This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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  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
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)
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  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 but did not participate because one did not reach the criteria set by the NOC and the other was injured 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)
Native Warrior Society flag UNDUE as illustration for the aboriginal opposition section
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)