Wikipedia

Talk:2010 Winter Olympics/Archive 3

< Talk:2010 Winter Olympics
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Canuckle in topic CEO of 2010 Winter Olympics games
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Five Ring Circus

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Any evidence this is a notable documentary showing any kind of major viewpoint? Other than the fact that it exists, I can't find much else about it. IMDB doesn't list anything major behind it. A few google searches doesn't seem to reveal much about this, so its use as a citation of expressing some viewpoint seems more promotional and not inline with WP:NPOV. If anyone can demonstrate that this is a notable documentary showing a notable point of view, please do so. Otherwise I'll remove it in a few days.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A source does not need itself need to be notable. Our policy regarding Notability concerns itself with subjects of articles, not sources regarding it. Furthermore the way that the documentary was used, ie, claims inline attributed to the documentary are perfectly aligned with policy. Although it is not necessary by our extant policies I have found a few RS which mention the documentary: Straight.com, vancouverobserver.com and chicagoreader.com. Unomi (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Unomi, please see my reply to Emarsee in the other section entitled Five Ring Circus, far below.Skookum1 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Questionable references

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I wanted to start a discussion around what appears to be questionable source. There seems to be several controversial/inflammatory claims being made by sources which do not follow wiki guidelines as they are presented in WP: IRS and WP: FRINGE

Those items seem to mostly be contained in the Controversies section and as such need to be held to an even higher standard as reliable sources. Specific sources I have an issue with are:

  • The Dominion
  • Warrior publications
  • Earth Times
  • Accuracy.org
  • Emagazine.com
  • The Five Ring Circus documentary
  • Info Shop News


I would like to get some feedback from the contributors as to if these sources meet wiki guidelines in the context their info is being attributed. I’m not so sure they do but don’t want to rush out and remove content if there is dissenting views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.36 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the five ring circus doc. i've pointed that out above. I still haven't found anything on it that doesn't make it a fringe source. so I'm going to remove it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You're completely out of line, I've restored that documentary, the book version of which is widely reviewed in major papers and in every major bookstore, at least within Canada (I'm in Halifax, not Vancouver). It's written by a Vancouverite, in the context of the lead-up to these Games, and has been reviewed in Detroit and Machester and elsewhere, and also interviewed on at least one US news show. "Fringe" is a bullshit term to use to describe it. As for the Warrior and Dominion cites, it all dpeends on what they were being used to cite; if teh Warrior site was used to cite a statement from the Warrior Society, then it's valid; I haven't kept up with changes to this page in recen t weeks but it's VERY clear to me that there's been a lot of POV censoring and info-massaging, and also removal of important information and highly reliable sources. I'm not saying you are POV in doing what you've done, but you are being rash in removing something that, while maybe hasn't been on the radar in your corner of the vast schoolroom that is Wikipedia, is anything but fringe. I don't have sales figures (for the book) or times played (for the documentary, though I do recall it won a few film festivals...) but one thing it's not - repeat NOT - is "fringe".Skookum1 (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Skookum1: We get that you're passionate about some of these topics. But there are fairly clear definitions of what these policy's and I think you need to review them not based on your positions or opinions, but as how they were intended when written. I've not read the cites yet, but your response seems like you havent either and are just responding based on your personal views which is not what wiki is all about (your views). Macutty (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Far too passionate. Skookum needs to have a good read of WP:AGF, WP:CIVILand WP:NPA. I already pointed out above that I gave it a google search and didn't really turn up anything of note. I asked for sources to back it up, and he's failed to provide anything beyond his acidic opinion. I didn't change any of the concerns in the article, I simply removed that one source as being a notable source of that opinion. If he can provide sources to give evidence to the contrary. Until he does, it doesn't belong in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


I took a look at some of the info and here is what I found:

Claim about olympics being environementally destructuve is cited by emagazine and opinion piece published in the georgia striaght. Neither of these meet wiki standards as credible sources for controversial cliams in their current form. if someone wants to add context to qualify these sources maybe, but in their current form they should go.

Claims about the splinter native group are cited by the dominion and the warrior times. the info from the warrior times is nothing more thatn an anonymous blog post. the dominion is the definition of a non credible source.

the info box regarding the stolen flag I took down as the only cite is another anon post to a fringe source. no credible mainstream outlet has attributed this action to this particular group and as such a controversial claim it needs to go. the other sources sould be disucssed a little further but it looks like they pretty clearly dont meet wiki policy as sources for the info the are claiming. Macutty (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no CREDIBLE mainstream outlets concerning political opposition groups in Canada; the Vancouver Sun and Province are notoriously biased and also known - widely - to be purveyors of lies and propaganda and also closely in cahoots with the BC Liberal Party about covering up that party's scandalous activities. That they choose not to admit to the existence of the St'at'imc of Sutikalh - a group who've repeatedly blocked Highway 99 to try and get their point out, and been only reported on in hte alternative press - is an example of the news blackout imposed on various issues by the Sun, Province and the mainstream media; anyone familiar with the history of press coverage of events like the Gustafson Lake Stand-off knows that the mainstream media is not to be trusted. The stolen flag is another example of "if you ignore it, you can pretend it didn't happen so long as you get the mainstream media to not report on it", but it did happen. If it only happens to be reported in a a radical or even an offshore blog (as is the case with the St'at'imc of Sutikalh, as I happen to know) means that, in terms of wiki policy, the Canadian mainstream media are really NOT "reliable sources"....anything but. Many of these issues, including the environmental issues asociated with the Games, were reported on in the Georgia Straight and The Tyee. that these weren't used as cites is unfortunate, but it would seem that the enthusiasts who added that material only looked for radical citations and maybe were unaware of the news copy in teh Straight adn Tyee and other RELIABLE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA. Myself, I think there's just a lot of efforts to purge this article of controversial material and any wiki rule possible is being trotted out to justify censorship-deletions, without looking for reliable sources thoroughly enough. As I found with the Amy Goodman material it's a few short editing steps between removing the reference, and removing wording that connects to teh Olympics, with using those absences to perpetrate censorship-deletions. As for the Warrior Society's theft of the flag, their own website's pronouncement of it is citable in the same way that the Al-Qaeda website is citable for what Al-Qaeda says it did. But that theft was reported in the Vancouver Sun, as I recall, if only briefly. What I'm seeing here is a lot of editors wanting to exclude material only because it conflicts iwth their pollyanna-esque view of the Olympics, and their gullible assumption that the mainstream media are "reliable sources". Which in British Columbia they're ANYTHING BUT.Skookum1 (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
LMAO....and Obama isn't a US citizen, Israel is behind 9/11, and the CIA has a chip in your brain. Sorry dude, your personal opinions of the mainstream media are irrelevant. Dont like the wiki policy? go start your own encyclopedia elsewhere. Fact of the matter is all of the sources I've looked at (emagazine, accuracy.org, warrior publications) could only be used as 1st party sources on cliams made about themselves. They ARE NOT, reliable, verifiable or credible so they should go. I'm happy to see the applicable content stay provided there are reliable 3rd paty sources for it. And provided these facts are both notable and factually accurate you should have no problem finding those types of sources. Macutty (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Skookum1: cannot just discredit what the general population views as mainstream, reliable, credible organizations because of your personal views. If all these things about the SUn and Province are true than find anothe creditble source to back up your claims. Until you do your opinion is needed or wanted here.

in terms of the Five Ring Circus material, it should be held against the following:

Wiki policy: FRINGE "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.[1] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,[2] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it."

There currently doesnt appear to be any other well known, reliable and verifiable sources to back up this piece's claims. (the book itself is listed on Amazon as a conspericy theory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.36 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Further more, the Native Warriors picture and claim did not come from their own website, it was an anonymous posting on Info Shop with no confirmation of its source. Definately not encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.36 (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Comment The five ring circus documentary is not itself subject to notability requirements, though it might just meet them for an article, it has also been reviewed by an expert in the field here. As long as claims are directly attributed to the documentary, or better yet, to the sources used in the documentary, such as George Monbiot I can't see what the problem is with using it. Unomi (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is interlopers/self-appointed censors out to remove "negative" coverage of the Olympics from this article, as well as any links to sources which dispute the "official line"; all the while wrapping themselves in as many Wikipedia guidelines they can try to invoke so as to rationalize their efforts to censor the article. Please note also the section below about hte BC government having "embedded workers" in NBC and CTV, and my observation that there's no mistaking they would also have moles in Wikipedia, as theere seems clear, if circumstantial evidence of. And other than the validity of Five Ring Circus, I also had a look just now at Accuracy.org's "about us" page, and it too is an "accredited source", not "fringe", as the 206.0.0.0 address IPer above claims....your citations above from the University of Bristol and from Stanford are a demonstration that, no matter how "positive" Olympics-boosters here claim that the docuemntary is "fringe", or how harshly it was dismissed farther below by User:Emarsee, it DOES warrant a place in teh article....is there such a thing as an NPOV noticeboard, this issue is getting tiresome, as is the ongoing campaign to whitewash this article on behalf of VANOC's interests and that of the BC government's propaganda/public relations machine (see below about Olympics-related ad spending being targeted at domestic voters).Skookum1 (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Five Ring Circus

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Why was the reference to the widely read and accepted book Five Ring Circus by UBC Prof. Chris Shaw deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magickallwiz (talk • contribs) 04:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You need to provide a secondary source, not just a primary source as to why this book is considered to be notable at all to the context of Olympic opposition. You still havn't, and you also refuse to use the proper Wikipedia reference tags, putting square brackets doesn't count as references. Other than that, I doubt we should be using most part of his book as a reference to say how much the Olympics costed. His overestimated figures includes adding such developments for such projects like the Canada Line or the Sea to Sky improvements. Of course, then you have the MSM believing the lies that he spews out and causing everybody to believe that the Olympics costed $5-6 billion. I guess if you spew enough lies for a long enough period, people will believe you.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Speak for yourself, Emarsee.....the removal of this well-known book, which got discussed on a number of media outlets and in print, is one of the more noxiously POV/censorship edits that took palce on this article; your line "Of course, then you have the MSM believing the lies that he spews out and causing everybody to believe that the Olympics costed $5-6 billion. I guess if you spew enough lies for a long enough period, people will believe you." is heavily-charged POV and obscures/ignores the fact that PRICE-WATERHOUSE says the Games cost TWELVE BILLION, not the petty five or six you're saying is too much. Chris Shaw isn't a liar, you are. The book should be restored as a reference, and truly earnest Wikipedians (as if you were, which increasingly clear you're not) should be trying to find the media reviews/coverage of teh book, instad of pretending it's "fringe". You don't have any problem with the lie-machine run by the provincial government, that's clear enough...the Straight and the Tyee definitely reviewed this book - no doubt you'll claim that they're "fring" too..."assuming good faith" isn't something I can do with you anymore...Skookum1 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Are you fucking kidding me? I've been trying to assume good faith with you and you call me a liar. It's nice to see your true colours showing through. Here's a report from CGA:

Moreover, public infrastructure projects such as new highways and a convention centre for Vancouver with a nearly $900 million price tag are also outside of the VANOC budget. When all costs are added up, the VANOC component turns out to be a fraction of a widely used all-in estimate of $7 billion. http://www.cga-canada.org/en-ca/AboutCGACanada/CGAMagazine/2010/Jan-Feb/Pages/ca_2010_01-02_bsin_feature.aspx

The above quote means that Liberal projects such as the convention centre and the S2S improvements or the Canada Line do NOT FUCKING COUNT as Olympic costs. VANOC was not responsible for the creation of any of these new/improved infrastructure, the Liberals were. I certainly don't agree with Gordon Campbell's Liberals (BC NDPer here), but basing your sources from only the Tyee/Straight is as biased as using simply the Sun/Province. The book should not be restored as a valid reference, ever. The final costs as calcualted by VANOC will show much profit/deficit the Games delivered.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
the quote you've provided says only VANOC's portion of the total costs is only a fraction of the $7 billion in total costs; yet in the preceding paragraphs you've blown snot at people saying only 5-6 billion; also in that article are phrases like "Canadian taxpayers have at least some say in fiscal policy" (which is utterly laughable, as if taxpayers had a say in any of this); and "Moreover, public infrastructure projects such as new highways and a convention centre for Vancouver with a nearly $900 million price tag are also outside of the VANOC budget. When all costs are added up, the VANOC component turns out to be a fraction of a widely used all-in estimate of $7 billion. " which really is only talking about VANOC's organizational spending/costs, NOT THE COST OF THE GAMES. The TOTAL cost. then there's this little equivocation "VANOC has said it has positive cash flow, yet that is a question of which accounting principles are applied. Critics have said the balance sheet looks good simply because VANOC is able to defer certain operating expenses until the beginning of the Games. What is clear is that elements of the Games are over earlier budgets. Security is now five times more costly than originally estimated. Chalk that up to a more dangerous world. " Well, that dangerous world was already existence durinfg hte duration of planning, and was still estimated at 175 million long after 911 changed things; but this is the trenchant line: VANOC has said it has positive cash flow, yet that is a question of which accounting principles are applied.. Yeah, indeed; and transparent, honest accounting procedures are waht's needed; not VANOC's doctored books.Skookum1 (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
that's horseshit - VANOC is clearly a COI source, by definition. Independent audits count, and criticisms and analysis by everyone from Price Waterhouse to Chris Shaw are valid cites. And you're clearly out of your depth if you claim the highway and the convention centre weren't part of Olympics costs; the highway in particular was a condition from the IOC of Vancouver/Whistler getting the bid. And the same people who disclaim counting the (grossly cost-overrun) convention centre, or the (grossly-cost overrun) highway spending, are the same people who want to calculate the economic benefits caused by tghose projects into the "benefits of the Olympics" column. Creative bookkeeping and voodoo economics are stock in trade with BC business/political types, and VANOC is no exception. But most pointedly of all, their own reports are NOT (repeat NOT) valid as independent, reliable sources; especially when there are so many criticisms of them, and their creative way of dodging responsibility for costs while bragging about the benefits of spending. YOur claiming that hte Tyee/Straight are not valid sources for establishing the notability of Chris Shaw;'s book, just because they're "biased" (even though, unliek the Sun and Province, they don't habitually publish lies, or advertorials for the government, nor do they cooperate in hiding/evading discussion of scandalous information like the CanWest papers do, e.g. with the BC Rail case). And, as Chris Shaw's book helped give fire to the "Olympic resistance" crowd, wehther organized or just popular cynicism, is a given fact. You trying to exclude him from this article smacks clearly not of POVism but censorship, and not a little bit of toadying on VANOC's behalf, which you've also done by claiming that only VANOC's balance sheet is what should be quoted/ cited.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And this also boils down to Wikipedia policy, not your dismissals, Emarsee; as provided by User:Unomi in the similarly-titled section at the top of this page, and quoting him/her: "Although it is not necessary by our extant policies I have found a few RS which mention the documentary: Straight.com, vancouverobserver.com and chicagoreader.com". I"m sure if we dug around we'd find the Manchester Guardian and New York Times as well; and "biased" sources like the Huffington Post, no doubt. YOUR JUDGEMENTS DO NOT MATTER; even though reliable sources for the NOTABILITY of Shaw's book, are chock-a-block, "secondary sources" do not matter; this is a well-known and influential book; your position is baseless, except in your own hostility to criticisms of the GAmes, or of VANOC.Skookum1 (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

BC Govt "embedded" government operatives in NBC and CTV

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I don't have time to add this to the article right now, but this article from the Georgia Straight discusses how the BC govt propaganda machine embedded workers and provided govt-favourable copy to the sports networks and also used tourism dollars for advertising that was political in nature and aimed at British Columbians, which it wasn't supposed to be.....there's also this article about the BC taxpayer buying tickets for the Crown Prince of Denmark adn the Chinese consul (who had the dough to buy their own.....).Skookum1 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also fairly easy to surmise that they have also embedded government workers/p.r. operatives in Wikipedia.....especially considering the history of what can only be called "government-friendly" edits and those hostile to "negative" content, or those who are outright dismissive of criticism, such as Emarsee's comments in the previous section....Skookum1 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Skookum, please. Insinuating that people who disagree with you are potential "plants" is crossing the line, by any standard, and totally inappropriate. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but please keep it civil. --Ckatzchatspy 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Definitely. I've decided to make a Requests for comment, and if this escalates any further, I will escalate the issue. ThePointblank (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, the government itself says outright it had operatives in the NBC and CTV newsrooms; it's not very much of a stretch at all to understand taht Wikipedia, given its anonymous nature, is another venue for their p.r. activities; you'd have to be completely disingenuous to believe that they're not workign on Wikipedia articles. There's also a leak out there that says that they have a certain proportion of the Public Affairs Bureau, about 20 (of the 223 staffers of the $30 million newsroom operation in the basement of hte legislature, run by the Premier's right-hand girl), assigned to meddle and interlope on blogs and other websites on behalf of government policy/disinformation. If you think Wikipedia is immune from political inteference more than blogs, The Tyee, the big-news column forums and elsewhere where their activities are notable, then you're just innocent and/or credulous. Claiming that I'm wrong in suggesting that Wikipedia edits, wehther from registered accounts or from IPs, are those from political operatives falls in the "credulous" category; when the evidence is there (as with so many govt-friendly edits, which just happen to sound like govt press releases, sometimes verbatim, or you have an editor claiming that only VANOC's numbers on the Games budget are to be used (which is clearly a COI, near-SPAM claim), then the only answer left, no matter how improbable (though it's all too probable), is the truth; that's a rephrasing of Sherlock Holmes/Conan Doyle but it applies here. Wikipedia is too easy to subvert; and apparently too easy to call in wikiquette and wikiguidelines - often taken out of context, or as Unomi has pointed out, without reference to other guidelines - as a way to shut down the policing of untruth, and of active p.r. campaigns.....don't pretend like it's not possible, it's all too probable....Skookum1 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not work on assumptions or thoughts that are "not very much of a stretch", which is entirely your own POV. Keep the focus on the validity of the sources and desired additions/removals to the content. If you can prove a COI, take it to the conflict of interest noticeboard. Otherwise, leave your theories and opinions surrounding other editors out of it. It is not relevant. Resolute 17:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Other dissenting reports

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Again, no time to add it now, but the [Saltspring News, which unlike the Sun and Province is a real newspaper, has a lead item, dated Monday, April 5, 2010 Olympics, World Cups and human rights, about a UN report specifically about human rights and social issues related to the Olympics; it was released days after the closing ceremony; and also links this Znet report on "After the Games: BC hangover begins", which covers teh "legacy" that's not all happy crowds and IOC officials patting themselves on the back.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'd disagree with your branding of Saltspring News as being a "real newspaper", and the Sun and Province not. The latter two are mainstream news sources, and as much as mainstream sources have many issues, WP:RS#News organizations states that "Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable." The Saltspring News isn't mainstream at all, and with a staff of two, likely does not have "a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" (WP:V#Reliable sources). Additionally, rather than simply reporting facts, it declares itself to be "an outlet to articulate strategies for [its goals outlined at About SaltSpringNews.com - Core Philosophy]", which makes me suspicious with regards to its neutrality. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
PS, if a dispute emerges with regards to which sources are reliable and which aren't, it can always be handled at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver 2010 Legacy Dispute

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

There is a dispute between a number of users and with another user over what is considered the legacy of the Vancouver 2010 Games. One user in particular wants to remove the section labelled 'Legacy' and wishes to use what others have deemed as 'fringe' sources. Furthermore, to add to the incivility, this user has also verbally attacked other users alleging they are government plants, and was warned over this by an administrator. ThePointblank (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That would seem to be an attack on me for defending the neutrality of this article, and for criticizing the mislabelling of the "Legacy" section, which was/is p.r. material placed by those intent on pushing media hype as if it were legacy, and supported by those intent on "positive" coverage, including censoring so-called "fringe" sources like the well-cited Five Ring Circus documentary (see Unomi's comments and citations in the top few sections of this page). What you've done is not ask for an NPOV RfC but rather an indictment of me for taking on this article's self-appointed censors, IP-anonymous or otherwise, and the POV manipulation of cites/content (in all sections, including the POV fork "hiding" the controversial material). This article needs an NPOV analysis, not an invocation of alleged violations of Wikiquette and wrapping yourselves in Wikipedia guidelines so as to enforce the official POV. I'm calling spades spades; you're wanting to kill the messenger; I'm not being uncivil, I'm criticizing those here who are either UNTRUTHFUL or otherwise wanting to purge the article of materials critical of the Games, its organization or the government propaganda machine behind it. Effectively, you're trying to censor, and have censured, ME, for pointing out the fallacies and deceptions of those who have tried to manipulate this article to "clean" it for POV purposes....Skookum1 (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Skookum, even if you might be entirely correct, Wikipedia operates by consensus (as an experienced editor, I'm sure you already know that) and the fact is that a number of editors disagree with your viewpoint. ThePointblank's summary describes the facts—you wish to remove 'Legacy', and some others have deemed Five Ring Circus and others to be fringe sources. ThePointblank isn't making any accusations or judgements; let the third-party editors attracted by this rfc tag decide who's right and who's wrong on their own. Either these third-party editors will agree with you or they won't, but there really isn't any downside to having some fresh minds looking at the dispute. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I wanted "Legacy", if it exists, to be about the things that are usually in "legacy" sections, NOT dscriptions of alcohol & euphoria-fueled crowds, and not Jacques Rogge's own self-congratulatory comments; "legacy" if you look through any section of other articles, is not about such things, e.g. things named for whomever, impacts (not next-day impacts, as was the case with the crowds in downtown Vancouver) and not p.r. announcements from bosses of the event. "Legacy" should also include impacts such as the "hits" to arts and social programs in British Columbia, or the legacy of nationalism, jingoistic or otherwise, that many journalists have associated with these Games. I have no objection to a Legacy section if "legacy" is actually what it is. What was provided was not, it was hoo-hah and event-cheerleading. And as for Five Ring Circus, it so happens that the "line" that it is fringe is part of VANOC's own press statements about it. And as per the cites given, it's anything but fringe, and WP:Fringe does not apply as User:Unomi observed, as so long as what it says says that that's what's said in it. Deleting it outright, as these "others" have pronounced it, is not the way things are done in Wikipedia, or should not be. The people attacking me are doing so to defend their own censorship agenda.Skookum1 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about what you want, it is about what the general consensus around here wants. As stated before, Wikipedia works on the premise of consensus, not what is truthful, although the vast majority of the time, they are the same. I also suggest you be careful, as many can construe that you are trying to take ownership over the section, and that is a big no-no at Wikipedia, though as an experienced editor, you might already be aware of that. ThePointblank (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
(post-edit conflict from earlier today] And for those RfC visitors here, please note that User:ThePointBlank was one of the participants in this article who censor-deleted the mention of Five Ring Circus - see this restoration, by me, just now, including citations as provided by User:Unomi (top sections of this page) who has pointed out that the guidelines claimming it should be deleted do not apply (e.g. WP:Fringe). My defense of such material is why ThePointBlank and others have attacked me, wrapping themselves in Wikipedia guidelines without actually observing them in reference to NPOV treatment of the actual article material. The section that item is in has also been substantially changed from its original focus on political opposition, as a look at the edit history and comparisons of same will show; the POV fork spin-off article has similarly been tampered with.Skookum1 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Skookum - please stick to discussing the credibility of sources rather than promoting conspiracy theories about other editors. The name of the Legacy section is also a valid topic here, independent of the alleged bias of the content. HiLo48 (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
See above about having no problem with a REAL Legacy section, not one pirating that term to push p.r.-friendly news items.Skookum1 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
See below about your biased edit in re-deleting Five Ring Circus because YOU hadn't ever heard of No Games 2010. By such deletions, you're just underscoring what I'm pointing out - that there's a lot of deletion going on around here, without any valid reason. And to m.nelson, ThePointBlank's comments were clearly anti-Skookum1 in tone, and not neutral in the slightest, with no apparent concern for ongoing censorship on this article etc...only an implicit suggestion that I was the one in the wrong here.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Skookum here, pertaining to this section. Comments made by Jacques Rogge and the media soon after the event reflect both his position and the public sentiment at the time. While these are facts, the title of the section is deceiving because they portray a general attitude for a short period of time following the games. Tthese statements should stay based on their factual nature, but they are BIASED BY OMISSION. It seems from reading the talk page that all Skookum wants is to properly represent all the difficult facets of a culturally, economically, and politically MASSIVE legacy. The timeframe of the references show that word "Legacy" is clearly a misnomer and the reason this section comes off as biased. Additionally the funding portion of this section talks about new initiatives implemented after the games. I'm not sure that a PLEDGE to restore funding from prior to the games after the games constitutes a legacy but a separate political maneuver (On a side note, If someone's a good enough politician to get paid to manipulate Wikipedia articles, they will be able to hide behind apparent neutrality, and Polemics will only work against you Skookum). OWN THE PODIUM on the other hand was designed specifically for success at the games and it's extension is clearly a legacy of those games. Funding for public infrastructure is totally omitted here despite it's obvious legacy. The new sea to sky highway, for example, is now a legacy of the games wether it is disputed as being good or bad. My bias, having been a terrified driver along that highway before, is that it's good, while many people look at the price tag and hold the opposing view. The point is that both of these issues need to be addressed and properly sourced by a healthy sample of sources, independent and otherwise, hence reflecting the neutral position. It seems the whole article is weaker due to the lack of constructive collaboration and the holy grail of a totally neutral article is still a ways away. Also as another side note: calling a source "fringe" can only be done by relying on a varied sample of other sources because what's "fringe" to me may not be fringe to others. We are all human with our own bias. It is always better to add sources than to censor the sources you disbelieve without providing a very clear argument as to why, and when it comes to something as complex, vague and recent as this Olympics, that proves very difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.215.183 (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Same issue with argumentum verbosium, same habit of capitalizing words for emphasis, same habit of accusing those with whom you disagree with of censorship. Interesting. Resolute 17:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Same issue Hemmingway had with Faulkner, semantics, I want all of the available facets of information and they ain't here... Interesting.... I don't disagree with anyone but I do agree legacy is a complex issue requiring more than two short points. Also citation 138 talks some more about the international view on canadian patriotism, certainly a legacy of the games. Resolute seems to hold the view that i'd be too longwinded if i'd write it and he's probably right so i'll let someone else think on it.

No idea who wrote that last comment, so it's impossible to properly address a reply. A major concern of mine here on this discussion page has been constant attacks by Skookum1 on mostly unnamed other editors, but occasionally including me. I began looking at this article maybe a month before the Games with no other goal than learn about the Games and to see a good article. I cleaned up some very messy parts of the article to provide better structure and coherence, obviously not knowing all that had gone before, and was roundly attacked. All I have always wanted is for good material to be added and bad material to be removed. I live a very long way from where the Games were, so have no familiarity with local politics and biases of various local media sources. Now that the heat has died down a lot, can those who do know what happened and have good sources please just add the material. Fill in the gaps. Actually repair the damage rather than blaming others for it. Stop talking about it. Do it! Let's just make this a better article. HiLo48 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey HiLo48, you're just the man i need. I wrote both the last anonymous posts. I was just browsing wikipedia and was intrigued. I really have no idea when it comes to posting changes to the article but i'll do some more research into this and get back. I haven't been to Vancouver in a couple of years but live in Canada, i'm sure it counts for something.142.68.215.183 (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Paul

No Games 2010 re Five Ring Circus

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

With this edit I restored what User:HiLo48 had quickly deleted/blanked after I restored it, with additional cites; and I've cited 2010 Watch's org-site which is what No Games 2010 morphed into. It doesn't really matter, User:HiLo48, if you've never heard of it; proper procedure woudl be to add the {{[[Template:|]]}} tag, or {{fact}}, not to outright delete it because YOU have never heard of it. Perhaps if you'd read the section before the POV washers had had a go at it you might know who that is; to me, you were just deleting something you didn't like to see re-emerge in the article, despite your protestation that my objections to such behavioure is "promoting conspiracy theories". If your behaviour were neutral and objective, you'd have a leg to stand on; but when you make edits like that, I don't have to promote anything....it is what it is. There was more on No Games 2010 in the earlier editions of this site that "others" moved to the POV-fork Controversies article, then once there perhaps (?) deleted it there. Out of sight out of mind....Skookum1 (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the No Games 2010 piece (and have again) simply because there is no explanation of what it is. Is it a web site, a book, an organisation, or what? I live 20,000km away. Don't watch your local TV or read your daily papers. I have no idea. And I really do want to know. I am not opposed to it's inclusion at all. Just opposed to an inadequate explanation. I would be happy to see its inclusion if it's relevant. I like to think that in my editing approach here I'm not representing an opponent, but more someone who just wants to see a better article. Please give us all more information. (In the article, not just in the references.)
PS: I know I've removed some material about Five Ring Circus. Again, I'm not taking an anti- position there. It's just that with my other edit, it would have been a bit of orphan text. Please add it back too when you better explain No Games 2010. :-) HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I just checked teh POV fork, and true to form there's only one passing reference to the documentary version of Five Ring Circus, none about the book; and the original political opposition information has been moved to the very bottom after tons of much more specious and less-truly-controversial/notable material; the whole piont of the POV fork, in my view, was to dump the controversial information elsewhere (its original creator tried to blank the entire section, which was only cursorily restored and then completely diluted). I haven't fully explored the POV fork, relative to the content that was originally here, but I suspect a LOT will be missing, or otherwise diluted; there was no link at all on that page, or here to 2010watch.com, which just ain't right, and is a clearly POV omission/deletion....."Oh, it was jsut a coincidence" or "it's not a verifiable source" just won't cut it....Skookum1 (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Legacy Text Move

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I propose moving the first paragraph under the heading 'Legacy,' (but not that under the subheading 'Funding') to a subheading under "Media Coverage' to be named 'Media Ratin/Review' or something to that effect. The reason is two fold. First off (and has been pointed out in the conversations above) this type of media reaction is not what the Legacy section envisions. The legacy is supposed to be more along the lines of infrastructure development as a result of the games, training/funding initiatives for athletes, future sporting events hosted because of the Olympic experiece, increased winter/overall tourism, etc. Secondly, by moving it to a media section would more clearly signify that these are opinions, and are not facts.

To this end I have cleaned up the paragraph adding citations to statements, and removed those that I could not find reliable citations for (note, the [1] isn't a reliable source for saying that these were the best olympics. Also you're not going to find many newspapers, journalists, athletes, IOC members, etc. (other than Stephan Harper who said so directly at the closing ceremonies) definitevly saying that any one Olympics was the best (or the worst) ever.). I also propose (and will help with, at some point, hopefully) that the legacy section be expanded to look at the sport infrastructure, and events hosted because of this infrastructure built for the olympics. I am thinking among the lines of the 2011 North American Biathlon Continental Championship and the FIL World Luge Championships 2013. I'm just not sure how to source it properly.

Opinions, objections, approvals, and constructive criticisms encouraged. Ravendrop (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the issues in that section were removed a long time ago to the POV-fork Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Winter Olympics, then once there were sanitized as "unimportant" and downplayed, or outright deleted and shoved into the dustbin. It's interesting to me that two articles from British newspapers are taken as relevant, while alternative news coverage in Canada, largely anti-Games, is dismissed as "unimportant" or "POV" or otherwise shoved aside; the puff piece responding to the Guardian's diatribe seems to have VANOC cocktails-and-hors d'oeuvres smeared all over it, by the way....Skookum1 (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Pricewaterhousecooper or PricewaterhouseCooper

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Generally speaking, we do not use unusual capitalization per the MoS, unless it is beneficial to the reader. In this case, it does not appear to help; if anything, it looks like an error. (I'm aware that the company uses the stylized form, but - as with Telus/TELUS, Nike/NIKE etc - we defer to the Manual of Style.) Gump Stump and I had initiated discussions on this on my talk page, but we agreed to move it here. --Ckatzchatspy 21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been perusing this article, making a few fixes here and there, but I have to say the sourcing is a bit over the top. Here are my three issues:

  • List of participating nations, is it necessary to source every participating nation? I don't think it is. I found a source [2] that lists all the participating nations and I put an introductory sentence above the map and the list. Unless there are any objections I'm going to remove all the sources for each nation. If you need a precedent for this please consider 1952 and 1956 Winter Olympics, both FAs with this format.
  • Not every fact needs a reference. I know some may balk at the idea of reducing the number of references but in some cases things go over board. Case in point: "Luxembourg qualified two athletes[66] but did not participate because one did not reach the criteria set by the NOC[67] and the other was injured[68] before the Games." What we have here is one sentence about Luxembourg not sending two athletes and it's referenced by 3 sourcesI Overkill IMO. See WP:CITE for thoughts on when to put in references. Every piece of information does not need a reference. If it's notable enough to include something on a country that didn't send athletes then find a summary reference and leave it at that.
  • Refs should go at the end of sentences whenever possible (see WP:INCITE) unless the fact being cited is particularly contentious or controversial. Example is the same sentence as above. Luxembourg qualifying two athletes is not controversial, nor is the fact that one of them was injured. A case perhaps could be made for one not participating because s/he didn't meet the NOC criteria but the other two sources could go at the end.

You may ask what's the problem with too many references. For me there are a few, one is that it breaks up the readability of the article when you're wading through a myriad of in-line citations (especially when it's the same website reffed over and over again see ref 66), two is that every reference has to be maintained, dead links have to be fixed and if the referencing isn't necessary then it's just more inefficient work. BTW I count 23 dead links and three more that require registration. Someone has to maintain the article and keep fixing the links as they expire. Finally, each one of the refs has to be a credible source (Tstsy is a tourism site, Sittingduckmusicandmedia - huh?) and they have to be formatted consistently. So unless someone objects I will remove the sourcing from the list of participating nations. Then I'll take a look at some of the referencing issues and make some fixes. I know my concerns are controversial and people have put a lot of effort into this article, so I'm willing to discuss any of the issues I've raised before I take action. If you have an opinion please share it. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Native Warrior Society flag UNDUE as illustration for the aboriginal opposition section

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The Native Warrior Society has no ties or known members in any of the host nations; a better pic for this section would be the demonstrations at Eagleridge Bluffs or one of the leaders of the Lil'wat; this flag pic is UNDUE as it misrepresents the composition and nature of native opposition; the flag is Mohawk Warrior Society based and only rarely part of certain native protests in BC; but not all, nor typical. If there was to be any flag here, it should be the St'at'imc/Lil'wat one, or that of one of the other host nations, or a notable demonstration such as the Eagleridge Bluffs one. That has been removed from this article and from the controversies and concerns fork article on the grounds it wasn't directly Olympics connected but it was part of the Olympics-aimed upgrade of Highway 99; it's not the only such Olympics-related demonstration by any means. The theft of the Olympics flag was unusual and yes reportable, but not sandwiched in between "regular" opposition and the list of host nations.Skookum1 (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Any reason you can't just be bold and toss the image, maybe update with appropriately sources info? Montanabw(talk) 00:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I suppose not; but at present the article and the "fork" make a point of not including the Eagleridge Bluffs protests, which were to do with pre-Olympic "improvement" of Highway 99 (long story but that particular stretch cut 20 second off travel time and was done to expedite things for property owners farther up the highway who wanted better real estate prices right away...the larger story of how the Premier had bought up land in the Corridor and in Whistler in advance of announcing those plans (similar to the Premier-of-the-day's brother buying up land in the Nicola Valley before the Coquihalla Highway plans were announced - "legal corruption" so the media don't call it a scandal) is another controversy/scandal not deemed "global enough" to be included. If the Eagleridge Bluffs thing got mentioned, one of the wiki-cops who patrols these pages would delete it...so this picture of Harriet Nahanee would not have its proper context as an anti-Olympics demonstration..... but there were other occasions where native opposition was notable closer to the event and less subject to waffling/distortion as we see here. But a lot of that was "purged" because "local opposition is not relevant in the global context of the Olympics" etc.....so this isn't just a case of "washing" content of undesirable information, but active "info-suppression". Cherrypicking and as in this case, conflating the largerly irrelevant into high-profile. But yeah I'm gonna take out that photo, and rejig the sentence/paragraph structure to get the Native Warrior Socity mention not sandwiched in between "maintream" native opposition.Skookum1 (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I think your edit to that extent was fine. There never appears to have been an article titled "Eagleridge Bluffs". Seems to me that if there was coverage of the Salt Lake City Olympic scandals and corruption, this too could be covered. However, it would have to be meticulously sourced. Maybe sandbox it and have some neutral folks (like me) look it over before adding. Montanabw(talk) 23:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
One game that was played by the politicians (and the media who let them get away with it) was budgeting various things in a disconnect from what was said to be Olympics spending i.e. so it doesn't work into the official figures; that's the case with Highways 99 and a lot else that goes on in BC; shouldering costs off on allegedly unrelated programs. So the apologists/excuse-makers didn't admit as "Olympic costs" things that were already budgeted, but which had been started expressly because of and for the Olympics; Highway 99 upgrades were part of that bit of "creative bookkeeping". Olympics officials and supporters distanced themselves from Eagleridge Bluffs, saying the issue was unconnected to the Olympics (especially after Harriet Nahanee died after being arrested), but in reality all Highway 99 upgrades since Whistler was founded were to prepare that resort for its "Olympic destiny". Various other projects were similarly quarantined from being "official Olympic projects" and controversies over them were among the stuff that's been censored/suppressed from this article and the controversies fork.... part of the reasons used were that political truth in BC often does'nt come from so-called "reliable sources" (mainstream media) but in blogs and alternative media; with valid cites being lumped as "fringe" or just equivocations being made as to why the closure of hospitals and emergency rooms and old folks homes and schools, which were directly caused by funnelling money to the Olympics, are not of "global significance". There should be a section on Eagleridge Bluffs on British Columbia provincial highway 99, I'll see what's there; finding cites that connect Harriet Nahanee's role in the demonatrations to directly-Olympic issues should be googleable....it's strange to read her bio with no mention of the Olympics in it, but such is the world where media help the politicians quarantine one issue from another as part of the ongoing shell-game.Skookum1 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd just be bold and edit the articles, I doubt it's any great conspiracy now, four years later. Just remember WP:BLP and do lots of good footnoting to reliable sources that don't look like they are run by people wearing tinfoil helmets. Third party sources will be out there. Montanabw(talk) 07:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

CEO of 2010 Winter Olympics games

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi - Welcome the 2010 Winter Olympic article experts to review, and improve if needed, the VANOC management section content now added to John Furlong (sports administrator) biography article. Canuckle (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Winter_Olympics/Archive_3&oldid=1142391030"