Talk:2016 Summer Olympics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Eliminated Bids

Just curious, but there is a list for eliminated bids which does not include Houston or Philadelphia. However, in the canceled bids section it plainly says Houston and Philadelphia's bids were both eliminated. I don't know much on the process and I could be missing something, but this seems counter-intuitive to me and probably would to the average reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.5.71 (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Look closer: Houston, Philly, and the other US bids are listed under "H"; all the cancelled bids are listed alphabetically. (They are grouped to avoid uneccessary length in the list). Also, when adding a comment, it is customary to add a new section to the bottom of the list (it will be easier to find). Thanks for your interest, we hope you stick around to edit WP. Cheers-Cbradshaw (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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Well, it's completely out of date and some informations, important informations were not included.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)

The IOC Evaluation Commission spent a week visting Rio venues and hearing high-level officials of Brazilian, Rio de Janeiro State and Rio de Janeiro City Governments. A lot of promises were made in reference to the improvement of the infra-structure. But I don't believe they will be sucessful. The project itself is not well-done, most of the new buildings will be in the new (and high-income) Barra da Tijuca region, west of the city. A lot of regions of Rio would deserve to be re-built, for example most of the port region and the north suburbs. The airport has no structure for a considerable air traffic, and the transportation in the city is complex and inneficient. I know that most of what I wrote is based in my own opinion, and most of the media in Brazil support the Rio 2016 proposal, what can make a little bit hard to be heard. I do not believe that it would be impossible for Rio to be chosen. I just believe that the project is wrong, and the promises will not be achieved. Similar to what happened in Pan-american Games in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.97.231.135 (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

Madrid has low chances to be chosen, as London will host 2012. The last time Europe hosted two consecutive games was 1948-1952. In such a global event, it would not make sense, in geography or economy matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.97.231.135 (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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. Reywas92^Talk 17:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

You would.--219.88.201.87 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Bogota?

Somebody added Bogota to the cities bidding for the olympics, and the reference just linked to a page that said that Chicago was bidding.

Halfamitten (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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 00:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.88.171.155 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.173.49.45 (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.47.144 (talk) 09:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Omaaar (talk • contribs) 02:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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. 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.218.173 (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Blah, Blah, Blah. But What are the ACTUAL DATES for the 2016 Games????

What dates will they be held in 2016? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.240.65 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

22 July – 7 August (Chicago), 29 July – 14 August (Tokyo), or 5–21 August (Madrid or Rio de Janeiro). That's all in the bid pages, but perhaps it should be mentioned here too? —JAO • T • C 16:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, wait until a city is picked. Thanks for posting the info here, though.Cbradshaw (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting Rounds

I think there's a bit of trouble with the voting list. Chicago was voted out in the first round, but it was still in contention for the nod at that point. Second round, Tokyo was knocked out, and third round Madrid was beaten by Rio. Unfortunately, I don't know how to edit this in...but the current status of the vote chart seems a bit errant.Tyrenon (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Shortlist evaluation score

I see these scores there and I have no idea what they mean. Is a high score better? 71.111.40.188 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics for details Nil Einne (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

remove "current event" template, conform date style, naked citation

since article is locked i can't make edits. perhaps a registered editor could please

• remove the "current event" tag. the current-event announcement (city selection) has been made.
• conform date style in article. both "date month year" and "month day year" are used at moment.
• flush out the naked citation (at moment footnote number three).

thanks. --98.113.187.11 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Winner Announcment

Did anybody else notice before the President of the IOC announced Rio as the winner, that he held the envelope upside down?--Subman758 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed.--ATDC Raigeki (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Morumbi = São Paulo

What ? The stadium of Morumnbi is from SÃO PAULO not RIO DE JANEIRO.

[]'s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.42.68.34 (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes? Some of the football matches will be played there, just as some of the 2012 football matches will be played in Manchester, Cardiff, Newcastle and Glasgow, some of the 2000 football matches were played in Canberra, Adelaide, Brisbane and Melbourne, etc. Nothing unusual here. —JAO • T • C 13:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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).

Lobbying

I wonder if editors here feel it is worth including mention of the lobbying efforts of world leaders for their particular cities. This topic was raised on the Obama article talk page (i.e. that the bio would state Obama unsuccessfully lobbied for Chicago). That material was agreed to be non-relevant to the biography, but it seems to me that the fact that a number of presidents and prime-ministers did similar lobbying might be worth a sentence or two in the "Selection" section. LotLE×talk 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be a topic for the "Bids for the 2016 Olympics" page :) Cbradshaw (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Exactly right, Cbradshaw. Sorry I missed that. LotLE×talk 05:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"We Créu"

I think an internet meme born in Twitter isn't notable. It's better quote Lula saying the correct phrase in portuguese: "Sim, nós podemos." a direct translation from english "Yes, we can." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.37.144 (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil aims for the top ten

Was reading about the 2016 Summer Olympics, here's some info that might be worthy of inclusion:

• Brazil aiming to be in top 10 at 2016 Rio Games
• Brazil set target of finishing among top 10 at Rio 2016

Actually, there are typically nation at the XX Olympics articles created for each Olympic Games (e.g. Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics). Of course, there is however no Brazil at the 2016 Summer Olympics article yet, so it can't be placed there. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is "edition" the right term?

The article has things like The Rio 2016 Summer Olympic Games will be the first edition held in South America. This sounds odd: I'd have thought it should be The Rio 2016 Summer Olympic Games will be the first time it has been held in South America. Or is 'edition' a valid term for Olympic Games? --GwydionM (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is. I'm guessing it is a literal translation of the Brazilian Portuguese term "edição". Munashii ^msg 12:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

e·di·tion n. "Any of the various or successive forms in which something is offered or presented: this year's edition of fall fashions from Paris." [1]... so I guess it isn't entirely wrong, but I think we should rewrite it as: The 2016 Games will be the first to be held in South America, as well as the first to be held in a lusophone country. This way we remove the "edition" term and make it easier to read. Also, there is no reason to elaborate into it being the second in Latin America and the third in the southern hemisphere.Limongi (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime concern in the city

The Olympics of 2016 will be held in Chicago because it was the first city to be voted off. So now it is going to be held in a Famous city in Brazil of South America>>>This is highly tendentious. Reports from the Department of State and the are alarmist and not necessarily reflect the everyday life in Rio - I can tell because I am from there. Yes, there is crime in Rio, but the highlighting of the issue as a separate section after the city has been elected to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games feels like trolling. At this point, I believe this is POV and does not inform the reader about the Olympic games as indicated by the article title. I will delete the section and ask the previous editor to keep it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.196.190 (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In my signed comment, I would note that crime in Rio is seriously worrisome, frequently noted in the media, and the worst of any Olympic host city. It should be noted in this article.Jrgilb (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In my next signed comment, I must ask you, Why is this issue not worthy of focus? Rio, no, all of Brazil, is infamous for its rampant violent crime. It was a serious segment of the bid evaluation, and an acknowledged, continuing risk in the execution of the games. I respectfully disagree with the "undo."Jrgilb (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the feeling expessed by a Rio citizen, but it would be irresponsible not to highlight the level of crime in a city that will receive thousand of tourists. I vote to include this chapter back, may be also estating reports from other international agencies, even Brazilians, if there are concern about OSAC reputation.--Coquimbano (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I vote for it not to be on the article. It`s tendentious and way exaggerated. More than that, the article should focus on what it should be talkign about: Olympic games. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I also vote for it not to be on the article. The city of Rio de Janeiro has it's own article, with a crime section. This article is about the Olympic Games. Every olympic host city has security risks, ranging from crime to terrorism... some more than others... it would be the same as to add concerns about terrorism in London 2012. It is POV. Limongi (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the IOC Evaluation Commission Report on Rio de Janeiro, gave the city a very positive report on Crime/Security and did not raise the issue as a problem. Report of the 2016 IOC Evaluation Commission, Page 58 Limongi (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, Rio is notorious for its crime problem. To combat this, members of the Rio bidding committee paid individual visits to most IOC members to show them the YouTube video of the Chicago high school student who was beaten to death the week before the vote. The difference, of course, is that crime in Rio is mainly directed at the tourists. But the good news for Olympic spectators is that Brazil will spend a small fortune creating a police state for the duration of the Games. All of which is obviously relevant to this article unless you are writing in a highly "tendentious" fashion on behalf of the Brazil Tourism Board. Jrgilb (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A fellow IP-user has made another safety concern section of the 2016 Olympics, and it has yet again been deleted by Limongi. While it is true that it is a POV that the city is dangerous and is backed by crime statistics, and worries of safety have been downplayed by the IOC and Brazilian authorities, it is also a POV to say that it is safe. Furthermore, serious issues on prior Olympic games have been contributed to other articles (see Beijing 2008 page for example re: human rights, and 1994 Atlanta Games re: corporate presence and logistics nightmares). Therefore, I believe it pertinent and informative for all opinions to be presented, on why the city is safe and who says it is, and who says it isn't and why. I ask a moderator to investigate and provide feedback. Thank you. 130.76.32.15 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are no moderators, here - just editors. If you can't achieve consensus, then perhaps you could raise a request for comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with including a mention on security concerns as long as both sides of the story are mentioned (like the IOC's official position on the issue). IOC Confident in Rio: Seven years is enough time for Rio de Janeiro to clean up its crime problem the IOC says. IOC spokesman Mark Adams told The Associated Press "we have confidence in their capacity to deliver a safe Games in seven years." "Security is of course a very important aspect of any Olympic Games no matter where it is in the world. This is of course entirely under the national, regional and city authorities." (Refs: Around the Rings, The Associated Press, The New York Times) Limongi (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

But of course we should include both sides of the story. I have, in fact, had a few friends who visited Rio and had a blast and didn't encounter anything out of the ordinary for a very large city. I will provide a proposed paragraph on your talk page, Limongi. Thank you for your attention. 67.182.141.118 (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. As long as both sides of the story are presented that is fine. I am from Rio, and have lived there nearly all my life... so are my family and friends, my coworkers, etc... therefore, I know for a fact that even though crime is an issue, it is not a widespread problem. Rio's murder rate is 33 per 100,000 people [2] compared to Baltimore, USA at 46 per 100,000 see: United_States_cities_by_crime_rate. And Baltimore is not an exception, there are dozens of cities with higher crime rates in the USA and the world. The media, specially the international media, tends to always exaggerate the problem if it is in a developing country. Anyways, it is useless trying to convince people to accept certain things. I'll wait for your paragraph.. and thanks for being cordial. :) Limongi (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good! Thanks for being nice and a consensus-builder, Limongi. I also agree all cities have problems, and Brazil is a country that has the energy and ability to address it if they put their minds and hearts to it. I will add the paragraph to the page, and I hope that this closes this debate. 67.182.141.118 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Baltimore more dangerous than Rio?! Rio's more dangerous than Baltimore and all US cities. Let's just look at Baltimore:

Placement	City	2007 population	2008 population	2007 murder total	2008 murder total	2007 murder rate	2008 murder rate
1	Rio de Janeiro	11,587,112	10,078,789	4,855	3,856	42	38
2	Baltimore	2,652,974	2,666,452	355	300	13	11

Rio 2007: http://www.institutosangari.org.br/mapadaviolencia/MapaViolencia2010.pdf (Portuguese).

Rio 2008: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://www.ucamcesec.com.br/est_seg_evol.php&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcesec%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26prmd%3Dv&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&usg=ALkJrhiqrOs-BKAgTOr6aP6VGY_HWcqoow

Baltimore 2007: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2007

Baltimore 2008: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2008

Had to do some calculating for Rio and FBI site not working very well. Note, for 07 and 08 there's two different sources for Rio with clearly different definitions of the area. Power Society (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For the U.S. data "rates are based on cases per 1,000 for all of calendar year 2009". For the Brazilian data rates are based on cases per 100,000. So you have to multiply the U.S. data by 100 to equal the rates. With that said, compare it. New Orleans, Detroit, St. Louis and Baltimore have equal or higher crime rates than Rio. Limongi (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparing overall 'crime rates' between different countries is worthless and you've misunderstood the data completely. Murders (by far the most reliable crime for comparison) are per 100,000 and the statistics for Baltimore (and Detroit/New Orleans/St. Louis if I chose) have/would have been outlined as lower than Rio in the table above.

You might want to read parts of the discussion page for that article you cited, it may enlighten you to what I'm alluding to. Rio has a higher [though decreasing precipitously] murder rate than all US cities and is slightly higher than New Orleans as of 2009 but I wouldn't normally compare them anyway, New Orleans has 10% the population of Rio which isn't remotely like-for-like.

The 2009 FBI data is here (other years may not take you directly to the page):

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_06.html Power Society (talk) 04:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Placement	City	2009 population	2009 murder total	2009 murder rate
1	Rio de Janeiro	11,587,112	2,746	24
2	New Orleans	1,179,206	252	21
3	Baltimore	2,693,099	298	11
4	Detroit	4,404,383	447	10
5	St. Louis	2,829,698	210	7

Rio:

http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/tabcgi.exe?sim/cnv/pext10br.def

Just to confirm if I may, although I'd only say Baltimore and St. Louis were "equivalents". The intro to the US crime article also makes mention of the problems with US "cities". I couldn't find a 2008 or 2009 population for Rio with all suburbs so stuck with the 2007 figure I calculated from the Mapa da Violência 2010 link (only goes up to 2007 despite '2010' tag). Power Society (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, the day that this Olympics location was announced, I happen to be in a class with a teacher from Brazil. I asked him what he thought. Its been almost 3 years, but I recall that he said something about too much crime, how the "Brazilian Mafia" (for lack of a better term) will probably profit off it, how it was highly likely there was corruption involved, etc. Ypsidan (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic programme 2016

In the official IOC-List there are only 41 disciplines, see here: de:File:Olympische Sportarten.gif --Jürgen-Michael Glubrecht (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct, updated to 41 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt O'Sys (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a change in the number of events for certain disciplines from the previous games, as shown in the calendar, derived from the candidature brochure. Do we know if these are genuine changes, or if they are events not included on the schedule yet? The 'Games' section above still lists the former number of events. The changes are: Boxing - 13 events to 11; Sailing - 10 events to 11; Tennis - 5 events to 4; Wrestling - 18 events to 15. I can't find any information relating to these changes. Kurt O'Sys (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that there are no changes yet to the number of events (excepting the new sports of Golf and Rugby which we know about). Apparently changes to events for each sport will be debated and decided later this year but for now it is 306 (the 302 from London 2012 plus the 4 new ones). The candidature brochure is therefore not reliable at this stage but is all we have in terms of the calendar so suggest no changes until more information is released. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2013/04/08/ioc-mulls-requests-for-new-events-at-2016-olympics/2063965/ Kurt O'Sys (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Broadcast

Who's got the broadcast rights for Ireland, RTE? Northern Arrow (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Winter" rant

...making this the first Summer Olympiad to actually be held entirely during Winter, as the southern hemisphere winter ends on September 22nd. However, since Rio is inside the tropics this period will not see "typical" winter weather, while the term "winter" is inappropriate given that the tropics follow a wet and dry season.

I'm going to delete this entire statement if no one objects. It sounds like typical Wikipedia editor soapboxing, and is neither cited nor important. The point of the lead section is to communicate the fundamental facts, not pedantic rambling. If it absolutely must be kept (with a reliable source explicitly making these points), it should be late in the article, not the lead paragraph. —Designate (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

-The fact that this is the first "Summer" Olympiad to actually be held during the Winter is entirely appropriate to mention, and as it is a feature unique to this Olympiad it is relevant and worthwhile for it to show up in the lead when mentioning the date. Going on to mention the type of winter that Rio's climate typically offers is not relevant, however, and should be removed. —Lu3ke (talk) 16:58, 05 Sep 2012 (PDT)

The article currently says:

...making these the second Summer Olympics to be held during the host city's winter (the first was the Sydney 2000 Olympics, whose first week was held during the Southern Hemisphere's winter)

This statement is incorrect. The Sydney 2000 article says the games were "celebrated between 15 September and 1 October 2000" but this is not winter in Australia. Spring starts on the 1st day of September. Barrylb (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

New Nations

New nations will be debuted at the Games of the XXXI Olympiad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.9 (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Section headed - The Games: Participating National Olympic Committees

This section incorrectly states that Australia have qualified 4 athletes for the games in dressage. See the existing references which state that Germany, Great Britain and the Netherlands are the only NOC's to have qualified teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.235.154 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Dancesport Will Be Introduced To the IOC in 2016

Did you know that today, Dancesport was added to the Summer Olympic program, and will be introduced in Rio de Janeiro in 2016.

It wasn't, and it won't be. Why do you think otherwise? Kurt O'Sys (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Where's the Criticism section?

Everyone should know that Rio is notorious for poor sanitation in beaches, not to mention corrupt government and overrun with crime and extremely high costs, infrastructure-wise of course. Even the latest link speaks for itself, so these need to be added on the main page concerning Rio and Brazil's overall conditions. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Currency for Financial section

It is unclear the currency used for the numbers in the Financing section.. can someone clear that up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lose311 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

These budget items are paid by the host city, so the currency is the Brazilian real. I have updated the section here. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Participating Nations

Usually nations aren't listed until they qualify an athlete/quota so should Kosovo be removed? Sure it is very likely they'll participate, but the same can be said for the other 204 NOCs. The whole Kosovo situation is a bit sensitive so I wonder if there can be some kind of consensus. 206.87.113.94 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to Participation Table? Because if so, that only seems to list countries who have qualified an athlete. It says Kosovo (1), so they must have already qualified an athlete. So keep them there. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo HAS qualified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.87.165 (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

South Africa decline continental qualification events

South Africa Sport Confederation and Olympics Committee (SASCOC) declared that the athletes who qualified from continental qualification events would not be considered to participate the 2016 Olympics. This is the refernce. So, I think all articles which South African athletes qualified in continental events should remove and replaced by each sports' reallocation. There are 4 qualifications, women rugby, men and women hockey, and one event of women diving. It also happened in 2012 Olympics which Both hockey teams didn't participate in the Olympics. Please give me an opinion. Thanks.Noncommittalp (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is Samoa not listed alphabetically?

?? Dont belittle245 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It is listed alphabetically in the table of participating NOCs, what do you mean exactly? Gap9551 (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I edited it when I saw this section. Previously, It's not alphabetically.Noncommittalp (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I now see this is about Template:2016 Summer Olympics, not this article. I checked the history of this article before posting my reply and found no recent edits fixing the order, hence my reply. Gap9551 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. Template:2016 Summer Olympics does not list nations; perhaps you meant Template:2016 Summer Olympics Participating National Olympic Committees? --David Biddulph (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the one, thanks. I messed up copy/pasting. Gap9551 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121004220746/http://revistafator.com.br/ver_noticia.php?not=215658 to http://www.revistafator.com.br/ver_noticia.php?not=215658

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

NOC Count

Please do not count the Independent Olympians as an NOC in the NOC count. They are not a separate National Olympic Committee. There is no unified National Olympic Committee governing them - they are a separate case. There are 206 National Olympic Committees, and Independent Olympians are not among them. Unless a new NOC is recognized, which is unlikely, please do not change the count back to 207. Thanks. Also, even counting IOA, the count of qualified nations is often one too high. I suspect this is because St. Vincent and the Grenadines is listed on two lines on most monitors so people are counting it twice. Any way we can get it all onto one line so this doesn't happen? Smartyllama (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Gala" event ?

"In contrast to the exception during the 2012 Olympics, the International Gymnastics Federation announced that these Games will have a gala event for gymnastics.[37]". Huh ? What does that actually mean ? Rcbutcher (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Searching in youtube can find it.Noncommittalp (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the external link provided for this statement is a dead link. I think the OP has a point that the term should be defined in this article (or a linked article) to explain what it means, and the whole sentence in question could be worded better.

@Rcbutcher: a gala event, or a Champions Gala, is an exhibition event where select competitors perform their routines in front of the audience without being judged. There was no such event at the 2012 Olympics (which is what the sentence is trying to say), but the closest thing we have to an article is the section describing the 2008 event. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151126081002/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hAo4xGnplYq-82dfKArl7slaei9gD9BEUS802 to https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hAo4xGnplYq-82dfKArl7slaei9gD9BEUS802

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Rio 2016 improvement drive

Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil#Olympic games improvement drive. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Team Refugee Olympic Athletes

For now, I've redirected the relevant articles for Team Refugee Olympic Athletes to Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games. Although not yet written, it might make sense to keep this consistent initially and develop an article at Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics. From the branding mentioned in the Olympics Press Release, it wouldn't surprise me if they're given the IOC Code ROA, in which case we might consider creating a new article and renaming or splitting the 2016 IOA article. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The BBC article confirms the addition of the ROA code. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's also entirely possible that athletes from Kuwait will compete as Independent Olympic Athletes if their NOC is still suspended, though for now they should stay under Kuwait. If they do wind up competing as IOAs, I strongly suspect they won't be grouped with the refugees, especially in light of Lugnuts comments above. Therefore, I propose moving the current article to Refugee Olympic Athletes, redirecting Independent Olympic Athletes for now but keeping in mind it may need a new subject if the Kuwaitis compete that way. Smartyllama (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the ROA is confirmed as a code on the BBC article, rather than just an abbreviation? I'm happy to have a separate article - at the moment, there isn't much to move as such: I've set the relevant articles (Refugee Olympic Athletes, Team of Refugee Olympic Athletes, Team Refugee Olympic Athletes) to redirect to Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games but when someone is ready to create the new articles those redirects just simply need removing and the content from Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games#2016 Summer Olympics shifting with them. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2016

Safety needs to be added for the Concerns and Controversies section for the 2016 Summer Olympics, and here is the source to prove it.

VGN34D (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. clpo13_(talk) 23:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The page is currently protected so therefore I'm unable to make any edits unless a user with rollback or administrator privileges can do so for me. Otherwise, I'm unable to do anything until the page protection expires. VGN34D (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please count countries on Category:Nations at the 2016 Summer Olympics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.171.39.212 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo

I am unable to solve an issue here by editing the participating nations, Kosovo is not in the right spot alphabetically, can someone with the right authority fix this problem??. Dont belittle245 (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Didn't need any special authority, merely this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit requestion

i want to edit this page

Please count again countries on Category:Nations at the 2016 Summer Olympics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.6.237.36 (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Political instability and economic crisis

The last paragraph of this section should be temporally removed.

The text suggests a position that is not recognized by most brazilian media outlets, newspapers and TV stations and it leads to especulative information argued by leftists groups in this country. The information provided here is only based on biased opinions of leftists politicians and journalists that favor the Worker´s Party interests. The references used to write that paragraph were taken from websites with clear extreme leftist ideologies and doubtful resources, like "The Intercept", "The nation" or "i24". This is an extremely complicated and sensitive issue right now in the country, and it should be treated in the article impartially, without any bias or personal opinions, resembling only the actual facts of what´s happenin in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.187.133.122 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Calendar - splitting of 'sports'

On the calendar, why is aquatics split up when no other sport is? Other 'sports' with multiple 'disciplines' are grouped together, with one column showing the 'sport' and a second column showing the 'discipline', but aquatics is split up so that entries appear alphabetically. eg ryhtmic gymnastics doesn't get sorted in the r's (it gets sorted under gymnastics) - but Water polo is sorted under water polo (and not under aquatics) 2.223.172.229 (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZPDwUC_tB4

Stic bold (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What about it? All of the information in that clip is already contained in the article. Closing as  Not done. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)