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.
I was led here after seeing an unusual picture on the 1968 Summer Paralympics medal table, and I realised a piece of the puzzle was missing. I think this article has an inadequate treatment of the Paralympics' relationship with the both the Stoke Mandeville Games (ISMWSF) and the International Sports Organisation for the Disabled (ISOD). It describes these as precursors to the Paralympics, but they were more than that – from 1960 to 1972 the Stoke Mandeville Games were the "Paralympics" on a quadrennial basis. Collaborations between the ISMWSF and ISOD were the essence of both the Summer and Winter Paralympics from 1976 to 1984. The Paralympic Games only took on its current form as late as 1988.
The events from 1960 to 1988 were retrospectively recognised as Paralympic events. The article also states that the ISOD was "the first organization dedicated to advancement of athletic opportunities for people with a disability". This source seems to dismiss that idea. SFB 10:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The opening paragraphs read as if written from the point of view of someone who considers disabled sport to be underfunded, and who disputes selection criteria for disabled athletes in the Olympics:
"Paralympians strive for equal treatment with non-disabled Olympic athletes, but there is a large funding gap between Olympic and Paralympic athletes. There are also sports, such as track and field athletics, that are resistant to Paralympians who wish to compete equally with non-disabled athletes"
Would suggest the removal of this. I have not read the rest of the article which may contain further examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The statements you call POV are objective facts: funding is unequal - it is not a matter of opinion. Striving for equal treatment is a fundamental principle of the Paralympic movement. The opposition of the IAAF to admitting disabled athletes is a matter of public record - Oscar Pistorius was subjected to banning, repeated testing and had to fight the IAAF in court. I'm sorry but your complain is baseless - you admit that you have not read the entire article, so how can you pass judgement on it. Please read the whole article and pay particular attention to the section under the heading "Equality". I'm removing the tag as unjustified. Roger (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
All these statements are clearly POV and the comparison with the olympic games is always an absurd - the Paralympics are restricted to disabled persons. The statements about the IAAF are clearly POV and are incorrect. Obviously IAAF does not have anything at all against disabled people and they can participate in all competitions. The problem with Oscar Pistorius is not that he is a disabled person but the cheetah prosthetics that he uses in the competition . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Talented disabled athletes have been excluded for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily at the pointy end, but in lower levels of competition. A recent Australian example: junior T11 cross-country runner who met standard age qualifying times for state championships by some margin, but had to take legal action to be allowed to compete (successful: rules changed for the event, all ambulant athletes now eligible). https://www.facebook.com/LetConnorRun. Oscar Pistorius aside, the relevant legal cases I know of almost all involve junior/high school sport. Who knows how many potential Paralympians are sidelined early? (As a teenager, I plain dropped out, thinking I was no good - it was the 80s, and I had no idea the Paralympics were a thing. Seems I would have at least made finals, and possibly medalled, in 88/92) Sportygeek (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
They are facts, but the wording is biased. The phrase "but there is a large funding gap" implies that there should not be a large funding gap. And the phrase "certain sports...are resistant to Parlaympians" may also be a fact, but it implies that there isnt a good reason that they are resistant to them. Both these lines very clearly sound like they are written by a disabled person, when the whole point of neutrality is that we shouldnt be able to infer anything about the author. Fair enough I havnt read the rest of the article, so no banner is needed. But Ive deleted those two lines. Perhaps you can reword them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The statements are simple declarations of fact without any expression of value judgement - that is the product of your own mind. Those two lines are in the lead to summarise the later "Equality" section - that is the purpose of the lead section. See WP:LEAD. Statments in the lead do not need to be explained or elaborated. They are supposed to be explained and elaborated later in the article. Thus the deletion is not justified - in fact it directly violates WP:LEAD. Roger (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I Agree with the first comment, the sentence is clearly biased. It is not a fact, it is a comparison and in a comparison requires that you are comparing similar things which is probably not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"...which is probably not the case." Have you actually read the whole of the Equality section?
The alleged POV of the sentences in the lead is simply a reflection of the actual reality of inequality - the stated policy (of both the IOC and the IPC) of non-discrimination and equality contrasted against the reality of discrimination and inequality evident in various sport organisations, sponsorship and funding as well as discrimination in the media. The one thing I have never seen during this long-running disagreement is an attempt to actually improve the wording in the lead. So please, instead of just deletion and destruction, how about formulating a NPOV summary of the Equality section for the lead - let's try to find a way to satisfy everyone. (BTW thanks for participating in this discussion, it's much better than "argument by edit summary".) Roger (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Such a claim needs A. a few good sources, and B. a clear metric: is it the second-largest in number of competitors? Countries? Audience (live or TV)? Money? Any or all of these may be true (although at least for the previous games, they weren't), but as it stands, it is a totally empty claim polluting the very first line of a high profile "good article". Fram (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Another editor removed the "citation needed", because the lead doesn't need referencing as long as it is discussed in the body. Since this claim isn't discussed in the body at all (as far as I could see), I have removed it now instead of just tagging it. Please indicate where in the article this claim is discussed and sourced before readding the claim again. Fram (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Looking back in the history, this claim was only readded last week, without any changes to the body of the article to support it, so reversion to the status quo seems the best solution here. Fram (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)