User talk:Nipsonanomhmata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Revival of the Olympic Games in Modern Times

Hello Jonel,

I've noticed that you have a point-of-view regarding the revival of the modern Olympic Games. But I have also noticed that you are not providing references for that point of view and that you are deleting referenced information about Evangelos Zappas.

Why the bias towards the Wenlock Olympian Society and the Wenlock Olympian Games? And why don't you refer to them by their proper names? They have never been called the Wenlock Olympics. You haven't even bothered to cross-reference the website of the Wenlock Olympian Society.

Why are you emphasizing Brookes and belittling Zappas?

I strongly recommend that you make the effort to read David C. Young's book "The Modern Olympics - A Struggle for Revival" published by The Johns Hopkins University Press in 1996. It is the reference work on the revival of the modern Olympic Games.

It does not belittle the contribution of Dr Brookes or of Zappas.

I certainly do not think that anybody can call the Zappas Olympic Games small, insignificant or less important than the Wenlock Olympian Games. How can they? The Zappas Olympic Games were international on their first event in 1859. The Zappas Games had a bonafide refurbished ancient Olympic stadium on their second event in 1870. It was the first modern international Olympic Games to be held in a stadium. So how can the Zappas Games be insignificant or less than what happened at Much Wenlock when Much Wenlock had neither "international" participants nor a stadium? Then when you dig deep and look at the actual sports events themselves and notice jousting, tilting the ring, sack races, egg and spoon races ... then you have to think seriously as to why anybody takes them seriously.

How can anyone ignore that? Both Brookes and Coubertin knew of Zappas. Brookes adopted athletics events directly from the 1859 Games and incorporated them into the 1860 Games in Much Wenlock.

The Wenlock Olympian Games were not properly national before the 1866 Olympic Games in London at Crystal Palace.

To be honest, the Olympian Class held between 1850 and 1859 in Much Wenlock was little more Olympic than the Cotswold Olympicks. The Cotswold Olympicks are not reknowned for their classical athletic events. Instead, the Cotswold Olympicks are world-reknowned for their shin-kicking contests. Not very Olympic at all.

Besides ... what is the Olympic Games without its Ancient Greek roots. If there are no Greek roots then the Olympic Games has no right to be called the Olympic Games. There were no Greek athletes at Much Wenlock or in the Cotswolds. No stadiums. No international participants. No roots, no tradition, just shin-kicking, jousting, and boasting which they still excel at today.

The Wenlock Olympian Society used to boast that it was the birthplace of the Olympic Games up till recently. A laughable boast. The problem is that THE birthplace of the modern Olympic Games is no less a laughable boast. They need to wake up and realise it soon because the Wenlock Olympian Society will be ridiculed till the end of time.

Nipsonanomhmata 20:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to get some facts straight, shall we? You seem to be confused on a few things. A) I've done very little editing regarding Brookes or the Wenlock games. You added an excessive amount of detail about those to the 1896 Summer Olympics page, Perakhantu removed it. B) No one has said that the Zappas games were less significant than the Wenlock games. The point everyone, including Young (as has been quoted to you before), is making is that Zappas was among those who "advocated the idea of an Olympic revival for decades, but never fully succeeded"--as compared to the IOC who have succeeded, as evidenced by the fact that the IOC's games have lasted over 100 years and have been celebrated 25 times for the summer games alone, are worldwide in scope, and continue to grow in scope. C) I have always maintained that Zappas holds a place in Olympic history. In fact, I started the article on Zappas because Wikipedia's coverage of him was lacking.

Some of your contributions are good, and those contributions are being kept. Some of your contributions are hostile, aggressive, and belittling of everyone and everything that isn't Evangelos Zappas. That needs to stop. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Advocated? No not advocated. Zappas did. Everybody else followed. Zappas paid for the refurbishment of the stadium. Zappas paid for the land around it. Zappas paid for the building of the first purpose-built Olympic arena. Zappas paid for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd Olympic Games and the larger part of the first IOC Olympic Games held in Athens in 1896. But credit where credit is due. Brookes organised a national Olympic Games in 1866. It was Brookes who originally inspired Coubertin. But Coubertin used Zappas' stadium.

The reason that Coubertin's revival lasted was because of the Panathenian stadium. Without it the Olympics may have taken a bit longer to achieve an Olympiad.

I don't understand why anybody needs to use the words "success" or "succeeded" in an Encyclopaedia.

If the Olympiad is all important as the measuring stick for success then the IOC failed to maintain the Olympiad in 1944. It also failed to maintain the Olympiad in 1916. Paris 1900 was a joke. So how do you measure success? Is the fact that the Olympiad has continued uninterrupted since 1948 a success? Is the modern Olympic Games in its current format a success? In ancient times wars would stop for the Olympic Games. So does that make the IOC's revival a failure?

It's wrong to use the words "success" or "failure" or any derivative of those words. They express opinions and not facts.

Coubertin's revival would have fallen flat on its face without the Panathenian stadium. Sometimes it takes more than one person to make a revival happen. That's what happened with the Olympic Games. Nipsonanomhmata 21:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)