently completely dry) in Ballarat, and some soccer events in 2000 were held in Canberra. And there are lots of other examples. All within the same country, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening Ceremony lip sync reference

The reference about the lip sync episode points to a rather emtpy place. I would recommend to change it to something a bit more interesting such as: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10526741 Hannes.nz (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to remain neutral and objective on this matter for the moment because this is still a very recent news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingramhk (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

venue articles

The venue articles need expansion/improvement, since most are stubs, and several don't have the "chinese name" attached, or the official name. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

age of chinese gymnist

it has been comfirmed that at least one of them was 13 here [[5]], now should we include it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not G. Ivingname (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't read that reference as confirming anything. - Eron^Talk 15:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Another item for Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics, and it may warrent a mention on the Gymnastics at the 2008 Summer Olympics, but I would say "no" for the main page. Cheers--Cbradshaw (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Chinese officials insisted they are not underage. The young boy who marched with Yao Ming is 9, and he looked like 5 or 6. Speaker1978 (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to gray out/dark the colors in the 'Calendar' ..

..for days that have passed? --Apotetios (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DOPING?

There isn't a single mention of the word doping in the entire article. Are we living in the 21st century where a large number of athletes, if not the majority in some disciplines, are doping? Can anyone actually believe that doping is not a significant, perhaps hidden, part of the games? Is this article written according to the censorship rules of China? Nergaal (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is not censored. You are looking at the wrong place. See Doping at the Olympic Games. Benjwong (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

SO having a hidden list of broadcasters is more important than presenting the issue of doping at this Olympiad? Nergaal (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also the Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been no significant doping cases at these Games - certainly nothing approaching the notability of the Konstantinos Kenteris case in 2004, or Ben Johnson in 1988. Your personal opinion that many athletes are doping is just your opinion. If there are verifiable, notable issues, then maybe they can be put in the article. At this point, there are none. - Eron^Talk 23:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

bot to keep various stats consistent within and across articles

FWIW, I only started looking at the various pages related to this year's games this evening and I know I'm a little late to the game. (a week's passed already)

I noticed List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners seems to have all the data you'd need in order to maintain medal counts in infoboxes on players and countries pages and medal tables on pages like 2008 Summer Olympics, 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, and Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's individual. I'm imagining a workflow where people would update only List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners and updates to the various counts would be propagated automatically by bot(s).

Actually, on second, thought maybe it would be better to have the master values on individual event pages (like Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's individual. Probably slightly less scary for new editors and a little harder to make a mistake. (e.g. add to wrong event)

Either way I'm sure some editors (or a bot) will put notes in comments around autonomously updated data telling people to go update some other page instead of this one and no matter what some people will change it in the wrong place. All pages which have source data or which are updated autonomously should be monitored for conflicting edits.

a few more tasks:

• logging all changes to medal status for events by non-bots on the corresponding event's talk page
• making sure pages are in the right cats, have the right infoboxes/sortkeys

I've played a little with pywikipediabot in the last few days (only reading pages not editing so far though) and would be happy to make a bot to do some or all of these tasks.

Thoughts? Is there a demand for these tasks? Jeremyb (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Transportation

Given that we're trying to streamline this article, this seemed bloated and full of a lot of irrelevant facts. I tried to streamline it and update it grammatically, and also added a blurb about Beijing Airport's spectacular new Terminal 3, let me know what you think.Spinner145 (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, since my edits (which I didn't think were controversial) were reverted almost immediately, let me summarize what I wanted to do to the section, and please let me know if you disagree. (1) Update verb tense--a lot of this section is out of date, talking about past or ongoing events in the future tense. (2) Include a blurb about new terminal 3 at Beiming airport (biggest airport terminal in the world).

Also, I propose delete some portions I did not think particulalry relevevant or interesting to an article on the Olympics, i.e. (1) description of the intra-airport train transport system, (2) discussions of ability of new subway cars to carry cell phone signals and broadcast TV programs, (3) the description of the weather warning system at the Beijing airport (why is this even notable?), (4) delete some detail on the bus systems--do we really want to go into such detail about how many buses, mini-buses, private cars, etc. are going to be utilized?

Don't want to do anything on such an important article without consensus, but this section is too long IMO and I don't think people coming to read about the Olympics really are all that interested in the portions I propose to delete. thx.Spinner145 (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Those seem like reasonable edits to me. - Eron^Talk 11:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing Ceremony 2

I just noticed this BBC article detailing who would be appearing in the London segment of the closing ceremony (Beckham, Jimmy Page, Leona Lewis).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/08/beckham_to_appear_at_closing_c.html

Is that a reliable enough source? If so, please add (I'm also not sure where to put it).

Rbakker99 (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit in third introductory paragraph

"The Chinese government has promoted the games to highlight China's emergence on the world stage"

replace "emergence" with "reemergence" to make sentence more accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abercrombiegal (talk • contribs) 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reemergence"? How? Xeltran (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, China was the dominant power for almost all of civilization except for the last couple centuries so the user above does have a point. 76.65.22.118 (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. :) Xeltran (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dominant over their corner of the world maybe but not on any of the other continents. I think emergence is more accurate; they've been a major player in world politics for at least 60 years (eg UN security council seat) but are becoming more prominent lately. 78.86.71.53 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)