Talk:Olympic Games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Olympic Games is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 12, 2012.

Colonialism Part from the Controversies section...[edit]

I am concerned that this section of the Olympic Games subject will turn into an "edit war." Why is Canada mostly implicated here? What about Australia? What about China? The former USSR? Russia today? Brazil? Mexico? Japan? The UK? USA? France? Germany? Italy? Norway? Sweden? Spain? Even Greece was a colonial power way back then, during their Ancient Olympic Games run. Rockies77 (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a reasonable section to have but (a) it needs to be more than Canada-focused, and (b) it should probably be summarized on the main page and have a fuller treatment at Olympic Games scandals and controversies. A worthy topic, but one not meriting this depth on the top level article. SFB 14:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree completely. I had toyed with the idea of simply reverting, but I didn't want to discourage coverage of an interesting topic. Rivertorch (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I absolutely agree that there are colonial connections for many, if not all, of the other Games and their host countries. My goal was to give thorough and detailed information on the connections between colonialism and the Olympics. In order to do that, I needed to focus the scope of my research (I spent 2.5 months and read dozens of sources just for these four host cities!). I do think that four examples is enough (and maybe just the right amount) to justify the inclusion on the main page, and have attempted to only include information that speaks to how coloniality is structurally (not accidentally) connected to the Olympics. I also wanted to start the section, so that others can add information about other host cities and connections to colonialism. Thanks again for the discussion. Please excuse any "talk" missteps as this is my first talk post.--Slutswool (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Another thought in response to the suggestion to move it to "scandals and controversies" – I did consider this but though some of the individual events that I have described could be considered "scandals or controversies" together they illustrate a structural connection between the Olympics and colonialism. According to my research, they weren't isolated coincidental controversies, and in fact many of these events were not considered scandals but just business as usual. So, arguably, this article could be in its own section on the Olympic Games page, not filed under controversies—but I felt that might be a bit bold and presumptuous for a new editor!--Slutswool (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Would "2.5 months" of research and a detailed focus on one country make this WP:OR? (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
No, that is a misinterpretation of the guideline. Original research is either facts given with no reliable references (not the case here), or a synthesis of material advancing a view point not supported by citations (also not the case here). This kind of research is actually one of the things that makes Wikipedia great – we can bring together sources to explore topics in a depth not reached elsewhere. That's what Slutswool has done here, which is to be applauded. The issue here is better described at Wikipedia:Summary style, rather than OR. SFB 09:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It was the focus on a single country (Canada) which most concerned me- this, however inadvertently, gives the impression that Canada is particularly guilty. (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This subsection should be summarized to a length that is more in proportion with the other subsections in the Controversies section and split into a new article. See Wikipedia:Splitting. As for neutrality, there is an issue with over-reliance on a single source (and point of view) for most of the post-1904 material.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I would support this idea. The controversies section should get its own distinct article. Besides, the overall subject of the Olympic Games looks like it needs some paring down, even though this Wikipedia entry is shown as a featured article. Rockies77 (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


Christine O'Bonsawin (2008) is cited several times in this article, particularly in the Controversies subsection "The Olympic Games as a colonial force and recommendations". However, no O'Bonsawin (2008) appears in the Sources at the bottom of the page, only O'Bonsawin (2012) and O'Bonsawin (2010). Of course this is problematic. Can whoever cited O'Bansawin (2008) add this to the list of sources please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll guess it is from the same 1904 Anthropology Days anthology that appears several times in the Sources section. Slutswool (talk · contribs · email) added this material and could confirm.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Olympic Games[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Olympic Games's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "OR1956":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 04:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)