Talk:2008 Summer Olympics torch relay/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Added section on Chinese media coverage

Well, I've done my best, and I've tried to be neutral. Now feel free to tear my efforts to pieces. ;) Or, better still, feel free to improve on what I've done. Aridd (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you really have try your best. Thanks for your hard work. I agree impovement will be based on your efforts. -Imachinese (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This CNN Video show that CNN is not very objective in their report about the torch relay. The announcer was saying "I see an awful lot of flags, American flags's flying there, Tibetan flags's flying there,blah blah" when the video feed clearly shows lot of Chinese and American flags. CNN starts using Xinhua's tactics now? Mgz 22:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume she wasn't watching the same video feed. Either that, or she's not capable of distinguishing the Tibet flag from the PRC one, which seems unlikely. Aridd (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well they've shown Nepali police footage while talking about them as Chinese police. They can't even tell Nepalese from Chinese, how can you expect them to tell apart flags. --Kvasir (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - privately owned press does not necessarily mean unbiased press. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"I assume she wasn't watching the same video feed." That's an even worse kind of reporting. It's like reporting news from a predetermined script regardless of what footage of reality is. --Kvasir (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well personally, I don't get why people in China are getting so worked up over media bias - especially by the likes of CNN. Surely all intelligent people know that CNN makes stuff up? And yeah, it is a little hypocritical of either Xinhua or CNN to denounce each other. They use pretty much the same tactics - one for sensationalism, the other for propaganda. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately people here in the West trust the media and buys whatever feeding down the tube. That's how we have all these Tibet sympathisers and almost no one cares about Xinjiang's Uyghur (except in Istanbul which is within a predominantly muslim country). Xinjiang is predominantly muslim whose separatist fraction has been branded by terrorist in China AND the West. Something both China and the West agrees on, why's that? We have no notable coverage on the Istanbul pro-Xinjiang protests during the relay. Surprise? People in China are upset about the biased Western media as much as the Western media discredits Xinhua's footage and reporting every other sentence. --Kvasir (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any reliable sources documenting one piece of biased reporting that seems to be permeating even respectable (read: "not CNN") news outlets. Everyone is talking about a "crackdown", and that the protests are against "the crackdown", when there is no reliable evidence of a crackdown, and only the sketchiest allegations even from Tibetan separatism HQ in Dharamsala. It seems to me that it is much more neutral to describe the protests as against "the Chinese government" or "Chinese policies in Tibet" - which is what the Dalai Lama himself complains about.

Not very optimistic about the chances: if even the (bandwagon-jumping non-Tibetan) protesters don't know what they're protesting about (as CBS reported), guess there isn't much chance that news outlets would appreciate the difference. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"when there is no reliable evidence of a crackdown" Which is supprising concidering the world media is banned by the PRC government, oh wait that may be why. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, PalaceGuard008, virtually every western news media outlet out there are calling it a "crackdown" without first hand reportage, even adding sensationalising adjectives like "violent" and "bloody" and pride themselves as neutral reliable news source. The point is, with or without reliable coverage people in the west are still anti-China. Here we have pictures AND video of a disabled torchbearer being attacked and still there is debate whether or not her injuries/ordeal were legitimate. If this happened in any other torch relay, say an anti-war protester trying to grab the torch from a paralympian at the London 2012 torch relay, there would be an immediate international condemnation against the attacker. Oh and it will be all over the news with the typical sensational language, unlike this kind of downplay of the Jin Jing incident. --Kvasir (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese are not actually angry about the uneven or even fabricated coverage, but they are angry that the censorship is not being used to shut out news of protests and the "news" is used to "insult China". It's a bit complicated issue, but average Chinese people (and Chinese government) can't stand being criticized face to face even when they know they're actually wrong. When criticized, they have to accuse other side using any thing they can think of regardless of how they feel about the issue and strike back. They can't say "Yes, we know there is a problem and we're working to fix it." even if they know that that is the best answer. In fact, if you manage to secure a private meeting after a such counterargument, they'll readily admit that there is a problem and actually rescind a part of counterargument. It's strange but that's how it goes. So what Chinese are worked up is the result of a natural, cultural reflex. They don't really care if CNN is reporting the truth or not. Chinese people and Chinese government are simply expecting to see the news about the successful relay or no news at all(this would imply it didn't go well but it can be tolerated). Any other way, and it's a "loss of face".--Revth (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

hehe, You know a little, but you do not know much. -Imachinese (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I find your comment slightly racist and immensely pointless to the discussion. How about that it's the westerners who can't stand being criticized and are resorting to being racist? But of course, you're a Japanese. Herunar (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The "shut out world media", Hypnosadist, seem to be fully capable of filming the protest actions of monks and others, even full mounted charges in formation down village squares. I doubt that reports of the crackdown would be slow in coming if it has happened already. So far, all we have are vague numbers from the Government-in-Exile: 140 today, 300 the next. No details. I am not inclined to believe unsubstantiated numbers, just as I'm not inclined to believe the Chinese government's unsubstantiated claims that the Government-in-Exile plans to start a guerilla war inside China.

In truth, it is much more likely that the Chinese government will put off a crackdown until after the Olympics. It is simply irrational for them to act now. It's not like the monks are going anyway, what with the borders being closed (both internally and externally). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The sad fact is, the Tibetans are in active riot targeting Han Chinese and the government couldn't do a thing because everything it does is bound to be a magnet for criticism. It's not a decision of cracking down or not. Herunar (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the section "Media coverage," I propose the section title be re-titled to "Chinese media coverage." Every paragraph in this section either describes a specific Chinese news outlet response, a general statement about Chinese media, or a Western media reaction *to the Chinese news coverage.* I do not see any general discussion or documentation of WESTERN coverage of events in this section. Nor am I insisting that there need to be one, but the section title should accurately reflect the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.99.200.59 (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRITICISM

Per standard WP guidelines, please fold mention of the controversy into the other sections. That is the primary focus of the coverage of this event, and our treatment on Wikipedia should reflect that. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Note WP:CRITICSM isn't a guideline, only an essay. I do agree with its principles, but having a section on a physical occurences around this event (the protests), is I think quite different from a list of quotes and concern being raised, and as such isn't purely a "Criticsm" section. Paulbrock (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy. Nonetheless, as it stands its ridiculous, as anything "bad" is put into another section, which means we don't get to hear that Brown received the torch in the appropriate section, etc. There's no good reason for this. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Canberra

Following the events in Olympia, there were reports that China requested permission to deploy People's Liberation Army personnel along the relay route to protect the flame. Australian authorities stated that such a request, if it were to be made, would be refused.[112][113] Chinese officials labeled it a rumor.[114]

One of the sources used (here) specifically states that China DID NOT request permission to deploy yadda yadda, so why the heck is this section there at all? The other sources say nothing about it, or say that the chinese say its rumors... its ALL only based on rumors, no "reports" nothing of the sort... I don't think repeating rumors is a goal of wikipedia :P Also its pretty much a no brainer that ANY country would decide to forbid foreign troops from doing something activly (besides training) in their own country. 195.216.82.210 (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Carbon neutrality

I removed the claim the 2012 torch relay will be carbon neutral here [1]. Firstly, since the 2012 event hasn't happened yet, it's better to say it's planned to to be carbon neutral. More importantly though, the source that Wired uses (which is this) to support their claim the 2012 relay will be carbon neutral doesn't in any way support their claim. The article discusses the flame, but not the relay. It doesn't even mention the problem of flying the relay around on planes, which is the biggest problem with the Chinese relay or how (presuming the relay goes ahead) London plans to address this. Nil Einne (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This environmental crap is borderline trivial. Only if the Olympic organiser has named minimising environmental impact as one of their goals AND that only belongs to the games own article, namely 2008 Olympic Games. Do we need to report on the environmental impact of every single sporting event and ceremonies leading up to it. Oops, no, only the ones held by China. *rolls eyes* --Kvasir (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, particularly since the above problem highlights that the Wired analysis is probably problematic source anyway and it doesn't mention the 2004 Olympics relay at all (which evidentally was the first time the relay had circumnavigate the globe according to 2004 Summer Olympics torch relay). Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Only mentioning Chinese media coverage is POV

This article needs more balance. We should not only talk about the Chinese media coverage. There should be a section on Western media coverage.--Jingandteller (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but that's not enough. We need to give our equal attention to media in other regions except China and West, such as Japan, Thailand, Nepal, Africa, west Asia....... Especially local media where torch relay holds. -Imachinese (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How about making a section on media coverage on the relay, with Chinese media, Western media, other regions media as subsections? That would be more balanced and NPOV.--Jingandteller (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't agree. I don't think Western media can match other regions media. As for Chinese media, since Beijing is the host city .... But I think the best way is to comprehensively describe events by considering all media, instead of by media classification -Imachinese (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's also fine. But the point is that there should be no biased title mentioning only one side.--Jingandteller (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(EC)There is criticism of the "Western Media" in the section, but the fact that PRC's media reports look nothing like what has been happening on the streets of London, Paris and SF has been mentioned by many RS's. NPOV is not treating all sides equally, its about what the ballance of RS's say on a subject. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the BBC's take on this issue http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7340832.stm ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC title "Olympic media coverage" is much more neutral than the title in this article now "Chinese media coverage". Since we have talked about every sides, the title of the section should not be biased against China. We need a neutral title.--Jingandteller (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Changeing the section title to "Olympic media coverage" would be fine with me. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good, let's do it now.--Jingandteller (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We draft up the section before we change the section title. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. Herunar (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to just "Media Coverage" as it seem better english as this is about the media not the Olympics. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The whole article is basically a farce and now that we finally have some balance, we have a bunch of users here whining about NPOV. Pathetic. Herunar (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What's your point?--Jingandteller (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is, this article is nothing but pro-Western and has always been. For one, including a section about Chinese media coverage itself is Western-centered. If the whole article isn't completely Western-centered, we won't need a special, tiny section for Chinese media. If it's balanced, the Chinese media coverage would actually have place in the main sections. Not long ago the United States had different schools for whites and schools for blacks, and this is just as if the whites are complaining that the blacks are receiving special treatment. No, it's that they're being isolated and put into a little corner. And look how quickly our users are complaining about it. Herunar (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, pretty much all the coverage on the torch relay protests are from Western Media sources. The Chinese Media Coverage heading should be under the Protest section. --Kvasir (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The torch has just passed through 3 major Western cities, so most of the coverage would be logically Western.--Fang Teng (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So where is the coverage on Alamaty, Istanbul, and St Petersburg then? --Kvasir (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't carefully read the article. And if any words or sentences are pro-Western or Western-centred, just amend it, make it true, objective, justicial, fair,. -Imachinese (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole article mainly uses western media which is obviously bias. Also the quotes from Sebastian Cole and Konnie Huq about the flame protection unit as "thugs" and "bloody aggressive" is irrelevant. What do you expect them to do? Stand there and watch? If the protests were peaceful and none of them had attacked the torch bearer, those attendants wouldn't have to push the protesters aside. Its clearly double standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.198.100 (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had seen the london relay then you might know what Konnie Huq was talking about, the "smurfs" as the Met Police called them man handled her through her run. They kept grabing her arm when they thought she was not holding it high enough, pulling her left and right and that was when there were NO PROTESTERS. As for Seb Coe as one of two lead organisers of London 2012 his opinions are notable and from an RS. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Its hard to believe you. You're all hypocrites. No protesters? HAHAHAH what a joke

No they were pulling her around at times there were no protesters trying to grab the torch. WP:AGF ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts, but I would not agree with putting them here on Wikipedia. To try to improve an article we must help remove the biases of the article, not add more OR of our own. Herunar (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Just now I found I cann't edit the article. Hope everyone edit with objective and fair principle. -Imachinese (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As the person who started the "Chinese media coverage" section, I've tried to show in what ways Chinese and Western media coverages differed from one another - for example, in what ways Chinese media covered aspects that weren't much covered (or were virtually ignored) in Western media, and in what ways Western media covered aspects that weren't much covered (or were totally ignored) in Chinese media. I started the section because other Wikipedians felt that it was important to include the Chinese perspective. I tried to make it balanced, factual, objective and neutral, without pro-Western bias or pro-Chinese bias. If I failed to do that in any way, please let me know, and feel free to improve on what I've done. Aridd (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Economist

Any one has read latest Economist (to be fair, latest and the one before it). I think it is the most impartial thing written anywhere. There is mention of Chinese propaganda, there is mention of Western coverage, and there is mention of diplomatic actions in different countries, including China, which are other than "bla said bla". I think the article is definitely lacking good sources. And btw, Chinese newspapers are highly unreliable sources for China - it is like asking my mouth how everyone is against me. Ofcourse, that does not mean they should not be here - they MUST be here to provide the "other side" of the story. But they should not be taken for fact reporting.--Jahilia (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins: the first picture links incorrectly to the flame protection units' section; it should link to the following: Beijing Olympic Games Sacred Flame Protection Unit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.203.100 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mount Everest

It is mentioned that an ascent of Mount Everest with the torch is planned, but it's not mentioned when this will be, when the torch is in India, or in Tibet (the two most logical times). And, whichever one it is (although I'm guessing Tibet, as Mount Everest is in Tibet (and Nepal), it should be added in the "itinerary" for the relevant area, since it is mentioned earlier in the article that it will be there. --Canuckguy (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read, the set route goes only to Lhasa, from where it will be taken to base camp (north face). Whether it actually gets taken *up* Mt Everest will depend on the weather conditions - which I think is why it is not set as a point on the itinerary. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This says the torch will pass through Tibet in May to go up the Mount Everest. Chris! _ct 05:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that China has recently started stressing that Everest is "in" China, as Simon Jenkins points out, I dont imagine they would want their relay climbing up through Nepal. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

<redacted per WP:BLP.>

Edits to Paris protest section

I've made a few quick edits to that section. I've restored the image on the protest banner flown from the town hall by the municipal authortities, because it's notable. To my knowledge, it's the only official sign of protest by the actual authorities of a torch relay city. Also, if we have several images of violent protests, we really do need to counter-balance them with an image or two of protests of another, far more peaceful kind. The overwhelming majority of protesters in Paris were peaceful, but some people editing this article seem to want to distort that into an impression of primarily violent protests. Secondly, I've removed two incorrectly cited assertions, as I had said I would. More specifically, here's what I removed:

Many of the protestors were organized and flew specially to Paris to disrupt the relay.[95] China's state-owned media reported several claims of Chinese and Westerners being paid to join in the protests, with most refusing.[96]

Now, the sources linked to were [2] and [3]. Neither of those sources supports those claims in any way. (Check for yourselves.) They don't even begin to hint at anything of the kind. I'm going to assume good faith, and assume that, somehow, the wrong articles were linked to, but please do be careful with your sources. Aridd (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I quote from the second source: "One blogger said he was offered money to join the protest, but turned it down and stood with other Chinese to show support for the Beijing Olympics". Herunar (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the second page. Indeed, you're right; my apologies. All right, if other Wikipedians find it notable, I suppose it can go back in the article. But I re-iterate my earlier concerns: a) I find it ironic that you removed a sourced claim about "pro-Chinese" demonstrators having been mobilised by the Chinese embassy, and yet you add this. That seems slightly inconsistent to me. And: b) How is this notable? One individual anonymous blogger. At the very least, if this is to stay in the article, we would need to know who allegedly offered him money. In any case, any random blogger could claim just about anything! I could start a blog claiming to be a Chinese student in Paris and claim that the embassy sent me a Chinese flag and paid me to wave it. Regarding the first claim, have you got another source? Because, unless I missed it, that article from Le Monde really says nothing of the kind. I'm French, French is my native language, and I didn't see what you claim to have seen written there. Aridd (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"bussed into the city"

I removed this sentence "some of whom had been bussed into the city" from the SF protest section. It seems weired. Does the way of getting there really matter? Took (talk) 09:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but I suspect the passive tense does. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably matters in that it suggests they are organised to gather at the said location, instead of being mere local residents. However, the same thing could probably be said for both sides.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is making insinuations without substantiation. It is insinuating "have been bussed into the city" by the Chinese consulate/Tibetan organisation (I didn't read the article, don't know which side this is talking about). While probably true (of both sides), it is unfair to make such insinuations without substantiating it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced information from this article simply because you don't like how it sounds. You asked if the way of getting there really matters and I would argue that YES is does matter that the Chinese GOVERNMENT was directly involved in bringing in THOUSANDS of out of town Chinese to dominate over the pro-Tibet protesters. I have now retored this line. It is perfectly cited information directly from the San Francisco Chronicle, and also comes right after this blurb: "Meanwhile pro-Tibet protesters, some of which flew in from pro-Tibet organizations", which DOES NOT appear anywhere in the cited source. I have marked this as an unsourced claim and will delete it after some time if it remains unsourced. BillyTFried (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

SF pro-China supporter

I suggest more coverage of the pro-China supporters in the SF Apr-9 relay. To my knowledge this might be one of the largest Chinese rallies in US. Currently there is only one and a half sentences in the article about that, under the protests->SF section, and one picture showing only a few pro-China demonstrators along with protesters. The coverage of pro-Tibet protesters is overwhelming in that section, although we know there are much more supporters than protesters in the SF relay. Took (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to search online media for verifiable information. The article does already say, though, that there were "thousands of pro-China demonstrators", and that "supporters of the Olympics outnumber protesters three to one". But additional information if it was indeed a notably large Chinese rally would be good, yes. Aridd (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And mention of the long links between SF and China, the high number of US citizens of chineese decent etc. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Relays before 2000

" in the next relay held, the 2000 Sydney Olympics, it was restricted to South East Asia.<ref> Libby Purves in The Times, 8 April 2008 [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article3701224.ece]</ref><ref>Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times, 6 April 2008 [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article3689920.ece]</ref> "

is completely wrong on two accounts:

• There were relays every year in between; and
• The 2000 relay ran through the Pacific region (read: Pacific islands), not South East Asia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be rewritten to say "international relays" which, is in fact, I think, true. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely a better source can be found than this.... stream of wild and cynical accusations against everyone and anyone around the world. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible images

If we want to add an image of what seems to be a peaceful protest (to counter-balance the images of violent protests, which may give a distorted image of the overall peaceful nature of the protests), the Polish Wiki has this (from San Fransisco). If we want an image of people with Chinese flags, the French wiki has this. Aridd (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible reorganisation of content

I have found reading through this article a rather repeatitive process, with the route section describing supposedly what was supposed to happen, and then we go through the route again with details on the "political fallout". Is this neccesary? How about merging the respective sub-sections in the "political fallout" section to the route section, and have a new section called, perhaps "reactions", which can then discuss both opposition and proponent views in an overall sense? We can even add an "impact" section later to discuss the aftermath, which makes it all a far more sensible (and hopefully more balanced) read.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See above, the WP:CRITICISM section. I strongly agree that it doesn't read at all well like this. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe this may indeed have some impact on NPOV issues due to the issue of WP:Undue weight, hence I would like more opinions from the ground before progressing further. The initial step is to keep the amount of content, albeit streamlined for better flow. We can tackle on the issue of WP:Undue weight in each subsection later.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work on the article, by the way. Herunar (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ;)--Huaiwei (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you collapsed the sections, but personally I preferred the "old" layout, with all the subtitles. It seemed clearer, less messy, better structured and better spaced-out. Maybe that's just me, though. Aridd (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The main issue with the old version is that we are going to have an exessively long sub-section list if we maintain it till the end of the race. That's 23 X 2 = 46 country sub-sections alone in its current format! As for layout, the present format actually reduces the large empty spaces which previously existed for those using wider screens.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would recomment inserting <br/><br/> between each country for clarity. Crimsone (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are no further suggestions or comments, may I continue to proceed with this reorganisation into one single section which I have already renamed as a "sequence of events"?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I prefer the current layout. The relay hasn't been only about protests and political fallout, and if we conflate everything I'm concerned that the other information will simply be lost in the mass. For now, we have a section which presents an overview of all events, with a brief mention of protests, then we have a section specifically about the protests. That seems best to me. It gives due emphasis and detail to the protests, without de-emphasising the other aspects. (On an unrelated topic, I've edited in clearer spacing.) Aridd (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Between clarity and avoiding WP:Undue weight issues, I would think the later is far more crucial to deal with. How about we attempt to do the merge, will takng great care to maintain a balanced viewpoint?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not just about a balanced viewpoint. It's also about clarity. As I said, it seems to me that a) the protests are a huge aspect of this topic (as evidenced in media coverage), and are clearly weighty enough to warrant their own section, and b) if we merge the protest aspect into the rest, we risk drowning out that rest under the sheer volume of protest-related material. The current layout is both clear and logical. (Incidentally, they're talking about adopting it on the French Wikipedia.) Aridd (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Situations where the flame has been extinguished

It would be of interest to note where, when, by whom, under what circumstances, and how many times the torch has been put out during the relay. Wandering Star (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Although just to be clear, the Olympic flame has never been put out, just the torch flame. The Olympic flame travels with the torch in a lantern. JayKeaton (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See the Olympic flame article. I imagine once the 2008 games are over there will be more stuff added that to this topic there. --Kvasir (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The torch has been put out 5 times in Paris, by Chinese officials, because protesters blocked the road. Lafcadio Wluiki (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, according to the French police authorities, as mentioned in the article. Aridd (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

I want to know why the word Mainland was removed completely from the article. It appears extensively on the official website http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/, and the BOCOG itself considers the Hong Kong and Macau legs to be international http://torchrelay.beijing2008.cn/upload/c/guoji.swf . Taipei was also planned to be one of the legs on the international route. The Mainland route begins in Sanya. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/olympics/2008-03/20/content_6553393.htm http://www.china.com.cn/zhibo/2008-03/19/content_13031191.htm http://en.beijing2008.cn/news/official/preparation/n214273725.shtml Fanqing!! (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the word "mainland" still exists in the article, in particular as a caption to the map, so I fail to see the big deal over this word just because the disjointed sections were merged into one (which is afterall one single route)?--Huaiwei (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image removed without discussion.

This image has been removed from the article, on the grounds that it's "non free/fair use". Unless someone would like to argue convincingly against the rationale provided for its use, I'll be putting it back. It's particularly notable, giving that it illustrates the authorities of a torch relay host city protesting against China's human rights violations during the torch relay. The image is unique in that sense. Aridd (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

...but it's not unique in the sense that anyone near that building when the banner was up could have taken a photo, which could then have been used instead of this publicity shot. It therefore does not qualify for fair use, as a free-alternative could easily be used instead. _TalkIslander 19:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

...Which assumes that there were (a), a large number of people outside the building observing the banner, of whom, (b), A few people decided to detatch themselves from the moment and take a photo (as they just happened to have a camera handy as the were walking past), and (c), of those few people, one of them is not only a wikipedia editor, but (d), has actually thought for just a moment t5o contribute it and/or actually would like to contribute that photo to wikipedia, thus loosing any rights to it by making it GFDL.

The chances are pretty slim. A celebrity who travels around the world on a schedule with a fanatical cult following and lasts for a number of years cetainly... but it just doesn't work so well for an imprompru banner on the side of a government building thatwas only there for a brief moment. Crimsone (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Islander is exactly right. Whilst Crimsone may be right that there was a slim chance of the situation she describes occurring, that is not an excuse to use an unfree image. It would have been perfectly feasible for that to happen and remains perfectly feasible that someone might be able to find someone to release a photo they've taken of it. Adambro (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Adambro, but that... really doesn't make much sense to me. Crimsone's argument seems a lot more logical. We're simply not aware of any free version of that image. You may think it's "feasible" to obtain one, but if so I'd like to know how. I'd be the first person to cheer if we could get a free version rather than a "fair use" one, but if it's obviously not feasible, surely fair use applies? The fact that somebody could have taken a free photo is of no help to us whatsoever if they actually didn't. And at present we have no reason whatsoever to assume they did. Aridd (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the chances of someone taking a publicity shot and someone taking a non-publicity shot are fairly equal. The former exists - what's to say the latter doesn't? Sorry, but the rules on fair use are fairly strict. _TalkIslander 23:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Aridd's argument seems to be if none of us took a photo ourselves and we can't find one then we can use an unfree image, that simply isn't valid. The point I am making is that we could have. There would be nothing to have stopped me from driving down to the nearest station, getting a train to London, getting the Eurostar to Paris and making my way to the City Hall. Of course that would have been difficult but that isn't an excuse to use an unfree image, it would have been possible for someone to obtain a photo feasibly. Now, after the event, there is nothing stopping someone from finding a photographer who has an image of this banner who will agree to release it. There is no automatic step from not having a free image to being able to use an unfree image, there is more to it than that, the rules on fair use are stricter than that. Otherwise we just wouldn't have any free images if we could simply say there isn't one so we can use an unfree image. Having images isn't a right for us, we have to work sometimes, whether that be going out and taking photos ourselves our negotiating permission for an existing work, not doing these doesn't mean we can use an unfree image. Adambro (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not quite my argument. I was saying that it should apply only where there's a fair use rationale, which I believed there was here. I'm well aware of the restrictions on unfree images. If you feel fair use doesn't come into here, all right. It's a shame, but rules are rules, of course. It does mean we now have nothing to illustrate an official government protest, but too bad. It's "only" a Wikipedia article, I suppose. ;) Aridd (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you dispute the rational then try to get the picture deleted as it is on two other pages as well, as its low resolution and a partial shot of a one off event it will probably pass. Until its deleted its content make it very usful for this article and it should be put back until the time it gets deleted. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 02:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Adambro has nominated two other images for deletion, both related to an assault on Jin Jing during the protest. I may have misinterpreted Wikipedia policies, but my view is that these images are simply not replaceable and fair use obviously qualifies. The argument that a Wikipedia editor should have been there to take the photo is simply nonsense - in that case, ANY fair use image in Wikipedia would not qualify because that person taking the photo could have been a Wikipedian! My interpretation is that fair use qualifies when you could still take a photo as replacement. However, if the event has already happened, it would be extremely, extremely harsh for us to expect some Wikipedian editors who just happen to be there at the moment to take a photo and upload it. Herunar (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely. Whether the person taking the photograph is a Wikipedian or not is completely irrelevant. All that matters is that the person wh took the photo is willing to release it under the GDFL, or something similar. If a Wikipedian takes a photo, and releases it under the GDFL, great. If a non-Wikipedian takes the photo and releases it under the GDFL, also great. A free-use picture need not be taken by a Wikipedian, and, with all due respect, your misunderstanding on this demonstrates your lack of knowledge when it comes to free and fair use. _TalkIslander 09:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on the subject. Of course it is relevant - if someone is willing to release an image under GFDL, then we wouldn't have to use fair use at all. Under your logic, no image will ever qualify for fair use. Herunar (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case, there are instances where it is impossible to find or create a free image such as logos, an example of valid fair use. However, where we are looking at images which anyone could have quite easily taken and there remains nothing to say that someone won't upload an image or find someone to agree to release an image freely, claiming fair use is a step too far. Of course this is a unique event of a reasonable significance in relation to the topic but if we can use an unfree image here because we don't have a free one then we'd never bother going out and getting free images. It is not this simple, fair use isn't an automatic alternative to freely licensed images. Adambro (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot possibly agree. There is a question of the likelyhood of when a free image may become available and the chances of a free image becoming available at all to take into account, compared with thew notablity and the nature of the event itself. I was here when the whole image fair use thing was happening. The argument of fair use not being ok as long as it's possible to go out and get a GFDL photo applied to subjects where such a image could still be obtained - ie, things like people and places and things, for which numerous free photo's near certainly exist, and if they don't, a wikipedian could go out and take such a photo for release under the GFDL. This is niether... and in any regard, for as long as it remains undecided as to whether or not an image should indeed be deleted, the image should remain in the article - there's a process for deleting images, and untill that's complete, nobody can unilaterally say that an image can't be used. Crimsone (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Crimsone seems to forget this is a wiki where users are encouraged to be bold whilst of course remembering our key polices and guidelines. Images don't have to be put up for deletion to be removed from articles nor does a discussion of removing images have to take place before the action as seems to be suggested by the title of this section. You might choose on the basis of your comments to add the images back in but considering we have this ongoing discussion I would suggest it wouldn't be particularly useful to do so. Adambro (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest that there is a way of doing things that tends to be best conduct - and where somthing is quite clearly going to go against the grain to any significant extent (ie, a claim that a fair use photo is not allowed in an article where no such judgement has been made on the image itself), and where other editors are likely to disagree, Discussion of a wholescale removal of that nature should generally come first. I would also suggest that the images be replaced untill suchtime as the image itself is deleted, as there were no firm and absolute grounds for removing it in the first place, even less now that it is clear the action is disputed - it is therefor prudent to allow the deletion or retention of the image itself decide the outcome of the dispute, and as to wherher the restoration of said image to the article is useful or not is no your judgement to make - it rather depends on whether the image itself stays or goes on wiki. Maybe par5t of the reason for this attitude of mine is that I'm sick of seeing this sort of agressive coup-like editing on wikipedia, and it's about time there was an end to it. It's not about how it stands - it's about how it should have been - yes you were bold, and no, that doesn't mean you were right or that it couldn't ave been handled in a better way, and it's about time someone stood up for that better way - wiki would be a far nicer place to be if they did.

...(and yes Adambro, you can reply to me and speak to me directly rather than the rest of the world... unless you are deliberately trying to call me forgetful as some manner of slur directed as though talking to all of wikipedia barr me, in which case I would consider remarks of that nature on me, my character, or my mental or memory attributes to be somewhat incivil. So much for remembering guidelines, hey?)Crimsone (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd would hope that we all share a common goal in writing a free encyclopaedia and would assure you that even if you cannot understand my reasoning, my intentions in removing the images and suggesting that they should so remain I am doing so because I consider it to be a positive move. I feel very strongly that we should be limiting our use of unfree images to only very limited circumstances which I feel is compatible with our aims of writing free content that anyone can reuse.

I certainly don't exist on Wikipedia to enter into pointless arguments with other contributors and so it is regretful that you seem to have misinterpreted my previous remarks as being incivil. You're welcome to stand up for a "better way" but perhaps consider avoiding suggesting other editors are not being civil whilst you do so. Certainly annoying other editors who you happen to disagree with is not going to make the Wiki any better, better for you perhaps but not better for the readers. However, having said that, I do have many other things I can be doing with my time both on Wiki and off so will not continue with this discussion as I feel appropriate. I'm not going to lose sleep if these images are kept but nor am I going to be happy about it. Adambro (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. I note that the images which you have restored have been tagged as being nominated for deletion but it doesn't appear to be the case, certainly I can't see any specific discussion of these images at the page linked. Adambro (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, niether do I. I did not misinterpret your remarks as being incivil - they were incivil. The made remarks on my personal attributes, not to me but intended to be viewed by me, to the wikipedia community and not me. You may have perhaps considered it harmless banter - I don't. And annoying other editors? All I have done is argued a point. If the fact that someone is as prepared to argue against your view as you are prepared to argue for it annoys you, that's rather unfortunate. Forget not here, that it wasn't me that made a negative personal remark about someone else. Nor was it me that was "bold" in committing to a single unnessecary action (as previously stated, the deletion or not of the photo is the best mark by which to judge whether it should or should not be used - not an arbitrary decision on the part of someone with a particularzeal for the removal of fair use images). I too believe free use images should be kept to a minimum - and I just happen to also believe that it's woth keeping this one, and that there's a fair rationale for doing so.

(I'd also like to point out that removing fair use images doesn't make it any better for the reader - but keeping them to a minimum makes things generally easier for the foundation... And yes, I do again note your incivility in your failure to Assume Good Faith as demonstrated by You're welcome to stand up for a "better way".. (snip) ..better for you perhaps but not better for the readers (I could have cut that in a more accurate way, resulting in the same statement but harder to read). The implication is that I'm out for myself, not the encylopedia. Either that or that I'm out for the encyclopedia but my ego is getting in the way. either way, it fails to AGF, and the accusation (again) is incivil as a result.

I would now like an apology for both incidents please. An administrator should know better. Crimsone (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you won't be getting an apology from me, the only thing that I am sorry about is that you've misinterpreted my earlier comment and do wonder if perhaps English is not your first language as it wouldn't be something that I could recognise as upsetting up. It would seem that you are upset by me starting my comment by saying "Crimsone seems to ...". Part of the reason why I would word my comment like this is in recognising that this is not our own private discussion going on here, it is open to everyone. If we start referring to each other as "you" then it starts to alienate people.

I am an administrator yes, and that means I have a long experience of contributing to Wikipedia. That experience tells me that I would be wasting my time to get involved in what seems to becoming a downward spiral of questions of whether editors are being civil or assuming good faith. To do so would be to allow ourselves to become distracted from the real issue here. It is clearly one where we disagree and where I very much doubt I'll convince you so I feel no reason to continue debating this with you in this manner as that would be to waste my time. If you have some comments of relevance to this issue then I'd be happy to comment on them. Adambro (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You HAVE been incivil to me, and in the process have failed to assume good faith. You've just done it again by insulting my command of my native tongue... How dare you! - what does it say on my user page? What language am I communicating in? Which wiki am I on? quite simply, you do not refer to people's mental abilities and their knowledge based upon themin a negative sense, or infer without basis, backup or citation that somebody is, isn't, was or won't be capable of something - nor imply a lack of knowledge where it is not warranted - that's incivil. To do it in the third person while replying to a comment of theirs makes it worse. It's quite clear from what you said. I want an apology for it - nothing more, and nothing less. If you are unprepared to offer a simple apology for it, then I will be inclined to proceed to a more appropriate venue, namely, AN\I.

I too have substantial experience of wikipedia... maybe (or maybe not) as much as you, but the edit counts are as you know, not all there would be to go by, so we'll never know... all we do know, is that we both have substantial experience. Fact is, being an administrator elevates ones responsibility in example setting, not one's status.

I have listed the one image I restored (you'll not that at no point did I state a desire to restore them both, nor did I restore them both - simply the one for which I believe fair use is fair. )Here Crimsone (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wone further thing... what makes you think it's in the slightest way OK to get personal with me at all, let alone in the third person to the rest of the discussion as you say? Whatever happened to "discuss the contribution, not the contributor?" Crimsone (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well considering that English is your first language then it surprises me even more that simply referring to to you in the third person was enough to start upsetting you to merit you mentioning it. I will once again inform you that I will not be apologising for what you perceive I may have done wrong and your threats of raising this at ANI will not prompt me to. Good night. Adambro (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored stuff deleted without discussion.

I've restored two things deleted by Munford. First, the source for this line: "During the torch's journey through Paris, the Sacred Flame Protection Unit imposed modifications on the torch's route, and controlled the shortening or canceling of ceremonies". Munford claims the source does not back it up. It's an AFP article which says:

L'itinéraire de la torche olympique a été modifié, au niveau de l'Hôtel de Ville de Paris, à la suite d'une décision des organisateurs.

Le cortège ne s'est pas arrêté une demi-heure à l'Hôtel de Ville comme le prévoyait le programme officiel. Il en est reparti assez vite et la torche était toujours à l'intérieur d'un véhicule.

Ce changement d'itinéraire a été décidé par les organisateurs et notamment par l'ambassade de Chine en France, a-t-on précisé à la préfecture de police.

For those of you who don't speak French, it says that the organisers and the Chinese embassy in France modified the itinerary of the torch, and notably cancelled a ceremony. Another source says this:

La ministre de l'Intérieur Michèle Alliot-Marie a estimé mardi que les policiers "ont très bien fait leur travail" lors des manifestations qui ont émaillé lundi le passage de la flamme olympique à Paris, soulignant que "la maîtrise du parcours" relevait des Chinois.

"Les policiers ont très bien fait leur travail", a affirmé la ministre sur Europe 1 avant d'ajouter: "C'est l'ambassade (de Chine) et non la préfecture de police de Paris qui avait la maîtrise du parcours et du rythme de ce parcours, c'est l'ambassade, qui avait choisi le parcours, qui était à même d'annuler plusieurs étapes (...) Ce sont les Chinois qui ont décidé, compte tenu du retard pris par la flamme, de la faire se déplacer en véhicule".

I.e., the French Minister of the Interior confirming that the Chinese authorities were the ones who controlled, altered, shortened and cancelled ceremonies and the relay path. You have a point in that it was the Chinese authorities rather than the Chinese flame attendants who seem to have made the actual decisions, but it's the flame attendants who implemented it. That was very clear on live video coverage, which showed the flame attendants extinguishing the torch, taking it from the hands of torchbearers, and carrying it onto a bus. Second, Munford deleted this: "The German magazine Der Spiegel published an overview of the controversies, and added its own opinion by describing the attendants as "sinister"." He claimed that it was POV. Unless I'm mistaken, he misunderstands what constitutes POV. This line mentions the fact that a notable organisation, one of Germany's best-known international media, has a) taken an interest in the issue, and b) expressed its view on the topic. It's relevant because it participates in showing that the Western media have widely reported on the issue, and that notable people / organisations in the West (Coe, the British Conservative Party, the London Metropolitan Police, the mayor of Paris, etc...) have, for the most part, been critical of the flame attendants' role and/or behaviour. "POV" would be if a Wikipedian phrased something in such a way as to present or promote his/her own views. That's not the case here. I think I was the one who added that line in the first place, and I've also added lines presenting the views of the Chinese media, including Chinese condemnation of what's been happening in the West. Munford, are you seriously suggesting that every citation of Chinese media opinion in this article are POV, and should be removed? I think not. They're informative, and show the views of relevant people and organisations. NPOV means presenting the views of all sides. It does not mean stifling the relevent published opinion of notable media. (And, incidentally, I was also the one who added the "Responding to the controversies, the International Olympic Committee has stated that the Protection Unit's role is "100% normal"." line for the sake of balance, so methinks I can't really be accused of POV-pushing...) Aridd (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not just about "presenting the views of all sides". It is also about balanced reporting. Anyone can see that the lengthy criticisms on the flame attendants easily overwelm that one tiny "100% normal" sentence from the IOC, and it fails to point out that such arrangements has actually been in place in previous games involving other hosts. This, in my opnion, is not NPOV.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course NPOV is about balanced reporting. However, when you have heaps and heaps of notable people saying one thing, and very few saying the opposite, then balanced reporting is showing what the balance is. If you have a source in which a notable person points out that the Greeks were doing the same thing four years ago, you're strongly encouraged to add it. In the meantime, NPOV isn't "let's pretend there are the same number of people on both sides of the argument". Aridd (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view carefully once again. In particular:

• "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."

The above tells you quite plainly, that just because you have 100 prominent people of the world expressing their view that those people are "thugs" dosent mean they should be presented as correct, and it dosent mean this article should place undue emphasis on. Kindly consider the above before your next response. Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of the policy, and you're not telling me anything new. Your entire point is a non sequitur; you're trying to put words in my mouth and respond to things I've never said. I'm going to assume good faith on your part for now, but please don't do that again; it's dishonest. As you should be aware, I've never said that any view should be considered "the truth", and I've never said that we shouldn't present all the viewpoints so that the reader can have the information to make up his/her own mind. In fact, I've been saying the exact opposite. I've never said we should place undue emphasis on anything; I simply said that we should give an actual portrayal of what the balance of the weight of opinions is. May I remind you that I was the one who wrote in the IOC's response to the criticism, precisely because nobody had done so yet and I wanted to show that such a response had in fact been made? I have never suggested or implied in any way that any view "should be presented as correct". Your accusation is absurd, unfounded, and insulting. You seem to be labouring under the gross misapprehension that, when I include a person's viewpoint, it means I agree with what that person is saying. Perhaps that merely reflects on the way you do things. Perhaps you include only viewpoints that you agree with, but I think I've demonstrated by now, again and again, that that's not the way I do things. If you seriously believe I agree with every viewpoint I've quoted into this article, you must think I'm a raging schizophrenic. (I don't personally think that the flame attendants are particularly "sinister", for example.) Now, I can only repeat what I've already said: We should strive to show every relevant viewpoint, and to show that there are indeed a variety of viewpoints, but NPOV isn't "let's pretend there are the same number of people on both sides of the argument". Quite the opposite. Aridd (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Munford has, again, deleted the line about Der Spiegel, without discussing it here. The next time he does so, I'll be reporting him for violation of the 3RR. Also, I've removed a malicious edit [4] by user 216.130.225.2, who replaced "flame attendants" with "rioting activists" a while ago. Aridd (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't notice there is a discussion going on here. Here is the clarification of my edits. The french reporting can not support the text " Protection Unit imposed modifications ....". It's the official of Beijing Games organization who made the decision according to the report . I don't understand why Aridd equates the runners with decision-making officials. About the report of Spigel， single out 1 adjective from an article and used it as reference is not fact based, it's an opinion. Spigel's opinion doesn't qualify to be included in the article. -munford (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Aridd, you can't write stuff just because you imagine it's the way it's done, or you read the implications from the article. State the facts that's conveyed in the reporting, do not come up with imaginative things that are not in the original source. -munford (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to discussion on what should be included in this article. What I object strongly to is unilateral deletion of material while its relevance is being discussed. Such editing is disruptive. Now, I've already clarified (above) precisely what the French sources say. They establish that modifications to the path and length of the Paris relay, as well as the cancelling and shorting of ceremonies, were decided by the Chinese authorities. On the ground, this meant implementation by the flame attendants, as can clearly be seen for example when attendants took the torch from the hands of torchbearers and carried it off, for instance to put it on a bus. What I wrote was factually correct and indisputable. However, I'll leave it up to my fellow Wikipedians. I recognise that there is a small degree of inference in what I had initially written, which is why I amended it. Looking at it objectively, I do see your point, and I understand why you feel the sources do not fully back up the passage. I don't object in the slightest to having people disagree with my phrasing of certain passages; as I said, I just don't like unilateral destruction of content. (Incidentally, I see someone has modified the paragraph and rephrased part of it as "flame attendants were forced to extinguish the torch on several occasions". The claim that they were "forced" is blatantly incorrect, as evidenced in the video which shows them extinguishing the flame while it was being passed from Douillet to Riner.) Regarding the line about Der Spiegel... The edit war that's been building up around it is absurd. I've stated my reasons for including that line, and I'll state them again. It's notable that Germany's major international newspaper has expressed an opinion on this, and it contributes to showing that a large number of relevent persons and organisations have done so. In that sense, Spiegel's opinion qualifies for inclusion. Wikipedia articles do quote opinions expressed by relevent organisations. To do so does not mean endorsing their opinion; it means taking note of the fact that the opinion has been expressed. Or are you seriously saying that I should delete every mention of Xinhua's opinions that I've included in this article, along with every expression of the Chinese government's opinions that I've included? I think not. You need to understand that taking note of a relevent organisation's views is not "POV"; to claim that it is is the height of absurdity. Note that the Spiegel article is not only an opinion piece; it's also an overview of the controversy, and is both interesting and relevent for that reason. If there is a consensus among Wikipedians here to oppose inclusion of the line about Der Spiegel, then obviously I'll accept that. But until and unless there is, I'm asking you to show good faith by restoring that line. I concede that you have a point regarding my phrasing of the actions of the torchbearers. I'm quite prepared to admit that I'm not always right, and I'm grateful for people pointing out my slip-ups to me. But regarding Der Spiegel, I can't say you've really convinced me. I'd appreciate input on this issue by other Wikipedians. I'm sure we all want this to be a high quality, NPOV article, and that we're willing to work together with good faith to achieve that, even when we may disagree about the ways to go about it. Here is Der Spiegels article in question. Aridd (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just re-read the Spiegel's article, and it says this: "And when this happened, they would quickly take the Olympic flame away from the torch bearers and transfer it to a bus in order to protect it from protesters." This confirms what we all knew already (because we've seen it on videos). After due thought, in an effort to be absolutely precise and objective, here's what I suggest. I'm going to rephrase this:

During the torch's journey through Paris, the Sacred Flame Protection Unit (acting on instructions from Chinese authorities) imposed modifications on the torch's route, and controlled the shortening or canceling of ceremonies[citation needed]. Scuffles broke out between activists and French police, and flame attendants extinguished the torch on several occasions to take refuge on a bus, prompting criticism from Paris' mayor, Bertrand Delanoë, who accused them of "disrupting" the passing of the torch from athlete David Douillet to Teddy Riner.[73][74]

into this:

During the torch's journey through Paris, flame attendants extinguished the torch on several occasions and removed it from the hands of torchbearers to place it aboard a bus[Spiegel citation here], thus altering the intended relay and prompting criticism from Paris' mayor, Bertrand Delanoë, who accused them of "disrupting" the passing of the torch from athlete David Douillet to Teddy Riner.[73][74]

I hope that addresses Munford's concerns, which I must recognise were at least partly legitimate. If that's not satisfactory, let me know. Aridd (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• The version above looks ok to me. Still don't think quotation of "sinister" should be included. Appreciate Aridd's effort to resolve this. -munford (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please can someone make the route table collapsible

thanks Tom (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Making it collapsable will cause the images on the right to overspill into the text sections below.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau are not part of mainland China

It seems like some individuals are changing the tables and putting them together in order to virtually annexate Hong Kong and Macau. Please stop this. Bombshell (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right on the part that the previous table is unreadable and that Hong Kong and Macau are not part of "mainland China." (Mainland only refers to all provinces and regions of China except Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan) Nonetheless, both Hong Kong and Macau are STILL parts of "China" as its SAR. I think the flags of Hong Kong and Macau should remain but add the flag of China at the end. —Chris! _ct 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who added the SAR flags, i don't know how to make the link caption to say "Hong Kong SAR" or "Macau SAR" instead of just Hong Kong. I don't think it's necessary to include the PRC flag there as long as we show the link with China or an indication of SAR. --Kvasir (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I meant to say that I add a link of China to the HK and Macau flags. I agree with you that the addition China's flag is unnecessary. —Chris! _ct 20:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The primary aim of having one table is that there it but just one route. Scheduling of the domestic leg is not any less important, and should not be omitted just to avoid creating an extended table. I fail to see how this should concern Bombshell over the "annexate" part, for as Chrishomingtang rightly puts it, since when are they not part of China? Both entities are listed under the "China" tag, not the "mainland China" tag. I am amicable to having the HKG and MAC flags to be displayed in the route details (especially with them changed to "HK-CHN" and "MAC-CHN" respectively), but how is it politically correct to list both entities as "countries" in an "international" section?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

When I travel through Belgium (my home country) would it be normal for me to need visa to go from the East to the West? Would it be normal that the North of Belgium is capitalist, while the South is communist? Would it be normal that I have freedom of speech in the South-East of Belgium and not in the North-West? Would it be normal that I have the right to demonstrate in the North-East but not in the South-West?

That's why the Chinese communists want to annexate both Hong Kong and Macau, just as they annexated Tibet and want to annexate Taiwan (and probably more). Chinese even have to get visa to go to both Hong Kong and Macau while Westerners do not. There isn't a single law that applies to both China and Hong Kong - Macau. So stop whining.--Bombshell (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you are actually editing to make a political statement over the Chinese human rights issue. Well then that gets edited out without need for much contemplation. And to directly address your querie, no, I don't think a passport is required to travel right across most of the European Union, so just what kind of determinant is that?--Huaiwei (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a single country in the world (that's not at war) that requires visa for people to travel from one part of the country to another. Travel from China to Hong Kong or Macau by Chinese does require visa. Therefore Hong Kong, Macau and China are de facto seperate countries, just as Taiwan does NOT belong to China. Lafcadio Wluiki (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Less political. "China", "Hong Kong, China" and "Macau, China" are separate entities in OLYMPIC GAME sense. And this is a route of OLYMPIC GAME torch relay. – PeterCX&Talk 17:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Also in official website Hong Kong and Macau are grouped in international section but not domestic section. – PeterCX&Talk 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The said table lists them by country, so unfortunately, it will not be correct to list them as seperate. In addition, the official route maps clearly do not use the word "international".--Huaiwei (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ok, I should say "Hong Kong and Macau are grouped with international cities, but not other Chinese torch-relay cities". – PeterCX&Talk 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And so that's why I expanded the table heading to Country/area. – PeterCX&Talk 18:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That would not be quite correct, for Beijing clearly appears as one of the stops in the supposed "international" section. The two SARS are grouped with the "outside Mainland China" section for a reason, primarily because the route was supposed to include Taiwan, hence they chose to use "Mainland China"/"Outside Mainland China" instead of "International"/"Domestic", for calling Taiwan an "international" destination would be a slap on their own face, and calling Taiwan "domestic" would spark a serious diplomatic spat. Avoiding the use of either sets of words by having a single combined table will help avoid us getting entangled in this political issue.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

x says

I realized that the article contains A LOT of "x says y" lines. Some of them are highly relevant but the sheer quantity of it makes it look like we are doing some kind of interview on behalf of fox news. IIRC, most wikipedia articles don't load itself with quotes. Can we stick to the facts more please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.224.102 (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainland China route

The mainland China route should be separated from the international route (is most probably going to be just another internal Chinese deal with promising Party officials getting some lime light in the state controlled press). But the mainland table is far too long, so how about including more columns, or making it collapable. --Camptown (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any column suggestions to help condense it? Otherwise, I see the extended table as a great opportunity to plant all those images to its right, most of which are over cluttering the bottom half of the article.--Huaiwei (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a list of torchbearer in 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay?

I want to make a new list for the torchbearers as List of torchbearer in 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay in sequence of time. How do you think about such list? Thanks.--Jingandteller (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's going to be quite a long list considering there was around 80 just for the London leg of the relay. Where would you find this information from? Having taken a few hundred photos in London it would be nice to be able to identify the torchbearers by their numbers on their clothing, is there a list that ties these up somewhere do you know. Adambro (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The official relay website has some names. A few media sources have others... I've included a few names now and then in this article, notably for France and Tanzania, along with the name of one torchbearer for Oman. It would be difficult to get a complete list, though - unless there's one on the relay website and I haven't seen it, or unless someone's already compiled one somewhere. Aridd (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to get started, you'll find some names here, here, here (USA), here (Australia), here (Tanzania), here (India)... This page says that there are a total of 1,188 torchbearers, and that their names have been released... but it doesn't give them. Aridd (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The (supposedly) full list of torchbearers for the Canberra section is here. But the website contradicts itself, saying elsewhere that there were 80, not 50. Aridd (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please delete the sentence about 1936 Games in Berlin

There is one sentence in the first paragraph: "By comparison, when this globe-trotting ritual was first introduced to promote the 1936 Games, the Olympic flame only travelled 3,422 km from Athens to Berlin.[4][5][6]" I think it's better to delete this sentence because it is not necessary to compare the lengths of relay between 2008 Beijing and 1936 Berlin. The only meaning of this sentence is to shame China as Nazi Germany.--Jingandteller (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The 1936 relay was the first ever international relay. the 2008 relay is the biggest ever, quite possibly the last according to mumblings from the IOC. They are either end of the scale, and given that the relay is organised by the host state and has nothing to do with the IOC (and indeed there have been few international relays inbetween), it's a notable fact. Crimsone (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the sentence alluding a political comparison between the PRC and Nazi Germany either. --Kvasir (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think reference to the Berlin 1936 Games is quite important, I also think we should reference the Moscow 1980 Games. Because Nazi-Germany and Soviet-Russia were both oppressive and totalitarian regimes, just as Communist China. Furthermore we all know what happened in 1945 and 1989.

• 1936 + 9 = 1945
• 1980 + 9 = 1989
• 2008 + 9 = 2017 (will be a year to remember)

I hope the 2016 games will be staged in Pyongyang or Teheran ;-)

Bombshell (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the Mayan Calendar something earth shattering is gonna happen in 2012, so your calculation is wrong. :P --Kvasir (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What Bombshell said showed the true meaning of that sentence. So please delete that sentence. It's against China and POV and not necessary.--Jingandteller (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is already quite clear from Bombshell comments above that practically all of his edits in this article are politically motivated.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an important fact in the Western world, because the first relay were organized by nazi-Germany and the last relay will probably have been organized by communist China. It tells a lot about the torch relay, and what it has been used for. It's not because it's against China that it is POV. There's a lot of stuff against Iran at Iran, or against North-Korea at North-Korea, or even against George W. Bush at George W. Bush. That doesn't make the article POV, it's just the truth. Anyway, I think there's a lot of more anti-China stuff at China, Tibet, Darfur or Burma. Not because it is POV, but because it's the thruth. Lafcadio Wluiki (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the Nazi Germany and Communist China, fine, you can talk about them. But please in a direct way but not in a such hidden and POV way. You can talk about the Nazi Germany and Communist China openly in the article, but please not using the sentence of length as a tool. For the length, it's useless to compare 1936 relay and 2008 relay. So we need to delete that sentence.--Jingandteller (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you add something like this: "The first relay had been organized as a publicity stunt for Nazi-Germany, this year's relay, being organized as publicity for the communist People's Republic of China, could well be the last.", for my part you can delete the length sentence.

I can't add it, since I don't have permission, so please also add the sentence as you delete the other one. Lafcadio Wluiki (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"The first relay had been organized as a publicity stunt for Nazi-Germany, this year's relay, being organized as publicity for the communist People's Republic of China, could well be the last." This sentence is problematic because it's pure speculation. Is there any source saying this relay is going to be the last? The comparison is also original research. What is that +9 year stuff? Is there source for that? Also the torch relay has been done in EVERY SINGLE olympics since 1936. The sentence there make it sounds like only the totalitarian regimes would organise it for publicity. EVERY previous torch relay has been a publicity tool. The whole olympic pagentry is for show, why else do you think there are fireworks, ceremonies and fanfare. The ancient greeks competed totally naked, without Nikes and Coca Cola sponsors. Soon you're gonna say the 2008 opening ceremony is organised as a communist propaganda as if no opening ceremony existed before? --Kvasir (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Before we diverge further, here's the sentence. "By comparison, when this globe-trotting ritual was first introduced to promote the 1936 Games, the Olympic flame only travelled 3,422 km from Athens to Berlin.[4][5][6]"

There is no mention of what type of government under which the Berlin Games were held. The comparison is strictly on distance and time. --Kvasir (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But the comparison of length is useless and POV. Just say how long the relay of 2008 is. The length of relay in this year is enough. No more comparison is needed.--Jingandteller (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how the sentence has POV problem, from the text alone. There is no description in the sentence about what kind of Games was held in 1936 or who held it. It is obvious your own POV to link it with Nazi-Germany. --Kvasir (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's put the question in another way. If I delete this sentence, what kind of information will be lost? Is such kind of information important enough to be kept?--Jingandteller (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be some mention, but if we compare it too much, we face some serious NPOV issues. However, some media sources do compare the current games with Berlin's, such as the San Jose Mercury News issue I have right now. --haha169 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should we compare the lengths? Showing the length of 2008 is enough. What's the point to compare the lengths here in an article in wikipedia?--Jingandteller (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be reference to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, just because Western media does it all the time:

Berlin, Pékin, Jeux Olympiques: over 400,000 hits on google, with titles as: Pékin 2008, comme Berlin 1936: http://buzzynews.com/jeux-olympiques-pekin2008-berlin1936-921.html

Berlin, Beijing, Olympic Games: over 600,000 hits on google, with titles as: US should boycott China's Olympics: http://seattlepi.com/opinion/264131_olympics24.html

Amédée Fleurissoire (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You think, but what your logical reason to add 1936 relay?--Jingandteller (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt we would be having this discussion if the 1936 Games were held somewhere else. --Kvasir (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You got the point.--Jingandteller (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That shows us exactly why you are having problem with the sentence. It's not because it was informative or not, it's because the 1936 was held in Nazi-Germany and that you somehow think that it is conveyed in the text. --Kvasir (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I said this at the beginning. So tell me if I delete this sentence, what kind of information will be lost?--Jingandteller (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I quit. I agree that the sentence can be kept.--Jingandteller (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

reverts on Route table

More should be discussed. User:Bombshell is clearly violating WP:3RR for making 4 reverts on 15 April (UTC). So how? Counter-arguments for removing mainland China routes were clearly shown above already. – PeterCX&Talk 18:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding the mainland China route to the International Route just makes the table unreadable. The whole pages becomes a mess. The fusing of the two tables only consists in virtually annexating Hong Kong and Macau. Stop doing this. Furthermore as you pointed out above Hong Kong and Macau even have separate Olympic Committees, so don't act like a baby. It seems like this page is constantely under PRC-government attack.

Bombshell (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"unreadable". Interesting term. That makes no difference to the international section you are concerning, and no matter domestic or international, they are part of the torch relay route. I admit I tend to separate HKG and MAC from CHN in that table; however I never agree that Hong Kong and Macau are not part of China. The problem I concern is separating mainland China route out of this article to another article; so why don't you take that international route away too?

Now someone is concentrating on his revert, without even following basic rules. Obviously someone else is more "baby".

And you say admitting Hong Kong and Macau are part of China is a CPG-attack? Interesting. Hope Hong Kong and Macau are not being vandalise soon. – PeterCX&Talk 19:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I am one of those who has been reverting Bombshell's politically-motivated edits, I recon he is allerging that I am somehow related to the PRC government? What Peterwhy has said are perfectly valid, although I still chose to remove the flags due to the "country" heading. Perhaps a compromise can be found if we change that to "NOC" instead ("Area" is too ambigious). Still, I think the reasons for having one table for one torch relay has been well explained, and an "unreadable" comment to revert it hardly counts much.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At this time, both User:Huaiwei and User:Bombshell need to stop editing this article. I am going to suggest that a temp. block be placed on this page to prevent further editing until this issue is resolved. Dusti^{talk to me} 20:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The official site has two routes: an international route and a mainland China route. Furthermore fusing the routes (in contradicition to the site of the Olympics) makes it just unreadable.

Moreover, on the official site, Hong Kong and Macau are being reffered to as Hong Kong and Macau not as Hong Kong, China and Macau, China or any other names.

If you are so afraid of Hong Kong's flag, remove all flags and country-names (or "areas" as you wish to call it), remove the term country and just list the cities on TWO routes, as the official site does. :-(

Bombshell (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• The official site shows two maps for an obvious practical reason - it would be difficult to show the detailed "mainland China" route on the same map as the "global" one. By no means does this mean two routes. The detailed official schedule[5] makes absolutely no distinction between the two, and it is this table which was replicated here, not the maps.
• The official map makes no mention of the word "international"[6], referring to both maps only as the "Planned Route Map for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Torch Relay", the first as a "global relay route" and the later as "detailed itinerary". The static route maps are entitled "The Route Map for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Torch Relay outside the Mainland of China"[7] and "The Route Map for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Torch Relay in the Mainland of China"[8]. At no point was the word "international" used as you claim.
• The official names that Hong Kong and Macau uses to participate in the games are "Hong Kong, China" and "Macau, China" respectively. If there is truly a requirement to add these flags to the article, their official names should be used as the best defence against POV charges.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• User:Bombshell has been blocked for 12 hours for 3RR violations. Those interested in discussing the block are free to contact me. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• The reasons why the official site has 2 routes is not important, it simply has two routes and Hong Kong and Macau are on the international one. Furthermore fusing them just makes the article look dumb.
• If you wish to change the name to "Global relay route" instead of "International route", be my guest.
• Still on the site their listed as Hong Kong and Macau, and not as Hong Kong, China and Macau, China. Listing them under other names, that's POV.

Lafcadio Wluiki (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings one way or the other on this issue, but may I politely suggest that users who do feel strongly about it cease reverting and counter-reverting? If necessary, perhaps we could have a poll to assess what other users feel would be the best layout on this specific issue. Aridd (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you do, please fix the fact how the image and the table aren't text-wrapped correctly and overlap Noian (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I still have a problem with HK and Macau included under the PRC flag. I suggest we use the SAR flags and say "Hong Kong SAR" and "Macau SAR" for those entries. I think this is a compromise that we can achieve showing the SARs are part of China but not part of the Mainland. --Kvasir (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with a combined table but it is just way too long. We can split the mainland portion and put it to the left of the rest of the table. It is still one table but just put it side by side instead. The layout is awful right now. --Kvasir (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone has suggested a collapsible table instead. How would this sound to the rest of you? Anyway one of my other motivations to have this one long table is so that the large number of images can then be stacked to its right.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the intention, except there are currently not enough images to fill the space. The table fills only less than half the width of the page (at my screen resolution), and the few small images are squeezed on the right. For those who are just interested in reading the text have to scroll through the whole thing to continue. Not sure if a collapsable table will align properly in conjunction with the images. Worth a try anyway. Though I think the images should really belong to the text section of the particular leg to add interest. For a larger amount of images, we should be considering a gallery at the bottom of the article. --Kvasir (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm the sizes of the images will be dependent on the user setting, and the blank space dependent on the user screen resolution. I am actually using a huge screen and I do admit I see plenty of white space, but I tried to view this article on a more common screen size and they look much more ok. I have not moved too many photos in there as there is still much of the route to complete, which should fill up the rest in no time. That said, I do recognise how cluttered these may look. If we are to use a collapsible table, all images will have to be moved to the subsequent sections to avoid them cluttering into subsequent sections. I am personally alright with this also. How about the rest?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me we need a more permanent solution here instead of moving images around as the number of them increases and user settings, whether this is resolution setting or having the table expanded and collapsed. I imagine the layout of the text and pictures will be very different when the table is expanded or collapsed. I suggest 2 part collapsable table side by side and move the images completely away from the tables.

Another contentious issue is the wording of HK and Macau. Looks like we have 4 choices here (just using HK as example, same would apply to the entry on macau):

1. Hong Kong, SAR

2. Hong Kong

3. no distinction from other Chinese cities like what is on the table now

4. Hong Kong, China

I think 4 is pretty much the same as 3, and redundant. Nevertheless this is one version we had in the table before. --Kvasir (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the fourth choice (which is actually its official IOC name), there is already a template for it: Hong Kong, China--Huaiwei (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, except Macau is not yet an IOC member, hence no official name. The template exists nevertheless: Macau, China. To avoid confusion and for consistency I think SAR is a better descriptor. I think we both had discussed this issue to death. I'll let others to comment. --Kvasir (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there's no need for such a large table, its just to long. Furthermore I think hong Kong and Macau should have their SAR flags and should be referenced to as Hong Kong and Macau, just as on the official site. Amédée Fleurissoire (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (We als don't say Buenos Aires, Argentina or Paris, France; adding the ..., China stuff just puts out your political ideology) Amédée Fleurissoire (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why we need such a long table? There's no value added in making the China-legs taking several screens. Please remove this, it just makes the page look like hell on my computer. Wen Jiabao (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is strongly believed that User:Wen Jiabao, User:Amédée Fleurissoire, User:Lafcadio Wluiki etc are all sock puppets of User:Bombshell. More may be created or will be created as well. I have notified an admin on this issue.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And exactly why do you think they are sock puppets of me? Because they don't support your views? It's just like at Dutch declension were they blocked all the users that didn't support there views. How sad? Bombshell (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to let evidence do the talking. A checkuser may be initiated soon, so we will see about that.--Huaiwei (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Bombshell (talk · contribs), Amédée Fleurissoire (talk · contribs), and Lafcadio Wluiki (talk · contribs) indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Wen Jiabao (talk · contribs) was previously blocked for violation of the username policy; having the name of a prominent public official. Further details will be posted shortly on ANI. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Recategorisation of article?

There is no doubt that political controversy and anger amongst many Chinese continues http://www.anti-cnn.com/ . Should this article be widened to events after the torch procession but still relating to the Olympics? Dan88888 (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection

One Twats07 has been repeatedly vandalising the page, blanking it and replacing it with statements concerning Tibet. He or she has now been final-warninged by ClueBot, but this is a somewhat controversial topic and is susceptible to vandalism. Has the possibility of at least semi-protection been considered? --Jrothwell ^{(? | !)} 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It was in protection for awhile when this article first came to being, especially when the torch was in London, Paris and SF. Since the torch entered Asia the torch has received less attention and hence less traffic from IP editors. We can expect more attention when the torch enters Australia. I suggest putting the page in some sort of protection the eve of the Australian leg. --Kvasir (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, and the same thing is in affect when speculating events that may lead to protection. Wait until the vandalism happens. It will be easier to coax the admins to protect the page when and if it happens. --haha169 (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reorganisation 2.0

With the recent explosion of reactions from the Chinese community of counter demonstrations across China as well as in cities like Paris, Manchester, LA, Berin, Vienna etc, I am beginning to notice that it is not given as much due mention in this article. May I re-propose this layout so that we can expand the article further without being restricted by countries:

• Torch
  • Lanterns
• Route
  • Sequence of events (all information on what happened, including demonstrations and counter demonstrations are to be mentioned here by destination.)
• Controversies
  • Human rights and Tibet
  • Media coverage
  • Flame escorts
• Reactions (including activities by those who support and those who oppose the civic actions)
• Impact (future section)

From the above, only the "sequence of events" section will be marked by flags. The rest will flow as normal paragraphs. Do consider this proposal and give your feedback before work on implimenting them. Thanks!--Huaiwei (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously we do need to have adequate coverage of the "counter-reaction" by China and expatriate Chinese. It's an important aspect of this topic. But I would suggest, tentatively, that it can go in the currently existing "Reactions" section. And I would rather strongly disagree with removing the flags from the "Political fallout" section. Taking away the flags, which mark clear and structured subdivisions, would detract from the article's coherence and "reader-friendliness" rather than add to it. Aridd (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a good proposal, but I 2nd the vote for keeping the flags in. It makes the section a lot cleaner and neater. The Squicks (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Some clarifications here:

• Indeed the "counter-reaction" coverage will go under the "Reactions" section, but I would propose that it not be demarcated by country flags. Imagine having one flag per location where a pro-Chinese demonstration takes place, including even small-scale ones.
• There will be no "political fallout" section (itself an odd section name), but there will be a "controversies" section which covers the three respective concerns in general detail without needing to give a blow-by-blow account on what occured in each destination. Information on what happened will only appear in the "sequence of events" section. I believe this is a far better way to organise the information, for while what actually happens at each location may be different, the primary concerns at each destination is largely similar.--Huaiwei (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little hesitant. On the whole, your suggestion may not be a bad one, but I have a couple of concerns. First, as I've said before, if we merge the very long "demonstrations and counter-demonstrations" bits into "sequence of events", the result would be far more messy than it is now, less easy to read, and it would also risk de-emphasising everything that's not related to protests, by basically drowning it out. The protests are an important part of the topic, but they're not the only part, and I'm concerned that your proposal would essentially make this into an article about the protests. The current layout, which gives general information about the sequence of events, and then provides a section about the "political fallout", seems much better to me, in that it gives due weight to the protests without drowning out the rest of the information in so doing. Second, do we really want to seperate the controversy about the flame attendants from the section about the flame attendants? That one is a more minor concern, though. Your idea isn't necessarily a bad one, and there's a definite logic to your proposed layout, but I'm concerned about the effects of re-ordering things. Besides, in the timeless words of someone or other, if the current layout ain't broke, why fix it? Aridd (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

YouTube screencap - dubious image

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not this is an image we're entitled to use, I don't think it should be there at the top of the article. We already have one image there of a disabled torchbearer being assaulted; to have two such images as the introduction to the article, and the first thing readers will see, looks very strongly like POV-pushing. Without suspecting anyone's good faith, it looks like an attempt to create the mistaken impression that the protests were all about bashing girls in wheelchairs. We've got fairly little already as it is about the overwhelmingly peaceful protesting; we don't need to distort things even further. Two images devoted to the same very minor aspect of the topic at the top of the page is far too much. Aridd (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean the 'alleged' Tibetan protestor who has been documented, along with an European associate, as being a Pro-Chinese demonstrator?

I agree with this and was about to post a comment on it (excuse the change of section title. I note from the history that there has been some ding-dong about the image. On top of its legitimacy from a policy point of view, I think that due to its contentiousness, and impossibility to prove with references either way, that it ought be removed straight away.

For anyone that is not aware of the issues involved; there is a comparison of photographs, here;

http://jp.epochtimes.com/jp/2008/04/html/d32396.html

I am not taking sides in the complex debate behind these events. If I have an opinion on the matter, it is that cheap propaganda usually fails and has no place on the wiki. (Note, the Epoch Times website is blocked to Chinese readers and takes a critical stance on the Chinese Communist Party, it has its own POV). --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An English translation of the said source of these images is, here; Google Translation

It does not appear to mention anything about granting them with a GNU license. Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the YouTube image, I'm not convinced that the torch bearer is disabled or actually an athlete at all. I suspect it is Konnie Huq, a TV presenter. Since the GFDL on the image is clearly invalid, the image is a screenshot of a YouTube video of BBC coverage of the event, I've speedy deleted it as a copyright violation. Adambro (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of the 'Paris torch grab' one. I would say that there is substantial enough evidence to query its validity and its license. Its obviously being used for propagandic purpose in the emotive polemic rather than for its informative purpose.--Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can the Japanese website above, showing the protester grabbing Jin Jing, then showing this same person in the midst of a pro-PRC rally, be explained? It doesn't make any sense why this individual would be doing both incompatible things. Who is this person and was he arrested in France? Badagnani (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if this could be addressed. Badagnani (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what there is to address. There is a photo of this guy trying to grab the torch and of him walking amongst some pro-China people. I don't see the issue here. It seems perfectly reasonable that the two sides would mingle together to some degree as must be expected if they are both attending the same event. In the photo with the pro-China people, it can clearly be seen that there are others with the flag of Tibet in the background. Am I missing something here? Adambro (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would this person be marching in a group of pro-PRC people, several carrying large PRC flags? The Tibetan flag is not visible; it is only visible in the last photo at the Japanese website, of which the torch-grabber is not a part. And who is he? These are important questions because this may be the most striking photo from the entire torch relay. Badagnani (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I remain unconvinced that there is any great conspiracy here as you seem to be suggesting. I was at the London torch relay and saw many instances of the two groups mingling as is going to happen at such an event. Adambro (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So that leaves us with the question, who is he? And what were the penalties he faced, if any, for this action? It's important, because this is perhaps the most iconic/striking photo of the entire torch tun. Badagnani (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft Door - "Journey of Harm..."

I have reinserted text concerning the aircraft door, which swings open to obscure the last three letters of the painted slogan "Journey of Harmony". This oversight was shown on a television news article, but regrettably I cannot find any corroborating evidence online. Until something more substantial has been found, I am including as a reference a link to this photograph, which shows the position of the slogan relative to the door (http://www.airpics.gr/photo/1982). Kransky (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's do what we can to find a pic or reference to this. Until then I'm going to {{cite}}-tag it so we don't forget it. Padillah (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How is this?. Kransky (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So is this assessment of a photograph published by any reliable source, or is it taken off some light-hearted blog where I first saw it myself?--Huaiwei (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find such a blog (can you tell me which one?). The assessment came from a television news report. But the photo comes from the China Daily website.Kransky (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[9].--Huaiwei (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the claim concerning the aircraft door violate WP:OR since it is editors' own analysis based on what he/she sees in the picture? Anyone? —Chris! _ct 16:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the claim violates OR since what is or is not covered is plain to see. But that IS why I wanted a pic, to demonstrate that it DOES in fact cover the name in said manner. The pic from the China Daily web site would be fine if we could lighten it up a bit to make seeing the plane in the BG easier. I've checked before, lightening a picture is legal as long as everything remains identifiable. I would feel better if we had a citation of someone ELSE noticing this rather than us (the news broadcast, not the blog). Is that what you were suspecting of OR? Padillah (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The text in question did not just mention this phenomena. It goes further to say that this has caused embarrassment to the organiser. I would think this clearly needs a source. And yeah, mere posting of a photo will not be adequate. Observations by a verifiable third party will be the minimum requirement.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is basically what I wanted to say. A picture is pretty much primary source. And according to the OR policy, primary source should not be used. So we do need a reliable secondary source to back it up, if we can found one. —Chris! _ct 18:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have tagged the current reference as dubuious. --Matilda ^talk 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the original research pending a reliable source being supplied. All that can be concluded from the photo is that "In a photo taken in Kuala Lumpur and published by the China Daily, the last three letters of the slogan "Journey of Harmony" was obscured, and the only letters that could be read in that particular photograph was "Journey of Harm"." Amusing and ironic photograph, perhaps, but too trivial for inclusion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree it is too trivial. I think we need to be keep the article from sliding into the ongoing politics surrounding it and encourage folks to stray away from partisan feelings. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If most people here consider it is too trivial (a fact amplified by the size this article is becoming) then it is not worth mentioning. However please note it is not OR (as I mentioned the error was highlighted on a television news feed, and this blog also notes the faux pas). Kransky (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I add the London torch attack?

In addition to the paralympian being attacked in Paris, a UK Special Olympian of Indian heritage was also attacked. I tried to add the photo but since I'm a totall newbie it got yanked. I believe this fact is important to the article, how should I do it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JUtT4QeGlE - 6 seconds into this clip.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the image that was added from YouTube, I don't believe that this individual is a "UK Special Olympian of Indian heritage", rather I think this is Konnie Huq, a TV presenter. Regardless, I would suggest that we don't need to illustrate every particular incident that occurred along the relay. We've now got some images of an incident in Paris released under the GFDL and I don't think we need or can justify using an unfree images in addition. Adambro (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds reasonable. I hope adding liveleak reference is okay. Yes I was wrong about who the person is, thanks for the correction. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If the article includes every protest and every withdrawal/boycott on all the torch hosting cities, wouldn't it be fair to include all the incident that happened during these protests as well? Esp. when this one happened in London instead of Paris. I don't think every incident should be added, but I say being comprehensive is better than omission, as it is a lot harder for this article to be attached as POV if all information are included. 74.73.129.19 (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not saying that we shouldn't mention the Konnie Huq incident, rather that we can't justify using unfree images to illustrate every incident on the torch route. I would note that we already have this particular incident mention in the article. Adambro (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Canberra relay: numbers

15,000 Chinese attended the Canberra replay (Source: Phoenix TV)

Majority from Sydney and Melbourne (Source: ABC News Radio, ABC1, Seven News)

I thought "thousands" didn't sound specific enough. Benlisquare (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, why are there only images of Pro-Tibet supporters and no Pro-Chinese? I'm not saying any accusations of bias or anything. Images added. Benlisquare (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible overlapping between Sequence of events section and Political fallout section

After reading and reviewing, I am quite concern with the overlapping information found in both sections. For example, mentioning about the protests is in the United States and Argentina subsections within the Sequence of events. Yet, in the Political fallout section, there already is extensive info about the protests that took place in both nations. I think one cause of this issue could be the title. Some editors may think that the Sequence of events document everything about the torch relay, not knowing that there is a separate section about the protest specifically. So, I suggest that we should carefully review both section and flush out any redundancy. Perhaps we should also consider renaming the section title, so that no one is confused about what the section is about. —Chris! _ct 00:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is enormous and filled with redundancies. I think one of the sections should be removed completely and all the relevant info merged into a single section. The phrase "Political fallout" isn't really NPOV anyway, so I suggest we just merge that whole section with the Sequence of events section, which can include the positive and negative "events" from each location. The Japanese flag Japan: shows up in the article THREE TIMES. BillyTFried (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and did the merge myself, but a lot of redundant content stills exists at this point. BillyTFried (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Support combination move. Well done - now it will be easier to clean out the redundancies. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job. This means what I have proposed in Talk:2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay#Reorganisation_2.0 above has been partially carried out. What do the rest of you think about the rest of the proposals to consolidate all "controversies" into its own section at the bottom?--Huaiwei (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job by BillyTFried for merging the two sections and addressing the issue of redundancy. As for the separate controversies section suggested by the above editor, that is also a good idea. —Chris! _ct 17:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I would only support a separate Controversies section as long it as not just ANOTHER rehash of protest and ani-protest events along the numerous torch relays that already appear under each country's leg of the tour. The current one is only about the Chinese Torch Security. What would a separate section cover in addition to that, besides info that is already covered under Sequence of Events and Media Coverage? BillyTFried (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur. We don't want to have another redundancy issue again. —Chris! _ct 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and went ahead with the reorganisation. The original plan was to have another subsection under the "Controversies" called "Human rights and Tibet", which summarises the main points of those who organise the protests from both camps. Unlike the "Sequence of Events" section, which can be tuned to only give a blow-by-blow account of what actually happened in detail, this section can provide a summary of the arguments and contentions driving these actions since they are largely the same, although some may include regional disputes (repatriation of North Koreans, Spratly Islands disputes, living conditions, etc). What do you guys think?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said before that also may just lend to more redundancies since each countries events lists why people THERE were protesting. It may just serve to make the article even larger and also just seem like pouring on MORE negativity regarding the whole issue. I would say that if you really wanted a section like that it should remain VERY small and could maybe even go at the beginning of the article, with just simple bullets leading to other wiki pages, and nothing else:

The 2008 torch relay has been controversial, being marked on multiple occasions by protests regarding a range of issues, including:

• China's human rights record
• Media of the People's Republic of China
• Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China
• 2008 Tibetan unrest
• North Korean defectors
• Falun Gong persecution
• Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands disputes
• East Turkestan independence movement
• War in Darfur
• Political status of Taiwan
• Democratisation in Hong Kong

What do you think? Or maybe NOT even use bullets but just add them to that sentence at the beginning separated with commas and all being wiki links to the full articles. BillyTFried (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah I doubt the bullet list will be a feasible idea because it is not a proportional representation of the issues receiving the most global attention. Of course in the current format, there will be redundances if we add a small paragraph summarising those concerned (and yes it is indeed meant to be small anyway) because we keep repeating the same issues over and over again throughout the sequent of events. But if we filter those out, consolidate them in the last section, and keep the sequence of events purely to describe the route (and any changes to it), the bearers, the spectators' (and supporters/protestors) reactions and behavior, then it may make a little more sense. If we keep the article as it is, I suppose it is no longer neccesary to have a subsection on "human rights" etc, since that has been repeated endless times throughtout the sequence of events.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well for now I will throw them all in there and in the meantime wait and see about your new section. BillyTFried (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As I alluded, I will not go ahead to create that section on my own accord without the community's assistance to trim down the sequence of events section and condense the primary points in the proposed controversy subsection. Also, please do remember that this proposed section is not meant to be a free-for-all rehash of all disputes which China is involved in (is Taiwan a major protest issue in any destination?), for it must also discuss the counter-reactions, which are obviously missing or very much undeveloped in this article.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good think to list them all in a visible fashion. If nothing else it will counter the whacky CPC propaganda that all and everything is being organized by "the Dalai clique", "Tibetan separatists" or "paid for by America". If the issues were not so serious, the whole thing would be hysterical ... --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, do we have a name or a charge sheet on the protestor in Paris who tried to grab the torch from Jin Jang? I am interested to know what happened to him and who and how the photographer was contacted. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone is interested to know all about those, he can very well go read Human rights in the People's Republic of China. There is absolutely nothing to "counter" "whacky CPC propaganda" when none of those are listed as prominently in this article, so listing these without presenting the Chinese view (whether official or not) is obvious POV-pushing.--Huaiwei (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Torch guards complaints reported

This story from the BBC about the fall out from the Relay. --> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7367722.stm ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Added to the Chinese Torch Security, Controversies section. BillyTFried (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Isnt this news nothing but a rehash of previous complains, albeit it is merely an update of formally having the complains "passed to Games organisers"? Does this require a new bullet point?--Huaiwei (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely bears mentioning that the British government has made it official by formally complaining to the Olympics Committee. BillyTFried (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh great. And so? What is the impact? Is this worth its own bullet point, or should it not go under the first point related to the UK?--Huaiwei (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh great? Don't get emotional. This is as of yet, the first and only instance of a country's government formally complaining to the Olympics Committee about the behavior of the Chinese Torch Guards, and quite obviously bears mention on that very fact alone, let alone what the "impact" may be such as ANOTHER response from the committee or a change in their policies or enforcement of them. BillyTFried (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I sounded any more "emotional" than those "intimidating guards in blue" :), but I seriously do not think that should factor in this discussion. On the same vein, if we are to look at things rationally and impartially here, a format complaint by a government is about as effective as the public backlash created in this instance, and is hardly note worthy outside the UK. Do you see this piece of news getting the same level of coverage worldwide as the time when the first comments were reported? Ultimately, we still fall back on notability and the need to see things in wider perspective here. Adding a blow-by-blow update on something as minute as an official complaint on torch guards by one country is not exactly what a summary-style encyclopedia is trying to archieve. In fact, you are adding length and redundancy to an article you considered already bloated and repeatative. Speaking of which, the entire torch guard section needs a rewrite anyway. The over-quotation of complains is beginning to read like a school report book.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that a formal compliant from the British government to the International Olympic Committee "is hardly note worthy outside the UK" seems highly POV to me and certainly not a valid reason to remove factual, relevant, and sourced material. BillyTFried (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not notable enough to deserve its own bullet point. So the Honourable Lord Coe is utterly, utterly offended by these dastardly uncouth oafs, and has complained so much that the government has now acted upon his complaints. The two are really steps in the same event. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My comment was based on my observation of international news coverage, and was not my own POV. If that formal complaint did received plenty of international coverage on the same scale we the first complaint on those "thugs", kindly demonstrate this through research. I have done mine, and it simply hadent.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of barring athletes from expressing views

Athletes who take Tibet stand 'face Olympic cut'

Britain kow tows to China as athletes are forced to sign no criticism contracts

China: Olympic Athletes Pre-warned

Olympic Athletes Taking Stand On Tibet May Be Cut From Games

IOC flags athlete free speech dilemma

This probably belongs in its own section under Controversies.BillyTFried (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, do you not think it is obvious that this is related to the games itself, and not the torch relay in particular?--Huaiwei (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

rearrangement

Could someone please explain this new rearrangement? All the information regarding controversies have been deleted. Why? Benlisquare (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No it hasn't: 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay#Controversies BillyTFried (talk)

Protests

• Whether one likes it or not, the 2008 Summer Olympics torch is going to be remembered for the protests, and thus should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph. I have added a brief statement on this fact - it doesn't need further elaboration in the first para, but it shouldn't be removed either.
• Secondly there were physical altercations between the protestors and counter-protestors, especially when the counter-protestors began to be mobilised in the Asia-Pacific legs (it was pretty ugly in Canberra). This should be mentioned. Some may think that the word "violence" should be used instead (after all there were assults, such as what happened in Korea and in Malaysia to the Japanese family) - as I don't believe either side was malevolent to the other I would not think this word is appropriate. "Physical altercation" is NPOV.
• The assult on Jing Jin was public and not ignored by the Western media.
• The original text said the Chinese flame attendants put out the flame (and this was without a quote). If it is really important could it be expanded and appropriately cited.
• "Overseas Chinese" and "Chinese nationals". In Korea, Japan and Australia the counter-protestors were overwhelmingly PRC foreigners; stating that "overseas Chinese" formed part of the counter-protest suggests that such non-PRC citizens had a greater role than what they really did. Kransky (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• In wikipedia, the introduction is read as a whole. While the requirement is for all critical information to go into the introduction, there is no such rule that all of these must be squeezed into the first paragraph. Adding an additional line in the first paragraph when there are another two paragraphs on it immediately below is ridiculously repeatative (and I thought you were anti-repeatitions?).
• Sure, there were indeed "physical altercations" during those confrontations between those groups of people in those three areas (although the situation in Canberra was far more peaceful than the way you describe it). I am not asking them to be removed because they didnt happen. I am questioning why you choose to mention this, as thou there was no "physical altercations" in all previous destinations where there were protests, whether "Chinese counter-protestors" where there or not. Hence I ask about Jin Jin. If you are going to insist on adding this, then I will insist on restoring balance by adding information on the "physical altercations" obviously suffered by Jin Jin, as well as the "physical altercations" happening between protestors, torch bearers, flame attendants and the police. What would you say about that for the sake of balance?
• That the flame was put out (regardless of by whom) is certainly VERY noteworthy, considering this has happened only twice before this games. Kindly read Olympic_Flame#Extinguishing_the_Flame to understand its historical significance.
• The statement read "overseas Chinese and foreign-based Chinese nationals", and you changed it to "Chinese nationals". Unless you have critical evidence stating only Chinese nationals were involved in all counter-protests, this will also be corrected immediately. I find it extremely odd that you should consider your edit as more accurate than existing text, when you admitted "Chinese nationals" were not the only protestors involved, regardless of the actual proportion.--Huaiwei (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Have to say I agree with the first line. Hardly anyone would be here if it was not. Taiwan being dropped is notable. So is the self-immolation. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was in Canberra (not protesting, just spectating on the events). There was pushing and shoving by the more numerous Chinese protestors against those protesting against the torch relay. I saw a woman who was spat upon by the Chinese mob. A family was assulted [10]. There are references in the article to the disruptions made against the torch relay, but not against the violence against the protestors (or shall we say "physical altercations").

Saying "overseas Chinese and Chinese nationals" suggests Chinese nationals were not in the majority. The crowds were predominantly Chinese nationals, often organised by mainland-oriented student groups or the local Chinese missions. Many overseas Chinese (ie foreign naturalised or born) cheered on the rally, but were generally not part of organised groups. Many were embarrassed by the actions of their "compatriots".Kransky (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You must have had a wonderful time in Canberra. Unfortunately, first hand accounts of a wikipedian absolutely do not qualify as a valid source as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Like it or not, there are plenty of sources[11][12][13][14] calling the Canberra relay a successful one, especially in comparison to the chaos in Europe and North America, and an expectation of something as disastrous in Canberra, which did not come to light. Sure, we do have articles choosing to highlight the isolated scuffles which occured, but considering you could actually pin-point them this way, it must have been pretty self-contained. Nothing comparable to a full-scale out-of-control riot many were expecting, which would then have warranted notable mention. Please be rid of personal bias just because you have been a witness.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest let's include both sides. Given the articles sited by both Kransky and Huaiwei are valid sources, I don't see why they shouldn't be included. Something to the effect of "the relay has drew critism toward the violance within the counter-protests by chinese, yet compared to the relay in Europe and US, this is generally seen as being more peaceful" and both articles can be quoted. My general view toward such contraversial topic is to include as much information as possible and let the readers make their own decisions. Also, I think as soon as there is a sentence that one side made a claim there should one following it saying what the other side say or else people can easily argue it is POV or biased. However, one thing I did note though is that Kransky, wikipedia specifically define "oversea chinese" as chinese born or origin who live outside the greater china region (I looked at that article) which never specified they have to obtain another citizenship. Therefore, unless you wish to raise this question in the other article, I don't see a problem making such a huge distinction. If you want, you can change "oversea chinese" to "foreign-born or naturalized chinese" to distinguish them from the people who are citizens of PRC. 74.73.129.19 (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't exactly now how you can conclude that most of the counter-protestors were from the PRC. While it is likely the case, it is almost impossible to know short of identifying a large majority of participants, which is impossible. As far as I'm aware, counter-protestors did not bring their passports which they showed to the cameras and it's not as if citizens of the PRC glow in the dark or something. Also we have to be careful here about WP:UNDUE. If we do mention the violence by the counter-protestors it would only be a brief mention and should not make out the violence was more widespread then it is. Even the Times source only mentions a few incidents and doesn't suggest the violence was extremely wide spread Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mount Everest relay leg

I have slightly reworded the Mount Everest section, after reviewing the two sources cited, to make it sound less sensationalistic. However, I think more work should be done on this section to give a greater depth of information on the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.99.200.59 (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this section is problematic because it violates WP:SYN. It seems to me that User:BillyTFried is advancing a position that what Nepal police did is controversial, when the references he used do not support that position. I want to be clear that I feel neutral about this event. But I do feel the placement of this section in the controversy section is problematic. Any thoughts? Chris! _ct

I didn't put it in the Controversial section. somebody moved it there after I added it to the very beginning of the article.

This was how it was when I originally added this info:

The turmoil was condemned by the Communist Party of China as "despicable activities"[5] and has prompted the government of Nepal to impose a complete communication ban on journalists and to order soldiers and police to set up camps on Mount Everest with permission to shoot pro-Tibet demonstrators during the torch's climb to the summit.[6] [7]

BillyTFried (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry then. I thought it was you. Never mind. —Chris! _ct 03:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well what do you think of how I used it originally? I'm thinking of putting it back that way. I also don't really think it belongs in its own section either, but I do think it is VERY info that belongs in this article for sure. BillyTFried (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Same anonymous as above -- another small change. I changed the section title from "Nepal threatens to shoot protesters" to simply "Nepal" in order to match the format of the other countries listed. While I don't personally approve of Nepal's actions, that title is completely out of fit with the rest of the listings -- it sounds more like a news headline than a section header.

The mysterious person you guys were talking about was of course yours truly. I moved it there as a stop-gap measure, but it is kinda amusing how that became a dispute in itself. Anyway, section titles like "Nepal threatens to shoot protesters" is downright ridiculous and out-of-place for that section, and "Nepal" may not work completely either since the Everest Climb isnt completely in Nepali terroritory. I have changed it simply to "Everest Climb" instead. Kindly assist to expand that section, including the planned routes, its current progress, etc. Kinda funny it only talks about that "security measure".--Huaiwei (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I greatly expanded this section now. BillyTFried (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.99.200.59 (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason for the torch being extinguished

Well, I'm back after more than a week away from the Internet, and this article has changed quite a lot in my absence... One comment for now. The opening section claims "The torch was extinguished by Chinese security officials several times during the Paris leg to prevent protestors from forcibly putting out the flame." The alleged reason stated here for the extinguishing of the torch is not sourced. To my knowledge, no justification was actually provided for the extinguishing of the torch. Unless a source can be found which establishes that the Chinese authorities claimed such a reason to justify it, such a statement appears to be pure speculation, and should be removed. (In fact, I will remove it in a few days unless a source is provided.) Aridd (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I add a ref. —Chris! _ct 21:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that ref clearys says it: "Thousands of protesters slowed the relay to a stop-start crawl, with impassioned displays of anger over China’s human rights record, its grip on Tibet and support for Sudan despite years of bloodshed in Darfur. Five times, the Chinese officials in dark glasses and tracksuits who guard the torch extinguished it and retreated to the safety of a bus — the last time emerging only after the vehicle drove within 15 feet of the final stop, a track and field stadium. A torchbearer then ran the final steps inside." BillyTFried (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The way it's been rephrased is fine. Thanks. Aridd (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is reference to "The Olympic Torch Relay Campaign" deleted?

I found the article "The Olympic Torch Relay Campaign", (referenced befored Revision as of 15:01, 27 April 2008) very interesting. The reference (deleted by Kransky) states: "On April 8, 2008, a German foreign policy publication alleged the Olympic torch protests were orchestrated by a Washingon DC based group, and planning of the protests were done by US State Department and the Tibetan Government In Exile, during a conference organized by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in 2007." The link to the article is: http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56145 I am wondering why is the reference deleted... The article itself is well-researched and backed by numerous verifiable sources. 208.10.194.249 (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the content and the link are deleted because the link is not a reliable sources. —Chris! _ct 03:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, on what ground are you asserting that the link is NOT a reliable source? From what I can read about the article, it is clear that the author is a researcher and the article has listed a lot of sources that are verifiable. If this kind of research article is deemed not "reliable", then I have to question a lot of other references in this wiki document. For example, is the source for asserting that the anti-cnn.com website is sponsored by the Chinese govornment a reliable source? Can its claim be verified? Has it listed any verifiable sources? Showmebeef (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Showmebeef (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That question is quite interesting. May I ask you that on what ground are you asserting that the link IS a reliable source? According to Wikipedia policy, "articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Now do the so called German-foreign-policy.com has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I highly doubt it. Unless you can provide evidences that German-foreign-policy.com has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, otherwise I don't think the inclusion of this link is encyclopedic. If you still have trouble distinguishing what is a reliable source, then please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to learn about it. Thank you —Chris! _ct 22:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Its really quite fascinating to see the propaganda machine wheel into action, e.g. china.org.cn, [15] etc, over an article on some ridiculous overbown blog and splurge it all over the Chinese new sites. See the actual journalist in question rebuttal, here;

Reports of my heroic service to China have been exaggerated ... by DOUG SAUNDERS dsaunders@globeandmail.com

LONDON -- On Monday morning, I awoke to discover that I had become a media hero in China. My inbox contained three interview requests from Chinese media outlets, all of them wanting to know how I had managed to unearth the truth about Germany's secret plan to ruin the Olympics.

So much for facts checking! (It reeks ... of what I do not know). Just out of interest, does any of the Mainland China based media, especially internet based, count as "reliable source" given the government control? I mean, do reliable sources - in contentious - matters not require "freedom of press" protect by law as a prerequisite? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if "freedom of press" should be a prerequisite to reliable sources as WP:RS doesn't go into that. But my opinion is that lack of "freedom of press" don't necessarily make a source unreliable. Though independent sources are generally less biased. (This is more of an issue WP:NPOV actually) The example you gave may not qualified a reliable source. Perhaps you can delete it. There are currently 300 references and it is not easy to keep check on all of them. —Chris! _ct 21:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

HTML code breaks

What is with the HTML <br> tags breaking up the article now?

Surely it makes it a hell of a difficult for folks to navigate and edit the page, especially newcomers ... unless that is the intention. Did I miss the discussion about this?

I suggest just forcing the TOC template on the left with code. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the article looks better than it ever has thus far. BillyTFried (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to use section titles earlier. But that makes the content extremely large. So we have to stick with using HTML code breaks to avoid that problem. I understand that makes it harder to edit the page, but we currently don't have a better solution. With that said, if you have an idea about what to do with this, you are welcome to discuss. —Chris! _ct 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Split that section into a "list of" with a see main article link. I will risk taking the flack by doing so if you want.

If there is any strong objection, then how about at least cutting it down to continents or something? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I contemplated this before, but one look at the list and you will soon realise a continental divide is not quite possible without it looking awkward.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3