Talk:2008 Summer Olympics/Archive 2

message: Substituted at 04:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Volunteering for the Olympics
Anyone know of the proper procedure for a Chinese expatriate to become a volunteer in 2008?
Could someone start a subpage about possibilities of volunteering in Beijing?
It is possibly too late for this. (68.4.67.101 04:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Volunteering

message: I'd just like to point out the date (08-08-06) to signify that these games will come in exactly 2 more years as of UTC 5 and a half hours ago! Just 731 days to go.... → JARED (t)  17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 More years 

message: I have uploaded the black and white pictograms, cropped found on the sub-pages of this website, the official site of the beijing olympics. You can find them on Wikipedia like this: SPORT_2008.gif (e.g. Weightlifting_2008.gif). For Canoe/Kayak, I did Canoe-Kayak_Slalom_2008.gif, etc., for technical purposes. Have fun with them!
Also, I'd like to remind you that I had started a calendar a way long time back, located here:
:User:JP06035/beijing2008calendar
Just so that no one starts another one. You can change the layout however you want. → JARED (t)  20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictograms and Calendar 

message: This section really should have been done like this. I hate to be a stickler after someone has put in all that work, but it is so much neater and takes up less space. Now, someone can copy the 2006 Olympics ones and put them into the article (maybe use AWB to change 2006 Winter to 2008 Summer) but then they'd have to create from scratch all of the other nations' templates that didn't participate in the 2006 Winter Olympics. I really do appreciate the effort that was put in to do it though. → JARED (t)  14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participating NOCs section 

message: I've added an unreferenced tag to the whole NOC section. Much of the text reads like unverified speculation; it's full of statements like "it is expected," "there is a possibility," and "it seems very unlikely." The only solid reference is to Korean participation. Absent references, I'm not sure a lot of this content is encyclopedic. Notable in this is the paragraph on a possible Taiwan boycott; the only sources I could find (in an admittedly quick Google search on "2008 Olympic Games" and "Taiwan boycott") were this page and pages that mirror it. 
I recognize that speculation may be all that we can do two years out; but in that case, does the information really belong on this page yet? Eron 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who put the Korean info onto the page, and I made sure that I cited it properly. I, too, think that sources are a definite, and it is not out of anyone's way to include it. I know that (almost) all the stuff in that section is true, it's just that there is no source for other people to know the same. Please, from now on put sources if you add anything to the page! You brought up a good point. I would appreciate it if people found sources for their material. → JARED (t)  19:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Participating NOCs

message: The section on the emblem contained this text:
:"According to the International Olympic Committee, the emblem is the first of the modern Olympics to use red as the dominant colour, an important colour for the Chinese people throughout its history. However, the emblems for the 1980 Moscow Olympics and 1964 Tokyo Olympics both feature red very prominently, so it is unclear how this claim is justified. It's justfied because the this emblem has red as a background color, so it's predominantly red, while that for 1964 Tokyo Olympics and the 1980 Moscow Olympics only feature red."
I have removed the section in italics, as it seems argumentative and unencyclopedic. The IOC has said this is the first one to use red as the dominant colour and the article has reported that. I don't think it is necessary to argue the validity of that claim. If someone can find a reference that proves it wrong, we can put that in. Until then, I see no need for it to be argued about on the article page. Eron 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored an amended version of the text, without the unencyclopedic question-and-answer format. The references that you are seeking are in the two links. Just look at the Moscow and Tokyo emblems; it's clear that the colour red is equally "dominant" in both those emblems. Matt 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emblem 

message: Why is Montenegro listed here? From all sources that I can find, Montenegro doesn't have an NOC or even an ISO code yet. Shouldn't we wait for the IOC/Montenegro to decide on something? On a further point, do we even know the country will be competing in 2008? For all we know, Montenegro could sit out to save money or something else. - Thanks, Hoshie 07:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had all the NOCs hidden for this reason that you said: how do we know that a certain country will compete? For all we know, the US could have major problems in a year and a half and will have to withdraw its participants. Who knows. I'll re-hide them until we know for sure who will be participating. → JARED (t)  14:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montenegro 

message: This section currently states that no Olympics has featured demonstration events since 1992. What about Wheelchair racing at the 2004 Summer Olympics? Algebraist 13:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The International Olympic Committee decided in 1989 to eliminate demonstration sports from all Games, beginning with the 1996 Atlanta Games (see this page. The Paralympic events that were held in subsequent games were demonstrations, but not demonstration sports. There are significant differences. Demonstration sports had almost full medal status and received a level of service and support that was almost equal to full program sports. This is not the case with the Paralympic demonstrations. The wheelchair races, for example, consisted of only the final - athletes in the races had to qualify prior to the start of the Games. Athletes participating in the races were also not accorded the same status (full acceditation, Village access, etc.) as Olympic athletes. I'll try to get more information on how the wheelchair events were actually designated. I think part of the problem is that articles use the terms "demonstration sport" and "demonstration event" interchangeably, and they don't actually mean the same thing in the context of the Olympic Games. (And, the Wheelchair racing at the 2004 Summer Olympics article is wrong to call it a demonstration sport. It wasn't, and I'll fix that. - Eron 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. The reason I didn't change this myself was because I thought something like that might be the case. Algebraist 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent error in Sports section 

message: All right I realized I stepped into some sort of edit war on boycotting '08 here only after I've made the changes in Report without border part of that paragraph. Just a news update and C&C welcomed.--StrikeEagle 03:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contribution to that section looks excellent.  The conflict over that section seems to have cooled for now; hopefully things won't randomly disappear overnight.  Of course, the RSF's change of heart will probably fuel the fires of the opinion that the entire section is speculation about what is likely to be a tempest in a teapot. -- Jonel | Speak 03:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HongQiGong:No intention to start a edit war so I believe its better for me to make my pov clear. If you  noticed my edit history, you may find out how I change my word regarding the boycott from stop to halt. A brief research you may come up with many news, such as this one here, and I believe these reports refelected RSF's view. I can't (and to be honest, don't want to) find out reason why RSF's website still advocating ---- yet if you want you can find hundreds of them, aren't you?--StrikeEagle 08:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I just wanted to be very specific because a number of editors have been pretty adamant about having these boycotts mentioned.  But that Epoch Times article is very helpful because it specifically mentioned that RSF will "halt" the calls for boycott.  I'll add that information in the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you don't mind, I'm going to use this article from the Manilla Times instead, because Epoch Times is known to be very bias against the PRC, and I don't think it's a very good source at all.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I know the Epoch Times is quite biased and I personally don't much trust it. Yet I cited this artical just because since even Epoch Times have said so, those editors would much less likely to start arguing something :p --StrikeEagle 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reporters Without Borders

message: While most NOCs participate regularly, political, financial, or other situations in the country could cause a nation to be absent from the games, as was the case for 6 NOCs in the 2006 Winter Olympics. 
 
What does this sentence refer to?--Nitsansh 19:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I wrote that, and it's horrible. Haha. I think I meant that 6 NOCs from the 2002 games were not present at the 2006 games. Could you find a better way to phrase that then, maybe? → JARED (t)  20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, those countries didn't sent athletes to 2006 Olympics because they decided their athletes are not good enough. Definitely not for political or financial reasons.--Nitsansh 03:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NOCs

message: This is a future event, so therefore the article fails the stability criteria. WikiNew 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: See here. Someone may choose to add something about this somewhere in the article. I don't know where would be good, though. └Jared┘┌talk┐  23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I saw those yesterday - God damn beautiful!) Perhaps under the "Games" section? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medals unveiled 

message: For anyone with DirecTV, almost nightly China has been showing various huge-features about the upcoming Olympics games on their TV channel.  It is channel # 455 on DirecTV, the channel is known as CCTV.  These features go very indepth about the various stadia and so on.  http://www.cctv.com/english/  CaribDigita 02:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For anyone with DirecTV Satellite--- CCTV channel 455. 

message: "The "Dancing Beijing" emblem, depicting a Chinese seal inscribed with the character "Jing" 「京」 (from the name of the host city) in the form of a dancing figure."
Really? It looks more like the character wen 「文」to me. Could someone provide evidence for either? --Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 15:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Beijing Organizing Committee states here that "the character "Jing"... is developed into the form of a dancing human being." I think we'll have to take their word for it. - Eron Talk 16:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emblem; 京 or 文?  

message: Why is there a whole paragraph about Guangdong stadium under "Venues"? Doesn't look like there is going to be any event held there. It needs only a brief mention about this was intended to be the main stadium before the Beijing stadium was built. The rest of the content should go to the Guangdong stadium page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kvasir (talk • contribs) 19:21, April 18, 2007  (UTC)
:Well, I think the reason it has its own section was because when I redid the page a few times a while back, there might have been a lot of info about that stadium, so I just made it into its own section. Regardless, I don't think it is necessary as well, and maybe you can merge it with the section above, saying how it was actually intended to be the main one. If you don't do it, I'll get to it eventually. └Jared┘┌talk┐  13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, seeing that i'm not the only one who think so. I'll do it in a few hours when i have the time. --Kvasir 14:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guangdong Stadium

message: I just ruthlessly cut the external links section back to two sites: the official Beijing 2008 site, and the official IOC Summer Games site. Most of the other links were commercial (i.e. were to sites where the first things I saw on the page were ads); a few were to specific news releases. I cannot see that there is a need for too many other links. Once major news organizations develop their Games-specific web sites I can see adding those, but I think we should avoid commercial and travel site links. See the guidelines for external links for more information. - Eron Talk 01:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I probably would have done the same eventually myself! └Jared┘┌talk┐  01:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Expect to need to do it again and again every once in a while.  Just the way things work around here.  Keep up the good work! -- Jonel | Speak 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: A two-round vote is when there are a certain number of candidates participate in the first round vote. If there is no majority, then the top two advance to the second round. In the Olympics this does not occur. The candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated and the votes of the eliminated candidates are transferred to the second choice. This is more like an instant-runoff vote. I have corrected this. --TheTallOne 16:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the IOC selection process actually does use a two (or more)-round system.  If no city has a majority, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated and all the IOC members submit new ballots.  There is no transfer of votes in the IOC process.  2012 Summer Olympics bids actually developed a good description of the general process (in the bidding process section) during its featured article candidacy. -- Jonel | Speak 17:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm incorrect. But neither two-round system or instant-runoff voting is factually correct. In a two round system, only the top two candidates proceed to the second round of voting if there is no majority. Here, only the candidate (or joint candidates) with the lowest number of votes is/are eliminated. --TheTallOne 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact, an exhaustive ballot is used. --TheTallOne 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: :Image:Archery 2008.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Archery 2008.gif

message: I cann't find another independant source or serious news agency to his words except this page ,this link shows no author,no news agency name among other things.Maybe just an attacking page.If it is not a reliable source,I suggest we remove it.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 10:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was sort of thinking that as I added it. But I overrode that thought by the fact that seldom will people go out of their way to make up a bogus speech by the president of the IOC. But apparently people do. It was definitely something I could see Rogge saying, so if another source, a reliable one, comes available, we'll put it back in. └Jared┘┌t┐  13:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,I agree,this link is too suspicious after I checking the keyword Jacques Rogge  boycott in google news search ,the link of earthtime is the sole evidence of his speech,rather dubious.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 14:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source about the  Rogge dismisses 2008 Olympics boycott calls 

message: I am going to change concerns to controversy. The stuff under concerns would tend to fall under controversy in other articles, particularly the political issues. Wikipediatoperfection 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think Controversy it too harsh a word. Especially being pre-games, I don't think there's enough hype now to call any issues out there "controversies" per se, so I don't think that it's a very fitting word. While, yes, other articles may have this wording for a section title, these articles are probably about topics that are in the past, but this one is in the future, and thus it is difficult to envision whether these present "Concerns" among some will turn to "Controversies" among many. Jared (t)  03:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is past, present, and future. Many people object to China getting the games in the first place because of its human rights abuses. There were no talks of protesting or boycotting the Athens games because Greece is a democracy with freedom of the press. There is significant debate as to whether an authoritarian country like China should be allowed to host the Olympic games. Very recently, there were protests along the great wall in relation to the games. There is a real possibility that certain countries might boycott the games, particularly if there is a high profile incident between now and then. These might be "concerns" of the Chinese government, but they are controversies in the western world. Wikipediatoperfection 06:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are certainly controversies surrounding the country, but the event itself has not yet caused any. That stunt in the Great Wall pulled by activist has nothing to do with the games but the controversy surrounding Tibet. Ian Kiu (hahaha...) 07:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Take a look at the banner they hung http://img.iht.com/images/2007/08/13/13letter550.jpg By the looks of the Olympic rings it seems they think it has everything to do with the Olympics. And it was a protest, not a stunt. Wikipediatoperfection 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that would work. Wikipediatoperfection 07:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, isn't that what it was originally? I would compromise to this, even though again, there really hasn't been real "controversy" sparked solely by these events. Jared (t)  19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing concerns to controversy 

message: A lot of sources have indicated that Taipei is no longer part of the torch relay anymore due to political reasons, so I've changed a few sentences in the torch relay section. xero-7 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taipei officially dropped from torch relay

message: ‘Unreported World’
There doesn’t seem to be enough about the forced evictions, severe beatings, and the resulting incarceration in ‘black jails’ or homelessness from those who legally petition to keep their homes from the development in the areas related to the games it’s an important element surrounding the games and is rather crass to sweep it under the carpet regarding human rights as one editor in the archive suggested. If you can have large production sections with film pages and any controversies relating to them then matters related to the advent of the 2008 Olympics and its ‘production’ are also relevant. The figure of 300,000 being displaced since 2005 seems woefully out of date also; the figure is alleged to be into the millions now. I don’t really know how you’re supposed to cite documentaries if there is little reference to them on the Internet (this in the situation where you can set up your own fan website and use it a ‘source’ see the Superman III page).
[http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/247856/the-terrible-secrets-of-beijings-black-jails.thtml
]
 
Le Gibbon 06:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This might be of interest to anyone who saw the [[Aidan Hartley]]’s documentary on Channel 4 

message: This article says that since some events are taking place in Hong Kong, 2008 will be the second time (after 1956) that two National Olympic Committees will be hosting the Olympics. However, the 1956 Summer Olympics article says that 1956 was the second time, after the 1920 Antwerp Olympics, that events were held in the territory of two separate countries. I recognize that these are not precisely the same thing, but it sure seems similar enough to me that 2008 ought to be noted as the third time, not the second. Can someone with more specialized/detailed knowledge on the subject look into this? Thanks. LordAmeth 09:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second time? 

message: I noticed how the 1980 Olympics and 1984 it says they where hosted by socialist governments shouldent that be noted in this article. It even says they are on the PRC wiki page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.46.93 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  goverment