Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Olympics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Travel and Tourism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Sports & games / Economy / History / Politics and law (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Politics  
WikiProject icon 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sports  
WikiProject icon 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Olympic Truce[edit]

In what way is the Olympic truce a concern or controversy? HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently it's not, or nobody cares. I shall boldly remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Are team selection decisions really a controversy?[edit]

We've recently had a (very poorly written) paragraph added to the article about "Countries choosing to not enter competitors". Some of us have now massaged it into better English, but I wonder if it really serves any purpose? For every Games, Summer and Winter, there are disagreements at national levels over which competitors should be sent. It's perhaps controversial within those individual countries (the sources don't really even say that), but hardly a big controversy for the Games themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the masseuses, I could go either way. Arguably, they are controversies, although less with the Olympics per se than with the individual countries' Olympic committees. But in this spirit, you could even include the Nagasu-Wagner thing; but that seems too far.
I note that the regions not sending athletes are all from warm climes, and a decision for such a region not to send athletes to Winter Olympics is not inherently surprising. In the case of Puerto Rico, as best as I can tell, it stems from the territory not having a federation to cover winter sports. Indeed, the exact opposite reason is why the Jamaican Bobsled Team actually participating was a controversy (or at least of particular interest) -- one doesn't expect countries from tropical regions to field winter teams.
If this were a case of a nation boycotting the Olympics, as in the 1956 Summer Olympics boycott or the 1980 Summer Olympics boycott, I'd feel much more strongly that it should be retained. TJRC (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a nation boycotting would definitely belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

What about the whales?[edit]

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/02/03/will-orcas-be-put-on-display-at-sochi/ 74.71.42.168 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)R.E.D.

The article is about rumours. Until there's something more concrete than that, I don't think we should include anything. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

t.A.T.u.[edit]

To me it is unclear what is controversial about their appearance. If anything, it may lead to a conclusion that the organizers are not that homophobic after all. Instead, the paragraph is merely used to drive the homophobic point even further ("Those antics are now illegal under current Russian law"), even if that doesn't have anything to do with the Olympics. GregorB (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's what the source says. The controversy is how could the Olympic organizers let such an act into the show, as they would seem to be daring to flout Russian law. So this is a turnabout position, the organizers are being controversial in a Russian law and order context. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The trouble here is that it seems that whatever organizers do, it is used as a platform for criticism. The "lesbian antics" were not attempted, planned, nor expected, so why comment on their legality? The Huffington Post says that, by inviting t.A.T.u., the organizers wanted to "assuage concerns" - which makes some sense, but also makes their appearance merely a part of the larger controversy, rather than a controversy by itself. GregorB (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it merits its own section, but maybe there will more controversy about it. I've put it at the bottom of the larger section. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Lack of spectators[edit]

Some events, most notably alpine skiing where the host nation has no medal chances are attracting barely any spectators, especially when compared to world cup events with tens of thousands of fans cheering on the competitors along the track. It looks almost as if they are racing on a ghost hill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.63.77.11 (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Equivalent things happen at every Games. Not notable. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

U.S. comparison[edit]

Why is the RS sourced information about the US removed from here?(Lihaas (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)).

I agree with the removal. It is not relevant what the US policy is (should we list the policy of every country in the world?) And commentary such as "paradoxically" is POV pushing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal, U.S. policy is relevant because Obama and other U.S. people are noted here. Alabama: "homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state." Texas: "state that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under Section 21.06, Penal Code." etc. Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It was re-added with the justification that it is relevant because "Obama has commented". Except Obama is not mentioned in this article. Again, listing the US policy and not that of hundreds of other countries is inappropriate - why single the US out? Additionally, it is problematic because it does not explain what policies are supposedly shared between Russia and the United States. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
It is original research to hypocrisy-check critiques of Russia, and it isn't sufficiently relevant to provide a blow by blow in the war of words but it *might* be encyclopedic to repeat, say, a Russian official's denunciation of the US as hypocritical.--Tznkai (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I should also note that there is no US government response mentioned in this article (nor the response of any other government), so it is especially bizarre to mention US law. It smacks as an attempt to editorialize by someone, which is not appropriate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Also worth noting that "U.S. officials" aren't what is mentioned by the Washington post blog piece since it is actually referring to the independent laws of federated states, not the opinion of official positions of any United States (federal) official, nor any of the official positions of any of the several states or their officers.--Tznkai (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, i mistook it, Obama was mentioned in the main olympic article, or maybe here in some weeks ago. This belong to other articles. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Good discussion exapmle to gain consensus. It may be too warly to say so, but I dwould venture to say this si resolved, and amicably at that.
Giooid to see resorting to talk page was fruitful adn should be used ;)Lihaas (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed organization[edit]

As we all know, these list based articles can quickly turn into a hodge-podge of itemized angst with no context or help for the reader. I'm hoping we can do ever so slightly better. As far as I can tell, we have the following large groups of controversies:

  • International Politics and human rights. Other countries object to going to/holding the Olympics because of issue X with the Russians.
  • Construction, lead up, domestic effects - environmental, human, animal and other concerns in the run up to the building of the Olympic campus.
  • Concerns about the safety of the games, and other things in the immediate lead up to games qua games. Maybe should be combined with
  • Controversies at and during the games themselves.
  • Aftermath, in the event of post-mortems talking about what the games have done for/against Russia, politics, rights, others.

Comments, suggestions, objections?--Tznkai (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Canadians Targeted?[edit]

Removed sentences:

This would also try to shut Canada out of the gold medals.[1]

Going along with these allegations, additional suspicions of being targeted for disruption by inordinate drug testing of the Canadian figure skating, including an unusual competition day pre-event test, and very late-night testing, possibly making them disruptive to preparation for competition.[1]

At this point, the sourcing is entirely speculative on the parts of I think about two journalists exclusively in domestic Canadian press. As we go, an actual story may emerge, but the sentences would have to be rewritten to indicate that it is only being reported this way in Canadian press.--Tznkai (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Links[edit]

>> Lebanese slam focus on Olympian's topless photos(Lihaas (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)).

Electronic surveillance[edit]

It might be worth to mention the systematic mobile device hijacking issues which have been reported by some, although we probably need to find some reliable sources. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There are now several RSes on that, so you can add it. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

International Olympic Committee responsibility[edit]

Amnesty demanded the International Olympic Committee to condemn the human rights violations and arrests. [1] In my opinion condemning the human right violations is not sufficient. It is self-evuident that the International Olympic Committee have responsibility for the human rights violations, corruption and environmental effects of its own events! In my opinion no state or person respecting human rights should take part in events where the human rights are resisted. Watti Renew (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing and opining on the subject itself. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I stand for to suggest to include these points in the article. Watti Renew (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge With Main Sochi 2014 Article?[edit]

I am unfamiliar with Wiki rules/customs. Why wouldn't this article be merged with the main Sochi 2014 article?Teknozilla (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)Teknozilla

WP:Undue, which is a part of WP:NPOV, is the main concern. What will likely happen is that much of the main article content that could be gone into detail in this article will be trimmed back to just the highlights. Some of that work must be done in hindsight, or after the Games have ended and criticisms have ebbed. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversial Score and Judging at Ladies' Singles Figure Skating[edit]

This section is unbalanced. It has many quotes from people who thought Kim was "robbed," but not a single quote from those who disagree. Johnny Weir and Tara Lipinski defend Sotnikova's score in this interview. Elvis Stojko also thinks it was scored fairly. Paul Wylie said "I don’t have a problem with the result, other than the (margin) of it." Philippe Candeloro apparently thought the scoring was fair. Scott Hamilton also seems to agree with the results. Yahoo! sports columnist Dan Wetzel called the score "exceedingly reasonable," while ESPN columnist Jim Caple says the judging was "probably" fair. Chris Chase called the result "debatable, but not a robbery." --50.46.245.232 (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The best thing to do at this point is remove anything that does not belong, and add reliable sources for what does. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I did not really notice the quotes from the opposition side as I was only focusing on the problem of the controversy itself. I apologize for not considering such quotes stated from the opposition side. Would it be best to select the same number of few reliable and representative quotes from each side and put them together? The short selection of several representative quotes will be better and less confusing than the long series of quotes. Or would it be better to not include the quotes from figures at all? Rok398 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do. Professional figure skaters seem to be divided on the issue.
Agree with the scoring (as far as I can tell): Johnny Weir, Tara Lipinski, Elvis Stojko, Paul Wylie, Philippe Candeloro, Scott Hamilton
Disagree with the scoring: Dick Button, Ashley Wagner, Kurt Browning, Katarina Witt, Jamie Sale, Michael Weiss
The opinion of sports columnists is similarly divided. I don't know whether any of these people have kept up with the ever-changing rules of this sport and have any idea what they're talking about. There's no practical way to quote everyone, so I'd suggest we mention that there's a controversy and a petition and just leave it at that. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Start with reliable sources first, it will save a lot of effort. Many of those cited are paid commentators for the Olympics so they are likely quite familiar with the rules of scoring. But see what news outlets have reported, sports journalism is very comprehensive so the sources are available. State that news outlets noted the controversy, neutrally describe what it is and then note if there are conflicting opinions and what they are. I suggest brevity so readers will actually get through it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
As a general rule, more is more, and then less is more. That is to say, use your best sources to get widest coverage, and then edit it down to a good summary so the reader gets a sense. At this point, it sounds like "the judging was controversial, as noted by X. Commentators were divided, some saying X, others saying Y. Compare with the better movie reception sections.--Tznkai (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I reduced it to a statement that many media sources questioned the result, one former skater that disagreed with result (with quote) and one that agreed. I left teh second paragraph questioning teh judge selection as that is a slightly different complaint. The section should be a lot more neutral now. I added a link to the figure skating article which has many more quotes on both sides - that is the proper place for all the details. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Widely reported facilities problems[edit]

  • Johnny Quinn, member of the US bobsled team, became trapped in his bathroom and had to bash a hole in the door to get out.[2] Two days later and his teammates Nick Cunningham and Nick Cripps became trapped in an elevator.[3]
  • Rebekah Wilson, member of the British bobsled contingent experienced having elevator doors open onto an empty elevator shaft.[3]
  • Stacy St. Clair, Chicago Tribune reporter, reported that her hotel had no water, and that staff informed her that when it returned, not to wash her face in it as it was dangerous. The water service that returned provided murky dark water. The "dangerous face water" incident went viral.[4]

-- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Time to remove a lot of the irrelevant content?[edit]

I submit that much of the content of this article was media hype before the games, that ultimately had no impact. This would include the attempted plane hijacking, the stuff about Circassians, and the suicide bombings, plus probably some other stuff. How about a cleanup of the now irrelevant content? HiLo48 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Grant Robertson (8 February 2014). "Reports of judges’ pact, flurry of drug tests, leave Canada’s figure skaters feeling targeted". Globe and Mail. 
  2. ^ Faith Karimi (10 February 2014). "Trapped in Sochi bathroom, bobsledder punches hole in door". CNN. 
  3. ^ a b John Drayton (11 February 2014). "American bobsledder Quinn gets stuck in an elevator just two days after breaking his way out of hotel bathroom in Sochi". Daily Mail (London). 
  4. ^ Scott Kleinberg (4 February 2014). "Sochi hotel tells our reporter: Don't let dangerous water touch your face". Chicago Tribune.