Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2010 Commonwealth Games

notability/merge/delete -->

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2010_Commonwealth_Games#Jama_Masjid_incident. -- Saqib Qayyum (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---

As I suggested before, dont think this article warrants a place on its own as it doesnt offer anything new, nor is a shooting of 2 people notable. That said it may not be notable for itself but as part of CWG 2010 it is, so it can be merged into the relevant section here (where there already is as much info).Lihaas (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, we should merge that article into this. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. This page looks more like a news article, please make a section "Controversies" in the main CWG article and mark this page for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.135.200 (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I don't get this discussion. I thought it should be hosted in the article 2010 Jama Masjid attack and not here? Clarification please. (Btw, don't archive this thread yet) ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 13:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe they were referring to the whole Concerns and Controversy article back when this particular discussion was still active, when the content mainly consisted of the shooting incident. However, the article has since grown to include a lot more content other than the shooting incident, and the volume of content makes merging it into the main CWG 2010 article difficult. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay so its about this article and not the other article? Alright then. Thanks for the clarification, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 04:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

copyright violation

The bulleted part of the intro does seem to copy directly from this article (Section under photo at bottom). Thoughts? Hrcolyer (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncle G (talk) discussed this with me in a conversation on my talkpage. Uncle G's view, and I agree, is that any copyvios should be removed immediately - if we allow them to stand, and build upon them, they become derivative works. Remove them, use the source copied from as a reference, and write original prose. Thanks for bringing this up: I'll remove the offending section. TFOWR 11:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a security concern?????

Safety and security concerns Small monkeys roam Delhi's streets and prefer heavily urbanized areas with plenty of living space among buildings.[51] They cannot be killed because many Indians see them as sacred so instead a larger, domesticated monkey, the langur, is brought in to scare away the smaller monkeys

come on seriously???? monekys??? Wow...are they armed? Are they Al Qaeda? Taliban perhaps??? ffs, is anything accepted now in Wikipedia?? (intentionally unsigned...do it urself) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.121.228 (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would advise discretion when reading. This article is very much a work in progress. Most of the content in the article however are properly referenced and can be trusted. I think the monkey problem is actually pertinent, or so the media reports. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 13:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to what the IP poster thinks, monkeys can be dangerous. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawals - reasons are not to do with the Games being in India, or their organisation

Most of the athletes who are listed as withdrawals are citing injury as their reason. This cannot be blamed on the location or organisation of the Games. Unless a good reason is given for me not to, I intend to very soon remove the name of every athlete listed as a withdrawal whose reason is not explicitly to do with the venue. HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem with that being removed . Sir Chris Hoy for example announced a long time ago he would not be attending because he wanted to focus on European championships as thats what is needed for the Olympics. There are drop outs of every competition, they do not need to be mentioned here on the concerns/controversy page, although its probably notable on the main article somewhere that some gold medal holders had pulled out. (something that is actually a good thing for the competition). BritishWatcher (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just be careful when removing and don't singlehandedly wipe off the athletes' names. I vaguely remember some athletes using "injuries" as a guise (they had more unannounced reasons) for their quiet withdrawal from the event – I don't think this is mentioned in the article right now. So yeah, just check with external sources first. I have made some edits to that section already. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 09:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking along a different strand: this article isn't describing how the blame is on whoever, its about how the event has been impacted beyond the norm. The fact that so many notable athletes withdrew (certainly more than average for such a major sporting event) is a significant one. Perhaps the athletes names can be removed, but we should leave mention that this massive withdrawl has impacted the Games (can cite to many external sources). ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We cannot speculate that there are "real" reasons that are different from the athletes' stated ones. Even drawing conclusions of any kind about withdrawals is unacceptable. I also have issues with blaming the Games for athletes withdrawing now allegedly because of the risk of dengue fever. The Games aren't in Edinburgh. That risk was always there. They trained for THESE Games, knowing where they were. It's faulty logic on their part (or their managers) if that is their real reason now. Another key concept here - the media is looking for sensation rather than truth. I don't trust any of them. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I didn't state it clearly earlier. There have been reports that athletes are suspected of using the premise of an injury to withdraw from the event (see this report and this one). I recalled reading a British daily with the same reportage, although my memory is clearly failing me now. I have to agree there's too much hype. I think it be appropriate we counterbalance the criticisms in this article with the newfound positive vibes of articles published in recent days (the tide is turning). ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 11:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Empty seats

• "Spot the spectator: Commonwealth Games already branded a flop with Delhi stadiums full... of empty seats"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317619/Commonwealth-Games-2010-Delhi-stadiums-seats.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soiutakkl (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are confident, go ahead and add this in. Importantly, remember NPOV. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 08:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Other issues

Oh dear, this appeared in Yahoo! News headlines: Pool quality probed as Delhi Games swimmers fall ill. Rather unfortuate for Delhians, their Games have been plagued with so much issues/problems. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 13:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Delhi Belly

• Grazed knee, Delhi Belly and blocked loos [1]
• Commonwealth Games 2010: pool hygiene to be investigated after swimmers hit by illness [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soiutakkl (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ivorycoast3

From recent revisions, User:Ivorycoast3 seems to be engaged in some sort of POV mission. He's been removing text per here, here, as well as adding and modifying POV per here without any sort of clarification. Over here, the entry on the Jama Masjid incident was removed again with his edit summary being "jama masjid incident doesn't belong here. There are hundred thousand other things that have happened around that time that are not documented here. JM incident has nothing to do with this topic. peace." - Your point being? I think continous repetition of such edits will constitute vandalism. Please avoid such edits involving mass removal/modification without any discussion here. Best, Mar4d (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ivorycoast3, you should considern that a warning. Another revert will mean at you will be in violation of 3RRR.Zhanzhao (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

the sports personalities mentioned that the previous incidents draw implications to how safe the CWG. They were very explicit in mentioning CWG, making it the subject of their statement, not as an offhand remark. The context is there, please do not inject your own pov in deciding what the sportman was saying. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, you should refrain from adding pov's to the article. There is no specific mention of the IPL by any of the authorities concerned. Wikipedia is sought as an authentic source of information and not a collection of someone's pov's - either you or some other author. Specify name of the authority / sports person who said anything about IPL in the context of CWG if you want that section to be retained, as of now its existence is unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivorycoast3 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

:zhanzhao

this whole article is a pov campaign. if that was not so , what are my edits on the statements by Mike Colman, and others being removed. It seems you and your friends are involved in a pov campaign. its like the pot calling the kettle black! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivorycoast3 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I just looked through all your contributions to this article via your contribution page listing, but I do not see any post by you regarding any "Mike Colman". Are you having some problems with your keyboard? You need to make a more coherent argument here to be taken seriously. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you've finally added the Mike Colman content you earlier claimed you did. Please keep track of what you did or did not do in making your points, as it lowers your credibility. Its a response to pre-game press coverage however, not the actual games itself, and has been moved to the relevant section (see below). Though it might interest you to know that Mike Colman may have changed his opinion since his last comment as per a more recent report by him.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Zhanzhao, do refrain from adding unquoted views / thoughts to the article. There is no specific mention of the IPL by any of the authorities concerned. Wikipedia is sought as an authentic source of information and not a collection of someone's pov - either you or some other reporter. Specify name of the authority / sports person who said anything about IPL in the context of CWG if you want that section to be retained, as of now its existence is unwarranted. If you want to doctor facts, well, wikipedia is not the place. Ivorycoast3 (talk • contribs)

To Ivorycoast3 who said "If you want to doctor facts, well, wikipedia is not the place." I believe you need to take your own advice. I already added another clearer link on top of what is already in the article which specifically mentions worries regarding the CWG's safety post the IPL bombing, in response to the very same bombing. To help you along, its under the aptly named "Situation Serious" section in the link given. As mentioned above, do pay attention to what is happening on the article as well as any new references being listed. It pays to be updated if you with to be a useful editor on this forum, especially when you are trying to be active on the very same article. Oh, and please remember to sign all your comments.Zhanzhao (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It does look like the Ivorycoast3 account has been setup just to edit this article. Let's monitor this closely. – S Masters (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

SMasters made a good point. Might want to note. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 03:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving Response content from intro to Pre-existing "response" section

There is already a "Response" section at the bottom of the article, so any responses should have been placed there. Also the content is mainly refuting negative press coverage leading up to the actual event, rather than refuting in general the controversies stated in the whole article. As the article contains content that happened and was reported after the responses were made, it would be misleading the reader into thinking that the responses were made in response to those as well if it was left in the beginning. Lets keep everything in context.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

GA status

Is this article good enough to be promoted to GA status? What is your take on this? If not, what can we do to make it better? 124.186.164.103 (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Still a lot of edits going on, as the games (and any developing controversies) are still ongoing. Also foresee that there would be some form of wrap-up/debriefing at the end of the games. As such, the article will definitely be constantly changing in its consistency/tone/quality. I'd at least wait and see until after the games is over to consider whether it be elevated to GA. Foresee a lot of cleaning/tidying and reorganizing to be done.Zhanzhao (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is premature at this stage – the event is still ongoing and therefore, it will not meet the "Is the article stable" criteria. Give it some time and let the dust settle. – S Masters (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mention of IPL bombing to CWG

As another editor has challenged the mention of the IPL bombing in the CWG controversy article, saying that the IPL and CWG are 2 separate events and irrelevant, I've seen the need to research for evidence showing the bombing incident did raise fears about the safety of athletes in the CWG. The most telling is this article which quotes the New Zealand Olympic Committee (NZOC), which organises New Zealand's Commonwealth Games contingent, said it was "taking the (bombing) incident seriously and would seek advice from the government's Major Events Security Committee and work with the them, the Commonwealth Games Federation and other Commonwealth nations to monitor the situation". Personally I feel that its already quite clear-cut that a co-relation between a bombing and safety fears for the CWG has been established, by a prominent authority/delegate to the games even, so I'm posting this to see some other editors' opinion about this inclusion/removal of contnt. Zhanzhao (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is relevant and should be included. Here are more sources from The Guardian, Radio Australia and Radio New Zealand. This article is about "concerns" and the IPL bomb certainly would have been a cause for concern. – S Masters (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Amusing problem, if at all

The title of the news article goes Thousands of condoms clog Games village drains?. You can check out the rest. Well, it can be included in the article... ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 13:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My two cents...

It is absolutely disgusting to see that some Wikipedians here are rather too keen to highlight "clogged toilets", "empty seats" and "Delhi Belly" but the article barely mentions the fact that India (home to the world's largest concentration of poor people) spent billions of dollars on a 12-day sporting event. For any sane person, the latter is the biggest controversy related to the 2010 CWG. --King Zebu (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the latter half of the statement is well pointed out; there's no need however to use "absolutely disgusting" in reference to fellow Wikipedians however. While the facts given may seem trivial compared to the most serious problems, they are nevertheless concerns and/or controversies after all. There is nothing inherently wrong in pointing these out, and they do not denigrate the quality of the discussion in any way. I seek an apology, please. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 04:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective, the tone being adopted by some here was disgusting. There is nothing wrong in pointing various concerns but the problem was the emphasis being laid on them. The article suggested that the Australian chef de mission's comments were more important than the fact that 400,000 people were evicted for these Games. If you want me to give a diplomatic reply, then OK, apology given. --King Zebu (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"For any sane person, the latter is the biggest controversy related to the 2010 CWG." – If you can find the sources that raise this point, then you are more than welcome to add this in the article. There's no need to insult those who are working hard to add reliable information and sources to this article. Our job is not to add our own POV. – S Masters (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Per SMasters. Remember that this is very much a work in progress and multiple editors have contributed to the article. Are you referring to the discussion page or the article? If the former, please do not target contributors to the discussion page then. Thank you, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure many people are interested in adding in more info on the effects on Delhi YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how one can actually quantify and grade all the different controversies and identify which is the biggest, especially since there are all sorts of controversies being reported by the news.. i.e. Fans of the respective sports will think coverage of their individual events are the most important. Same for the different countries and their supporters. Similarly, editors looking at local social impact issues might rightly consider the point mentioned by King Zebu to be the most important in their opinion. Just as those who prioritize women's rights issues will want to spotlight the prostitution boom and sex trade writeup. Apples and oranges, guys. Wikipedia caters to all audiences. It is not up to any single one of us to determine what should be prioritized, or chatise others for having a different opinion. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Apples and oranges, huh? One case is 400,000 poor people being evicted and more than $5 billion being spent by a low-income, developing country on a 12 day sporting event. The other case is empty seats, toilets clogged by condoms and dirty Village. Yup, apples and oranges. Frankly, I don't have the time to continue this discussion any further. So, before anyone else accuses me of launching a personal attack or challenges me to provide a source affirming the point that 400,000 people losing their homes is a bigger controversy than low ticket sales... good riddance. --King Zebu (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note this is NOT a general forum for the commonwealth games or the State of India, this is a discussion page for the Commonwealth games article at hand. If people disagree with the content of the article then please discuss only the relevant content which is not notable. If the content which is disliked is notable then please discuss ways of improving that content. All other discussion should be removed immediately as this is not a forum for the general discussion of the standards people think should be applied to India as a country or weather staging the games was right or wrong. Those comments belong on a separate blog or a discussion board on a totally separate website dedicated to discussing those issues. Wikipedia is not the place to have this kind of forum of discussions and as such all comments alluding to this will be removed . The above discussion should be removed as it is not related to the content of the article and is all discussions which are treating this as a forum.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To Lucy-marie, learn to read the comments of others before terming them as "not relevant to the content of the article". --King Zebu (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded Lucy-marie's warning. You want to do comparitive analysis on expendatures for the games? Do it elsewhere as this location is to talk about the article, not to soapbox about inustices. Hasteur (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparative analysis on expendatures [sic] for the games? Again, which part of my edits to this article or which part of my comments here give even the slightest hint that I want to do comparative analysis on the money being spent on these games? All I'm trying to do here is list and prioritize all the concerns regarding the Games not just those which outsiders consider relevant. Gosh! --King Zebu (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, its not up to any specific editor to prioritize the importance the content/points, unless its been specifically mentioned in another source, and even then it has to be properly attributed and quoted, wiki-style. Any attempt to do so without following wiki rules may cause undue weight or POV issues, at the very least. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism in games village by Australian athletes

Hi. I'm a bit concerned with this section, as the news seems to be so full of contradictions that it is difficult to work out what would be an accurate summary. Perhaps in a few more days when things settle? Currently the section reads:

It has been alleged that Australian athletes staying in the village went on a rampage and damaged electrical fittings and furniture after India beat Australia in the second test match of the Border-Gavaskar trophy. A washing machine was hurled from the eight floor of the tower in which Australians were staying. A security guard also reportedly heard athletes raising slogans against Sachin Tendulkar, the chief architect of India's victory. Later media reports indicated that Australia confirmed that an athlete was sent home for misbehaviour and also agreed to pay for the damages in their towers. Indian police did not press the case after the Organizing Committee refused to file a complaint while Indian external affairs minister SM Krishna dismissed it as a one-off incident. Australia, however, refuted the allegations claiming it was due to athletes "athletes from other countries" who were in the building.

The timing is a bit confusing. According to the Times of India[3] the events took place on Tuesday and Wednesday. IBN has it occurring "shortly after India beat Australia at the cricket"[4], making it, I assume, Wednesday night. Another source has it taking place on Thursday night.[5] Then we get the connection with the player that was sent home. There is no news on who was sent, nor why, but the ABC report has the player being sent home "a few days ago", making it Monday, and thus presumably unrelated.[6] As to why, you have some reports citing the cricket match, and others claiming celebrations for the end of the games. And on top of that, while all reports seem to mention the washing machine, the vandalism claims are refuted in some.[7] I'm not sure what the best way of treating this is, but it all seems somewhat confused. - Bilby (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Its best to leave out any material that cannot be dorectly linked to hte allegations. Leave it up tothe reader to sort out the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A far as I can tell, the only thing that is common is that a washing machine was destroyed. Everything else is a mix of conflicting allegations. - Bilby (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this might work better then.

A washing machine was hurled from the eight floor of the tower in which Australians were staying. It has been alledged that this was shortly after India beat Australia at the second test match of the Border-Gavaskar trophy, other reports saying it was end of game celebrations. Later media reports indicated that Australia confirmed that an athlete was sent home for misbehaviour and also agreed to pay for the damages in their accomidation. Indian police did not press the case after the Organizing Committee refused to file a complaint while Indian external affairs minister SM Krishna dismissed it as a one-off incident. Australia has said that any damage was due to athletes "athletes from other countries" who were in the building.

Still needs some work, mainly on the details.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that we know so little. If we stick to what seems to have been agreed through the sources, we get something like;

A washing machine was thrown from the tower in which the Australian athletes were staying. Although the cause is uncertain, reports suggest that this may have occurred during celebrations at the completion of the games, or alternatively it has been alledged that it was part of a response to Australia's loss to India at the second test match of the Border-Gavaskar trophy. Although Perry Crosswhite suggested that other athletes visiting the Australian contingent may have been to blame, Australia agreed to pay for the damages. Indian police did not press the case after the Organizing Committee refused to file a complaint, and Indian external affairs minister SM Krishna dismissed it as a one-off incident.

I'd certainly leave the Australian athlete being sent home off as a red herring - nothing connects the two, other than the two incidents being mentioned in the same articles. - Bilby (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems better.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing is classic recentism combined with unclear "allegations" and media hype. What do know (probably) really happened? A washing machine was found where it shouldn't have been. We don't know how it got there. Someone (unknown) has apparently been sent home. Australia DID lose a Test Cricket match to India. Nobody was charged. The organising Committee didn't file a complaint. The relevant Indian government minister dismissed it. We don't know what part of this story is connected with what. I really doubt if anything realistic can be (or should be) synthesised out of that. Stop speculating. Give it time. Wait for some facts. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We should wait and see if this stands the test of time. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 01:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Indian claim that Aus has taken responsibility has been contradicted by Crosswhite saying saturday and sunday that the nation of the vandal is unknown YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mani Aiyar

Why does his bites deserve a special sub section? His rantings are no different from any other politician, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsisv (talk • contribs) 12:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

reverts/edit war

ive reinstated this edit pending an attempt to resolve disputes. The 2 parties should discuss their queries in a WP:Civil manner to gain consensus.Lihaas (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the edit reintroduces an unsourced opinion into the lead. While some concerns - such as the risk of a terrorist attack - didn't surface, there were controversies that occurred during the games, and many of the concerns raised continue to be issues irrespective of how the games went. I don't think we can make the call that "many of the concerns did not materialize", especially when you consider that the items in the line immediately proceeding that statement - "serious corruption by officials of the Games' Organising Committee, delays in the construction of main Games' venues, infrastructural compromise, possibility of a terrorist attack and exceptionally poor ticket sales before the event" - are almost all issues that are either independent of the results (corruption) or which were relevant to the games (empty seats, problems with rushing infrastructure, the collapse of the scoreboard). - Bilby (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby. Yes, there were no terrorist attacks, but many of the other problems occurred, which is why this article is fairly lengthy. It appears that there are some who are out to censor, or impose their own POV, on this article. - S Masters (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no reaso why fears of things that did not happen shoould be in the articel. But as to those things that did happen, well they happend. There were many complaints about the games, many still unresolved.Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that many of the fears leading up to the game led to quite a number of host countries and individual atheletes almost deciding not to participate, and these same concerns were widely covered by the international press, keeping them out of the article just because the fears were unfounded would be sweeping these issues under the carpet. Fact: the fears and concerns were voiced and weighed heavily in n the minds of all, even the host country (hence the extra attention paid to rectifying them). Fact: concern by the members and atheletes almost led to a massive pullout. Fact: some of the fears were unfounded, but only on hindsight. Fact: many press articles after the games have highlighted the fact that India managed to pull off a successful games INSPITE of all the concerns raised. Put it this way, just because fears of the y2k bug turned out to be blown out of proportions did not stop it from having its own article. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I just reread the intro, and the last lines could be misleading as it only refers to come of the concerns raised, and the use of "many" is borderline weasel language in the current form as it implies that a large proportion of the article below consisted of misplaced worries. Attempting to correct it. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Fact: some of the fears were unfounded, but only on hindsight."

Hmmmm. Some of us didn't think such fears were valid in the first place. Some of us didn't need hindsight. If there was a fear that did not come to fruition, that is a not an error by the people running the Games. It is an error by the people who had such fears. Still a fear, and perhaps still worth noting, but more based on ignorance or bigotry of those who held such fears, and should be documented under some sort of "They were wrong" heading. HiLo48 (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately despite your attempt at rationalization, thats not how articles are written here in Wikipedia. Raising concerns does not automatically make those people bigots or ignorant. Attempting to attribute these characteristics to them would be purely OR and POV, not to mention threading on BLP. Unless there is a good reference or source with such analysis (And even then these must be included in an acceptable write up), only the concerns and eventual outcome should be noted. Personal discussion and analysis do not belong on the main article page. If claims that the worries were unfounded are to be mentioned, it should be counterbalanced with a section of why the raised concerns were legitimate. See the last section of the article on the Millenium bug for an example. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I just have a few things to say regarding the changes made by me and the objections raised here — most of the points against my edits are primarily related to the lead paras. And well, those objections are logical enough. But does that mean that it is justified to blatantly revert all of my edits to the article without any explanation? Regarding the "sex slavery and prostitution boom", regarding the "mass volunteer walkout" etc., the article presents information as if these are facts and not allegations. People here keep forgetting the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some news outlet. The information needs to be presented in a highly objective manner and subjectivity has no place here. And going through some of the comments above, it seems that some here are trying to create an impression that I'm trying to keep various concerns "out of the article just because the fears were unfounded". Brilliant, I must say! But I guess I'm a "nationalist retard" to present all sides of the coin. It's really annoying to see how some here are trying to sideline those who do not serve their point of view by abusing and blatantly reverting their edits. Anyways, I've lost interest in this topic. Got better things to do rather than argue with a bunch of computer-addicts with a heavy baggage of bias.--King Zebu (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's critical that unfounded fears are highlighted, if only by saying at the end of the description of someone pulling out/complaining or whatever, we must say that the thing that person/team was afraid of did not eventuate. That is not OR. It's balance. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with heading down that path is the question of whether the eventual smooth-running was the result of the extra preparation undertaken or whether the significance of the problem had been overstated. That would require a new section for practically every issue raised to give both sides of the arguement equal weight. For every single issue raised. If you look at the article on the Millenium bug, every concern raised may require a detailed analysis of that length which would turn an already long article into epic proportions. Are we sure we want this here? Zhanzhao (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Our goal must be balance, whatever it takes. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you are up of providing both sides of the argument in a fair tone, without giving unfair weightage to either side, and have good wiki-approved references/sources to back up your points, without engaging in OR or discussion in the article, you can go ahead and give it your best shot. I'm just warning you on the can of worms you're opening. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with this edit?

Arindam Chaudhuri is a notable person, has his own Wikipedia article, he raises his concerns about the CWG, why was this edit deleted. Please get it back. Summary for edit was rv - overly close paraphrasing. What is that?

Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri in his blog comments that instead of creating such a hype around the Commonwealth games, India should have long ago stopped participating in these slavish games, and that India should consider withdrawing its membership from the slavish Commonwealth of nations itself. He considers it a shame that instead of doing so India is hosting these games which are nothing but a celebration of the British empire – in other words, celebration of racial discrimination, colonialism and imperialism.

[8] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Another editor reverted that addition, with his own reasons, just before I got around to it. My reasons would have been because they came from a self published blog. Such a source is not normally acceptable in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In my case, it was because the material is almost identical to what was written in the source. In these situations you generally either quote someone and make it clear that it is a quote, or you need to rewrite it such that there is sufficient difference between the source material and your words. That said, I was also concerned about weight - is the author (especially given that it was from a blog) of sufficient importance to warrant including this in the lead? I don't know, but I felt that it was unlikely. - Bilby (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri is a notable person. A self-published source is not acceptable when verifying claims, but can they not be used when quoting the views of a person? Arindam Chaudhuri is atleast as important as Mani Shankar Iyer in the context of this article. Would editors here be comfortable with the following

Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri in his blog comments that "...instead of creating such a hype around the Commonwealth games, India should have long ago stopped participating in these slavish games...", and that India "...should consider withdrawing its membership from the slavish Commonwealth of nations itself..." He considers it a shame that instead of doing so "...India is hosting these games which are nothing but a celebration of the British empire – in other words, celebration of racial discrimination, colonialism and imperialism..."

If you think it is still not good enough go ahead and tweak to suit Wikipedia rules, but please keep the essentials. This is an important quote as it brings a fundamentally different angle to the criticism apart from that a poor wretched country hosting such an extravaganza shows that priorities of its government are totally misplaced. This criticism is about the fact that the games or for that matter the Commonwealth as a concept is in itself slavish, imperialist and racist. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty from my perspective is that it isn't expressing anything more than the opinion of a particular individual about the Commonwealth. That would be useful if it could be shown that this particular individual's opinion on this topic is of special note - however, that doesn't seem to be the case. If his blog post had received significant coverage in the media, or there was some other evidence of the importance of his comments, then that would change the equation. But at the moment, it seems that adding it - especially that much text - would be providing undue weight. - Bilby (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has been carried in a news paper The Pioneer[9], and The Sunday Indian so it now belongs to a reliable source. Are the above comments relevant now? If you think the comment is verbose, make it concise, keeping the core intact. I have no issues with it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's just a reprint of the blog post, rather than any sort of commentary on it. That question is one of impact and coverage, rather than publication, and it would need quite a bit, I suspect, to be relevant. - Bilby (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

So the reliable source issue is settled. Now we have to discuss whether it is wp:undue, right? What is the yardstick by which Mani Shankar has been given so much prominence? And all the other cases of low wages, sexual exploitation and what not, have they been given wide media coverage? They haven't. So why different standards for Arindam? I put it in the lead because his criticism had a new angle, different from the economic angle. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't defend other stuff in the article. I think three quarters of it needs to be revised to get anywhere near decent Wikipedia standards. This is the nature of articles like this. A lot of poorly written material gets added in a very short time in the short period before and during the event, then during the following months more experienced and careful editors tidy it up. Once things are quieter, like now, one of the first things that happens is that more experienced editors with the time to do so stop the addition of additional doubtful material. Summarising, much of what is there already probably shouldn't be, so please don't use it as justification for your material.

I'm not from India. Is it possible for you to indicate to non-Indians why comments from this particular person (who I have never heard of) are significant? Is he the kind of very public commentator whose views are likely to influence millions of others? Can that be somehow explained, with sources? HiLo48 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is a reliable source. I never said that the other stuff was bad, the discussion is about weightage. Yardsticks should be similar. That is all I pointed. Why should somebosy's views influence millions of others? Is that a criteria for inclusion in an article? His criticism includes a angle apart from the economic discussed in detail in this article. It also makes sense (to me), so I opine that it should be included. Why is it given the qualifier doubtful?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Check the link for information about Prof. given above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with HiLo48 that the whole article will need a cleanup, so comparing anything to content already there seems like an error. But the issue is that of independent commentary about his views. Mani Shankar Aiyar's comments were discussed, criticised and reported in independent sources. Arindam Chaudhuri's opinions have not, as far as I can tell, had any particular impact, and have not been reported in independent sources. If they are, then there may be a case of inclusion, although I don't imagine the lead will be the best choice. The two examples you've given were not independent, and were not discussing his views - just publishing his column. - Bilby (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The links indicate that Arindam's comments are well sourced. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

(1)Arindam Chaudhuri is a notable person, he has been a member of India's planning commission. (3)The source is a reliable source (4)Which wikipedia rule carries such a criterion?

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. It needs to be shown that Arindam Chaudhuri's viewpoint was covered in reliable secondary sources to calculate weight. At the moment, there are no reliable secondary sources being offered which cover his point of view, only primary sources written by him. If they become available, then things may change. At any rate, it seems unlikely that it will warrant mention in the lead. Alternatively, if consensus is for including it then I won't have a problem, but so far it is just the two of us arguing - on those grounds I'm stepping back from this. - Bilby (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for its inclusion. If (and I would have thought when if this is such an important view) RS come forward and report this then fine. Although it has (it would appear) been published in an indian newpaper its one that this gentleman dits, thus is not third party.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

deletion of text

Pleae do not delete large chunkks of text without discusion please.Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor blby's edit

Editor Bilb's edit summary reads

“ rv per ongoing discussion - not notable enough for the lead, and the current wording places too much weight on a single person's opinion. ”

1. The statement is kept short as per editor's concerns earlier,
   1. to make it short,
   2. and make it clear that it is a quote.
2. All the other issues discussed involve individuals or organisations of similar notability
   1. Miloon Kothari
   2. Mani Shankar Aiyar many times
   3. Azim Premji
   4. Gautam Bhan + 1
   5. Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN)
   6. Human Rights Law Network
   7. guardian.co.uk
   8. Amita Bawiskar
   9. Kafila
   10. The Dawn, Karachi
   11. Asia News International
   12. Business-standard.com
   13. Hindustan Times
   14. Thaindian.com
   15. CNN
   16. Daily Mail
   17. Siddharth Kara
   18. Mitu Sengupta
   19. One anti-trafficking NGO
   20. All this from one section.
3. Bilby actually the whole thing about mis-placed priorities, child labour and abuse, poverty, bad treatment to construction workers, low-wages, lack of safety, corruption in every aspect, mis-use of government machinery is not notable. This is typical of every Indian project big or small, from building a single seat toilet in a village to the CWG. So why should they be concerns specific to the CWG?
4. Is attraction of sex-workers to Delhi during the games news-worthy. That is typical of all major sporting events on all continents. America, Europe, Asia, Africa etc.
5. Is the threat of violence unique to Delhi, were the Israelis murdered in Delhi? About terrorism were the Sri Lankan cricketers shot at in Delhi?
6. Even the story that the Australians created a scene is no-news that is how they are, and after that the organisers did not take the matter to the police, that is how Indins are they fawn over white skin, don't you know that Indians were slaves of the British for over 100 years.
7. That the Indians are racist is also no news. See how Africans are treated every where in India, and contrast that with the treatment of whites, who are treated like they are son-in-laws.
8. Whereas Arindam's criticism of the CWG is an unique notable angle.
9. My comments were unanswered for a long time, I assumed that my edit was accepted so I went ahead with it.
   1. Please be to the point.
10. Another point is that the games went without a major glitch. Does that not translate to the fact that many concerns were unfounded, terror for example?

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am still concerned we are effectively working from a blog. You still really need a third party source to demonstrate that the professor's comments are significant. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We are not working from a blog, please see this editor's historical edit.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Whereas Arindam's criticism of the CWG is an unique notable angle, from a notable person, available from a reliable source, the editorial has has also carried been by The Pioneer as an article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I request editor Bilby and 48 to comment on the other points raised above. Why is all this criticism notable? If there had been no corruption, no prostitution, a safe working environment for workers, or if they had been paid a fair wage, or if the children of workers had been provided creech facilities that would have been notable. This is how every day life is in India. Do you know that over 10 people are run over in Mumbai alone by trains. That makes it over 3500 in a year. India is one of the poorest countries in the world, at the bloody, filthy, wretched bottom of the heap, everything else is a manifestation of that. Even mis-placed priorities is not notable. There are energy guzzling day-night cricket matches at the expense of hunderds of thousands of families that have their electrcity cut - it is called loadshedding, so that they cannot light a 40 w bulb. Coke and Pepsi draws water, premanently damaging groundwater sources that could be used for drinking. Millions of man hours are lost to illness malaria for example. This country is run by robber barons, demented sychophants, murderers and crooks. That is the truth. Perhaps the world is run by robber barons and swindlers, do not forget that the US has not ratified the Kyoto protocol.(Please do not consider this as a rant, not a word that I have written is from my imagination please do google search to check, I hope I have not activated the red light for this is not a forum.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with just about everything you have posted, but it doesn't change the fact that the primary source is a blog and the secondary source is a quote from that blog. It still doesn't establish whether the professor's comments are worth noting here. I agree with him, but there would be no point posting my thoughts. I am not notable. Find something to add to the article that demonstrates the notability of the professor. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I had planned to step back, but as this was specifically addressed to me: in general I agree with your sentiment, although this is not unique to India. However, we calculate weight based on coverage in reliable sources. While the article needs a good clean up, most of those issues were covered and discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources. Arindam Chaudhuri's personal opinion has not been. It has been expressed in his blog, in a newspaper column written by him, and in his own editorial in the Sunday Indian, but all three are primary sources that he wrote and, in two cases, published. If secondary sources pick this up and discuss his views then there's a case for including it. But at the moment we only have primary sources. Thus it can't be assumed that his opinion is notable, and certainly not notable enough for the lead.

That's it for me. If secondary sources turn up I'll be happy to reconsider my stance, and I have no objection if consensus goes in a different direction. - Bilby (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 issues at hand here. First, whether the text should be included, and 2nd, even if it is, whether it should be allowed in the lead. Even if the source presented is considered to be wiki-acceptable, that only answers the first point. Please read this article on Lead section writing to see what is acceptable for inclusion in an introduction paragraph. "Introductions to biographical articles commonly double as summaries, listing the best-known achievements of the subject. Because some readers will read only the opening of an article, the most vital information should be included.". For it to be in the intro, there would first have to be substantial content within main body of the article to warrant mention in the article. Considering most of the other controversy items were just mentioned as bullet-points, I don't see how the point in question justifies a whole sentence for itself considering the disproportionate little content in the main article. IMHO, the whole intro section is not as well written as it should be, as the part regarding criticism by Indian politicians is practically COATRACKING, since the amount of text dedicated to that point is disproportionate to the amount of content in the article body. In terms of coverage of controversies about CWG 2010, the local media may have placed more attention on that particular issue, but unfortunately, the world media were more interested in the other issues (in particular the ones that directly impacted their own nation's participation or the operation of the games itself. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(1)Can I interpret the above that the proposed text is Wiki-acceptable? (2)The second point a valid one. The lead is a summary. There should be lots of text in the main article which then is summed up in the lead. So actually the one line in the lead should be supported by a lot of text (relatively in the lead) Please editors Prof. Arindam has raised a unique and thoughtful issue. Others are raising problems which are typically Indian. They should not be notable. Please read the above points that I have raised. I hope I am able to convey the issue. Prostitution, security, racism, corruption, transport horrors yawn, they are typical of all projects and games. What is so news worthy about them? Arindam has raised a fundamental question that should rattle every Indian, every former British slave across the world. Why is this terrible relationship slave and master celebrated? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Those do not appear to be mentioned in the lead. Nor do I see any mention of the games celebrating slavery in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is with reference to text that was inserted and deleted. The above discussion is for inclusion of an acceptable version of the deleted text. Below in the sub-section is the proposed edit, with the source given. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Which was rightly deleted as it has no place in the lead. If you wish to sugest where else this can go please do so.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see detailed explanation above. Arindam's unique angle gives it weight to be placed in the lead, all the other issues are typical of every major sporting event/ project in the world/ India. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And as I have pointed out none of the other things are menioned in the lead. Also the lead is for summerising the major points of the artciel as an overveiw. This material is not a major point in the articel, indead this is the only place it appears.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

.

The proposed text

I had requested you editor HiLo48 to check my historical edit, it seems you have not. So I am giving the source here. The source is not a blog now.

“ The games have been criticised in India as "a celebration of racial discrimination, colonialism, imperialism ...". ”

This proposal has not been opposed for a long time, so it is being added to the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed it back. Unfortunately, I can find no secondary sources discussing Chaudhuri's opinion, so it would appear to have limited impact. That would suggest that we can't give it much weight in comparison to other criticisms which more widely covered. I also note Chaudhuri's complaints seem to be pointed at being in the Commonwealth in general, rather than these games in particular. - Bilby (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The title of the editorial says that India should stop participating in such slavish games, with considerable arguments in support of the title, only one of the many arguments is about Commonwealth in general, the reference about the games as a celebration of racial discrimination etc. has to be there. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The specific wording of the games as being "slavish" can only be attributed to that one author, while the writeup refers to criticism in a more general term, which is why it should be avoided. Zhanzhao (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The text is about the views of one notable commentator, the description slavish should be there. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be attributed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but the above text has no attributation in it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain? What is it that you want? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If this represents just one notable persons opinion then it should not be worded to make it sound like its held by more then one person. It should also say something like "Mr X has said..."or "in Mr x's opinion".Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage duscussion on this maybe outdated. I thin what Yogesh Khandke (talk) meant is that the text as it appears on the article itself now specifically attributes that choice of words to that one particular person. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Zhanzhao. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Athletes with a disability

There's controversies about the preparation for athletes with a disability. disabled-athletes-left-high-dry-india.html Bib (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing something about that in the article, but it would need a better source. Blogs aren't acceptable. Can you find another source? HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Found one from the BBC [10], on india-server [11], on plegia.org[12] (article originally in The National (Abu Dhabi)), and hindustantimes.com [13]. Bib (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Indian Womens 4x400 Relay Controversy

The women's 4x400m relay, won by India, is currently under controversy as 3 of the 4 have tested positive for banned substances. Sini Jose and Jauna Murmu tested positive for methandienone, an anabolic steroid while Tiana Mary Thomas tested positive for epi-methandienone. I think this needs to be included in the article though I don't have all the information so I don't think I should.82.5.224.82 (talk)