Talk:Concerns and controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Technologies used for Olympic sports

I've included a section on how technology/engineering in equipment and clothing has been used to gain a competitive advantage, foccussing mainly on the GB cycling team, but it could be extended to include other athletes and sports. This is mainly about how the bike, helmet and clothing is used as a package to reduce aerodynamic drag, and is distinct from how technology has been used to train athletes so they perform more efficiently. The latter is far less controversial and hardly modern. However, positioning of the athlete to create a more aerodynamic package is rather borderline between the two since it becomes part of the package and certain stances have been declared illegal in the past. I have anticipated counterclaims that the other teams have the same opportunity and could have bought the equipment etc, so I have defended the criticism in some detail with as much objectivity as possible. --Andromedean (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any semblance of controversy other than just the original research and synthesis being displayed. The GB cycling team did very well and mainly the French need to get over it. Complaining as the French did is just being a sore loser so it is not a controversy. The "Magic Wheels" comments by Gregory Bauge are just him being a sore loser. TeamGB cycling has embraced new technology, wind tunnels and the most efficient & legally allowed positions on a bicycle. Its time the rest of the world caught up, this is not a controversy. Just because one team did really well doesn't make it bad it just means they are better than the rest which is not at all a controversy as it was all done perfectly legally. I am not entirely sure what you are alluding to when you refer to "create a more aerodynamic package is rather borderline between the two since it becomes part of the package". The cycling positions were not queried by the commissars and were all legal, this is in no way controversial as zero rules, of any kind were broken . The section is not needed in this article at all and has such been removed. Sport and politics (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with S&P. This is more of a conspiracy theory than a controversy - Basement12 (T.C) 23:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The knee jerk reaction of removing this key and well researched controversy which goes to the heart of Olympic principles is completely unwarranted. May I remind users that articles must be unbiased. Allowing competitors to compete on unequal terms is highly controversial and surely must be included.

Controversies are not purely limited to what the Olympic officials decide, although I have provided evidence GB cycling have fought long and hard with the authorities, and their technology and positioning have been banned in the past. (see Graeme Obre The opinion of the sporting experts and Engineers and even the Cycling's performance director Dave Brailsford who admitted that he 'damn well hoped' that technology would provide an edge should be paramount.

May I strongly suggest that if this is tampered with again a full and well researched explanation is supplied why you don't believe the extensive funds and intensive research into improving the aerodynamics of the equipment would not yield potentially large enough differences so that medal positions would be altered irrespective of the abilities of the athletes. If you do find one I suggest you find a good reason how such funds could be justified, which would be itself controversial.

The 'magic wheels' term is a strawman argument to distract the user from the very real differences the bikes may have.--Andromedean (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is referencing a direct source you use in your text.Sport and politics (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at the sources Andromedean used, and several of them appear to validate this as a controversy. Instead of revert warring with Andromedean's good-faithed efforts to improve this article, I suggest the other regulars here look themselves at the sources and prune out any synthesis and leave what remains in the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68 that this article has multiple sources to back up its claim and it is controversial along the same line as the use of polyurethane suits. Note that there is a whole section regarding the swimsuit controversy at 2009 World Aquatics Championships. They were legal then and but were officially banned starting from the 2011 World Aquatics Championships. So the fact that it is legal (now) doesn't mean it is not controversial. Instead of engaging in an edit war, the editors who criticize it for including too much synthesis and original research should help to trim them instead of simply removing it, or at least give the original editor a chance to do it on his own. (Showmebeef (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC))

There is nothing in that section that marks this out as a controversy other than the use of the skinsuits which is refrenced to a blog, hardly a reliable source. Other than that the section refers to the development and use of equipment that has been approved by the governing body (and says that other teams are trying to do the same), unfounded claims by opposition teams with no greater basis in fact than the ones made by American swimming coaches against Ye Shiwen) and a threat of a ban that never came about. Synthesis and a lack of any controversy aside it's also entirely biased making no mention of the ridiculous number of small measures put in place by the British team (for example I've seen specialist pillows, hand washing and leg warmers mentioned in the press and on tv) to gain any tiny advantage possible. I can't see any basis for this section to be included - Basement12 (T.C) 17:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to address the issues you raised first and then state my position. You seemed to imply that Andromedean uses blog only as his source (..other than the use of the skinsuits which is refrenced to a blog, hardly a reliable source). This is not entirely accurate--he has referenced several reputable sources, including BBC Sport, BBC news, Guardian, and publications by professional institutions. Also your comparison of this case to the Ye Shiwen incident is without merit as there isn't semblance at all. In Ye's case, the allegation of doping is totally baseless--Ye has been involved in international competitions since 2010 (and amassed more than 10 medals) and has never failed a test. Hers is a very clear-cut case and there is no controversy at all. However, the case we are discussing here have a lot of gray areas. The key question to ask is whether the technology-enhanced equipments (be they skinsuits, handle bar, saddle, helmet, or what have you, or be they currently legal or not) provide a significant (unfair) advantage over other athletes or not. That's the key question raised against the polyurethane suits. We know the suits were legal for a period of time, but were ultimately judged as having provided unfair advantage and banned. So does the technology as discuss in this article provides an (unfair) advantage? As for whether it provides an advantage, Chris Boardman, Head of R&D, British Cycling, is not shy about it: "Well, I'd like to think so. We haven't done our job if they're not", as he is quoted in Olympics track cycling: Will technology win the war for GB?. Whether it's significant and unfair is up for debate.

Now that Andromedean has provided yet another source from a professional institution which provides troves of information on this particular subject. I think we should all take our time and digest the information from the article. It would help us draw the fine line as to whether to (ultimately) include this article in the section. Meanwhile I still propose that the article be included (currently) in this section as it provides a platform for discussion and improvement. (Showmebeef (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

I have just discovered that my Professional body published a report called Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? on this very subject last month! This covers many of the topics discussed, so I will try to reference some extracts from it to make the section more authoritative. Bear in mind when reading it that the Mechanical Engineering profession are hardly unbiased and keen to promote this relatively new field of work. However, I agree with the report. It also seems to confirm the continual conflict between the sporting bodies whose job it is to maintain a level playing field, and the Engineers who are constantly attempting to improve the hardware, and training aids to give their sports team an advantage. Let me modify it tonight and see what you think. --Andromedean (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a controversy, there was nothing made of rich countries spending money on sport, during the Olympics. Other than it lead to success in some areas. I have never known being successful with in the laws of the land and with in the sporting rules codes and regulations to be a controversy, the competitions were all carried out fairly, without bias and within the rules. This also devalues the actual efforts of the competitors as it basically said you don't deserve your result because its all about the technology. This is rubbish. Also is it a controversy that America has Sports Scholarships to Colleges and Title IX. Is it wrong that China has sports academies for young children. How is this also related directly to these Olympics and is not related to the wider progression of technology of sport. I think far wider comments on this conspiracy theory are required as that is all it is . Bringing together all of these unrelated sources to say basically spending money on new technology is cheating. Its not a controversy. What was a controversy were the swimsuits banned in 2010. They are banned but nothing to do with these Olympics. Technology has been around for decades and using the full flexibility of the rules has been around for ever and a day. This is nothing more than making a conspiracy theory out of synthesis. Adding this nonsense devalues the article and distracts from the real controversies, which occurred such as the Boxing referee who declared a boxer the winner after he was knocked down six times. The Ticket scalping by overseas (non UK) Olympic committee members and the ability to buy votes for the bidding process as exposed by Panorama. This kind of conspiracy theory is not needed here at all no matter how much academic debate, industry comment and magazine opinion are produce. This is not a controversy and as such does not belong in a controversies article. Sport and politics (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep/Include. The sources back this up as a controversy along the same lines as the compression swimsuits at the last Olympics. As a further comment, when editors add text that is, for the most part, sourced correctly, it is unecessarily hostile, confrontational, unproductive, and unhelpful to delete it on sight just because you disagree with its inclusion. When someone takes the time, and it is time consuming, to add sourced content to an article, help them, don't hector them. Wikipedia works best by collaboration, cooperation, and compromise. Not by revert warring, arguing, and criticizing. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You have contributed to the above please leave the RFC for outside editors. We already know your position re-stating it is not needed. Please let others from outside comment. I would also like to point out that Wiki Policy is blind of "time and effort" put in from an editor. This is very poorly written prose and is based on assumptions and using incredibly synthesised phrasing such as " can quickly become controversial, especially if they...". This shows it is not based on cold hard fact, its using the article as a forum to push this. In my opinion its nothing more than a conspiracy theory attempting to dress up as a controversy. Sport and politics (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is even being questioned. Are we reading the same material? There are a few quotes from the report Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? which may be of value.

"the use of new technologies and engineering advances can still cause controversy."

"New technologies that drastically push boundaries can quickly become controversial. "

"The push and pull between tradition and technology in sport has been going on for over a century. However we are approaching a major crossroads in which the pace of change threatens to cause a new wave of ethical difficulties for sports regulators"

" From this point on, physical apparatus created by sports engineering would be subject to the same scrutiny as biological & chemical HETs. ‘Technology doping’ was now officially recognised as a threat.

"This means that in the 2012 Olympic Games technology usually associated with Formula One will be making cyclists faster, composite materials will help pole-vaulters leap higher and 3D mapping will make swimmers’ suits more hydrodynamic."

"The UCI’s response was the Lugano Charter, an extraordinary document that aimed to reassert the primacy of tradition over technology. The Charter said that the line had been crossed “beyond which technology takes hold of the system and seeks to impose its own logic”. The bicycle was “distancing itself from a reality which can be grasped and understood”"--Andromedean (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree we need to see the whole article in 'web' format so we can clearly assess it.

I think it is also interesting that the GB team kept the bike under wraps until the Olympics as stated here, isn't this at least against the spirit of the rules? We should include something on this in addition to the GB performance in the Cycling World Championships earlier in the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 11:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean there appears to be unintentional synthesis of sources here creating something where it doesn't actually exist and giving an unbalanced POV and biased slant on the whole section. Sport and politics (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sport and Politics, I've never seen an RfC in which "involved" editors were prohibited from participating (Sport and Politics moved my comment from here to above). What I would suggest instead is making two subsections below: "Uninvolved" and "Involved". I have seen this done before and it seems to work ok. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sport and Politics: I also think it would be extremely hard for other editors to read the article in html format and that they won't be able to click and jump to the sources listed. If you want others to comment on the article, you should undo the delete so they can read it in plain "web" format. (Showmebeef (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

The sources are in the diff if you want to add the text here please feel free. The sources are not what is at issue here. What is at issue here is if the actual item warrants inclusion. There is also little chance of an objective debate from uninvolved editors if the users who are at odds with each other fill up the RfC with their sides of the discussion and their claims and counter claims. Its an attempt to keep the RfC as clean and objective as possible. Otherwise the RfC will lose its value and purpose. Sport and politics (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport & Politics: Thank's for tidying up the article. .

You claimed that there was nothing controversial going on, yet have removed any mention of controversy regarding the use of technology, despite repeated claims in the reputable literature that using technology in sport to gain an advantage in hghly controversial. Have you now accepted this fact?

You have also removed the paragraph explaining the relative improvement in GBs position between the world championships and the Olympics, and the decision not to use available technology during the World championships earlier in the year. Of course this means that the other teams wouldn't have the time to react or complain. Although, this doesn't conclusively proove technology was a factor, but it strongly indicates that it might have been, and explains why other teams suspicions weren't founded on paranoia, as you claim.

You have wrote

Team GB won seven out of the ten golds contested on bicycles which were exclusivly developed for the London Olympics. [28] The GB bicycles and rider equipment at the Games was declared legal by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and passed fit for use under its sporting code[29]

Changed from

The British teams sudden dominance attracted suspicion from competing teams [11] partly because the bikes were newly introduced for the London Games, and the British team subsequently won seven out of the ten golds contested[12] compared to six out of nineteen four months earlier in the UCI World Championships[13] during which the team opted to keep them under wraps [14]

When all the evidence points in one direction, isn't it up to authors to carry out research to attempt to refute it rather than just adding question marks adding further work for other authors to further justify every minute detail. For example have you contacted the cycling journal for their sources?

All the banners and questonmarks make the article look like idle speculation rather than a topic in which there is good quantitative data to show that an absolute and relative improvement in times are possible due to technology, that technology was applied discrimately between the teams in an attempt to gain an advantage, even the person in charge even admits this! There is also clear evidence of flouting the rules.

A point aside, are there any rules on Wikipedia were individuals are required to declare conflicts of interest (Nationality, Profession etc), since this might be highly relevent this and other articles on national reporting of spoting achievements and controversies. --Andromedean (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"When all the evidence points in one direction, isn't it up to authors to carry out research to attempt to refute it rather than just adding question marks adding further work for other authors to further justify every minute detail" No -it is not up to editors to interpret the evidence at all, one way or the other, that is the point of WP:SYNTHESIS. The section cobbles together a few opinions and comes out with a WP:POV conclusion of a controversy. Taking comments made by defeated athletes and coupling them with a range of older articles talking about the advantages of technology is not an acceptable way of constructing a section. No mention is made of how any other nation has benifited from similar technology, to the point where the entire thing reads like a biased attack on GB. As I've said previously no time is spent considering the measures that the British team put in place aside form bikes/skinsuits etc to help them win. Pointing out an improvement over the World Championships is barely a valid argument; the advantage of being at home isn't considered, a comparison to the results in Beijing is also ignored. The mention of the LZR swim suits is entirely irrelevant here and is just used as a crutch for a separate discussion on cycling technology. Your implied lack of good faith in the above comment is also not a good sign. To summarise the tone of the section; Technology helps athletes. Britain did well. Britain used technology. No rules were broken. = Britain bad. - Basement12 (T.C) 13:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The re-wording of the section is because the section is not written in a neutral way. It is written in a way which implies GB Cycling and Germany Cycling are cheats. There was a similar section on Ye Shewin a Chinese Swimmer who won Gold Medals at London 2012. That was removed due to possible BLP violations & for it being nothing more than sore losers and a conspiracy theory. No rules were broken by her and no positive drugs test were attributed to her. This is exactly the same here, no rules have been broken by GB Cycling or Germany Cycling and none of their cyclists were found to have been taking any substances banned by WADA. The use of phrasing such as "The British teams sudden dominance attracted suspicion from competing teams" and comparing performances from the World Cup and the Olympics are not neutral and fuel a negative slant that team GB are cheats. There has been no substantiation that team GB cheated in anyway. The only thing that happened was mainly the French disliked being beaten by the British and were pretty sore losers over it. As for any CoI and declaring things that is not needed here as the section is not neutral in anyway it is biased and pushes the POV the team GB and Germany Cycling cheated. As for the banners implying it is "idle speculation" that is all it is, with a Team GB and Germany Cycling cheated POV slant and Synthesis of Information from Original Research carried out. There is also no "clear evidence of flouting the rules" that is the main bulk of the synthesis. The synthesis implies there is "clear evidence of flouting the rules" when in fact there is none. In answer to the point "isn't it up to authors to carry out research". No it is not. It is up to all editors to ensure the article is written in an unbiased, neutral way and in such a way that does not give undue weight to a specific POV. Carrying out own research is Original Research and must not be carried out and included on Wikipedia. It is not up to individual editors to present it so that "all the evidence points in one direction" that is POV pushing and being biased. Finally the statement "even the person in charge even admits this!" is just unfounded. That makes it sounds like he said "Yes. We cheated and the UCI know about. Look, we got away with it." That is not what happened all. All that happened was GB Cycling decided to use the rules where they could to gain as much of a LEGAL and FAIR advantage as permitted by the rules. It is not controversial that they had the money to spend on it either as other nations which did well at the Olympics e.g. China in the Table Tennis and Badminton were they won all the Gold Medals or the Untied States in the Swimming where they won 16 Golds 9 Silvers and 6 Bronze or Russia in the Rhythmic Gymnastics and Synchronised Swimming where they won all the Gold Medals. They all spent vast sums. At NO POINT were any rules broken by GB cycling or Germany Cycling.

This is no different to a Marathon runner having different food and rehydration mixes in his bottle to another athlete or wearing footwear that was moulded to his feet. It would be ludicrous to say that the winner of the Marathon only won because he and his nutritionist were gaining an unfair advantage by giving him top of the end drink mixes and food which were allowed by the rules and his extensive training was irrelevant. It would be mad to say he only won the marathon because he was wearing better shoes than the person in second. That is what this section attempts to imply and it is an unfounded claim which is just a conspiracy theory, with no place on Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think some contributers are acting in good faith because they are claiming the references don't say what they clearly do as a simple search would confirm, and there are no attempts to find the answers to any genuine questions they ask, just to be obstructive, add work to others and try to slowly dilute the content so it becomes none controversial. Just one example

However, cycling has seen the most impressive technological contribution. For example, 100% of the 221% improvement in the one hour cycling record could be attributed to developments in bicycle aerodynamics. [3]

was changed to

In cycling technology has contributed to changes in bicycles. [20]

Yeah they added tyres and a chain!!! Is the Pope a Catholic?

You are clearly acting irresponsibly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 15:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "100% of the 221% improvement" is confusing and misleading as it implies that anyone who sits on a highly aerodynamic bicycle will do better than a top athlete on a regular bicycle. It implies the rider makes no difference to the end result. Also the hour record is nothing to do with the Olympics as the One Hour Race is not on the Olympic Programme.

"However, cycling has seen the most impressive technological contribution" is a claim made without proper foundation, context, clarification, reference point, validation or verification. It is also not neutral as it again implies it is the technology and not the cyclist that achieves the results. The implications of that sentence is to basically say the bicycle not the cyclist should get the medal, as anyone could sit on and pedal, it makes no difference to the end result.

I also fail to see any substantiation of the claims of irresponsibility or that I am not acting in Good faith. I also cannot see that Andromedeanis not acting in Good Faith. Please can all contributors remember not to comment on the contributors and only to comment on the content.

I would also like to point out it is the responsibility of ALL editors NOT everyone else to ONLY add material which is from a neutral and unbiased point of view which is verified by a reliable sources which reflect the ACTUAL and not IMPLIED or PERCEIVED content being added. Sport and politics (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mean that, it means what it says, that aerodynamics reduces times (or increases distances in this case) independantly of a riders own physical ability. So if two riders are of approximately equal ability the one on the more aerodynamic cycle would most likely win, and potentially a lesser rider could beat a better one depending on the level of difference. I don't believe you don't understand this! The fact that a 1 hour contest is not used in the Olympics is hardly relevent, aerodynamics is clearly going to benefit any cyclist travelling at speed! --Andromedean (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I do see that. It appears what is missed here is that is not a controversy. Just because someone has better equipment, better training facilities and better nutrition doesn't make it a controversy. It is just a fact. It is also not cheating. It is also not an unfair advantage. It is also not the fault of the athletes with the stuff or the athletes without the stuff. It is also not the fault of the governing bodies and the sporting codes. it is also is not immoral or unethical. It is also not against the Olympic code or Olympic spirit. This is not a controversy. The implications are spending money to reach the top is cheating. When it is not. It is an implication the spending money to advance technology is cheating. When its not. It is also implying that using all of the rules, what the rules say and legally interpreting the rules in a way others have not is cheating. It is not. No cheating or any unfair advantages occurred and this is in no way a controversy. The section is based on synthesis of sources which do not say cheating occurred or any unfair advantages occurred. What the sources say is that technology is advancing and is meaning that performances are getting better. It is not explicitly saying GB Cycling cheated or gained an unfair advantage. Also the Engineering article poses a question and pushes a POV, it doesn't say that GB cycling actually gained an unfair advantage or cheated. This section is not encyclopaedic and should not be included. Sport and politics (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC):

I must admit reading it again it doesn't look very controversial. ..........Oh I forgot you have taken out the controversial bits!

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) considers prohibiting technologies if they are ‘performance-enhancing’ or ‘being against the spirit of the sport’. In 2006 WADA initiated a consultation on ‘Technology doping’ which is now officially recognized as a threat. The decision to allow or ban a new technology, is also the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body. However, these regulations can be breached. [1] --Andromedean (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you inform us what a team would be required to do to 'technology dope'. Perhaps you think it means putting an engine in the cycle?

Seriously, the behaviour of these agencies themselves come under question here after what they said they would do. What is going on here, how have they been influenced, why are they turning a blind eye? This is far more controversial than I realised after first writing the section, it is down right scandulous! No wonder seventy per cent of the French say that the British cyclists at London 2012 have cheated.--Andromedean (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not a controversy as it is not the fault of Team GB Cycling Germany Cycling any of the officials working at the Olympics or any of cyclists. The section has been re-written in a neutral way which does not give off an impression that GB Cycling or German Cycling cheated in any way. There are forums on the internet where "technology doping" can be discussed and how it can be achieved. Wikipedia is though not the pace for this. I am not going to engage in any discussion or debates over what is & isn't and what could & couldn't be considered or is "technology doping" that is not for Wikipedia. As for the claims of corruption in sporting agencies that is again not for here unless actual corruption can be fully substantiated and proved not implied and conjectured. then that again has no place on Wikipedia. That is for a debate or forum somewhere else. Finally the claims made by the French regarding "cheating" by GB cycling are unsubstantiated conjecture and are once again not for discussion or debate on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for fully verified and reliably sourced relevant subject matter. Wikiepdia is not for synthesised conjecture, biased opinions and things which are frankly made up by sore losers. Sport and politics (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In which case I suggest you actually read the report Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? and re-insert the material stated in it which you have take out.

--Andromedean (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to be entering in to an academic discussion on the meanings of the source or the POV of the source or the meanings of sources in general. Discussion and debates of that nature are not for Wikipedia. If there is a want for a debate and a discussion on issue of this nature please do so in the appropriate forum or discussion board, not here on Wikiedia which in an encyclopaedia. Sport and politics (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Just a quick note here (as it's getting late) after I edited the article. I really don't know how Sport and politics can claim he's acted in good faith when he edited this piece. There are several places he asked for citation when it is clearly in the referenced source. Similarly he proclaimed that the original editor made synthesis when quoting Boardman--the original paragraph is straight from the source. I don't really know what's the basis for that. Also look at the last paragraph which he's edited--it's just plain sloppy writing--with grammatical mistakes which I left it there, again asking for citation when it's clearly in the source.

I want to comment on the new postings here but I am running out of time. I will try to post tomorrow. (Showmebeef (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

The whole section should just be removed as it is a synthesised conspiracy theory with no place here on Wikipedia. The section as originally worded was biased insinuation which asserted that basically GB cycling and Germany cycling were cheats. Nothing of the sort occurred. To make that claim, assertion and insinuation by using sources which do not say that is synthesis.

I have acted in nothing but good faith and shouldn't have to make that clear, with other users making unfounded claims of bad faith. I have attempted to clean up the section by removing the weasel phrasing insinuation and bias. Although I still favour its total removal. If other editors want to demonstrate their good faith they should be bold and improve the section, rather than focusing on other contributors. If there are grammatical errors fix them, don't complain about the editor who made them. Be constructive not disruptive.

I would also like to remind all editors to always assume all editors are acting in good faith. Another user was banned for not acting in good faith and making unwarranted personal accusations against other editors on this topic. If there is genuine and verifiable evidence of bad faith editing please discuss that on the editors talk page and not here. Also please provide policy and diffs when making any claims. If that cannot be done then keep all personal comments personal and do not share them.

Finally Wikipedia is not a place for synthesis or unsubstantiated claims. The places where sources have been asked for are for bits which are not directly covered by the sources or it is not clear from that the source covers that claim being made. If it can be shown the sources cover the bit asking for a source then name the source and add the source to that bit as well. Alternatively add a fresh reliable source directly verifying the text. Do not comment on other users. Focus on the actual content being discussed here. Internet forums and discussion boards can be found which are away from Wikipedia if there is a want to continue chatting about this conspiracy theory and other claims which have been synthesised in this section. Sport and politics (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I think we can all agree that technology can be used to the advantage of Olympic athletes, and there is no issue with including a well referenced section on such a topic if it is shown to be relevant to these Games. However, the issue here is that the section as its stands amounts to synthesis and an attack on one or two particular nations. What we have are;

A) sources that deal with how the use of technology can be an advantage in cycling and also sources that detail steps that must be taken (sale to the public etc) to ensure bikes conform to the rules; B) details on the British team's success at these Games and some sources saying they have spent significant amounts of money on developing technology. What has then happened is that A & B have been put together to come out with our C(ontroversy) - that GB, and to a lesser extent Germany, have in effect cheated to obtain success. A + B, therefore C.

For this section to be included in its current form what we need are reliable sources (not blogs or fringe opinions in obscure journals/magazines/etc that would constitute WP:UNDUE) that state categorically that the achievements of riders at these Games were due to the use of bikes/other technology that if properly looked at would be against the rules, preferably with an explaination of exactly how the specific technology in question benefitted them. The section needs to be written from a neutral point of view, if no rules were broken, as currently appears to be the case, then singling out the British (and maybe German) team isn't acceptable; having the resources to build better bikes than the other nations isn't doing anything wrong and you can bet every other nation was trying to do the same with the money they had. It is no more controversial than a nation having the money to build better training facilities or provide better coaching - on some level most sporting achievement comes down to the funding.

What we may be able to work towards is adding some of the information on cycling to Technology doping. - Basement12 (T.C) 15:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this break the sections get very unwieldy. I don't think we need to get distracted on what is technically legal or not. We are not prosecuting teams only deciding what is controversial. I have included information which shows that 'technology doping' is considered highly controversial by the public, not only because of the competitive advantage but also due to the way it makes the sport easier to break records which is hardly fair on past athletes, it is also unfair on poor nations which can't afford to compete. So hopefully that wraps this issue up and we can move on now. May I also suggest if anyone has any issues with they remainder of the article they actually read the references and search for what has been copied from them, rather than claiming they are incorrectly referenced. Could they also perform their own work if they wish to refute anything rather than just insulting reputable sites from well informed contributors and adding unwarranted 'synthesis' typpe comments.--Andromedean (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"We are not prosecuting teams only deciding what is controversial" - No, we should not be deciding anything that's one of the problem's here. The issue is nowhere near wrapped up, in fact you've readded other information that makes it worse. The whole paragraph that begins "The British teams dominance" is entirely inappropriate as it juxtaposes their success with the idea of the controversy without providing any sources that link the two. Implying that the increase in medals is part of the controversy is pure WP:OR, one of your own sources even says "that haul of medals is in itself hardly a surprise". The mention of the French team's comments needs to be removed entirely as they were just wild accusations akin to those made against Chinese swimmers by the Americans (which have been wiped from all WP articles as a violation of BLP policy). Please stop trying to avoid the issues by padding out the section with a load of guff with no direct relation to these Games - Basement12 (T.C) 18:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"I think we can all agree that technology can be used to the advantage of Olympic athletes"--agree. However, I disagree with your postulate of what makes this subject controversial: "What has then happened is that A & B have been put together to come out with our C(ontroversy) - that GB, and to a lesser extent Germany, have in effect cheated to obtain success. A + B, therefore C." I don't think that's how that makes it a controversy. Instead,it's like this:

A) Technologies can be used to gain advantage in a competition, which at times can be significant and unfair to other competitors who are not using these technologies for various reasons.

B) There are times the governing bodies can't response quickly enough to institute rules to clearly identify these advances as significant and unfair and install rules to remove or reduce these advantages.

We are in a period of time with a trend where millions are spent to create a technological edge in the sports of cycling where it takes 1/1000 sec to determine the results, and this trend has climaxed at the London Olympics. And this is also a time that the cycling governing body does not have a clear definition of "technology doping" when it comes to cycling equipment. When certain teams lead in this effort, and safe guide its finding so others are left without access to them, that's what makes it a controversy.

This is the nature of doping, in particular "technology doping" where the governing bodies are always doing catch up work--something new appears that is deemed to create a significant and unfair advantage, it takes time for it realize the significance and come up with a counter measure to combat its effect. This is exactly the path it took for the LZR Racer to be recognized (2008 Beijing Olympics and 2009 World Aquatics Championships) and ultimately banned.

To sum up,

1. I agree that we shouldn't put too much emphasis on the British team, or the German, Australian, for that matter, when covering this topic. I think we should put the emphasis on the trend leading to this Olympics.

2. I don't agree on the premises that since no rule is broken, therefore this is not a controversy. When LXR Racer swimmer suits were first introduced, and up until 2009 ruling, it broke no rule. Yet it was a huge controversy.

3. Does it belong here? I say yes. As mentioned, the LXR Racer was deemed a controversy, which peeked at the 2009 Aquatics game where nearly all modern records were broken and which earned its name of "Plastic Games" and a "controversy" section on its Wiki page. Same reasoning apply here.

BTW. The Ye Shiwen case was again brought up and compared here to this case. I've stated earlier that the comparison was without merit--Ye's achieved what she has through training and training only (well, you can count her large feet and hands as a factor, but she's born with them, just like Phelps and Thorpe). The comparison would only be valid if the following hypothetical scenario is true (for illustrative purpose only):

The Chinese sports authority has spent millions into the research of some food supplement which prove to provide an advantage to its swimmers. However, the supplement contains no substance that is currently listed as a doping agent. It chose to not use the supplement in the 2011 world championship but wait until the London Olympics instead. Subsequently, it's medal haul has increased from 2011's 3 to 7 (not just to Ye but across the board) this time at London. If this scenario is true then I would call it a controversy and I don't think anybody would have a problem of including it here in this section.

Sorry to conjure up this hypothesis, but my point is the comparison of Ye's case to this one is without merit--the removal of Ye's case from this section does not imply that this case should be too. (Showmebeef (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC))

I use the Ye comparison only for the comments made by the French team not the issue as a whole. What the French team insinuated was that the wheels the British were using were different from everyone else's, this was denied by the both the manufacturers and the British team and the French have no evidence whatsoever for it - therefore we should not be including such unfounded accusations in an encyclopaedia. I'm not disagreeing that this could be a controversy but it's link specifically to these Olympics is tenuous; it's an issue that has always been present within the sport and, as with the swimsuits, it is one that involves a huge number of competitors from a huge number of nations so unless a certain team actually broke a rule there no reason to single them out - Basement12 (T.C) 22:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

We do need to make our minds up what constitutes a controversy because you refuse to include the quotes in the literature which says it is. You and Sport&Politics have removed them! Do you want them back in or not? Make up your mind. However, you do wish to divert the subject onto a different heading. Whether the technology is currently legal, and if not by synthesis assume that everything that is legal must not be controversial! It is you and Sport&Politics who are making assumptions and have the political agenda here. An agenda to censor the essential fact that technology can provide a relative advantage to an athlete, and this can easily change placings in an event. --Andromedean (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop ignoring and misrepresenting our views. By my count four different editors have removed the section. No one is doing this because they doubt that technology can play a role, they are doing it because of the biased and POV way in which the section is written. Not one source used indicates that the increase in British medals has anything to do with the technology, not one source suggests that other teams are not spending everything thay can on their on technology. I have therefore removed this section and reworded the rest to indicate that the advantage Britain and Germany had was building their own custom bikes. Readers can access the sources and draw their own conclusions, it is not for us, as an encyclopaedia to lead them one way or another - Basement12 (T.C) 20:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No source could conclude this with 100% certainty, how could they without the details of the tests, they may have had asudden surge in form, however the bikes are most likely since this was te one variable which was changed. Moreober, this is what would be expected from what Boardman said, and that's exactly what happened. Why not state the medals before and after the bikes were introduced and let the reader make up their own mind? The fact that GB didn't opt to use the bike even though it was available is also significant, since this prevents their opponents from reacting, something which was certainly against the spirit of the rules.--Andromedean (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

showmebeef note: moved here from "Edit Notes" section

I have little doubt that people with national interests at heart will attempt to use any lame excuse to censor this article. The fact remains this was a genuine controversy and related far more to the London Olympics than any other, not least because the governing bodies had laid rules down to stop technological doping by the time of the London Olympics, and the teams used underhand methods of flouting them. No other example exemplifies this more than the British cycling team who were setting records every time they rode, despite indifferent performances in the four years before the new bikes were introduced--Andromedean (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop making unfounded claims of conflicts of interest here and remember to assume good faith at all times from all contributors. Just because a contributor makes comments and expresses a view on the content which is disagreed with by other contributors does not give the contributor who disagrees the right to make unfounded claims and not assume good faith.

There is also no conclusive and hard evidence presented to support the claim "governing bodies had laid rules down to stop technological doping by the time of the London Olympics, and the teams used underhand methods of flouting them. No other example exemplifies this more than the British cycling team who were setting records every time they rode, despite indifferent performances in the four years before the new bikes were introduced". There is simply no evidence to support this. All there is though is insinuation, synthesis, POV pushing and frankly jealousy from the teams beaten. Please stop making these baseless claims as if there are incontrovertible facts. They are not for here on Wikipedia, those kinds of claims are for discussion boards and forums away from Wikipedia where this conspiracy theory can be debated to death without challenge. It is also not "people with national interests at heart will attempt to use any lame excuse to censor this article" that is just not what is occurring here. What is occurring is the upholding of encyclopaedic standards and maintaining rules laid out preventing wild unfounded claims created by synthesis from being allowed to be added and presented as fact.

I would also like to point out the "fact" of this being a "genuine controversy and related far more to the London Olympics than any other" is wholly untrue (even if some contributors genuinely believe it to be the case), this is simply an opinion, based only in original research and synthesis. This is just a conspiracy theory and nothing more, with no place on Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showmebeef (talk • contribs)

On what basis are you declaring that this article is "based ONLY in original research and synthesis"? Can you list them to support your claim? Also you have not provided anything to support the "disputed" tag that you have slapped on this article repeatedly.

Efforts have been made by various editors to eliminate OR and SYN and all statements have been supported by secondary sources. If there are ones that are not, point them out and let other editors improve on them. Labeling it as a "conspiracy theory" won't make it one no matter how many times you repeat it! (Showmebeef (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

Editing notes, requests and Q&As

I believe this article has reached certain maturity now. With that in mind, I hope all editors involved pay due respect to other editors' contribution (which should have been the case in the first place), and provide their reasons when deleting from, or adding to, the article. This place should serve as Q&A forum where we can ask questions and (hopefully) get the answers when questions arise with regard to deletion or addition by other editors.

First, an editing note: Is there a reason why quotes from Boardman are listed in "blockquote"? It's rather unusual for a section article to adopt such a format. I would recommend put them inline. It is not sure whether boardman actually said what is listed in the first quote--the source only paraphrased him. Also the leading sentence is changed from what is in the source for the second quote. I am also not sure why the phrase "the technologies" is inserted there. I would like to revert them back to what is exactly provided in the source.

Now questions: Sports and Politics has just added a "disputed" tag to the article. Can you point out what facts are being disputed so we can try to resolve them?

Sports and politics: I have explicitly asked you to list the "facts" you deemed disputable to justify the "disputed" tag but you haven't. Now you've re-inserted the tag without providing any justification, again! Any other editors have issue with this?! (Showmebeef (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

Also S&P has deleted the paragraph: "Technology can also play a role in cycling, with about 100 percent out of the 221 percent overall improvement in the one-hour cycling record coming from better bicycle aerodynamics." I believe the paragraph is rather important as it shows technology has provided huge improvement in cycling equipment, which is what this article is all about. I would like to revert them back. (Showmebeef (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

Agree with all your comments showmebeef. What are your views on omitting the comparative medal toll, improved times and keeping the available technology under wraps in the world championships. Although far from perfect, it is the most important objective piece of information that a reader could use to arrive to their own conclusions. Is this something we could conceed, providing the other issues are dealt with?--Andromedean (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remember this is an Olympics article the hour record is nothing to do with the Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The hour record is used in the original source to illustrate the significance of improvement in aerodynamics of cycling equipment, which is relevant to this article . It has nothing to do with the fact that it's not an Olympics sport. (Showmebeef (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

The Article is about the Olympics if you want to talk about cycling in general and the hour record in general take it to the cycling pages and don't clutter up here. Sport and politics (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding comparative medal toll, improved times: there is no proof that there is a direct correlation between that and technology introduced to their bikes by the GB team. You need to quote a reputable source to make that claim. As for keeping equipments under wrap--no, that doesn't prove anything and any team can choose to do that for various reasons. Wiki mandates that you need to support your statement with WP:SOURCES (Showmebeef (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

Showmebeef No such claim could be made neither have I suggested we make it. However, it is as relevent as any other improvement in performance, especially improvements in times, it would be up to the reader to make a judgement on how much, if any, came from technology, and how much from an improvement in athletic performance. Keeping technology under wraps until just before the olympics was controversial because it was against the spirit of the rules; the UCI wanted technology to be available to other teams. A third important issue which has been quietly taken out is that all this technology can't be used efficiently peicemeal, it needs to be optimised for each rider which takes even more time, testing and expense. Hence if any one team drags their heels in releasing the technology the others don't have a chance of using it because of the long lead time. All this is clear from the references, and is all highly relevent to London 2012 and the GB team: --188.220.205.42 (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from and all your reasoning could probably serve as good basis for argument in a regular forum for debate over this issue. But Wiki is an encyclopedia and we can only quote facts or reputable sources. I had undergone the same initial phase (probably still am) when I first started editing Wiki. For the tactic of delaying the release of technology--it is mentioned in the article RE: nine months lead time. You could probably rewrite the paragraph to highlight the issue. (Showmebeef (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

• I have created this section with the expressed intention for it to be used for exchanging notes re: editing the article. Pls continue the rebate RE: controversy, inclusion issues in the above section. ps. I have moved some comments there already.

This discussion section is not for Wikipedia. If you wish to "exchange notes" on this conspiracy theory please do so away from Wikieida. Wikipeida articles are also not for "the most important objective piece of information that a reader could use to arrive to their own conclusions" that is for academic debate away from Wikiepdia. If you wish to continue this please do so away from Wikiepdia. I suggest a reading of what Wikipedia is not. Sport and politics (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe I can rightfully ignore some bellicose rhetoric here. If some don't see my effort at trying to bring some civility and order here, then they are blind. (Showmebeef (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

This is a civil discussion. It is just the content of the discussion has no place on Wikipedia as it has now devolved in to the deabte on a conspiracy theory and not facts or anything reputable. I would also like to point out the whole section is fully disputed as opposed to just individual facts. Sport and politics (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Andromedean: Source you used for "The British track cycling team introduced new bicycles for London 2012" is incorrect. Maybe you meant to use that for the statement that GB "won seven out of ten events". (Showmebeef (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

The source should be the WSJ I will change it when it is unlocked. --Andromedean (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes 19:40, 24 August 2012‎

• I think it's still better to use "The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) considers..." as the leading paragraph as it introduces WADA's policy and the concept of "technology doping". A side note is that although the sentence "...people fear that sports engineering..." helps explain the rationale behind "anti-doping", it's rather assumed. In an effort to compact the article to make it less bloated and concise, I suggest we remove it.
• I think the sentence "Senior officials from Australia and France..." is rather contentious within the context. The source used doesn't directly support the point the paragraph is trying to illustrate. I suggest merging this paragraph with the 3rd paragraph "The British and German teams were the only..." Showmebeef (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of the number of world records and medals won is still entirely inappropriate. It is leading the reader to conclude that the medals were won as a result of the technology when none of the sources draw this conclusion. This makes no allowances for the fact that not all of the events at a World Championship are contested at the Olympics (if anything the comparison should be only for Olympic events), the boost any nation gets from home advantage or other changes but in place by GB (for example see [1] [2] - Basement12 (T.C) 17:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should compare only the Olympic events and I also agree that there is no exclusive evidence to support the view. Showmebeef (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of making the changes I mentioned, and some. Feel free to amend. Along the way I also took some effort to trim the piece of some fat, such as using numerals in place of words for numbers. Showmebeef (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the unfounded and leading claims from the section. I have also done some minor syntax changes and acronym expansion. The current version which I have edited it to is wholly neutral as compared to the previous version which was still pushing a POV on unfairness and cheating with no foundation. Some editors will want to put back in the unrelated guff and crutches and pejoratives which have been removed but first think a is this relevant and b is this neutral in its presentation. If not then don't add it or find a neutral and non pejorative way of adding it. Sport and politics (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please refer to my comments in the next section regarding these deletions. I would like to stress the fact that all statements in the article (before you made the changes) are backed by secondary sources so there is no POV.
• "unfairness and cheating"--the article does not make those statement.
• "put back in the unrelated guff and crutches and pejoratives"--pardon me, where is the "good faith" we have been extorting about all along? Showmebeef (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was a very useful article to quote in view that there are still some people claiming the performance wasn't controversial. In what respect doesn't it support that senior French and Australian officials were puzzled?

"France were not the only team puzzled at the extent of Britain's progress since the Melbourne championships four months ago. Although he believes the home crowd played a motivating role, Australia's high performance director Kevin Tabotta said: "There's been a bit of thought as to how the gap has become so big since Melbourne." But the French were the most vociferous. Admitting she was "puzzled", French track cycling chief Isabelle Gautheron told AFP: "They haven't dominated for the past four years, they were among the best teams in the world along with Australia, Germany and France. "Here, they're crushing everybody."

--Andromedean (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

They can be as puzzled as they like but unless they have some evidence of wrong doing it is nothing more than wild speculation unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia - Basement12 (T.C) 21:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Showmebeef That's an interesting edit you attempted there before Sport&Politics wrecked it. "Research shows that 100 percent of the 221 percent overall improvement in the one-hour record could be attributed to developments in bicycle aerodynamics." I interpreted that as meaning 100/221=45% was attributal to aerodynamics not all of it? Surely athletic improvement contributes to it as well?--Andromedean (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I interpret it as follows: there is a 221% improvement...and 100% of that improvement is due to A, so I rephrased it as "the 221% improvement is ENTIRELY (100%) due to A". The original sentence is a bit awkward. Showmebeef (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

To resolve this ambiguity I wrote to the source mentioned in the article, my email is as follows: Professor Haake I have been reading the report on Sports Engineering, An Unfair Advantage? It includes a statement attributed to yourself which says '100% of the 221% improvement in the one hour cycling record could be attributed to developments in bicycle aerodynamics.' Does this mean 100/221=45% of the improvement is due to aerodynamics?

Yes, you are correct. The data was taken from a paper where the % changes were being compared which is why it was written like this. Steve S.J.Haake@shu.ac.uk

Hopefully this resolves this confusion. --Andromedean (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the source to verify this. In that case can we just use "45% of the improvement is due to aerodynamics" so as to avoid the trap that got us (well, at least me) into? What do you think?

p.s. I took the liberty of formatting (indenting) your post to make it more readable. BTW. You can use preview to check your post (for format) before you publish it.

--Showmebeef (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The above only goes to prove the confusion to the uninitiated reader and as such shows it is not easily accessible to all users of the encyclopaedia so it has no place on Wikipedia as it is far too easily confusing as clearly demonstrated above. Remember Wikipedia must be accessible to all not just the writer or those with specialist knowledge. Sport and politics (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

clarifying a potentially ambiguous statement (although it was clear to me) is hardly a reason for exclusion since the statement is no longer ambiguous after clarification! You are really eager to censor objective information. If you wish to change anything, do the work like I have.--Andromedean (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact it needed clarifying proves it is an "ambiguous statement". Ambiguity prevents uninitiated users accessing the information so must be removed are substantially re-worded to remove all ambiguity. There is no user is "eager to censor objective information" just a necessity to rid Wikipedia of ambiguous, unfounded, pejorative, POV pushing, synthesis which is written in a biased, derogatory and sensationalist manner implying unfounded and baseless claims of dishonesty, cheating and corruption. This section does all of that and needs removing. Plenty of reasoning has been provided and more than enough Wikipedia Policy has been provided clearly showing how inappropriate this section is. It is time now to come off the "must include" wagon and accept this is not objective, (unless the objective is to try and create a picture of cheating which does not exist) and is just original research. Sport and politics (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from pejorative language implying bad faith such as "wrecked it". The interpretation you have just demonstrated how unclear and confusing the statement is. It also demonstrates the POV pushing occurring by basically portraying it as just technology leading to the lower times and that the athletes and nutritionists and track themselves had anything to do with the lower times. This is though for a place outside of Wikiepdia to debate. Sport and politics (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport&Politics you keep removing objective data so readers can't make judgements for themselves, yet you don't propose any viable alternative. I have not potrayed any improvement as being just technology, 100% of 210% = 45% of the improvement in the 1 hr distance was attribital to aerodynamics. The relative medals and record toll are also relevent and should be included. It provides a basis for the reader to make a judgement. It is precisely for this reason you wan't to remove any indication of a sudden improvement. There is no synthesis or bias, only censorship of the essential facts! --Andromedean (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean - You have repeatedly been given reasons for not including those medal counts, none of which have you refuted with any kind of arguement beyond accusations of COI and censorship. However, for your benefit, let's set them out again.... This is an encyclopaedia, the article must provide facts supported by evidence and sources. There is no claim in any of the sources used that the number of medals won was due to the technology being used, even if they were the information should be presented in a neutral point of view and look at other factors that could have resulted in improved performance. To include the numbers therefore leads the reader to draw conclusions that are not supported and thus amounts to WP:OR - Basement12 (T.C) 20:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence to justify not including medal counts, only idle speculation that the Olympic games cycling is not representative of the world championship cycling. If you wish to analyse how the GB team performed with respect to the specific events in each case, I would be happy to re-consider this view.

I am fully aware of what an encyclopaedia is used for, FACTS and that is what I provided, hard objective facts which you wish to censor. These would only appear biased to someone who has an agenda of censorship to perpetuate a view that ONLY athletic performance was involved, something very unlikely in view of the evidence provided, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of engineering would conclude. No doubt you are all fully aware of this and that is precisely why you wish to censor it. --Andromedean (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop making baseless claims and focus only on the content. Attacking other editors as having "an agenda of censorship" is not warranted on Wikipedia. These comments are beginning to have a similar tone to a previous editor who was banned for engaging in personal comments which were unfounded, I would hate to see anyone get banned again for getting carried away with themselves. Please refrain from making comments of a personal nature and only comment to on the content. I would suggest, reading of the five pillars of Wikipedia and the neutral, verifiable and synthesis policies of Wikipeida. I also suggest a reading of the civility code. There also seems to be a lack of realisation here. Sport and politics (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Please stop making baseless claims and focus only on the content"--totally agree. Let's do that.
• "Attacking other editors as having "an agenda of censorship" is not warranted on Wikipedia."--likewise, accusing other editors of conjuring up "conspiracy theory" is ALSO not warranted on Wikipedia. Showmebeef (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Wikipeida is not the place "to analyse how the GB team performed with respect to the specific events" That is conducting original research and original research has no place on Wikipeida. You also claim it is only "very unlikely" not proved by the selective sources provided and as it is not verified by the sources it is original research. Sport and politics (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes, 18:35, 25 August 2012‎

• With the exception of the "medal count", which was still under discussion at the time, all deletions made in this editing change involve statements that are supported by secondary sources. There are no POV or SYN expressed in those statements. The basic framework of that article was achieved by various editors and was free from POV, OR and SYN artifacts. I therefor ask Sports and politics' justification for making these deletions.

• Take for example, the statement when quoting Boardman: When Boardman was questioned if this high-tech warfare would put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not." It was directly from the source. I specifically noted in my editing note that I want to quote "what is exactly provided in the source". Could Sports and politics please provide a reason for deleting it? Showmebeef (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Calling it "high-tech warfare" is incredibly POV and pejorative. It not actual warfare and is sensationalising. The phrase "some countries at a disadvantage" is also ridiculous POV, which countries are we referring to, and saying "disadvantage" implies team GB are acting unfairly and cheating. I would like to know why there is an insistence on sensationalism and POV here.This being an encyclopaedia it has to remain neutral and unbiased. There were no unfair advantages all no rules were broken so implying as fact is Snythesis and making claims of "cheating" is OR. Also can a single source please be provided which categorically proves without any doubt that the claims of "cheating" and "unfair advantages" and so called "technology-doping" occurred. Not a collection of strands from loads of sources which have been built up to imply all this. Currently no source categorically states Team GB "cheated" by gaining "unfair advantages" through "technology doping". The sources also need to be reliable and not things like opinion pieces, blogs and comments from losing compititors. Sport and politics (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport and politics:

• Read my question to you AGAIN and CAREFULLY! The whole quote is DIRECTLY from the SOURCE (Olympics track cycling: Will technology win the war for GB?). If you are having trouble finding it, it is in the 3rd paragraph under the heading "What are other countries doing?".
• And if you are having trouble with the phrase "high-tech warfare" and think is "incredibly POV and pejorative", then you need to raise hell with Ollie Williams from BBC Sports who wrote the article, NOT HERE!.
• "Currently no source categorically states Team GB 'cheated' by gaining 'unfair advantages' through "technology doping"--you are right on this one, because there is NO statement in the article that categorically states Team GB "cheated" by gaining "unfair advantages" through "technology doping". The concept of that could only have lived in your own mind.
• "The sources also need to be reliable..."--again, if you think that BBC Sports is NOT a reliable source, then be my guest!
• It's just so INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING to deal with someone who appears to be living in his own little world and not willing to take in any outside information. I have in the past asked you pointed questions which you either avoided or evaded with blanket statements like these that you TOTALLY cannot back up!

Showmebeef (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree it "INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING to deal with someone who appears to be living in his own little world and not willing to take in any outside information". Can all users realise the issues created with the language, read the reasoning presented by multiple users and tone down the language in this article and realise that all users are entitled to challenge contentious claims and that reasoning (which is appearing ignored) has been provided. None of the external uninvolved editors who have contributed to the RfC has said it warrants any inclusion in this article. Using something in a source which is an individuals opinion and not attributing the phrase to the person is wrong .Instead what is happening is the leaving of the statement unchallenged as if it is a fact. if it is quoted in an article then it goes in Wikipeida (If at all) as follows "Such and Such writing for So and So publication described it as x" Not cherry picking their most opinionated and biased wording and dumping it in as a fact.

Claiming the following "The concept of that could only have lived in your own mind." Is just absurd. It also clearly points out that this is just synthesis. I also fail to understand the rest of the statement. As it appears to verify that this is just synthesis.

Finally selectively over using a source to justify a position is undue weight especially a highly controversial point. The BBC source and the Engineering source being two examples.

I suggest all the currently involved editors take a break from editing this and let the RfC conclude and come back after we have watched the Paralympic games in September. otherwise the personalising nature of this is getting a little absurd and the content is being missed. Sport and politics (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please address SPECIFICALLY if any statement you deleted violated Wikipedia guideline for inclusion in the article (I need to stress again that all those statements are backed by secondary sources). Otherwise you don't have ground for making those deletions. Showmebeef (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is time to calm down. Numerous statements have been demonstrated to violate Wikipeida guidelines and policies namely on being biased and as a result of synthesis. Please also remember that Wikiepdia is not a place to try and "win" and please also be aware of the potential believing an article is owned. I am now going to attempt to ignore personalised comments and accusations and am going to continue what I have been doing from the start and that is focusing on the content. Continued personal attacks and unfounded accusations can result in users being banned. I would hate for any user to have that happen to them. It is time to step back and be rational and if need be to take a break. Clearly some users are getting a little to embroiled in trying to "win" and are forgetting to act collaboratively and in the spirit, rules and guidelines of Wikipedia.Sport and politics (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Chris Boardman has admitted that technology would have given the GB team an advantage. This is clearly placing the teams on an uneven playing field. A survey clearly states that the public are concerned about technology giving teams an advantage. Therefore, on what possible basis is this not controversial? Claims of it not being illegal are completely irrelevent, what is legal in one year can still be controversial and this is as stated in the IMechE report Sports engineering an unfair advantage? There are ways of getting round the regulations as stated in the article. I would suggest you read this. It is written by a reputable organisation and is far superior to most references used in Wiki. --188.220.205.42 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is allowed by the rules and declared legal and all team abide by the same rules it is not unfair in any way. If a runner has more expensive shoes than another runner or shoes moulded to their feet does that make the race unfair? It would be absurd to claim it does. It so uncontroversial that no one is even talking about it outside of these tiny selective sources bought up and by the sore losers. There is an opinion piece of academic discussion bought up from an industry publication (which has been held up as if it is the bible), to attempt to "prove this ". It does nothing of the sort. If nothing else can be found then it is undue weight to one piece and shows no wider notability of this and demonstrates it is not a controversy. It is not for Wikipedia to guide or lead readers or speculate on how to "get round" things. Wikipedia a is for cold hard facts not insinuation, conjecture and unfounded opinions. 15:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes, 15:32, 31 August 2012‎

• Added the fact that pricing info is not provided in addition to "time of delivery", at the UK sport site. Showmebeef (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That information is not usually provided when things are custom made. It is pejorative and only adds to the POV the team GB are some how being disingenuous by adding the sales page. It is not controversial to not include this information for custom made objects as the price and time needed to ma the items will be unknown until the bespoke requirements are known. Sport and politics (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A fully verifiable fact is quoted from a WP:IRS. Whether it's usually provided or not usually provided is irrelevant. Since it's a fact, I don't know how the label POV could be applied here. Whether it's "pejorative" to state that fact is not up to the editors, it is referred in the context of the original source:

"In 2010, the UCI threatened to ban both the Team GB and German FES bikes on those grounds. At the time, rumor circulated that British Cycling’s derisive plan was to slap a Pinarello sticker (a British Cycling sponsor) on a frame and sell it for an exorbitant amount, likely to some collector. Technically, that would have satisfied the rules, which state that no minimum production quantity or price is defined. Instead, they went a (slightly) different direction. Very quietly, UK Sport added a page to its web site where you can buy the gear."

The source may convey an opinion. But it's certainly not the editor's POV. Showmebeef (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A "fact" can be expressed in more than one way, there is also a need to meet WP:NPOV and demonstrate relevancy of the sentence other than to advance a certain POV. If it is pejorative then it doesn't meet NPOV standards and unless there is wording which is balancing of that language or the use of that language can be demonstrated as essential in the context it is used, it is not neutral and should be avoided at all times. It is up to Wikipedia to remain neutral at all times and not push any POV.

Why is there also no mention in the article of the German response to the UCI threatening to ban their bicycles. For neutrality and balance there needs to be inclusion of both not just one. The source quote above does not make any mention of times for delivery or the lack or a price being made clear up front on the website either, so that bit is not verified by the above source. Also is it right to give the above opinion the weight it is currently being given. If it was a quote from the author of the opinion in a context that would be less weight to the opinion and make it more easily acceptable in to the article. At the moment it is written in a far to heavy handed way which unbalances and biases the section. Sport and politics (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The fact is stated in its simplest form (i.e. something is NOT done) and there is no opinion extrapolated from it. That's the essence of WP:NPOV: assert facts, don't assert opinions. We are doing exactly what NPOV requires.
• "Why is there also no mention...": I don't know. The source does not. If you can find a source that mentions German's response, by all means include them here.
• "At the moment it is written in a far to(o) heavy handed way...": Well, that appears to be your own assessment--in other words, a POV. At this point, the article is fully sourced, and an effort has been made to quote directly from the sources.

Showmebeef (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sports and politics wrote earlier that:

Some of the statements removed are far to POV and incendiary such as "famously secretive" and "officially recognised as a threat". They have no place in the section as they are just POV pushing, not given as a direct quotation of an idvidiual (which they are not) there is also no balance provided to these sections.

Note that the statement "'Technology doping’ which is now officially recognised as a threat" is a direct quote from the source Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage?. It is not POV therefore no POV pushing here. Showmebeef (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The "threat" quote refers to hyperbaric oxygen chambers and individual athletes health not fair competition. there also appears to be a missing of the point that while some these section removed are now bizarrely being claimed as just my POV, it is not being seen that the wording is wholly unneeded, for the point of teh section to be given. If i was to write "Jo Bloggs a compulsive over eater and a viewer of Disney films at 0230 every morning murdered five women with an axe." Would be factually accurate but would only serve to give of the impression of Jo Bloggs being someone who is an oddball. Which is not what Wikipedia is in the business of doing. Simply stating "Jo Bloggs murdered five women with an axe" is fine and conveys the neutral facts. Adding the phrasing above is woolly and unneeded to the facts being presented so their inclusion only serves to give of the impression of the GB team being dark, shady, secretive and sly (again my interpretations). If those things are not included then no interpretations as to motives of GB cycling can be inferred so not POV of any kind can be pushed regardless of if the stuff being included is a quotation, a direct fact or both. Wikipeida is not the place to add things which dress up the neutral facts as more than that. Sport and politics (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC

There is an ongoing dispute as to weather the above section on sports technology being discussed warrants inclusion in the article. Please look at all sides of the arguments presented and the text in the history of the article here. Is this a genuine controversy or just a conspiracy theory? Sport and politics (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Just to let potential respondents know, Sport and politics has been removing editors' comments from this RfC and placing them in the section above. Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The comments are only from the currently involved editors in the dispute and not from any editor who is currently uninvolved in the dispute. Sport and politics (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment doesnt appear to be a controversy related to the 2012 Summer Olympics and I dont see why it should be mentioned, but that also applies to some of the other trivia in the article as well. Might be worth a mention in an article related to the specific sport but not here. MilborneOne (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I echo MilborneOne. This is not an issue specific to these games, but pervades sport in general. With Oscar Pistorius' "legs", this crosses the barrier between able-bodied olympics and paralympics too. The LZR episode, for example, was last year. The article is already much too long with material that isn't all that relevant, and I genuinely feel this belongs in the specific sport article if it should be anywhere at all. --Lolo Lympian (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this article addresses the title now - what was controversial at the 2012 Olympics, and is by far the best version. Before, the article was led by introductory paragraphs on technological doping in general, and swimsuits in the previous Olympics which made it appear too general, leading to claims that it should be placed in another section altogether. The information on technological doping has now been placed at the end of the section. The swimsuits have been taken out, but could still be mentioned with respect to describing how the regulatory agencies appear to lag technological advances, so what is legal in one Olympics doesn't equate what is eventually deemed to be fair. Let me have your thought on this. --Andromedean (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many sources are synthesised or how many times the word controversy is used or how much original research is undertaken. This is still nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Sport and politics (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree it's an Olympics issue per se. Technological doping is important and one that pervades sport, with each sport having its particularities. Some of it just happened to blow during the Olympics. Timing is coincidental. --Lolo Lympian (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The extensive media coverage dealing with this subject matter leading to and during the Games makes it highly relevant to this Olympics. There are close to 15 independent sources referenced in this article alone. (Showmebeef (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC))

That therefore shows it is wider than the Olympics and not an issue of the 2012 Olympics. Sport and politics (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I have previously pushed for the inclusion of several sections in this article (disagreeing with Sport and politics in both cases). Despite this inclusionist viewpoint I really don't see the case for including the discussed section. In the current version of the article the following is all that is mentioned of the 2012 Games:

"[Marginal gains based on research is hoped to] give the British team a 'decisive edge inside London's Olympic Velodrome'. The British and German teams developed their own bespoke bicycle for the 2012 Olympics [sic] All bicycles and rider equipment at the games were declared legal by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and passed fit for use under its sporting code."

I also read the sources given for the quoted section. None of them reports this as a controversy, but as factual information on the GB bikes. Furthermore, I have not seen this reported anywhere as a controversy of the 2012 Olympics. While I do not dispute that overly technological equipment is occasionally controversial, and in my opinion detrimental to the universality of sports, I cannot support the inclusion of this section as it is not related to the 2012 Olympics as a controversy. 85.164.140.57 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have know looked through the old version linked to below by those in arguing for inclusion. It does not change my opinion; the source with French reactions does not use phrases like "unfair advantage". This hardly seems a condemnation:

"Admitting she was 'puzzled', French track cycling chief Isabelle Gautheron told AFP: 'They haven't dominated for the past four years, they were among the best teams in the world along with Australia, Germany and France['].

'Here, they're crushing everybody.'"

85.164.140.57 (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a user id? Could you post your comment using your id, unless you want to remain anonymous?

"I have previously pushed for the inclusion of several sections..."--it appears the only contribution attributed to this IP addr is the comment you posted here. Showmebeef (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not a registered user. I simply do not want to register an account, as I edit very sporadically (often in connection with the Olympics). Since you ask my main discussions have been these two (and older discussions on those subjects) where you will find various IPs. Since it wouldn't be obvious through my contribution history I figured I ought to mention my previous involvement with the article.
If you read through the comments in this RFC, you will find that all three editors who have responded to the RFC think the section does not belong in the article, and for the same reason. There are sources for the fact that technology in sports can be controversial and for the the fact that British cyclists have had access to specially developed superbikes. There are no sources claiming that this was a controversy at the 2012 Olympics, but that is the only source that is relevant for inclusion in this article. Find a WP:RS claiming this and the section may have a case for inclusion. If you manage to find a source claiming this, consider how difficult it was or how mainstream it is. If you have trouble finding a source for a controversy perhaps it wasn't one, a "prolonged public dispute or debate" would generally not be inconspicuous. 85.164.140.57 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. This talk page alone demonstrates the controversy. Tone down the language a bit from what's in the diff, I'd say (a bit of peacockery there in my opinion), but put it in. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not follow your logic. This talk page does not demonstrate that the section describes a real controversy, at least in the context of the 2012 Olympics. The only controversy on the talk page is the controversy on the inclusion of the section. 85.164.140.57 (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I need to point out that Cla68 has previously expressed his support for inclusion but Sports and politics has moved that comment outside of this RFC section. (Showmebeef (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC))

Yes. But all non-involved (i.e. their first comment was to this RFC) editors (at the time of my previous comment) where in favour of removal. Any comments on the reason we have given for its removal, i.e. that it is not (demonstrated that it is) a controversy in the context of the 2012 Summer Olympics. 85.164.140.57 (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

ShowmeBeef please be aware this is not a vote and any reasonable closing admin will be able to see very clearly who is on which side. Aa has been said at the time of writing no uninvolved user was in support of retention. Sport and politics (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe Cla68 does qualify as a uninvolved user as he has not been involved in editing this particular article, to my knowledge. The fact that he's expressed his opinion (for the inclusion) based on the arguments and sources presented then before this RfC was enacted does not invalid his status. (Showmebeef (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC))

Maybe. It is not particularly important as Cla68's opinion is equally important in either case. The vagueness of the term "uninvolved" is the reason I clarified that I used it as "first comment on this matter was in the RFC". I don't see why the comment was moved, when it was clearly intended to be in the RFC section. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As explained we need to see the most comprehensive version, since this addresses all the concerns, such as it isn't controversial or relevent to London 2012. By removing these parts Sport and Politics has provided a reason to remove the rest of it. Therefore for this reason I will change it to a recent previous version with some typos corrected.

From now on if you do wish it changed, please provide valid reasons, such as - The sources are not reliable and you have reliable alternative ones which contradict them, you have a source which contains information which suggests technologial changes such as improved aerodynamics wouldn't have been significant, or if you have shown the Olympic track cycling not to be sufficently representative of the world championship cycling (show the data).

Invalid reasons for removal which have been attempted (I'm not kidding), include - 'the British team did well', 'no rules were broken (just circumvented)' 'it doesn't matter how many quotes and research I find saying it's controversial - it doesn't make it controversial','improvements in the 1 hr cycling record due to aerodynamics has no relevence to the Olympic cycling because the specific event isn't used in the Olympics!' ' If I need to clarify a point with a Professor of Sports Engineering the subject is to complex to include'

Let's try to get some credibility in here folks, and stop wasting time. It's unlikely any unbiased Wikipedian will take the above points seriously. Try not to impress by using Wikipedian jargon or an overzealous intepretation of rules, I'm sure they have seen it all before.--Andromedean (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your version adds the following about the 2012 Olympics:
"The British team introduced new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, despite having them available at the world championships earlier in the year and they went on to break numerous world records and won seven out of ten events in London 2012 compared to six out of nineteen four months earlier in the UCI World Championships."
This is not a controversial statement, nor it is a factual statement about a controversy. It is a factual statement about bikes and results.
Re: "It's unlikely any unbiased Wikipedian (...)": Here you are very close to claiming that all editors who have commented on the RFC and argued for its removal are biased as you claim no unbiased editor will agree with them. On the contrary, one unbiased editor gave his reasons for removal which was shortly followed by a different unbiased editor removing the section. The removal was reversed and this editor voiced support for the reason given by unbiased editor 1. A third unbiased editor (me, my IP has probably changed again) then gave similar reasons for the removal of the section.
The reason I have given, which is very similar or the same as the first two editors' reasons, is that it is not a controversy in the context of the 2012 Olympics. What we mean is that you have sources for the claim that technology in sports can be controversial, you have sources for the claim that technological bikes are good, you have sources for the claim that technological bikes where used by some teams at the 2012 Olympics, but, crucially, you have no sources combining these facts. What this means is that you cannot back up your claim that this is a controversy. It would have been a controversy if, for example, the other teams had refused to start an event, or lobbied to change the rules or strengthen the enforcing of the rules. Alternatively it would have been a controversy if (sports) newspapers were critical to the UCI and the IOC allowing these bikes, and reported on this in the run-up to the Games. I have not seen this debated anywhere. It may have been mentioned on cycling forums, but that would fail WP:RS.
In closing, none of the evidence presented is sufficient for inclusion, and I'm confident that whoever closes this RFC will see this. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

it is stated that the French and Austalian teams suspected that technology may have been a factor in enhancing performance in 2012, although they were distravcted away from the specific reason. There are sources which link these together. I don't think this it is necessary to include these though, since no direct claim of technology enhancing performance for the 2012 games is used in the Wiki sction.

BTW It's bad enough having people on here which don't declare any potential conflicts of interest, but when anonomous IP addresses are used alarm bells start ringing.--Andromedean (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the source that comes closest to showing a controversy. However, the claims do not appear to have been maintained. If they truly believed the bikes did not comply with the rules I would have expected formal protests. As for the second part of your comment: read this. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Another interesting quote here: "Steve Haake, director of the Center for Sports Engineering at Sheffield Hallam University in the UK, said that, like it or not, such innovation can make all the difference in close groups such as the 24 runners competing behind Jamaican Usain Bolt in the 100-meter sprint.“Improvements are fair if these technologies are available to all athletes,” Haake said. “Where people don’t like it is if some countries are spending more money on research – a poor little country in Southeast Asia for example can’t do that.” "--Andromedean (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Undisputed, and irrrelevant to the article "Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics" 88.88.164.152 (talk) 07:49

In what sense is Usain Bolt and the 24 athletes behind him isn't relevent to the 2012 olympics?

, 29 August 2012 (UTC--Andromedean (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC))

The quote is not relevant to the 2012 Summer Olympics as it does not appear to be connected to it. This may be a general statement on the current situation on this event. As you have not linked to the quote I can't check this. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is called At London Olympics Technology Tries to Stay a Step Ahead--Andromedean (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm sorry to say that you have presented a better case for including the information from this article than you have of including the cycling technology case. This is at least presented as related to the 2012 Olympics as a controversy, albeit a minor one. The controversial issue of technology doping still seems to to be connected to the Olympics only tangentially. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think my omission of the source although accidental and the subsequent response serves to prove though how desperate people are to find any excuse to censor this information. --Andromedean (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are wrong. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC Part 2

So where do we stand on the dispute resolution? It seems that whatever report or article I find there always seems to be three or four people who wish to dismiss it as a conspiracy, and a similar number who wish to have it included as a controversy.

When any evidence is presented to demonstrate that cycling performance is inherently sensitive to technological differences, new equipment was introduced at the Olympics, or that the equipment worried other teams, or this coincided with an improvement in performance of the team with the new equipment, this is dismissed as leading the reader, synthesis, or original research. This means the article can't easily head with something highly specific to the Olympics which then becomes a good excuse to remove it all to another section.

This is really why I requested an experienced negotiator to ensure that Wikipedia rules were being adhered to, but this request seems to have been ignored for reasons which puzzle me.

There are however cases which surely must rank as blatent abuse which barely requires anything but basic policing of the board, such as a) the removal of articles with quotes and references, dismissed as original research. b) Any two or more quotes being dismissed as 'synthesis' and in particular c) the removal of the quote of UKs head of research and development of the British Cycling Team who when asked if this high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."

Now if something as well defined as that it removed for being unproven, please describe how any meaningful discussion can proceed on the other issues?

I understand this resolution stands for arounf 3 more weeks, do we go on like this for that long? --Andromedean (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Until you find a source that states that the cycling technology used at the 2012 Olympics is controversial in the context of the 2012 Olympics (either outright, or by describing protests, calls for disqualifications or calls for rule changes) the inclusion of this section will fail as synthesis. Other teams being "puzzled" isn't enough. For example: I am puzzled by the times achieved in the 100 m sprint in the Bolt era, but that doesn't mean I doubt the results or think they are inherently suspicious. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding or misusing wikipedia rules. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, then one must not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C: This is reasonable because you could combine the two to imply almost anything.

The case is entirely different, several sources state that technology was used in the London 2012 Olympic cycling to gain a performance differential. Another reliable source says that using technology to gain a performance differential in Olympic sports is controversial. Therefore, I am concluding that using Technology to gain a performance differential in the London 2012 Olympic cycling was controversial. It is a logical deduction, not original research or speculation/synthesis.

This is really why I wanted an experienced intepreter of the synthesis rules here to explain.

It is all rather academic anyway, since the covering of the British bikes and perceived superiority of the British bikes was controversial to the French team and the French public as shown in polls. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to make judgements on their rationality, or even conclude this doesn't make the subject controversial even if they were being irrational!

Finally there is at least one of the links which judges the Olympic bikes to be controversial, a direct link. So your claim of synthesis fails on all three counts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You wrote: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, then one must not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C", and "several sources state that technology was used in the London 2012 Olympic cycling to gain a performance differential. Another reliable source says that using technology to gain a performance differential in Olympic sports is controversial. Therefore, I am concluding that using Technology to gain a performance differential in the London 2012 Olympic cycling was controversial."

A:"technology was used in the London 2012 Olympic cycling to gain a performance differential"

B: "using technology to gain a performance differential in Olympic sports is controversial";

C: "using Technology to gain a performance differential in the London 2012 Olympic cycling was controversial".

"It is all rather academic anyway, since the covering of the British bikes and perceived superiority of the British bikes was controversial to the French team and the French public as shown in polls." If this is the case you should provide this info from a source as several editors have requested sources to verify that this was a controversy at the Olympics.
"Finally there is at least one of the links which judges the Olympic bikes to be controversial". Which link? I have not seen this in the sources you have provided.
In addition to the synthesis problem opponents of inclusion have put forward WP:WEIGHT as an argument, presumably because the issue has not received (or that it has not been demonstrated that it has received) sufficient coverage. I am not sure how to interpret this policy, but I think it would be advantageous for the case for inclusion if e.g. a couple of news articles about this case were found. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

88.88.164.152 Here we are saying that if A leads to B and B follows to C then A must by definition lead to C. This is not the same thing as synthesis as defined in Wiki, where a conclusion C is inferred based on an ill defined assumptions.

A = Using all technology to gain an advantage in the olympics is controversial B = cycling technology was used in the London 2012 olympics to gain an advantage C= cycling technology used in the London 2012 olympics is controversial.

See Law of Syllogism --Andromedean (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you have a source for A and a source for B, and then you combine them to form C without providing a source for C. It does not matter how logical this may be, and in any case B doesn't logically follow from A. The reason it doesn't matter is that while logically it ought to be a controversy in order to actually be a controversy it has to be widely reported and discussed. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I will rewrite the article as per your request, but please be aware that I have done this many times and sport and Politics keeps reverting to an older version which makes it appear as if the issue is not relevent to the olympics. If you have the power to stop this, please do then we can progress more quickly. --Andromedean (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what request you are referring to, I asked to see the sources and you can easily link to those on the talk page. Since you ask I have no power to stop reversions. You can perhaps report it as an edit war. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

88.88.164.152 - you say "I am puzzled by the times achieved in the 100 m sprint in the Bolt era, but that doesn't mean I doubt the results or think they are inherently suspicious. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)." That is because the athletes didn't visibly use a different technology (e.g. new drug if you like) immediately before the era, then surely you would have said yes it was controversial. However, this is clearly what happened here, technology doping in this case, new bikes were used specifically for the London 2012 olympics and the increase in performance appeared immediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs)

The point of the "puzzled" bit was merely to indicate that "puzzled" =/= "claims to be in violation of the rules" (or similar). Also, a new bike is not neccessarily breaking the rules; a new drug is. 88.88.164.152 (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have revised the most recent revision made to the section. I have toned down the section and added necessary quotation marks to give the correct context in the section. I have also removed the final paragraph entirely as it is in no way related to the 2012 Olympics it is just a general commentary on technology and its perceived effect on sports. Some of the statements removed are far to POV and incendiary such as "famously secretive" and "officially recognised as a threat". They have no place in the section as they are just POV pushing, not given as a direct quotation of an idvidiual (which they are not) there is also no balance provided to these sections. Sport and politics (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport & politics, I have been asked by an editor to include all the quotes and references which could justify a controversy. I will kindly ask you one last time not to revert it until we have fully discussed it. --Andromedean (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)This will allow us to discuss the version with all the quotes from the articles in, or else it makes it difficult to justify, if there is a consensus and good reason to remove bits I will later consider this. I don't like the way you barge in immediately and gradually hemorrhage a text which then allows greater justification for total removal. This is what happened last time, and it has created a lot of work on my behalf. Please don't encourage in an edit war, give the text a chance.--Andromedean (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you Andromedean please refrain from acting like the owner you are clearly demonstrating ownership by stating "if there is a consensus and good reason to remove bits I will later consider this. I don't like the way you barge in immediately and gradually hemorrhage a text". I am not sure when the approval of other editors was required as to what the current text of the article states was required and weather or not another editor "liked it" or not. It is not up to any editor to state their approval is needed with wording such as " I will later consider this". If there is consensus any editor has the right to remove and modify text, not just the person who added it. That is a demonstration of article ownership. Also I would suggest before you start making claims against other editors you yourself refrain from doing what you are claiming other editors are doing. If there was a genuine want of consideration of a section of revisions then post it here fist and not on the main article. As has previously been stated very few of the impartial editors (currently only one at the time of writing) have put forward any argument or justification to retain this. Numerous other impartial editors have provided a range of reasons for removal and non inclusion. I would suggest no one involved edits this article again until this dispute is wholly resolved, not you not me not ShowMeBeef not the IP editors. Then maybe true discussion can take place and not edits with ownership threats attached. I have also provided full justification for the removal of the sections you seem intent on inclining with no other justification other that it is liked by yourself you added it and i don't like see others "tampering" with my "hard work" (ps the stuff in "" marks are not quotes). Sport and politics (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read Andromedean's version of the article and remain unconvinced by the sources. At most a section on unwarranted French reactions to several British results in different sports could be made based on these two, but I don't think it is high-profile enough and would give undue weight to unfounded allegations, similar to the Chinese swimmer non-case. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

'You want a section headed 'Unwarranted French reactions'? Surely you are joking? You spend all this time accusing me (or defending S&P accusing me) of 'opinion' and 'synthesis' then this?

Seriously now, with the four references supplied from three seperate countries, each of which contain all the essential elements for inclusion, a) controversy, b) technological advantage, and c) participation in the London 2012 Olympics, this should have brought any honest, rational discussion from the controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics section to a close, since it can't fail through any intepretation of synthesis or limited reporting rules.

Britains Mysterious Olympic Bikes London 2012: Team GB 'magic wheels' saga keeps on rolling Fuming French accuse UK of Olympic dirty tricks cycling - London 2012 Games - Olympic Games - UK French Olympic 'cheating' claims rile British PM--Andromedean (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out by multiple users who have provided substantial reasoning as to why this whole section is just POV pushing synthesis which should be removed. It has been substantially pointed out this is not a controversy (reasoning has been provided over and over by many editors on this point). No Rules were broken, no sources directly prove or state that "technology doping" actually took place (demonstrating the level of synthesis and undue weight being given to one piece of academic research being engaged in, which multiple users have pointed out). The latest sources are just coverage of more complaints by sore losers.

Did the man who beat Oscar Pistorious actually cheat as was claimed By Pistorious after the race? No. Was a lot of coverage given to the comments by Pistorious? Yes. Does that warrant inclusion as a controversy (on a similar page for the Paralympics)? No. It belongs on the pages of Oscar Pistorious and the man who beat him, if at all. This "technology doping" synthesis and original research is exactly the same. The comments are controversial. What they are claiming though is not controversial it is just "I don't like that they beat me, hurmph!". Similarly Ye Shewin, swam very very fast and beat the expected winners in her races. Lots of coaches and other competitors made wild accusations and they were controversial claims. Are they included here? No. Why? Because they are without foundation and only original research and synthesis could be used to back them up. An Identical pattern of editing is occurring by trying to justify the inclusion of this section "proving technology doping and therefore cheating and therefore GB Cycling did not deserve to win, was engaged in the GB cycling". it is just unproven nonsense intent on making a fuss because some competitors lost and GB Cycling did well. It is time to realise that this section is not worthy of being included on Wikipedia as it is just without foundation as to what it is trying convey.

RfC's are open for a 30 day period and this one just like every other RfC will be appropriately closed by an appropriate administrator at the end of the 30 day period.

Sport and politics (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

bicycling.com: Describes the British bike program. Controversial that the bikes were unpurchasable from 2001-2010, hence link of controversy to 2012 is tenuous.
The Guardian: Describes unfounded French claims
sports.yahoo.com: Describes various French claims in several sports, not exclusively against Team GB, as well as a different claim against Team GB. Seems sensationalist and incoherent; it is just a list of claims that a lot of British results are dodgy.
france24.com: British PM responds (also mentioned in the above) to unfounded claims which included claims of illegal drug use.
The above sources you have provided lead me to the conclusion that the French claims have received more (but still limited) coverage as being controversial claims, than they have been reported as reasonable claims describing a genuine controversy. I am not advocating the inclusion of this case in the article as "unfounded French claims" (with a more encyclopedic title), but I am saying that that is more reasonable than to include it as a controversy in the sense that the British cyclists have done something (that has been widely reported as) controversial.
I may see it differently if I had access to and could understand French sources (it may have been a more high-profile case there). If you know any such sources that may convince some editors, but as I said I won't be able to read them. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm still searching for these, do we really need any more nails in the coffin? The point is that you aren't willing to accept the literature, you have an agenda and wish to intepret it. I am willing to play either way, since the evidence is strong that technology gave the British team an advantage, but we will have to conform to Wikipedia rules, if the literature and Chris Boardman says something they said it, you can't change it because you don't ike it.

Here is James Dyson in the Telegraph

"Sport technology is controversial. Team GB cyclists triumphed at the Olympics but not without French whispers of wheel wizardry. Does technology give an unfair advantage? Of course there should be rules, but there should be leeway to push technological advancements"

Did James Dyson say that sports technology was controversial in the context of British cycling at the London 2010 Olympics yesterday? Yes he did, because it can be perfectly legal and controversial at the same time, as we are observing now with the para-olympic 'blade' saga.--Andromedean (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

--Andromedean (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on the sources now available, and particularly the one you just provided, I can support inclusion of parts of the text currently in the article, specifically:

Technology in track cycling

The British team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year. They subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected. In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play, especially regarding the use of technology. Isabelle Gautheron, director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested Britain's gold streak may have been aided by "subterfuge, and cutting edge technology" to produce the quickest bike. The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that "the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment. They have new bikes, new skinsuits and different wheels." Chris Boardman, former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team, was asked if the British team's "high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage", he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're [the other countries are?] not." [I am not convinced that the specific claims ought to be included by quotes, I think a general statement suffices for a controversy with this degree of coverage, i.e. remove everything after foul play and add "especially regarding the use of technology" (move "technology doping" link accordingly).]

Cycling frames used by team GB are built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are also used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailing boats. Chris Boardman laughs of claims 'magic wheels' led to GB's cycling success. [is this neccessary; I would say "no"]

All bicycles and rider equipment at the Games were declared legal by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and passed fit for use under its sporting code. In compliance with the code the British equipment is available for purchase at the UK Sport website. The UCI sporting code states that bikes used in competition have to be available to the public to purchase. In 2010, the UCI threatened to ban both the Great Britain and German bikes on grounds that they were not available to the public at large. UK Sport then added a page to its web site selling the equipment. The World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA) also considers prohibiting technologies if they are "performance-enhancing" or "being against the spirit of the sport". In 2006 WADA initiated a consultation on ‘Technology doping’. The decision to allow or ban a new technology, specifically relating to sports equipment, is the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body. [removed]

Added link to technology doping at "foul play". I fail to see how the removed part is relevant to these games and remain opposed to its inclusion. Of course, the info on WADA in the struck-out part ought to be available at technology doping, which is linked to. British cycling's failure to comply with the rules until 2010 can also be mentioned there in the Cycling section. For 2012 they are in compliance with all rules (added a the bold part to clarify this), and to include that much info on past transgressions fails WP:NPOV. Of course, "technology doping" does not currently have the required info, but that is a reason to add it there, not a reason to add it here. so add it there. I also doubt the neccessity of the second paragraph, but won't fight you over it.

I also think info on the claim (can we source this to the poll) that 70 %(!) of the French public believed that the result where tainted by cheating ought to be included, and Cameron's response stating that the unfounded suspicion is against the Olympic spirit must be added as it shows that the French comments are themselves seen as controversial.

Also, the reason you are still searching for sources is that you have made a very poor case for inclusion; in part because you include way too much, and in part because a fundamental lack of civility when discussing. You continue to claim other editors have agendas. This is hardly the best way to get editors to read the sources you provide with an open mind. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore the section doesn't belong in the Prior to the Games section. I have moved it and removed the most egregious cases of extraneous material. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

88 Well at least we are getting somewhere since we now both agree it should be included under the controversy section, although it seems unlikely a valid reason could have been used for its exclusion.

The remaining issues are

you still wish to edit the article in a form were the reader would be misled into believing that the British had complied with the spirit of the law and that bikes were available for purchase prior to the games so they can be evaluated by other teams. There is no evidence to suggest this was possible and this should be made clear. I also think that threats by the UCI against the British are also relevent, since the new rules were introduced since the London Olympics.

That the new bikes were introduced directly before the London Olympics and kept under wraps for the world championships also seems to be relevent. I would like the reader to see the comparative results between these two championships since this would allow them to make an informed decision if the French belief that technological changes might have any justification. The inclusion of the '45% improvement in the 1 hr time due to technology' would also provide the reader with an idea how critical technology is.

Finally, the reference to public attitides on technology in sports is highly relevent to this issue being a controversy.

I had hoped that an experienced unbiased third party may be able to advise on these issues, if not it seems unlikely we can make much progress in my view.--Andromedean (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"[T]he reference to public attitides on technology in sports is highly relevent to this issue being a controversy.": Which is why I suggested including the poll and Cameron, instead of the non-informative quotes currently in the article.

"I also think that threats by the UCI against the British are also relevent, since the new rules were introduced since the London Olympics.": Not here, they have complied with the rules since 2010.

Re spirit of the law: There is presumably a reason why there is a delay of a couple of months before the equipment must be available for purchase by third parties. It is understandable that they want to produce them for their own athletes first. In any case it is more misleading to include information that implies that team GB was very close to cheating as this is a minority view found (almost) exclusively in France.

"That the new bikes were introduced directly before the London Olympics and kept under wraps for the world championships also seems to be relevent. I would like the reader to see the comparative results between these two championships since this would allow them to make an informed decision if the French belief that technological changes might have any justification. The inclusion of the '45% improvement in the 1 hr time due to technology' would also provide the reader with an idea how critical technology is." Which is the reason why you will shortly add this information to a suitable article, to which I have provided a link in the article.

Stop implying other editors are biased. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

":The inclusion of the '45% improvement in the 1 hr time due to technology' would also provide the reader with an idea how critical technology is." Which is the reason why you will shortly add this information to a suitable article." Will I? It could certainly belong there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 15:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I worded that poorly. I meant that you ought to add it there as this is the wrong place for it. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying my opinion: I do not think it is neccessary to include the section in the limited capacity I have posted above, but I can see that it is possible to make a case for it. Thus I will not argue for or against the inclusion of the limited section. I am completely opposed to including the full section. I have nothing else to add to this RFC. The opinions of the other editors who have posted in the RFC advocating complete removal or retension should not be dismissed. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on removal of objective evidence on Olympic bikes

- should objective information related to the technological improvements made to bikes used for the London Olympics, details of the rules, and the public attitudes to technology in sports be removed to another section

85.167.110.93 In view that there is mainly the two of us involved now and restricted to the above titled dispute it would seem that this could be negotiated by a third party as was suggested. Hopefully this will bring this subject to a conclusion.

I don't think the dispute has changed that much, in that if the objective evidence is removed it will just make it appear as if the Controversy is sour grapes, or patroitism on behalf of the losers.

Let me try to summarise the points we need to resolve in more detail.

the question is do we keep one or more of the following points in the 'Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics' section, move it to a general section on technology doping, or remove it completely?

I don't think these points are in dispute just where to put them.

1)the British introduced new bikes for the Olympics whilst keeping them 'under cover' for the world championships 3 months earlier.

2)details how the British cycling team performed in the World championships relative to the Olympics with the new bikes (medals/times/position in cycling table)

3)the background to the new rules regarding bikes introduced between the Olympics in view that these became most relevent in the London 2012 Olympics and in view that a [[3]] is by definition a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.

4)just mention that Bikes had to be available to the public and the British complied with these rules, or mention that the bikes in practice wouldn't have been available to any outside parties until well after first use in competition, in this case the 2012 Olympics.

5)include a French Internet poll and the British prime-minister's views regarding the British 'cheating' immediately after the British Won at the Olympics or/and the results of a University based 20,000 person survey on attitudes to technology and fairness in Olympic sport mentioned in an Professional report released immediately before the 2012 Olympics. Sports Engineering an Unfair Advantage? (July 2012)

6) Do we provide an indication of how important technology can be to improvements in performance (45% change is due to aerodynamics alone in the 1 hr time according to the above report)

There may be a dispute however regarding how wide the technology controversy was. Was it specific to the French officials and public, American cycling magazines and the official cycling bodies such as the UCI or does the survey suggest it is far more more widespread? --Andromedean (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

See below for the responses to the six points raised above which have previously been discussed on this talk page.

Point one: The world championships and the bicycles used only by the British is biasing towards the GB team and fails on undue weight of a minor event, as other nations also had specialised bikes for the Olympics. there is also no reasoning provided as to why different bicycles were used. It could have been to difficult to transport the bicycles from Great Britain to Australia so they had to use different bicycles when at the world championships.

Point two: Is not relevant as it ignores the fact that GB were the hosts of the Olympics and that only one riders per nation is allowed in Olympic events. Where as Multiple riders are allowed in World championship events.Also different events make up the Olympic cycling Programme and the World championship Programme and some competitors will have had a different combination of events at the Olympics and the World Championships so their individual performances will different as they are competing in different events.

Point three: I do not understand what is trying to be said in that point. It appears to attempt to make out that it was controversial to develop new bicycles for the Olympics. As has previously been pointed out that can only be asserted by synthesising sources through Original research and giving undue weight to minor sources and individual opinions.

Point four: Is just a stating of the rules that bicycles are allowed to be used in competition first before going on sale. There is nothing unusual in that. MotoGP bikes have to be made available to the public at large but they are never released before the start of the MotoGP season. There is therefore no controversy there at all, it is just standard practice. there is also no mention of if other nations did the same or not, where as Germany received a similar warning to GB.

Point five: How reliable is the "French Internet poll" and why should it be given a place in this article. One poll conducted in one country is not representative of the views of the wider participating nations at the Olympics. The prime ministers comments fall in to the same category as one US politician. This is not a commentary on this or that said by politicians or heads of government/state.

Point six: The information has been demonstrated to be far to confusing and not helpful to the understanding or accessibility of the article.

Sport and politics (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:3O clearly can't be used, but the 3O editor is welcome to join the discussion as far as I am concerned (fresh voices would be desireable). To Andromedean re "it will just make it appear as if the Controversy is sour grapes, or patroitism on behalf of the losers": Have you considered that this may be the case? 85.167.110.93 (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

S&P Not sure why WP:3O clearly can't be used. As pointed out by someone else, you seem to be vey knowledgable and astute with using the rules for a new user!

I agree with S&P for point 5 although for slightly different reasons. Internet polls right after a controversial event mean little, prime-ministers statements far less. Including this was a suggestion by 88! I wouldn't be against changing my mind on this, although the unbiased 20,000 person poll is by far the best one to quote even if it doesn't explicitly address this incident, it very much encompassess it.

As you say we have been over these points many times so there is little to be gained by keep arguing. That is why I strived to arrive at a solution and asked for a third opinion, at least it will save us all a lot of time, whatever the eventual resolution. --Andromedean (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse me if a use a version which includes points 1 to 6 since it gets vary confusing, simply referencing it in the middle of a lot of text on a talk page is useless, feel free to put a dispute notice on it, but not all of them!!

--Andromedean (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As you both enjoy quoting the Wikipedia rule book, I have just found an interesting one which should resolve most of the differences. [called making neccesary assumptions.]--Andromedean (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is indeed an internet poll it should not be used, I was under the impression that it was a proper survey, as I have never seen the results of internet polls reported in ostensibly serious articles. I do not see how MNA supports your position. We are three editors, hence no 3O. (This requirement was removed without consensus just prior to your making your report and was subsequently reinstated, not your fault.) 85.167.110.93 (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to answer my question above. If you haven't or will not consider the possibility that "the Controversy is sour grapes, or patroitism on behalf of the losers" then discussion with you seems rather futile. I have certainly considered both the possibility that the controversy is based on actual evidence of (at least borderline) foul play and the possiblitity that it is based solely on the how the losers felt. I have found the latter to be the case and if a section on this is included it must show this. I am objective in the sense that I am neither British nor French, nor have I followed track cycling, and thus I have no prior bias regarding the technology used in the sport. 85.167.110.93 (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sour grapes and patriotism could be the conclusions a reader would arrive at without the benefit of three or four extra pieces of information which are why we should include the evidence that technology gave the British cyclists an advantage, combined with the background to British Cyclings dispute with he UCI, the latter of which have striven for an even playing field. To underline this we should include the university survey which suggests that the public belive this that using technology in Oylmpic sport is unfair. After these factors are included the French and the Australian reactions are understandable.

BTW was this section moved out entirely at some stage last night? I couldn't find it, and although it is still here this morning, I notice Sport & Politics has quickly reverted the points out which and other editors have requested for the sake of the discussion. --Andromedean (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If there are points "we need to discuss" add them here as opposed to sticking them in the article in the full knowledge they need to be discussed before they are added to the article. Also wWikipedia is not in the business of "the conclusions a reader would arrive at". wikipeidia is not for conclusions to be inferred or drawn from it adding extra information to "counter any perceived other conclusion" (not a quote). Wikipedia is for objective unbiased factual information which does not push any single or multiple POVs this is not a debating society or academic discussion board. The content wishing to be included fails the accepted standards of Wikipedia and is only there to serve pushing the POV the GB cycling cheated, the longer this goes on the more of an axe to grind against GB cycling is appearing to be shown. Multiple users have said this section should be removed and have provided detailed policy and guidelines as to why this should not be included. Sport and politics (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know you are the only person who believes it should be removed entirely, 88 supports it's inclusion in some form, and it has changed significantly since other views were expressed. I can't see any rational reason for moving any of the sections, and others have objected to your editing of it, it biases the discussion. I'm not sure if the references work in the discussion section, these are essential viewing for everyone.

The British team released new cycles for the London 2012 Olympics, opting not to use them for the world championships earlier in the year.[1] They subsequently outperformed their main rivals Australia and France by margins greater than these teams had expected.[2] In France the performance of the British was greeted with suspicions and allegations of foul play.[3] Isabelle Gautheron, director of the French Olympic cycling team, suggested Britain's gold streak may have been aided by subterfuge, and cutting edge technology to produce the quickest bike. Also France's world champion cyclist Gregory Bauge, demanded that his British rival divulge the U.K.'s secrets.[4] The French omnium specialist Bryan Coquard said that the British secret is due to the way they roll out the best equipment at the vital last moment. They have new bikes, new skinsuits and different wheels.[5] Chris Boardman the former head of research and development of the British Cycling Team was asked if the British teams high-tech warfare will put some countries at a disadvantage, he replied, "Well, I'd like to think so, we haven't done our job if they're not."[6]

British Cycling is secretive about its cycling technology, with the bicycle frames being the most controversial custom piece of kit. These are built at Advanced Composites Group, an English manufacturer of high-end composites that are used in Formula 1 racing, aerospace, and the America’s Cup sailboats [7][8][9]

The British and German teams were the only ones able to develop their own bikes that were not the product of a traditional manufacturer.[10]. British Cycling used custom bikes from 2001 until 2010 without marketing the bicycles.[11] However, the UCI sporting code states that bikes used in competition have to be available to the public to purchase, and in 2010 the UCI threatened to ban both the Great Britain and German bikes on grounds that they were not available to the public at large so UK Sport added a page to its web site selling the equipment, with an undisclosed time for delivery.[10] However, all bicycles and rider equipment at the Games was declared legal by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and passed fit for use under its sporting code.[6] The UCI also amended its interpretation to allow a nine-month period after first competition use of a product to bring a product to market.

Research shows that people fear that sports engineering could: overshadow the triumph of human spirit and effort, make certain sports easier, create unfairness so the "best athletes" might not win, and ensure that rich athletes and countries have an advantage over the poor ones.[12] The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) considers prohibiting technologies if they are "performance-enhancing" or "being against the spirit of the sport". In 2006 WADA initiated a consultation on ‘Technology doping’ which is now officially recognised as a threat, whilst the decision to allow or ban a new technology, specifically relating to sports equipment, is the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body.[13]:p. 15' --Andromedean (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Basement12, MilborneOne and Lolo Lympian are three other users who have stated they favour removal of the section from this page. Sport and politics (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sport and politics, an RfC usually runs for 30 days. I suggest you stop edit warring to remove the material until this RfC closes. Cla68 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The RFC must be allowed to continue and we need to see what the conclusions of the RfC are.

Andromedean who is intent on attempting to ignoring the RfC and go to other forms of dispute resolution and claim i am "gaming the system" am behaving in bad faith, is not helpful on conducive to collaborative constructive editing. This works all ways and all users, Andromedean included, must remember that the RfC is ongoing and that should be respected. Andromedean needs reminding as well they should not be adding material to the article they know to be controversial and under dispute. especially when the only reason they are giving to adding it to the article is "version added addressing full range of issues so they can be discussed". That reason demonstrates it should be added to the talk page first so it can be discussed rather than adding it to the article as it is known to be controversial and in need of discussion before being added. Sport and politics (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

To Andromedean: My question was a yes/no question, so you have not really answered it.
To all: I feel I have no more to add to this discussion, except to defend my removal which I have done below. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Andromedean, one of the key problems now is WP:WEIGHT. Specifically, your draft will make the second longest (16 lines on my screen, only "Brand protection" is longer) section on a single issue. It is clear that the issue has been nowhere near as widely reported as the "Brand protecion issue". (In fact it is one of very few cases in this article which I hadn't seen discussed before I read it at Wikipedia. It is certainly far from the plastic games fiasco.) For this reason it is neccessary to cut out some detail, as well as removing some material better suited for other articles as discussed below for the part I removed. A survey on the use of technology in Olympic sports would be another example of something belonging in "technology doping", an article in need of improvement. By the way, I added a link from "doping in sport" to "technology doping" in the "see also" section. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The part I removed and why I did so

This was removed:
The UCI sporting code states that bikes used in competition have to be available to the public to purchase. In 2010, the UCI threatened to ban both the Great Britain and German bikes on grounds that they were not available to the public at large. UK Sport then added a page to its web site selling the equipment. The World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA) also considers prohibiting technologies if they are "performance-enhancing" or "being against the spirit of the sport". In 2006 WADA initiated a consultation on ‘Technology doping’. The decision to allow or ban a new technology, specifically relating to sports equipment, is the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body.
The first part regarding rules of availability of the bikes was changed to make it clear that the British team is complying with this rule, without unfairly mentioning past transgressions. The second part introduces the concept of "technology doping" and also provides a brief history of the concept. This is clearly misplaced, in fact technology doping is an article and the information belongs there. Limited information on the concept should also be included at the recently moved article Doping in sport. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for informing us why you changed it 88.88.164.41; however, that part was already removed by Sport & Politics, you haven't done anything, have you? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics&oldid=510920217 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talking about the remove part of this. I realise my IP changes occasionally, but it should not be to hard to follow as there has only been one active IP involved in the discussion at any given time. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I realise this, the reason why I asked is because you already gave a full explanation on the 3rd September when you moved it then, but Sport and Politics moved it seemingly without explanation several days later, I don't think you have touched this for some time now.

With regard to the text, obviously I don't agree with removing the full context, perhaps we could agree to removing some of it. The part about introducing new bikes just before the olympics, and the 20,000 person University survey on attitudes to technology in olympic sport, are highly relevent to the context. Keeping these are essential in my view.--Andromedean (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason I repeated it is that I felt it was a bit drowned in surrounding discussion. In this section I wanted feedback on the bit I actually removed. Do you agree that technology doping is a more suitable location for (at least) the bit about WADA? I also think the bit about not following the rules in the past is better suited to a "cycling" section in the "technology doping" article and/or a "rules on technology" section in Track Cycling. In my view moving information to a different article is a subset of keeping it; you may link to it and readers will be able to find it easily. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

88 Your concerns about it being drowned are noted. However, protests don't happen every time someone loses, there is a background to this story which places the controversy into proper context. Without these we are biasing the reader into believing the protests were irrational, since the article appears contradictory without the context. I think that is the only reason why you wish them to be removed. I have found a brief reference which may help.--Andromedean (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean no one here is agreed for you to make your unilateral changed, in fact many are opposed. You are the only user advocating including it the format you have just added, it is not bold, it is disruptive and it is edit warring and POV pushing. You are engaging in disruptive edit warring by making unilateral and without consensus changes to this article. Please refrain from making your own unilateral changes which have clearly not got any consensus to be included in the article and are the subject of an ongoing RfC. Claiming they have consensus when they are being discussed is wrong. Claiming something "needs adding to be discussed" ignores this talk page which is where it is added first in those cases. Let the RfC continue and let the process complete. Failure to respect the process of Wikiepidia and continual edit warring can result in a ban from editing Wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sport and politics, I agree with Andromedean's edits to this article, so please stop personalizing this discussion and please stop revert warring. Please get your editing in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Users are entitled to agree all they want but many others have expressed total disagreement. It is also sounding like Pot Kettle Black here "with please stop personalising the discussion" when other users have done so in a way which is continual and in bad faith and has been raised here. I am simply pointing out behaviour which should not be undertaken. I am not attributing motives as others have done. Also just because you also like the edits doesn't mean you and Andromedean form the consensus that they must be included. There is an RfC here which you have said should be respected Cla68 but you are happy for Andromedean to ignore. I think that is a little bit of hypocrisy on your behalf Cla68. The Rfc is ongoing and that needs to be allowed to complete with no users attempting to circumvent the process. Sport and politics (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sport and Politics, please provide a diff in which I have revert warred with anyone here. Do you need any examples in which you have done so? Please attempt to collaborate, compromise, and cooperate, as per Wikipedia's policies. Cla68 (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The amount of background you wish to include on the concept of "technology doping" would in my opinion be suitable only if the concept itself was challenged. This would be similar to the Osaka Rule in the article, where the rule itself was challenged in court (thus controversial) and background on the rule is essential. In this case the rule is not in question thus the background of the rule is better placed in a different article which we can link to, so it is in no way censored.~

Stop with your implications of hidden agendas; if you truly believe it you are free to take it to WP:ANI, and if you do not believe it you are disruptive. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hijab

Hijab section reverted

Sport and politics, you reverted this section I added. I think the source makes clear that it was a controversy. I think the section should be included, and I think you stop revert warring properly sourced text that people are adding to the article. Cla68 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a "so what" section. It is a nothing section and gives the "protest" undue attention. The whole section is predicated on the fact that the under Olympic charter allowing the wearing of the head scarf was a breach of "religious activity" rules. tThis wasn't even demonstrated to have breached the charter it was only claimed to have, not proved to have. What about the athletes who did the sign of the cross or the athletes who celebrated by getting on their knees and making prayer gestures. No complaints were made about those "religious activities" and they were occurring all the time throughout the games. To single this out and single out one minor protest is selective and biased and doesn't present the whole picture. The section is not about a controversy. It is about a tiny politically motivated protest.

Also again it is not revert warring when acting in a bold fashion to remove cruft from an article. If you do not want a section you added removed make sure it is actually a noteworthy section for inclusion.Sport and politics (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport and politics, it's not you who decides what is or isn't a controversy, it's the sources. That was sourced to Sports Illustrated which defined it as a controversy. Please stop revert warring additions to this article. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Its also not for you Cla68 to pick only one source that covered this minor "protest" and give it undue coverage and weight. Cla68 this article is overloaded with things which are not controversies. Controversies need wide coverage just one sports magasines opinion doesn't make it so. A wide range of sources demonstrating and all saying it is a controversy does. This section is another one of them which is not a controversy, if you want to have a wider debate on what belongs in this article please feel free to start up (another) debate on the topic. You have also failed to see the point that singling out just the headscarf is biased. Finally please stop making personal insinuations of ownership. Sport and politics (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground, it isn't about who is right and who is wrong. Nor is it a place to be throwing insults at each other. Work cooperatively and find common ground here guys, find a mutual agreement and then implement that agreement. Thank you. Wesley Mouse 14:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wesley Mouse, I haven't made a single revert to this article even though several sections I added have been deleted, all by one editor. I think I'm doing my part to try to improve this article and I'm not insulting anyone. Do you have an opinion on whether the section should be included? Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As I have mentioned a few times in the past, I can't get too involved on this particular topic as I am a volunteer at the games themselves - and that would be a conflict of interest. The only editing I have done to London 2012 articles is minor fixes like spelling, broken links; which are not a COI breach. Not all incidents are noteworthy of inclusion though, and one needs to assess whether such an incident would be a vital piece of encyclopaedic value to the general reader, and not just to the majority fan of the Olympic and Paralympic games. Wesley Mouse 23:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to note though that the source you used for the content has been deleted from the website, so even if the content was restored it would have no source to verify it now. Wesley Mouse 23:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if an article is available on the web or not. It just matters if it is cited correctly. A number of magazines and newsapapers don't keep their articles available on the web because they want people to buy the paper copies. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound ridiculous here but how is an internet based encyclopaedia supposed to verify the source as being factually accurate and a reflection of what is being claimed, if its only available in "hard copy" and no web based sources are available? Sport and politics (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What difference does it make if it's on the website or not? Cla68's reference cites the print edition. There is absolutely no requirement that the material be available online. Read WP:RS to see this. I think that the section should go in. It's cited to a reliable source, the source describes it as a controversy, the scope of this article is controversies. I don't see the problem.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For instance, see 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. from WP:SOURCEACCESS. This is not merely a guideline, it's a policy.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read that policy. I am simply asking how it can be easily verified and shown to be true if a fee has to be paid to back up the claim, and the original citing link is now broken. As I have also said this was just a minor protest of a highly political nature and only covers one "religious display" and no other so it is biased in its singling out of the headscarf and not the signing of the cross or prayer celebrations. It has also been pointed out the source is no longer available where cited, meaning either another source needs finding or another copy of the source needs providing. Sport and politics (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read it, didn't you see that it explicitly says that ease of verification means absolutely nothing? Why don't you try assuming good faith of a respected and established editor? Also, unless I'm missing something, we're talking about this diff, and that is a citation to the print edition of Sports Illustrated. How is the source "no longer available where cited"? You could go to the library and look it up if you don't believe it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is a "controversy" and "prolonged public dispute or debate" has occurred why can only one source be provided to back it up. Also can it be demonstrated why there should be coverage given to this minor political protest? Also why is there only coverage of the headscarf and not other "religious displays"? Sport and politics (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you also get off the personal comments as this does not aid in the discussing of the content. Sport and politics (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have some policy that says that there needs to be more than one source to back up a paragraph when the paragraph is cited to the source? I don't understand the basis for your argument that it should be removed, other than that you called it "cruft". How is inserting the material against policy? How is removing it while calling it "cruft" supported by policy?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point of the Article the article is for "controversies" if it is not being widely debated and not receiving coverage then its not a controversy. Also how is it unbiased to be selective in only covering the headscarf and not other religious displays. It is cruft it is is not a "controversy" and is not generating "prolonged public dispute or debate". Finally I am not going to play games of produce this and that on demand when I have fully justified my position. Sport and politics (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

<--Did you even look for sources? [4], [5], [6], and the search you could have done yourself.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is a desire to engage in a "personal comments" debate please do do on talk pages of users not talk pages of articles. it is also up to all editors to provide a wide range of source and not to demand them from others and decry them for not doing so. Sport and politics (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're referring to. Could you clarify it for me?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And you might try to compare and contrast your argument for removing the hijab stuff with an argument for including this cruft here: Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#Non-public_archery_event.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That is another example of a section to remove, this article is still straining under the weight cruft. Sport and politics (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please remain calm folks, we are here to build an encyclopaedia after all. And I went on the SI website and also did a search for the material, and it brought one link up, but when I clicked on it to read it said "this blog has now been deleted". If it is a blog then I'm sure it would be unreliable. But if it is also in hard copy format, then yes it is permitted as a reliable source using {{cite book}} or {{cite news}} - but I have better things to do with my time than to go to a library at 2am in the morning just to find a copy. Wesley Mouse 00:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the additional references that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah found and appreciate his help which has helped improve and expand that section. Sport and politics, before deciding that something is not a controversy, please do as Alf.laylah.wa.laylah suggested and Google it first. Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please ensure that before adding a section it is backed up by a range of reliable sources as opposed to demanding other add them when they dispute a sections relevance.Sport and politics (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail, the issue itself has been a bit of a controversy. But that's inside information ;-) you didn't hear it from me. Wesley Mouse 01:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sport and politics, I'm still interested, if it won't seem to confrontational to ask, in why you think there needs to be a "range of reliable sources" as opposed to just one, before a paragraph is included.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To demonstrate if a genuine controversy exists outside the author of the article and to demonstrate "prolonged public dispute or debate", which would demonstrate and prove the section warrants inclusion as a controversy in this controversies article. Sport and politics (talk) 01:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing's only been over for a little more than two weeks. By that standard, the whole article ought to go to AFD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone else beat you to an AfD on this article as shown at the top of the talk page. What I am saying though is genuine controversies are easy to demonstrate and prove as being actual controversies if this section cannot do so it cannot be included in an article on controversies. "prolonged public dispute or debate", prolonged that's up for debate as to its interpretation, but if public dispute and debate cannot be demonstrated easily then how can this be a genuine controversy and something being made out to be a controversy.Sport and politics (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the article should be deleted. I just don't understand your criteria for "prolonged public debate or dispute." Would you care to explain them?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be some definition of a controversy and more than one user before me has used it as a definition. If others have a different definition they would like to share please do and a discussion on the definition on a controversy can be started. Sport and politics (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

abundantly overflowing who, which, what, where,tagging in the hijab section

Perhaps Sport and politics might articulate the specific concerns which prompted all the tags in the hijab section on the talk page so that editors might address the concerns here? I think that one section per tag might be the best way to go, since there are a lot of them and it would make it easier to keep the discussions straight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The tags are self explanatory which Countries and Who are the activists etc.

The second paragraph is all negative comments and POV language, demonstrating a bias in the language. Including the political protest is biased as it gives too much weight to the protest to adavnce one POV. "The first line Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practicing gender apartheid " doesn't say who the critics are or who is being quoted calling it "gender apartheid". Not providing a balance in the article eg the IOC desire to allow for all to participate is also missing.

Sport and politics (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Religous clerics and religious activists in some[which?] countries wanted more modest uniforms.

This section is to discuss this "which" tagged line:

Religous clerics and religious activists in some[which?] countries wanted more modest uniforms.

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Here's explanation. There is no mention as to which clerics, activists, etc. The "which" tag was removed without correcting the problem. I am restoring the tag since the question (to "which," specifically, does the article refer) is not yet answered within the article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the sentence reflected the fact that the source itself doesn't say which countries. I rewrote the sentence to reflect this and removed the tag.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Other critics[who?] charged that allowing the headgear violated IOC Rule 50 which prohibits religious displays in olympic venues.

This section is to discuss this "who" tagged line:

Other critics[who?] charged that allowing the headgear violated IOC Rule 50 which prohibits religious displays in olympic venues.

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned by Cla68 below, the source itself doesn't say which critics. I've rewritten the sentence to reflect this. The mysteriously vanishing source seems to be unvanished from the internets, so I put a link to it in the reference for everyone's use and enjoyment.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practicing gender apartheid 1

This section is to discuss the "who" tag in this sentence:

Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practicing gender apartheid

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned below by Cla68, the SI article doesn't say which critics. I've rewritten the sentence to reflect this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practicing gender apartheid 2

This section is to discuss the "which" tag in this line:

Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practicing gender apartheid

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I just removed this tag, because the "which" is answered in the sentence. Which countries? Those which required the headgear for female representatives. Any country which does is in the which.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

POV-section tag on hijab subsection

How is anyone supposed to fix this if the editor who placed the template won't say what the neutrality problem is, as is supposed to be done on the talk page? Can we please have a clear statement of the POV problem here?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The second paragraph is all negative comments and POV language, demonstrating a bias in the language. Including the political protest is biased as it gives too much weight to the protest to advance one POV. "The first line Critics[who?] also suggested that countries[which?] which required the headgear for its female representatives were practising gender apartheid " doesn't say who the critics are or who is being quoted calling it "gender apartheid". Not providing a balance in the article eg the IOC desire to allow for all to participate is also missing. Sport and politics (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point down here any better than I understood it up there. Surely negative comments are to be expected in an article on controversies, n'est ce pas? Also, the political protest is necessary to help show that it really is a controversy. I don't understand either how it is that the sentence not saying who the critics are or which countries are involved has to do with pushing a point of view. This may well be necessary information, and you should feel free to add it in, but I don't understand what point of view it's pushing. Could you be more specific?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Sports Illustrated article didn't name the critics. So, to resolve that concern I suggest saying, "According to Sports Illustrated, critics also suggested..." Cla68 (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that that's a good idea. I thought it was something like that.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is there is no balance in the section, its only anti-IOC and wearing of the headscarf being a bad thing and there is no mention of other religious activity. Sport and politics (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Then, if you can find reliable sources to counter-balance it, add them. - Chrism would like to hear from you 10:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is only anti-IOC. The first paragraph says that the IOC let the women wear their hijabs. Is that good or bad? I have no idea, so it's not anti-IOC, but it is a controversy. It also includes a criticism from people who wanted hijabs allowed. The second paragraph describes the views of people who did not want hijabs allowed. That seems like balance to me. The views of the IOC speak for themselves here. They allowed the hijabs. Predictably, when they forbade the hijabs, some people liked it and some people hated it. When they changed their mind, the groups switched their opinions. How is this lacking balance? Also, this subsection is about hijabs rather than about religious activity in general. Perhaps if you have sources you could start something on religious activity, but I don't see how that affects the balance of this particular subsection.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alf here. I also don't find it WP:UNDUE to include this info. If you can find reliable refs that include a counter-attack on what's written here, by all means, feel free to insert it. Controveries at the Olympics, organized by the IOC, may naturally sound anti-IOC to some people, but at the end of the day, they're controversies for a reason. Furthermore, some of the tags are ridiculous, such as the "which" tag about which countries require the hijab. Is a list of all these countries expected on this article?? Of course not. It's fine without it. --Activism1234 22:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So what do we think, folks? Can we remove the POV tag?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we can.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I took it out, because there seems to be consensus here. If I've misread the situation, please feel free to reinsert and discuss some more!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"funeral" vs. "funerary" in the hijab section

Regarding this diff; Activism1234 likes "funeral" as an adjective better than "funerary." They're both adjectives, it's true, but I find "funeral" a little jarring. Perhaps we could compromise on "funereal," which is only an adjective, and not both a noun and an adjective like "funeral"?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think what it comes down to is what the music really was - was it funeral music specifically, or was it similar to funeral music (funereal)? If the ref can't provide this, I'd just go with funereal. --Activism1234 22:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the adjective "funeral" means "like stuff at a funeral" rather than "specific to funerals" so there's no way to make that distinction with a single word in English. The source says "funerary," and all three of them are synonyms. I changed it to "funereal" because "funeral" as an adjective is peculiar in English.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Query

Is there going to be a Paralympics controversies article? Simply south...... eating shoes for just 6 years 11:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have enough information to start a page Controversies at the 2012 Summer Paralympic Games please do so. Please be aware though of the potential problems which can be caused by the inclusion of some information and please ensure that all information is written in a n unbiased way, does not give undue weight to sources or incidents and is factually accurate and wholly verified by the sources provided with no original research or synthesis. Sport and politics (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)