Talk:2022 Winter Olympics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lead changes

@Corinal: I understand from our discussion on your talk page that you want to make some changes to the lead, this is the place to explain those changes and to get consensus for them. In particular I am interested in knowing why you want to remove the links to Uyghur genocide and Human rights in China, I don't see how we can summarize the major controversy (diplomatic boycotts) without mentioning both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite a misleading statement from you here, i many days ago, added information regarding concerns of environmental impact and cost while maintaining the mention of human rights issue, the sentence i added was taken directly from the article linked. What is the problem with the edit exactly? Corinal (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Infact after seeing your recent edit, YOU have added new content without consensus by adding an entirely new sentence at the bottom of the lead. Corinal (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Its not new, thats the status quo content... See any old diff. For example this one [1] which also happens to be the diff just before your edit [2]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not status quo, it was the status multiple days ago, but several changes to the lead have occurred since then, the sentence before it does not even make grammatical sense due to your pretence this is the status quo. Corinal (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also you still fail to explain what is wrong with my edit. Corinal (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"In particular I am interested in knowing why you want to remove the links to Uyghur genocide and Human rights in China, I don't see how we can summarize the major controversy (diplomatic boycotts) without mentioning both." also just fyi the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for your edit ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.")... Its not on others to tell you why your edit is bad, you have to get consensus that yours is better than the status quo or any other alternative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is also on you for YOUR recent changes as well, Simply stating that I must get consensus for my edits i made several days ago and were left unchallenged by numerous editors, reverting them and refusing to engage in discussion by saying you don't have to say why you think my edit is bad and that it cannot be included because of this is not acceptable. Corinal (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any changes I'm currently arguing for, just the revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, again, my edit does mention that human rights were a factor in boycotts, you seem to be under the impression that it does not even though it clearly does. Corinal (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edit does not mention that human rights were a factor in boycotts... "These Winter Olympics have been the subject of diplomatic boycotts and various concerns and controversies about their cost, environmental impact, and human rights issues." It only mentions them in the context of other concerns and controversies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it not implied the boycotts are because of the controversies? People do not boycott events when they find them uncontroversial, and they are mentioned right after eachother. Do you really think editors are going to read that and not understand the boycotts are because of the controversy? If you have a minor rephrasing to that sentence to make that clearer then maybe I would support that, but it already seems quite clear. Corinal (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The boycotts are not because of the controversies, they are one of the controversies. They are because of things which aren't directly connected to the games and predate them, like the Uyghur genocide and China's general human rights situation. Note that there have also been human rights controversies and concerns at this Olympics, but they're separate from the boycotts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We're gonna need a citation that there have been human rights concerns specifically regarding the games. Furthermore, as previously stated, detail regarding the boycotts is best left to the body, we don't go into to detail about what, for example, the environmental controveries are about in the lead, but instead do so in the body. Corinal (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You can find those citations at Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Criticism of host selection, Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Censorship, Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Espionage directed at athletes, Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Sportswashing, Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Athlete's freedom of speech, and Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Protests. We have nearly 100x the coverage of the boycotts than we have of environmental concerns. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You did not understand, i was asking for a citation there was concern about human rights concerning the games specifically, not concern about humans rights in china generally, leading to criticism of the games. Corinal (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Those are concerns and controversies about privacy, censorship, sportswashing, etc directly related to the games (hence their coverage at Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics). All of that falls under human rights. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There are concerns about privacy and censorship, but those should be called what they are, not "human rights" and sportwashing is a term referring to criticism of the games because of unrelated human rights concerns. Corinal (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If you want to list them instead of summarizing as human rights we can. Doesn't change the fact that the The boycotts are not because of the controversies, they're also not related to either the cost or environmental costs of the Olympics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You just listed controversies which are reasons for the boycotts, now your saying they arent because of the controversies? Make up your mind. Since you did not say otherwise i will assume you dont have a citation that there were human rights concerns specifically regarding the games (not people criticising the games due to unrelated human rights concerns). Corinal (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I listed controversies which were full of citations for "human rights concerns specifically regarding the games" which is exactly what you asked for. For example athlete free speech concerns are human rights concerns, speech is a human right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, and you claim those are not at least partially responsible for the diplomatic boycotts? Corinal (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that things which became an issue after the diplomatic boycotts and which have not been linked to them in reporting are not partially responsible for the diplomatic boycotts. Why would you think otherwise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You do understand the diplomatic boycotts did not occur all at once, and that such issues have been causes of concern for quite some time (including before the boycotts?) or do you somehow believe that there was not concern about freedom of speech or privacy during the olympics before the boycotts? Corinal (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I am unaware of reporting or other sources which links them, if you know of some you can add them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You can find such sources in many of the ones you've previously linked that mention both the Uyghur's but also other human rights abuses. They tend to be rather vague, but we have to deal with the vagueness in reliable sources and my edit presents it as they do. Corinal (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No you didn't... We don't have any sources which link the boycotts with the direct human, financial, or environmental cost of the olympics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I never claimed we had sources which link the boycotts to the financial or environmental concerns, but other human rights concerns, which they clearly do as they repeatedly say. Corinal (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"These Winter Olympics have been the subject of diplomatic boycotts and various concerns and controversies about their cost, environmental impact, and human rights issues." You wrote the sentence, either "cost, environmental impact, and human rights issues" are all covered by "about" in relation to diplomatic boycotts or none of them are. Logically none of them are but you appear to be trying to argue otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

They have all been subject of concern, as mentioned in my response to another editor below, there are sources for this, though i will add a source to the lead now. Corinal (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I am unable to do so now, due to the flawed, uncited version being re-instated. Corinal (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You're saying that they are the subject of the boycotts as well as subjects of controversy/concern in their own right. Thats the sentence you constructed as explained by you, its not how I would interpret that sentence but you were clear about how you intend it to be interpreted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not say they were the subjects of the boycotts, only that controversy was (which should be obvious but apparently needed stating) Corinal (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The controversies are not the subjects of the boycott, the boycott is a controversy. This has already been explained to you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You just said some of the controversies are the subject of the boycott, make up your mind. It's extremely difficult to have a discussion with someone who seems to change their view back and forth every message. Corinal (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have not said that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

See above, "Your edit does not mention that human rights were a factor in boycotts..." I suggest you take some time to consider your view fully before continuing discussion. Corinal (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"Your edit does not mention that human rights were a factor in boycotts... "These Winter Olympics have been the subject of diplomatic boycotts and various concerns and controversies about their cost, environmental impact, and human rights issues." It only mentions them in the context of other concerns and controversies." Nothing in there about what I think at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion, please stop going in circles, i only brought up that quote to show that you believe human rights were a factor in the boycotts. After you said "I have not said that." Again, please consider your views fully. Corinal (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That quote only shows that I didn't think your edit mentions that human rights were a factor in boycotts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It implies you have an issue with that (despite it not even being true.) Are you saying that you don't think it should mention that? Why did you bring it up then? Corinal (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Shows =/= implied, and it doesn't imply that either. Nor would implying that tell you what I think on the issue, I could have any number of "issues" with it. To get back on track you understand that the controversies are not the subjects of the boycott, the boycott is a controversy... Right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming, that after all of this, and multiple revisions of my edit, that you didn't even have a problem with it in the first place? If you don't have an issue with it, we can end the discussion and you can revert it back to my version. Or are you saying now that you do have an issue with it and are just being obtuse for no reason? Again, I highly recommend this discussion be restarted another time, once you have fully thought about your view here. Corinal (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Also in response to the edit summary by another editor, the environmental concerns have a section in the article with a source from the guardian and are notable. Corinal (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Haeb Your edit summary mentions you making a comment but you only made a comment responding to some unrelated discussion, not to the relevant discussion to your edit. I have already addressed the rationale in my above message. Corinal (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Corinal, not sure what you mean by that. As part of your persistent edit-warring against several other editors to keep Uyghur genocide and human rights in China out of the lede, you had told me to "see" this discussion, apparently under the wrong assumption that I had not already read it; it seemed worth pointing out your misconception by noting that I had even left comments in this section myself prior to making my edit.

Thank you for belatedly addressing part of the rationale given in my edit summary, but I'm not convinced, see response below. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

And as stated above, intended to add direct citation to them before you reverted it and prevented me from doing so. Corinal (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

A single citation of a 2015 Guardian article might justify the inclusion of the snow transport criticism in Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics but does not automatically imply that these aspects should be mentioned in the lead section of this article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

There's also further citations from the new york times, the south china morning post and al-jazeera and many more in the section above that regarding the enviromental concerns. (That section seems to need reformatting as those paragraphs should be in the environmental impact section) Corinal (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Are these not enough citations? (All taken directly from the article) Corinal (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you're saying that we have enough coverage to dedicate an entire sentence in the lead to environmental concerns. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not, I'm simply saying we have enough coverage for mentioning it in the lead at all (as done my version which HaeB reverted) Corinal (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Due to the lack of a response, i will create a merged sentence, hopefully an acceptable compromise. Corinal (talk)

Not really sure why you think thats a compromise, you're still whitewashing Uyghur genocide out of it. Also your edit took you well over 3rr. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Do not falsely claim i have violated 3rr, do you not understand what that is? I haven't "whitewashed" anything, the lead still, as you wanted, directly ties the boycotts to the human rights concerns, also please discuss this in the new section I made below. Corinal (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I find all mention of boycotts and human rights issues in the lead as inappropriate. They are not what the Games are about. When compared with other Games, these boycotts are minor. Almost every country that hosts the Games can be (and has been) accused of human rights abuses. Mention it, in a balanced way, in a more detailed part of the article, but not in the lead. It's adding politics in an article where it doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say the diplomatic boycotts have sufficient notability for the lead, but perhaps you are right the general controversies should be left to the body, (other olympics games certainly have a lot of controversy), this warrants further discussion. Corinal (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If you weren't told the diplomatic boycotts were happening, you wouldn't notice them. In fact, you probably still won't notice them. They will have no practical impact on the Games. The Games are quite explicitly NOT about diplomats and politicians. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles include information based on coverage in reliable sources, not based on whether editors personally predict "practical impact" of some aspect. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for "frankly" sharing your personal feelings on "what the Games are about", but please keep in mind that per WP:NPOV articles should instead reflect significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Similarly for the whataboutism argument that "Almost every country that hosts the Games can be (and has been) accused of human rights abuses" (and what accusations would that even be in case of South Korea, say, the host of the preceding Winter Olympics?). Also note WP:NOTFORUM.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed although i believe there is some discussion to be had about whether the general controversies should be included in the lead due to reasons mentioned above, the diplomatic boycotts certainly have plenty of reliable sources. Corinal (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We should keep the mention but say also say controversies surrounding the genocide. That way it doesn't exclude all other opinions. CurryCity (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We should not have two seperate sentences about the boycotts in the lead. "European Union nations" is also misleading as not all EU countries have participated. Corinal (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Given how much text we have there should be a whole paragraph on controversies/concerns in the lead... I don't see why we can't have stand alone sentences for the major ones, neutrality is extremely important see WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources are describing the political activities, but in most cases they are not actually part of the Games. I am concerned we are allowing our article on the Olympic Games to be used as a platform by those wanting to score political points. We must not let hat happen. And I hope nobody here wants that to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The point of hosting the games is to score political points, you can't remove politics from a political event. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You cannot possibly believe that Brisbane's hosting of the Games in 2032 will be to score political points. Tourism marketing points, yes. Ego trips for the organisers, yes. But NOT political points. That fact you have made that claim should probably disbar you from commenting here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Australia is participating in the political boycott of this years Olympics[3], you can't have a political boycott of a non-political event. I think you're forgetting national prestige, also knows as "political points," which is the primary reason that countries fund high level sports [4]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It's getting even longer than the mention of COVID-19. I suggest shorten the two sentences into "The games face diplomatic boycott due to controversies surrounding the Uyghur genocide and human rights in China from several countries, which sent athletes but no officials." CurryCity (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We would still need another sentence to talk about the controversies and concerns besides the boycotts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Add this instead "The games face various concerns and a diplomatic boycott due to controversies surrounding the Uyghur genocide and human rights in China from several countries ..." CurryCity (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Still seems way too short given the coverage we have. We should be individually mentioning cybersecurity concerns and environmental impact at the bare minimum. Also I don't think you understand that the boycotts are a controversy, they are not due to the controversies or the concerns discussed here and on the daughter page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do we have to individually mention cybersecurity and environment? Those are not as widely covered. CurryCity (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We have dedicated subsections for them, they are widely covered. Remember the whole goal here is to expand the coverage of concerns and controversies in the lead to reflect its coverage in the body and daughter page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

More nonsense. Please drop your obsessions with condemning these Games. There is far too much content in the article already that is not actually about the Games! I was looking at deleting a lot of it. Please look closely at WHY you really want to include all this peripheral, negative content. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NPA and WP:CENSOR. Clearly not peripheral and we don't treat negative content differently from positive content, thats not how WP:NPOV works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Body section on cybersecurity is very minor though. CurryCity (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some editors feel the need to go into excessive detail about the controversy. The lead should not be bloated, it should mention the controversy, and that is it. Further detail belongs in the body, It seems some editors would like half the lead to be about the controversy which is incredibly undue weight, the controversy is notable and should be mentioned but they should only be a part of the lead, not bloat it with excessive detail. Corinal (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Half would be excessive, but with the coverage we currently have we're looking at somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of the lead devoted to controversies/concerns. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Still far too much. It's NOT what the games are about. Not what they will be remembered for. One sentence would be too much, but if it keeps the China haters happy... HiLo48 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

From our perspective at Wikipedia the games are about whatever WP:RS publish about them, thats how WP:NPOV works. Also WP:NPA, as far as I can tell there are no "China haters" here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

We already have that (if not more than that), 1 out of the 3 paragraphs is dedicated to that, and one of the paragraphs not about it is quite short. I would recommend shortening the list of countries (perhaps simply listing the amount) or not repeating the human rights abuses twice (mentioning the genocide and other human rights abuses seperately) as ways to keep content the same but shorten the sentences. Corinal (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

These Winter Olympics have been the subject of [[Diplomatic boycott|diplomatic boycotts]] from 10 delegations due to the [[Human rights in China|human rights situation in China]] and [[Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics|various other concerns]], they will send athletes to compete, but no ministers or officials will attend.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-59644043|title= Boycott of China in 2022}}</ref> Like the last [[2020 Summer Olympics]], which was held six months earlier in Tokyo, these Games are impacted by the international [[COVID-19 pandemic]], which has resulted in the implementation of health and safety protocols, and restrictions on public attendance of the Games.

Corinal (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

But the diplomatic boycotts are not due to the Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics. That would be WP:OR, the body doesn't say that and our sources don't appear to either. This has been explained to you repeatedly, the boycotts are one of the concerns and controversies they are not due to them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on your argument. Are you saying that the diplomatic boycotts are not in response to China's controversial human rights record? ValarianB (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Long story short, Horse Eye's Back really really wants to mention of diplomatic boycotts, listing the 2 reasons (above), and separately, controversies and concerns, listing environment as well as cybersecurity, all in the intro. I've suggested a few times (other editors have also made their own suggestions): The games face various concerns and diplomatic boycotts due to human rights issues and controversies surrounding the Uyghur genocide, with several countries sending athletes but no official representatives. CurryCity (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Since this has been mostly about editorial preference as opposed to WP policies and guidelines, should we have a quick vote of some sort? CurryCity (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the diplomatic boycotts are not in response to human rights concerns or controversies at the Olympic games. This was clear in the original formulation "Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics have included diplomatic boycotts due to the Uyghur genocide and the general human rights situation in China." but unfortunately Corinal edit warred that version out of existence. I think we should return that original sentence and a sentence along the lines of "other concerns and controversies have been X, Y, Z, P, and Q" after it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The boycotts are a direct, stated response to China's poor human rights record in Xinjiang. The boycotts are not in and of themselves a part of the controversy. ValarianB (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, they are however part of Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics. Specifically they are a controversy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a point of contention regarding simple phrasing here, perhaps a simple reordering of the statements can fix this.

These Winter Olympics have been subject to [[Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics|concerns and controversies]] and [[Diplomatic boycott|diplomatic boycotts]] from 10 delegations due to the [[Human rights in China|human rights situation in China]], they will send athletes to compete, but no ministers or officials will attend. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-59644043|title= Boycott of China in 2022}}</ref> Like the last [[2020 Summer Olympics]], which was held six months earlier in Tokyo, these Games are impacted by the international [[COVID-19 pandemic]], which has resulted in the implementation of health and safety protocols, and restrictions on public attendance of the Games.

This resolves the (supposed) confusion about what the boycotts are about. Hopefully this version can now be implemented.

Corinal (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Also note, some editors seem to have misunderstood the intent of many past versions, the intent was that they were subject to boycotts because of human rights, and then also they were subject to controversy, since this discussion has been going in circles due to this misunderstanding, i hope this new version resolves the (supposed) confusion and will implemented quickly, and this discussion can end. Corinal (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NPOV lets us get away from specifically mentioning the Uyghur genocide in the context of the boycotts... All of our sources seem to focus on it and we haven't really summarizing the controversy without it. These are after all being called the "Genocide Games"[5] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Some outlet calling them the "Genocide Games" does not mean we need to bloat the lead by mentioning it seperately, the Uyghur genocide is already covered under the human rights abuses, we can go into further detail in the body, but the lead is for summarizing the article, not for detail. Corinal (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Not the outlet's language, please actually read linked articles. Our sources generally say Uyghur genocide and general human rights situation, why shouldn't we? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources (including your source you just linked) do not attribute the boycotts to just the Uyghur genocide but also stuff like the situation in Hong Kong and Tibet and other general human rights concerns, listing them all or even a few would bloat the lead as discussed, we should simply list them together. (Also, i did read it, not sure why your accusing me of not doing so) Corinal (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Why would that bloat the lead? Our current lead is not overly long (its actually a little short) and we aren't talking about more than half a sentence longer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Because the lead is for summarizing the article, not detail such as the specific human rights concerns. For example, the next sentence does not explain what exactly the special health and safety protocols are, that is left to the body, as should be done here. Corinal (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This is like mentioning that there are special health and safety protocols, we aren't explaining what the Uyghur genocide or other things are in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, this is like mentioning requiring vaccination or COVID tests in the lead. The genocide is just one of many human rights concerns, and listing them bloats the lead as discussed already. Corinal (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't look like bloat to me, looks like what is necessary to summarize the major controversy in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well we are going to need others to discuss this then. I would recommend implementing the proposed version for now as it fixes many other issues (including some you have mentioned), and then continuing this discussion with more editors. Corinal (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Not going to support your efforts to whitewash Uyghur genocide from the lead, sorry. If it doesn't mention the genocide I'm not sure how it can be neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense. Mentioning one particular thing YOU aren't happy about is precisely the opposite of being neutral. You keep mentioning sources. In five days time, ALL media coverage will be about the Opening Ceremony and the performances of the athletes. The political dick rattling will disappear. Should it also then disappear from our article? HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any sources which dismiss these issues as "political dick rattling." We don't do speculative edits, if in fact in the future all media coverage is about the opening ceremony and the athletes then we can reconsider. We build articles based on the sources that currently exist not articles that might exist in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Only an incredibly naive person could believe the balance of the the reporting won't change in three days time. We are already being a little misleading in our writings by writing about boycotts in the past and present tense, when the Games haven't even begun. We have no deadline to get this stuff to the presses. We cannot possibly write the lead in any balanced way until at least three weeks time. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You keep accusing me of "whitewashing", i simply want to keep the lead to a summary not detail. It seems you (as have repeatedly done previously) not Assumed good faith. Perhaps that is why this discussion is not resolving. There is nothing not neutral about summarizing the human rights concerns rather than listing them separately in the lead. Corinal (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Rounding up

So Horse Eye's Back and HiLo48, what do you each want to include or want to exclude? We appear to have a version proposed by Corinal already. CurryCity (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer to see nothing until we see what actually happens, and then, probably only one sentence in the lead about there being some controversies. The detail is meant to come later in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree the sentence should be short and clear and not bloated like horse eye's wants. However regarding waiting for the olympics to occur to make change, i would recommend you read WP:NOW, although not a policy, it represents my thoughts on that. We can always change the lead later based on the new information, after the olympics occur. Corinal (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I already have a version proposed, thats the version i would like implemented. It seems horse eye's wants to bloat the lead by mentioning the human rights concerns separately (not together as in my version) due to their perception that not doing so is whitewashing. They have repeatedly shown they have not assumed good faith however so i doubt a reasonable discussion beyond what has already been discussed will be possible. Corinal (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I would criticise your current version as i think the number of countries doing the boycott should be made clear, but this is relatively minor. Corinal (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, note, regarding the human rights concerns and listing the uyghur genocide seperately, reliable sources do not say the boycotts are because of only the genocide, but numerous other human rights concerns as well, such as the situation in tibet or the crackdown on hong kong, or even more general human rights concerns across China, to list only one is misleading, and to list all is bloat, listing them together as "the human rights situation in china" is clear and to the point. Corinal (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like our contribution to be balanced, verfiable, and without original research, so I have looked up the sources for the diplomatic boycotts (listed below), thinking we could just quote what the countries said without any editorial summarization. Only the US was quoted to mention "genocide". I don't have any argument at this time for including the language of 1 out of 10 in the intro of an article that's specifically about something else. (Australia [6] | Belgium [7] | Canada [8] | Denmark [9] | Estonia [10] | Great Britain [11] | Kosovo (Google translated) [12] | Lithuania [13] | Taiwan/Chinese Taipei (Google translated) [14] | United States [15]) CurryCity (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Your 1 in 10 figure would appear to be original research. What do you have to say about sources like the BBC which explicitly say "The venue for the 2022 Winter Olympics has been hit by a flurry of diplomatic boycotts from countries including the US, Australia, and Britain, because of widespread allegations of Chinese atrocities against the Uyghur community." [16] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You've been editing actively throughout this process but chose not to engage with us when asked for inputs. CurryCity (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Basic arithmetics is not original research. Your input was incorporated into intro. CurryCity (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You have no right to satisfaction on wikipedia, other editors are going to contribute as they see fit. Perhaps they edit a wider array of articles than you or simply have different interests. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If you wish not to engage in discussion then do not edit the article. Corinal (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Horse Eye's Back that CurryCity's conclusions are original research; they contradict several reliable sources which describe the Uyghur issue as a main rationale for this US-led boycott (apart from the BBC also e.g. [17] [18] [19]). Also, even if some other countries are boycotting/abstaining due to different reasons (which is true e.g. for Austria), that does not justify hiding that main rationale of the US-led boycott fact from the reader, as CurryCity did in their recent edits that were reverted by Horse Eye's Back, Sportsfan 1234 and Drmies.

The other aspect that may cause confusion here is that there are different terms to describe these human rights violations against the Uyghurs. However, the Wikipedia community has currently chosen to name the article about this topic Uyghur genocide. If CurryCity disagrees with the current consensus about the naming of that article, they are free to initiate a discussion there to overturn the previous RfC (after the current year-long moratorium on this question ends, see Talk:Uyghur genocide). However, the solution is not to keep removing links to that article until it is moved to a name that CurryCity agrees with. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You argument is blatantly supporting synthesis and unverifiable language. Only 1 out of 10 countries was quoted to use "genocide" by the sources in the article that you've mentioned as well. My conclusions are consistent with RS; it is your interpretation of those articles and imposing it upon the said countries in wikivoice that is actual original research. Common name applies only to title of the article of said topic. The link was removed only because we found the inclusion of the mention was itself undue, unverified, and synthesis, as mentioned above. CurryCity (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This entirely fails to address my argument. I'm trying to explain it once more with a concrete example: Your own first link, about Australia, states "Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the decision was in response to 'human rights abuses' in China's Xinjiang province and "many other issues that Australia has consistently raised'." Wikipedia's article about what this source refers to as "'human rights abuses' in China's Xinjiang province" is at Uyghur genocide (there is no separate article human rights abuses in China's Xinjiang province). As explained at WP:NPOVNAME, it is natural that article names don't always reflect all possible terms for the article's topic. In other words, your persistent attempts to delete that link from the sentence in the lead prevents us from informing readers about this main rationale for the boycott and from offering them to access a NPOV summary of the underlying issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Your argument relies on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOVNAME. They don't apply because we are not naming articles here. You appear to be using article name (which has other constraints) to force the text in contexts outside of naming articles, despite doing so makes your edit and its meaning UNDUE and SYNTHESIS. Your accusation of me delinking it is cherry-picked. I removed the mention altogther due to discussion; there was no challenge at the time. If you and other editors had time to spam article's Talk, my Talk, on top of reverting, maybe one of you also had time to add one single wikilink instead of nitpicking another person's edits. CurryCity (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I concur with what CurryCity says above, and also note your misleading edit summary that undoes an edit that has nothing to do with what you just said and reverts the inclusion of a synthesis tag while stating it reverted the deletion of a link in the edit summary, showing you either did not read the edit you reverted or intentionally made a misleading edit summary, either case is very concerning. Corinal (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That claim is false in several aspects, e.g. the edit was not "stating it reverted the deletion of a link in the edit summary". Rather, the edit summary read as follows: "Reverted 1 edit by CurryCity (talk): Cf. talk page - well-supported by cited ref; concerns about the current naming of the linked article are not a justification for deleting the link here." And of course this talk page discussion is about CurryCity's and your multiple attempts to delete that link, of which tagging it with a template for alleged violation of policies was just the latest stage (after Drmies had reverted the last such attempt). Or which other part of the sentence did the tag refer to, if not the link? Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I highly recommend CurryCity restore their version rather than including poor input from HorseEye's. As stated numerous times and as put forth by CurryCity, sources show the concerns are multifacted, not just about the Uyghurs. If HorseEye's continues to edit war after this we may have to report this. Corinal (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@CurryCity:'s original version is clear and to the point and avoids bloat and we should not simply make the article worse (reasons why its worse stated above) in an attempt to avoid edit warring. Corinal (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems sportsfan continues to edit war by making revision after revision without even attempting any discussing recently reverting @ErnestKrause:'s edit. I encourage them to restore their edit despite sportsfan's unjustified revision. Corinal (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Survey 1: Items to mention in lead

What should be included, excluded, or no-opinion in the lead? This is not finalizing language or terminology, just the content.
A: diplomatic boycott
B: names of countries for A
C: Uyghurs
D: human rights
E: various other concerns as a summary mention
F: propaganda
G: enviornmental impact
H: My2022 app

Responses:

• A, not B, neutral C, D, E, not F, neutral G, not H, by CurryCity (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC) (updated 01:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC))
• This is a terrible way of phrasing this discussion which i wont engage in, we seem to be quickly coming to a consensus above which i would encourage participation in. Corinal (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  

Note: we also have a version which is close to being accepted as it resolved seemingly the primary dispute here regarding confusion of what the boycotts were because of. This rephrasing of discussion is unnecessary, instead discuss the proposed version above. Corinal (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you and Horse Eye's Back could, but I had trouble following all the above. CurryCity (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, this way of discussing it ignore that A. Most of this is already resolved or should be discussed seperately and B. Ignores other possibilities, such as listing other concerns or human rights concerns, or how there was confusion on phrasing etc... Corinal (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If you would like, i would encourage you to read the proposed version (which has had input from HorseEyes) and see what you think, perhaps you can act as a third opinion and either implement it if you think its good or discuss your criticism as well. Corinal (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To make it clearer here's the proposed version:

These Winter Olympics have been subject to [[Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympics|concerns and controversies]] and [[Diplomatic boycott|diplomatic boycotts]] from 10 delegations due to the [[Human rights in China|human rights situation in China]], they will send athletes to compete, but no ministers or officials will attend. <ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-59644043|title= Boycott of China in 2022}}</ref> Like the last [[2020 Summer Olympics]], which was held six months earlier in Tokyo, these Games are impacted by the international [[COVID-19 pandemic]], which has resulted in the implementation of health and safety protocols, and restrictions on public attendance of the Games.

Corinal (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@CurryCity Corinal (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"has had input from HorseEyes" seems yet another of your many misleading statements, considering that in this proposed version you again omitted the Uyghur genocide link (C) that you had deleted at least nine times during your extensive edit-warring in the last few days. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This version rephrased the order of mentioning the controversy and boycotts to make it clearer, as HorseEyes wanted. Corinal (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• I feel we need to move forward at least a little bit by not listing all the countries in intro which are already detailed in the body. Changed FROM: These Winter Olympics have been the subject of diplomatic boycotts due to the Uyghur genocide, the general human rights situation in China and various other concerns and controversies. The United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Kosovo, and four European Union nations have declared a diplomatic boycott of the Games. Although they will all send athletes to compete, no ministers or officials will attend.

TO: The games are subject to various concerns and controversies as well as diplomatic boycotts due to the Uyghur genocide and human rights situations in China, with several countries sending athletes but no ministers or officials. CurryCity (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, we should simply implement the version proposed rather than continuing this ridiculous discussion. Corinal (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not against anyone engaging in the thread above though. I belive for now we can all agree at least that listing the countries would be excessive for the intro. CurryCity (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately Horse Eye's has made it fairly clear they don't intend to continue doing so for reasons discussed in my reply to you above. Corinal (talk) 03:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Though, perhaps with your version, it could be made clearer what the diplomatic boycotts are, as i think its possible some may be confused about the term "diplomatic boycott" and since it explains what that is by saying "several countries" do it rather than saying "they" right after mentioning the boycotts (as in my proposal), they may not understand these are the same thing. I would recommend simply implementing my existing proposal which also shorterns it by simply listing the number of countries. Given that the olympics are to begin soon, its quite important this article be of the highest quality it can be, right now. Corinal (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

C for sure, literally every major news article/report mentions the Uyghurs. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Read discussion above, as stated numerous times, reliable sources mention numerous human rights concerns, to list them all is bloat, to list only one (as is done) is undue weight, to list them together (as was done before your revision) is good. Unless you intend on fully engaging in discussion please stop making these revisions. Corinald (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Just checked my favourite media outlet, the highly regarded Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Six articles about the Olympics. Only one long article mentions humans rights issues, in a single sentence mentioning "Repressive mass-detention policies targeting ethnic minority Muslims in China's west". It doesn't say genocide, and says a lot of very positive things about China. Our coverage of the Uyghur issue is proportionately much larger. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• All Olympics have (by their nature) featured controversies and political dust-ups so I think it is helpful to look at how other articles have handled this. From a quick survey I can see controversies are usually discussed in the relevant Olympics' article but never seem to be mentioned in the lede - even the bribery scandal for the 2002 Olympics is omitted from the lede. The exception to this rule is boycotts, most notably the Moscow and LA events but also Seoul 88. Going by precedent then it seems mentioning concerns and controversies is undue. The question then is whether we treat a "diplomatic boycott" the same as an actual boycott by competing athletes. For me they are not the same as the attendance of a diplomat at the opening ceremony does not really have a material effect on the games unlike, for instance, Canadian athletes not competing. There is, however, a deluge of coverage regarding the diplomatic boycott. But is this just the 24hr news cycle/churnalism mediascape we live in - there was much coverage of the protests against the Tokyo Olympics too? Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"From a quick survey ..." - that's the kind of fallacious argument WP:OTHERCONTENT warns about.

"For me they are not the same ..." "There is, however, a deluge of coverage ..." - translation: "The article should be written according to my personal views instead of giving weight to this aspect according to its coverage in published reliable sources". Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

OTHERCONTENT is about deletion discussions? This isn’t a deletion discussion though so it’s irrelevant. When I’m editing, I find it useful to see how similar articles have done things to inform my own editing. Either way, from my comment you can see I am kind of on the fence about this so I’m not sure why HaeB has decided to attack my comment in this way. Giving random quotations and misrepresenting my discussion. Can’t we have a nuanced discussion without people getting so touchy?

If it came down to it I suppose I would say general references to ‘concerns and controversies’ seem undue but lean towards including the “diplomatic boycott”. Looking at India’s recent decision, these boycotts are not always because of human rights concerns so might need to be explained more broadly. Vladimir.copic (talk)|

Comment: Handling the contemporary political controversies of a nation hosting the Olympics has an existing roadmap in the 2014 Sochi Olympics article. It makes no mention of Euromaidan that happened a year prior, nor does it mention the resulting military conflict between Russia and Ukraine that happened in the same year. Even the Concerns and controversies at the 2014 Winter Olympics page doesn't cover or mention those topics. Both pages instead focus on controversies that specifically relate to the Olympic events and how they were held.

I believe this is relevant, as many sources then and now covered the Sochi Olympics as a clear example of sportswashing away the ongoing political issues of a host country. Unless some nasty bugger has WP:OWN'd those pages to keep the wider Russian political situation from getting mentioned, it appears that limiting the scope of what kind of controversies are brought into the page of an Olympic event has a precedent. To fit in the wider political issues is to invoke a far graver comparison to the 1936 Summer Olympics. Even then, that page limits Nazi-related controversies and conflicts down to the specific issues that were relevant to those Olympic games, such as their narratives of racial supremacy and barring of Jewish and Roma competitors. It makes no mention of the Holocaust, and its mentions of World War II are limited to the disruptions of subsequent Olympic games and the fates of the buildings and sports complexes that were utilized in the Berlin games. Mewnst (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It makes no mention of the Holocaust, and its mentions of World War II are limited to ... - that's a particularly weird form of this kind of WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, given that both the Holocaust and WWII were not to commence until several years after the 1936 Olympics. Is your demand that the article 2022 Winter Olympics should not mention whatever human rights controversies or geopolitical conflicts the host country will become involved in in 2025? Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a particularly weird form of a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument because I was not familiar with that policy. Forgive me! I'll cut the bold text from my prior comment since it appears I'm more partial than I thought. I guess what I mean to say here is that there seems to be a contradiction of editorial policy. Following the sources as demanded in citation guidelines leads to warranting ample mention of human rights controversies, as Xinjiang-related coverage and Olympic coverage is one and the same in many outlets.

The link between the two topics is created by high-profile boycotts of the games, but it does not exist practically between the two topics aside from political geography. I mentioned the 2014 Olympics and 1936 Olympics because those articles don't give weight to linking those games with disparate contemporary human rights abuses, even when that association was prominently seen in contemporary media. The examples I brought up don't need to be entertained due to WP:OTHERCONTENT, but the underlying conflict remains of following the news even if it may progenate a crocoduck of a page versus keeping the page about the games on the topic of the games. Mewnst (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn’t a deletion discussion though so it’s irrelevant. Please actually click the link, WP:OTHERCONTENT addresses exactly this kind of fallacious argument, giving the following as a hypothetical example: "Article y doesn't mention this, so article x shouldn't either". (You might have been confusing it with WP:OTHER, which leads to a different page that is indeed about deletion discussions.)

As for the other issue: I acknowledge that "translation: ..." was a bit pointed, but the basic problem remains that your argument there was based on your personal judgment while dismissing the topic's coverage in reliable sources with a generic lament about the "mediascape we live in". That's inconsistent with WP:NPOV.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes my mistake - but this is still an essay (not a policy or guideline). I don't really buy the idea that each WP article exists in a vacuum with no overarching conventions or templates. Either way, I agree with Mewnst and stand by my above point. It seems undue to specifically talk about "concerns and controversies" but the diplomatic boycott should be covered but broadly construed as the boycotts are not limited to the Uyghur genocide (see India). This is a sports event so we should really be talking about things that relate to the actual sporting event.

I still find HaeB's tone a bit unconstructive. As I explained, I was literally just thinking through the issues in my initial comment. Not everything is an argument. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

---

athletes totals on official site

I noticed today that some of the hockey teams now have totals above 25 for the men's tournament, which should not be possible. See here for Canada for instance. Don't know what to make of this or what should be done.18abruce (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about Lead

I have noticed that several editors are engaged in a conflict over the lead section. To me, the resolution attempts do not seem appropriate, and have led to multiple inconclusive attempts at resolution, making a mess of it. Could the editors be concise when posting their opinion? Repeating the same thing over and over does not add to the discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

My position is that the mention of controversies in the page should be limited to that which is related to the management and hosting of the games. I have argued that, per WP:OFFTOPIC, the article should not be expanded to elaborate on diplomatic boycotts that find additional reasons to oppose the Olympic games on the basis of wider geopolitical conflict with China and domestic human rights issues in China. Mewnst (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it should refer to the controversy, since a lot of media coverage is centered around the boycott. Most, if not all articles about the games do mention the boycott in some detail. The controversies about thess games does seem to extend beyond the controversy at most olympic games. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Section Name

Should it be restored to previous version Cybersecurity concerns over My2022 app before Horse Eye's Back's edit [20] Espionage directed at athletes? The source used is written by (scroll to the bottom of article)

Guest Author

Nicholas Eftimiades

Nicholas Eftimiades is a senior fellow at the Forward Defense practice of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. He retired from a 34-year government career as a China expert that included employment in the CIA, Department of State, and Defense Intelligence Agency. The views expressed in this article are his own.

Other articles are mostly about the My2022 app, and mentions the surveillance and censorship in China, not really singling out athletes. Also Horse Eye's Back, you put a template in my Talk accusing me of edit warring, WTH? CurryCity (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes for the reasons you stated. Regarding the Edit Warring template it seems that Horse Eye has a problem with accusing other editors of edit warring, and not assuming good faith. Corinal (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• No Seems too vague, but a slight revision to Concerns over Espionage Directed at Athletes may be acceptable. Cybersecurity concerns seems more like a badly made app, rather than espionage concerns which are the actual issue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

bias racism in the article. balance of information required.

it is unfair to only show the list of country that refuse to attend politically and not show the list of country that choose to attended. i have less and less faith about the neutrality of Wikipedia English. the anglosaxon always use an excuse that it is an english version so english pov should dominate it. that is rather silly, and undermine english as an international language. 101.127.15.2 (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Attending countries are prominently listed in the section "Participating National Olympic Committees". Citobun (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@101.127.15.2: You are more than welcome to register on Wikipedia as an editor and become autoconfirmed for greater participation, if you feel like slander is taking place. Hanyou23 (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

List of Countries participating in the boycott - Taiwan

Taiwan shouldn't be included in a list of "countries" participating in a diplomatic boycott simply because Taiwan is not recognized as a sovereign country or state by the overwhelming majority of nations (including those engaging in a diplomatic boycott of the games), international organizations, and most importantly the IOC itself. It participates in the Olympics as Chinese Taipei, not as Taiwan or ROC tacitly recognizing its unrecognized status. I understand that this position may be emotionally insensitive but it is objective, fair, and consistent. Perhaps change the wording to include unrecognized states/countries with "delegations not attending" Meganormie (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The same argument could be made for Kosovo. Bkatcher (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

and for South Ossetia. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

While it is a somewhat sticky situation, the de facto reality is that Taiwan is a sovereign state under the military alliance of the Western democracies.50.111.34.214 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think "Taiwan" is fine, it is a de facto country. Independent or not, it has an independent legislature, judiciary and executive, and no sovereign oversight, which does clear the criteria for being a "country". Same for the others. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll just point out that the reason the IOC calls Taiwan "Chinese Taipei", is so that some other countries are more-or-less happy during the games. Hanyou23 (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

I explore anyone making edits to the main article page -- please leave edit summaries with your changes. It's hard to know what has changed without such... and without having to compare all unmarked edit to see what was edited. Thanks much! Hanyou23 (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I second that, it gets really hard to know what changes. Sometimes even good edits get accidentally reverted with the disruptive ones. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

COVID 19 is not a diplomatic boycott and is not a relevant reason to be included in the article

From the article:

"In addition, the following countries have confirmed they will not send official representatives to the games but not as part of the diplomatic boycott campaign, citing COVID-19 restrictions as well as China’s human rights conditions as reasons for their non attendance"

Countries listed:

Austria

Czech Republic

Estonia

Germany

Japan

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Slovenia

Sweden

Switzerland

This makes it sound that the mentioned countries all cited China's human rights conditions as a reason for their non-attendance. However, nowhere on either source does it say that for Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria or Switzerland (note that the Norwegian/Swedish royals did not attend Tokyo 2020 either nor did a bunch of other leaders; it is not news nor is it relevant). Additionally, note that this source only refers to leaders, representatives of a state do not have to be leaders.

The BBC link says "New Zealand, Austria, Slovenia, Sweden and the Netherlands are not sending government representatives, but say Covid is their reason."

If there are links from any country stating that China's human rights is a reason for their non-attendance, only then should they be on this list.

I propose: We remove Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, New Zealand, Slovenia and the Netherlands from this list and leave the Czech Republic, Estonia, Japan on it.

Also, many countries did not attend the Tokyo 2020 games for this specific reason (source for Europe: https://www.politico.eu/article/busy-that-day-world-leaders-pass-on-tokyo-olympics/), do we add the 100s of countries who didn't on that page? Angele201002 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I think it could be improved to : "In addition, the following countries have confirmed they will not send official representatives to the games but not as part of the diplomatic boycott campaign, citing China’s human rights conditions and/or COVID-19 restrictions as reasons for their non attendance". Would that be fine with you? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: @Angele201002 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think we should have it worded as such. Firstly, we should not have the same list for such vastly different reasons, so the lists should be at the very least split. Secondly, the sources only state royals/heads of state/government, and official representatives need not be either (there should be enough sources for this for some countries at least (I have seen Sweden somewhere). Thirdly, and most importantly, non-attendance due to the pandemic isn’t news-worthy (see for example the various leaders and delegations who did not attend Tokyo 2020). Also, note that foreign spectators, as in Tokyo, are not allowed at the Games, so they haven’t returned to the pre-pandemic state. I would leave the three countries who have specifically stated China’s human rights as a reason for non-attendance and perhaps add a note that various other leaders, as in Tokyo 2020 (Politico source), did not attend the Games due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.(BBC source) Angele201002 (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

If we went by your version, we would either have to dwell too much on unnecessary material for countries, or remove mentions of their absence entirely. Im sure the suggested sentence covers both in a concise manner, which should be the aim here. As for your second objection, if there are some governments sending diplomats but not heads of government, kindly list sources and I will amend the article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

How so? You have the three countries that did not attend due to human rights concerns added there and a note that “various other leaders, similar to Tokyo 2020, chose not to attend the Games due to COVID-19 concerns”. It is literally one sentence with 2 sources. No unnecessary material lol. But you guys decide, can’t expect Wikipedia to be unbiased honestlyAngele201002 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand the frustration, but wikipedia runs through following the language of the most WP:RS. Happy editing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That's the thing, not a single WP:RS has mentioned these countries (Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, New Zealand, Slovenia and the Netherlands) to have voiced concerns over human rights violations as a reason for non-attendance, COVID-19 being the same reason why many did not attend the previous games, yet biased users such as you seem to be desperate to jump to conclusions and include them in the article.Angele201002 (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure about that list of countries who are not boycotting the games? A cursory Google search shows that not a single WP:RS has listed any of those countries to have voiced concerns over human rights violations as a reason for non-attendance might not be wholly correct. A piece from a week ago includes the Netherlands but does cast doubt on Germany being a participant. Another source from a week ago includes Sweden and the Netherlands. Another source lists New Zealand as being among those diplomatically boycotting the Olympics in protest against China’s record on human rights. I haven’t searched too deep, so there may well be other reliable sources that note the presence of more countries engaging in diplomatic boycott, but we probably shouldn’t be so quick to claim that there are no reliable sources that support including a particular country. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that for most countries, their absence in the diplomatic boycott is not under question. This is stated by country officials rather than the media, who have put out conflicting statements. It is important to note their decisions for not attending:

Austria: Chancellor is 'against the politicisation of the games' and 'no high-ranking politician will visit due to high COVID requirements' (https://www.diepresse.com/6073874/keine-hochrangigen-politiker-aus-oesterreich-zu-olympia)

Czech Republic: Officially joined boycott. See Petr Fiala (PM of Czech Republic)'s Twitter post (https://www.irozhlas.cz/zpravy-domov/fiala-olympijske-hry-2022-diplomaticky-bojkot_2201281320_pj) which states 'ČR se tak připojí k většině zemí EU a k USA, kteří zástupce na olympiádu nevyšlou.' Should be moved to official boycott list, personally.

Estonia: Should be on the list.

Germany: No official statement from the Chancellor or the government besides that they are discussing with the EU and Olaf Scholz 'personally' will not be there

Japan: Should be on the list.

The Netherlands: Here, I agree. They should be on this list. (https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/netherlands-wont-send-diplomatic-group-beijing-olympics-2022-01-14/)

New Zealand: 'There was a range of factors but mostly to do with COVID, and the fact that the logistics of travel and so on around COVID are not conducive to that kind of trip' (https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/new-zealand-wont-send-diplomats-beijing-olympics-cites-covid-19-2021-12-07/). Also, note that 'The New Zealand Olympic Committee has sought accreditation for a small number of Embassy staff, including the Ambassador, to provide consular support to the team, should it be needed, as is standard practice for this kind of event' (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/louisa-wall-and-simon-oconnor-call-on-government-to-boycott-games/S3GPGV5EYF4IFOVFXOQFLVSXHY/). They shouldn't be on this list for that point in the first place.

Norway: The Foreign Minister was due to attend, got COVID, ended up having the Ambassador to China attend (https://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/sport/2022/01/29/195821058/ambassador-representerer-norske-myndigheter-i-ol), while other officials attended events (https://twitter.com/TomKnappskog/status/1489817570572070912?cxt=HHwWgMCrofzL8qwpAAAA)

Slovenia: 'Pahor wrote in the letter that he was very much looking forward to the opening of the Olympic Games and their eventual meeting' and 'However, today, due to a new and unpredictable wave of covid-19 infections in Slovenia and around the world, he decided not to attend the opening of the Winter Olympics in Beijing on February 4, 2022' (https://www.dnevnik.si/1042980488)

Sweden: Anders Ygeman (Swedish minister) in response to a question regarding human rights in China and a boycott: 'We regularly address human rights in our contacts with Chinese government representatives as well as in international contexts, such as the UN Human Rights Council.' and 'Due to the pandemic, the Swedish government intends not to attend the Winter Olympics in Beijing, JUST AS in the summer Olympics in Tokyo.' and 'I mean that we should not let dictatorships prevent us from supporting Swedish athletes and Swedish sporting achievements.' (https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/interpellation/olympiska-spelen-i-beijing_H910208) Clear from these statements the government does not see the Olympics (but the UNHRC) as the place to discuss human rights criticism of China and they are not attending for the same reason that they did not attend Tokyo.

Switzerland: 'In view of the ongoing strained pandemic situation in Switzerland and the fact that no substantive meetings or contacts with Swiss athletes would be able to take place during the Games in China due to health restrictions, the Federal Council decided on 26 January not to attend the Games' (https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/media-releases.msg-id-86932.html)

So, we have two countries (New Zealand and Norway) who have either sought accreditation for their officials or actually attended events. One who has slammed the 'politicisation of the games' (Austria), two who have made no mention of any human rights in China in their statements (Slovenia and Switzerland), one who has stated that the Games are not the place for human rights discussions (Sweden) and one who has not really made any statement for or against a boycott besides saying that he personally will not be attending (Germany). Additionally, the Czech Republic should be moved to the list of officially boycotting countries.

Now, the question is whether countries not-attending for COVID reasons should be included in the article. It is not something newsworthy in times of the pandemic to not send officials to the Games. As we can see with Sweden's statements, they did not even attend Tokyo. Others as well (source for Europe: https://www.politico.eu/article/busy-that-day-world-leaders-pass-on-tokyo-olympics/). Angele201002 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The article currently incorrectly lists Hong Kong as a country (alongside Japan, Estonia and the Netherlands in the boycott section), and as having boycotted the games due to Covid restrictions whilst citing concerns about China' human rights violation. This is clearly not accurate, as Carrie Lam did not attend due to the pandemic situation in Hong Kong, same as many other neutral regions (as the source provided clearly shows). I would suggest removing this reference to Hong Kong altogether because it's irrelevant to neither a boycott nor condemnation of China's human rights record.

Recent edits by Got Milked

General question. I've read the paragraph recently added by user Got Milked. Said user added a rosier paragraph under "Athletes and team officials complaints over food, facilities and weather", which is fine (not really on topic)... however, his edit summary stated that:

Many opinions run contrary to what is being expressed through the biased editing here, and as such it'd be democratic to present truth in these contrasting media representations; citing testimony in these reference-sources.

...which seems somewhat questionable and biased within itself. The user also added a couple of lines with loaded terms, i.e. "western media" -- one of which I removed. My main concern though is the sourcing. The Global Times, being a state run newspaper in the same country hosting the games, would seem like it would have a conflict of interest - being state run, for unbiased reporting about the games. In addition... I'm not familiar with British newspapers, but isn't the Daily Mail a tabloid??? Hanyou23 (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Aaah... and I see in the time I typed this, the edits were reverted xD (all good, kind'a - more-or-less). Hanyou23 (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding to this concern, to bring to attention User:Got Milked's insistence on using deprecated (unreliable) sources (as tagged in two of their edits). What is everyone's opinion on this? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Participating NOCs. Russia is there, but it isn't.

Not sure where the discussion was held. But going by the 2018 Winter Olympics (as the OAR) & the 2020 Summer Olympics (as the ROC), we're basically listing Russia as though it's continuing to participate in the Olympics. Even though officially the country is banned, until (I think) the 2024 Summer Olympics. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's still Russian athletes, representing Russia in all but name. Trying to paint OAR and ROC and separate entities with no continuity, by listing them in the "competing in X, but did not compete in Y" section is just daft. Semantic Gymnastics is not an Olympic event. ValarianB (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No prob. Just noting the 'recent' edit spat, about the topic & the precedent already set, in the 2018 & 2020 games. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it. In 2018 Russia participated as "Olympic Athletes from Russia" and is so listed under "NOCs that participated in 2018, but will not in 2022". Bur "ROC" is not under "NOCs that will participate in 2022, but did not in 2018", but under "Participating National Olympic Committees". This makes no sense. You can see Russia as always participating, then "Olympic Athletes from Russia" is to delete under "NOCs that participated in 2018, but will not in 2022". Or, alternative, it is always seen as differnt entity. Then "ROC" must be listed under "NOCs that will participate in 2022, but did not in 2018". What definetly is not possible, to say the team of 2018 is not again participating, but to set "ROC" in the direct tradition. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a wholly irrelevant distinction, it is just a different designation by the Olympic Committee from OAC to ROC. The same Russian athletes, coaches etc...have continuity from 2018 to 2022. ValarianB (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Shortening concerns and controversies and re-directing to specific article about controversies.

Based on precedent from the 2020 Summer Olympics and the fact that the section is getting very large and unwieldy and getting into fairly esoteric discussions about specific events, I think it is worth considering shortening the concerns and controversies sections and re-directing to the main page to discuss these. We could aim for the section to be a similar length to summer 2020. Dhawk790 (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That article is substantially longer, and these are a shortened version of it. Given that the amount of controversy generated in these olympics is more than most, it seems only natural that the article would reflect that.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The individual article for concerns and controversies at the 2020 olympics is even longer than the one for the 2022 olympics indiciating that the quantity is at least comparable if not more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics . If you look at the specifics in the current article, especially for athletics it gets very detailed. It seems like there could be good justification for shortening. Right now in the main article for Summer 2020, there are directions for expansion of concerns and controversies to go into the specific article. Dhawk790 (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with @Dhawk790: With the games being only halfway over, a summary of the controversies can be made on the main page and if/as more controversies arise, they can be added to the controversies page. Who knows how long it may be by then. Hanyou23 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thats not how it would work, new concerns and controversies would still need to be summarized on the main page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Shorten but don't redirect, we still need to have summaries of the controversies and concerns here but I agree that currently we have way too much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Even if it had to be summarized on the main page, it still would be much shorter than it is now with a redirect. Hanyou23 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to summarize the two last sections. The human rights / boycott section seems much more daunting, but there are links posted to the main article now. Dhawk790 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the low hanging fruit is removing "In a survey taken in August 2021 ... while 33 percent were not sure." and "On 29 November 2021 ... the Beijing Winter Olympics." can be cut as overly granular and condensing "In early February 2022 ... compete as Chinese Taipei." to "In early February 2022, Taiwanese speed skater Huang Yu-ting faced backlash on social media after wearing a friend's outfit displaying "China" during training" no need for us to summarize the background to the controversy as well. There also seems to be a lot in there which could more neatly fit under Non-attendance (needs a better name) and Environmental impact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I tried editing it so that the main issues are mentioned, but the expansion is in the detailed section. Dhawk790 (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You went way too far, please self revert so we can come to a reasonable consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell me which ones to revert? It is fine if you revert the ones you think went too far. Dhawk790 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I would support getting rid of the section entirely. For almost every Games, these sections simply become a place for those who don't like the host country to bitch and moan. Tiny issues are given far too much weight. And don't tell me these matters are well covered in sources. Those sources are doing just the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to this view, but the last few olympics have included these sections, so I think it would be a much bigger discussion to completely remove. Dhawk790 (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Language o_o ..... Hanyou23 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

What? HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The formal expression, I believe would be "Kindly refrain from using unparliamentary language". Hope that clears it up. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I regard my language there as far less offensive than trying to use this article to score political points, which is the obvious goal of some contributors. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Biathlon venue

There appears to be conflicting information on the various articles about the biathlon venue. The main biathlon article says the events are being held at "Kuyangshu Nordic Center and Biathlon Center" but all the individual event articles say "Hualindong Ski Resort" in Yanqying. The IOC says National Biathlon Centre [21]. So which one is it? We need to be consistent across all articles. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies

These four section headings below should be sufficient for this section, they hot on all the key controversies at these games. Please do not change until a discussion is had. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Non-attendance
• Environmental impact
• Sporting controversies
• Athletes and team officials complaints

Maps

The maps with participating countries is a bit distracting, in my opinion both should go, but perhaps as a compromise the first one showing the countries competing can stay. What does everyone think ? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep both, no need to delete either.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)