Talk:London 2012 Olympic bid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
London 2012 Olympic bid has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Vandalism
Please do not vandalize this article; however strongly you may feel about something, vandalism is immature.
[edit] Cost?
Anyone know what the total cost of the Games will be? Kinda need that for NPOV reasons. Also some info on opposition is needed, too. Dan100 (Talk) July 6, 2005 12:28 (UTC)
- There's a breakdown of costs investing/economics/londons-olympic-bid.html here. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 6, 2005 12:38 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
This article is a PR peice for the London Olympics it is not even a fair and balanced news paper article. The Critique is minimal. The section entitled legacy of the games is the most outrageous. COmpare it with Munich Olympics one of the most noteworthy in recent years, but for all the wrong reasons.--217.44.39.65 10:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. It details all the plans as set out in the bid, and section about the legacy of the Games (a phrase used by the IOC) is very appropriate - it was a major aspect of what won the bid for them. violet/riga (t) 11:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- You may disagree but you seem to have written some of the article. Did you write that but. The bit "Following three failed consecutive UK bids (Birmingham in 1992 and Manchester in 1996 and 2000), the decision was made to bid with London, given the clear indication that it was the only city in the UK that had a chance of being selected by the International Olympic Committee" When was this decision taken and who by. You also imply that neither Manchester of Birmingham is a World City. Why is that. What is the definintion of a world city? The entire article is PR for London.--217.44.39.65 12:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't write that exact bit but stand by it fully. The previous bids were rejected by the IOC on the basis that their locations were inadequate (that was not the only reason, I hasten to add). This indicated that London was the only city that had a real opportunity. I could do with a reference, but just saying it does not violate NPOV. violet/riga (t) 12:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- It indicates nothing of the sort. The bids were sabotaged by attacks from London and in the media. Plenty of other non capital cities have held the games. Some smaller than Birmingham and Manchester. Why is Brum no a world city, who indicated that and when or is it just the assumption of Londoners that they are the only city of significance in the UK?--217.44.39.65 12:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- It does not imply that they are not world cities, and I think you are starting to show your own POV here. Yes, there may be a case for some sabotage, but only on a small scale and certainly not by the BOA. violet/riga (t) 13:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- For the record, I am not a Londoner nor would I ever wish to be. violet/riga (t) 13:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- The lack of support from central government, is one major factors, which sabotaged other bids. Sabotage by ommision. 'given the clear indication that it was the only city in the UK that had a chance of being selected'. What was this clear indication?. I don't live with in 100 klicks of any of the cities, though I do remember one paper saying about the Manchester bid "at least it isn't Liverpool". There is no indication that having the olympics will increase fitness. The Olympics is the ultimate in elitism, most of us will never be elite, and will not be allowed to use some of the facilities built with public money to train people, the best example of this was the training facilities provided to the Coxless 4's. If having the games would improve fitness in the gerneral public and increase participation in sport, that Wimbledon would assure Britain of a significant place in the Tennis world.--217.44.39.65 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- And it's fine for you to think all that, but this is about the bid that was presented by the BOA to the IOC, not an examination of how a world sporting event improves (or otherwise) the fitness of the host nation. By all means write an article about that (I have no doubts that it could make an interesting read). violet/riga (t) 13:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- The lack of support from central government, is one major factors, which sabotaged other bids. Sabotage by ommision. 'given the clear indication that it was the only city in the UK that had a chance of being selected'. What was this clear indication?. I don't live with in 100 klicks of any of the cities, though I do remember one paper saying about the Manchester bid "at least it isn't Liverpool". There is no indication that having the olympics will increase fitness. The Olympics is the ultimate in elitism, most of us will never be elite, and will not be allowed to use some of the facilities built with public money to train people, the best example of this was the training facilities provided to the Coxless 4's. If having the games would improve fitness in the gerneral public and increase participation in sport, that Wimbledon would assure Britain of a significant place in the Tennis world.--217.44.39.65 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- It indicates nothing of the sort. The bids were sabotaged by attacks from London and in the media. Plenty of other non capital cities have held the games. Some smaller than Birmingham and Manchester. Why is Brum no a world city, who indicated that and when or is it just the assumption of Londoners that they are the only city of significance in the UK?--217.44.39.65 12:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't write that exact bit but stand by it fully. The previous bids were rejected by the IOC on the basis that their locations were inadequate (that was not the only reason, I hasten to add). This indicated that London was the only city that had a real opportunity. I could do with a reference, but just saying it does not violate NPOV. violet/riga (t) 12:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- You may disagree but you seem to have written some of the article. Did you write that but. The bit "Following three failed consecutive UK bids (Birmingham in 1992 and Manchester in 1996 and 2000), the decision was made to bid with London, given the clear indication that it was the only city in the UK that had a chance of being selected by the International Olympic Committee" When was this decision taken and who by. You also imply that neither Manchester of Birmingham is a World City. Why is that. What is the definintion of a world city? The entire article is PR for London.--217.44.39.65 12:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why only London?
"Following three failed consecutive UK bids (Birmingham in 1992 and Manchester in 1996 and 2000), the decision was made to bid with London, given the clear indication that it was the only city in the UK that had a chance of being selected by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) when put up against other world cities in a competitive bidding process."
I must admit I don't quite see the logic of this. Can anyone provide any background information on what this "clear indication" was? What is the IOC's official position on which cities are "allowed" to bid?
London is obviously the capital city, but that cannot be the only factor, as other non-capitals have been selected in the past (Barcelona etc.)
Surely the logical approach would have been to give a different UK city a crack of the whip, given that London has hosted it twice already? This has been the case with other countries that have hosted the Olympics more than once: e.g. Australia (Sydney and Melbourne); Germany (Berlin and Munich). If there was resistance to giving it to another English city, what about Glasgow or Belfast? 217.155.20.163 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA review
Well written, well sourced, informative, no glaring errors, good job! I grant this article GA status. -- Scorpion 17:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] new logo
A new logo has apparently been chosen. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A23431826
- I vote we leave the old one up ;-) 129.67.62.105 19:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. And actually, the new one shouldn't even go up anyway because this is the page from the bid, and thus any new information (such as the logo) should not be added to this page but the 2012 Summer Olympics page. └Jared┘┌t┐ 19:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Correct, the bid logo stays (gladly for many people! :D) Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:2012 Olympic bid opposers.gif
Image:2012 Olympic bid opposers.gif 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 23:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Newwembley.jpg
Image:Newwembley.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Blair logo.jpg
Image:Blair logo.jpg 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] No mention of the logo?
I think there should be some mention of the original logo, the reactions, and the new logo. --AW (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Logo wasn't unveiled until after the bid. (See 2012 Summer Olympics)Not sure what you mean by original and new logos though! Paulbrock (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
