This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Maybe there is a difference between Canadian English and the various other versions I am used to, mainly Australian English, but also American and English, but I saw only one ceremony. Can someone please explain the plural usage? HiLo48 ( talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be alot of hooha about the way that the British Press is saying that Vancouver is worse than Atlanta... or that the warmest winter in 100 years should have been anticipated. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 05:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
HiLo48 ( talk) 08:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Are we just going to nitpick ever single complaint that people have about the Olympics. Complaints about environmental destruction and Native opposition, I can understand that. But seriously, complaints about food?!?! I don't understand why that should even be on the page. єmarsee • Speak up! 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much every media source was blaring this today 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 01:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the "Concerns and" part really necessary in the article title? Is there really a difference between "concerns" and "controversies" in this sense? Funnyhat ( talk) 22:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
So, shouldn't there be info on the controversy due to the poor performance of Russia at the Games? Apparently there are loud shouts calling for heads to roll. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Several outlets have expressed severe complaints about NBC's intentional tape delay of broadcasting for the west coast, ice dancing over hockey on primetime OTA coverage: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/02/nbcs_olympic_coverage_manages.html?sc=fb&cc=fp but there is nothing in the article about this stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.221.224 ( talk) 18:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there really enough "controversy" about #Judges in figure skating for it to merit a section? I don't consider one news article to be significant coverage. - M.Nelson ( talk) 03:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to reducing the length of the section, however until then I'm keeping it since it has been there for a while. GoldDragon ( talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Russian ice dancers Domnina and Shabalin came under fire for their decidedly inauthentic and tacky "aboriginal" costumes. ( http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-features/news/newsid=436204.html). There is also massive controversy over their use of ropes on their costumes used to help with lifts and transitions. ( http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/blogs/postblog/2010/02/russian-ice-dancers-stun-with-bizarre-costumes.html). There were comments made on both points in the official commentary on the events as well as in other media outlets. Do you guys think either of these should be added? CallidoraBlack ( talk) 09:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we can spin off all of the figure skating controversies into a separate article, including the judging and costumes. GoldDragon ( talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
That section of the article is a total beat-up. Both the references talk about how it wasn't really a serious issue at all. They don't mention anyone who was actually upset by the incident. I think it should be deleted. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
As silly as it is (and tho I thought they were in extremely poor taste, it is somewhat silly in the great scheme of things) it got lots of press coverage and led Hockey Canada to officially apologize for the actions. That is no small beer. Personally, it was the smoking that disgusted me. Even movie reviews these days have parental warnings for smoking ... what were they thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.32.180 ( talk) 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
But that is exactly what they tried to do, they didn't defend the women, they rationalized it ("you have to understand ...") No one comes out and defends smoking. Brackets grate on you. Tough. Live with it. The WHOLE WORLD uses them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.32.180 ( talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't beleive that a ref whose country has a stake in the final was allowed to officiate the 500m mens fianl. Ohno was robbed. 74.132.244.42 ( talk) 10:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
That the Korean media wasn't happy that its team got disqualified is hardly encyclopedic. If there was any evidence at all that the DQ was unfair or wrong, such mention could be justified, but I consider such "facts" as sitting better in an article headed "Local media plays parochial line to satisfy market audience". The same applies to every case in this article where the home media, or coach, or national association expresses unhappiness about a result. It's NOT encyclopedic. Such entries should be removed. They are just rubbish. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried editing this yesterday but someone removed the edit saying it sounded like the defence of a child with hand caught in the cookie jar or some such. LOL well I suppose my own fault for not sourcing properly, even though the facts are still facts. Anyway, I re-added the statements, or the gist of them at least with proper sourcing - have a look and clean up the wording if you'd like... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.98.252 ( talk) 19:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
It's already discussed above, but it looks like we must continue.
In sports like figure skating, where there is a subjective, human element in judging, there is ALWAYS disagreement about results, whether it be part of the Olympics or just a local comp. It is NOT a special feature of the Vancouver Olympics.
Not every city or country has an obsessive interest in the sport. Mine doesn't, although it has participated in every Olympic Games. Our local media hardly mentioned the skating arguments. Those from the countries involved, and where figure skating is higher profile, must keep things in a global perspective when writing for Wikipedia.
Because of the above, I don't believe the figure skating disagreements belong in this article at all. If someone does, please write ONE paragraph on it. It's ridiculously big right now.
HiLo48 ( talk) 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article was a POV fork from the start, but now the original content which was split off, the political material, has been pushed down the page and heavily diluted and deleted/adjusted so as to downplay it. The section on the main page outlining this material has been similarly fooled with, and likewise sports and political/organizational controversies jumbled up, and tehre is no chronological order of any kind (and NB most of pre-Games controversies were political and/or organizational/financial, not sports-related controversies). This article needs a split to separate these two bodies of materials:
Seems clear enough, though it also seems clear there are as is evident from this article's creation and edit history, and also in the main article, there are those out there who wish it to NOT be clear.... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Although the Bay and the breaking of its windows and colonialist legacy is already mentioned here, and in passing in the main article, the controversy over the cooptation of the concept fo the Cowichan sweater and its manufacture in China got a lot of press; eventually the Bay insisted the design wasn't a knock-off of the Cowichan sweater but "inspired by it", and also agreed to start selling REAL Cowichan sweaters in its stores to mollify the Cowichan Tribes, the controversy remains. Here's a few citations about this controversy, though there are lots of others:
All of these are from the first page of this google, though there are lots and lots more. I suppose there are those out there who would adjudge this controversy as "not notable" or "fringe" or who would profess that because they haven't heard of it, it's clearly not notable. But it's certainly notable to the Cowichan people, and to anyone who's ever owned a real Cowichan, and it's notable enough to get Global's and the Canadian Press' attention, so should be included. Apparently, by what's been said to me by some, that even wanting to have stuff like this in this article, or the main article, is a POV agenda, or "Undue Weight" and not "positive coverage" Skookum1 ( talk) 16:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, true to form and as disputed by those defending my complaint that this page is being actively censored and p.r. washed, who attacked me for suggesting that they were censors ("if the shoe fits...."), there is no sign on this page of a WHOLE BUNCH of material which was originally on it, including the notorious Amy Goodman incident at the border; it's all been buried beneath largely meaningless minor "controversies" to do with events during the Games, and largely omits the huge amount of political opposition and related political and financial controversies which had been the point of the original section in the main article, which some earnest eager-beaver had migrated here because they didn't like seeing all the "negative" material on the main page; now that "negative" material has been either purged from this page, or trivialized in the extreme and/or white-washed; even section titles were "adjusted" by this or that editor. To me there's clear evidence of COI activity on this page, whether by VANOC or its p.r. agency there's no way of sayin;g but the euhemerization of this page since its creation is truly noxious and will live in my memory as a black mark against those who invoke Wikipedia policy to justify POV agendas, and who attack those who point out their iniquity on the basis of alleged violations of wikiquette; taking umbrage and alleging "personal attack" when someone (me) points out evidence of censorship is just hiding behind Wikipedia's flag of truce and nicety....Has Five Ring Circus still been left out of this article as "fringe" in nature? What a crock, adn what a huge disappointment at how willingly people are either led to deceive, or who would attack those who point out when others deceive. Even my simple point that this page should be split between the two COMPLETELY UNRELATED contexts of sports controversies and political controversies was turned into a personal attack on ME, and apparently abandoned because of the way I had proposed it. What a bunch of crock....I've been editing geography and history articles and trying not to notice when somebody fiddles with this article....but thte fiddling goes on, and the legacy of p.r. agency interference with Wikipedia only deepens and deepens. this article should be SPLIT and the argument that there's not enough to warrant two separate articles is mneaningless hogwash/posturing. If you don't like my tone of voice here, that's just dodging the issue of what's gone on here, and attackign me doesn't change the fact that what's been done to this page utterly STINKS. I know even when I get publishing figures for Five Ring Circus (now in third or fourth printing, I believe, which is anything but a sign of a "fringe" publication), I iknow that there will be those here who argue for its exclusion "because its POV".....hilarious, from the same people who defend using VANOC publications as the only legitimate source for some figures (even despite criticism from third-party sources that VANOC's figures and facts are fudged and distorted and worse). This article's content has been turned from a chronicle of the controversies surrounding this organization into a compilation of overblown materials on athletes smoking and hanging kangaroo flags and obfuscations/apologisms about the very heady and jingoistic tone of the Games. Tragic, and disappointing....Go ahead, attack me for pointing out this article's huge censorship problems, and complain about being called censors. If you don't want to be called that stop behaving that way. I'm not going to bother trying to re-add what's been purged and distorted; I know you're all out there, some on payroll, monitoring this to keep the Olympic name clean and pure, even though clearly it's not......no doubt I'll be attacked on my userpage again for daring to call bullshit, and my "rants" will be used as a reason to discredit criticism of this page's dire problems.....disgusting, disgusting, disgusting.....this page is just pablum now, and not encyclopedic in any way; and totally evasive of the truth and wantonly omitting or distorting what people said and believed, and drowned in a sea of sports trivia.....crock, crock, crock. Go ahead, enjoy your playpen until it's so meaningless it deserves deletion.....all this is now, mostly, is a directory of minor sports trivia, and little else; the much-shortened bit on political opposition at the end is a mere sop and should be its own article, and substantially larger than it's been cut down to here.....but no, let's blame Skookum1 for not playing nice, that way we can continue ignoring him...... Skookum1 ( talk) 04:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well? HiLo48 ( talk) 06:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Re this edit, Ckatz, you're taking on a POV agenda in negating what the CBC headline ITSELF says and is part of the content of the citation. It's also current in other press copy and public debate in BC, i.e. that a lot of Olympic contracting was going to American companies and/or friends of the Liberal Party (often the same thing). Wikipedia's job is to report what the press, and what public debate, has been saying, not to decide whether or not the issues as presented should be "neutralized" (="castrated"). I'll dig up the Tyee's article about this (I think there was more than one, in fact), but if you want this to be "neutral" you're welcome to include VANOC's defensive statements that the Canadian contractors did not meet bid deadlines (another contrary account says that they were never informed of those deadlines, i.e. not given the opportunity to bid) but were welcome to submit again, or whatever it was the VANOC spokesman said in the cited material; but there's more, as I said, in other BC press copy (and WAY more in BC blogspace). Being picayune about censoring - yes, censoring - wording as used in the media and as spoken/written in public debate is not being neutral, it's soft-soaping, and trying to smudge the facts so that those who don't like them or would like to silence them can approve of "balance". But balance does not mean giving equal weight to untruth as to truth, or favouring silence or "soft language" over things as they were said and debated. The "neutral" path here is to present VANOC's defense; but not to "soften" what the sources are saying in order to pretend to be "neutral". Nuetered is more like it.... Skookum1 ( talk) 02:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Right now it's no more than a grab bag of complaints made by generally single issue, obsessed editors about almost random things that happened at those Olympics, with no attempt made to be objective, or to put those complaints in any sort of non-parochial perspective. No questioning as to whether those are reasonable complaints, just an ugly list of them. No criteria are defined for items added to this article to meet. It does not reflect well on Wikipedia at all. I'm tempted to recommend it for deletion. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 27 external links on
Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 14 external links on
Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 19 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Maybe there is a difference between Canadian English and the various other versions I am used to, mainly Australian English, but also American and English, but I saw only one ceremony. Can someone please explain the plural usage? HiLo48 ( talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be alot of hooha about the way that the British Press is saying that Vancouver is worse than Atlanta... or that the warmest winter in 100 years should have been anticipated. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 05:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
HiLo48 ( talk) 08:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Are we just going to nitpick ever single complaint that people have about the Olympics. Complaints about environmental destruction and Native opposition, I can understand that. But seriously, complaints about food?!?! I don't understand why that should even be on the page. єmarsee • Speak up! 06:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much every media source was blaring this today 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 01:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the "Concerns and" part really necessary in the article title? Is there really a difference between "concerns" and "controversies" in this sense? Funnyhat ( talk) 22:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
So, shouldn't there be info on the controversy due to the poor performance of Russia at the Games? Apparently there are loud shouts calling for heads to roll. 70.29.210.242 ( talk) 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Several outlets have expressed severe complaints about NBC's intentional tape delay of broadcasting for the west coast, ice dancing over hockey on primetime OTA coverage: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/02/nbcs_olympic_coverage_manages.html?sc=fb&cc=fp but there is nothing in the article about this stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.221.224 ( talk) 18:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there really enough "controversy" about #Judges in figure skating for it to merit a section? I don't consider one news article to be significant coverage. - M.Nelson ( talk) 03:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to reducing the length of the section, however until then I'm keeping it since it has been there for a while. GoldDragon ( talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Russian ice dancers Domnina and Shabalin came under fire for their decidedly inauthentic and tacky "aboriginal" costumes. ( http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-features/news/newsid=436204.html). There is also massive controversy over their use of ropes on their costumes used to help with lifts and transitions. ( http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/blogs/postblog/2010/02/russian-ice-dancers-stun-with-bizarre-costumes.html). There were comments made on both points in the official commentary on the events as well as in other media outlets. Do you guys think either of these should be added? CallidoraBlack ( talk) 09:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we can spin off all of the figure skating controversies into a separate article, including the judging and costumes. GoldDragon ( talk) 20:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
That section of the article is a total beat-up. Both the references talk about how it wasn't really a serious issue at all. They don't mention anyone who was actually upset by the incident. I think it should be deleted. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
As silly as it is (and tho I thought they were in extremely poor taste, it is somewhat silly in the great scheme of things) it got lots of press coverage and led Hockey Canada to officially apologize for the actions. That is no small beer. Personally, it was the smoking that disgusted me. Even movie reviews these days have parental warnings for smoking ... what were they thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.32.180 ( talk) 00:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
But that is exactly what they tried to do, they didn't defend the women, they rationalized it ("you have to understand ...") No one comes out and defends smoking. Brackets grate on you. Tough. Live with it. The WHOLE WORLD uses them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.32.180 ( talk) 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't beleive that a ref whose country has a stake in the final was allowed to officiate the 500m mens fianl. Ohno was robbed. 74.132.244.42 ( talk) 10:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
That the Korean media wasn't happy that its team got disqualified is hardly encyclopedic. If there was any evidence at all that the DQ was unfair or wrong, such mention could be justified, but I consider such "facts" as sitting better in an article headed "Local media plays parochial line to satisfy market audience". The same applies to every case in this article where the home media, or coach, or national association expresses unhappiness about a result. It's NOT encyclopedic. Such entries should be removed. They are just rubbish. HiLo48 ( talk) 18:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried editing this yesterday but someone removed the edit saying it sounded like the defence of a child with hand caught in the cookie jar or some such. LOL well I suppose my own fault for not sourcing properly, even though the facts are still facts. Anyway, I re-added the statements, or the gist of them at least with proper sourcing - have a look and clean up the wording if you'd like... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.98.252 ( talk) 19:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
It's already discussed above, but it looks like we must continue.
In sports like figure skating, where there is a subjective, human element in judging, there is ALWAYS disagreement about results, whether it be part of the Olympics or just a local comp. It is NOT a special feature of the Vancouver Olympics.
Not every city or country has an obsessive interest in the sport. Mine doesn't, although it has participated in every Olympic Games. Our local media hardly mentioned the skating arguments. Those from the countries involved, and where figure skating is higher profile, must keep things in a global perspective when writing for Wikipedia.
Because of the above, I don't believe the figure skating disagreements belong in this article at all. If someone does, please write ONE paragraph on it. It's ridiculously big right now.
HiLo48 ( talk) 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article was a POV fork from the start, but now the original content which was split off, the political material, has been pushed down the page and heavily diluted and deleted/adjusted so as to downplay it. The section on the main page outlining this material has been similarly fooled with, and likewise sports and political/organizational controversies jumbled up, and tehre is no chronological order of any kind (and NB most of pre-Games controversies were political and/or organizational/financial, not sports-related controversies). This article needs a split to separate these two bodies of materials:
Seems clear enough, though it also seems clear there are as is evident from this article's creation and edit history, and also in the main article, there are those out there who wish it to NOT be clear.... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Although the Bay and the breaking of its windows and colonialist legacy is already mentioned here, and in passing in the main article, the controversy over the cooptation of the concept fo the Cowichan sweater and its manufacture in China got a lot of press; eventually the Bay insisted the design wasn't a knock-off of the Cowichan sweater but "inspired by it", and also agreed to start selling REAL Cowichan sweaters in its stores to mollify the Cowichan Tribes, the controversy remains. Here's a few citations about this controversy, though there are lots of others:
All of these are from the first page of this google, though there are lots and lots more. I suppose there are those out there who would adjudge this controversy as "not notable" or "fringe" or who would profess that because they haven't heard of it, it's clearly not notable. But it's certainly notable to the Cowichan people, and to anyone who's ever owned a real Cowichan, and it's notable enough to get Global's and the Canadian Press' attention, so should be included. Apparently, by what's been said to me by some, that even wanting to have stuff like this in this article, or the main article, is a POV agenda, or "Undue Weight" and not "positive coverage" Skookum1 ( talk) 16:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, true to form and as disputed by those defending my complaint that this page is being actively censored and p.r. washed, who attacked me for suggesting that they were censors ("if the shoe fits...."), there is no sign on this page of a WHOLE BUNCH of material which was originally on it, including the notorious Amy Goodman incident at the border; it's all been buried beneath largely meaningless minor "controversies" to do with events during the Games, and largely omits the huge amount of political opposition and related political and financial controversies which had been the point of the original section in the main article, which some earnest eager-beaver had migrated here because they didn't like seeing all the "negative" material on the main page; now that "negative" material has been either purged from this page, or trivialized in the extreme and/or white-washed; even section titles were "adjusted" by this or that editor. To me there's clear evidence of COI activity on this page, whether by VANOC or its p.r. agency there's no way of sayin;g but the euhemerization of this page since its creation is truly noxious and will live in my memory as a black mark against those who invoke Wikipedia policy to justify POV agendas, and who attack those who point out their iniquity on the basis of alleged violations of wikiquette; taking umbrage and alleging "personal attack" when someone (me) points out evidence of censorship is just hiding behind Wikipedia's flag of truce and nicety....Has Five Ring Circus still been left out of this article as "fringe" in nature? What a crock, adn what a huge disappointment at how willingly people are either led to deceive, or who would attack those who point out when others deceive. Even my simple point that this page should be split between the two COMPLETELY UNRELATED contexts of sports controversies and political controversies was turned into a personal attack on ME, and apparently abandoned because of the way I had proposed it. What a bunch of crock....I've been editing geography and history articles and trying not to notice when somebody fiddles with this article....but thte fiddling goes on, and the legacy of p.r. agency interference with Wikipedia only deepens and deepens. this article should be SPLIT and the argument that there's not enough to warrant two separate articles is mneaningless hogwash/posturing. If you don't like my tone of voice here, that's just dodging the issue of what's gone on here, and attackign me doesn't change the fact that what's been done to this page utterly STINKS. I know even when I get publishing figures for Five Ring Circus (now in third or fourth printing, I believe, which is anything but a sign of a "fringe" publication), I iknow that there will be those here who argue for its exclusion "because its POV".....hilarious, from the same people who defend using VANOC publications as the only legitimate source for some figures (even despite criticism from third-party sources that VANOC's figures and facts are fudged and distorted and worse). This article's content has been turned from a chronicle of the controversies surrounding this organization into a compilation of overblown materials on athletes smoking and hanging kangaroo flags and obfuscations/apologisms about the very heady and jingoistic tone of the Games. Tragic, and disappointing....Go ahead, attack me for pointing out this article's huge censorship problems, and complain about being called censors. If you don't want to be called that stop behaving that way. I'm not going to bother trying to re-add what's been purged and distorted; I know you're all out there, some on payroll, monitoring this to keep the Olympic name clean and pure, even though clearly it's not......no doubt I'll be attacked on my userpage again for daring to call bullshit, and my "rants" will be used as a reason to discredit criticism of this page's dire problems.....disgusting, disgusting, disgusting.....this page is just pablum now, and not encyclopedic in any way; and totally evasive of the truth and wantonly omitting or distorting what people said and believed, and drowned in a sea of sports trivia.....crock, crock, crock. Go ahead, enjoy your playpen until it's so meaningless it deserves deletion.....all this is now, mostly, is a directory of minor sports trivia, and little else; the much-shortened bit on political opposition at the end is a mere sop and should be its own article, and substantially larger than it's been cut down to here.....but no, let's blame Skookum1 for not playing nice, that way we can continue ignoring him...... Skookum1 ( talk) 04:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well? HiLo48 ( talk) 06:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Re this edit, Ckatz, you're taking on a POV agenda in negating what the CBC headline ITSELF says and is part of the content of the citation. It's also current in other press copy and public debate in BC, i.e. that a lot of Olympic contracting was going to American companies and/or friends of the Liberal Party (often the same thing). Wikipedia's job is to report what the press, and what public debate, has been saying, not to decide whether or not the issues as presented should be "neutralized" (="castrated"). I'll dig up the Tyee's article about this (I think there was more than one, in fact), but if you want this to be "neutral" you're welcome to include VANOC's defensive statements that the Canadian contractors did not meet bid deadlines (another contrary account says that they were never informed of those deadlines, i.e. not given the opportunity to bid) but were welcome to submit again, or whatever it was the VANOC spokesman said in the cited material; but there's more, as I said, in other BC press copy (and WAY more in BC blogspace). Being picayune about censoring - yes, censoring - wording as used in the media and as spoken/written in public debate is not being neutral, it's soft-soaping, and trying to smudge the facts so that those who don't like them or would like to silence them can approve of "balance". But balance does not mean giving equal weight to untruth as to truth, or favouring silence or "soft language" over things as they were said and debated. The "neutral" path here is to present VANOC's defense; but not to "soften" what the sources are saying in order to pretend to be "neutral". Nuetered is more like it.... Skookum1 ( talk) 02:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Right now it's no more than a grab bag of complaints made by generally single issue, obsessed editors about almost random things that happened at those Olympics, with no attempt made to be objective, or to put those complaints in any sort of non-parochial perspective. No questioning as to whether those are reasonable complaints, just an ugly list of them. No criteria are defined for items added to this article to meet. It does not reflect well on Wikipedia at all. I'm tempted to recommend it for deletion. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 27 external links on
Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 14 external links on
Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 19 external links on Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)