Talk:2008 Summer Olympics torch relay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

This is not a forum for general discussion of 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

	2008 Summer Olympics torch relay is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Olympics Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of Low priority within inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · history · watch)
Olympics To-do: edit  The assessment department of the Olympics WikiProject needs your help assessing articles! If this article is unassessed, please assess it. See the instructions for more information on how to help, or go to the project's discussion page if you have a doubt on a rating. Add full results for events of the: Summer Olympics (from 1924 to 2004) Winter Olympics (from 1924 to 2002) Articles need improvements: 2016 Summer Olympics 2016 Summer Olympics bids

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)
More information about this article... Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

An entry from 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 2 May 2007.

Contents 1 Merge 2 Propose split 3 Man on the 1st photo 4 Error ?? 5 Should we include a section on the Nazi origins of the torch relay?

[edit] Merge

Discussion moved from Talk:2008 Summer Olympics torch relay route--Huaiwei (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think this (2008 Summer Olympics torch relay route) should be merged with the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article. The torch relay is notable, but there's nothing notable about the route. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The tables were originally moved out of the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay to this page (2008 Summer Olympics torch relay route). It was well over the space limit of 100kb. It is still over the limit at 154kb. Actually more stuff should be moved here. Also this is not a violation of WP is not a directory. The info is relevant to the event itself. You can put it in a paragraph if you like. It'll just be much harder to read. Benjwong (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge: the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article is already too long. —Chris! _ct 03:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge provided we stick to the nested and collapsible tables which originally existed in the main article. In fact, it is even possible to nest detailed lists of torchbearers (plus the detailed route maps) within a compact master table. That article size limitation is no longer a technical requirement, and is there to avoid articles becoming too long. If most of the codes are in collapsible tables however, it is no longeer an issue of article length either.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is currently ranked #124 as being the longest article on wikipedia. When pages load, it loads all templates and nested tables at once. After 400kb the page may not render properly. Benjwong (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you give a real example of how it will not render properly?--Huaiwei (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Preferably you should check with the people who wrote the section. Benjwong (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So it is an imagined problem. That section begins with "In the past, because of some now rarely used browsers, technical considerations prompted a strong recommendation that articles be limited to a maximum of precisely 32 KB in size, since editing any article longer than that would cause severe problems.[2] With the advent of the section editing feature and the availability of upgrades for the affected browsers, this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles now exist which are over 32 KB of total text size." I think it is about time we get on with the times and update ourselves on certain guidelines.--Huaiwei (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you miss this part: "Even so, the total article size should be kept reasonably low, because there are many users that edit from low-speed connections." Besides, I really don't see why the current arrangement is not good. It makes editing easier. —Chris! _ct 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose BillyTFried (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and shrink both by about 80%. My understanding is that Wikipedia is not a news site, but an encyclopedia. The disproportionate coverage given to this topic seems driven primarily by its currency...compare to the article on the 2004 relay. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment on that last point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which aims at giving as complete and relevent a coverage as possible in each of its articles. The fact that the article on the 2004 relay is short does not mean that this article should be purged of almost all its content. Besides, you're missing the rather obvious fact that the 2008 relay had stirred a lot more controversy and generated a lot more interest and comment than the 2004 one. I, for one, feel that we've done a splendid job on making this article comprehensive and highly informative, quite probably the best source of information available for anyone interested in the topic. I'd like to congratulate everyone who's contributed to it. Aridd (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with User:Aridd. Everyone did a great job. —Chris! _ct 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't agree with the premise that "more" = "better." On the contrary, I think over-writing, redundancy, and unnecessary trivia are the real banes of articles like this one, and this site in general. They obfuscate more often than not. Noting that the 2008 relay caused some controversy, and that there was media backlash, should take about two paragraphs. Not the SEVENTY-NINE (I counted) currently devoted to the topic. Quoting each and every official who had a comment on the issue is not going to inform anyone. It's going to drown them. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand what you are complaining about? The article provides readers a thorough account about the event, the controversies and other information regarding the torch relay. There are no redundancy or trivia or anything like that, as far as I can see. The article never quotes "each and every official who had a comment on the issue," except from several notable people. The fact that the article has 79 lines doesn't necessarily mean this article is bad or overwritten. If you see a problem, please be specific. Editors here are ready to assist you. —Chris! _ct 00:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Not seventy-nine lines. Seventy-nine PARAGRAPHS, all detailing, ad-nauseum, every single official who chimed in on the controversy. That's outside the actual supposed topic of the article, which would be the relay itself. That's not a useful summary of information, but a great, ugly wash of trivia. It's like someone asking "how was your morning," and you describe the co-efficient of friction of every single brushstroke when you brushed your teeth. That degree of "thorough" actually inhibits the efficient transfer of information.71.9.8.150 (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if there are seventy-nine paragraphs, the article is not too long. It is just very thorough and informative. It seems to me that you misunderstood the concept of an encyclopedia. It is SUPPOSED to be "comprehensive." —Chris! _ct 17:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think I've misunderstood what an encyclopedia is, any more than I've mistaken your condescending attitude. Please modify it. "Comprehensive" != "exhaustive." Wikipedia is, by policy, not an "indiscriminate collection of information." That suggests that one must, therefore, "discriminate" between what information is worthy of inclusion and what is not. In particular, "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be," and several of those quoted in this article aren't. Moreover, there is a separate project, wikinews, developed specifically because articles on current news events often get stuffed disproportionately with unnecessary and obfuscating dross. This article is a case in point. Yes, noting that there were protests, counterprotests, and some sloganeering by both Western media and politicians and authorities in China is noteworthy. The statements of Thupten Gyatso on the topic, the exact number of personnel deployed in Malaysia, and the ABSCENCE of protests in Oman, are NOT noteworthy. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but I still don't think you understand what Wikipedia is. Yes, you are entirely right that Wikipedia is not a new agency and doesn't usually report news. But Wikipedia does have articles about certain news because they are notable and they, as the same policy has pointed out, have historical notability. Now, can you really argue that this torch relay is not notable now or will never be in the future? Not really, because I don't think you can deny that this is a global event that had generated notability and will be remembered for a long time. Since the event itself is notable, Wikipedia documents this event and everything else surrounding it in an article comprehensively. Because of this, all the protests are important, the counter protests are important, what happened in every stops is important and how governments and authorities handle the incident is important. I can't think of a reason why you would think these are not noteworthy and why you would like to delete anything.

This article in its current state is also not a collection of indiscriminate or exhaustive information as you have implied. Instead, I think this is a collection of organized and comprehensive information. So nothing is this article has violate any policy. The last point I want to make is that I never speak to you in a condescending tone. If you think I did, then I apologize. —Chris! _ct 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way, the fact that the article deals with contemporary events does not mean it should therefore be less comprehensive than an article about some event that happened years ago. The article as it is provides readers with thorough coverage of everything that's relevent to the topic. As far as I know, this article is the only existing source of such information brought together. In other words, it provides an in-depth, detailed, encyclopedic coverage of the topic. We've adhered to notability and relevence guidelines in including information. Also, if a topic is worthy of having an article in Wikipedia (as this one unquestionably is), then there's no reason for that article to be a brief, two paragraph synthesis of some newspaper article, rather than be a thorough encyclopedic article. Aridd (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I suggested it should be LESS comprehensive than an article on an historic event...merely that there was no rationale for making it so very, very, very, VERY much more exhaustive. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a professional instructor of rhetoric at the university level, where I often have to slowly and painfully bring my students around to the realization that providing every single potentially relevant detail often obscures information, rather than enhancing it. The failure to follow that principle and recognize the distinction between useful and useless information is one of Wikipedia's major failings (c.f. Wikigroaning). Ah well, I'll keep trying.71.9.8.150 (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What you say is true in, say, an academic or legal scenario where human beings are forced or expected to follow through arguments. Where a Wiki, and internet as a whole, is different from spoken and paper mediums is the power of their search engine. One does not have to, and I presume most don't, read it "a, b, c" nor, in practice, are topics judged by good academic standards which themselves are also limited by the previous formalities of paper medium. I have seen a few good and some very bad "academics" run on the rocks badly on the Wikipedia by attempting to enforce such standards AND spoil articles. Thankfully, you show none of the latter's arrogance or conceitedness. I am just suggesting to go with the way things are because fighting it will give you grief from both sides. On one hand, readers just jump straight into the middle of an article, so it does not matter too much where the information is. On the on the other, jockeys can and will load in all the details they like.

Having said all that, the current article is too long, says too much of not a lot of importance in place and does need split not merged.

I strongly oppose merging. We can shorten it without losing anyone's pet political slant by breaking it down into linked topics. Have we reached a consensus on this by now? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: My merge proposal was not so much driven by the size of the article, but the fact that they were clearly related. The notability of the route taken is of minor significance (in comparison to the entire article) and the list of runners, which is little more than a directory of HK's rich and famous (and there was some criticism of this in the local press). This is wikipedia - as if anyone really cares exactly through which cities and which hands it passed through. For those concerned with article size and the relevance of the table in the main article, I believe that the 'route' article can be simply redirected, and the list excised. It brings nothing to the centre of interest, which is the protests, controversies and reactions thereto. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are perhaps judging too early. Instead of saying nobody cares, is more like the exact opposite. People care too much, and wikipedia should match whatever is in real life. Athletes left out of the routes are complaining. Mainlanders were bidding to get the route to their neighborhood. Even the Paramount leaders want to make sure their birthplace gets on the route. And whose hands it passes through matters. Some are already in high demand, especially the celebrities ones. If anything this is good for the olympics and worth mentioning. Benjwong (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, I don't believe the list of 120 names x 2 should stay. It would not stop us from concentrating on the issues such as the disputes you mentioned. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The 120 list is every bit relevant to the relay. Is the same reason why the rosters are listed on Manchester united for a soccer team. Look at the Chinese wikipedia page, as they at least have it hidden in a template. There was also no consensus to delete. I am opposing the merge, and restoring the section. Benjwong (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The article is already too long Tresiden (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose merge The article is too long. And I am restoring the 120 torchbearer list. Benjwong (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge-If merged, article could provide much more data for the reader. 138.87.160.121 (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Result = no merge - We have reduced the list of the 120 x 2 list to notable torchbearers only. Please see Talk:2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay_route#Hong Kong and Macau list of runners for further info. Benjwong (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propose split

As the above appears to be opposed, I propose splitting section marked on page "Sequence of events" to a new "mainpage" linked to from the main article. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This seems more reasonable. After a split, this is the main page. The "Sequence of events" can be about all the political events. The "relay route" page should be just listings of participants and maps of route etc. Benjwong (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I am slowly moving any list of notable torchbearer participants to the 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay route article. The "sequence of events" should be just "events" like the title say. Opinions anyone? If nobody mind, I'll end up reducing that section. Benjwong (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Man on the 1st photo

Is he sir Roy Gardner? Six torchbearers in Stratford were named here. One of them, Francesca Martinez refused in protest and was replaced by "a young Londoner". Only sir Roy Gardner suits by the age, but is it him? Av0id3r (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so ..' see[1]. I don't see why that particular image is at the top of the article either. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error ??

Under the heading of "North Korea", a second paragraph sentence reads: "The United Nations Organization and its children's agency UNICEF withdrew their staff from, saying that it wasn't sure the event[...]". They "withdrew their staff from what? Hoping someone knows. (Nicolaususry (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Should we include a section on the Nazi origins of the torch relay?

Should this article include a section on the Nazi origins of the Olympic torch relay? --RisingSunWiki 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that is adequately covered in the main article Olympic flame. I am not sure what purpose would be served by raising that on this page. Whatever the specific origins of the relay may be, it has become a part of the Olympic tradition. - Eron^Talk 16:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It would surely be comparison between the fact that international relays such as this were concieved politically, and this has been used politically. In additional light of the fact that it could well be the last of the great international torch relays, it would have adequate grounds for being in the article. There's even been comparison in the media about it. A full on section is a definite no, but it's worth a mention. Crimsone (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both RisingSunWiki and Crimsone. The origins of the flag don't belong here, but its political ratifications do—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs) 04:35, 4 June 2008

What political ramifications? What is the encyclopedic value to be gained in describing the government that was in place in Germany the first time a torch relay was used? Will this information be added to every article about every Olympic torch relay? I really don't see the point of that. Anyone wanting information on the origins of the torch relay can find it easily in the appropriate article. Inserting references to Nazi Germany into this article seem more like unencyclopedic commentary - attempts to draw parallels between the two regimes. - Eron^Talk 12:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I pray there's no implication to draw any parallel between German Nazi and PRC Communist Party, considering their international political controversies. After all I disagree of the inclusion. As Eron stated, that justifies the inclusion about Nazi origins to ALL other relay articles and indeed sounds ridiculous. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And Crimsone, pardon for my offense. If someday Ireland, maybe Dublin hosts the Game and I include the Nazi origins in the respective relay article with the same reason you said in here, would you comply? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If they use the relay as an international propaganda tool, yes. The WHole Affair may well have put paid to international torch relays though - The IOC has realised that they can be moe trouble than they're worth. As I said, by the way - there is a perfectly valid and citable comparison over the way the torch relay has been used. I draw no comparison between the regimes apart from their respective penchants for propaganda through politicisation of the olympic torch relay... 1936 being the first, and 2008 being the longest, if not the last. great many sources have made the comparison in that sense (and the only sense in which I feel it belongs), because the comparison is a valid one. Crimsone (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way - It's only the north that's been under British control - and even that is under a shared power system since the Good Friday Agreement. If Dublin were to hold the games, they'd have no political point worth making with the torch relay. I rather doubt such would be the case in the incredibly unlikely event of Belfast holding the games either. Crimsone (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that have drawn comparisons between the 1936 relay and the 2008 relay, and if that coverage can be considered notable, then there should be no problem with including information about that coverage in the Reaction or Media coverage portions of the article. Something along the lines of "Several commentators have drawn parallels between this torch relay and the first torch relay, conducted prior to the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games." It would need to be properly referenced, and a quote would probably be suitable as well. This would serve the encyclopedic purpose of noting that such commentary exists without taking a position on one side or the other.

What would not be appropriate would be the insertion of a paragraph describing the origins of the relay, and perhaps drawing parallels, simply as part of the body of the article. This would risk violating NPOV and would make the article into a commentary on the relay rather than a description of the facts about it. - Eron^Talk 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My thought the same. If there are any powerful source, citing the comparison between the 2 relays is acceptable. But any phrases which lead to suggestive or undesirable (to someone) conclusion such as the terms "Nazi" and "Communist" should be avoided. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is indeed a parallel can be drawn... it could be perhaps described in the imperfect statement that "The extended nature of this relay, making it the longest in Olympic history, with an attempt to scale the highest point in the world (Everest) has drawn commentary comparisons between this relay, and the origins of the relay as a political propaganda tool in the 1936 Berlin Olympics. The relay itself has been seen by commentators as an attempt to assert and reach greater acceptance of China as a significant world power, with the Olympic flame's parallel excursion to Mt. Everest seen in both that light, and as an attempt to obtain absolute recognition of China as dominant over the Autonimous Tibetan Region in which the mountain is based.".

It states the sole comparison as being between the two relays (not the two regimes), the comparison being in it's use for propagandist political ends only - which is of note not only because this relay has prompted a greater awareness of the origins of international Olympic relays, but because in being politicised it has reasserted those origins, and is indeed the opposite end of the same scale (again, the relay, not the regimes themselves, as should be evident by now) for the same purpose, and possibly the last. Crimsone (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that sort of description as long as it is supported by valid references to reliable sources where such comments have been made. - Eron^Talk 13:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources are out there - I checked :) (mostly blogs and online newspaper articles and editorials) - but I'll leave someone else to decide where such a statement should be in the article (a subsection of the controversies or media coverage secions I would guess) and to add it in... I say a subsection, because it is pretty much a stand-alone issue, and though I haven't seen one, there may well be a counterpoint.

However, as I say, I'll leave it to another to make that choice and add it in. Last time I got involved in the actual editing of this article it went awry (if you've seen my talk page you'll understand,and I'm not well enough to chance it) Crimsone (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)