Talk:2010 Winter Olympics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Protestors

Most of the public Olympic events held to date in Vancouver have been highly attended by protesters, if not almost entirely by protesters.

What is that supposed to mean? Is it saying that most people who attend events are protesters? That doesn't make any sense, so I'm removing it. The article cited doesn't even say what was written here, just that the noise made by protesters at an event drowned out a single speech. Do people even bother reading stories before citing them?--CloutierFan02 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It means that there is a strong attendance of protesters to any public Olympic-related event. The video is an example of an event that was almost entirely made of protesters. This fact is notable, regardless of opinion. However, feel free to reword it. +mt 06:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What you just said doesn't make sense either. "Almost entirely made of protesters"? What the hell does that mean? Does that mean that protesters outnumber attendees? That's bollocks, and the link cited didn't give any figures other than 200 demonstrators were present. I won't reword it, it's being deleted unless you or someone else can come up with something that says protesters often outnumber attendees at events.--CloutierFan02 03:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well I'll reword it (and please check your commits before committing! you chopped the code out in the middle of a <ref>...</ref> tag!). These facts are not bollocks, and there are two references for that statement. Feel free again to reword my rewording, but watch out for those <ref>...</ref> tags in the future. +mt 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to explain this to you one more time, and if you still can't comprehend what I'm saying, I'm going to submit this for mediation. You claim that at many events the number of protesters outnumber attendees. Your source for that is a canoe.ca article that says that at one event the noise made by a group of protesters drowned out a speech that was being delivered. It says absolutely nothing to corroborate the statement it's supposed to be sourcing.

If you're going to make the dubious claim that protesters outnumber attendees, you have to back it up. I'm deleting your statement again, and if you revert it I will submit this for mediation. --CloutierFan02 06:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

First thing: relax; this is one sentence supported by several references. If you don't like it, ignore it, but don't remove it. You requested the sentence to be reworded, and support the facts it with referenced material, and I have done so. You have replied with your opinions and censorship. I've added one more citation to the reference for that statement, however here are more which I choose not to put on the front page simply because this is not the prime content of the article. Nonetheless, the mention of protesters is both notable and in context. Regarding outnumbering of protesters at events: OK you were kind of on to something, "Police and city hall security nearly outnumbered the protesters" (here), and as far as I know this outnumbering was at the Flag Lighting Ceremony, where reportedly, protesters outnumbered supporters. At other events, there has been a high attendance of protesters; at the Olympic Clock Unveiling, one source claims 100:1000 or 9% protesters, while a second reports 60:"several hundred", as well as blatant disruption this on YouTube during the ceremony. Here are some other links to news articles: Anti-Olympic activism ramps up, Vancouver council accused of trying to muzzle activists, etc. It is a challenge to find news articles regarding the Olympics that don't make any mention about opposition and protest. Again, I do not want to elaborate any more than one sentence on the main article regarding protesters, but please feel free to edit the wording if it is not clear. I do not invite you censor material you don't like.+mt 19:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but a blog post by "West Coast Tree Hugger" which doesn't cite any sources and doesn't give any figures is not acceptable reference. You're right, I don't like this, because it's extremely untoward to suggest something controversial and fail to back it up. If you have some genuine evidence from a reputable source (once again, a blogger going by "West Coast Tree Hugger" is not a reputable source), please put it in there and I won't delete it. But you refuse to do that. Show me an article from a reputable news source that says that, give me some figures, cite some sources. A blog with 2 comments is not a source.

Deleting content that is controversial and unsourced or poorly sourced is not censorship. I will be submitting this for mediation, since you don't seem to get it.--CloutierFan02 05:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As requested:

[T]here were at least as many police and private security personnel as protesters, and the protesters themselves outnumbered casual spectators

— Seven Oaks, http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/olympicsbacklash.html

Protestors outnumbered actual spectators about 3 to 1 at least

— "PercussivePaul", http://www.metafilter.com/61255/Genuine-protest-or-pure-intimidation

The security nearly outnumbered the more than 100 protesters, who in turn outnumbered the spectators watching the ceremony

— The Vancouver Sun

I hope you will agree that this last reference is a good reference, and have used it in place of both the canoe.ca and "WestCoast TreeHugger" citations. Also, please read the "Avoidance" in WP:DR for your future reference, which includes deleting material that you do not like, and please don't waste the admins time over a one-sentence dispute. Lastly, please revise your edits before hitting the "save page" button. This is your second time that you missed important bits and piece of wiki-syntax. +mt 06:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this statement should not be even placed in the Wikipedia article. Stating that at "most events" something happens is very vague. Is "most events" 25% of all events, 55% of all events, 75% of all events or 95% of all events? It would be better to say something like "at 25% of all Olympic events there were more recorded protesters than spectors" over some period of time according to some source. The thing is as the Vancouver Olympics gets closer and closer, there will be more and more events that will be well atttended by non-protesters and this statement will become less and less true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs) 03:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the concern, and it is true that the statement will be eventually dated. Pretty much all events thus far have had a few to about a hundred protesters (according to this article), but the sources on the exact number of protesters at each event is spotty, so an exact quantification is not really possible. (However, I know that the Vancouver Police carefully tally and record on camera each event, and they would have a pretty good idea of the numbers). The only point that is tried to be made here is that there has been a number of activists (a significant number or not) in attendance at each related event in Vancouver, so far. You can reword it, but the local media has reported the activist attendance at Olympic-related events in Vancouver dozens of times, so I think it is of significance.+mt 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Bidding process

I think this page should be moved to a separate page which describes the whole bid process. I mean by the time it is 2010, no one wants to see all this stuff about Salzburg, Pyeongchang, etc.. on this page. Any suggestions for what to name the page we move this to? The page could also contain all sorts of information (current events basically) about the construction of venues, scandals, etc... dave 23:27 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't see any reason the bid history shouldn't be part of all olympic games articles.

I compacted the bid information into a concise section so that it doesn't seem to dominate the entire article. --Gerald Farinas 19:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By the time the 2010 Olympics start the page probably won't be dominated by the bidding process with all the information, especially not after the games. And also, who says people aren't interested in the bidding history? I am.

Paralympics link

Sorry to the anon IP about the Paralympics link - I meant to move it to See also, not remove it altogether. (Btw, you may want to sign up for an account!) -- Chuq 01:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Controversial logo

this has been a no-mainstream controversy about the logo. the logo was chosen to represent the native peoples, however they chose and inukshuk, an inuit tradition. there are no inuit in british columbia, definetly not in vancouver, no native inuit anyways. it would have made more sense to make the logo, budah. but that's not the controversal part that's just the stupid and ignorant part. the controversal part is the fact that in british columbia we have several natives groups. why wasn't a totem pole or native art work chosen as the logo? we have a massive abundence of this artwork that people aparently enjoy. -- comment by User:70.66.188.94 on 02:18, 31 October 2005

Yeah, but I think it's controversial because it looks very familiar to the 1988-199http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Winter_Olympics&action=edit&section=39 Family Channel logo. Compare:

-- comment by User:PsychoJason on 02:40, 20 December 2005

This logo was most likely designed to represent all native peoples of Canada, and the inukshuk (or in this case, an inunguat) just happens to be the most well-known native Canadian symbol in the world. --  Denelson83  06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, most well-known after the totem poll (which actually existed historically in BC) anyway. As for it representing all native peoples of Canada... I think that's a perfect example of a non-native view of native people. --TheMightyQuill 02:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Being white, and having been born and raised in Vancouver I was offended when I first saw this logo in the Vancouver sun. Many other people who I talked to about it were as well. They're making it like we're all Indian and living in igloos up here, when in reality only 2% of the country in Indian. EVERY EVENT, absolutely EVERY EVENT that happens in this country has to has tho have some sort of Indian influence, whether it's some sort of dance or whatever and it makes me sick. I know this isn't a forum, but that's the view many people have on this sort of thing.
70.69.50.77 06:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just a question, but why is the inukshuk also refered to as an inuksuit? Is it used because inuksuit came from a direct quote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techobo (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Michaëlle Jean

Please stop saying that Michaëlle Jean won't be the governor general in 2010. She was named in October 2005, which means she WILL be the governor general in 2010. She IS expected to open the Olympic games. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove without a doubt that she'll be Governor General in 2010? Might she not resign? Is she immortal? The fact that she was appointed by the Queen in 2005 holds no bearing over potential future events. Similarly, why do you fight for Jean to be specifically named but are satisfied with the vague reference to the Monarch of Canada? It seems you know for sure Jean will be GG, but don't know whether Elizabeth II or Charles III will be Sovereign. Just leave the names out of it until the future when we can be more certain of what personalities will be present. --gbambino 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, unless a programme or an official guest list has been issued for that evening no one can say that if a Head of State, whoever it may be, would actually open the Games. We have seen in several Games held in the US the vice president opened the Games. --Kvasir 09:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First time indoor

• Please keep in mind that prior to 1984, the closing ceremony was traditionnally in the figure skating arena and therefore indoors.Hektor 17:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that's true, and even if it is, remember that the figure skating arena itself was outdoors until the 1960 games. Crunch 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• i just read in the Vancouver Sun that it was the first time the main torch will be kept inside, though there now is so speculation that BC place will be fitted with a new open or retractable roof--Mygodshesfat (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was also thinking about this. Isn't the Herb Brooks Arena (then known as the Olympic Ice Arena) in Lake Placid an indoor venue? At least the venue seen in this video on Youtube from the closing ceremony 1980 seems to be indoors, and the Olympic flame is seen burning in the hanging cauldron (obviously moved there from the original site where it was lit during the opening ceremony) - it is best seen during the last seconds of the video. --Aatox (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Olympics will make Vancouver the largest city ever to host a Winter Olympics.

Isn't Turin larger than Vancouver ?Hektor 12:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia Turin aticle, "The population of Turin city is 908,000 (2004 census), but with its metropolitan area totals about 1.7 million inhabitants". The Vancouver article states that "The city's population is 545,671 and that of the metropolitan area is 2,186,965 (2001 census)." --thirty-seven 18:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Olympics are hosted by a city, not by a urban area and 908,000 is larger than 545,671.

Well, don't forget to add Whistler and every little village that has one of the venues. --Kvasir 05:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Vancouver events" are not all happening in Vancouver proper. Cypress bowl, where some of the skiing events will occur is in "West Vancouver", technically a different city. Same as with the speed skating, which will be held in Richmond (another suburb of Vancouver). Generally, the population of the metro area is the most important measure of a city's population. Generally, the borders of different municipalities are there more because of historic reasons than anything. For example, the city of London, England has a population of only ~10,000. Hmm~... what's more meaningful, that number or the the population of Metro London (over 10,000,000 people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.251.195 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007

I not agree because the city of Vancouver proper are the seven in canada...but with a sururban area of 2 millions. Vancouver do not reflect a city of only 500 000, but a city of 2 millions. So yes it's will be the largest city. For the viewers of the olympics, went we are at cypress mountain and we see the city of Vancouver from the summit, we still are in Vancouver. So yes the city of Vancouver wil be the largest city to ever host the winter olympic.

I understand you're point of vue, but i dont think it's right.

Note the wording is "city", not municipality. If we say municipality will draw lines at the proper city borders. We are not saying "City" with a capital C either. So the metropolitan area population should be used for comparison. --Kvasir 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional events

I've added references to the 3 potential events. I could not find any information in the FIS website about the inclusion of ski cross, ski slopestyle, and snowboard slopestyle. Hence, I have deleted them. If anybody DOES have information on those events, please add them to the list and give references.

• Well the next day FIS posted information that they are sending proposals to the IOC about including women's ski jump, ski cross, and a team alpine event. The problem is, I can't link to the reference page through wikipedia. [Go here] and then click on the "Edition 77" link. It's a javascript pop-up, but that type of link won't work here in wikipedia. Any help? Another problem is that the [US ski website] also lists nordic combined mass start as another event that FIS wants in the Olympics, but the FIS site has no mention of it.
  • Try this link? Though a link isn't strictly necessary -

    International Ski Federation (2006). FIS News-Flash #77. "Decisions of the 45th International Ski Congress in Vilamoura (POR)." 31 May 2006.

    would be quite a sufficient citation. -- Jonel | Speak 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A map

I think if we could somehow include a map of Vancouver and the surrounding areas we could give the readers a better idea where the events will be taking place. Just an idea.

Or they could go type in Vancouver in the search box, or click one of many Vancouver links on the page? :) Disinclination 08:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about a map that had an overlay of where the evnts are going to be taking place. kinda like.. an arrow pointing to the place where bobsled will take place.. and then another arrow where speedskating will take place. Just examples.

Yes, see 2008 Summer Olympics with maps of venues in the article. --Kvasir 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ringette as a Demonstration Sport in 2010?

Although bringing this up is kind of old, one of the announcers on CBC commented that Ringette could be (or already is) going to be a demonstration sport for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Could anyone find me any info (not implying that I am not looking myself, for I am), or a list of demonstration sports for the upcoming Olympics? Anything is appreciated. Disinclination 08:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the IOC has eliminated demonstration sport from the Olympics. I know that new events MIGHT be added to the official program, but I have no knowledge of demonstration sports taking place in Vancouver. By the way, how "old" is this information? Perakhantu 08:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

New heading needed

We need a new heading on this page that addresses what an Olympic event really is, and what it means socially as well as economically for our community to host the 2010 Olympic event.

So far all I see are a smattering of generic facts primarily derived through boosterism.

Considering that the last three Olympic events were economic disasters - Salt Lake City $1.2 billion deficit with almost zero negligible return, as reported by the CBC; Athens $12 billion deficit that has crippled Greece, as reported by the Globe and Mail; and Turin - still counting, but threatened bankruptcy two months before their event, as reported by the Vancouver Sun, lets see some facts on Wiki regarding the economic ramifications to the community regarding hosting the 2010 event.

I'm not talking about including facts that are solely meant to paint an anti-Olympic picture, but instead facts that give readers a balanced view of what really occurs regarding any Olympic event. I am pro-Olympic, but feel that in order to create a comprehensive version of 2010 on Wiki you have to include all the facts, not just a biased perspective extolling the virtues.

It is impossible to stay neutral regarding Olympic facts because we are now learning that many Olympic facts are questionable. The best Wiki can ever do regarding the Olympics is present a wider spectrum of information and let readers decide what is true or fiction. If readers only see regurgitated information, which we now know is often misinformation, or safe information that serves to only "boost" the Games, then this page is harmful to the community.

The economic devastation the modern Olympics causes to a host community is not speculation. I know because I invested over three years and a six figure budget researching what happens to a host community when the Olympics comes to town. I wrote a book about it and produce a sister blog that discusses in real time the impact of 2010 on Vancouver. This information is well-documented realty and it should be included as part of a treatise on 2010 or beyond.

Perpetuating myth is a disservice to readers and the community.

So far the links on this Wiki page represent pro-Olympic organizations, and anti-Olympic organizations, but nothing regarding viable information for the local community. The Olympics is not only black or white. It is grey too, which ironically is neutral. Consequently, so far Wiki is breaking it's own rules by not having all views represented.

The modern Olympics is a social animal, not a collection of useless statistics.

We need a new headingOlyBLOG 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

2010 Winter Olympics bidding results not correct

107 people voted in the first round. But 109 people voted in round 2. How can there be 2 extra voters? There is a error there. - 218.186.8.10 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On the first round, Salzburg was eliminated therefore the only Austrian IOC member, who was forbidden to vote earlier, could now vote on the final round. The second extra vote might have come from a member who abstained on the first round but chose to cast his/her vote on the second decisive round. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Volcanic eruption?

Should the article have anything about the volcanic hazards of the volcano Mount Cayley? It appears that it has the potential to erupt and could affect the 2010 Winter Olympics. [1] Black Tusk 11:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, unless one can forecast exactly that the volcano will erupt during the Olympics. I don't believe we have the technology to do that at the moment. Plus, we wouldn't be speculating that a certain storm will hit; the Fraser River would flood; Mount Olympia erupting; an earthquake to occur or the Games being a terrorist target. --Kvasir 18:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that the volcano folk that I know in the lower mainland are not worried in any sort of way about this issue.+mwtoews 05:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not worried about the volcano issue because they don't know a lot about them. Western Canada is a large region of volcanic activity, several of which have been active in the past 2 million years. Black Tusk 09:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Millions and billions years ago the Rockies were also underneath the ocean and dinosaurs roamed the foothills of Alberta. What's your point? --Kvasir 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that numerous large volcanoes, sush as shield volcanoes, developed during the Tertiary period in north-central British Columbia and some were active intermittently to recent times. Mount Edziza and Level Mountain are most spectacular examples. Mount Edziza is a stratovolcano consisting of a basal shield of basaltic flows surmounted by a central vent and flanked by numerous satellite cones, ash beds and blocky lavas. The complex has a long history of volcanic eruption that began about 10 million years ago and ended about 1300 years ago. Also there have been 49 eruptions in western Canada in the past 12,000 years, which is pretty recent. Black Tusk 10:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Volcanoes are trivial natural hazards such as meteorite impacts. Probably a more worrying hazard is the earthquake expected any year on a 14th month pattern (the last potential was a few months ago). This could potentially do big damage to the city at or beyond the same level of San Fransisco, and I would consider this more of a hazard with slightly more probability (although both are low). I haven't checked the page for Vancouver, but these hazards are relevant to that article (or a sub-article), and not this one.+mwtoews 16:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, but as for earthquakes, a future eruption in Canada is inevitable and it is very likely to have a serious impact on people. This impact is becoming even more likely as the population increases. There have been 10 Canadian volcanoes that have been based on recent seismic activity, including: Castle Rock, Mount Edziza, Mount Cayley, Hoodoo Mountain, Lava Fork Valley, Crow Lagoon, Mount Silverthrone, Mount Meager, Wells Gray-Clearwater Volcanic Field and Mount Garibaldi. Those 10 volcanoes are the ones most likely to erupt next and could erupt anytime in the near future. Black Tusk 06:78, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the ultimate in violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. While there have been theoretical studies looking at what might happen with Cayley (per the Wikipedia article) as well as other volcanoes such as Baker and Rainier, there is no panic occurring and the odds of an eruption occuring in the next 4 years are, frankly, not a heck of a lot different than the odds of an eruption in the next 500. If volancoes were an issue, Japan would never have been awarded any Olympic games, ever. 68.146.8.46 01:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cayley, Baker, and Rainier are all part of the same system of volcanoes called the Cascade Volcanic Arc. Cayley is in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, which is the northern extension of the Cascade Volcanic Arc and contains the most explosive young volcanoes in Canada. I know volcanoes outside of Canada seems much greater than the threat from Canadian volcanoes, but this appearance is due to the lack of monitoring data on our volcanoes. The list of volcanoes I was talking about above have had seismic activity since 1975, and seismic activity is usually an early sign of activity at volcanoes. For example, the long-dormant Soufriere Hills on the island of Montserrat was thought extinct before activity resumed in 1995. Its eruptions have rendered much of Montserrat uninhabitable, destroying the capital, Plymouth, and causing widespread evacuations and about two thirds of the population to leave the island. Seismic activity had occurred at the volcano for most of the 20th century, but 1995 was the first time an eruption had occurred. Black Tusk 05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Officially opened by ...

I notice someone had already put down that the 2014 Winter Olympics will be opened by the president of Russia, which is obviously too crystal-ballish. I'm glad to see the mistake hasn't been repeated here. There are at least 4 possibilities as to who may open the games: the monarch, another royal, the Governor-General, or the Prime Minister. It's obviously way too early to guess at this point. 68.146.8.46 01:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Prime Minister would open the Olympic Games. He's head of government, not head of state. --  Denelson83  20:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote to VANOC asking this question and was informed that the Olympics would be officially opened by the head of the state (the Queen) or someone delegated by her. That leaves things pretty wide open. fishhead64 15:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed lead paragraph involving Own the Podium

The Canadian Olympic Committee, as the NOC of the host country, has pledged to obtain the most gold medals of any country at the 2010 Winter Olympics, due to its failures to obtain a gold at both the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal and the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary. To achieve the goal, a program called Own the Podium - 2010 was launched.

I took this out because it was too Canada-centric. It's definitely not something that should appear in the lead paragraph. Since Vancouver 2010 is an international event, it wouldn't be fair to focus on Canada's efforts at getting medals. It may be suitable for inclusion in a currently-nonexistent subsection, however. Carson 20:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Climate Change / Global Warming

I think there should be some mention of Climate Change and how this may adversely affect the events held outside. Have there been any special plans made to mitigate these possibilities? topher67 (talk)

I'd suggest not mentioning that, since that topic would be original research. The natural variations from PDO and ENSO climate patterns are probably greater than any anthropogenic climate variation (well, at least at this point in time). Experts say that there has been about ½ a degree warming to present, while up to 4°C might be expected by 2100. This could be a topic for 40 or so years from now (e.g., read this), but not this time. +mt 16:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Good article. What about approaching the topic from another angle: the impact of the games themselves as outlined in this article from the official website? topher67 (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the environmental impact or minimisation thereof, is a goal of the organising committee, a sentence or two should mention the effort made in that area. --Kvasir (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentrification of Granville Street as a controversy

Last summer I read an article in one of the free Vancouver papers citing one of the negative impacts of the 2010 games is the city's decision to "gentrify" Granville Street which, while reducing the presence of "unsavory" businesses like porn shops, etc., also resulted in skyrocketing rents forcing businesses such as a long-time bookstore to close. Unfortunately I don't have this newspaper anymore so I can't add this information to the article without a source. I'm mentioning it here so that if anyone does have a source, they can add the information to the "Opposition" section (though more correctly it should be categorized as controversy as there doesn't appear to be active "opposition" going on here). I've also read, anectodally via forums, that the closure of several well-known downtown Vancouver strip bars this past year has also been linked to the "gentrification", but again a print source of some sort is necessary before adding this to the article. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional events

What is the difference between bobsleigh and bobsled? Especially considering that "bobsled" here redirects to "bobsleigh"? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bobsled is a popular way to spell the sport's name in North America, although official the correct spelling is Bobsleigh. Ideally the sport should always be spelled Bobsleigh since its how the FIBT spells it.Fox334 (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Athletes Village scandal

This is in progress as I write this and has become part of the current city election campaign, and I'm not briefed enough on its complexities to add it to teh section on controversies; FWIU a combination of cost overruns (largely due to materials whose prices were jacked up by Beijing cornering world construction supplies during their fast-tracked construction - that's citable and "ironically" it includes building materials made in BC) and the collapse of world credit markets this last month have left a $100 million dollar hole in the project; a memo to that effect was leaked, apparently by a nameless and yet-to-be-derermined city council member, and the issue of the cost overruns/new debt was such that Estelle Lo, a city planner, resigned her position rather than preside over the fiasco. Because of collapsed realty markets, it is doubtful that the 70$ of non-social housing in the project will fetch the $1 million per suite needed to pay the project back. The "real scandal" as the newspaper monopolies are claiming is the leak, not the city's exceeding of its powers in signing up for the new debt load, i.e. there is a redirection effort underway, and what criminal charges may be laid will be for betrayal of confidentality/breach of trust, rather than for financial wrongdoing on the city part; thus ever is Vancouver's civic politics sidewiped by a pretense of propriety and a persecution of the whistle-blowers in the civic administration/polity. That's POV I know but it's also part of teh story; independent media may cover some of that, it's certainly not being covered properly by the main newspapers/networks....Skookum1 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Any such criticism should be balanced by well referenced and supported facts (such as the fact that under the terms of the loan, if Millennium Development defaults, the city gets the $1.1 billion dollar piece of real estate and the right to sell it, it is standard process and law to keep negotiations with property developers private until the negotiations are complete, and that there was a unanimous preliminary approval from all parties). ThePointblank (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Powder Mountain/Callaghan Valley

Also re the Controversies section, a court case is about to hit involving suspect dealings concernign the kibosh of teh Powder Mtn proejct in the Callaghan Valley during Vander Zalm's regime; many of the same players are now in VANOC, it seems; I'll have more details on this in a while including news-article cites, but like the Athletes Village scandal it's a "story in progress" and reeks of the entrenched systme of corruption that modern and historical British Columbia have been built upon....Skookum1 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whistler Olympic and Paralympic Village article created

I discovered that link led to the Vancouver Olympic Village, which of course was wrong and seems to have been deceptively placed for some reason, as with other deceptive links in the Whistler section. "Whistler Creekside" next to alpine skiing was actually a pipe to Whistler Blackcomb, the resort, which I guess is correct and also because there's no Whistler neighbourhoods subarticles (for now) it's more appropriate than going to the muni article (Whistler, British Columbia), which would be redundant. Only alpine skiing is mentioned - are the aerials, slalom etc also all on Whistler, or are some events on Blackcomb? Anyway the Olympic village article needs expansion, I just gave it a start so it wouldn't be a redirect anymore, and Celebration Plaza needs writing (even if it gets cancelled).Skookum1 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Participating Nations Section

Is this really necessary at this point? Almost all the links are red, it doesn't really give much more information other than a short header with some countries and flags. It appears to be speculative at best. Just because an NOC has qualified athletes doesn't guarantee participation. Also where are the sources for the assertion that the listed NOCs have qualified athletes for the games? Until more concrete information is available I think this section should be removed. Any thoughts on that? H1nkles (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional note - some of the nations mentioned (the ones off-hand that I remember are Iraq, Madagascar, Bahamas, Pakistan, Morocco, Ghana and possibly some others) have not actually qualified any athletes. All of their athletes are either up-and-comers in their sports and will probably qualify, or are merely hoping to qualify. This is especially true since all of their athletes are in sports (Snowboarding, Alpine Skiing, Skeleton) which have not completed any of their qualifying events or periods. This is in stark contrast to the countries which have qualified in figure skating, ice hockey, and curling who have already had qualifying events. I will remove those nations, and reference this section - any objections (or exceptions that were misread) can be noted and corrected. Chazerizer (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Update - on some further review, Ghana has actually qualified an athlete, by meeting the minimum qualifying requirements on the Alpine skiing basic quota. Sorry for the error. Chazerizer (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Removed the following paragraph:

• VANOC claims they would only challenge the commercial use of the mottoes if a business began using them to create a specific, unauthorized commercial association with the 2010 Winter Games. However, VANOC has already launched lawsuits against Vancouver businesses to court for using the word "Olympic" in their names, even ones that existed long before the Games were awarded to Vancouver, and against people who have tried to register Olympic-related domain names on the internet. However, VANOC is legally obligated by the International Olympic Committee to go after what is deemed to be unauthorized use of the Olympic brand. VANOC has already managed to get a landmark piece of legislation passed in the Canadian House of Commons that made using certain phrases related to the Games a violation of law, including the number "2010" and the word "winter" that normally couldn't be trademarked because they fail to pass the threshold of originality.

It is plagiarized from the last half of the cited article [[2]]. 173.32.47.35 (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly based on the article, but it's not as bad as some cases I've seen. I've reworded it and readded it. Is it better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Removed the following paragraph:

• VANOC claims they would only challenge the commercial use of the mottoes if a business began using them to create a specific, unauthorized commercial association with the 2010 Winter Games. However, VANOC has already launched lawsuits against Vancouver businesses to court for using the word "Olympic" in their names, even ones that existed long before the Games were awarded to Vancouver, and against people who have tried to register Olympic-related domain names on the internet. However, VANOC is legally obligated by the International Olympic Committee to go after what is deemed to be unauthorized use of the Olympic brand. VANOC has already managed to get a landmark piece of legislation passed in the Canadian House of Commons that made using certain phrases related to the Games a violation of law, including the number "2010" and the word "winter" that normally couldn't be trademarked because they fail to pass the threshold of originality.

It is plagiarized from the last half of the cited article [[3]]. 173.32.47.35 (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's [[WP:�Copyvio]] then. Delete it.Skookum1 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

re WP:FLAGCRUFT

There doesn't seem to be any direct point to all the flag-icon-waving on this page, given Wikipedia's policies on the use of national flags. Granted that teh Olympics are inherently a flag-waving event, is there any point even to the list of "participating NOCs"? Never mind having them festooned with flags. Why? Nationalism? "Fun with flags"?Skookum1 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"is there any point even to the list of "participating NOCs"?" Uh-huh. Have you ever even heard of the Olympics?

As for flags, this is not the place to discuss this as flags are employed on every Olympics page. I suggest bringing it up at WP:OLYMPICS. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So what if there are "participating NOCs"? How is that different from "paricipating countries"? Are members of the national organizing committees actually doing the ski jumps and runs, or are their athletes? This isn't just a question of semantics. Athletes participate in events, organizing committees organize them by definition. "Participating Olympic teams" maybe, but it's a given that who participates at the Olympics are national teams (individual athletes are not allowed, unlike the opposite situation at the ancient Olympics). Self-justification/glorification by the Olympic Committees as Olympic Committees is indeed part of the Olympics (and, oh yes, I indeed have heard of them....) but it's a sorry part of them; the escalation of national and organizational priorities over individual athletic accomplishment is a curse of the modern Games....Skookum1 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's something you should discuss at WP:OLYMPICS as most Olympic-related pages refer to participating nations as NOCs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

you're quite wrong; only a few do, most have "participating nations" and a few have only "participants". I just went through the template, back to '80 or so, for both Summer and Winter Games. I think you're trying to claim a standard exists when it really doesn't yet; the standard, currently, from what I can see, is "participating nations".Skookum1 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not every team that participates at the Olympic Games is a national team. On several occasions, typically due to the vagaries of international politics, athletes from one or more countries have participated under a different flag. See for example the Unified Team that represented former Soviet republics; the Independent Olympic Participants from the former Yugoslavia; and the Individual Olympic Athletes who represented a pre-independence East Timor. Use of NOC status rather than national status also allows the Olympics to side-step sensitive issues such as the independence (or not) of the Republic of China, which competes instead as the NOC of Chinese Taipei. While in the vast majority of cases there is a one to one mappng of NOCs to countries, these sorts of exceptions mean that NOCs rather than countries should be referenced. - Eron^Talk 17:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

2002 Winter Olympics has "Participating nations", and while the intro to that section mentions the OC's, the section title does not. And I don't agree that every single little issue should have to be discussed on another page, that's what individual talkpages are for; this article departs on various counts from formats laid out in previous Winter Olympics pages (including overburden about highway spending); I don't see a reason for a lot of extraneous detail or, again, focussing on organizational aspects rather than the event itself; you'd think this event had already happened , there's so much copy here....Skookum1 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

And if, as you say, the OCs are what's named instead of nations, then even moreso there's no reason to ahve national flags.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely inconsistency across the Olympics pages; some talk about participating nations, others about participating NOCs. I think that is something that needs to be looked at more broadly; I'm going to see if there has been any discussion about this at WikiProject Olympics. As to the flags, for the most part NOC flags are national flags; only in exceptional cases do athletes compete under a different flag. - Eron^Talk 19:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and when they do, that's when the flags really get informational value. See 1980 Summer Olympics#Participating nations for example. —JAO • T • C 19:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Poking around WP:OLYMPICS and various Olympic Games pages suggests that "Participating Nations" should probably be the standard rather than "Participating NOCs". Several relevant categories and templates all refer to nations. I'll change the section heading here. - Eron^Talk 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note. "Nations" in this context means NOCs. I think "nations" is a perfectly fine term to use here, but in discussing the issue it should be clear that that's the meaning of the term. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term nation is a tricky issue when it comes to some participants, in particular i'm thinking of Great Britain, where the GB team actually represents the United Kingdom (the difference being that the UK includes Northern Ireland) and therefore the only correct term is NOC. See the long discussion here for example. Basement12 (T.C) 14:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am mostly concerned with clarity and consistency across Olympic (and Paralympic, for that matter) articles. Many of the existing articles and all of the relevant categories refer to participating nations and not NOCs. The fact that it is actually the NOC and not the country that enters isn't significant in most cases and the exceptions can be clarified where appropriate. Has there been a general discussion in the WikiProject about which term is more appropriate in general? - Eron^Talk 17:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

now five times over budget:CTV

On the news today, Feb 19, one of the lead stories was that the Olympics are now five times over the original estimated budget; I don't have time to look up the cite but in scanning the article looking for where to put such information....is it accidental that the actual budget is not in the article? Lots of facts and figures, but no meat maybe....I noticed on the article on BC Highway 99 that a recent press release from whichever minister is in charge claimed that the highway expansion was "on budget". On which budget? this years' revised one, or the original one? Ditto with these estimates for the whole event; teh security budget maybe was the five-times-over item, I'd have to listen to the newscast again...I'm not a watchdog on this article, but it sesm to be very "soap" for me, not so much soapbox as carefully washed and cleaned and arranged; "sanitized".....NPOV does apply, but not in terms of concealment/obfuscation. Obfuscation, in fact, is a form of POV.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It was the security budget that was five times over, not the entire budget. [4] I don't know why there is no in-depth budget info, but my guess would be that a lot of it is speculation at the point and that people just haven't added any. Feel free to correct that.

Also, in response to this edit, why do you think PR consultants have been editing the article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver Olympic Centre

Currently only Hillcrest Park is the the 2010 category; there is no actual article on the venue, so I redlinked it in that article; once it's made the Hillcrest Park article maybe shouldn't have the Olympics category, no mor than Blackcomb Mountain should have it as well as Whistler Sliding Centre or False Creek/Stadium District shoudl have it just because that's where General Motors Place happens to be. Not sure what to do about the Olymipcs category being on both Cypress Mountain and Cypress Provincial Park, either....is a location a venue, essentially?Skookum1 (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Host city field in infobox

I've been trying to add Whistler to the Host City field in the infobox/ it's there for now, but it still won't display; it should unless the infobox is written to admit only one city-name, which doesn't seem correct as an infobox design/policy. Whistler is definitely a host city, and certainly sees itself that way, it shouldn't NOT display. Can somebody fix this who understands the box's code please?Skookum1 (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The infobox template doesn't actually get it's host city information from this article; I've removed the parameter. To edit the host city line, you'll want to go to Template:Olympics infobox/Host city and edit that. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, we'll see if anyone disputes it.Skookum1 (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"No Olympics on Stolen Land" link

I saw that too and was pondering what to do about it, as in the interests of NPOV a link to the core site of the opposition to the Olympics should be somewhere on the page; it was surely mis-titled no doubt "official....website" and should have cited the full title of the site. Like it or not, a link to the organized opposition is a valid link to have on the page, I was wondering if it couldn't/shouldn't be a ref. NOT having it is censorship, which is un-wikipedian. Part of the issue is they're also defying the ban on use of "2010 Olympics" as a wording on any site but those mandated by the IOC/VOC (but then, so are we). Emmarsee, it has to be resinstated, again if as a reference is more palatable than in External links then so be it; not having it here is not a consideration, despite its polemical flavour; bear in mind that the Olympics sites themselves are simply polemic in th other direction.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why it shouldn't be a external link on this page, not just a reference, it is a "valid link". It does have reference to basically everything that is mentioned in the "Opposition" section in this article as well as information about past and future olympics and history. As far as the use of the term "2010 olympics", the Vancouver Sun and nearly every other news agency,as well as Real Estate Agents and their Companies are using the term "2010 olympics" everyday, i was under the impression that the use of those words was solely in regards to businesses using the term to profit, just like the use of their Motto, (which is in the public domain.) How do you even talk or write about Vancouver 2010 if you can't use this simple term. Just google "2010 olympics" and you will see what i mean. If VANOC can have direct links i see no true justification for No 2010 Olympics on Stolen Native Land to be added as a external link also. -- Dpacjones (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No other 20xx Olympic article has a opposition link in the external links. None. Not even the 2008 Beijing Olympics where one would expect tons of links opposing the Olympics because of human rights, Tibet, etc. I highly doubt that there would be an opposition as great as the one seen in Beijing. It can certainly be an external link in the controversy section or (if it ever created) the Concerns and controversy over the 2010 Winter Games, but just not in the external links section.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 03:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The shortcomings of the Beijing Olymipcs article are no reason to endorse similar sins of omission here. And in fact raise questions why there is no controversy section on the Beijing article....actual opposition in a country with no free press and imprisonment for "splittism" was silenced, and athletes did little because of directives from their national Olympic committees. This is different; there are visible, in-country protests and supposedly free speech is not restricted, though it definitely is manipulated and now officially regulated ("here, you can protest in this little spot over here where nobody can see you"). At the very least it should be used as a ref, if it's not already; again I do agree as a standalone external link it doesn't quite fit though; an explanation fo the division between official native support and this native protest campaign shoudl probably bei nthe controversies, if an objective account of it can be found somewhere to cite, that is.Skookum1 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it does belong in the controversy section. I don't think I have heard much about the native supporting the Olympics, if anything, they were one of the most vocal groups. If anything, a link to the most vocal group of them all the APC should definitely be included in the controversies section.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have edited articles related to British Columbia and Skookum asked for my thoughts. It seems to me that it would be a good idea for all relevant Olympics articles (and similar events) to have one or more explicit mentions of the groups opposing them. If it is the case that other articles do not have records of opposition, then that is their weakness. Having said that, I think it is usually better for an article to include them as references (e.g. "The main protest group, No2010, argues that ..." , sourced from Vancouver Sun or CBC if possible); external links are a second-best solution. My two cents. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So i see your point about the No 2010 Olympics on Stolen Native Land link not being listed in the external links section. I have tried to the best of my abilities to add some more content regarding Native Opposition to the Olympics. I'm wondering if there should maybe be a Section for Native Opposition, also i have more to add under Anarchist Opposition... and wondering if there should be a seperate section for this as well? or should i just keep ading to the original "Opposition" section? I'm new to this so forgive me if it is a bit sloppy, i tried to reference everything correctly. I appreciate any feedback. Dpacjones (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the paragraph removals by Scorpion0422 in Opposition Section?

After trying my best to post some content in regards to native opposition to the Olympics it was deleted completely by Scorpion0422. They cited the justification for doing so was because it was completely unsourced... this is not true. I referenced multiple facts and including alot of links to other Wiki pages. If the references were not good enough can someone please tell me why? I can add more references, from books, other websites, some mainstream news sources, but should i have to give 500 references for 500 words? I can understand deleting or revising some sentences, but deleting all of it? I don't want to just undo Scorpion0422 changes without hearing from other folks. What should i do?Dpacjones (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean to remove all of your edit (I accidentally hit rollback), but most of it was not neutrally written and presented the issue in POVish style without providing both sides and sourced to no2010.com, which is not a reliable, neutral source. Also, you really shouldn't fill up an article with such a large scope so quickly with so many specific examples since the page will grow quite a bit in the next year or so. Instead, the page should just be a summary. The other bit I removed was unsourced. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. So if No2010.com is not reliable, are all other lefty/activist or grassroots news sites gonna be considered not reliable? Some information that i have to reference came out as press releases but the mainstream media doesn't tend to pay attention to releases from natives regarding land claims. It seems biased if you can source CTV for information when they are an official Corporate Sponsor who is going to profit intensely from the Olympics. Can you please specify the parts you removedtaht were not nuetral, and what was the other bit that was unsourced? Also is there a rule about how much you can contribute to a page? Maybe i'll start the page "Opposition to the 2010 Winter Olympics" so i can explain in better detail why some people in BC are opposed. It seems really easy to post Pro-Olympics/VANOC information, and i would say the majority of the info on this page is not nuetral, its promotional if anything. I really am trying to be nuetral, just presenting facts.Dpacjones (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Smaller newspapers like the Straight and The Tyee might contain articles describing why the natives are opposed to the Olympics.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 03:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the page is not great, which parts of the current version of the article do you think are not neutral? I re-read some of it, and it wasn't as POVish as I first thought, I've decided to try re-wording and re-adding some of your text. It would be nice if some more neutral sources could be added though. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral news/web sources on the Olympics in BC do not exist. CanWest papers (the Sun, Province, Times-Colonist are notoriously biased and are also Olympics boosters; this goes for their smalltown holdings as well. The Whistler Question and Pique are also pro-Olympics, though the Pique may carry some content covering "the other side" in controversies surrounding the Olympics. The Tyee and other webzines are also not neutral, taking the other side. The Squamish papers may like the Pique carry both sides. What neutral sources could you be thinking of? Canadian national news outlets rely on copy from CanWest and CTV and CBC, none of them neutral as far as the Olympics goes.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NHL market

Just a point of clarification, does the following trying to say that its the first time since the law change that the Olympics are to be held in an NHL country or a city with an NHL team? Because if its country, we have already had an Olympics in Salt Lake City

"These will also be the first games to be held in an NHL market since the league allowed its players to participate starting in 1998 at the Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crictv69 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

NHL markets are not by country; they are by city/region. The closest NHL market to Salt Lake City is Denver; Salt Lake is not within range of the Colorado Rockies' market-area.Skookum1 (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean Colorado Avalanche. The Colorado Rockies are an MLB team. --  Denelson83  00:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL you can tell I don't watch sports, and I'm an atypical Canadian and don't follow hockey; I do get subjected to hockey business/political news like the current attempt to move the Phoenix team to Hamilton....does Salt Lake even have a minor hockey team btw?Skookum1 (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The Utah Grizzlies play in the ECHL. Maybe more to the point, at the time of the Salt Lake City Olympics, the Utah Grizzlies (different franchise) played in the AHL. —JAO • T • C 10:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the Colorado Rockies were an NHL team in Denver from 1976-1983. They were the Kansas City Scouts from 1974-1976 and they are now the New Jersey Devils. --Diamonddog667 (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That eases my embarrassment a bit...I was 20 in 1975 so I must have been thinking of the original Denver team....that was one of the first-expansion teams, right?Skookum1 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Gordon Campbell

Please stop removing the fact that Campbell is a Vancouver native. He is from Vancouver. He was born in Vancouver and his lived his life in Vancouver. He was mayor of Vancouver as well. -- User:SNIyer12 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus he represents Vancouver—Point Grey in the Provincial Legislature as well. --  Denelson83  05:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

He's largely irrelevant to the content of this article (which is why he's currently not mentioned in it at all...), it's even less relevant that he was born in Vancouver or even represents one of the area's ridings (no events are slated for his riding, other than swank cocktail parties and very likely a protest or two).Skookum1 (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Canada Line

Can someone clear up whether the Canada Line is an Olympic project or not? The Premier of BC states that it is not, yet in the article, it states the Canada Line as part of the Olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.234.106 (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL did he really say that? What a buffoon. Suffice to say that the Premier is not widely held to be a reliable source, not about anything. Never has one politician made so many breathtaking lies in such a short space of time; this is just another one. It's well-known in BC that the RAV line was "fast-tracked", in preference over the much-needed Evergreen Line to Coquitlam, or the Ollympics wouldn't have been approved, as transit to/from the airport was needed for the application. It may very well be that they're keeping it off the province's version of the books so they can pretend Olympic cost over-runs aren't anywhere near what they really are; it's much more intrinsic to infrastructure than the improvements to Hwy 99 or the new convention centre are - cases in which the Olympics excuse was used to build something that was "needed" anyway. Any source that pretends that the RAV line isn't an Olympics project can be discounted as dishonest and unreliable. Especially if it's CanWest, or the BC Government....I'd be curious what the VANOC site says Re masking overruns by dissociating them from the Olympics proper, the following is a comment from a friend via email about a new report from the Calgary Herald which has begun the process of admitting that the Olympics are a huge financial bust, while still making it sound good for the governments who walked us down this very yellow, very gold-bricked road....:

The reporting takes on a tone of costs not being able to be helped by VANOC (what with the wholly unforseen world economic meltdown); and, isn't a pity because Vancouver-Whistler has done such a nice job ("Dop Dead Gorgeous Convention Centre" etc.) and government made no promises about holding much the needed transportation improvements to a specific budget.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/fp/Vancouver+Olympic+finances+melt+down/1802520/story.html

The Premier is, I repeat, NOT a reliable source. It's odd, in fact, to see tha term in the same sentence as any mention of him...and when the time comes, CanWest will talk about how only "good business managers" like they claim the Liberals to be, deserve credit for keeping it from being the even bigger faisco they will claim it would have been if the NDP were running it...but they will blame the NDP for getting us involved, mark my words. Anything that goes wrong is the NDP's fault, especially if it's something the Liberals did.....Skookum1 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the Evergreen Line is needed more than the Canada Line. Just look at how popular the Canada Line is with riders. The line's doing better than expected and could potentially break the 100,000 ppd mark sometime this year or early next year, that wasn't projected until 2013. If they don't extend all of the major stations *coughBROADWAY-CITYHALLcough* to 50m soon, it's going to be a HUGE gong show. The biggest mistake RAVCO made was choosing SNC-Lavalin over Bombardier, LIM is better for hilly terrain like Vancouver. Especially considering the section between King Ed and Oakridge where it's slooooooow, LIM would've been fast. As far as I'm aware, the Socreds planned a SkyTrain line, similar to the current Canada Line's route, but was cancelled due to the NDP taking power.

The Evergreen, IMO is less important, than the Millennium Line extension to UBC. However, since NIMBYs want a freaking LRT down Broadway, the Evergreen would be a welcome change to people who actually want a rapid transit system. It's a shame that the Liberals cancelled the Evergreen Line extension in the first place. I guess you can blame the NDP for originally cancelling the Canada Line and the Liberals for cancelling the Evergreen Line.

Anyways, getting back on topic, IMO the Canada Line is a Olympic project. єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're certainly in a agreement with the central fact, that it is an Olympic project, indeed a central one (no matter what the Premier says). The history of the non-building of the Evergreen Line goes a long way back, even to Expo '86, and is very complicated; it's not a question of popularity, it's a question of need. In both the case of the Expo and Canada Lines, they replaced highly-functional bus corridors which were the busiest, most efficient routes; the old Kingsway services are now disjointed and all other routes had to be screwed around to tie into the Expo Line; the Canada Line replaces the B-Line, which was the best suburban bus service, and one of the fastest and most well-equipped; not hard to encourage ridership on an already efficient route; p-eople in the Northeaest don't take as much bus as they could expressly because the routes are so screwy and awkward. The politics of the CAnada Line, and how it pre-empted the building of the Evergreen Line (which was the top priority even before plans to build the Evergreen Line bounced the plan for the Richmond line you're talking about, which was itself a "bumping" of the original Coquitlam line) is a long and thorny story, and involves local mayors as well as parties of both governments; and no doubt a lot of sleaze. Also part of the story is how the RAV line should have been built via the ARbutus Corridor and how politicking frmo Kerrisdale-Shaughnessy f**ked that over etc.....but anyway, yes, definitely, it is an Olympic project; it's almost funny that Campbell would try and assert that it's not. Mind you, he asserts that he's happily married too....Skookum1 (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If the Canada Line was built down Arbutus, we wouldn't see 100,000 until perhaps 2015. A light rail line down the Arbutus ROW would serve the needs of the Arbutus corridor. I would imagine the carnage down No. 3 Road if the Canada Line was an LRT line instead of a half-assed light metro line. Drivers in Richmond are awful and I bet there would be tons of accidents involving LRVs and cars every week.

I agree that replacing most of the suburban express routes was a mistake. People don't like to transfer when they don't have to. The 97 B-Line should definitely go away, in some cases it's slower to take it instead of regular bus routes. The 98 B-Line will likely return in some form if the Canada Line is too successful for it's own good.

What the Canada Line has shown is that P3s often involve cost-cutting and mismanagement leading to the disaster of what will be the Canada Line in the near future. The Expo and Millennium Lines were built with public money and was built for the future, unlike the Canada Line which as built for now. I think we will see more P3s if Gordo and his Fiberals are still in power.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Canadian dollars

There seems to be come concern over whether the article is using Canadian or US dollars. One editor has remarked that it should be Canadian as it is a Canada related article; (s)he then removed all markings specifing the Canada dollar. However, the International Olympic Committee requires all funds and budgeting to be measured in US dollars (regardless of the country), so I think it is worthwhile to keep the Canadian markings. Cheers--Cbradshaw (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What the IOC "requires" and what Wikipedia guidelines/standards are is maybe something to take up with the Wikipedia guidelines department; in articles about events or anything else in Canada, there is no reason to use the C$ marking; in Brazil you see R$, in HK you see HK$, but in Canada you never see "C$" in anything. The IOC may require it in its own documents, but this article is not an IOC document. Canadian media don't use it, it's a given that prices and costs for something taking place in Canada aren't going to be given in anything but Canadian dollars, unless there's a reason to specify US dollars or British pounds or Euros. Canada is not a colony of the IOC, nor does the IOC govern Wikipedia (though some of its media depaartment often seem to be trying to...).....Skookum1 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that we should leave the dollars as is w/o Canadian dollar markings, and indicate with a US, where the dollar figure represents US dollars. Your support for the idea of specifying Canadian dollars is sound. But per WP:$, in articles that are country-specific (and I would argue that this article would be country specific as it is held in Canada and the Canadian government is "footing the bill") that the monetary system of the country should be used. If you are advocating that the funds be changed to US dollars then a rate conversion on all the dollar figures in the article will need to be performed. My assumption is that the above-mentioned editor removed the Canadian markings because it is implied that the dollar figures are in Canadian dollars and therefore no markings are necessary. Perhaps a blurb in the article that all dollar figures are Canadian would help to clarify the issue. H1nkles (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Skookum1 you seem to have overlooked the fact that the "C$" are there to clarify things for the reader, if I see the a $ sign in an Olympic article I tend to assume it refers to US dollars unless there is conformation otherwise (implication is fine but some readers may not even know of the existence of the Canadian dollar). Whilst it can be claimed the article is country specific the fact that it is a sporting event involving the whole world and the IOCs preference for US dollar figures makes that a grey-area and therefore I don't have see any problem (other than excessive patriotism) with using "C$". Perhaps adding US$ figures as well would be the best idea, if nothing else this would allow comparisons between games (all costs in 2008 Summer Olympics are given as US$ for example). Basement12 (T.C) 16:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I support using "C$". A standalone dollar sign is unclear for readers, and "C$" clarifies what our articles are saying. Also, remember that Olympic games are international events. It so happens that in 2010 they will be in Canada, so it seems a bit presumptuous to me that readers should assume Canadian dollars on the 2010 Olympics article(s). PKT(alk) 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is more than obtuse - because the games are in Canada, it is presumptuous that Canadian currency would be involved. What else would it be in? Shekels? Rand? Rubles? Renminbi? Are all the US Olympics articles using US$?? The use of currency-designators is only valid when more than two currencies are in the content of an article, and the assumption that /$/ refers to US dollars is a very AMERICAN presumption. The /$/ sign is also used for pesos, the rand, the rial and other currencies; the rand is often just written /R/ and the rial sometimes R$, but I've never seen M$ for the Mexican usage (though I have seen "USD" in Mexico). Interestingly, I just had a look at the Atlanta, Salt Lake, Los Angeles (1984) and Mexico City Olympics pages, and unlike the 2010 Olympics pages there are almost no mentions of dollar figures anywhere - on the Atlanta page there's one usage of /US$/, while on the Salt Lake page only /$/ is used; no dollar figures are given on the LA Olympics page, and not even "peso" shows up on the Mexico City Olympics page. Go figure. We have a saying in Canada that the country "has the soul of a banker and the heart of an accountant". But suffice to say that both the UK and Ireland used the same symbol for the pound and the punt, and articles on international events in Ireland I doubt very much would have had to specify /E₤/ or /I₤/ to avoid confusion with pound sterling, and I haven't looked at any London Olympics articles to see if /UK₤/ is used but I highly doubt it (there's also a Scottish pound btw, at part with the so-called "British" pound). Only in articles where amounts in two different currencies are discussed and/or compared is there a need to distinguish them; unless you can show to me that the United Nations article uses /US$/ for any dollar figures specified in it, or in its subarticles re budgets/funding etc, will I buy that it's "presumptuous" for articles about interntional events in Canada to assume that readers would know/assume that any dollar figures given are in some other dollar than the Canadian one, or some other currency that uses the same symbol. The Canadian usage, when that's needed, in any case, is /Cdn$/ not /C$/ which looks, well, wrong. You're being presumptuous to suggest a) that we use a symbol not used in Canada /C$/ vs /Cdn$/ and you're also being presumtuous to state that all readeers will assume that any mention fo a dollar sign is in USD unless otherewise spcified; American readers are not all readers....Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are as follows:

• The IOC's accounting practices are really not relevant to this issue.
• Unless there is a handy template of some kind that provides current currency conversions, my view is that we should avoid providing US$ or other currency figures in brackets. Since the Olympics were awarded to Vancouver, there has been unprecedented fluctuation of the value of the C$ versus the US$, which continues to this day, such that any conversions in parentheses would not be particularly meaningful.
• As it is a country-specific article, albeit one with an international scope, use the local currency. However, I note that WP:$ states that a currency should be "fully identified" on its first appearance (e.g. "CAD$55 million"), even in country-specific articles (excluding U.S. and U.K. related topics), with subsequent occurrences normally given without the country identification. Identifying the currency as Canadian dollars in the first instance should be more than sufficient to address any concerns about reader confusion and would keep the article in line with the applicable MOS. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point on the exchange rates. As a further point the vast majority of the costs appear to be unreferenced so i'd question if anyone really knows what currency they are in? Basement12 (T.C) 19:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your point is well taken Basement12. The argument may be moot if it is unclear in the sources what the currency is. Or even if there is a source for the dollar figures. For sourced figures, the community may have to assume based on context, for example, a press release I am using as a source in the Whistler Olympic and Paralympic Village article is from the Vancouver Organizing Committee. It relates to the award of a bid to a Canadian company to construct the Olympic Village. It lists the cost at $32 million. As the editor I am assuming that to be in Canadian dollars considering the source of the press release and that the recipient of the bid award was also a Canadian company. Is it wrong to do so? I don't think so, we are assuming good faith. If the dollar figure is unsourced it should be removed. If there is a source supporting the dollar figure, then the question then is, if we cannot determine from the source what the currency is, what currency default do we use? H1nkles (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair a lot of them are referenced, mostly to Canadian sources (CTV, CBC etc) so its safe to assume all their values are in CAN$. Of particular concern though is the entire "Construction" section; it is completely unsourced and contains 8 different uses of "$". I'd assume someone has written this section from a single source, probably another site/article from Canadian media, so all would be CAN$, but it could have come from the IOC who, as Cbradshaw points out tend to use US$. Either way it needs some references added to keep the figures in there. - Basement12 (T.C) 00:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If IOC press releases about the Vancouver/Whistler Olympics are using USD, then the IOC is being highly impolitic and insensitive (nothing new, in fact) and if they are in reference to USD then those figures should be /USD$/ or /US$/. BTW above I mentioend that Cdn$ is used in Canada; it is in the media; at currency exchagne outlets you tend more to see CAD$, that includes overseas. CAN$ I've seen but it's not as widely used, and I'm not sure in what contexts; we, of course, don't bother using such terms unless we're currency traders or stockbrokers or members of int'l orgs writing reports for official purposes, again when comparing amounts in different funds. /C$/ appears to be a manque of R$ and HK$ but it's totally alien in the Canadian milieu.Skookum1 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And again, this discussion begs the question as to why this article is so full of discussions of costs at all; in terms of domestic politics, the dollar costs are hot potatoes and arguing about or justifying them is part of the political game going on; but they're not about the Olympics themselves. Perhaps all such materials shoudl be pulled out and put in a Budgetary controversies concerning the 2010 Winter Olympics. As I said, there are almost no similar discussions in any of the other Olympics articles; maybe in venues articles but not in the main articles. Why the obsession here? Also, most of those other articles don't have the sea of flag-waving that this one has (as does Salt Lake's); what is the point of having a display of national flags? Does it help the reader? Or does it just make the page more colourful and/or quasi-official??Skookum1 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not convinced this article is country-specific, so I support the use of C$. --Kmsiever (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see having a header-template or something like a hatnote at the head of the article saying "All dollar amounts in this article are in Canadian dollars unless otherwise specified" but I can't see having "C$" on every instance in the article, which is obtrusive; and if that's waht Wikipedia uses to signify Canadian dollars, Wikipedia is out of lines both with Canadian norms as well as international currency-abbreviation norms; CDN, CAD or CAN are the normative indicators for Canadian dollars, And again, I'm puzzled by why this and other BC Olympics articles have so many mentions of costs; go look at any other main-Olympics article; I think one had two dollar-figure mentions in it, some had none at all. "Look at all the money we're spending" is partly VANOC's message, and it's also a hot topic for opponents of the Olympics; but itemizing everything when no other Olympps articles do raises questions about the "monetary content" of this article in general. The only currency-indicator that shoudl be here should be USD$ if for some reason a figure from an IOC document is given in US dollars; in subarticles and related articles (e.g. Peak 2 Peak Gondola) there seem to be some USD costs given; but it should be USD taht's specified, and any notion that this is not a country-specific article must be applied retroactively to all similar US articles (Olympics or non, .e.g United Nations and other international-related articles where the institution or relevant discussion is located in the US...NAWAPA and NAFTA also come to mind...). The simplest thing to do is make it clear for people who would otherwise presume that /$/ is only used for American dollars is to explain in the lead that that's not the case and that Canadian dollars are invariably waht's meant in articles about things going on in Canada.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, both the Canadian Department of Finance and the International Monetary Fund use C$, as per 5.26 of "The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing", the official style guide for Public Works and Government Services Canada Translation Bureau. --Kmsiever (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Official usage and most common usage are two different things; I'm used to seeing either Cdn or CAD, and more rarely CAN.Skookum1 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly i'm not American but as a rule i'd assume US$ if I just saw a $ sign in Olympic articles because of the IOC's preference, if you look you will see values in the 2008 Summer Olympics article given in US$ for example. Secondly it clearly isn't beyond the scope of this article to mention that "X" amount was spent on new venue "Y"; the costs involved in staging a Games has an important issue the 2008 and 2012 Summer Olympics articles list many costs and i'm sure there would be more mentioned for previous Games if the figures are were available. I really don't see the harm in using CAN/CDN/CAD or whatever abbreviation is the correct one on the figures in this article, all the figures in 2000 Summer Olympics are clearly marked as $AUD so there is precedent. Basement12 (T.C) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

About eight months later, I know, but see WP:CANSTYLE#Currency for guidance on handling currency in Canadian-related articles. US$ should always be identified in Canadian topics e.g. with {{USD}}; beaver bux preferable preferably uses {{CAD}}. Dl2000 (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of false claims re support for logo

Note I've removed false claims that "other First Nations and Inuit leaders supported the design"; only Gibby Jacob is mentioned, and she's not even "head chief" of the Squamish Nation, and no Inuit leaders in support, if any, are mentioned in the citation at all.Skookum1 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Forced detour of Olympic Torch in Victoria

This needs to be in the article, though I'm not sure if it goes in "Controversies and concerns" or in the "Opposition" section.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the CTV website's article on the same event.Skookum1 (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Economic spinoffs controversy

This is one of several articles out there (that the most recent) on the conflict between the govenrment's public projections of the value of hte event and the actual bottom line; this should be in the controversies section, in at least brief form.....as should the cost overruns on infrastructure and the bloating of the security budget, and where the extra police are coming from (the US....)Skookum1 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver -Salt lake

The games are returning to North America just eight years after Salt Lake City hosted the games in 2002.

I dont think it's good to use it, because it's give the illusion it's surprise it's come in North america that fast. Since the 2008 games where suposse to be held in North America ( but wil be held in China), it's look easy the 2010 will come in North America. Since 2002, Vancouver are the only North america city to win the right of host the games, so the just eight years after should be delete.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.166.50 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

More countries!

CTV is listing more countries at [5]. Yay!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Perrier (talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Malta to participate?

I can't find any information about a Maltese team for the Winter Olympics, although it is included in the list of participating NOCs. The referenced link leads to a newspaper article about athlete quotas. Malta is not mentioned there. The Maltese NOC itself does not have a section on the Vancouver games on its homepage. Does anybody have a reliable source on what would be Malta's first ever Winter Olympics appearance? --Phileasson (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you post the infomation about the Gabones, Caymenes, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.7 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just found one additional source for the participation of an athlete (alpine skiing) from Cayman Islands and added it to the article. Also found a snowboarder from Malta, but not sure whether she already qualified. Regarding Gabon I couldn't find anything so far. --Phileasson (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also been looking into this, and can't find anything for Bahamas, Malta, or Gabon. The article about Kory Wright of the Bahamas here does not correlate with the current set of quotas that FIS has for each NOC here as of November 13. Malta and Gabon are not mentioned at all. I suggest these three nations be removed for now. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Using CTVOlympics as a source for participating nations

Please, do NOT use the "nation" page on CTVOlympics as a guide to add countries under "participating nations". The countries on the CTV pages are EXPECTED to qualify, which does not mean they qualified any athletes yet. Please only add countries if you have a source that says that they have actually qualified for at least one event. 142.166.248.155 (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If I don't get any opposition I will remove every country that has CTVOlympics as a source because, ounce again, they list countries that are EXPECTED to qualify, not countries that actually did. 142.166.248.155 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the CTV website is worse than you say because they are listing the 2006 participants, not even the 2010 expected participants! See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania at the 2010 Winter Olympics for additional comments. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The only source that lists Bolivia as a partcipating nation is CTV. Perhaps Bolivia should be deleted from the list. I can't find any info about Bolivian athletes that will compete in Vancouver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatboy (talk • contribs) 04:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a "false debate". The only way to show before the Olympics start the countries that will be in are to use torino countries. Everybody do like ctv... look at the page from nbcolympics. When you click nations at the 2010 games... they are refering to Torino list. Why not put the information country expected to be at the games. This way wikipedia will be accurate because gave the closest information we can have. Otherwise why not delete every country and wait the games are over... They is no way the list on wikipedia can be fully accurate because the names of country can change at anytime. The GOAL is for the viewer to understand if they are confirmed country or country expected to competed... as long this is done... I think wikipedia is doing is part. We have a french expression " we cannot be more catholic then the popes" Meaning EVERYWHERE I LOOK they are using the templete of Torino so why couldnt we? taking for granted we will keep the list of country.... --Rundleds (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Mkdw^talk 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section - Cost overruns?

Although there are mentions of various cost overruns throughout the article, there should be a subsection within the Controversies section that's a little more explicit about all of them, i.e. in the same place. While the article says operational costs may be being handled by private contributions (dubious to me), venues and certain operations costs (especially policing, see next section) are publicly funded, and all over budget. Among these, and in re a sentence that needs updating from the Construction section, is the Convention Centre:

The athletes' villages in Whistler and Vancouver are still under construction, as are the main media centre in Coal Harbour and its Whistler counterpart

The "main media centre" is the new Vancouver Convention Centre, which was already completed prior to the provincial election and was host to the federal Liberal Party convention, is one of the most notorious cost overruns, far in excess of the "infamous" Fast Ferries Fiasco but not treated as such by the mainstream media; that sentence should also be clearer about the media centre being the convention centre. "Hidden costs" abound (as the Convention Centre, among other items, is not considered by the provincial government as part of the Games, ditto the Canada Line...) and the pre-Olympics upgrading of Highway 99 are all absent, so far...(the temporary use of BC Rail trackage at Porteau Bluffs should be mentioned, also)..Skookum1 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Policing

The security section says that the RCMP is the lead agency for policing; this is not true, it's the Integrated Security Unit, which includes the RCMP as well as the VCP and other municipal forces, plus Canadian Border Services and a large number of private security contractors (most from the US).Skookum1 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cuts to arts funding

Also belonging in the Controversies section are the cuts to arts programs across the province; this is big news in the arts community and has seen a lot of protest moves, mostly petitions and FB pages; details of the Cultural Olympiad funding and its programs are also absent from the article so far. As I recall, similar cuts were levelled on amateur sports (ironically enough) and the closure/cutbacks to emergency room services and extended care facilities and other medical programs in order to pay for the Olympics are also so far undiscussed....Skookum1 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this point can be better covered by saying that the large cost of the Olympics is believed to cause cuts in other government programs, such as arts programs, medical services, and amateur sports. It's understood that if you spend a large amount of money on one thing, you have to either raise taxes or cut the funding in some other public sector.

However the problem with discussing funding cuts is that we are also going through a major economic downturn. Are these funding cuts related to the Olympics or related to the overall to the economic downturn? If you want to see government cuts in services and programs, head to the US. There have been a lot more cuts to municipal, state, and federal programs in the past two years than in Canada and they don't have the 2010 Olympics.DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Torch Relay section and other comments.

In the torch relay section the final paragraph talks about renovations to a stadium from out of nowhere. I am thinking this has been accidently moved from somewhere else or else needs a bit more to make it clear.

As well, in the Opposition section there is talk about the arrest of Harriet Nahanee and then to the right there is a picture of native warriors honoring her death. While I could click on her name and get the full story A blurb of why this is relevant might be appropriate? (did she die in jail after this or something?) I have no idea who she is and I used to live in Vancouver til 10 years ago.

A route map for the torch relay (which is what I came looking for in the first place) would be interesting as well if anyone has one.

Just some comments from a former boy checking on his hometown :) Ziggy in Oz (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mukmuk - LOL

This is the name of the cartoon-version marmot-mascot....it's really quite funny; as a verb mukmuk means to eat, or to drink. But as a noun it means "food". I don't suppose barbequed or roasted marmot is on the menu at the Olympic party-buffets....tasty though, I understand them to be....Skookum1 (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Page anti Vancouver 2010 or what?

Is it me or this page is too much about controversies and scandale and bad things about the olympics. I'm not saying they should be hidden but why not as a link. Most of the information here are about bidding process and controversies... not much about the games.... the venues, the medals and everything related such as the flame.... I would love to change the page but English isnt my primary language. Hopefully someone will understand my point of view and make this page more relevent, because currently wikipedia is one of the worst source to be informed about the actual games, but the basic is here so they is some hope for the 45 days or so until the games begins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rundleds (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this page does tend to lean a bit more negatively than I'd like, but you have to remember that this is the main 2010 page. A lot of the stuff you mentioned does have its own page. There are pages for Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics and 2010 Winter Olympics torch relay but there isn't a controversies page yet. The page will be evened out and expanded as the games approach. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As with so much else in BC, results are often the product of extreme polarities; this applies in Wikipedia also; the huge amount of stuff about the bidding process and construction comes from the VANOC and O-booster end of things, and obviously the accounts of criticisms and controversies comes from their opponents. Fact of the matter is that these Games have generated controversy and criticism since they were first awarded and also that VANOC and the government have run roughshod over their opponents politically, making the opponents even more strident. I can't think of another Games, certainly not a Winter Games, where there has been so much domestic controversy and opposition; dissidence is a theme of the way these Games were brought into being and how their construction and planning have gone forward. Essentially, it's not the opponents' fault that the authorities/organization have provided so much fueled for criticism, and perhaps they should have known better given the historical scale of political activism in British Columbia, i.e. rather than add fuel to the fire with stuff like Eagleridge Bluffs or the "pardon me but we're coming into your house to rip down your no-Olympics sign" behaviour, they could have made every effort to appease what was sure to be hard-core resistance. Authoritarianism begets resistance, it always has; except in places like China where dissidence is a crime against the state, and portrayed as a form of treason (and the current BC government wishes it had those powers; some politicos have even said that....). If anything, this page reflects how sloppily-managed the Games have been, both p.r. wise and financially; and the financial side isn't even fully told; the VANOC/govt side determined to press ahead, no matter the cost overruns or political opposition, the opposition side determined to be as much of a pain in the butt as possible. It's a reality of these Games - similar political opposition did not exist in Salt Lake City or in Lillehammer, nor was there anything like the authoritarian and elitist type of politician/organizer as is so commonly found in British Columbia, and likewise Utah especially isn't known for its protest groups (and those in Norway tend to be more civilized....). But I'll state flat out: that wanting this page to be "cleaned" of its content so it's more p.r. friendly is not what Wikipedia is for....neutral coverage means covering all aspects; maybe Controversies surrounding the 2010 Winter Olympics would be a viable spin-off article though.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you are right... The games as been really well managed all considering "The initial problem Vancouver faced in winning the bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics was fundraising for construction of venues." Isnt it the case for every bid ? Vancouver is no different. Those information should not be in -and I'm going to delete this one because this remarks is pointless. Also with the low economics the real expects will tell you how good vancouver been about to keep the boat off the float.... You are right about the fact Vancouver have lot's of protestors going againt the olympics... but many of them are just doing it for attention... by exemple in montreal during the relay of the flame many white canadians where playing the card of the games on stolen lands.... when they werent even native... Also some other controversies were OUT OF REACH from vanoc by exemple h1n1 and ski jumping.... they should be as link not in the main page. The Olympic village? Many observers will say vancouver olympic village is one of the most beautiful ever constructed summer or winter games nontheless the money problem. Nagano had many protestors also... I remember clearly the opening day.... I was naive.... I taught here in Canada we will be different no body will be againt the olympic.... naive because I was young.... but this kind of things always been on.... The movement as just grew up with the games in China. Expect them to be HUGES in London! Rundleds (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)RUNDLEDSRundleds (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I try with no success to make a link for Concerns, controversies and opposition. I guess I'm not good with wikipedia to do those kinds of change.... Like I said my idea isnt to hide this information, I think they are part of the games... but with the games coming up... the main page should be focus more on the actual games. thanks Rundleds (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)RUNDLEDSRundleds (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your making of a new article interestingly left the phrase "Olympics 2010" from its title, and your rationale/denials above, despite their poor English, are a rephrasing of the lobbyist/mainstream media rationales;....this isn't about protestors, it's about actual things wrong with the way VANOC has behaved, and the way the government has shuffled its excuses (and funding). If you look at other Olympics articles you wont find t he same intense coverage of organizational info; you won't also find as much coverage of political opposition in other Olympics articles - but that's a fault of those articles, not something to blame this one for...... I'm amending your name-change to include 2010 Winter Olympics in the title, though am stuck on which preposition - "at" or "of", and will go for the latter though it sounds awkward. Also a condensed form of what you've removed from the article should be restored....Skookum1 (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your new split-off is now titled Concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics, but it already has a delete tag on it, and there's no sign of a link to it on the main page.....be aware what you've done is what's called a WP:POV fork and on the same grounds as splitting off this material, other sections which may seem legitimate to you may also be split off as being too detailed for a synopsis article. You've also done what is called an undiscussed change, I'm sure other editors will be commenting on this......Skookum1 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver referendum missing

There is no account at all of the referendum to approve the city hosting the Olympics, or the various criticisms of it, among which were that other cities affected were not similarly polled (though it's unlikely that West Van and Richmond and Whistler would have voted against it; Burnaby, which was the original planned site of the skating oval - another omission - might have voted against it, though). This was a major part of the lead-up to hosting the Games....and I'd have to go back over the article to see if it's even mentioned that NDP politicians were behind the bid originally; at this point I only recall seeing BC Liberal names....Skookum1 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there certainly needs to be mention of the Olympic Vote, also know as the Olympic Plebiscite. Full information is found here, [6] including results. I'm no good at adding things so if someone sees this, it would be a welcome addition... --Teknokracy (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we delete or modified "The initial problem Vancouver faced in winning the bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics was fundraising for construction of venues"

First of all, the initial problem was not the fundraising for construction of venues because most of them where already there (if you look Salt lake, torino, and Sochi) the construction of venues in vancouver are really slim.

Second of all, EVERY BID, from every country FROM ALL TIME have to faced the problem of fundraising for construction of venues... it's more a question of challenged for Vancouver then it's a problem.

Third of all, the biggest problem if I recall 2003 was more involving the sea to sky highway

PS: sorry for my english I am french.... Rundleds (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)rundledsRundleds (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, most of the venues were not there - the Olympic Oval, the Hillcrest-Nat Bailey rebuild, Whistler Olympic Park and Sliding Centre, the expanded facilities on Cypress, the Convention Centre (which is the media centre); only BC Place Stadium, the Pacific Coliseum and General Motors Place were already extant, as well as the Whistler downhill run, that's it. As for funding issues, the reality is (and this is citable, as it was a hot topic in BC's press) is that Ottawa was heaping money into Toronto's facilities and infrastructure and bid-promotion and had told Vancouver and BC to shut up, and not even make the Winter bid until the Summer bid was done.....so time was short, once Toronto lost out, and Ottawa never did come through with as much dough as had been hoped (but, er, never promised, only implied). The way BC made up the shortfall was to do everything from divert lottery revenues from amateur sports and culture to closing emergency rooms and long-term care homes, and by a fire sale of public assets to raise funds (name a BC government or agency, it's been sold off or at least partly privatized in some way....). Around 2003 the media was focussing on the highway problem, partly because it came at a time when restoration of passenger service on that line was still hoped for, but the highway redesign came to include using parts of the rail right-of-way (particularly at Porteau Bluffs)....long, long ago, when the idea of an Olympics was first floated, there was chatter about building high-speed rail, maybe the Cascadia MagLev, all the way to Whistler, such that highway improvements would be secondary; that was all forgotten by the time the actual bid was rolling....and if you were only reading the major media, be aware that anything in the headlines at the time was a smokescreen for something else going on in provincial government/politics; the highway has been a big issue since the M Creek Disaster of 1982, and hundreds of millions had alreayd been poured into it by 2003; at that point the whole idea of pouring even more money into it, or even finally using the Capilano or Indian Arm re-routings to bypass the major geotechnical problems of the Howe Sound coastline; it was all absurd, and more than one columnist said so. The parallel issue was the sentiment outside of southwestern BC that Vancouver was getting the lion's share of infrastructure improvements, and those needed in the Interior and North were getting cut back or cancelled in order to divert funds for hte Sea To Sky - in order to support the bid, and also of course to make all the real estate between Horseshoe Bay and Whistler even more valauble for the government's wealthy supporters.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to say (I shouldt write most venues) is that not many venues had to be built compare to others host cities or applicant cities (look at sochi for an exemple)... and this you cannot say I'm wrong because it was a strong point from the bid... if you recall the IOC evaluation. The page about venues on wikipedia even mention a link if you dont believe me.... here is a citation:

"In its 2002 evaluation of Vancouver's bid during the bidding process for the 2010 Games, the Evaluation Commission of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) highlighted the number and quality of existing competition and training facilities as one of the bid's strengths. Of the competition venues that the bid proposed for use during the Games, six required new construction, with the reminder already existing in Vancouver and Whistler"

Every thing on wikipedia should be neutral and unless you can show me a proof by a link that the biggest problem vancouver face (and unlike others bid) is to fundraise money the sentence "The initial problem Vancouver faced in winning the bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics was fundraising for construction of venues" should be remove. I'm challenging you because I want to make wikipedia better, not a wanna be encyclopedia.... it's not my or your opition that count... it's the exactitude. They is just too many presumption and it's not because one newspaper say something the information is accurate. To be accurate the source need to be either from a valuable source or showing also a link into a source. The source above is accurate because coming from the IOC evaluation. So until somebody show a proof... i will put citation needed about the sentence from the manner of this topic.

I just think it's too bad the page of Vancouver look to be control by peoples only showing one view. I have no problem showing all the problems and controversies from vancouver as long the other part is shown. The venues were build in time... and never the IOC felt concern about the construction of venues unlike many other games. This page lack of up to date about the actual game... it's critical... you want a proof "The $40-million Vancouver Olympic/Paralympic Centre at Hillcrest Park, which will host curling, will be finished later this year.[citation needed]" Every venue already have been completed for a long time now...meaning this page havent been checked for a long time. This page is unorganised the information about the fact Vancouver will be the largest winter host are located into the venue section when it should be in the introduction like Torino. Also they is the information Vancouver will be the warmest city to host a winter games .... when in fact we EXPECTED Vancouver to be the warmest... no body can predict the weather and Vancouver could possibly get a cold breeze during the games. But let say since many source love to say Vancouver will be the warmest even if it's not a done deal yet that this sentence is accurate... why is it in the section venue? Also they is a picture in the main page about the warrior when they is no picture of the city it self...

In short, this page on wikipedia should be redone almost completly since they is too many problem with it. I know I'm newbie on wikipedia (with an account), but I can tell this page have many issues like shown briefly above.

sorry for my english... i'M french... this is why I'M not going to redone this page.... because this page will only look even worst... but I hope a leader will do it... Vancouver 2010 need a makeover to be ready for the games. Rundleds (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)rundledsRundleds (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

YOu can propose a feature article proposal/review, and you can request expert input (this doesn't mean you'll get any). Yes, there's lots that needs updating but NO this page is NOT dominated by one point of view. You should also be aware of the AFD discussion engendered by your attempt to split off of material you didn't want to see on this page, which was badly titled and what is also called a WP:POVFORK. Your premise that this page4 should be "ready for the Games", meaning more happy-happy and not "controlled" (allegedly) by one set of opinions, is highly POV in and of itself. Many sections are clearly VANOC-flavoured in tone, the others are neutral-tone renderings of much more heated debates/coverage in the media. This page isn't so much controlled by one side or the other, as emblematic of the usual bipolar/diametric opposites of British Columbia politics; and the Olympic Games are always political in nature, and were in fact invented to be so. The Games and politics can not be separated, it's impossible. Better organization of the page, and fixing the various out-of-date bits, that's fine; but wanting it to be "ready for hte Games" so taht it's all smiley faces is highly suspect. I think perhaps given your second-language English you're reading "tone" into thigns that don't have it, and you're only seeing things that bother you, and not realizing that some of the "neutral" cocverage of construction etc is highly political, depsite its neutral tone. Speaking of which, it may be possible to integrate some of the political material in controversies and concerns etc into appropriate sections; the cost overruns into the construction of financing sections, the EagleRidge protests into th Highway 99 section, the security overruns and staffing issue into the security section; sequestering the controversies all in one section was maybe a bad idea (not my doing); this is what I meant by better organization of the page - integration, not segregation, of information....Skookum1 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What strikes me is that you want this article santizied so as to be Olympics-ready. It may just be your poor comprehension of English causes you to infer more POV than is actually there; content in and of itself is not POV, though language and how it's arranged can be. But deleting or relocating materials you don't like because t heir "anti-Games" is a POV cause. As for the split-off article you tried to create, this is the chaos that's resulting.Skookum1 (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The IOC's main concern was Highway 99, I do remember that - and any person from flat country who drives that highway has good reason to be terrified of its instability and scary curves; what's scarier are the drivers; it's also a security nighmater, something of a "shooting gallery", also with hundreds of avalanche chutes along it; that's why it's a "closed route" during the Games (probably already is) and why the rebuild....the venues that already existed were the big ice rinks; the convention centre hadn't been built, Nat Bailey was still an old-fashioned baseball park, at that time the Olympic Oval was still planned for Burnaby Mountain/SFU and of course the downhill run at Whistler was already extant; relative to other locations for the Games the BIG venues were largely in place (for hockey, opening ceremonies etc), and the minor ones not so hard to build; the Media Centre (Vancouver Convention Centre). was a fiasco financially, though the big media have ignored that because it's built by their pet government/party, and the Athletes' Village required emergency legislation in order to get finished, though that was unforeseen in 2003. The sliding centre, nordic/jumping centre etc were all unbuilt, though now all done.....but financing, as I said, had been put on hold to give Toronto room for its bid, so both construction and promotion of these Games were behind schedule once the bid was actually allowed to proceed by Ottawa.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1. What I meant by "being ready to the games" is the fact more and more peoples are going to see the page so this page should be more completed and reflect the quality of wikipedia. Not to be happy-happy! 2. Second of all I never said to delete the controversies part of the games... they are part of the games and every one of them have issues and it's good to see what are the issues/OPPOSITION from this game. However, every subject show briefly the information with a link to a different page... so I'm just wondering why it's isnt the same from the opposition/controversies. Why not follow the same templete of other games? But I will say it again.... I dont want to delete the information I dont like.... this information SHOULDNT BE REMOVED just better organized. 3. Your saying the games were behing schedule can you show me a proof... because the venues were completed long before the games started. I'm not saying your wrong I just cannot believe such information until citation needed.... I followed the games closely in the last 12 years (since national bid) and I dont recall such information after reading most articles in both french and English.... and yes my English is good Enough to understand... just a bit rusty to express my self the same way as I could do in french...that it... 4. Your right this page is not controlled by peoples showing one view. You just look to be againt everything I have to say so this comment was easy to write but also was out of line and unrespecful. But why you look concern by my me writing "be ready for the games", when you didnt look concern with the problems I explained before about the main page.... I think I cited some valuable feedback (maybe the way of explaining them was off dough) but it was valuable feedback. 5. You cite the problem yourself.... somes page are vanoc flavour... some neutral...... EVERYTHING SHOULD BE NEUTRAL IN AN ENCYCLOPEDY. I dont want this page to be happy-happy. I want this page to be neutral.... that it! But maybe the neutrality will come naturally comes the games when they will be more facts. Actually the games are only a product in the making and this page follow the same way. 6. I just want to make this page better -that it- and I believe you want to do so -so we do agree on something- Happy new yeAR :)

Rundleds (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)rundledsRundleds (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Elaborate more on the sentence

"These will also be the first games to be held in a National Hockey League market since the league allowed its players to participate". Is that suppose to mean purely in cities that have NHL teams or in an actual arena that has NHL games. This is really important because it doesn't matter if they build a separate arena in Vancouver under Olympic games rules (that differ from the NHL). But if they reuse say the Vancouver Canucks arena then that sentence would make some sense (but are they reusing NHL arenas?) Somebody should elaborate more on what that sentence means (hear and in the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The NHL allowed players to participate in the Olympics starting in 1998 at the Nagano games. All of the previous Winter Olympics (Nagano, Salt Lake City, and Torino) took place in markets (meaning a region which is able to view the NHL games on local television and usually also means that team merchandise is available in local stores, etc) where there were no NHL teams. Since Salt Lake City was the only North American city to host the games in that time, and since they have no NHL team, Vancouver is the first host city to also have an NHL team. It has nothing to do with the venues, other than the fact that an NHL team plays at GM Place (Canada Hockey Place during the 2010 Games). The IOC also is allowing the ice hockey events to be played on the NHL-sized rinks rather than the wider international standard, presumably to save costs on retrofitting already NHL-compliant rinks to the international standard for a period of only two weeks (which would have also disrupted normal NHL play for a longer period before and after tha games for the Vancouver Canucks). Since most of the team members on the olympic teams for some countries are NHL players, this would seem to make sense. --Teknokracy (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

video game

where's the link to Vancouver 2010 (video game)? they have the same name 109.78.101.64 (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

VANOC & Venues

You might want to create separate pages for both VANOC, as well as for the venues for the Olympics. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 03:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

After reading the text of the act, it would appear that the amendment that's alleged to allow officers to remove "anti-olympic" signage is a blanket amendment to pre-existing bylaws restricting signage in the specified cities (and also requires that reasonable effort be made to contact the affected residents). The timing is convenient, but I suspect that it's not meant just as a measure to crack down on anti-olympic sentiment. Calvinhrn (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL you've got to be kidding.....and it's not up to you to decide, the point is there's tons of analysts and journalist who have commented on it as being specifically about the Olympics (and I know some people who've been "visited by security forces" because of signs in their windows, or for anti-Olympics writing/web presence....). Whether just equivocation or disingenuous on your part, the reality is that even in the mainstream media these measures are seen as an attack on anti-Olymipcs politicos....Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Analysts, journalists and Joe Public can all interpret this different ways. Was merely noting that the bill reads like a generic amendment (as most do), the timing of this specific one being all too convenient. It's not up to the media to decide either, by the way. Calvinhrn (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Who does then, the politicians? The Council of Angels? the Ghost of Brother XII? You said one thing in your original post, then shrugged it off in the second; you weren't "just noting" anything, you were disputing whether this bill was aimed at anti-Olympics protestors. The media, Joe Q. Public and even some politicians think that it was. Their opinion is reportable, yours is not.Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Torino"

'Torino' in the first paragraph should be replaced by Turin. This is English wikipedia, after all. Or maybe I'm wrong and we need to go through all these Olympic pages and change Antwerp to Anvers, Rome to Roma, Moscow to 'Москва́', etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatboy (talk • contribs) 07:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right for the most part... but dont forget one thing... the logo... the look of the games...everything include Torino not turin so the games are easier connected to Torino then turin... I might be wrong with what I will be saying but I feel like Turin winter games brand their games as torino. Same problem with beijing since it's pekin..... Personnaly, I prefer Torino because I'm more use to it but I do see your point of view... and you are giving a good point this page is english wikipedia. And since this is an encyclopedia I think Turin will be better. Good observation --Rundleds (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you look at say, the poster for the 1920 Olympics, it doesn't say Antwerp, it uses the French name Anvers. Those games were offcially branded as the 'Anvers' olympics by the local organizers, and yet nobody in the English-speaking world refers to them as the Anvers olympics. Turin should be no different. Also, the wikipedia site on winter olympics lists the site of the 2006 games as Turin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.35.148 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that the IOC calls it Turin. See here.Donlammers (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We also had a discussion on this in 2005 - which I can't find right now - but it was brought up again in November last year: it was decided that, despite being called "Torino", we still called in "Turin". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreclosure of Whistler resort owner Intrawest

This section is poorly written and likely contains errors. For example, it is unlikely that one Anthony Edens owns Fortress Investments. A principal of Fortress is Wesley R. Edens. Athony Eden was a prime minister of the UK. Fortress is public so likely does not have a sole owner. Millennium is not Fortress' development arm, per se. Shadesofgrey (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Sofixit. I did the best I could from the new copy available, and yes I did confuse what Millennium is as part of Fortress; if you can clarify these matters please do so (in a WP:NPOV fashion); Corky Evans' speech in the House, as linked in the refs on Vancouver Olympic Village has more detail than I was able to recall. I must have sublimated Anthony Eden's name when transposing from the source article, as Anthony's name is more familiar to me (and I'm in something of a rush lately, in the process of moving/packing/stressing out...).Skookum1 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Other controversies/concerns now in the news

Add on to what else is there the outcry against the closure of surgeries and other medical services in BC in order to staff the Olympics' medical services, adn the layoff of 800 Vancouver teachers, which is associated with budget cuts in contrast to the escalation of Olympics-related spending, and the VPL director's orders to the branch libraries to promote Olympic sponsors etc etc etc....Skookum1 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Athletes village now complete

This edit changed the text saying that atheletes village was under construction, to say that they are now complete. I sure as heck hope they are complete by now, with the olympics starting in 2 weeks - but is it really encyclopedic to state that they are complete? Does it add anything to the article? DigitalC (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That same wording remains in the edit mentioned in the following section; there's some way to reword that that's encyclopedic but I'm only on my second coffee ;-). Skookum1 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

ROC/Chinese Taipei

Should there be any reason why Chinese Taipei be listed as ROC? As far as I'm aware, the IOC only recognizes the Republic of China as Chinese Taipei, and it should be reflected as such. I personally think Taiwan is independent but not recognized by a majority of countries. But that's irrelevant. And other Olympic articles where the ROC has competed as Chinese Taipei has them under "T", but listed as Chinese Taipei. So I think we should be doing the same.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, First of all, allow me to thank you for taking my concern into consideration for discussion! The Republic of China (Taiwan) is forced to compete under Chinese Taipei as its designated title. However, I believe it's not just my freedom of speech, but along with the 23 million Republic of China citizens and any loyal supporters of the ROC and Taiwan. In 2009, the ROC (Taiwan) hosted two international sports events: the 2009 Kaohsiung World Games and the 2009 Taipei Deaflympics. Both times, the President of the ROC opened the games as the President of the ROC (not as Chinese Taipei). The IOC requests that the ROC (Taiwan) use the title Chinese Taipei for international sports events and NOC committees. The Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee respects the IOC decision (which is truly the pressure from the PRC and their disgustful acts of bullying)and follows the policies (i.e. using the Chinese Taipei Olympic flag, using the Chinese Taipei title, and using the Republic of China Flag anthem to sub for the National Anthem of the ROC); however, citizens, the government, and etc. don't belong or fall under the direction of the IOC. Thus, the ROC government and its citizens have the complete right to use the title the Republic of China (Taiwan) and to bring in our national flag into these sporting events, and so anybody else. There is also confusion between the PRC (Communist mainland) and the ROC (Taiwan) for most foreigners and westerners. The title and explanation of the usage of "Chinese Taipei" is usually altered to imply that the ROC (Taiwan) belongs to the PRC (mainland). For example, the Mandarin translation of "Chinese Taipei": in the mainland would be 中國臺北 (Zhōngguó Táiběi), but the correct translation in the ROC (Taiwan) and internationally should be 中華臺北 (Zhōnghuá Táiběi). As a Chinese/Taiwanese-Canadian living in Vancouver, I'm hoping that you, also as a Canadian, can respect the freedom of speech and human rights by allowing the "Republic of China (Taiwan) - competes as Chinese Taipei" or similar to be the title of the ROC under the Participating Nations for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics article. Thank you! - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.210.66 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The existing consensus for Olympic articles is quite clear. The IOC has used "Chinese Taipei" to refer to this National Olympic Committee (NOC) for about three decades. We use "Chinese Taipei" for Olympic articles 1980 and later, and "Republic of China" for appearances through 1976. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 08:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what Taiwan/ROC is called, as the list of "participating nations" is really a list of teams participating. The articles on 1954-1964 refer to a team named "Germany" despite no one country having that name, and 1992 lists the Unified Team. --skew-t (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Medals per capita

Will Wikipedia publish the number of medals per capita won by each country? [7] -- Wavelength (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that has an external article (like the one in your diff), then we can certainly use it to reference something in this article. But per discussions and consensus we had in 2004, 2006, and 2008, we should not create a new article solely on that topic (WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV) or use our own calculations (WP:OR). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That link was removed in the next revision. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

p.r. spin on costs

User:DigitalC was correct to reverse this edit by Bmac-whomever, which is a repeat of a p.r. spin generated by the BC government's Public Affairs Bureau and by p.r. consultants associated with VANOC. It's also repeated in an article by Gary Mason in the Op-Ed section of yesterday's Globe and Mail. It's not acceptable because it editorializes on information provided by another cite, and repeats material already elsewhere in the article but here used in a POV fashion to discredit/debase other cited NPOV information. The original estimate of the cost of the Games was, yes, $600 million - but that's not even the size of the security budget, and it's also the cost of the Hwy 99 upgrades alone. Pretending that the $10 billion is overblown is utter nonsense; that figure, as I understand it, doesn't include certain Games-associated costs which the government has not pegged as being part of the Olympics costs - which include, I think, the RAV project (aka now the Canada Line) and the upgrades to some of the sporting venues; I don't even think the grotesque cost overruns on the Convention Centre (which are double or triple those on the supposedly "infamous" Fast Ferries) are included in that $10 billion - only the costs incurred by renting it for the Media Centre and putting up temporary signs etc - . Mason's column, by way of example, furthers the p.r. spin by claiming that the Hwy 99 upgrades were needed and going to get built anyway; what he, and VANOC/PAB spinsters don't admit to is that that higheway only services, essentially, one very rich community and the corridor of high-priced real estate en route to it, and that hundreds of millions were already spent on it since the early 1980s, and that funds going to its Olympics-budget upgrade were, as a result, not spent on highways in other parts of the province badly in need of repair and/or new construction. Similarly the spin that the Canada Line was badly needed is garbage; the B-Line bus service was already functioning well and it was the Evergreen Line that was badly needed, but has been put back by at least 10 years because all that money was put into the Canada Line; the costs to Cambie Street businesses who got screwed by the government's broken promise to tunnel instead of cut-and-cover are also not included in that $10 billion (that should also go in the Controversies section, along with a lot else that's missing...). Let's put it this way, I'd trust Price Waterhouse any day over the lie-machine of the PAB and VANOC; if that material is put back in it must be in the context "defenders of the Olympics costs say...." because it's not factual, it's Op-Ed (which is why Gary Mason's article is an op-ed piece, not a news piece). Also, it's "COI" material because it apes/echoes VANOC sources/p.r. doctors. I know all this sounds like SOAP; but the material inserted WAS soapboxing by parties who seem to have COI interests, if not direct connections (as could not be proven without, perhaps, the use of WikiScanner and an IP identity check). This article is going to see lots more of such edits - "cognitive infiltration" - in the next weeks to try and downplay the huge financial and social/political problems of these Games, in the same way there have been efforts to delete referenced content; the warm weather section got turfed, even though there are dozens of international-media citations for it by now.... Vigilance is needed, and also some sense of conscience. Anything that sounds like spin IS SPIN, and the edit that DigitalC reversed WAS SPIN. i.e. it was POV, and changed information provided by a reference....Skookum1 (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Official lexicon(s)

I found the following official lexicons (or lexica) for the Olympic games of 2004, 2006, and 2008, but I have not found any for the Olympic games of 2010.

• Athènes 2004 > Lexique Officiel
• Turin 2006 > Lexique Officiel
• Lexique des jeux olympiques d'été

-- Wavelength (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Advertising NBC?

At the end of the article we have "Olympics on NBC". Looks like pure advertising to me. Or just American bias? As an Australian, can I have Olympics on the Nine Network please?

The section is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a section, it was a template, and yes it's highly inappropriate, not just because it's not global in context but also because it was flagrant spam by NBC; many parts of it were not even NBC-specific. I've placed a speedy delete tag on it - {{Olympics on NBC}} - but that may get removed and it put into an AfD debate; I think there's no grounds to keep it and I think most experienced editors would agree. NBC Sports needs a slap on teh pee-pee for trying to coopt Wikipedia like this. There's a similar issue with the plug for AP's coverage, as there are other US outlets with media in attendance (NBC is not yet mentioned in that section, but should be), but that's a simple matter of fixing text, not using a Wikipedia "device" to promote one specific broadcaster, from one specific country. If by the time you read this the template link is red, it means it's been deleted....Skookum1 (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed your tag from the template, as there's nothing about the template or the main Olympics on NBC article that's advertising, and the article isn't just about the current Games. Whether the template belongs on this article or not is a separate issue, and it's probably best to not include it here. PaulGS (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Haiti

Shouldn't there be stuff about the Haiti earthquake relief related to the Games? (like when the We Are the World is aired, or [8] the selling of street banners...)

70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The We Are the World song was only broadcasted on the US national television on NBC, it didn't debut along with the Olympics in other broadcasts around the world.

-- Reevent (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Calendar

Would it not be better to have the calendar as a template? It is now used also in the article Chronological summary of the 2010 Winter Olympics, and it takes up a lot of bytes. Lampman (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just did it, that lifted 14k off the page. Lampman (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Homelessness" Controversy

I read this paragraph three times and still don't understand why it has anything to do with the Olympics, not only because it's poorly written, but also because it seems completely irrelevant. Suggest removal. --juxtapose (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. No connection has been made with the Games. Purely political point scoring I suspect. (And I know nothing of Canadian politics.) I will remove it if no-one else does. (After the major edit tag is removed) HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Vancouver, and don't agree with the protests, but there is a link. The issue is two-fold. First of all most Olympic cities have a bad history of trying to hide their social problems, so homeless advocacy was rightfully worried from the start. Secondly, there were promises made about things like how some number of the Athlete's Village have been reserved for low income housing after the Games. The problem is that due to cost overruns there is continued worry that this promise won't be kept (i.e. the government would rather/need to sell the units instead). So there is definitely a link.

If you're in a position to write up that detail, with references, please go ahead. HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian participants

{{editsemiprotected}} Bulgaria has qualified one more athlete and will be represented by 19 participants instead of 18 (source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4, source 5). Please correct the number. --62.204.152.181 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done [9] —Akrabbim^talk 05:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

hundreds of opponents??

The phrase "expressed by hundreds of activists and politicians," should be reworded, first because it is an unverified number and second because there is easily more than a thousand activists and politicians who are aware and expressing opposition to the olympics. This seems strictly political to me, and I would fix it but I don't have an account on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.167.239 (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)