Talk:Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleBids for the 2012 Summer Olympics is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 6, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 8, 2006Featured topic candidateNot promoted
March 12, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 28, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Olympics / Paralympics / Olympic Bids (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconBids for the 2012 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of the Paralympics task force. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Olympic Bids task force.
 

Older entries[edit]

Someone told me Havana, Cuba is now a confirmed bid. is that true? -fonzy

London/Paris probability[edit]

If London or Paris becomes the final hosted city, it would be the first triplicate in Summer Olympics. London hosted 1908 and 1948 and Paris hosted 1900 and 1924. Two other cities, Los Angeles and Athens already have duplicates, but no triplicate exists yet. With current knowledge, what is the probability that the result will be either London or Paris?? 66.32.145.143 00:45, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Assuming the betting market has perfect knowledge, then you can get about odds of 2.0 on Paris and 3.0 on London, indicating a 83% chance of one of the two winning. But bookmakers have rounded upto 115% on this market (they like to make a profit you see), thus bringing the actual chance down to about 70%. However this is a UK bookmaker, which will have been taken "housewife" bets on London as a patriotic thing so for your purposes, I think 65% is a fair estimate. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
This is incorrect. The 1906 Summer Olympics were held in Athens. After the 1904 Paris games, it was planned to hold game in Greece every four year in the middle of the regular olympiads, but this idea was scrapped. Nevertheless Athens has hosted the Olympics twice before the current Olympics. Mintguy (T)
That's simultaneously correct and incorrect. There were games held in 1906 in Athens, but the IOC considers them to be "Unofficial Olympics", so they don't really count on the same level as the official ones. Kairos 22:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo[edit]

The Brazilian Olympic Committee (COB) has the final word about bids for the Olympic Games in the country. It is a long standing tradition that Brazil shall bid through one city only. Although Rio de Janeiro had always been considered the natural candidate, São Paulo insisted that it could present a better project than it would be possible for Rio to do. The COB settled the issue by a vote, in which all the registered members voted for either one of the cities. Rio de Janeiro won by a landslide and the COB submitted Rio's bid. Therefore, from an international point of view there was never a possibility of two Brazilian cities bidding for the Games, since the issue was handled iternally and São Paulo could not bid without the approval of the Brazilian Olympic Committee. Don't know if that's relevant for the article or whether this should be included, but I guess it sheds some light in the events leading to São Paulo "missing" the deadline for bidding. Redux 23:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I find this interesting information and would like to see it somewhere. As you hint at, it might note be quite right for this article. However I think a Brazilian Olympic Committee article with a "2012 bid" section would be great. Then we could attach a short note on this page next to Sao Paulo saying see the BOC page for details. Sound good? Pcb21| Pete 00:40, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's a good idea. I shall get the article started as soon as I find some extra time to work on it. All the best, Redux 01:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Narrowed yet??[edit]

As of this moment, are all 5 of London, UK, Paris, France, Moscow, Russia, New York City, and Madrid, Spain still possibilities for the 2012 Olympics?? 66.245.87.127 01:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Proven??[edit]

Now there is a picture of the Olympic logo. Does this mean it has now officially been confirmed that the 2012 Olympics will be held in Paris?? Georgia guy 21:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- huh? I don't see why the olympic logo would mean that Paris has been confirmed? The city is chosen on 6th July. Joolz 08:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti-London bid[edit]

Is it neccessary to have two links to the anti-london bid site? I think it over-emphasises the point and puts an unfair bias against london Joolz 08:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree - and it's a pretty unprofessional site, especially of you look at their guestbook. Doesn't add much to Wikipedia, I would say, unless it becomes a more notable site. --ALargeElk | Talk 11:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There does appear to be an anti-London emphasis in this article, it's the only city that includes negative comment. I'm sure domestic opposition exists in Paris and I know it does in New York. If there's already a link to the anti-London bid in the main body, I don't see why it should be repeated at the bottom.--Ayrshire--77 08:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page has been mangled[edit]

What has happened in the last couple of days (see this diff)? It appears 63.202.178.253 has completely re-written the article, and changed quite a bit of info in it. I think the old one was better, but I'll mention it on the anon's talk page before making changes - what do others think of the re-written article? -- Chuq 22:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template for winner[edit]

When the winner is announced it might be an idea to copy the victor's {{2012 Olympic bid}} call into this article for consistency. violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

Bid Evaluations[edit]

This section is misleading as it does not report on the final bid reviews by the IOC. The section currently only reports on the original bids and the first IOC evaluation to create the shortlist. The shortlisted cities then created their final bid and this was evaluated by the ICO commission. This section does not report on this, now creating the appearance that the IOC made a somewhat illogical decision in selecting the London bid that scored markedly lower than the Paris bid. Although the final IOC evaluation did not provide scores, it was clear that London's evaluation had improved considerably and was much closer to Paris'. This was both observed in the French and British press at the time and also lead to London closing the gap with Paris on the GamesBid Index.

GA review[edit]

Right off the bat, I see that there are a lot of fair use images and none of them have rationales. However, the article is well-written and it is also well-sourced, although the trivia section should go. The note about questioning the security of Madrid could go in the Madrid section, and the note about Singapore could go in the final selection process section, although I'm not sure if it is needed. I'll place it on hold for the time being so you can consider my suggestions. -- Scorpion 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. It must have slipped my mind to check for FURs, but I've done them. It was just the Olympic logos that were the problem. As well, I removed the trivia section; I found it rather "trivial" myself when I first saw the article, but have now reintegrated the material: the terrorism paragraph is in the Madrid section and the part about the flower was put as a comment of the image and placed in the final selection section. Thank you for your suggestions, again. Jaredtalk  19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright then, I grant this article GA status. -- Scorpion 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Madrid Votes?[edit]

Hi, reading this page I've noticed that Madrid actually got more votes in round 3 than either Paris or London, but it's not mentioned or explained in the text that I can see... is there any reason for this strange vote, is it incorrect and either way does it deserve a mention? Thanks 80.47.113.150 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Copy edit[edit]

An editor has expressed concern that the prose for the article may not be professional. Could we get an idea may an example from the article, so that we'll know what to look for. Thanks in advance, Navou banter 12:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, my idea was to get some editors to read through the article and find out things that could be improved on the prose, without having to change significantly the current structure. More like finding typos and syntactic weaknesses. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I gave it a once over, and made a few minor changes. It certainly is thoroughly footnoted!Konczewski 13:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection?[edit]

I've noticed that the page has been vandalized several times. Seeing as it's on the front page, could we possibly get some protection on the page? Psychoman364 03:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked the latest bringer of nonsense. Even semi-protection of today's featured article is controversial, but heavy IP vandalism can prompt it. I'll look into it.--Chaser - T 03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Declined We're doing a good job with reversions. Please add the page to your watchlists and help us keep this article free of vandalism!--Chaser - T 03:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of context...[edit]

The second paragraph says "By a margin of four votes over Paris, London won the final round and secured the right to host the 2012 Olympics." It should say how many votes the four were out of. Am I correct in thinking it was a 203 country vote? Without that context, you can't tell how contested it was. Quantumelfmage 03:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The total votes for each of the last two bidding cities are displayed at the bottom of the infobox (used precisely to provide quick info without reading the whole article). Parutakupiu talk || contribs 04:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


London Bombing[edit]

The 7/7 bombings in London took place the day after the city won the Olympics. Isn't this worth a mention in the article?

Unless there's some correlation between the two, I don't think so. Raul654 14:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I clearly remember statements made by the British and the IOC President soon after news broke about the bombing, and most of the British delegation returned in double quick time. Sources should be available to support these reactions, which was also given prominent coverage in the Singaporean media (where the IOC voting took place).--Huaiwei 15:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify -- I clearly remember news commetators saying that the timing (so soon after London was chosen) was fishy. But unless there is a statement from the suicide bombers (in the stuff they left behind) or other evidence, mentioning the London bombings in that section seems like a textbook case of apophenia Raul654 15:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Making mention of that may not mean an attempt to strike a connection between the two. The fact that we do have news commentators speculating the said connections, and the obvious reactions amongst the delegations, are relevant information which can be sourced and added. All the more so when the incident in Madrid was cited as a security issue mid-way through the selection process, and there were plenty of questions over London's ability to stage the event with the needed security controls in place. I have rather strong recollections on this topic, because I was personally involved in security coverage for the IOC session in Singapore. I have yet to start looking for sources on this one thou.--Huaiwei 15:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's worth mentioning not because there is (necessarily) a link, but simply that the events were so close together -- I remember extensive news coverage about how the celebrations of winning the bid (which would have been huge) were pretty much ruined by the events of the very next morning. So it certainly had an impact, intended or otherwise. — Johan the Ghost seance 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note that there is a mention of the bombings in this section. Jaredt  19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Errors[edit]

There seem to be a lot of spelling errors on this page. I have fixed a few but it still needs help.

There can hardly be any spelling errors since the article was thoroughly reviewed before its promotion. And switching "organisation" with "organization" isn't fixing spelling, it's assuming American English is better than British English when Wikipedia clearly says that is perfectly OK to use any of them IF it's used throughout the article. So please, don't go changing words to American English.

Being pedantic[edit]

Sorry to be pedantic but London hasn't held the Olympics three times yet. Normally I would edit it to read "London is destined to be the first city to hold the Olympics three times." and change it come 2012 :).but since this article is todays featured article I think I'd best leave it to those who have worked to get this article to feaured article status to consider the merits of such an edit.Koonan the almost civilised 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right and I've rephrased it to remove that past tense sensation. Thanks for pointing it out. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit[edit]

Image copyright problem with File:London 2012 Olympic Games bid logo.jpg[edit]

The image File:London 2012 Olympic Games bid logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)