Jump to content

Talk:2018 Winter Olympics

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HiLo48 (talk | contribs) at 13:23, 7 June 2018 (→What's an NHL?: It's wrong in the heading.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Russia on participation map

Strictly speaking, Russia is not a participant in these Games due to the IOC ban. Russian OAR athletes are technically competing for themselves and not Russia. The map has Russia colored Green as a participant; it should either be not colored at all or colored differently to indicate the ban. 331dot (talk)•

Any other opinions on this? 331dot (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dates up front on all Records in section 3.8?

This is honestly not just a case of WP:JDLI
I think it looks bad having the date at the beginning of all bullet points, call it boring, rigid, repetitive, whatever, it's bad practice because it bores the reader, focuses too much attention on the date rather than the main message inside the bullet point, and doesn't provide a good informal narrative in the context of wowing the reader with these amazing facts!
Out of interest, cf. equivalent records list for 2014 winter games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_and_Olympic_records_set_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics#Other_records
Here no dates are quoted at all... To be consistent we should perhaps remove the dates altogether in the current article!?
I'm open to suggestions and if there's serious opposition then I'll drop it.
I already made the change at 15:17 today (25 Feb) but someone reverted it. @Davey2010 that was you!
Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we have it as "X got a medal in x" the reader won't really know it's in chronilogical order whereas having the dates first the reader will obviously know it's in order, It's a case of preference here me thinks, I don't really see an issue with the way it is. –Davey2010Talk 22:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as each record has a link through to the related wiki page, then the interested reader can easily find out the date that it happened by following up the link if they can be bothered. So unless there are any strong objections I will probably remove the dates here altogether (at some point) but we will aim to keep them in chronological order anyway! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK seeing as no-one else seems to have an opinion on this after several days I've decided to go ahead and remove all the explicit date references in the Records entries and make the section a bit more readable and less like a catalog. Watch this space! Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ester Ledecká won golds with 2 different types of equipment?

There's some confusion over what exactly Ester Ledecká has achieved... OK so Jan.Kamenicek first introduced the Ester Ledecká entry yesterday (24 Feb) at 19:34 and edited it a couple of times until it read as follows:

<<On 24 February, Ester Ledecká of the Czech Republic won snowboarding parallel giant slalom after having won skiing super-G on the 17 February, thus becoming the first woman who won the Winter Olympics in two different sports and the first athlete who won in two unrelated events. She became also the first athlete competing at the Winter Olympics in both alpine skiing and snowboarding.>>

The bold bits were added by me just now to show that Jan.Kamenicek was clearly of the opinion that Ledecká had set two different records. So I went to look at the Ester Ledecká article and there in the intro it states:

<<...She is the first person to win two gold medals at the same Winter Olympics using two different types of equipment (skis and a snowboard). She is the second woman to win gold in two separate disciplines after Anfisa Reztsova, and the first woman to do so in a single Winter Olympics...>>

Again it looks as if she is being cited as achieving two separate records. But there's no citation for it there either. It can't be denied that she won golds using two different types of equipment - skis and snowboard (which are definitely quite different physically) - whereas a speed skater and a short track speed skater both wear speed skates (although I've been told that hinged blades were a 'thing' in long track for a while).

@Jan.Kamenicek - can you throw any more light on this please?
@LRataplan - Jorien ter Mors should NOT get this accolade as she didn't get two golds! Her second one was a bronze medal.

If this can't be easily cleared up, it might be best to just drop the bit about the equipment and stick with her main achievement which was to win two golds in two sports in one Winter Olympics. Then the 'equipment' ambiguity will remain in the Ester Ledecká article where it will probably go unnoticed. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodney Baggins: I used the BBC report from 24 February as a source of the info. There is written that she became 1) ... the first woman to claim gold medals in two sports at a Winter Olympics. and that she is 2) ... the fifth athlete to win in two sports at one Games and the first in unrelated events, with the previous double wins coming in Nordic events. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for delving into this, folks :-) Jorien ter Mors obviously didn't win two golds and as such didn't win in two different sports, no contest there. Sorry if I confused things. Now, the page originally stated that "In so doing, she became the first woman to win the Winter Olympics in two separate sports, as well as the first person to win two gold medals at the same Winter Olympics in two unrelated events" (Revision as of 00:12, 25 February 2018). I had and have serious beef with that, but I think you both do too.
Short track and long track have vastly different 'strategy and technique' (I'm borrowing from the BBC article listed above), as well as different equipment. The biggest difference is simply the track. There just is no comparison other than 'flat and made of ice' and we can probably all agree Ice Dancing really is a different sport. The skates are also totally different. The so-called clap skate (hinged skate) is VERY current and VERY important in long track (check out the Nagano Olympics), while on the short track they're simply banned from use. But I feel that how all this affects the debate here is mostly a matter of opinion.
My edits were (or so I tried) motivated by adhering to the definition of sports, disciplines and events following from the article itself, which is congruent with earlier articles on Olympic Games. Here Alpine Skiing, Snowboarding, Speed Skating and Short Track Speed Skating are all listed as different sports. Within these sports, there are several events. Winning several events within one sport is nothing new and happens all the time (all hail Kjeld Nuis), winning medals in different *sports* is what Ter Mors pioneered, and winning *gold* medals in different sports is what Ledecka did.
Disciplines, again according to the article (see the link on the pictograms), are different competition formats within a sport, but the use of this term is much less prominent. Freestyle skiing and snowboarding are both divided in five disciplines each, the main difference being the track (!) and there are two disciplines in alpine skiing (speed and technical). Winning seperate disciplines, I assume, has happened before and this is what the BBC might be going on about. The linked article talks about precedent set in "Nordic events", and I'm unsure whether the BBC uses the same distinction as Wikipedia. If however there's indeed five people with (gold) medals in two of the Nordic sports (cross-country skiing, biathlon, nordic combined) then technically, Ter Mors and (in the case of two golds) Ledecka do not have a record. But I wouldn't know about that. Dutch press was going on incessantly about Ter Mors' two-sport-achievement, I could provide a ton of source material - but I'm not sure they wouldn't be making the same error as the BBC. For the time being, I suggest we drop the notion of a double record based on equipment, discipline or whatever and just mention the achievements of Ter Mors winning medals, and Ledecka winning gold in two sports, as Rodney Baggins suggests. LRataplan (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... I think we've talked ourselves into a solution anyway! I will just remove the bit about the equipment and stick to the fact that she was the first woman to claim gold medals in two sports at a Winter Olympics. That'll do it. I'm not proposing to start up a discussion on the Ester Ledecká page, someone else can worry about that. So glad we've cleared this up. It think it's a case of tenuous info being picked up from an ill-informed BBC journalist and then being blown out of proportion. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jorien ter Mors entry in Records section

Hello again, this is specifically meant for @LRataplan but anyone else is welcome to weigh in if interested!

We need to amend the Jorien ter Mors entry to indicate that she was specifically the 1st female to win medals in two different sports at one Winter Olympics because it's already been done a few times at the summer games.

  • Two women won Olympic medals in two different sports at the 1924 summer olympics in Paris: they were American diver/swimmer Aileen Riggin & Swedish diver/swimmer Hjördis Töpel. Riggin was only 18 when she won silver in diving and bronze in swimming and Töpel won bronze in both diving & swimming.
  • At the 1936 summer Olympics in Berlin, American diver/swimmer Katherine Rawls won silver in diving and bronze in swimming.

--- It seems that diving and swimming combo's were the in thing back in the 1920's and 1930's! So even though it's happened at least 3 times before at the summer olympics, no other female has ever done it at a winter olympics hence Jorien ter Mors does indeed go down in history for that!

So I've changed her entry to: "In doing so, she became the first female athlete to win Olympic medals in two different sports at a single Winter Games."

Just out of interest, whilst digging around I also found these women who won Olympic medals in two different sports but at separate summer olympics: American Helen Wainwright won silver in diving in 1920 (Antwerp) and another silver in swimming in 1924 (Paris); German Roswitha Krause won medals in swimming & team handball, but at various different games (1968, 1976, 1980); and Briton Rebecca Romero won silver in rowing in 2004 (Athens) and gold in track cycling in 2008 (Beijing).

All fascinating stuff :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating indeed, and a comprehensive statement that fully covers her record (although I must admit it's looking less and less glamorous ;) I noticed in the material you linked there is also a male skater who did both short track and long track medals: Eric Flaim). The English article on Ter Mors seems to have been edited already, so I updated the Dutch one instead :P LRataplan (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've just tweaked the English article on Jorien ter Mors because it didn't state that it was at a Winter games! Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed citations because they were showing up underneath next section. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Srobidx edits

I am concerned about this edit in particular. What they added seemed to be very passionate and promotional, and places heavy emphasis on several brands that are Worldwide Olympic Partners, specifically Intel and Samsung. When asked if they had any affiliation with the subjects they were writing about, they dodged the question entirely and accused me of trying to obscure the Olympics' purpose as a platform for new technologies and being ignorant of the "significance of ever growing dynamics between sports and tech". I suspect a COI. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: One way of moving this on would be to create a separate article called "Technical Innovations at 2018 Winter Olympics" with a link through to it from the main intro in the current article. It would have a red link (Page does not exist) until the new tech page was approved/published but then it would be available to be expanded in the future with links to it from other sporting events. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suspect a COI here, rather, I strongly suspect Srobidx of fanboy (or fangirl) behaviour. Passionate, indeed, and that's not a crime :) but the relevance of the mentioned showcased tech improvements is not given and would be debatable at best. "Launching of 5G in winter olympic 2018 along with the use LED drone is something that has never been done before in human's history"? False & false. The short track sensor suit has specifically NOT been used at the Games (and 'peppered with' can, thanks to our contributor, now quantified as 'having 5'), and the possibly interesting development of the MIPS crash helmets is completely ignored, while those DO change competition circumstances for athletes. Add the liberal use of marketing adjectives (enormous, unsurpassed) in his or her edit, and we can say Srobidx' edit does not meet notability and neutrality guidelines. And my assuming good faith is seriously hampered by his or her complete absence of etiquette on User_talk:ViperSnake151. That was actually pretty rude and warrants informing an admin. I suggest we do not move towards a compromise as long as his or her additions are of unproven merit, instead, we chalk this up to a lack of competence and move on. LRataplan (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is 2018 Winter Olympics singular or plural?

Over the past couple of weeks, various people have been batting this around by editing and re-editing the first sentence of the current article. The consensus was reached that Olympics is a singular collective noun. The test is to ask yourself: "is there such a thing as an Olympic? What exactly is an Olympic then?" If there is such a thing, then 'Olympics' must be more than one 'Olympic', but the answer is clearly NO. So we can treat 'Olympics' as the singular noun.

Type "Olympics singular or plural" into Google Search and you get the following:

>We at ESL Library decided to go with “the Olympics” + singular verb and “the Olympic Games” + plural verb. Basically, “the Olympics” is a collective noun like team or United States, and usually takes a singular verb. ESL Library. 29 Jul 2012 See Ref: http://blog.esllibrary.com/2012/07/29/olympics-singular-or-plural/

This does have repercussions for other olympics pages, e.g. Winter Olympic Games reads "The Winter Olympic Games (French: Jeux olympiques d'hiver) is a major international sporting event... " which is clearly wrong using the current logic.

Please also refer to my edits on 28 Feb (00:08) and 25 Feb (13:06). Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, 'singular collective verb' should be 'singular collective noun' in previous edit summary. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Dates up front on all Records in section 3.8? above. As no-one seems to have a strong opinion on this either way, I shall probably move on this today, so don't be surprised if the Records section changes significantly later on.Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image of political protesters in North Korean relations section

There has been an ongoing argument on the main page about the image of political protesters in the North Korean relations section. This has rapidly escalated into an edit war and one or both of you are liable to be reported if you make any further reversions. For the record, I have always thought this picture was rather contentious and it would perhaps be best left out altogether, the current argument being proof that even though it represents cited fact, the very fact that Wikipedia has chosen to include the image on a page that is otherwise about a friendly global sporting event perhaps indicates a political stance. Maybe the section would be best left as plain text without any images or a less contentious image used instead? See WP:NPOVFAQ I have not deleted the image this time, just commented it out in the meantime. Please try to propose a compromise through negotiating here rather than arguing via your edit summaries.
The route to a sensible solution might be to get a translation of the text on the protest banner... Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the original uploader. There is no contentious comment on the card. In Korean, it says "평양 올림픽 반대 문재앙," verbatim. Even if you don't know Korean, you can confirm it by comparing the figure of the letters to the picture. It means, "평양 = Pyongyang," "올림픽 = Olympics," "반대 = Opposition," "문 = President Moon's Sir Name," "재앙 = Disaster." You can also confirm this by Google translator or something.
I don't see any contentious or inappropriate language here. It is just an example of the anti-Moon protests during the Olympics, which was cited in the article. It is a fact that there were a series of anti-Moon protests regarding the Olympics issue in South Korea. There is no reason to delete the factual depiction of the protests.
The users who vandalize the photo are strongly poltically oriented and do not want any criticism against President Moon to be displayed. They are the ones who harm neutrality in the article.
For these reasons, there is no grounds for the deletion of the photo. --Sphinx222 (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both parties are currently blocked as edit warring for 24 hours. Unblock appeals are ongoing under 0RR (on this article) clause, it seems. — regards, Revi 09:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is freedom of expression for each to accuse North Korea of participating in the PyeongChang Olympics. However, the photo contains the word 'disaster' which insults the leader of the Republic of Korea. This is obvious defamation and can not be 'political diversity'. If you need a related image, please post a neutral image with no controversy.--Mobius6 (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with this stance. The fact that the image has led to this "discussion" shows that it is indeed controversial and maybe neutrality would be better served by using an alternative image that doesn't use the word 'disaster' in possible reference to the South Korean leader. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this photo would be a ridiculous censorship. Even more derogatory terms on protester banners are currently displayed in many Wikipedia articles without problem. In Protests against Donald Trump, there is a picture of a banner saying "Fuck Trump."[1] Also, in Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, there is a picture of a banner with Swastika calling Trump "Chump."[2] No one raises an issue about those photos, because it is merely depicting the nature of the protest. And I don't think the word "Disaster" is more contentious, comparing to those terms.
The topic of the paragraph is about anti-Moon protests against the South Korean government's pro-North Korean measures in the Olympics. It is relevant to the sourced content and it should be preserved. For your information, Mobius6 also vandalized some positive images of the former conservative South Korean president in the Olympics article in Korean Wikipedia without reason. This user is doing this just because he/she is super politically oriented. If images in Wikipedia articles are censored by such extreme political factions, it would be the real neutrality problem. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do see your point. I have also realised that I was probably at fault by commenting out the image this morning because the stable version of the page was the one with the image in before you two started arguing about it, but your incessant bickering to and fro via the edit summaries was doing my head in quite frankly so I made an executive decision! I'll leave it alone for now though to avoid "poking the snake" and let you decide what to do when your 72 hours 0RR is up. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want Olympic documents to be used for political publicity. So I removed the 'cheerful past presidential photo' in the Korean Wikipedia 'Olympic venue selection' paragraph. Then I added 'Olympic pictures,' 'Sports photos.' I think this is a neutral editing activity. The selection of the Olympic host city was made by the IOC. The addition of photos of 'cheerful past presidents' to the 'selected host city' paragraph doubts the purpose of political publicity. The protagonist of the Olympics is sports players. Publicity of the conservative politics, claims (protest) photographs make the document biased. I think the photo attached to the "Trump Impeachment demonstration" in the discussion is also defamatory, and the photo is used in the document on the impeachment of Trump. However, the "protest photo of the problem" was attached to the official Olympic Games document. The content of the 'Official Olympic Games' is not the 'impeachment of the Korean President'. Photographs containing words that insult the "national leader of Korea" should be removed. And the user has a history of cleverly revising the Democratic presidential document.

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Mobius6 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is absurd. If there was a political controversy in the Olympics, it is also a part of the Olympics. Nazi Germany's 1936 Summer Olympics article has a bunch of political images as well. And ironically, the South Korean protesters here are opposing the South Korean government's political abuse of the Olympics. Also, my content addition in the political figure article and your vandalism of political content in the Olympics article have nothing in common. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I argued that the Olympic document should not be used for "political publicity" purposes. Do not misinterpret my argument. In your photo of the Berlin Olympics document you did not mean "political publicity" or "insulting phrase". Again, if you need a picture in your document, you'll need to post a "picture that does not contain an insulting phrase."--Mobius6 (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So "mass displays of Nazi propaganda" aren't "political publicity"? In the West, the swastika has become incredibly insulting. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Nazi photographs contained in the Berlin Olympics are not used as 'political promotions'. This is being used to support the 'objective fact' that was done in the regime at the time. It is not an intention to "insult" because it is a fact. However, the picture we are discussing in the discussion is generalizing 'some political opinions'. This is undermining neutrality..--Mobius6 (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The protesters' image here is also used to support the 'objective fact' during the Olympics. Your logic is a self-contradiction. --Jusinhan (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is a picture supporting the 'Olympic related demonstration'. But the problem is that it includes words that insult the Democratic President. <'재앙' = 'catastrophe'> Because of this, 'political promotion' is suspected. I'm pointing this out. If you need a picture, you should use a neutral image that is not insulting --Mobius6 (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "intrinsically neutral" image of anti-government protests you want. There was Nazi propaganda during the Berlin Olympics, so there are images about it. There were anti-Moon Jae-in protests during the Pyeongchang Olympics, so there is an image about it. If there was a relevant incident, it should be illustrated without prejudice. This is the neutrality in Wikipedia. Stop your political censorship. --Jusinhan (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I heard your argument, I knew that I was wrong. It was a good discussion. Thank you!--Mobius6 (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's an NHL?

@HiLo48: I've reverted your edit to the NHL participation section for the following reason:

NHL stands for "National Hockey League" which is the name of the U.S. ice hockey federation, the subject of this whole paragraph/subsection. As it's a bit of a mouthful to keep saying National Hockey League all the time, I introduced the abbreviation NHL in the first sentence and then used it throughout the rest of the paragraph, which is a common method of dealing with lengthy names of institutions. I see no reason why that method cannot be used in this instance. The abbreviation was given in the first line as already explained, but then the title also carries the abbreviation for the sake of brevity. You failed to notice that the same abbreviation was repeated about another 8 times in the same paragraph, not just in the title and the first line, or at least you didn't challenge it (or did you just think it was fine for some reason!?)

Following on from all that, I agree with you that NHL is a local abbreviation, so I guess it's important to explain in the first line exactly what it is, so that is the reason why this time round I've simply stated "the North American professional ice hockey league (the NHL)" with a wikilink through to the National Hockey League's article. I think that just about covers it.

I'm irritated that you reverted my entire copyedit. Was there any particular reason for that? I can only assume it was just carelessness on your part so please be a little more careful in future. I don't see how you could have objected to ALL my changes! Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am irritated by US-centrism, of which your contribution is a perfect example. We now have a section where the heading says NRL, BEFORE it is explained. In a global encyclopaedia, that's completely inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Winter_Olympics&oldid=844831796"