Talk:2010 Winter Olympics

Vancouver -Salt lake

The games are returning to North America just eight years after Salt Lake City hosted the games in 2002.

I dont think it's good to use it, because it's give the illusion it's surprise it's come in North america that fast. Since the 2008 games where suposse to be held in North America ( but wil be held in China), it's look easy the 2010 will come in North America. Since 2002, Vancouver are the only North america city to win the right of host the games, so the just eight years after should be delete.

VANOC & Venues

You might want to create separate pages for both VANOC, as well as for the venues for the Olympics. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 03:14, 27 August, 2008 (UTC)

Canadian dollars

There seems to be come concern over whether the article is using Canadian or US dollars. One editor has remarked that it should be Canadian as it is a Canada related article; (s)he then removed all markings specifing the Canada dollar. However, the International Olympic Committee requires all funds and budgeting to be measured in US dollars (regardless of the country), so I think it is worthwhile to keep the Canadian markings. Cheers--Cbradshaw (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What the IOC "requires" and what Wikipedia guidelines/standards are is maybe something to take up with the Wikipedia guidelines department; in articles about events or anything else in Canada, there is no reason to use the C$ marking; in Brazil you see R$, in HK you see HK$, but in Canada you never see "C$" in anything. The IOC may require it in its own documents, but this article is not an IOC document. Canadian media don't use it, it's a given that prices and costs for something taking place in Canada aren't going to be given in anything but Canadian dollars, unless there's a reason to specify US dollars or British pounds or Euros. Canada is not a colony of the IOC, nor does the IOC govern Wikipedia (though some of its media depaartment often seem to be trying to...).....Skookum1 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I think that we should leave the dollars as is w/o Canadian dollar markings, and indicate with a US, where the dollar figure represents US dollars. Your support for the idea of specifying Canadian dollars is sound. But per WP:$, in articles that are country-specific (and I would argue that this article would be country specific as it is held in Canada and the Canadian government is "footing the bill") that the monetary system of the country should be used. If you are advocating that the funds be changed to US dollars then a rate conversion on all the dollar figures in the article will need to be performed. My assumption is that the above-mentioned editor removed the Canadian markings because it is implied that the dollar figures are in Canadian dollars and therefore no markings are necessary. Perhaps a blurb in the article that all dollar figures are Canadian would help to clarify the issue. H1nkles (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Skookum1 you seem to have overlooked the fact that the "C$" are there to clarify things for the reader, if I see the a $ sign in an Olympic article I tend to assume it refers to US dollars unless there is conformation otherwise (implication is fine but some readers may not even know of the existence of the Canadian dollar). Whilst it can be claimed the article is country specific the fact that it is a sporting event involving the whole world and the IOCs preference for US dollar figures makes that a grey-area and therefore I don't have see any problem (other than excessive patriotism) with using "C$". Perhaps adding US$ figures as well would be the best idea, if nothing else this would allow comparisons between games (all costs in 2008 Summer Olympics are given as US$ for example). Basement12 (T.C) 16:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I support using "C$". A standalone dollar sign is unclear for readers, and "C$" clarifies what our articles are saying. Also, remember that Olympic games are international events. It so happens that in 2010 they will be in Canada, so it seems a bit presumptuous to me that readers should assume Canadian dollars on the 2010 Olympics article(s). PKT(alk) 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is more than obtuse - because the games are in Canada, it is presumptuous that Canadian currency would be involved. What else would it be in? Shekels? Rand? Rubles? Renminbi? Are all the US Olympics articles using US$?? The use of currency-designators is only valid when more than two currencies are in the content of an article, and the assumption that /$/ refers to US dollars is a very AMERICAN presumption. The /$/ sign is also used for pesos, the rand, the rial and other currencies; the rand is often just written /R/ and the rial sometimes R$, but I've never seen M$ for the Mexican usage (though I have seen "USD" in Mexico). Interestingly, I just had a look at the Atlanta, Salt Lake, Los Angeles (1984) and Mexico City Olympics pages, and unlike the 2010 Olympics pages there are almost no mentions of dollar figures anywhere - on the Atlanta page there's one usage of /US$/, while on the Salt Lake page only /$/ is used; no dollar figures are given on the LA Olympics page, and not even "peso" shows up on the Mexico City Olympics page. Go figure. We have a saying in Canada that the country "has the soul of a banker and the heart of an accountant". But suffice to say that both the UK and Ireland used the same symbol for the pound and the punt, and articles on international events in Ireland I doubt very much would have had to specify /E₤/ or /I₤/ to avoid confusion with pound sterling, and I haven't looked at any London Olympics articles to see if /UK₤/ is used but I highly doubt it (there's also a Scottish pound btw, at part with the so-called "British" pound). Only in articles where amounts in two different currencies are discussed and/or compared is there a need to distinguish them; unless you can show to me that the United Nations article uses /US$/ for any dollar figures specified in it, or in its subarticles re budgets/funding etc, will I buy that it's "presumptuous" for articles about interntional events in Canada to assume that readers would know/assume that any dollar figures given are in some other dollar than the Canadian one, or some other currency that uses the same symbol. The Canadian usage, when that's needed, in any case, is /Cdn$/ not /C$/ which looks, well, wrong. You're being presumptuous to suggest a) that we use a symbol not used in Canada /C$/ vs /Cdn$/ and you're also being presumtuous to state that all readeers will assume that any mention fo a dollar sign is in USD unless otherewise spcified; American readers are not all readers....Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are as follows:

• The IOC's accounting practices are really not relevant to this issue.
• Unless there is a handy template of some kind that provides current currency conversions, my view is that we should avoid providing US$ or other currency figures in brackets. Since the Olympics were awarded to Vancouver, there has been unprecedented fluctuation of the value of the C$ versus the US$, which continues to this day, such that any conversions in parentheses would not be particularly meaningful.
• As it is a country-specific article, albeit one with an international scope, use the local currency. However, I note that WP:$ states that a currency should be "fully identified" on its first appearance (e.g. "CAD$55 million"), even in country-specific articles (excluding U.S. and U.K. related topics), with subsequent occurrences normally given without the country identification. Identifying the currency as Canadian dollars in the first instance should be more than sufficient to address any concerns about reader confusion and would keep the article in line with the applicable MOS. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point on the exchange rates. As a further point the vast majority of the costs appear to be unreferenced so i'd question if anyone really knows what currency they are in? Basement12 (T.C) 19:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your point is well taken Basement12. The argument may be moot if it is unclear in the sources what the currency is. Or even if there is a source for the dollar figures. For sourced figures, the community may have to assume based on context, for example, a press release I am using as a source in the Whistler Olympic and Paralympic Village article is from the Vancouver Organizing Committee. It relates to the award of a bid to a Canadian company to construct the Olympic Village. It lists the cost at $32 million. As the editor I am assuming that to be in Canadian dollars considering the source of the press release and that the recipient of the bid award was also a Canadian company. Is it wrong to do so? I don't think so, we are assuming good faith. If the dollar figure is unsourced it should be removed. If there is a source supporting the dollar figure, then the question then is, if we cannot determine from the source what the currency is, what currency default do we use? H1nkles (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

To be fair a lot of them are referenced, mostly to Canadian sources (CTV, CBC etc) so its safe to assume all their values are in CAN$. Of particular concern though is the entire "Construction" section; it is completely unsourced and contains 8 different uses of "$". I'd assume someone has written this section from a single source, probably another site/article from Canadian media, so all would be CAN$, but it could have come from the IOC who, as Cbradshaw points out tend to use US$. Either way it needs some references added to keep the figures in there. - Basement12 (T.C) 00:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If IOC press releases about the Vancouver/Whistler Olympics are using USD, then the IOC is being highly impolitic and insensitive (nothing new, in fact) and if they are in reference to USD then those figures should be /USD$/ or /US$/. BTW above I mentioend that Cdn$ is used in Canada; it is in the media; at currency exchagne outlets you tend more to see CAD$, that includes overseas. CAN$ I've seen but it's not as widely used, and I'm not sure in what contexts; we, of course, don't bother using such terms unless we're currency traders or stockbrokers or members of int'l orgs writing reports for official purposes, again when comparing amounts in different funds. /C$/ appears to be a manque of R$ and HK$ but it's totally alien in the Canadian milieu.Skookum1 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And again, this discussion begs the question as to why this article is so full of discussions of costs at all; in terms of domestic politics, the dollar costs are hot potatoes and arguing about or justifying them is part of the political game going on; but they're not about the Olympics themselves. Perhaps all such materials shoudl be pulled out and put in a Budgetary controversies concerning the 2010 Winter Olympics. As I said, there are almost no similar discussions in any of the other Olympics articles; maybe in venues articles but not in the main articles. Why the obsession here? Also, most of those other articles don't have the sea of flag-waving that this one has (as does Salt Lake's); what is the point of having a display of national flags? Does it help the reader? Or does it just make the page more colourful and/or quasi-official??Skookum1 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not convinced this article is country-specific, so I support the use of C$. --Kmsiever (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see having a header-template or something like a hatnote at the head of the article saying "All dollar amounts in this article are in Canadian dollars unless otherwise specified" but I can't see having "C$" on every instance in the article, which is obtrusive; and if that's waht Wikipedia uses to signify Canadian dollars, Wikipedia is out of lines both with Canadian norms as well as international currency-abbreviation norms; CDN, CAD or CAN are the normative indicators for Canadian dollars, And again, I'm puzzled by why this and other BC Olympics articles have so many mentions of costs; go look at any other main-Olympics article; I think one had two dollar-figure mentions in it, some had none at all. "Look at all the money we're spending" is partly VANOC's message, and it's also a hot topic for opponents of the Olympics; but itemizing everything when no other Olympps articles do raises questions about the "monetary content" of this article in general. The only currency-indicator that shoudl be here should be USD$ if for some reason a figure from an IOC document is given in US dollars; in subarticles and related articles (e.g. Peak 2 Peak Gondola) there seem to be some USD costs given; but it should be USD taht's specified, and any notion that this is not a country-specific article must be applied retroactively to all similar US articles (Olympics or non, .e.g United Nations and other international-related articles where the institution or relevant discussion is located in the US...NAWAPA and NAFTA also come to mind...). The simplest thing to do is make it clear for people who would otherwise presume that /$/ is only used for American dollars is to explain in the lead that that's not the case and that Canadian dollars are invariably waht's meant in articles about things going on in Canada.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, both the Canadian Department of Finance and the International Monetary Fund use C$, as per 5.26 of "The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing", the official style guide for Public Works and Government Services Canada Translation Bureau. --Kmsiever (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Official usage and most common usage are two different things; I'm used to seeing either Cdn or CAD, and more rarely CAN.Skookum1 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly i'm not American but as a rule i'd assume US$ if I just saw a $ sign in Olympic articles because of the IOC's preference, if you look you will see values in the 2008 Summer Olympics article given in US$ for example. Secondly it clearly isn't beyond the scope of this article to mention that "X" amount was spent on new venue "Y"; the costs involved in staging a Games has an important issue the 2008 and 2012 Summer Olympics articles list many costs and i'm sure there would be more mentioned for previous Games if the figures are were available. I really don't see the harm in using CAN/CDN/CAD or whatever abbreviation is the correct one on the figures in this article, all the figures in 2000 Summer Olympics are clearly marked as $AUD so there is precedent. Basement12 (T.C) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

About eight months later, I know, but see WP:CANSTYLE#Currency for guidance on handling currency in Canadian-related articles. US$ should always be identified in Canadian topics e.g. with {{USD}}; beaver bux preferable preferably uses {{CAD}}. Dl2000 (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

More countries!

CTV is listing more countries at [1]. Yay!

Forced detour of Olympic Torch in Victoria

This needs to be in the article, though I'm not sure if it goes in "Controversies and concerns" or in the "Opposition" section.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the CTV website's article on the same event.Skookum1 (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of false claims re support for logo

Note I've removed false claims that "other First Nations and Inuit leaders supported the design"; only Gibby Jacob is mentioned, and she's not even "head chief" of the Squamish Nation, and no Inuit leaders in support, if any, are mentioned in the citation at all.Skookum1 (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Malta to participate?

I can't find any information about a Maltese team for the Winter Olympics, although it is included in the list of participating NOCs. The referenced link leads to a newspaper article about athlete quotas. Malta is not mentioned there. The Maltese NOC itself does not have a section on the Vancouver games on its homepage. Does anybody have a reliable source on what would be Malta's first ever Winter Olympics appearance? --Phileasson (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you post the infomation about the Gabones, Caymenes, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.7 (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Just found one additional source for the participation of an athlete (alpine skiing) from Cayman Islands and added it to the article. Also found a snowboarder from Malta, but not sure whether she already qualified. Regarding Gabon I couldn't find anything so far. --Phileasson (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also been looking into this, and can't find anything for Bahamas, Malta, or Gabon. The article about Kory Wright of the Bahamas here does not correlate with the current set of quotas that FIS has for each NOC here as of November 13. Malta and Gabon are not mentioned at all. I suggest these three nations be removed for now. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Economic spinoffs controversy

This is one of several articles out there (that the most recent) on the conflict between the govenrment's public projections of the value of hte event and the actual bottom line; this should be in the controversies section, in at least brief form.....as should the cost overruns on infrastructure and the bloating of the security budget, and where the extra police are coming from (the US....)Skookum1 (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Using CTVOlympics as a source for participating nations

Please, do NOT use the "nation" page on CTVOlympics as a guide to add countries under "participating nations". The countries on the CTV pages are EXPECTED to qualify, which does not mean they qualified any athletes yet. Please only add countries if you have a source that says that they have actually qualified for at least one event. 142.166.248.155 (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If I don't get any opposition I will remove every country that has CTVOlympics as a source because, ounce again, they list countries that are EXPECTED to qualify, not countries that actually did. 142.166.248.155 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the CTV website is worse than you say because they are listing the 2006 participants, not even the 2010 expected participants! See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania at the 2010 Winter Olympics for additional comments. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The only source that lists Bolivia as a partcipating nation is CTV. Perhaps Bolivia should be deleted from the list. I can't find any info about Bolivian athletes that will compete in Vancouver.

Vancouver

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Mkdw^talk 20:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section - Cost overruns?

Although there are mentions of various cost overruns throughout the article, there should be a subsection within the Controversies section that's a little more explicit about all of them, i.e. in the same place. While the article says operational costs may be being handled by private contributions (dubious to me), venues and certain operations costs (especially policing, see next section) are publicly funded, and all over budget. Among these, and in re a sentence that needs updating from the Construction section, is the Convention Centre:

The athletes' villages in Whistler and Vancouver are still under construction, as are the main media centre in Coal Harbour and its Whistler counterpart

The "main media centre" is the new Vancouver Convention Centre, which was already completed prior to the provincial election and was host to the federal Liberal Party convention, is one of the most notorious cost overruns, far in excess of the "infamous" Fast Ferries Fiasco but not treated as such by the mainstream media; that sentence should also be clearer about the media centre being the convention centre. "Hidden costs" abound (as the Convention Centre, among other items, is not considered by the provincial government as part of the Games, ditto the Canada Line...) and the pre-Olympics upgrading of Highway 99 are all absent, so far...(the temporary use of BC Rail trackage at Porteau Bluffs should be mentioned, also)..Skookum1 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Policing

The security section says that the RCMP is the lead agency for policing; this is not true, it's the Integrated Security Unit, which includes the RCMP as well as the VCP and other municipal forces, plus Canadian Border Services and a large number of private security contractors (most from the US).Skookum1 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cuts to arts funding

Also belonging in the Controversies section are the cuts to arts programs across the province; this is big news in the arts community and has seen a lot of protest moves, mostly petitions and FB pages; details of the Cultural Olympiad funding and its programs are also absent from the article so far. As I recall, similar cuts were levelled on amateur sports (ironically enough) and the closure/cutbacks to emergency room services and extended care facilities and other medical programs in order to pay for the Olympics are also so far undiscussed....Skookum1 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this point can be better covered by saying that the large cost of the Olympics is believed to cause cuts in other government programs, such as arts programs, medical services, and amateur sports. It's understood that if you spend a large amount of money on one thing, you have to either raise taxes or cut the funding in some other public sector.

However the problem with discussing funding cuts is that we are also going through a major economic downturn. Are these funding cuts related to the Olympics or related to the overall to the economic downturn? If you want to see government cuts in services and programs, head to the US. There have been a lot more cuts to municipal, state, and federal programs in the past two years than in Canada and they don't have the 2010 Olympics.DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Torch Relay section and other comments.

In the torch relay section the final paragraph talks about renovations to a stadium from out of nowhere. I am thinking this has been accidently moved from somewhere else or else needs a bit more to make it clear.

As well, in the Opposition section there is talk about the arrest of Harriet Nahanee and then to the right there is a picture of native warriors honoring her death. While I could click on her name and get the full story A blurb of why this is relevant might be appropriate? (did she die in jail after this or something?) I have no idea who she is and I used to live in Vancouver til 10 years ago.

A route map for the torch relay (which is what I came looking for in the first place) would be interesting as well if anyone has one.

Just some comments from a former boy checking on his hometown :) Ziggy in Oz (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act

After reading the text of the act, it would appear that the amendment that's alleged to allow officers to remove "anti-olympic" signage is a blanket amendment to pre-existing bylaws restricting signage in the specified cities (and also requires that reasonable effort be made to contact the affected residents). The timing is convenient, but I suspect that it's not meant just as a measure to crack down on anti-olympic sentiment. Calvinhrn (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL you've got to be kidding.....and it's not up to you to decide, the point is there's tons of analysts and journalist who have commented on it as being specifically about the Olympics (and I know some people who've been "visited by security forces" because of signs in their windows, or for anti-Olympics writing/web presence....). Whether just equivocation or disingenuous on your part, the reality is that even in the mainstream media these measures are seen as an attack on anti-Olymipcs politicos....Skookum1 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mukmuk - LOL

This is the name of the cartoon-version marmot-mascot....it's really quite funny; as a verb mukmuk means to eat, or to drink. But as a noun it means "food". I don't suppose barbequed or roasted marmot is on the menu at the Olympic party-buffets....tasty though, I understand them to be....Skookum1 (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Page anti Vancouver 2010 or what?

Is it me or this page is too much about controversies and scandale and bad things about the olympics. I'm not saying they should be hidden but why not as a link. Most of the information here are about bidding process and controversies... not much about the games.... the venues, the medals and everything related such as the flame.... I would love to change the page but English isnt my primary language. Hopefully someone will understand my point of view and make this page more relevent, because currently wikipedia is one of the worst source to be informed about the actual games, but the basic is here so they is some hope for the 45 days or so until the games begins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rundleds (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this page does tend to lean a bit more negatively than I'd like, but you have to remember that this is the main 2010 page. A lot of the stuff you mentioned does have its own page. There are pages for Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics and 2010 Winter Olympics torch relay but there isn't a controversies page yet. The page will be evened out and expanded as the games approach. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As with so much else in BC, results are often the product of extreme polarities; this applies in Wikipedia also; the huge amount of stuff about the bidding process and construction comes from the VANOC and O-booster end of things, and obviously the accounts of criticisms and controversies comes from their opponents. Fact of the matter is that these Games have generated controversy and criticism since they were first awarded and also that VANOC and the government have run roughshod over their opponents politically, making the opponents even more strident. I can't think of another Games, certainly not a Winter Games, where there has been so much domestic controversy and opposition; dissidence is a theme of the way these Games were brought into being and how their construction and planning have gone forward. Essentially, it's not the opponents' fault that the authorities/organization have provided so much fueled for criticism, and perhaps they should have known better given the historical scale of political activism in British Columbia, i.e. rather than add fuel to the fire with stuff like Eagleridge Bluffs or the "pardon me but we're coming into your house to rip down your no-Olympics sign" behaviour, they could have made every effort to appease what was sure to be hard-core resistance. Authoritarianism begets resistance, it always has; except in places like China where dissidence is a crime against the state, and portrayed as a form of treason (and the current BC government wishes it had those powers; some politicos have even said that....). If anything, this page reflects how sloppily-managed the Games have been, both p.r. wise and financially; and the financial side isn't even fully told; the VANOC/govt side determined to press ahead, no matter the cost overruns or political opposition, the opposition side determined to be as much of a pain in the butt as possible. It's a reality of these Games - similar political opposition did not exist in Salt Lake City or in Lillehammer, nor was there anything like the authoritarian and elitist type of politician/organizer as is so commonly found in British Columbia, and likewise Utah especially isn't known for its protest groups (and those in Norway tend to be more civilized....). But I'll state flat out: that wanting this page to be "cleaned" of its content so it's more p.r. friendly is not what Wikipedia is for....neutral coverage means covering all aspects; maybe Controversies surrounding the 2010 Winter Olympics would be a viable spin-off article though.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you are right... The games as been really well managed all considering "The initial problem Vancouver faced in winning the bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics was fundraising for construction of venues." Isnt it the case for every bid ? Vancouver is no different. Those information should not be in -and I'm going to delete this one because this remarks is pointless. Also with the low economics the real expects will tell you how good vancouver been about to keep the boat off the float.... You are right about the fact Vancouver have lot's of protestors going againt the olympics... but many of them are just doing it for attention... by exemple in montreal during the relay of the flame many white canadians where playing the card of the games on stolen lands.... when they werent even native... Also some other controversies were OUT OF REACH from vanoc by exemple h1n1 and ski jumping.... they should be as link not in the main page. The Olympic village? Many observers will say vancouver olympic village is one of the most beautiful ever constructed summer or winter games nontheless the money problem. Nagano had many protestors also... I remember clearly the opening day.... I was naive.... I taught here in Canada we will be different no body will be againt the olympic.... naive because I was young.... but this kind of things always been on.... The movement as just grew up with the games in China. Expect them to be HUGES in London! Rundleds (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)RUNDLEDSRundleds (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I try with no success to make a link for Concerns, controversies and opposition. I guess I'm not good with wikipedia to do those kinds of change.... Like I said my idea isnt to hide this information, I think they are part of the games... but with the games coming up... the main page should be focus more on the actual games. thanks Rundleds (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)RUNDLEDSRundleds (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your making of a new article interestingly left the phrase "Olympics 2010" from its title, and your rationale/denials above, despite their poor English, are a rephrasing of the lobbyist/mainstream media rationales;....this isn't about protestors, it's about actual things wrong with the way VANOC has behaved, and the way the government has shuffled its excuses (and funding). If you look at other Olympics articles you wont find t he same intense coverage of organizational info; you won't also find as much coverage of political opposition in other Olympics articles - but that's a fault of those articles, not something to blame this one for...... I'm amending your name-change to include 2010 Winter Olympics in the title, though am stuck on which preposition - "at" or "of", and will go for the latter though it sounds awkward. Also a condensed form of what you've removed from the article should be restored....Skookum1 (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your new split-off is now titled Concerns, controversies and opposition at the 2010 Winter Olympics, but it already has a delete tag on it, and there's no sign of a link to it on the main page.....be aware what you've done is what's called a WP:POV fork and on the same grounds as splitting off this material, other sections which may seem legitimate to you may also be split off as being too detailed for a synopsis article. You've also done what is called an undiscussed change, I'm sure other editors will be commenting on this......Skookum1 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver referendum missing

There is no account at all of the referendum to approve the city hosting the Olympics, or the various criticisms of it, among which were that other cities affected were not similarly polled (though it's unlikely that West Van and Richmond and Whistler would have voted against it; Burnaby, which was the original planned site of the skating oval - another omission - might have voted against it, though). This was a major part of the lead-up to hosting the Games....and I'd have to go back over the article to see if it's even mentioned that NDP politicians were behind the bid originally; at this point I only recall seeing BC Liberal names....Skookum1 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there certainly needs to be mention of the Olympic Vote, also know as the Olympic Plebiscite. Full information is found here, [2] including results. I'm no good at adding things so if someone sees this, it would be a welcome addition... --Teknokracy (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Should we delete or modified "The initial problem Vancouver faced in winning the bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics was fundraising for construction of venues"

First of all, the initial problem was not the fundraising for construction of venues because most of them where already there (if you look Salt lake, torino, and Sochi) the construction of venues in vancouver are really slim.

Second of all, EVERY BID, from every country FROM ALL TIME have to faced the problem of fundraising for construction of venues... it's more a question of challenged for Vancouver then it's a problem.

Third of all, the biggest problem if I recall 2003 was more involving the sea to sky highway

PS: sorry for my english I am french.... Rundleds (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)rundledsRundleds (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, most of the venues were not there - the Olympic Oval, the Hillcrest-Nat Bailey rebuild, Whistler Olympic Park and Sliding Centre, the expanded facilities on Cypress, the Convention Centre (which is the media centre); only BC Place Stadium, the Pacific Coliseum and General Motors Place were already extant, as well as the Whistler downhill run, that's it. As for funding issues, the reality is (and this is citable, as it was a hot topic in BC's press) is that Ottawa was heaping money into Toronto's facilities and infrastructure and bid-promotion and had told Vancouver and BC to shut up, and not even make the Winter bid until the Summer bid was done.....so time was short, once Toronto lost out, and Ottawa never did come through with as much dough as had been hoped (but, er, never promised, only implied). The way BC made up the shortfall was to do everything from divert lottery revenues from amateur sports and culture to closing emergency rooms and long-term care homes, and by a fire sale of public assets to raise funds (name a BC government or agency, it's been sold off or at least partly privatized in some way....). Around 2003 the media was focussing on the highway problem, partly because it came at a time when restoration of passenger service on that line was still hoped for, but the highway redesign came to include using parts of the rail right-of-way (particularly at Porteau Bluffs)....long, long ago, when the idea of an Olympics was first floated, there was chatter about building high-speed rail, maybe the Cascadia MagLev, all the way to Whistler, such that highway improvements would be secondary; that was all forgotten by the time the actual bid was rolling....and if you were only reading the major media, be aware that anything in the headlines at the time was a smokescreen for something else going on in provincial government/politics; the highway has been a big issue since the M Creek Disaster of 1982, and hundreds of millions had alreayd been poured into it by 2003; at that point the whole idea of pouring even more money into it, or even finally using the Capilano or Indian Arm re-routings to bypass the major geotechnical problems of the Howe Sound coastline; it was all absurd, and more than one columnist said so. The parallel issue was the sentiment outside of southwestern BC that Vancouver was getting the lion's share of infrastructure improvements, and those needed in the Interior and North were getting cut back or cancelled in order to divert funds for hte Sea To Sky - in order to support the bid, and also of course to make all the real estate between Horseshoe Bay and Whistler even more valauble for the government's wealthy supporters.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to say (I shouldt write most venues) is that not many venues had to be built compare to others host cities or applicant cities (look at sochi for an exemple)... and this you cannot say I'm wrong because it was a strong point from the bid... if you recall the IOC evaluation. The page about venues on wikipedia even mention a link if you dont believe me.... here is a citation:

"In its 2002 evaluation of Vancouver's bid during the bidding process for the 2010 Games, the Evaluation Commission of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) highlighted the number and quality of existing competition and training facilities as one of the bid's strengths. Of the competition venues that the bid proposed for use during the Games, six required new construction, with the reminder already existing in Vancouver and Whistler"

Every thing on wikipedia should be neutral and unless you can show me a proof by a link that the biggest problem vancouver face (and unlike others bid) is to fundraise money the sentence "The initial problem Vancouver faced in winning the bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics was fundraising for construction of venues" should be remove. I'm challenging you because I want to make wikipedia better, not a wanna be encyclopedia.... it's not my or your opition that count... it's the exactitude. They is just too many presumption and it's not because one newspaper say something the information is accurate. To be accurate the source need to be either from a valuable source or showing also a link into a source. The source above is accurate because coming from the IOC evaluation. So until somebody show a proof... i will put citation needed about the sentence from the manner of this topic.

I just think it's too bad the page of Vancouver look to be control by peoples only showing one view. I have no problem showing all the problems and controversies from vancouver as long the other part is shown. The venues were build in time... and never the IOC felt concern about the construction of venues unlike many other games. This page lack of up to date about the actual game... it's critical... you want a proof "The $40-million Vancouver Olympic/Paralympic Centre at Hillcrest Park, which will host curling, will be finished later this year.[citation needed]" Every venue already have been completed for a long time now...meaning this page havent been checked for a long time. This page is unorganised the information about the fact Vancouver will be the largest winter host are located into the venue section when it should be in the introduction like Torino. Also they is the information Vancouver will be the warmest city to host a winter games .... when in fact we EXPECTED Vancouver to be the warmest... no body can predict the weather and Vancouver could possibly get a cold breeze during the games. But let say since many source love to say Vancouver will be the warmest even if it's not a done deal yet that this sentence is accurate... why is it in the section venue? Also they is a picture in the main page about the warrior when they is no picture of the city it self...

In short, this page on wikipedia should be redone almost completly since they is too many problem with it. I know I'm newbie on wikipedia (with an account), but I can tell this page have many issues like shown briefly above.

sorry for my english... i'M french... this is why I'M not going to redone this page.... because this page will only look even worst... but I hope a leader will do it... Vancouver 2010 need a makeover to be ready for the games. Rundleds (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)rundledsRundleds (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

YOu can propose a feature article proposal/review, and you can request expert input (this doesn't mean you'll get any). Yes, there's lots that needs updating but NO this page is NOT dominated by one point of view. You should also be aware of the AFD discussion engendered by your attempt to split off of material you didn't want to see on this page, which was badly titled and what is also called a WP:POVFORK. Your premise that this page4 should be "ready for the Games", meaning more happy-happy and not "controlled" (allegedly) by one set of opinions, is highly POV in and of itself. Many sections are clearly VANOC-flavoured in tone, the others are neutral-tone renderings of much more heated debates/coverage in the media. This page isn't so much controlled by one side or the other, as emblematic of the usual bipolar/diametric opposites of British Columbia politics; and the Olympic Games are always political in nature, and were in fact invented to be so. The Games and politics can not be separated, it's impossible. Better organization of the page, and fixing the various out-of-date bits, that's fine; but wanting it to be "ready for hte Games" so taht it's all smiley faces is highly suspect. I think perhaps given your second-language English you're reading "tone" into thigns that don't have it, and you're only seeing things that bother you, and not realizing that some of the "neutral" cocverage of construction etc is highly political, depsite its neutral tone. Speaking of which, it may be possible to integrate some of the political material in controversies and concerns etc into appropriate sections; the cost overruns into the construction of financing sections, the EagleRidge protests into th Highway 99 section, the security overruns and staffing issue into the security section; sequestering the controversies all in one section was maybe a bad idea (not my doing); this is what I meant by better organization of the page - integration, not segregation, of information....Skookum1 (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

What strikes me is that you want this article santizied so as to be Olympics-ready. It may just be your poor comprehension of English causes you to infer more POV than is actually there; content in and of itself is not POV, though language and how it's arranged can be. But deleting or relocating materials you don't like because t heir "anti-Games" is a POV cause. As for the split-off article you tried to create, this is the chaos that's resulting.Skookum1 (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The IOC's main concern was Highway 99, I do remember that - and any person from flat country who drives that highway has good reason to be terrified of its instability and scary curves; what's scarier are the drivers; it's also a security nighmater, something of a "shooting gallery", also with hundreds of avalanche chutes along it; that's why it's a "closed route" during the Games (probably already is) and why the rebuild....the venues that already existed were the big ice rinks; the convention centre hadn't been built, Nat Bailey was still an old-fashioned baseball park, at that time the Olympic Oval was still planned for Burnaby Mountain/SFU and of course the downhill run at Whistler was already extant; relative to other locations for the Games the BIG venues were largely in place (for hockey, opening ceremonies etc), and the minor ones not so hard to build; the Media Centre (Vancouver Convention Centre). was a fiasco financially, though the big media have ignored that because it's built by their pet government/party, and the Athletes' Village required emergency legislation in order to get finished, though that was unforeseen in 2003. The sliding centre, nordic/jumping centre etc were all unbuilt, though now all done.....but financing, as I said, had been put on hold to give Toronto room for its bid, so both construction and promotion of these Games were behind schedule once the bid was actually allowed to proceed by Ottawa.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1. What I meant by "being ready to the games" is the fact more and more peoples are going to see the page so this page should be more completed and reflect the quality of wikipedia. Not to be happy-happy! 2. Second of all I never said to delete the controversies part of the games... they are part of the games and every one of them have issues and it's good to see what are the issues/OPPOSITION from this game. However, every subject show briefly the information with a link to a different page... so I'm just wondering why it's isnt the same from the opposition/controversies. Why not follow the same templete of other games? But I will say it again.... I dont want to delete the information I dont like.... this information SHOULDNT BE REMOVED just better organized. 3. Your saying the games were behing schedule can you show me a proof... because the venues were completed long before the games started. I'm not saying your wrong I just cannot believe such information until citation needed.... I followed the games closely in the last 12 years (since national bid) and I dont recall such information after reading most articles in both french and English.... and yes my English is good Enough to understand... just a bit rusty to express my self the same way as I could do in french...that it... 4. Your right this page is not controlled by peoples showing one view. You just look to be againt everything I have to say so this comment was easy to write but also was out of line and unrespecful. But why you look concern by my me writing "be ready for the games", when you didnt look concern with the problems I explained before about the main page.... I think I cited some valuable feedback (maybe the way of explaining them was off dough) but it was valuable feedback. 5. You cite the problem yourself.... somes page are vanoc flavour... some neutral...... EVERYTHING SHOULD BE NEUTRAL IN AN ENCYCLOPEDY. I dont want this page to be happy-happy. I want this page to be neutral.... that it! But maybe the neutrality will come naturally comes the games when they will be more facts. Actually the games are only a product in the making and this page follow the same way. 6. I just want to make this page better -that it- and I believe you want to do so -so we do agree on something- Happy new yeAR :)

Rundleds (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)rundledsRundleds (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Elaborate more on the sentence

"These will also be the first games to be held in a National Hockey League market since the league allowed its players to participate". Is that suppose to mean purely in cities that have NHL teams or in an actual arena that has NHL games. This is really important because it doesn't matter if they build a separate arena in Vancouver under Olympic games rules (that differ from the NHL). But if they reuse say the Vancouver Canucks arena then that sentence would make some sense (but are they reusing NHL arenas?) Somebody should elaborate more on what that sentence means (hear and in the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The NHL allowed players to participate in the Olympics starting in 1998 at the Nagano games. All of the previous Winter Olympics (Nagano, Salt Lake City, and Torino) took place in markets (meaning a region which is able to view the NHL games on local television and usually also means that team merchandise is available in local stores, etc) where there were no NHL teams. Since Salt Lake City was the only North American city to host the games in that time, and since they have no NHL team, Vancouver is the first host city to also have an NHL team. It has nothing to do with the venues, other than the fact that an NHL team plays at GM Place (Canada Hockey Place during the 2010 Games). The IOC also is allowing the ice hockey events to be played on the NHL-sized rinks rather than the wider international standard, presumably to save costs on retrofitting already NHL-compliant rinks to the international standard for a period of only two weeks (which would have also disrupted normal NHL play for a longer period before and after tha games for the Vancouver Canucks). Since most of the team members on the olympic teams for some countries are NHL players, this would seem to make sense. --Teknokracy (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)