2018 Winter Olympics

Hello again, this is specifically meant for @LRataplan but anyone else is welcome to weigh in if interested!

We need to amend the Jorien ter Mors entry to indicate that she was specifically the 1st female to win medals in two different sports at one Winter Olympics because it's already been done a few times at the summer games.

• Two women won Olympic medals in two different sports at the 1924 summer olympics in Paris: they were American diver/swimmer Aileen Riggin & Swedish diver/swimmer Hjördis Töpel. Riggin was only 18 when she won silver in diving and bronze in swimming and Töpel won bronze in both diving & swimming.
• At the 1936 summer Olympics in Berlin, American diver/swimmer Katherine Rawls won silver in diving and bronze in swimming.

--- It seems that diving and swimming combo's were the in thing back in the 1920's and 1930's! So even though it's happened at least 3 times before at the summer olympics, no other female has ever done it at a winter olympics hence Jorien ter Mors does indeed go down in history for that!

So I've changed her entry to: "In doing so, she became the first female athlete to win Olympic medals in two different sports at a single Winter Games."

Just out of interest, whilst digging around I also found these women who won Olympic medals in two different sports but at separate summer olympics: American Helen Wainwright won silver in diving in 1920 (Antwerp) and another silver in swimming in 1924 (Paris); German Roswitha Krause won medals in swimming & team handball, but at various different games (1968, 1976, 1980); and Briton Rebecca Romero won silver in rowing in 2004 (Athens) and gold in track cycling in 2008 (Beijing).

All fascinating stuff :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating indeed, and a comprehensive statement that fully covers her record (although I must admit it's looking less and less glamorous ;) I noticed in the material you linked there is also a male skater who did both short track and long track medals: Eric Flaim). The English article on Ter Mors seems to have been edited already, so I updated the Dutch one instead :P LRataplan (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually I've just tweaked the English article on Jorien ter Mors because it didn't state that it was at a Winter games! Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed citations because they were showing up underneath next section. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned about this edit in particular. What they added seemed to be very passionate and promotional, and places heavy emphasis on several brands that are Worldwide Olympic Partners, specifically Intel and Samsung. When asked if they had any affiliation with the subjects they were writing about, they dodged the question entirely and accused me of trying to obscure the Olympics' purpose as a platform for new technologies and being ignorant of the "significance of ever growing dynamics between sports and tech". I suspect a COI. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: One way of moving this on would be to create a separate article called "Technical Innovations at 2018 Winter Olympics" with a link through to it from the main intro in the current article. It would have a red link (Page does not exist) until the new tech page was approved/published but then it would be available to be expanded in the future with links to it from other sporting events. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't suspect a COI here, rather, I strongly suspect Srobidx of fanboy (or fangirl) behaviour. Passionate, indeed, and that's not a crime :) but the relevance of the mentioned showcased tech improvements is not given and would be debatable at best. "Launching of 5G in winter olympic 2018 along with the use LED drone is something that has never been done before in human's history"? False & false. The short track sensor suit has specifically NOT been used at the Games (and 'peppered with' can, thanks to our contributor, now quantified as 'having 5'), and the possibly interesting development of the MIPS crash helmets is completely ignored, while those DO change competition circumstances for athletes. Add the liberal use of marketing adjectives (enormous, unsurpassed) in his or her edit, and we can say Srobidx' edit does not meet notability and neutrality guidelines. And my assuming good faith is seriously hampered by his or her complete absence of etiquette on User_talk:ViperSnake151. That was actually pretty rude and warrants informing an admin. I suggest we do not move towards a compromise as long as his or her additions are of unproven merit, instead, we chalk this up to a lack of competence and move on. LRataplan (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Over the past couple of weeks, various people have been batting this around by editing and re-editing the first sentence of the current article. The consensus was reached that Olympics is a singular collective noun. The test is to ask yourself: "is there such a thing as an Olympic? What exactly is an Olympic then?" If there is such a thing, then 'Olympics' must be more than one 'Olympic', but the answer is clearly NO. So we can treat 'Olympics' as the singular noun.

Type "Olympics singular or plural" into Google Search and you get the following:

>We at ESL Library decided to go with “the Olympics” + singular verb and “the Olympic Games” + plural verb. Basically, “the Olympics” is a collective noun like team or United States, and usually takes a singular verb. ESL Library. 29 Jul 2012 See Ref: http://blog.esllibrary.com/2012/07/29/olympics-singular-or-plural/

This does have repercussions for other olympics pages, e.g. Winter Olympic Games reads "The Winter Olympic Games (French: Jeux olympiques d'hiver) is a major international sporting event... " which is clearly wrong using the current logic.

Please also refer to my edits on 28 Feb (00:08) and 25 Feb (13:06). Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, 'singular collective verb' should be 'singular collective noun' in previous edit summary. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please also see Dates up front on all Records in section 3.8? above. As no-one seems to have a strong opinion on this either way, I shall probably move on this today, so don't be surprised if the Records section changes significantly later on.Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing argument on the main page about the image of political protesters in the North Korean relations section. This has rapidly escalated into an edit war and one or both of you are liable to be reported if you make any further reversions. For the record, I have always thought this picture was rather contentious and it would perhaps be best left out altogether, the current argument being proof that even though it represents cited fact, the very fact that Wikipedia has chosen to include the image on a page that is otherwise about a friendly global sporting event perhaps indicates a political stance. Maybe the section would be best left as plain text without any images or a less contentious image used instead? See WP:NPOVFAQ I have not deleted the image this time, just commented it out in the meantime. Please try to propose a compromise through negotiating here rather than arguing via your edit summaries.
The route to a sensible solution might be to get a translation of the text on the protest banner... Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm the original uploader. There is no contentious comment on the card. In Korean, it says "평양 올림픽 반대 문재앙," verbatim. Even if you don't know Korean, you can confirm it by comparing the figure of the letters to the picture. It means, "평양 = Pyongyang," "올림픽 = Olympics," "반대 = Opposition," "문 = President Moon's Sir Name," "재앙 = Disaster." You can also confirm this by Google translator or something.

I don't see any contentious or inappropriate language here. It is just an example of the anti-Moon protests during the Olympics, which was cited in the article. It is a fact that there were a series of anti-Moon protests regarding the Olympics issue in South Korea. There is no reason to delete the factual depiction of the protests.

The users who vandalize the photo are strongly poltically oriented and do not want any criticism against President Moon to be displayed. They are the ones who harm neutrality in the article.

For these reasons, there is no grounds for the deletion of the photo. --Sphinx222 (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Both parties are currently blocked as edit warring for 24 hours. Unblock appeals are ongoing under 0RR (on this article) clause, it seems. — regards, Revi 09:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It is freedom of expression for each to accuse North Korea of participating in the PyeongChang Olympics. However, the photo contains the word 'disaster' which insults the leader of the Republic of Korea. This is obvious defamation and can not be 'political diversity'. If you need a related image, please post a neutral image with no controversy.--Mobius6 (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with this stance. The fact that the image has led to this "discussion" shows that it is indeed controversial and maybe neutrality would be better served by using an alternative image that doesn't use the word 'disaster' in possible reference to the South Korean leader. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleting this photo would be a ridiculous censorship. Even more derogatory terms on protester banners are currently displayed in many Wikipedia articles without problem. In Protests against Donald Trump, there is a picture of a banner saying "Fuck Trump."[1] Also, in Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, there is a picture of a banner with Swastika calling Trump "Chump."[2] No one raises an issue about those photos, because it is merely depicting the nature of the protest. And I don't think the word "Disaster" is more contentious, comparing to those terms.

The topic of the paragraph is about anti-Moon protests against the South Korean government's pro-North Korean measures in the Olympics. It is relevant to the sourced content and it should be preserved. For your information, Mobius6 also vandalized some positive images of the former conservative South Korean president in the Olympics article in Korean Wikipedia without reason. This user is doing this just because he/she is super politically oriented. If images in Wikipedia articles are censored by such extreme political factions, it would be the real neutrality problem. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I do see your point. I have also realised that I was probably at fault by commenting out the image this morning because the stable version of the page was the one with the image in before you two started arguing about it, but your incessant bickering to and fro via the edit summaries was doing my head in quite frankly so I made an executive decision! I'll leave it alone for now though to avoid "poking the snake" and let you decide what to do when your 72 hours 0RR is up. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not want Olympic documents to be used for political publicity. So I removed the 'cheerful past presidential photo' in the Korean Wikipedia 'Olympic venue selection' paragraph. Then I added 'Olympic pictures,' 'Sports photos.' I think this is a neutral editing activity. The selection of the Olympic host city was made by the IOC. The addition of photos of 'cheerful past presidents' to the 'selected host city' paragraph doubts the purpose of political publicity. The protagonist of the Olympics is sports players. Publicity of the conservative politics, claims (protest) photographs make the document biased. I think the photo attached to the "Trump Impeachment demonstration" in the discussion is also defamatory, and the photo is used in the document on the impeachment of Trump. However, the "protest photo of the problem" was attached to the official Olympic Games document. The content of the 'Official Olympic Games' is not the 'impeachment of the Korean President'. Photographs containing words that insult the "national leader of Korea" should be removed. And the user has a history of cleverly revising the Democratic presidential document.

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Mobius6 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is absurd. If there was a political controversy in the Olympics, it is also a part of the Olympics. Nazi Germany's 1936 Summer Olympics article has a bunch of political images as well. And ironically, the South Korean protesters here are opposing the South Korean government's political abuse of the Olympics. Also, my content addition in the political figure article and your vandalism of political content in the Olympics article have nothing in common. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I argued that the Olympic document should not be used for "political publicity" purposes. Do not misinterpret my argument. In your photo of the Berlin Olympics document you did not mean "political publicity" or "insulting phrase". Again, if you need a picture in your document, you'll need to post a "picture that does not contain an insulting phrase."--Mobius6 (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

So "mass displays of Nazi propaganda" aren't "political publicity"? In the West, the swastika has become incredibly insulting. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The Nazi photographs contained in the Berlin Olympics are not used as 'political promotions'. This is being used to support the 'objective fact' that was done in the regime at the time. It is not an intention to "insult" because it is a fact. However, the picture we are discussing in the discussion is generalizing 'some political opinions'. This is undermining neutrality..--Mobius6 (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The protesters' image here is also used to support the 'objective fact' during the Olympics. Your logic is a self-contradiction. --Jusinhan (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This photo is a picture supporting the 'Olympic related demonstration'. But the problem is that it includes words that insult the Democratic President. <'재앙' = 'catastrophe'> Because of this, 'political promotion' is suspected. I'm pointing this out. If you need a picture, you should use a neutral image that is not insulting --Mobius6 (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no "intrinsically neutral" image of anti-government protests you want. There was Nazi propaganda during the Berlin Olympics, so there are images about it. There were anti-Moon Jae-in protests during the Pyeongchang Olympics, so there is an image about it. If there was a relevant incident, it should be illustrated without prejudice. This is the neutrality in Wiki English. Stop your political censorship. --Jusinhan (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

When I heard your argument, I knew that I was wrong. It was a good discussion. Thank you!--Mobius6 (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: I've reverted your edit to the NHL participation section for the following reason:

NHL stands for "National Hockey League" which is the name of the U.S. ice hockey federation, the subject of this whole paragraph/subsection. As it's a bit of a mouthful to keep saying National Hockey League all the time, I introduced the abbreviation NHL in the first sentence and then used it throughout the rest of the paragraph, which is a common method of dealing with lengthy names of institutions. I see no reason why that method cannot be used in this instance. The abbreviation was given in the first line as already explained, but then the title also carries the abbreviation for the sake of brevity. You failed to notice that the same abbreviation was repeated about another 8 times in the same paragraph, not just in the title and the first line, or at least you didn't challenge it (or did you just think it was fine for some reason!?)

Following on from all that, I agree with you that NHL is a local abbreviation, so I guess it's important to explain in the first line exactly what it is, so that is the reason why this time round I've simply stated "the North American professional ice hockey league (the NHL)" with a wikilink through to the National Hockey League's article. I think that just about covers it.

I'm irritated that you reverted my entire copyedit. Was there any particular reason for that? I can only assume it was just carelessness on your part so please be a little more careful in future. I don't see how you could have objected to ALL my changes! Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I am irritated by US-centrism, of which your contribution is a perfect example. We now have a section where the heading says NRL, BEFORE it is explained. In a global encyclopaedia, that's completely inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

OK so go ahead and change the heading if you must, don't just revert the whole thing dammit! Being a Brit myself, I certainly don't promote US-centrism intentionally, but I obviously thought NHL was more of a household name than it perhaps is, maybe because I'm a bit of an ice hockey fan... Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe that is the problem. Compare the number of countries in the Olympics that play ice hockey with the overall number of countries in the Olympics. I doubt that many people in my country would know that abbreviation. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

My argument would be that the NHL is the strongest professional ice hockey league in the world, maybe not a household name exactly, but certainly if you know anything about ice hockey you will have heard of NHL. But to be perfectly honest, my main reason for putting NHL in the heading was for brevity and I didn't think it would be an issue, but it clearly was...

Anyway, now that we're getting on so well, I have a different but related question. How would you feel about removing this section altogether!? The Ice hockey at the 2018 Winter Olympics article already has a lengthy section on the subject. If, as you say, NHL is hardly known on the world stage, then why on earth is it being mentioned on the main 2018 Olympics page, alongside the North/South Korean relations and the Russian doping scandal? It hardly carries the same weight as those two issues! I had thought about doing this a while ago but forgot about it, and this seems like the perfect time to do it. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I had wondered the same thing myself, but being such a diplomatic bloke had been reluctant to suggest it. It does seem odd to include the perceived dramas of one sport in among international political matters. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think I'm going to ditch it altogether, unless anyone else objects...? Will check that all the relevant details are covered in the main article first, so that nothing is lost in the edit. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
OK so I've taken that subsection out altogether, after doing some work on the equivalent section in the Ice hockey at the 2018 Winter Olympics article. Note that it is called "NHL players" there, so still has the problem of NHL being first mentioned in the section heading, although I would expect anyone reading that article to know enough about ice hockey to have probably heard of NHL, but that's only an assumption on my part. Anyway, I leave it up to you to decide HiLo48. I've done my bit... Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The following Wiki Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Olympic cauldron of Pyeongchang Olympic Stadium in 2018.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I suspect this section should be named Bidding and selection. (Not election.)

Secondly, the second contains this sentence - "So this time, in the first round of voting, I set up a strategy to end it with a majority in one shot, which was perfectly successful." Who is "I"? What's this really about? Is it a quote from someone that's become orphaned? HiLo48 (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

To be consistent with other Olympics articles, the section should really be called Bidding process. I wasn't too happy when I saw the major changes made yesterday by an unregistered IP with absolutely no explanation and I very nearly reverted the whole thing but held back pending more time to go through it in detail. I plan to check all facts against the four existing references (and any others I can find) but suspect it needs to be mostly returned to its previous wording. I do think it's entirely unreasonable to make large random edits without even providing an edit summary. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I have found this Reuters article which clearly states "This time there was no room for doubt. Pyeongchang won in a canter, taking 63 votes to 25 for Munich and seven for Annecy as they won by a crushing margin on the first round of voting." Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@HiLo48: Please can you check over what I've done to the bidding section. I've cut out all the unnecessary and unsourced stuff that the IP put in and done a bit of rewording, etc. I could have just reverted to what was there before but I thought it was only fair to go through piecemeal and explain the reversions and changes in detail. Hopefully what we've ended up with, while still a summary, is a slight improvement on what was there originally. I think the lead needs looking at too as the IP has had a good old muck about with that too. Let's be fair, if this article were protected, pending changes editors would have immediately rejected all those IP edits as "Unexplained changes". P.S. I've left the heading alone for now. Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)