Talk:2016 Summer Olympics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2016 Summer Olympics 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 article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Olympics To-do:

Contents

[edit] ON RIO! Important

Well, it's completely out of date and some informations, important informations were not included. I tried to include, but someone just undone at all. Okay, Mr. --, you did it. But I re-edited and I believe it's better now. It's not cluttered and by reading it, you'll be able to understand, by your own self, that's impartial, I mean, it says whats good, but also assume Rio has a lot to work on.

I really hate to make millions of clicks to visit twenty differet pages to know what's going on with other bids, from other cities, just 'cos someone decided each city's bid must have its own page. Well, good, 'cos I know one page can't just have the whole thing about all bids, but the main page, should at least, have the latest news about cities really bidding.

In what concerns "realty", articles really updated, I'm sorry, but Rio de Janeiro section was below what I call "accpetable".

LAST EDIT: I just looked out, and you didn't change it yet, so please, don't do it again.

Added info on Brazil's bid for the 2014 World Cup and possible conflict with IOC decision to be "Seconds" on location.Cbradshaw 20:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madrid

this article is ridiculous and very partial. is antispanish and racist.offensive to mr. Samaranch and very pro-US a waste of time

No you are wrong - it is not offensive - i will admit that it is not neutral, but it is a reasoned opion - shared by many comentators of the olympic games

Why is there almost nothing about madrid??

I think we've got almost nothing from Madrid, 'cos people are not interested in editing it. People from Madrid, Spain or just interested in Madrid and in its possibilities, should look forward to improve its section.

[edit] Basingstoke

I've removed Basingstoke from the list - not only will it not happen (barring a nuclear war that destroys every other city in the world), but I can't find any reference to it on the web. If it was said, it was probably a joke. sjorford →•← 11:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New York City

There have been rumors eminating from radio stations within New York about New York City going for the 2016 Bid if they loose out on the 2012 bid.

2016 is just another long shot like the 2012 bid was for ny, 2020 is a better bid to go for, giving ny more time to get their plans together and gain a much stronger support (city wide, state wide..) -bskel

Excuse me but there are a lot of sweet talking and glossing on the NYC section. It does not adhere to the NPV. -cozzie

I edited out bits of PR, but there remains some, along with some grammar that needs correcting -Spacedragonblue

[edit] Almost.

I can't believe Russia lost the Olympics. Hopefully 2016 will be different with either St. Petersburg or Moscow.

-G

Same here.
Wikipedia talk pages are not to comment on recent sports losses. And sign your posts! Basketball110 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYC2016 could happen

NYC isn't giving up. Most of the people in the city, including me, want NYC to try again. If Mayor Bloomberg wins the election this November, you are likely to see another bid from New York City. --PrinceofPersia


theres the problem with a new york bid "most of the people." a lukewarm support from the nyc people is what earned nyc elimination in the IOC election for 2012. and even if NYC went with fully backed support, their proposal for olympics in this city were nothing more than that. No action had been taken to prepare for the games, whereas London had already completed if not started on venues. Ny did not even have a proper stadium secured for the games. if any american city is fit to hold the games, let it be one that has experience with it, such as los angeles.


[edit] Detroit considering a Winter Olympics bid?

Could somebody submit a reference verifying that Detroit is indeed considering bidding on the Winter Olympics, as mentioned in this article? If they did, where would they hold downhill skiing? The nearest "real" ski resorts are in West Virginia, and even those are not Olympic quality. This to me sounds like a pipedream.

[edit] Denver?

There is an entry for Denver here, but it says that they are looking to host the 2018 winter games. Is this a typo, or just something that doesn't belong in this article?--RevTenderBranson 14:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article problem

Any way to tell whether a city on this list is a city that it has been officially confirmed that it will not be hosting the 2016 Summer Olympics?? Georgia guy 17:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

An excellent litmus test for the American bids is to consider American cities "in the running" if, and only if, the USOC has done its initial official assessment meeting with the city's mayor. That is why the Detroit information was moved off the main page to the discussion page below under the "Article Size" thread. Gerald Farinas 23:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India

The article says India's success in hosting the 2010 Commonwealth games will help with their bid. But of course, the 2010 Commonwealth Games will be held in 2010 so their success won't help their 2016 bid. How well their preparation and planning etc is going may help their bid however. Nil Einne 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andes 2006? No way!

As Colombian, I haven't heard a word from Bogota's Mayor or Colombian President about an Olympic bid. I don't think we'll see any bid from a South American country different of Brazil and Argentina. tropicalia115 03:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country??

All stories within the last few months revealed by Google News that picked up evidence about the 2016 Summer Olympics have given evidence that the country is either the United States or Japan. And now, there are only 5 cities in the United States and 2 in Japan (a total of 7) that appear to be possible. This is surprising, because it is only May 2006 and I didn't originally think it was going to be until 2008 when the number of possible cities for the 2016 Summer Olympics was going to be narrowed down to such a small number. Georgia guy 16:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as I wouldn't want, I think the Olympics will most likely be awarded to an American city. Like to have citation for the U.S. vs. Japan thing, though. Drdr1989 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed texts

User:205.188.116.5 just removed a lot so texts involving dropped cities. Is it proper?--Jusjih 15:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, that deleted text or summaries of that text should have been posted on the discussion page for others to consider, too. It would be nice to have a discussion page where readers can turn to as an appendix to find out what other back info could be useful to them, even information thrown out. Please keep that in mind for those of you considering major changes like that on any article on Wikipedia. Gerald Farinas 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Size

This article has reached the 32kb size mark and must be reduced for technical reasons. You can read about article size requirements on Wikipedia. Some sections will be moved (only with proper justification for removal) to the discussion page to make room to meet size limits. Gerald Farinas 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In order to make room, the Detroit section should be removed, restricting the article to details about bid cities that have met with the USOC for official assessment in May 2006, in other words no more rumor-based sections. Until American cities meet with the USOC for official assessment, only passing mention is warranted in this article as mere rumor, not full detail. In the meantime, the full text of the Detroit section will be kept here on the discussion page to be moved back to the main page if it becomes a serious canidate in the USOC's eyes for 2016. Gerald Farinas 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Text of the Detroit section that was removed
Although not on the aformentioned short-list, The City of Detroit is a rumored canidate for either the 2016 or 2020 Summer Olympics.
The City of Detroit, Michigan, which has suffered from a stagnant economy as well as poverty and crime issues, has recently seen a rebuilding, and has/plans to host several large events, including Superbowl XL, the U.S. Open, the Baseball All-Star Game, and the NCAA Final Four. The city has also been asked to submit a bid for the 2008 Republican National Convention by the GOPand is also on the short list for the 2008 Democratic National Convention. The region hlso hosts several smaller, yearly events including the North American International Auto Show, and the International Freedom Festival. The area is well known for its sports teams, most notably the Detroit Red Wings and the Detroit Pistons, both of which have either been in/won their respective playoff games. The city of Detroit also has a long-running Olympic Bid history, bidding seven times in 1944, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964 (2nd place, games went to Tokyo), 1968 (2nd place, games went to Mexico City), and, the city's most recent bid, in 1972, making it the city witht the most failed bids. The areas many sports arenas and other large venues make it possible that the city could hold the games with little new construction. Venues already exist that could hold many of the sporting events. The only construction that would be needed is an Olympic Village and a stadium to hold the opening and closing cerimonies. Even the latter may not be needed, as there are several stadiums that could be motified to hold such events. The only other major issues facing a bid by Detroit are a lack of major public transportation, and the need for a major funding source, as the current state of the city's economy make it unlikely that it could hold the Olympics without a major exterior funding source. However, the issue of public transit was also faced by Salt Lake City, Utah (2000), Athens, Greece (2004), and Turin, Italy (2006), all of whom built new public transportatio networks in order to hold the games. Sould Detroit fail to gain (or even attempt to win) the 2016 Summer Olympics, it could choose to try another bid for the 2020 Olympics.

[edit] Qatar

Doha will be the first Middle Eastern city to host the Asian Games.

I deleted that as it was incorrect. Tehran hosted the 1974 Asian Games. Nokhodi 08:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe we should move Doha to the Confirmed bids and feature it in one of the boxes at the top of the article.Cbradshaw 16:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead. I noticed that too, and it is on the bids article. Also, add to the bottom of the talk page. This thread is over a year old. Reywas92Talk 17:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've added the {{globalize}} template

...because at the moment this article seems decidedly US-centric for a subject that is decidedly global. (Even moreso if the news article posted above that the US may not even make a vid turns out to be true.) Less info on the American potential bids and more on those from other continents, please. Thank you! Nuge talk 22:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There will probably be some bids from Japan in a few months from now. For other countries, I don't know. Georgia guy 22:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago

The article is way out of balance. I would suggest that Chicago is not such an overwhelming favorite that it should receive five times the space of the other U.S. hopefuls. There is no basis for asserting that any of the five candidates is the frontrunner at this early stage of the game.

Overflow of good information about Chicago's bid was moved to a separate article entitled Chicago 2016 Olympic bid much in the same way the article entitled New York City 2012 Olympic bid was created. I thought it was important to (1) shorten the current article for space requirment considerations and (2) preserve the Chicago information because of its historicity for the people of Chicago and the region. Gerald Farinas 02:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The size of each section, including the United States cities, are now more equal than it was before and possibly could merit losing the globablize template soon. Also, language that wasn't so Americentric was changed in the introductory section of this article. Gerald Farinas 02:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How does Chicago's central location in the US serve as a potential aid for the Olympic bid? That would be fine and dandy for Canadian, American and Mexican tourists, but other nations wouldn't be affected by Chicago's location. Crisco 1492 08:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I added an explanation of why this may be an advantage. However, since Rio is in the US Eastern time zone, a similar comment may be relevant there.Cbradshaw 05:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argentina

For the past few months, every piece of news regarding the 2016 Summer Olympics according to Google News has mentioned cities in either the United States or Japan. Now, however, I got one saying Argentina might want to bid. What Argentina city is it?? Georgia guy 16:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

This is not necessarily a serious point, but doesn't Toronto consider bidding for every Olympics and then have a change of heart at the last minute?

Historically, that's what they seem to be doing but we don't actually have proof that is their intent. Gerald Farinas 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

Because there is no official bid from Israel's government, I'm moving the following text from the main article to this discussion page. Due to space considerations, only cities with confirmed bids should make it onto the main article space. Gerald Farinas 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The city of Tel Aviv reportedly considered a bid. However, the idea for the bid was actually proposed by architectural students at Tel Aviv University, as a hypothetical consideration of what would be required by Tel Aviv in order to host the games. Indeed, there are major challenges which would need to be overcome for an Israeli bid to succeed, not least in terms of security. There would also be the danger of politically-motivated boycotts or protests from some nations, although a Tel Aviv Olympics would probably suffer rather less from this than one held in Jerusalem. Other problems include relatively poor infrastructure and a possible lack of support from within the IOC itself.

[edit] havanna, cuba

I removed the little bit about Cuba's poverty level being due to the US's sanctions, because it didn't have a source. It is more likely that Cuba is poor because of forty-plus years under an authoritarian socialist government.

Why, it appears someone found a source for the offending bit of information that was removed. Good job! Actually, no. An op-ed piece in a foreign newspaper is not a valid source. Sorry.
Well, I changed it, then I realized that the whole section needs a source. Did Cuba's 'overall poverty level' really work against Havanna's bid? This whole article needs to be cleaned up, actually. And I give up.

Perhaps you are referring to HAVANA, Cuba?

[edit] Monterrey, Mexico is not going to bid

I removed this city from the bidding cities table... it was announced today that the Mexican Olympic prez said that the bid was not possible...I added the reference but requires a paid account...

[edit] NPOV

This article is a NPOV nightmare in my opinion. Here are a few examples I found with a quick scan.

  • The Cuba section is unnecessarily negative. I.e. "Cuba failed to make the shortlist for 2008 and 2012 host city competitions because of these problems and will likely be glanced over by bid assessors again."
  • The article is dominated by U.S. cities. Considering they will likely only receive one official bid, it seems like equal time should be given to other countries. I.e. "The city is also at the center of the northeastern United States, approximately equidistant from New York and Washington, perfectly situated for easy access to other popular American tourist sites."
  • Though not entirely related to NPOV, I also see some violations of Crystal Ball. This is obviously a thin line with articles about future events, but this article definitely crosses the line. In addition to my Cuba example, "Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezula, Colombia, and Peru want to launch a double or even triple alliance for 2016. The cities of Bogotá, Cochabamba, Guayaquil, Lima, La Paz, Cuzco, Sucre and Quito have all considered a joint go at the games. This is now highly unlikely given the political state of these nations." First, I don't really see how Ecuador and Peru fall into the classification of "political instability." It also seems a little shortsighted to simply eliminate these nations in two short sentences. Considering South America looks to be a major competitor for the games, it seems like there's a little too much fortune telling and too little fact-gathering here.

I already fixed a few obvious flaws, but it definitely needs more work. -DMurphy 00:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding US domination in this article

"The article is dominated by U.S. cities. Considering they will likely only receive one official bid, it seems like equal time should be given to other countries."

No. Putting in a larger proportion of US cities in this article is appropriate due to the fact that the United States has not hosted the summer games since 1996. The location of the previous games is a strong influencer on the committee's decision. (A single continent has not hosted the games twice in a row for over fifty years). America is the largest consumer of the Olympics and when they go 16 years without hosting it, their cities will invariably have a stronger bid.

Also, the United States is larger then most other countries and has more major cities. Giving equal time to each potential country would thus be silly. For example, Sweden and the United States do not have an equal chance of hosting the Olympics because the United States has more large cities. (Though New York City and Stockholm may have an equal chance). It is for this very reason that the United States has hosted the games more times than every other country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.46.252 (talk • contribs).

  • "The United States has not hosted the summer games since 1996." So what? Canada hasn't hosted the games since 1976. Mexico hasn't hosted since 1968, and their economy is undergoing tremendous growth at the moment. Africa and South America have never hosted the games, and they will be hosting the next two upcoming World Cups, which certainly speaks in their favor. The USA has hosted the games the last two times the IOC has hosted the games in the Americas. It's incredibly USA-centric to say that the games will go to the USA this time around and as a result we shouldn't give equal time to other countries. The way I see it, we'll see at least one South American candidate (somewhere in Brazil, Buenos Aires, and Santiago all look very viable), an African candidate (Cape Town looks like a great bid), a US candidate, a Canadian candidate, a Mexican or other Central American candidate (Cuba is possible, especially since so little is known about their bid), and a handful of European and Asian candidates.

Yeah, the US candidate will probably make the "short list," but beyond that it's impossible to make a guess, and even assuming that is a little dangerous. I realize that Chicago looks good, and that's fine, but cities like Baltimore/DC and Houston who have barely even mentioned their plans receive equal time in this article as established candidates like Cape Town and Buenos Aires. That's not good writing.

If you can tell me without a doubt that the US candidate has a better chance of getting the olympics, for the THIRD time in a row among Candidates from non-eurasian/oceanian countries, than Cape Town, Toronto, Buenos Aires, Tokyo, Santiago, etc., then sure, we can give them more time in the article. But otherwise, we need to start paying attention to the other options in this. The USA has hosted two olympics within 32 years of 2016. I think it's a little too short-sighted to assume they'll host a third time. Possible, yes, but if you want to play the statistics game, it's certainly not in the USA's favor. -DMurphy 17:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again DMurphy: the fact that the United States has more major cities than most other countries increases the probability that it will host the games. You have stated that the US should have a section equal in size to other countries. Does this include Morocco? Clearly the US has a better chance than Morocco.


I'm not saying that the United States will definitely be hosting the games in 2016, but the fact of the matter is that it has a better chance than any other country. You talk about the "statistics game" - I'm not exactly sure what you are referring to. The US has hosted the games more time than any other country due to its disproportionally higher number of major cities. Its greater population and larger number of developed cities means that statistically, the United States has a better chance than any other country. If you disagree with me, which country has a better chance, statistically, than the United States?

DMurphy said. "The way I see it, we'll see at least one South American candidate (somewhere in Brazil, Buenos Aires, and Santiago all look very viable), an African candidate (Cape Town looks like a great bid), a US candidate, a Canadian candidate, a Mexican or other Central American candidate (Cuba is possible, especially since so little is known about their bid), and a handful of European and Asian candidates."

You might be confusing continents with countries because when you said this you basically proved my point. As you said, we will see one South American candidate, one African, one US, one Canadian, one Mexican, one Central American, several European and Asian Candidates. You might say that the United States has about the same chance of getting the games as Africa or South America do. But remember, Africa and South America are continents, the United States is a country.

You have been arguing that the US should have an article equal to the size of other COUNTRIES. This would mean that we would have 60 or so sections for each African/South American country and one section for the United States. Does Africa and South America really have 60 times as good of a chance as the United States?

Finally "It is believed that the Games will return to the USA due to an unwritten convention that every 20 years the IOC reciprocate for the vast payments by the NBC media group for Olympic coverage - funds that largely bankroll the IOC. If the United States (or Canada; Toronto was second to Beijing in the 2008 bidding and may consider a run at 2016 with the 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver, British Columbia long out of the way alongside Montreal) were to win the 2016 Games, there is a very good chance that the 2020 Games could go to an African or South American city, two regions that have never hosted a Summer Olympics. But if either region actually hosts the 2016 Games, the 2020 Games will probably end up in either North America or Asia."

  • I am well aware of the difference between continents and countries. My choice of words may have been poor, but the point is the same - there's no reason for the Wiki to assume that the USA will win the Olympic bid when the selection is still very far off in the future and there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Of course countries like Morocco shouldn't have a section equal to that of the US... I'm not stupid. My point is that countries like Brazil and Canada should have a section equal to that of the US. And as a whole, Africa should have about the same amount as the U.S.

What needs to improve is the coverage of legitimate candidates - Cape Town, Buenos Aires, Santiago, etc. Right now the only referencing being done involves the US bids. Someone reading the article would get the idea that the US will get the olympics and that is that (though the article has vastly improved over the past few days... thanks to everyone who has helped with that). What my point comes down to is that I'd like to see the article expand in areas other than simply the US bids.

All cynical beliefs about the IOC siding with their pocketbooks rather than reason aside, the US is not guaranteed to win this bid just because we finance much of IOC. The same thing has been said for the past three olympics, and simply because it's been exactly 20 years since the last one doesn't make a difference. I'll admit that it's possible, but it's also sort of a conspiratorial assumption to make and shouldn't be much of a factor, if any, in wiki editing. IMO Rogge's mannerisms have shown that he would prefer to host the olympics in a developing nation instead... especially an African nation. I realize that my language in my first post may have been a bit critical and not very constructive, but I simply want to bring to light the bias of the article at the moment so that we can make edits conscious of this. Even if I am wrong, the article needs more coverage in general. -DMurphy 16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think part of our problem is that more verifiable published media reports are generated about the United States (and Canada) bid cities than other cities around the world and that the content provided here in this article is indicative of general availability of information. Sure if we had as much information about the other bid cities that were recently published then we'd write more in regards to that information. But we don't. That doesn't mean we should limit how much we share of the United States bid cities just because not enough information is coming out of the international bids.
The whole point of an encyclopedia is to detail pertinent information available about a subject for readers. We can't censor information or leave things out just because Doha, Qatar hasn't published much about its bid. Share the information we have; don't make decisions based on a scale of how many words were used per subject. Otherwise it's a disservice to encylopedia users looking for that information.
But you are right. We, as editors and researchers, need to work harder in finding that international information to share here to balance everything out. --Gerald Farinas 23:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Gerald Farinas, I don't think we'll know until about 2 years from now a perfect set of information for the 5 final bids. Georgia guy 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This statement is to D Murphy: India has never hosted the Olympic Games, and they have a population more than 3 times U.S.A's. So, in your theory of AMerica having more cities andpopulation so on, so forth, India should technically host the games! I know it won't, but seriously,America does not need such a huge article. Period. ANd Morroco has as much chance of getting the Olympics as any other City/COuntry bidding. When the winter games were in Nagano, Salt Lake City was in The bidding, and an American city hadn't held it for 18 years, and they didn't win. So why should America have such a large article, and such a high possibility? I have absolutely No Idea. Period. 144.133.83.58 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the previous US Summer Games in Atlanta were widely regarded as a complete disaster and that may weigh against the US. Also, the new president won't have long to rebuild the US's reputation overseas before the next vote - if the vote were held today the US wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance due to current global events. Africa and South America both have really strong demands having never hosted before, South Africa is overhauling its infrastructure for the 2010 World Cup, even Australia may feel like having another tilt given the success of Sydney which by then will be 16 years previous. Europe (2004 and 2012) and Asia (2008) are probably the only real outsiders. Mralph72 03:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baltimore/DC removed text

The following text was removed from the article by Mcshadypl regarding the possibility of a Baltimore/DC bid:
On July 7, 2005, Dan Knise, president of "Baltimore-Washington D.C. 2012", said that there was a definite possibility that the cities might get back into the bidding for 2016. Knise stated in a Baltimore Sun article (which is no longer availiable) that "we should remain interested and engaged in the process." Rick Abbruzzese, a spokesman for Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, added that "we will have to see what the details are, get together with our partners in D.C. and go from there."
I support this decision, but if there is a veritable source on the topic which states that the two cities are in fact really considering a bid, then we should re-insert the section. Otherwise, it seems to be little more than a rumor. -DMurphy 22:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Google News reveals a lot of pages (do a search for "2016 Summer Olympics") and it gives that there are 5 cities making bids, and they are probably the same ones Wikipedia says, and Baltimore is not one of them. Georgia guy 23:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know...

Based on the recent edit, Los Angeles is now one of only 3 American cities that if the games are in the United States, they are likely to be in. Did you know that if Los Angeles hosts the Olympics, what do you think it will be the second city after London to do?? Georgia guy 22:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Host three times, of course. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project". Although, I hope Chicago wins.

[edit] Removal of "New Zealand"

My reasoning for the removal of the "New Zealand" section is that the section does not outline a potential bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. To the contrary, it specifically states that a serious bid is unlikely (which, in my view, is an understatement but that is irrelevant for the purposes of this justification). Because Auckland is not a potential bid, in my mind, it does not merit inclusion on this page.

If Auckland is considering a potential bid, then it should be placed on the page(s) which it is considering a potential bid for. I recently removed, with a week's notice, the equivalent section on 2020 Summer Olympics, because I could not find any reference anywhere on the internet that suggests so, even from the NZOC website—and therefore I believe that Auckland's potential bid has no reference and should not be included at all.

Of course, I may have missed or inadvertently overlooked something that shows Auckland's potential bid. If this is the case, and it is generally considered justifiable to include a city's details on a page where a bid is highly unlikely, then I will not object to reversion. However, especially in the event that the latter is true, I ask that details be explained here, just so I know in future. Neonumbers 23:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the decision. --Gerald Farinas 13:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco bid

I think the San Francisco bid is getting long enough that it should get its own article within a week. Any comments?? Georgia guy 22:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Chicago has its own. With San Francisco as one of the favorite contenders, it is getting a lot of media attention and there is now an overwhelming wealth of relevant information worth detailing on Wikipedia for its historicity. Go for it! --Gerald Farinas 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of "citation needed"s

I was the one who added all of the {{fact}}s to the article. An article needs to be verifiable. This is impossible without citations. If some bid is considered a favorite, then give proof that it is. If country X is planning to bid with city Y, give a source to indicate that they are indeed interested. If spokesperson A says that a bid is likely, then surely there would be a source to back that up! I'll attempt to assist everyone in adding references, but I can't do it alone. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What are all these boxes doing at the top of the page? It looks like a real mess - what is the problem? User:Lofty
They mean exactly what I said above. This ariticle needs to cite its sources. If Prime Minister X announced on some date that they are bidding for the games, then give a newspaper article or online article to reference it. Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
As for the "weasel words," those can be biased. For example, in the article, some are very optimistic about South Africa's prospects of hosting the Olympic Games in the near future. WHO said that? That is where we need a source, or to either (a) remove the statement, or (b) change the wording to WP:WEASEL. --Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is getting ridiculous

If you compare the "analysis" in this article to reality, as reported in reliable Olympic bid news sites such as Games Bids or Around the Rings, you will easily see that this entry has degenerated into an orgy of mindless boosterism, and has become not only uninformative, but actually misleading.

To note just one example, there is no serious bid activity from Canada right now. The article, on the other hand, makes it seem like there are serious campaigns being prepared by Montreal and Toronto. In the wake of the 2005 swimming world championships, the mayor of Montreal made comments about mounting a bid, but there has been no development of the idea. To the extent that anyone in Toronto is thinking about hosting a mega-event, they are mulling a bid for a 2015 World's Fair.

I would advise anyone seeking solid information on the cities that may be preparing to bid for the 2016 Games to look to Games Bids or Around the Rings for accurate, verifiable information. This Wikipedia entry is neither reliable nor factual.

I agree, the majority of this article is rumor and hear say written by people in these cities, and is not that much based in facts. This article needs serious cleaning up. Try looking at here for better info. (gamesbids.com) --Moonraker0022 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus why there are multiple cleanup templates at the top. Ian Manka Talk to me! 09:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THIS IS MAJOR

According to Gamesbids.com Houston and Philadelphia have been dropped and the USOC shortlist consists of Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project". P.S. I support Chicago's bid.

[edit] Montreal is not bidding for the 2016 Olympic Games

Montreal is not regarded as a candidate for the 2016 Games. Thus, the Montreal entry is misleading. Gerard Tremblay, near the end of a successful FINA Championships in 2005, made one (1) statement that he would be interested in it. That has been the sum and substance of a Montreal bid to date. There has been no follow-up on this statement. Since Tremblay's utterance, there have been no reports of any Quebec or federal politician, or any Canadian Olympic Committee official, making any noises at all about a Montreal bid. Nor has there been any organization of a steering committee to develop a bid. So let's get real.

[edit] Quatar, Thailand, UAE

Can we move them out of the Africa section and into Asia? 72.9.15.21 15:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anso, we need one americas section. 72.9.15.21 16:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, they're already in the Asia section. And there is only one Americas section. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well they might be there now, but when I was there. . . they weren't72.9.0.14 16:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This is nitpicky, but why is there only 1 "Americas" section? North and South America are two separate continents. That's like saying Portugal and Japan are on the same continent.75.3.75.158 05:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rome

Walter Veltroni, Rome's mayor. announced that Rome won't bid for 2016, maybe considering 2020, after Sochi's win for 2014 race. --87.15.9.7 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bug on page?

Thanks to Reywas 92 for correcting a few weird reverts. There may be a bug on the page b/c I had to readd several logos, etc, and also a few edits that I just put in were gone, deleted from my post?? (the one exception that needs to stay is the "ie" in the quote about Rio--that was in the quote source). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbradshaw (talk • contribs) 04:26, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Bids and logos

The 2016 Summer Olympics are still at a bidding stage that will last until 2009. The article 2016 Summer Olympics bids was specifically created for this phase and its ongoing developments, while this article is (or will be) concerned about the post-election and Games staging phase. That's why I think that everything that concerns bids should be added and edited with more detail in the bids article, and this one which should show a summary of it (the exact opposite of what is happening currently) since the bidding is the first stage and its all we know about this topic; once the election is done, the preparations and the staging should be the main content.

All this to say that IMO the unofficial bid logos that are displayed alongside Madrid, Rio, and Prague sections should not be there because they are unofficial. If anyone says "it's better than showing nothing", then why don't they create logos for the remaining logo-lacking bids so that they show "at least something"? Or search the web for someone who has already expressed his/her creativity and upload it here. Perhaps even throw a "Wikipedia unofficial 2016 Olympic bid logo" contest to find the best unofficial logo.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a reliable and factual encyclopedic repository. Showing images just for the sake of showing, filling spaces, is not wise. That's why I believe that if people really want them to be shown, then move all the adequate content to the bids-specific article, instead of filling the main Games article anonymous and unofficial images. There, my opinion is given. Parutakupiu 22:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Hear, hear! And we should probably start taking some potential bid cities off the list, just to clean it up a bit.

xero-7 04:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There are several cities in the text that definately say "will not bid". Do we transfer the text here or simply delete?Cbradshaw 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airports a plus?

Someone suggested the airports in Chicago are a plus. But all of these are major cities which have international airports. Is this fact really necessary?Cbradshaw 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bidding section

It really confuses me seeing that the bidding phase for these Olympics is more developed on this article than on the one that solely exists for this stage (2016 Summer Olympics bids). Perhaps the latter was created too soon, when the only available news concerning 2016 is the bids themselves. If I didn't care about the consequences and other editors, I'd move everything concerning bids from here to 2016 Summer Olympics bids, even if this article would end up mostly empty. Just to think that there are two years until the election and until other things can start being developed on this article besides who bids, who might bid... Parutakupiu 19:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

After Sept 14 (when actual bid cities are confirmed), I suggest we move all the non-bidding cities to the bids page and leave only the actual bidding cities here. In fact, we might move the cities that "are definately not bidding" such as Rome, Kenya, etc to that page, unless someone objects. Cbradshaw 16:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I moved all the cities that did not actually bid to the Olympics Bids page.Cbradshaw 06:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You missed Dubai though, as they didnt bid. I guess I'll move it myself...... Anung Mwka 13:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, Dubai had been removed by 88.117.115.99 but I reinstated it thinking the edit was vandalism - my bad. Vl'hurg talk 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I hadn't heard for sure that they didn't bid and I didn't want to jump the gun. Thanks for moving it.Cbradshaw 15:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madrid Logo and Prague

The logo was announced on GamesBids.com reported from AP. The image was referenced and sourced. If you feel it is better to wait, fine, but it was not vandalism.

As for deleting comments about Prague, although someone re-wrote the items, obsuring the clarity of the facts, again they were sourced material. The content of the Prague bid is much smaller than other bids, and from my understanding "people want the bids to be equally covered". Two pluses for Prague are its great beauty and sports legacy. I think this items should be restored. If you felt it was patronizing, I am sorry, it was certainly not meant that way. It is an attempt to cover the same topics in comparison to other bids. -- Cbradshaw 18:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And ditto the sourced comments for Madrid as well. --Cbradshaw 18:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doha Update

Doha now has a logo and completely new website. Can someone please upload the new emblem???

I think it's time to make a separate Doha bid page. Trivial info has been put on here that is distorting the size of the entry. If no one has an objection, I will start one. ==Cbradshaw 19:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Doha 2016.png

Image:Doha 2016.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why were all the other logos removed? They all seemed to be licensed correctly. Cbradshaw 17:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] North America

"To date, the Olympic Games in the Americas have only been held in North America." Um, since when was Mexico (1968) part of North America? Deleted. Lordrosemount 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, you think it's in South America? I would think Mexico has been part of North America at least since the Cretaceous period. Reverted. Andrwsc 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
LordRose, perhaps you are presuming a "Latin American" country would preclude it from being in North America. However, Mexico, as well as the 7 Central American countries (eg Guatemala, Panama, etc) and the Carribean nations are all considered to be in North America. Anyway, in the eyes of the IOC, North and South America are considered "the Americas". --Cbradshaw 00:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baku in Europe

I have noticed throughout many 2016 olympic related topics that Baku is classified to be in Asia, however this is not the case. The IOC have classified Azerbaijan in Europe (EOC), according to their website found here: http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/noc/index_uk.asp?id_assoc=8. Now i am not very good with the editing of wikipedia, so i am unable to fix this, however it should be done.The sound (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi the Sound, thanks for your comment. I have done some research on the topic, and the country is alternately listed as being located in either Europe or Asia depending on the source. It is the nature of the country as it is in a linking area between the two continents. (This descrepancy is similar to how North and South America are listed as one continent in some countries or sources, which any North American, at least, would tell you is wrong!) The 2016 Summer Olympics bids page already acknowledges the classification of Baku in the European IOC by the IOC in the Asia section introcuction. In this case, it would actually be beneficial for Baku to be considered an Asian country as a European country will have already hosted the 2012 Olympics. (Host cities are generally rotated among continents). In any case, while no bid can be discounted, Baku has probably the toughest road to winning the Games anyway. Cheers!--Cbradshaw (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chok Chey

I think we should lock this page, it has been repeatedly vandalised by the removal of Chok Chey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.160.154 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)