Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

Wiki Policy on Advertising?

As the 2012 Olympics is being run by a public company, much of the content of this page should be viewed as an 'advertisment' - could someone explain which sections need to be removed to make the article compliant with Wiki policy on advertising? Perhaps the organisers should pay for it by making a donation ????212.139.100.244 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.100.244 (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, soliciting a donation in exchange for coverage... whether real or perceived... is just about the worst thing that Wikipedia could do. It's simply a major event of international interest and will receive appropriate coverage, no differently than the World Cup or World Series. -- Alyas Grey : talk 08:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

London, England or London, United Kingdom

In the lead, which of the following should we use:

1. London, England
2. London, United Kingdom
3. London, England, United Kingdom
4. London, Great Britain

Are there any other suggestions? Bluap (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My personal preference is for London, United Kingdom Bluap (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Always a clumsy area. The Games were awarded to the London bid submitted by the British Olympic Association. It is the National Olympic Committee for "Great Britain and Northern Ireland (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), the Crown Dependencies (the Isle of Man and the Channel Island Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey) and British Overseas Territories which do not have their own National Olympic Committees (Anguilla; the British Antarctic Territory; the British Indian Ocean Territory; the Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; the Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia; and the Turks and Caicos Islands)." I'd recommend leaving out the country all together. Nobody will be confused. Not even residents of the other Londons. The Wikilinked article, London, manages to describe it as a Global city. Sounds good to me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned this issue the other day. And technically, the use Great Britain, would be the correct choice. This is because, in the eyes of the IOC, they refer to the country as Great Britain. Even BOA, refer to it as Team GB (the GB being very obvious). To use "London, England" would be incorrect, as there are also regional venues in Scotland and Wales too. To use United Kingdom, would be including N. Ireland; however as there are no venues in N.Ire, then simple GB would be reasonable. Wesley☀Mouse 01:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

To address each suggestion individually:

1. London, England - Would not be acceptable as London is representing the UK, and events are taking place in Scotland and Wales.
2. London, United Kingdom - Should be the most straightforward and logical format but...
3. London, England, United Kingdom - ...is the format that is used in the 1904, 1932, 1976, 1984 and 1996 articles, (e.g. Los Angeles, California, United States), so would make sense to carry on that style here.
4. London, Great Britain - Would be grossly incorrect, for the reasons stated by User:Mpjmcevoy @ Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#Official_terminology_of_host_nation. Zarcadia (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This discussion continues further down the page at #Disambiguating London. -- Alarics (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Housing Controversy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17986383

The BBC have reported on a shelter investigation showing Landlords are evicting tenants and raising rents in some cases from £350 a week to £6000

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.44.4 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

start date

Is it correct to state: The 2012 Summer Olympic Games, officially the Games of the XXX Olympiad, will take place in London, England, United Kingdom, from 27 July to 12 August 2012., as first matches in football will be played in July 25? Actually the games take place from 25 July to 12 August... 82.141.117.194 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The opening line is correct. As the games don't start until the opening ceremony on 27 July. The football matches are an exception, as they will take longer. Wesley☀Mouse 18:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The football tournament is part of the games, so the games start in 25 July. The Olympic Games start before the opening ceremony. Or those matches which are played before opening ceremony are not part of the games? 82.141.66.248 (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sports pictograms

Why have the pictograms for the sports been removed? They are there to help people that are unable to read the English info navigate comfortably. 76.64.229.109 (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguating London

As an Alpha++ world city, London does not, strictly speaking, need disambiguating at all. Nor does it have to be wikilinked, per WP:OVERLINK. Nevertheless, I left it wikilinked when I reduced its mention in the lead from the ludicrous "London, England, United Kingdom" to just "London". Another editor then restored "United Kingdom" on the grounds that this is what we normally put, a statement with which I disagree but I was not prepared to get into a big argument about it. However, somebody else has now put it back to "London, England, United Kingdom" and put "see talk page" in the edit summary, but appears not in fact to have put anything about it on the talk page. In a spirit of compromise, I am prepared to accept either "London, England" or "London, United Kingdom", but "London, England, United Kingdom" just looks childish and silly, and makes Wikipedia appear unprofessional. So I am reverting it to "London, United Kingdom". -- Alarics (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"see talk page" refers to Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#London.2C_England_or_London.2C_United_Kingdom where this is being / has been discussed, and it has been discussed elsewhere in the talk. I actually agree with you that "London, England, United Kingdom" is excessive but it's the format that appears to be used as per the links I provided at the linked talk section. My point for reverting is that WP relies on consensus between editors and a single editor can't keep edit warring just because (s)he feels (s)he's right. Zarcadia (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise you were referring to a discussion that had taken place earlier. But now that I have studied that discussion, I must say there is no case for regarding its outcome as a consensus. Of the four editors who took part, only one (yourself) favoured the "London, England, United Kingdom" formula, and even then not exclusively. The others favoured (1) "London, United Kingdom", (2) just "London", and (3) "London, Great Britain". So in fact there was no agreement at all. On the point of precedent, I don't think any of the 1904, 1932, 1976, 1984 or 1996 Olympics examples are fully analogous to the present instance. Four of those five were in the United States, and many Americans regard the name of the state as an integral part of a city's name, even when plainly unnecessary, as in the case of "Los Angeles, California" (two of those four); we don't have that in the UK. Another of the four, the 1996 case, in fact says "Atlanta, United States" (Georgia not mentioned), so does not fit the claim that there is any standard pattern. The fifth example, "Montreal, Quebec, Canada" is superficially a bit more like "London, England, United Kingdom" and does seem otiose, but I am guessing that might have to do with political sensitivities, i.e. the fact that a lot of people in Quebec wish they were not part of Canada, again something that does not apply very strongly to London in relation to England.

Anyway, I see that we are now back to "London, United Kingdom", and I hope that will stay. -- Alarics (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles and Kuwait

I see this was discussed in April, but I am almost certain the uses of Independent Olympic Participants and Kuwait is incorrect. The IOC source at Kuwait at the 2012 Summer Olympics states that Kuwaiti athletes will “participate under the Olympic flag with the title 'Independent Olympic Athlete'” (with no country code given). Similarly, the IOC source on Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics states that the islands' athletes may “take part in the London 2012 Olympic Games as independent athletes under the Olympic flag”. The only difference is the clear statement that Kuwaiti athletes will compete with the title, whereas statement for Netherlands Antillean athletes is more vague and could be intended as a description of the situation. Even without these sources I would consider IOP most unlikely as this designation was used for a country blocked from competing by a UNSC resolution. In conclusion, Kuwait will compete as “Independent Olympic Athletes”, and Netherlands Antilles probably will. 88.88.163.201 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait and Netherlands Antilles are competing as “Independent Olympic Athletes”. However they compete as “Independent Olympic Athletes” which refers to them as individuals - athletes is a clue in the title. "Independent Olympic Participants" is the collective form, for more than one Independent Olympic Athletic Nation. Take for example Goose, plural is Geese; the term of venery name (or collective noun) for geese would be gaggle (when not in flight) and skein (when in flight). So on that basis, “Independent Olympic Athletes” is the singular noun, and "Independent Olympic Participants" the collective variation. Wesley Mouse 17:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise you'd end up with having to have two articles Independent Olympic Athlete at the 2012 Summer Olympics (Kuwait) and Independent Olympic Athlete at the 2012 Summer Olympics (Netherlands Antilles), and that would be very confusing. Whereas Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics enables us to group them together as one entity, while sub-heading Kuwait and Netherlands Antilles in that article. Wesley Mouse 18:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Athlete is singular, athletes plural. Participant is singular, participants plural. Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics would enable the desired grouping and match the sources better. Thank you for responding, I have tried several other talk pages before this one, with no response. 88.88.163.201 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But using the plural format would be incorrect. They are in groups, so the collective noun would be used, which in this case is participants, and keeps in-line with other articles that also had IOP's. And the International Olympic Committee list them as IOPs not IOAs. Wesley Mouse 18:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are they referred to as IOPs? I have tried to find it and also requested a source in the IOP at 2012 article. If there is no source, I don't see the problem with using Independent Olympic Athletes cf. Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Did you claim that participant is the collective noun for athletes, or did I misunderstand? I don't think there is any collective noun for athletes. A participant of athletes doesn't exactly roll of the tongue, and I've never seen it used. 88.88.163.201 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The collective noun is a known fact, so no claim. Also I am a volunteer at the games, so know that they are listed as IOPs. It is on all the documentation. I cannot add a source myself, as it would be a conflict of interest. Wesley Mouse 19:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics; Category:Olympic athletes as Independent Olympic Participants; Independent Olympic Participant. To have an article entitled as Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics, would then mean the article would have to list the sports persons as individuals and not the nations they would have competed as. To have Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics allows the article to list the two separate nations ,and then sub-list the sports personalities under the respective nations. Wesley Mouse 19:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also the 2000 article Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics was only one nation, East Timor. In 1992, 3 countries participated as "independent". In 2012, it will be 2 nations, thus keeping the term "participants" in line with manual of style and article title. Wesley Mouse 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The IOC official page lists the 3 Yugoslavian nations as "Independent Olympic Participants" for the Barcelona 1992 games. For Sydney 2000 the IOC list East Timor as Independent Olympic Athletes. Which clarifies my statement that if its one nation, then Athletes would be the correct term, more than one nation and it becomes "participants". Wesley Mouse 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick searches on google for “Participants of athletes” gives 295 hits and “Participant of athletes” 9 hits, so I don't think it is a common collective noun, and even if it were I don't see the relevance. I don’t see what part of WP:MOS or WP:AT you rely on. I have not seen any publicly available reliable sources for non-1992 usage of IOP which is why I have tried to initiate discussion. I don't think we can find any precedence from the IOP in 1992 and IOA in 2000; the designations were created as one-offs when they were needed by the IOC. Perhaps they ought to make a permanent designation for athletes competing under the Olympic flag, but that is not up to us. The designation "Independent Olympic Athletes" (note that it is not the same designation as in 2000) is stated outright in the source for the Kuwait article, and indeed in the article. (Do you agree that the Kuwait article ought to be moved in principle, though we differ as to the appropriate target?) As previously indicated the case for the Netherlands Antilles is less clear, but I have seen no evidence to suggest the revival of the defunct IOP code. On another note, I do not understand why the title Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics in would prevent subsections for different nations. (Subsections based on Yugoslavian or Macedonian nationality are in any case not used in this article.) As we appear to have reached a stalemate, is WP:3O an option? 88.88.163.201 (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We haven't reached a stalemate. I've provided two sources from the official Olympic website, that lists 1992 when there were 3 nations competing under the Olympic flag as "Independent Olympic Participants"; and another source for 2000 which had only one nation competing under the Olympic flag as "Independent Olympic Athletes". 2012 has two nations competing under the Olympic Flag, and based on previous situation in 1992 and the way the 1992 article is also listed, then participants would be the correct procedure. There is no need for a 3O to be carried out as this had already been discussed back in April, and the current listing was agreed and is being used. WP:AT (or article naming) gives rough guidelines on ambiguous article naming. An article title needs to reflect its content as accurate as possible. If it was only Kuwait or Netherlands Antilles competing under the Olympic Flag, then yes, they would be listed as IOAs; however as there are two nations they would be IOPs. Two nations independently participating under one Olympic flag, thus making them IOPs. Doing a quick search based on your athlete theory doesn't really prove much. Have you tried a search for IOPs too? Also try doing a search on the IOC website for IOPs, that too will bring loads of links. Wesley Mouse 22:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed something that you may have overlooked and not noticed properly. The 1992 and 2012 articles are titled Independent Participants (Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics and Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics) Whereas the 2000 article is "individual athletes" (Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics). An athlete cannot be independent as they do hold a nationality, thus making the title Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics politically and grammatically incorrect. We couldn't list them as Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics as there are more than one nation under the Olympic flag, again making that title grammatically incorrect. The athletes are participating for two separate nations both under the Olympic Flag, thus making them Independent Participants, and thus making Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics politically and grammatically correct. Wesley Mouse 23:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Both athletes and participants (they are the same persons) have a nationality. Countries don't send athletes to the Olympics, National Olympic Committees do. In this context independent does not mean that they are independent with regards to nationality, it means that they are independent from NOCs, which may be unrecognised, non-existent, dissolved or prevented from taking part because of sanctions. See Jasna Šekarić, who competed for two Yugoslavias and Serbia and Montenegro, but as an Independent Participant. Similarly, individual is intended to convey that they are not taking part as part of a delegation from an NOC, but as individuals. In this context they are equally independent. The reason Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics and Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics are titled as such is because the IOC (for their own reasons, we can only speculate) chose to use those designations. The source given in Kuwait at the 2012 Summer Olympics (from the IOC) clearly states that Kuwait will be competing with the title "Independent Olympic Athletes". For this reason I simply see no reason to title the article differently. Similar wording is used about the Netherlands Antilles in the source for them, though it is not stated as a title for the athletes. Excluding Wikipedia, there are no indications that the IOP designation will be revived. By the way, I hope you'll enjoy volunteering at the games. 88.88.163.201 (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

88.88.163.201 is exactly right; What the IOC says, goes. If the athletes appear under the IOC code Independent Olympic athletes/IOA then that's what they should be listed under on Wikipedia whether it seems grammatically incorrect or not, even if that means lumping Netherlands Antilles and Kuwait athletes together in a single article. There are plenty of examples of the IOC using names that seem incorrect, the United Kingdom competing under the name Great Britain for example, but we have to follow their conventions on Olympic articles - Basement12 (T.C) 00:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I cannot comment why the Kuwait article has them listed as IOAs when they are in fact officially listed with Netherlands Antilles as IOPs. The Kuwait article could be containing factual errors, which should really be rectified with sources to verify facts. The Antilles Olympic website does state they are IOPs and not IOAs; doing a search on the IOC website also lists Antilles and Kuwait for 2012 as IOPs not IOAs. If the official body (IOC) have enlisted them as IOP then we should reflect that on the articles and the naming of such. Deferring away from the official sources would be incorrect and misleading to the general reader. As a volunteer for the games, I do have access to other weblinks, but I cannot provide urls for them whether it be on this talk page or the article itself, as I would be breaching protocol that I agreed to abide to whilst being a Games Maker. It is also why I try and keep my editing on this article to a very minimum, unless I am correcting spelling/grammar issues that I find, then that isn't really in breach of any protocol or COI issues. Wesley Mouse 00:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A reasonable suggestion, and perhaps compromise at this current stage would be to leave things as they are, until further details are released by LOCOG and the IOC in regards to how these participants will be recognised as, once we know more then there is nothing wrong in correcting the articles on that basis. But for now, and seeing as it had been agreed in the discussion back in April to refer to as IOPs based on the sources, then I personally think changing names now would be deferring away from a previously agreed consensus. Wesley Mouse 00:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

To Basement12: I do not have any source that claims that they will use the country code IOA, or any other country code for that matter. However the source for Kuwait unequivocally states that the Kuwaiti athletes' title is "Independent Olympic Athletes". To Wesley Mouse: WP:CCC. I wouldn't mind being wrong, and would support moving them back if new information becomes available. Unfortunately, the status quo is not an option because it fails WP:V, a core policy. I'm the same IP editor. 85.167.110.183 (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

FINA currently has the two Kuwaiti swimmers listed as IOA, but that could just be a FINA thing. JoshMartini007 (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to the status quo comment, we have established there are sources that verify IOA and sources that also verify IOP. As there are sources that are making the recognition unclear than using either IOA or IOP would be conflicting WP:V. We cannot just pluck for one of them based on personal views, as that would then be violating WP:NOR. The only loop-hole around this is basing things off previous scenarios, such as Barcelona 1992 and Sydney 2000. It has already been noted that in 1992 3 countries participated as independent, and as a result made them and the article IOPs. In 2000, only one nation was independent, and thus made them IOA. On that basis, and until we have something more solid to clear up the confusion, then we should really follow previous examples and as there are 2 nations, would mean following the example used in 1992 and not 2000. Wesley Mouse 16:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for "sources that (...) verify IOP". You have not pointed out any source using IOP for athletes competing in 2012, excluding unpublished internal documents. This fails WP:V (my emphasis): "Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." By contrast, I have pointed out an official IOC source using the phrase "Independent Olympic Athletes" as the title that will be used for Kuwaiti athletes. 85.167.110.183 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have pointed out sources, if you've failed to spot them then that isn't my fault. What else do you want me to do? And please don't quote what WP:V means, I found that a little bit patronising of my intelligence and ability to read. I know full well the ins and outs of WP:V and capable of reading policies too. On the contrary though, the internal documents are now listing IOP for Netherlands Antilles, and IOA for Kuwait. This is to show individual distinction between the two. Which in my opinion as well of the opinions of other GMs (games makers) that I've spoke to, have said its ludicrous as they might as well reinstate their individual NOC codes if that be the case. I just wish I could provide the internal sources which show this, but in doing so I would breach protocol as well as violating COI if I added them to the article. Wesley Mouse 17:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not intend offence; I merely wanted to indicate what exactly was my problem with internal sources (which I understand you cannot publish), by pointing out exactly which part of WP:V I was referring to. Some policies are long and earlier in the discussion I was unsure which part of e.g. WP:AT you where referring to, and would have found such information helpful. As I have no clear source for the Netherlands Antilles I am not as opposed to it remaining at its current location (until more information becomes available) as I am for Kuwait doing so. Do you agree that the Kuwait article ought to be moved to Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics? 85.167.110.183 (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In what I can only describe as a bizarre twist to this saga, the BBC have listed Netherlands Antilles for the 2012 games as Netherlands Antilles and Kuwait as Kuwait and none as IOA or IOP. Wesley Mouse 17:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to the WP:AT question, I was mainly pointing out the 5-part WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. The easiest way that I can think of would be to look at the various naming proposals and scoring them against each of the 5 criteria, and seeing which one fulfils the most criteria.

• Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic.
• Naturalness – Titles are those that readers are likely to look for or search with as well as those that editors naturally use to link from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise enough to indicate accurately the topical scope of the article, but not overly precise.
• Conciseness – Titles are concise, and not overly long.
• Consistency – Titles follow the same pattern as those of similar articles. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principles behind the above questions.

Comparison table

	Recognizability	Naturalness	Precision	Conciseness	Consistency
Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics	Yes	Depends - Is the general reader aware of recognition issue?	Yes	Depends - similar used in 1992 scenario	Yes - similar used in 1992 scenario
Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics	Yes	Depends - Is the general reader aware of recognition issue?	Yes	Depends - similar used in 2000 scenario	Yes - similar used in 2000 scenario
Kuwait at the 2012 Summer Olympics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Netherlands Antilles at the 2012 Summer Olympics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

I've done a cross-examination table to show comparisons of various article titles based on the naming criterion. And we're still none the wiser. Oh why do the IOC make things so complexed? Wesley Mouse 18:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

While the bottom two are consistent with regular NOC at xxxx Summer Olympics, they are not really consistent with the special case of athletes competing without their NOC being allowed to take part. For this we have the top two options. For now I propose that we move the Kuwait article to Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics and keep the Netherlands Antilles at Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics. This will ensure similar titles for the two articles relating to athletes competing under the Olympic flag this year, and match the source given in the Kuwait article. Re BBC weirdness: It hardly seems a priority for them at the moment, as they have used the old flag (before 1986) of the Netherlands Antilles. 85.167.110.183 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/14/226367.html - The Kuwait debate is now over.Topcardi (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the above, and several (but surprisingly few) other media sources I have changed the flag back to default in the template. I will await further information released by the IOC before revisiting the Netherlands Antilles issue. There are no new press releases regarding Kuwait on olympic.org right now, so if the media turns out to be wrong I think the suggested move above should be carried out. 85.167.110.183 (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Topcardi (talk · contribs) for finding that piece of news. Now we can let sleeping dogs lie in regards to Kuwait. Talk about the IOC leaving things until the eleventh hour. So Kuwait can now have its own article, just leaves Netherlands Antilles as IOPs for now, although they have been given the option to also compete as just Netherlands if the athletes choose to do so due to them having dual passports. Wesley Mouse 09:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Dow Chemicals sponsorship

Hey, I propose that we make a mention of the controversy regarding Dow Chemicals sponsorship of the Olympics, in addition to those regarding the cost overruns in the beginning of the article. Here are some articles from prominent media sources regarding the row,

From the BBC (UK): "A commissioner for a body monitoring the London 2012 Olympics has resigned over its links with Dow Chemical. Meredith Alexander said she was quitting the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012. Some politicians in the UK and India say Dow is liable for the ongoing fallout of the 1984 chemical gas leak in Bhopal, which campaigners say has killed some 25,000 people. Dow - a top-tier Olympic sponsor until 2020 - denies any liability." www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16721838

"Bhopal campaigners, though, insist that by buying Union Carbide, Dow is liable to pay more compensation. Activist Rachna Dhingra says they will keep up the pressure on the Indian government "to do the right thing" and boycott the games. They jumped at the opportunity to publicise their cause when it emerged Dow was sponsoring the "wrap" around the main stadium. For their part, both the London organisers and the powerful International Olympic Committee behind them have stood firmly with the company. It has been an embarrassment for London, though, and privately some British officials wish Dow had never been taken on as a sponsor." www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18254334

From The Telegraph (UK): "The London Assembly, an elected body that investigates issues of importance in the Capital, has criticised the International Olympic Committee and Locog for entering into the partnership and called on them to rethink their relationship with Dow Chemical." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9392569/London-2012-Olympics-Dow-Chemical-partnership-has-damaged-reputation-of-London-Games.html

From The Hindu (India): "Faced with global ridicule for its attempts at greenwashing through a ten-year Olympics sponsorship, Dow has disingenuously described its critics as "irresponsible"." http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article3405294.ece

"Dow Chemical has agreed to drop its logo from London's Olympic stadium, but the Indian Olympic Association has said it is not satisfied and wants the U.S. firm to remove its sponsorship for the 2012 Games. Dow said it agreed to the “vision” of the Games by waiving its sponsorship rights to place its brand on a controversial fabric wrap for the stadium, after campaigners protested, furious as they were at the company's links to the Bhopal gas disaster." http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2726683.ece

From The Daily Express (UK): "Senior sources have admitted a “mistake” was made this summer when Dow Chemical Company was awarded sponsorship of the £500million main stadium in east London." http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/277735/Olympics-boycott-fear-over-Bhopal-firm-sponsor-deal

I will prepare a draft of the additions needed to mention this row in the article head, and post it on the talk page soon. Please let me know if there are any issues with this inclusion. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following text as the last paragraph of the intro, The London Olympics have attracted controversy due to the sponsorship of the games by Dow Chemicals<ref1><ref2>, with the London Assembly criticizing the International Olympic Committee and LOCOG for entering into a partnership with Dow Chemicals<ref3>, which is involved in litigation relating to the Bhopal Disaster<ref2>.

ref1 = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16721838, ref2 = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18254334, ref3 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9392569/London-2012-Olympics-Dow-Chemical-partnership-has-damaged-reputation-of-London-Games.html

Please reply in 48 hours if there is disagreement regarding these changes. I will incorporate them if there is agreement. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read the article? If so It is already there, in fact is the first item, under the controversy where it belongs. Any lengthening of what it is there now would be WP:UNDUE though. Ravendrop 02:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Then again, did I read your comment? Are you proposing that the text be introduced into the lead? If so, I have to disagree. There is no where near signifcant coverage for it be anywhere near the lead. The financial stuff is different as that had been reported on constantly, from various angles, and has been a major contention. The Dow sponsorship has been relatively minor. Ravendrop 02:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Ravendrop. Additionally, per WP:NPOV, the article should summarize the controversy/dispute, but not engage in it. The current summary just describes activist side. The other side of the dispute is Dow's response to the activists. From Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/20/us-dowchemical-olympics-idUSTRE81J10D20120220

The company said it was surprised by the controversy at what it considers a large amount of misinformation surrounding its link to Bhopal. "Dow was never there. We did not acquire any of the connection with Bhopal," said George Hamilton, Dow's vice president of Olympic operations. Bhopal tragedy occurred in a Union Carbide plant in 1984, Union Carbide paid a $470 million compensation package through the Government of India in 1989. Dow bought Union Carbide in 2001.

While WP:AGF should suffice, fwiw, I am not a DOW employee, executive, shareholder, someone from media relations for DOW, or in any way related to DOW or its affiliates. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ravendrop and ApostleVonColorado, the counter claim seems to be that adding the sentence I am proposing would violate WP:UNDUE. In that context, please see the article about the 2010 Commonwealth Games, there is a line about mismanagement regarding the games in the lead paragraph. So one would say that there was substantial attention paid to mismanagement issues in the lead up to those games. Now, if we agree that Google search hits over a certain time period can be used to measure coverage, the following analysis makes the case for including the row regarding Dow in the lead of the article.

I compared the number of hits from Google for two search queries, "2010 commonwealth games corruption" and "2012 olympics dow bhopal". The time period from which the hits were collected was Oct 3, 2009–Oct 3, 2010 for the CW games,and Jul 27, 2011–Jul 27, 2012 for the London Olympics. I got 91,300 results for the CW games query, and 27,900 results for the Olympics query. Note that there are still more than 2 weeks to go for the Olympics to start, when the media coverage becomes more and more intense.

The London Olympics have been pulled by the London Assembly, which is an "is an elected body, part of the Greater London Authority, that scrutinises the activities of the Mayor of London and has the power, with a two-thirds majority, to amend the mayor's annual budget and to reject the Mayor's draft statutory strategies" for the Dow sponsorship. This is quite notable.

So as per WP:Precedents and WP:IMPORTANT, I would claim that the proposed text should be added to the lead. Of course, to adhere to WP:NPOV, there should be a line with Dow's response as well. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Google hits are not an indication of notability. Again, like the financial aspect of the London Games, the "mismanagement/financial" aspect of the 2010 Commonwealth games was a very significant aspect. It was something that was reported on constantly, by numerous media organizations. It had very large wide ranging implications (firing of construction companies, politicians, inquiries, possibility of venues not being ready, games cancellation etc.) The two are no where near on the same level or comparable. Again, there is a place for mentioning the Dow sponsorship thing, but that place is in the controversy section only. To place it in the lead you would need much wider newspaper and media coverage, and much wider games implications (i.e. boycotts based on the issue; other companies pulling their sponsorship of the games, etc.). Note that not even the financial controversy is not in the lead at this point, and this has been a much greater focus. Further still, the human rights issue during the 2008 Olympics received even far greater coverage and it only elicits one sentence in the lead of that article, which is the, besides 1896 Olympics, arguably the closest Wiki page of a major multi-sport event that is near WP:FA status. Also note that WP:IMPORTANT is no longer policy, being replaced by WP:NOTABILITY. In any case though the guiding policy you should be looking at is WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. The Dow chemical scandal simply does not qualify as a significant enough controversy to overcome the "summarize the most important points" guideline. To say that the Dow controversy is one the major points, i.e. the top 2 or 3 things/stories about the olympics, and along the lines in importance of where they were hosted, when they were, what venues (in terms of construction of v. use of existing) were used (and to come, which country won the most medals, and anything else notable that happens), etc. is simply ridiculous and not backed by reliable sources.

And RE:ApostleVonColorado, I agree, in part with you. I edited, with your link, to make it clearer that DOW didn't own the plant or Union Carbide at the time of the disaster. The controversy is more about the selection of the sponsor, so I think that LOCOG's response is more approriate. Details like compensation paid, etc. can be, and are, covered adequetly on the specific page, which is linked.Ravendrop 20:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Our edits crossed. Let us take out comp amounts and non-Olympic related stuff. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ravendrop, I used Google hits because they give an objective, quantitative measure. And that is only part of my evidence. Your claim, that the row was not "something that was reported on constantly, by numerous media organizations" is subjective. What one feels is being reported on constantly depends on one's own media sources. This kind of subjective refutation is inadmissible, and at this point we should probably ask for some kind of arbitration, and take a vote on the matter.

Also, very importantly, you have not responded to the point about the London Assembly. I would also like to mention at this point that the London Olympics have been criticized for the Dow Sponsorship by Amnesty International, a very notable and widely-known human rights organization. Here is Amnesty statement on Dow and the Olympics: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20224 One of the two citations in the line in the Beijing Olympics article regarding the human rights record in China is essentially a statement by Amnesty International. Here is the link to that reference, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/29/world/main4302232.shtml, the title of that link is "Amnesty:China Tarnishing Olympics". I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:Google test and from Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability." They are in no way an "objective, quantitative measure." Secondly, while the London Assembly criticism is appropriate to add to controversy subsection, it, nor the Amnesty International criticism, in no way make the scandal notable for mentioning in the lead. It is simply a far too specific thing to put in the lead and simply fails WP:UNDUE by placing far too much emphasis on something that is not that notable in the grand scheme of things. That is my opinion, and my reasoning, and we're obviously not in agreement, so lets see what others have to think so consensus is achieved. Ravendrop 22:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ravendrop, the Google hit count was only part of the evidence I presented. I feel the matter should be evaluated on the weight of the entire evidence. I respect your disagreement and like you, I am waiting for the opinions of others. 70.113.83.189 (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to log in. Can some one remove my IP address location ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Theresa May's Husband Owns Most of G4S?

The 'security' section should mention that the Home Secretary's husband owns most of G4S, who are in charge of security for 2012,who were advertising for staff as late as 12 July 2012 as they had failed to secure free labour from 'Workfare' schemes - and that taxpayer's are in effect paying twice as much, by honoring the bill sent in by G4S, and paying troops just back from a war zone for the loss of their well earned vacation.212.139.100.127 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.100.127 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan

Apparently, South Sudan has a football team and is in the Olympics too. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/newest-nation-south-sudan-proud-debut-draw-220413104--sow.html

Shouldn't they be listed in the countries participating in the Olympics or am I missing something? If they are, it's worth noting too that it is it's first time having a team in the Olympics since their secession of Sudan. Srsrox (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That article doesn't mention the Olympics, and I would be surprised if they had managed to get a Committee together since the secession. Another source could prove me wrong. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

True point. Sorry. How about this one then? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8632832/London-2012-Olympics-South-Sudan-can-compete-at-Games.html Srsrox (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Much better, but it appears that there's still some uncertainty surrounding it. I say wait a few days and something else will probably come out about it. Thanks for bringing it up, though; it's definitely something of which editors at this article should be aware. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That Telegraph story is from 2011, and in any case, the draws for the football competition have been made, and South Sudan is not there. doktorb _words^deeds 04:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I misread the date for the Telegraph story as being 2012. Taking that into account, I'd say the odds are close to zero for South Sudan competing, and precisely zero for them competing in the football events. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

G4S Security controversy

I wonder if this article should mention the recent controversy over the security contract for the games with G4S. It was announced this week, just two weeks before the games, that they won't be able to provide all the necessary personnel and the army have had to be called in instead: [1] That might belong in the sub-article Security for the 2012 Summer Olympics rather than this one, but it seems worth noting somewhere. Robofish (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable facts missing from the article

So, why is there no mention on this page of any of the quite overzealous measures taken by the Olympics?

For example, how they tried to limit selling chips solely to McDonalds, then expanded it to those who also sell fish, which MUST be sold with the chips?^Source
or the fact linking to the Olympic's website somehow violates their terms of use, and you're not allowed to use any iconography of the Olympics?^Source
Or how shops in England aren't even allowed to hang rings in heir front windows as it "confuses" people as to who they support, and only sponsors can display their iconography?^Source
Perhaps censoring parody twitter accounts is also something that deserves notification, again due to "misrepresentation" issues?^Source

This is Wikipedia. This should be noted, much like last year. So, while I understand the TOS and chips being absent due to being relatively new, why has the other half not been added?

If these are actively being removed (or not added, as the article's protected), then there's something seriously wrong with the neutrality of this article, as others above me have stated.
Some of these facts have been out for months. These deserve a place in the controversy section, even if it's a mere sentence. Two of these are long overdue to be noted.
--Kizzycocoa (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The McDonald's thing has been added (though I'm still skeptical its anything but WP:RECENTISM, but I'm willing to wait a few days to see if anything more happens. The second is a blog post, so not really WP:RS and like the third and fourth as well simply hasn't received enough coverage to be included. This could change, but that's my opinion of the situation at the moment. And no one is preventing this things from being added. They just haven't been suggested for inclusion until now. Ravendrop 06:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Kizzy - because Wikipedia is not a news ticker, that's why, and as Ravendrop says, there's WP:RECENTISM to contend with too. This article may well, in time, have reference to some/all the issues you raise. It may have no mention of them at all. What we shouldn't do is confuse Wikipedia with Tumblr, on which anything can be posted as and when it happens. The Wikipedia community decides amongst itself whether something is notable enough for inclusion. doktorb _words^deeds 07:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change from

The IOC has drawn critizism on how McDonalds sponsorship fits into the promise to promote locally grown food in general, and for allowing McDonalds the exclusive rights to sell chips in particular. As McDonalds is not known for producing particularly healthy food, IOC's Jaques Rogge stated that talks with McDonalds were held about measures against increasing obeseness were held.

to

The IOC has drawn criticism on how McDonalds' sponsorship fits into the promise of promoting locally grown food in general, and in particular for allowing McDonalds the exclusive rights to sell chips. As McDonalds is not known for producing particularly healthy food, IOC's President Jacques Rogge stated that talks with McDonalds were being held about measures against increasing obesity.

If I'm allowed an extra comment, this is the quality you get if you semi-protect articles. What horror. 58.153.76.35 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Also "chips" should link to French_fries#United_Kingdom for clarity. 58.153.76.35 (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Its not even in the article, so what are you going on about? But it is known news though, and the volunteers are going bonkers over it all, and have nicknamed the scandal "chip-gate". Oh and on the note of semi-protection, the reason the article got protected is because of the extreme vandalism to the article from IP addresses. So to protect it reduces that problem, and helps to maintain the article as accurate as possible. Wesley Mouse 15:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done While, for the most part - IOC was already linked higher up in the article - your suggested edits are appropriate, the entire section has been removed due to lack of consensus for inclusion. If you think it should be included, suggest this (though not as an edit request) in a new section. Ravendrop 20:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC) 20:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Line in the introduction in context of the Dow-Olympics controversy

From WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

Hey all, I propose that we add a line in the introduction of this article in reference to the criticism the organizers have faced due to Dow Chemical's sponsorship, especially in the light of the latter's involvement in the row around the Bhopal Disaster. I believe that adding such a line is inline with, WP:LEAD, WP:Notable and WP:Precedents for the following reasons:

1) The London Assembly "is an elected body, part of the Greater London Authority, that scrutinises the activities of the Mayor of London and has the power, with a two-thirds majority, to amend the mayor's annual budget and to reject the Mayor's draft statutory strategies". The Assembly has criticized the "has criticised the International Olympic Committee and Locog for entering into the partnership and called on them to rethink their relationship with Dow Chemical." This is a serious, very notable fact about the games. An elected, representative body of the city where the Games are being held have criticized the organizing committee of the games.

2) The resignation of a commissioner for a body monitoring the Olympics. "A commissioner for a body monitoring the London 2012 Olympics has resigned over its links with Dow Chemical. Meredith Alexander said she was quitting the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012. Some politicians in the UK and India say Dow is liable for the ongoing fallout of the 1984 chemical gas leak in Bhopal, which campaigners say has killed some 25,000 people. Dow - a top-tier Olympic sponsor until 2020 - denies any liability." This is a serious, notable fact related to the same issue.

3) Sustained criticism by Amnesty International, a very prominent human rights organization. Here is the latest Amnesty statement on Dow and the Olympics: 'Dow has caused damage to reputation of London 2012' http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20224. This is again very notable. The last time Amnesty criticized an Olympic Games (Beijing 2008), it was featured in the intro paragraph of the relevant wikipedia article.

4) Dows involvement has received substantial coverage in the media, and Dow has even responded to the criticisms. Please see the links in the Talk section:Controversy regarding Dow Chemicals sponsorship.

Fellow contributors Ravendrop and ApostleVonColorado have claimed that this issue is not notable since it has not "something that was reported on constantly, by numerous media organizations". I think this is a particular point of view. For example, from the point of view an average Chinese person, the criticism of China's human rights during the Beijing Olympics was not notable, since in the media organizations they can rely on (the Chinese state media), there was probably zero coverage of the human rights concerns. In the same vein, perhaps the British and American media have not reported much on the Dow-Olympics controversy but the issue has been covered constantly and with great intensity by the Indian media.

Not having the criticism of Dow's sponsorship and the response by Dow, when indeed there has been so much controversy around it, condemnation by the elected body of the host city, resignation of Games commissioners and sustained criticism by a very prominent human rights organization would be against the principles of WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, WP:Precedents, WP:Notable and Wikipedia's commitment to providing a worldwide point of view. Thus I propose that we add the following line to the intro about this issue,

"The London Olympics have attracted controversy due to the sponsorship of the games by Dow Chemicals<ref1><ref2>, with the London Assembly criticizing the International Olympic Committee and LOCOG for entering into a partnership with Dow Chemicals<ref3>, which is involved in litigation relating to the Bhopal Disaster<ref2>. Dow chemicals has claimed that the controversy is the result of misinformation surrounding its link to Bhopal<ref4>." ref1 = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16721838, ref2 = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18254334, ref3 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9392569/London-2012-Olympics-Dow-Chemical-partnership-has-damaged-reputation-of-London-Games.html ref4 = http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/20/us-dowchemical-olympics-idUSTRE81J10D20120220

While evaluating my proposal, please keep in mind that events like the Olympic Games are not just sporting competitions. They contain important political and economic undercurrents.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry but I think adding anything on this issue specifically to the lead section would be giving it undue weight. However if the lead is to properly summarise the article then perhaps a general mention of the controversies should be present. I'd also suggest we're getting to the stage where the controversies section can form a seperate Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics article and just summarised here as was done for 2008 Summer Olympics#Concerns and controversies. This would allow more detail to be added to the new article - Basement12 (T.C) 22:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• This has already been (partially) discussed above. See: Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#Controversy regarding Dow Chemicals sponsorship. Though, I also agree that it is time to create Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics. Ravendrop 00:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Basement 12, we should definitely include the other prominent controversies as well. I hope my evidence above is sufficient to prove that the Dow controversy is prominent. We can have a summarizing line or two about the controversies as follows,"The London Olympics have attracted controversy for various reasons. Prominent among these have been the sponsorship of the games by Dow Chemicals<ref1><ref2>, which is involved in litigation regarding the Bhopal disaster<ref3>, the invitation to Prince Nasser of Bahrain, due to allegations of torture against him<ref4>, and security concerns<ref5>." Does this work for everyone ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked the cited references, and could not find support for 'Dow Chemicals is involved in litigation'. The only support in that reference is: the current Indian government wants to reopen and re-litigate the case. Further, if litigation is not discussed in the main text, it should not be inserted into the lead (see WP:LEAD).

I also checked the google hits, global and India separately, for the following: 2012 summer olympics dow bhopal, and 2012 summer olympics. The ratio is a small fraction of 1% globally, and less than 5% within India. Is it really prominent?

I do not believe google hits matter though. Notability of a topic is not same as notability of an aspect of a topic. It is notable enough to be a separate article within wikipedia, not notable aspect of 2012 Summer Olympics, yet, to be included in the lead. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ApostleVonColorado, we can remove the reference to the litigation. I believe that the matter is notable enough to be included in the lead. I have not seen an argument in the discussion so far that shows that the matter is not notable, while I have presented a lot of evidence to back my assertion that it is indeed notable and prominent.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I will argue that while this controversy is notable enough for the article, I do not believe that it is prominent enough for the lead of the article. I do not want to get into a pointless "my controversy is bigger than yours", but I would certainly say that both the budget and the ticket arrangements have had a lot more coverage, and criticism from eminent organisations than the DOW issue. (That being said, the ticket controversy is UK-specific, so I would argue against including it in the lead, and in fact I believe that it is too prominent in this page for a single-country issue.) Bluap (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bluap, is the London Assembly not an eminent organization ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

London Assembly has criticized ticket arrangements too. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/9098320/London-2012-Olympics-ticket-sales-the-cruel-engine-of-disappointment-as-Boris-Johnson-demands-transparency.html ApostleVonColorado (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate that I am not against other controversies in the lead. The Dow sponsorship has been criticized by both the London Assembly and Amnesty International. Also, the Indian Olympic Association had outright demanded that Dow be dropped as a sponsor. Dow also dropped its logo from the Olympics, allegedly due to the Indian OA's objections. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/events-tournaments/london-olympics/Dow-Chemical-to-drop-its-logo-from-London-Olympics-IOA-not-happy/articleshow/11158258.cmsI am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the above discussions, will this line work, The London Olympics have attracted controversy in some quarters for issues related to ticketing<ref1>, security<ref2> and sponsorship agreements with Dow Chemicals<ref3>.I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If you actually read the above conversations, there is actually a very clear consensus against adding any mention of this particular controversy to the lead. You are the only person who explicitly thinks it should be in the lead. Any other comments near your position have only been vague comments about the possibility of needing to summarize the major controversy in the lead. And, if that were to be done now, would clearly be the security issues, it would be something very general and would not include a mention of DOW. Please do not add it. Ravendrop 08:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ravendrop, five people participated in the conversations. Me, you, ApostleVonColorado, Bluap and Basement12. I am strongly in favor of mentioning the controversies and Dow. Basement12 is in favor of mentionin g controversies but its not clear if he/she is comfortable with mentioning Dow. Bluap seems to be in not favor of including Dow, but not sure what his view about a more general statement is. You and AVC seem to be dead against it. So there is no clear consensus. I had given folks ample time to respond after my last post. They did not, so I assumed that the line was okay. In any case can we have a final vote on this issue ? 1) Do we want a line in the intro mentioning controversies ? 2) Do we want to mention Dow in that line ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics should be renamed

The official name for athletes competing under the Olympic flag has now been announced here as Independent Olympic Athletes.130.88.141.34 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing! And there's clearly both Kuwaiti and ex-Antillies athletes there so Kuwait should be removed from the list of participants doktorb _words^deeds 20:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait is being permitted to participate under their own nation flag and national anthem now. Which just leaves Netherlands Antilles, but there has been several discussion about this. Please look at the above threads and in the archives and have a read at what has been said so far on the matter. Wesley Mouse 20:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Official statement from Olympic.org stating Kuwait is no longer suspended and have been granted their NOC status again. And they now have their country page restored. Wesley Mouse 20:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a question before renaming. According to the London 2012 official website, the Dutch Antillean athletes will compete as "Independent Olympic Athletes" (IOA). The code IOA was used in 2000 for East Timorese athletes under the name "Individual Olympic Athletes". "Independent" and "Individual" in this case means the same thing? Jonas kam (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I came here to inform about a change to the listing as the internal documents have been changed from IOP to IOA and that LOCOG was going to publish the announcement. But it seems Jonas has found the publication before I got chance, well done my friend. It is true, IOP (Independent Olympic Participants) was the listing as at the time there were suppose to be 3 countries without an official NOC (Netherlands Antilles, Kuwait, and talks of Kosovo too). Subsequently the Kosovo decision was rejected, and thus left two nations, which were still listed on the internal documents as IOPs. Then websites started to list Kuwait as IOAs (see previous threads above about this). But now that Kuwait have their NOC status back, it has now meant only one nation will be "Independent Olympians", and thus changing the status for Antilles from IOP to IOA. See, I did state that if we waited a little longer that the problem would have sorted itself out. Patience is a virtue. Anyhow, I'm off to London on 20 July, ready to start the hands-on volunteering shifts during the games. Have fun folks, and speak soon (if I manage to find some spare time in-between all the chaotic workload). Wesley Mouse 00:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The article should be moved. I have tried to get it moved earlier as the word athlete has been used in every source I have seen, including the one given in the article ("independent athletes under the Olympic flag"). As far as the re-use of the IOA code is concerned, there is no problem for the IOC as there were no medal winners or records for the old IOAs, thus they don't use it in their database. 88.88.164.233 (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"The article should be moved" - well this is on of the reasons why this particular thread has been created, in order to build a consensus in regards to an article move. As I have mentioned several times in several threads though, there was an element of confusion in regards to IOP/IOA. This was purely because sources had started to list IOA, while official LOCOG documents to which I am able to view as part of my Games Maker role, were using IOP. As there were conflicting information, I had suggested that we were best waiting until nearer the time to decide whether we should be using IOA or IOP, as more accurate details would have been released as we drew closer to the games to clarify which of the two codes we should be using - this I have also mentioned in my post on this very thread. 3 nations were suppose to be Independent Olympians (IO), and due to that factor IOP code had been planned for usage. However, internal discussion between NOCs, IOC, and LOCOG decided that only 2 nations would be permitted to be Independent Olympics, and that one of them (Kuwait) may still regain their NOC status. In the internal discussion it had been noted that if Kuwait were not being granted their NOC back, then IOP would be the code - however in the event that Kuwait did regain NOC status, then Antilles would become an IOA. According to the IOC, if one nation becomes IOs then the code is IOA - if more than one nation are IOs then the code is IOP. Wesley Mouse 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is still a small chance that a South Sudanese marathon runner could compete as an Indepedent Olympic Participant/Athlete according to this article http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/south-sudan-runner-bids-for-independent-olympic-place The IOC have not responded yet, but I'm not holding my breath on this. It's something to watch out for in the next few days and note accordingly should the bid succeed. Moldovanmickey (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone opposed to the move? Post-move someone will need to fix the infobox in the article, because with the IOC code IOA as input the output is Individual Olympic Athletes, not Independent Olympic Athletes. 88.88.164.233 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Slow down there, there are processes to go through in case you didn't know - such as submitting the request at WP:RM first, and then allow a !vote to be decided upon, which normally takes 7-days unless there is a snowball consensus. I'd suggest we go about things the proper way and avoid cutting corners. Wesley Mouse 22:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Official requested move available here, though I think common sense would be to move the article according to the official designation. 88.88.160.158 (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is fixing inaccurate information, not debatable information. JoshMartini007 (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is my opinion too. Obviously, the article would not have been created with, or moved to, its current title today, and there is no reason to keep it there when it seems to be incorrect. Because the IOA country code will become ambigous we will need someone to look at the templates used. 88.88.160.158 (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Andrwsc the templates can now handle the situation.85.167.109.186 (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversy: Minute of Silence for murdered Israeli athletes

I am adding a section under controversies discussing the campaign for an official minute of silence for the Israeli athletes murdered by Palestinian terrorists in 1972. Given that the President of the United States as well as many European parliamentarians have added their support, it is worth inclusion. Drmikeh49 (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is it controversial? To hold a minutes silence on the 40th anniversary would surely be a mark of respect to those athletes' who lost their lives as a result of the tragedy!? Wesley Mouse 04:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's controversial because the IOC has refused to allow it as part of the official ceremony. Drmikeh49 (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I can see this being one of the talking point tomorrow during my first volunteering shift at the games. Oh the joys! Wesley Mouse 05:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also support the inclusion of this, it is notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No way!!!! I hate the simple existence of a controversy section at all, including this item. Every Olympics provides a wonderful platform for narrow interest groups to push particular political or social issues. It happens every four years (every two if you include the Winter Games). We must not get caught up in this unfortunate sub-game. To include it would require us to decide which "controversies" are more important than others. With all due respect, that's not our job. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We do not decide what are the controversies, the sources determine that. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that you have checked all quality reliable sources from all over the world in order to find balance. And while news sources thrive on controversy, it rarely helps to make better articles here. A good rule for deciding on inclusion of content is to think about whether it will still be seen as important in 20 years time. This won't be. HiLo48 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You could delete 1000s of wikipedia articles on such a criteria of being important in 20 years time. This is notable and a controversy, so justified for inclusion. It hardly takes up a lot of space in the article, its not given undue weight. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. Can you give reasons for them, as I have attempted to do? HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and why do we need to record every controversy? What do they add to the article? A platform for whingers? HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CRITICISM: "Wikipedia's neutral point of view (POV) policy requires that all viewpoints of any topic be represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Negative criticism of a topic is acceptable material, and should be included in this encyclopedia." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That article tells us to Avoid sections...focusing on "criticisms" or "controversies". Thank you for drawing our attention to it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. If you read beyond the section titles, though, you might see this: "When the sources indicate that a section should be devoted to third-party opinions on a topic, avoid using the term 'criticism' in the section title." "Avoid" does not mean "seek out and eradicate", nor does NPOV mean "no negative material, ever". If you can come up with a better way to incorporate the material into the article outside the framework of a dedicated section, that would be great. But policy the essay in question does not disallow said dedicated section; it merely discourages it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You say "If you can come up with a better way to incorporate the material into the article outside the framework of a dedicated section, that would be great." I have no intention of seeking a better place. I don't think it belongs at all. The mere existence of a Controversy section is the problem. It attracts, well, controversy, which is inevitably non-neutral POV. You and others were attracted to it to add this material. It doesn't provide balance. It inevitably provides imbalance. If we shouldn't have a Controversy section, and there's nowhere else to put this content, then it doesn't belong. The same probably applies to everything in that Controversies section. All very unhealthy for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, very few of my edits to this article have been to the Controversy section. I didn't add anything to that section either, contrary to what you said. I added refs to support material that was already there and fixed some grammatical errors. That's it. Am I reading you right, that you want to remove the material from the article completely? If so, that's a far larger WP:NPOV violation than any we might currently have. You can't say that the article is non-neutral with referenced information on criticism but would suddenly become neutral once all the negative material is expunged. If you want to remove sourced and relevant material, you need to have a far better policy-based justification than vague statements that it "attracts ... controversy". I might recommend an argument based on WP:UNDUE, but even that is shaky at best. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going to trawl through all the edits to see who added precisely what to the article, so sorry for any misunderstanding, but you obviously support this material. I'm still not convinced that a Controversy section should exist, in almost any article. Being sourced doesn't justify inclusion. Every Olympic Games attracts political and social campaigners. There is nothing notable about the fact that these Games have too. It would be notable if they hadn't. I am targeting this material as part of expressing my bigger concern about the whole existence of this section. IMHO, none of it belongs. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries about the misunderstanding. You are right in assuming that I support the material being in the article. Policy supports, and site-wide consensus has long supported having dedicated sections for controversies and criticism of a given topic. We even have a dedicated series of "Concerns and controversies" articles for each Summer Olympics. That, in my opinion, is a little bit excessive. It really ought to be folded into the main article rather than forked off. In this case, there is not yet a "Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics" article yet. So, per longstanding consensus, information on controversies will remain in this article. Unless you want to start an RFC or something on the very principle of there being dedicated Controversy section in articles, which you are more than welcome to do.

You also mentioned notability, as someone inevitably does in conversations like this. I, then, am forced to point out that WP:N states that, "Notability does not gauge the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Once the article exists, any sourced material that is relevant to the topic, and that does not violate any additional Wikipedia policies, can be included; notability does not enter into that equation. Your welcome to your opinion as to whether or not Controversy sections should exist, but it would probably help if you made a policy-based argument for that opinion if you intend to impose it on articles. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I will acknowledge that you're better equipped with knowledge for Wikilawyering than I am. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems like an unnecessary accusation to make. I'm just pointing out that present policy and consensus cannot be construed to forbid the mention of any negative press unless it is a clear BLP violation, which this clearly isn't. In addition, I don't think my statements fit any of the four criteria listed at WP:WL (but maybe pointing that out is itself Wikilawyering...). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent me. I'm not asking that we "forbid the mention of any negative press". It's the concentration of it in a single section that's the biggest problem. But there's also the broader problem that, with the Olympics being an ideal platform for protests of all kinds, we must not get sucked into playing the games of the protesters. I say again, every Olympic Games leads to the emergent of protests, many only slightly relevant to the Games themselves. There is nothing unique about what's happening in London. It would need to be a very major issue in my mind to justify inclusion, and then it should only be in the section of the article relating to the part of the Games being protested. General protests just using the Games as an ideal protest platform do not belong. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Colombia Delegation

There is a mistake with the number of athletes that Colombia will send to the Olympics. The official number of participants is going to be 104 and not 105, this because Alejandra Idrobo was initially to take part in the women realy but she will replaced with an athlete who is already classificated in another event. Please corret that.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.116.45.111 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Medal table. Leave it out!

This article doesn't have a medal table yet, but it will, and for most of the period of the Games it will be wrong. Enthusiastic but parochial editors will make random additions to the medal count as soon as their country or their favourite athlete wins a medal. They won't bother with medals won by others. There will be duplicate additions by fans with similar interests. In that inaccurate form the table will serve little purpose apart from short term jingoism, which doesn't belong here. Any chance we can leave out the medal table completely until the Games are over? HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, medal tables don't usually turn into edit wars and by the end of the day the table is made sure to be accurate and besides the medal table is one of the most looked for pieces of information during the games, it would be unwise to not have it. JoshMartini007 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you from watching previous Games articles that the resemblance of the Medal table to reality during the Games will be negligible, for the reasons I gave above. I'd be happy to have it included if someone can guarantee a way of keeping in accurate. Edit warring isn't the problem, It's parochial, incomplete and inaccurate updates. There's no point in having garbage in the article, which is what it has been during previous Games. How would you make sure it remains accurate? HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as the main editors remain smart and not just edit blindly everything will be fine. Should a country get its first medal random people will edit to make it accurate, not just randomly give themselves a medal and thus we end up with 5 gold medals from a 1 medal win and like I said there are people that will have it accurate, or at the very least have it accurate by the end of the day. JoshMartini007 (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The medal table in the article will only include the top ten NOCs, and it is possible to solve by transcluding the top ten from 2012 Summer Olympics medal table, see 2010 Summer Youth Olympics#Medal table and 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table. This will ensure that the two medal tables are equal and prevent frequent edits on the main article on the Games. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

A note on bare URLs

Just a note that the refs currently in place which do not cite publishers, access dates, etc. are not bare URLs, but are, rather, "plain links". The Bare URL template is for use only on articles which use bare URLs, so doesn't belong here. However, I intend to go through and format each and every one of those plain links using the cite web template. I'm going to get started right now; I'm not sure how long it will take me, but I will get it done. If anyone wants to help, feel free, but don't feel that you absolutely have to. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done, finally. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of McDonald's and Coca-Cola as sponsors

I was surprised the material on the criticism of McDonald's and others, as fast food purveyors sponsoring the Olympics, was removed. There has been extensive coverage of the issue, more than of the Dow sponsorship that is still in the article. Can we re-visit this? I attach a selection of articles showing sustained and widespread, international media coverage from various perspectives, including actions and reactions from significant figures (London Assembly, Jacques Rogge):

• London 2012 Olympics: McDonald's 'the wrong choice' for athletes, says Team GB sport science head, by Tom Rowley, Daily Telegraph, 19 July 2012.

• So Coca-Cola and McDonald's are paying for the Olympics..., by Martha Gill, New Statesman, 16 July 2012. Criticism and the corporate response. Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken also mentioned.

• McDonald’s launches Olympics ad campaign, by Roger Blitz, Financial Times, 15 July 2012. Criticism and the corporate response. Coca-Cola and Cadbury also mentioned.

• Olympics sponsorship: supporting sport or funding fat?, by Prof. Mike Daube, The Conversation, 21 July 2012. Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken also mentioned. Australian coverage.

• McDonald's, supersized: First pictures inside the world's biggest fast food restaurant. . . yards from Olympic stadium, by Louise Eccles, Daily Mail, 3 July 2012, including critical quotes from Jenny Jones (London Assembly Member). Coca-Cola and Cadbury also mentioned. Also criticises corporate ticket allocations.

• McDonald’s Olympics sponsorship queried, by Roger Blitz, Financial Times, 8 July 2012. Jacques Rogge, IOC President, responds and admit concerns. Coca-Cola also mentioned.

• IOC chief Jacques Rogge admits 'question mark' over McDonald's and Coca-Cola sponsoring Olympics, Daily Telegraph, 21 July 2012. More from Rogge.

• McDonald’s, Coke defend Olympic choice, by Lara O'Reilly, Marketing Week. Senior people at McDonald's and Coca-Cola respond.

• Cardiologist: Ban junk food from sponsoring Olympics, BBC News, 10 July 2012. Coca-Cola, Cadbury and Heineken also mentioned.

• Olympics McDonald's, Coca-Cola Support: Selling Out for a Financial Fix?, by SamiK Martin, The Christian Post, 10 Jul 2012. Coca-Cola also mentioned. US coverage.

• Should a Fast Food Company Be Sponsoring the Olympics?, by Feargus O'Sullivan, The Atlantic Cities. US coverage.

• McDonald’s Olympian achievement in London: A French fry monopoly and largest fast-food restaurant, by Tim Carman, Washington Post, 18 July 2012. US coverage.

• London 2012 Olympics: Assembly calls for ban on junk food sponsors, Daily Telegraph, 21 Jun 2012. London Assembly vote through motion calling on Locog to exclude certain food sponsorship; article mentions McDonald's and Coca-Cola.

• McDonald's and Coca Cola should have no place in Olympics, says Wales' top doctor, by Julia McWatt, WalesOnline, 11 July 2012. Chief Medical Officer of Wales Dr Tony Jewell criticises McDonald's and Coca-Cola.

And a bit more on chip-gate:

• McDonald's force Olympics bosses to ban all other restaurants from selling chips... unless they're served with fish, by Emma Clark, Daily Mail, 12 July 2012.

• Chip-hungry Olympic workers celebrate freedom from McDonald's monopoly, by Robert Booth, The Guardian, 11 July 2012.

Surely there's enough there to re-instate this section? Bondegezou (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

These criticisms arise at every Olympic Games. They are not unique to London. In fact, they're not unique to the Olympic Games. These two organisations (and many others involved with the Games) are widely criticised in many places and quite frequently. The Games simply provide a global platform for protesters about anything to shout their many complaints. If you really want to get something published, try the Olympic Games article, because this isn't really about London. But I don't like your chances. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that these two companies are widely criticised in many places does not make that criticism less pertinent or relevant here. I really don't follow your logic there. These articles do not reflect the same old protesters: we have a motion passed in the London Assembly (how much more London specific can you get?), we have comments by key figures (Chief Medical Officer of one of the UK nations, Team GB Sports Science head), we have reaction from Jacques Rogge and senior company figures. Yes, the Olympics does act as a focal point for broader protest, but that's part of the story, so we should cover it, not decide what's in and out of the article based on what we think about such protests. Anyway, let's see what other editors think. Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue is widely covered in the media (thank you, HiLo48 for the research) so it does merit inclusion. The fact that the issue is not limited to the 2012 games is not a good reason for omitting it, and leaving out widely-discussed issues looks a bit odd to say the least. However, it should not be a greatly detailed account and should include a balanced view to comply with WP:NPOV. Having said that, a quick look at the offending section reveals that it was pretty biased and weasel-worded so I wouldn't want to re-instate the deleted material. I favour a re-write - happy to have a go.7ofclubs (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Another cite is in the British Medical Journal: Coombes R (2010). "Richard Budgett: Olympic challenge", BMJ, 2010;340:c2904. Budgett is the chief medical officer of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The article is behind a paywall, but the key section is:

This doesn’t mean to say that there aren’t tensions between health promotion and sport. The organising committee has needed to raise £2bn (€2.3bn; $2.9bn) to stage the 2012 games (this is in addition to the £9bn from the public purse that is largely funding the infrastructure). The drive for sponsorship has led to partnerships with fast food giants and fizzy drinks manufacturers. Public health experts have said it is hard to reconcile the fact that McDonald’s and Coca Cola are the leading sponsors of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), although Budgett is sanguine.

“We have to accept the IOC sponsors, which includes McDonald’s,” says Budgett. “There will be choice, some people do eat McDonald’s and that is fine. It doesn’t matter if you eat McDonald’s in moderation.”[/blockquote]

Let me know if more needed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is needed on a separate page on non-sporting controversies on the Olympics, this would include the security shambles currently occurring. I also think a sporting controversies page is needed as well. This is because there have been a number of controversies surrounding have unified GB football teams, Rhythmic Gymnastic qualification, having athletes acquire UK citizenship to participate for GB in sports such as wrestling and the controversy over the Taekwondo selection policy, to name a few. Sport and politics (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversies specific to the UK team, of which I agree there are several, should probably go in the Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics article, whereas the G4S issue does warrant coverage here. Bondegezou (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Logo comments

A bloggerat the BBC said that "London 2012's new logo has got the country talking [although] not in the manner the organisers would have hoped." One employee at a design firm described it as "well thought out" and anticipated it would "become a source of pride for London and the Games."

The above statement in the section on the logo has a number of errors as pointed out above. I also think that citing one person from a design company is undue weight and an attempt to give a positive comment on the logo, just for the sake of it. Sport and politics (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Independent Olympic Athletes/Participants: South Sudan

The IOC have agreed to Guor Marial, from South Sudan competing in the Marathon as an independent under the Olympic Flag according to Reuters. The Chicago Tribune is reporting that he may have problems getting the necessary documentation to travel to London, however. The Participants part of the article will need to be altered, accordingly to reflect the fact that the Individual Olympic Participants may include this gentleman from South Sudan as well as the former Netherlands Antilles athletes Moldovanmickey (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This has now appeared on the AP wire here No mention of him not being able to make it to London, just that currently he is from a country with no NOC. Sport and politics (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The IOC has now let the runner compete under the Olympic flag. JoshMartini007 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

IOC has two NOC names reserved for these situations.Independent Participants was used for a NOC in a state of transition, suspension (Yugoslavia in 1992) or dissolution (Netherlands Antilles,last year)).Individual Olympic Athletes is used for a country wich was recognized by the international community,but don´t has a National Olympic Committee,because was turning independent on middle of Olympic cycle.This is the same situation wich East Timor,was on 2000 Summer Games,IOC see this and give to they a special permission to compete as Individual Olympic Athletes.South Sudan,enter on this situation.The country is recognized by the UN, but they had time to form their National Committee on time for current Summer Olympics. Daniel Callegaro (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Dates with days of the week

In the introductory section, I added days of the week to the dates. I think it is helpful for casual readers to know that the games start on a Friday and end on a Sunday. But user “Sport and politics” undid the edit, adding the comment, “Good faith poor pros edits”. I don’t understand the comment – please be clearer, Sport and politics – and I don’t understand why there would be any objection to fuller date references. — Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is really confusing

Can I get someone to chime in on this bit of confusion regarding the distinction between "Independent Olympic Athletes" and "Independent Olympic Participants"? As far as I can tell, they are all IOA's, but I could be wrong on that. Anyway, I believe it's very relevant to this article and needs to be resolved soonest. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)