Talk:2024 Summer Olympics

Opening Ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics

Paris, France – 2024-07-26

End

Local Time ()

Thomas Jolly (artist)

I just created an article for Thomas Jolly. He is the artistic director of the opening ceremonies. Thriley (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Liberia at the 2024 Summer Olympics, Trinidad and Tobago at the 2024 Summer Olympics

Thelma Davies (Liberia) is also in the 200m as well as the 100m It would be nice if that got added, same goes for Jereem Richards of Trinidad who is in the 200m as well as the 400m DominikPrz (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2024

In the information bar on the top right of the page, the number of nations should be changed to 199 to reflect the nations added to the number (namely Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe and Seychelles) Aerror44 (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Izno (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Italian and Chinese contingent

the Italian contingent is officially 403 athletes as the Chinese one is of 405. Check all the sources and you’ll find it. I’m Italian btw and I study Chinese so I understand also articles in Mandarin. In Italian every newspaper can support the number and the Italian ministry of Sport confirmed it. For the Chinese contingent go check the South Morning China newspaper cause is in English if you don’t speak Mandarin, it’s officially 405 athletes. Who’s able to modify the article, please change this. Thank you. 79.23.1.30 (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is italy not showing 403? This info can be verified anywhere. 199.67.138.42 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024

the Italian contingent is officially 403 athletes as the Chinese one is of 405. Check all the sources and you’ll find it. I’m Italian btw and I study Chinese so I understand also articles in Mandarin. In Italian every newspaper can support the number and the Italian ministry of Sport confirmed it. For the Chinese contingent go check the South Morning China newspaper cause is in English if you don’t speak Mandarin, it’s officially 405 athletes. Who’s able to modify the article, please change this. Thank you. 79.23.1.30 (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Izno (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Extra paragraph in Posters referring a series of Olympic-themed artwork

Complainant blocked, rant over. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A note to the mods diligently removing anything they themselves did not contribute. This is supposed to be a contributory project where more than just the assigned mods bring in information to the public. Before you delete the extra paragraph please note by doing so you are depriving potentially millions of the public from being informed about this entire set of artwork dedicated to the Olympics and that seem (to several people at least) far superior and more inspirational than the official IOC poster. There is nothing on Wikipedia that says the page on the Olympics (2024 Games or any for that reason) should be only about posters created solely by the IOC. In fact the 100 plus citations at the end of the article shows 100 plus contributions that are NOT the IOC, so why delete this extra informational and public-beneficial paragraph? Breezepub (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC) First of all this seems like an attack on one editor that deleted your first attempt claiming it to be promotional. After looking at it myself, I would tend to agree. It is all primary sourced from the publisher of the content. LinkedIn is not a reliable source primarily because it is self-published. The other source is the publisher's website. Just because you find something interesting does not make it notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. As for the citations not being IOC content. They are independent sources (like you should have) that back up what is being shown in the article. Not even remotely the same thing. Chris1834 Talk 14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC) strongly disagree with your rationaliation, notable because I didnt find anything remotely similar despite canvassing the web for a couple of weeks. You are just blabbing a pre-recorded message without thinking which is not why this is supposed to be open and contributory. Supposed is relative. As long as we clean up grammar errors and omissions then it is ok for us to volunteer but if we add something someone not part of the original mods setting up a page, then it becomes a matter of judicious opinions. Where am I attaking a mod? Are you attempting to intimdate me by accusing me of conduct I did not make? Having an opinion different than those who are automatically deleting valuable contributions is "attacking"????? I stand by my comments, the paragph you have deleted is invaluable to the public and you have deleted it twice so far without providing a valid reason. The information and source are both valid and notable since there are arent anything remotely similar on the web, Linkedin is a valid news source because the corporation did publish the announcement I mentioned in the paragraph. First and foremost you ought not delete a paragraph that is under discussion, rule anywhere on any team effort. You dont see it? Lame Wikipedia culture still as lame as 20 years ago when I tried my hand at contributing useful information omitted to the public. Are you and you buddies and your management somehow deluding the public by pretending all these hoops on wikipedia makes this a "fair and unbiased" encyclopedic resource? 2603:8000:5903:A7D5:A06F:BEFC:CCAA:94DC (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Just because you don't agree with the reason doesn't make it not valid. Wikipedia is open to all to edit but here are guidelines to keep information reliable. See WP:REPUTABLE. The first line states that it should be based on reliable, INEDPENDENT, published sources. None of you sources are independent which makes them not reputable. See also WP:RSSELF talking about "self-published sources are largely not acceptable". See also WP:RSPLINKEDIN declaring LinkedIn as generally unreliable based on 10 conversations previously held on the topic due to its self-published nature. Notable doesn't have to do with the publisher, it has to do with the content. I can't find anything about this content anywhere except your sources which are not reliable according to the majority of editors. Not sure how you think this all works but I have no "manager" and I don't even know any of the other editors on here other than discussions had on talk pages. If what you want to post is a good addition than every Olympic item that is out there should be added to this article. The article would be so long, it wouldn't be useful to anyone. There is nothing unfair or biased about any of this. All of these policies have been discussed and agreed upon by the majority of editors. Anyone can propose a change to these policies and open a discussion about it. Chris1834 Talk 19:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC) you are using circular logic to validate your actions and the other mods' actions: "Just because you don't agree with the reason doesn't make it not valid." this is what you have done, you DISAGREED WITH THE CONTRIBUTION, you are attempting hard to invadidate its value to this page and to the body of information presented, it is YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION, AND YOU STARTED OFF BY ATTACKING a new source of information and by labeling as an "attack on the editors", your reflex response is telling of the culture wikipedia engenders in its "senior" members. After 20 years, the management at wikipedia has only indoctrinated guidlines that only made this "resource" worse than when it started off. Breezepub (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Chris$$$$@& "The first line states that it should be based on reliable, INEDPENDENT, published sources. None of you sources are independent which makes them not reputable." None of my sources are independent??? You mean to suggest Citadel Consulting Group LLC is a subsidiary of the ACME Media Empire???? Are you saying if these posters from West Coast ----- and Citadel Consulting ---- were regurgitated by the Washington Post it would be INDEPENDENT AND REPUTABLE source? The same Washington Post that was raked by scandals and for flaunting basic minimal journalistic standards??? Reputable? and lets not forget that half of what is published by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Miami Herald and Wall Street Journal and now almost defunct TIME magazine are sourced from AP (the Associated Press), you call THAT independent? None of the big media are INDEPENDENT, THEY ARE OWNED BY THREE OR FOUR INDUSTRIAL CONGLOMERATES like GE and AT&T. What standards are these of Wikipedia, outdated, obsolete and only to make its invaluable information the "little boys and girls club" for a small group of elitist players? Breezepub (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC) I didnt see from mods erasing that valuable extra information on additional professional artwork posters celebrating the Olympics anything that remotely resembles COACHING other wikipedia members (on this tab or many others) or those who join. the underhandness of your conduct is more than off putting (revealing no control and compliance on basic standards - just constant waving of "notable" guidelines that are meant as guidelines not as a tool of disinclusion. You excuse your conduct publicly and pre-emptively by accusing someone volunteering their time amd effort as "attack" to somehow imply their contribution is faulty and justify only your information as valid and valuable when it is not inclusive and open, contrary to the "mission and vision" of wikipedia. You think with each passing year and this "rationalized" conduct of your mods goes unnoticed, even by those without a background in mass communications and principles and theories in propaganda? You do know that in 20 years of testing and sampling your product I never noticed anything remotely similar to auditing being applied by an audit firm to Wikipedia and its baseless pretenses, for a group that has a monopoly on what is included and omitted as information to such a huge audience worldwide? Your team of deleting mods do not have any kind of credibility that the business community on Linkedin expects of firms doing business in the usa or anywhere. Breezepub (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC) strongly disagree with your rationaliation, notable because I didnt find anything remotely similar despite canvassing the web for a couple of weeks. You are just blabbing a pre-recorded message without thinking which is not why this is supposed to be open and contributory. Supposed is relative. As long as we clean up grammar errors and omissions then it is ok for us to volunteer but if we add something someone not part of the original mods setting up a page, then it becomes a matter of judicious opinions. Where am I attaking a mod? Are you attempting to intimdate me by accusing me of conduct I did not make? Having an opinion different than those who are automatically deleting valuable contributions is "attacking"????? I stand by my comments, the paragph you have deleted is invaluable to the public and you have deleted it twice so far without providing a valid reason. The information and source are both valid and notable since there are arent anything remotely similar on the web, Linkedin is a valid news source because the corporation did publish the announcement I mentioned in the paragraph. First and foremost you ought not delete a paragraph that is under discussion, rule anywhere on any team effort. You dont see it? Lame Wikipedia culture still as lame as 20 years ago when I tried my hand at contributing useful information omitted to the public. Are you and you buddies and your management somehow deluding the public by pretending all these hoops on wikipedia makes this a "fair and unbiased" encyclopedic resource? Breezepub (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC) I am not attacking you Chris#$@!!, this is what 50 years of experience in the business world looks like when critizing a lesser experienced professional acting without decades of experience in the rear view mirror, if you and your buddies feel threatened by the least disagreement in a supposed "open" setting for contributions, you should be doing something else somewhere else and not as a mod on "this grand design" of nothing more than misinformation by omission. Breezepub (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Chris$#@? you have cleverly redirected the conversation away from the issue. I included an extremely valuable bit of information on a source of artwork celebrating the Olympics of 2024 and the upcoming 2026, a source of artwork superior to the posters produced by the International Olympic Committee. I have cited Linkedin (and you have questioned the source when it can easily verified firsthand by anyone). \ Linkedin is a highly respected business community and anything published by Linkedin corporate members CAN BE VERIFIED FIRST HAND BY ANYONE, a basic element of journalistic fact-checking which you have shushhed in your retorts. That is adherence to "notable" guidelines to make use of them for barring others from being included. That is what the "notable" guidelines are and they nothing more than guidlines, you and all other mods have used them as absolutes and interpreted them strictly to prevent anyone other than the "baptized official mods" from shaping up the info on this Olympic page and anywhere else in the Wikipedia kingdom. Breezepub (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC) "a source of artwork superior to the posters produced by the International Olympic Committee" - this is an opinion, not a fact. The verification of what is posted on LinkedIn is the companies own website. Neither of these are third-party sources. I don't know what to say. You obviously don't agree with the policies that have been established by the community, not some allusive management you keep referring to. By your reasoning on this item, anything that relates to the Olympics that has its own website should be included in this article. Here is an Olympic needlepoint: https://pennylinndesigns.com/products/paris-2024-olympic-rings I think it is fun. It is published by it's creator on the web. Does this warrant inclusion on this page?. If you think it does not, then why your item and not this? On the same line of thinking, we should also have mentions of every piece of artwork out there in the appropriate article. Why is this set of artwork more important than all the other artwork out there? Can you imagine if we included a paragraph about every piece of artwork that exists in the world? That is why the community established notability guidelines. You say notability was something created to keep "other" people from "shaping" Wikipedia. Would you come to Wikipedia if every article included a paragraph about every piece of artwork ever created for that topic? Chris1834 Talk 21:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC) Reply to @Chris1834Chris1834 VERIFICATION AND FACT CHECKING and there you are again with a lengthy reply that obscures the basic arguments against deleting the new paragraph on those 20 some posters " The verification of what is posted on LinkedIn is the companies own website. " yes of course it is, otherwise you would not be able to verify as correct the statement made by the publication (WEST COAST MIDNIGHT RUN), in other words it is NOT HEARSAY OR VERBAL, it is a published comment on a highly visible platform where corporate managers and executives trade comments. Do you and the other mods on Wikipedia have your CV and credentials published anywhere, as do all members on Linkedin? Where are YOUR professional credentials??? none to be seen. I stated that the publisher CITADEL CONSULTING GROUP LLC announced a series of art posters dedicated to THE OLYMPICS, more than 20 plus posters to be published over two years until the upcoming 2026 Italian Games. I cited my statement in the Wikipedia paragraph using THE OFFICIAL COMMENT MADE BY THE PUBLISHER, CITADEL on Linkedin where it was announced. A journalist requires to fact check a citation, and in this case you dont have to call the Sacramento Office of Publishers' Clearinghouse, the comment made in Wikpedia can be LOOKED UP DIRECTLY, FIRST HAND, by anyone bothering to do a fact checking effort. The publisher, Citadel, INDEED MADE THE ANNOUNCEMENT. There is no further checking to be done. Do you need a signed letter from Citadel to Wikipedia vouching for the announcement? The announcement is basically a press release on Linkedin and it can be verified by anyone and everyone. The conmnent on Wikipedia is verified and verifiable. End of story. THE RETORT ON NOTABILITY Chris$$$$ "Here is an Olympic needlepoint: https://pennylinndesigns.com/products/paris-2024-olympic-rings" The difference is that the item you pointed out is completely non-notable from a vendor selling a crochet tabletop item. THE VENDOR IS AN UNKNOWN QUANTITY and may have for one month or one year setup a page to sell this Olympic themed crochet tabletop canvas. Conversely the publisher Citadel ---- has been online for more than 20 years, practically forever, HUGE DIFFERENCE, and the publisher has published news and entertainment segments as its SOLE PRODUCT, they are not selling knicknack and snacks or paper tissue to wipe your tears you find at the local store or supermarket. The publisher has created a series of dramatic art posters, telling a story via artwork of the Olympics, which in my opinion and several of my colleagues where I did a first pass to see if they pass muster, all agreed Citadel's artwork was superior to the posters released officially by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) but YOU DELETING THE PARAGRAPH AND REFERENCE ARE BARRING AND REMOVING THE OPTION FOR THE PUBLIC TO JUDGE FOR THEMSELVES. YOU OPINION IS NOW HELD SUPREME TO THE PUBLIC'S OWN. By removing the paragraph, you have blithely followed an outdated set of GUIDEDLINES THAT YOU AND YOUR COMRADES ARE TREATING AS ABSOLUTES (your Notability criteria cannot foresee every situation hence we have mods - supposedly people - and not AI programs - but you keep this up and I am first in line to recommend they replace you mods with AI) and did NOT FOR ONE MOMENT EXERCISE PROFESSIONAL JUSGEMENT Perhaps you are not a journalist or a media professional in evaluating that this bit of information could be valuable to the public and it is UP TO THE PUBLIC TO MAKE UP ITS OWN MIND IF CITADEL'S ARTWORK is in fact superior to the posters created by the International Olympic Commmittee (IOC). DIRECT RELEVANCE TO YOUR PAGE ON THE 2024 OLYMPICS Yes sure there are tons of knicknacks out there on the Olympics, merchandise, t-shirts, coffee mugs, but YOUR PAGE MENTIONED POSTERS and this WEST COAST MIDNIGHT RUN IS A PUBLICATION, PART MAGAZINE PART LIFESTYLE EDITORIALS, THAT CREATED 2024 OLYMPICS POSTERS, A SERIES OF 20 PLUS POSTERS ON THE OLYMPICS SO IT HAD VALID REASON TO BE INCLUDED IN YOUR PARAGRAPH ON THE 2024 OLYMPIC POSTERS. your brief training session is over Chris, and you can continue to argue defending yourself, your lack of judgement and your ability like a robot to follow guidelines which you interpret as absolutes. I have decades of experience in industry and I was unable to find anything on the web remotely similar to these art posters on the 2024 Olympics, it is in itself a notable criteria and I would not be wasting my time with all these lengthy explanations if in my professional opinion they were not deemed worthy of inclusion. Are you an Olympics art expert in some way? do you have a fine arts background or a diploma in graphic design? what are your credentials and reasons for holding your opinion above my explanations??? SHOW ME SOME OTHER 2024 OLYMPIC ART POSTERS that you can find on the web today, this month, that makes this series of art posters UNREMARKABLE AND NON NOTABLE!!!! Breezepub (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sponsors list

The table of every named sponsor on 2024 Summer Olympics#Corporate sponsorship seems like an overkill to me, and a blatant WP:NOTADVERTISING/WP:NOTDB violation. This is an encyclopedia for sourced prose text, not part of an IOC marketing campaign. Listing 100+ sponsors, lots of whom don't even have articles on Wikipedia, is not encyclopedic content. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

CHANGING OF THE ITALIAN COMMITTEE

I want to ask who’s constantly changing the number of athletes for the Italian committee from 403 to 371? I’m trying to adjourn it from days and it keeps coming back. I’m Italian, I read Italian, I speak Italian and it’s clear on all the official site that our committee has 403 athletes. I’m gonna change it for the last time, if it will be cancelled I’m gonna report your IP or nickname on Wikipedia and be sure you won’t be able to modify Wikipedia articles for a while. 93.150.192.171 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We do not include alternates in the total Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a number without alternates? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Multi sports events importance

Why is this article rated "Mid‑importance" for multi sports events ? It's literally the most important multi sport events. It make no sense to say just "mid". Tokyo 2020 article is rated "Top-importance" as it should be here. LA 2028 is "High-importance" while it will only happens in 4 years... Virkin (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Not even sure why the MSE project is tagged here. The MSE project is for all MSEs besides the Olympics. Maybe it shoud be removed? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. I clicked on the MSE link and it clearly states that it does not cover Olympics. It should be removed from all of them. Chris1834 Talk 14:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it from this talk page, and Talk:2024 Summer Olympics marketing. That should be all for articles linked in the Paris 2024 template. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Should it be spelled program or programme?

Obviously France doesn’t speak English. USA, Canada, Australia (I think New Zealand) all spell it program, while U.K and Ireland spell it program. 120.159.86.251 (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The Games website uses programme. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This article is written in British English, should follow the UK spelling. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So programme? HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancies

There are discrepancies when it comes to the number of athletes per country in this article and on the map. Barjimoa (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"Paris Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Paris Olympics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 27 § Paris Olympics until a consensus is reached. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Stadium in Infobox

Clearly the Jardins du Trocadéro and the Seine are not stadiums, but they are the venue of the opening ceremony nevertheless. The problem is they aren't stadiums, unless we consider the bleachers/temporary stdaium at the Jardins as a "stadium" for the purpose of the infobox.

There is a precedent though. The Obelisco de Buenos Aires was used as the opening ceremony for the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics. So should we only just list the closing ceremony stadium or adjust the infobox field name accordingly? Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We should adjust it accordingly, because, like you said, those are not stadiums. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously we neeed to adjust our template so that it allows us to list the location of the event, without demanding that it be a stadium. That's a bit of an arrogance on the part of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Olympic Village (Paris)

I just created an article for the Olympic Village (Paris). Any help with expansion would be appreciated! Best, Thriley (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You may post if in DYK to get more views. Just have to meet the minimum requirements.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Participating National Olympic Committees

The "Participating National Olympic Committees" section is all over the place. The two maps don't match agree with one another, nor do they agree with the text and the table. For example, why is Russia shaded green in the first map? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Russia and Belarus are not participating at this Olympics. Thus, they should be gray on the map of participating countries. Do you agree? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Although there is an Individual group (AIN), Russia and Belarus nations are not participating. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

People from these countries are allowed to participate. It is not true that they do not participate. As in the previous Olympics, where the Russian National Team was banned. The map is correct.Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the map be representing the participating NOCs? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it represents countries the participants are from, not NOCs, look to all previous games:(2016,2018,2020,2022).Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is seriously convoluted (not only because country, state and nation seem to get confused). Before the relatively recent ban of Russia (first due to doping and then together with Belarus due to the Ukrainian war) this was fairly simple as national Olympic committee and states were not meaningfully different. However in 2020 and 2022 Russian authorities involvement in doping coverups resulted in banning the state of Russia for 4 years (ie 2019-2023). Participation of Russian athletes under Russian Olympic Committee not showing Russian flag or anthem was allowed. The question whether the 2 relevant maps (2020-2022) should feature Russia as country for theses is indeed dubious. In 2022 (after the winter games) the Belarus Olympic Committee (due to support of Ukraine war and treatment of its athletes) and in 2023 Russian Olympic Committee was suspended as Olympic committee (after it included substantial part of Ukraine (and their athletes) as belonging to Russia). This means that for the 2024 Olympics these committees can not send athletes. This is a distinctly different situation from anything before. While individual athletes from both countries are allowed to compete on personal title they can not have any explicit connection to their home country. Hence in any case for the 2024 map Russia and Belarus should be shown as not competing on the map (and not as having won any medals). (of course if there are neutral, strong sources that contradict my interpretation above I am willing to discuss). Arnoutf (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hm, could you explain more thoroughly what exactly has changed so much since the last Olympics that the map had to change as well? I think it's still the same, athletes from these countries are still not banned, they can participate if the IOC allows them and their flags or country names still cannot be used. Yes after the start of the war, the IOC said that it would completely ban the participation of Russian athletes, but that later changed. Anyway, these two maps do not represent the NOCs, but what countries the participating athletes are from. If the maps showed NOCs then yes, those states should be greyed out.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "from"? Where the ahtletes were born? Where they primarily reside? What county's passport they hold? What is the data source? — Kpalion^(talk) 07:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Opening Ceremony "Last Supper" "Controversy"

Just because it was misinterpreted by those with a penchant for grievance politics doesn't make it so. And since when did The Last Supper feature a mostly nude blue man? https://www.bfmtv.com/replay-emissions/le-live-bfm/ceremonie-thomas-jolly-et-daphne-burki-sur-bfmtv-28-07_VN-202407280118.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.211.203.48 (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be added in the article. A lot of people are mad at the organisers brcause of this. It does not matter that they misinterpreted it. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes there was plenty of nonsense. the "Right" is upset as hypocrites about this, and the left is on about sexism (host countyr source) at the games. Silly IMO, but it was still a mainstream news feature.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

people having bad media literacy isn't notable. if it were, every article related to media would need a tedious addendum so as to make a certain audience not feel dumb for not getting it

Nandibamco (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

it kinda is notable, millions op people thought that that represented the painting, not just a small group. I say that it is definitly notably enough for a mention. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Millions believe the earth is flat: popularity is not the same as accuracy, or -- in this case -- art-literacy.

The organiser has been explicit in saying that the tableau was intended to represent the feast of Dionysus. His comments are conspicuous by their absence from the page: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-olympics-organizers-apologize-last-supper-tableau-religious-conservatives/ and also https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/29/olympic-last-supper-scene-based-painting-greek-gods-art-experts for a source with a sample painting.

> "Dionysus arrives at the table because he is the Greek God of celebration," adding that the particular sequence was entitled "festivity."

> "The idea was to create a big pagan party in link with the God of Mount Olympus — and you will never find in me, or in my work, any desire of mocking anyone," Jolly said.

> The "interpretation of the Greek God Dionysus makes us aware of the absurdity of violence between human beings," a post on the official social media account of the Olympic Games said by way of explanation.

The tableau could equally said to be a recreation of depictions of the marriage of Bacchus and Ariadne: https://www.mediastorehouse.com/fine-art-finder/artists/william-mayhew-john-1736-1811-attr-to-ince/feast-gods-marriage-bacchus-ariadne-22583458.html

It's fair to note the controversy in the article, but if so noted, it's also necessary to maintain NPOV to note how illiterate (of art) and manufactured it is. 92.236.161.42 (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be mentioned in this article, it is supported by many reliable sources. It is a big controversy, which is confirmed by the apology to all Christians from the organizers.Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Editing code

Not sure where to put this, but is there some editing code that one can input to automatically add the total such as in Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's street. Sportsnut24 (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Chinese doping scandal

Should the scandal not be mentioned in the article? 80.71.142.166 (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all scandals needs to be added in this article only the very big ones. Or else this will be a very full article. Gilliebillie🤡 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WR/ORs at the 2024 Olympics

I noticed we didn't have a page to list out the world records and Olympic records for this Olympics like we did with the previous ones so I have created it at World and Olympic records set at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Please let me know if this page was intentionally not created. Aurangzebra (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Should “some” or “many” be used in describing Christians condemning the opening ceremony of the Olympics?

I personally believe it should be “many” since it’s quite a widespread controversy, though I’m not the voice of all Christians. LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

We would need more than one reliable source saying" many" before we should. Don't mistake loudness for number. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

it will get tagged (who?) either way 172.56.179.211 (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Where's pole vaulting?

Where's pole vaulting? 2A00:23C4:95:EA01:110F:D6B7:B4E6:9CB8 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Pole vaulting is part of Athletics. Chris1834 Talk 21:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Officiating controversies

There have been a lot of controversial decisions by referees and judges in these Olympics in several sports, I think this should be mentioned in the Controversies section. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:58E5:63D0:C79A:AB91 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of alleged controversial decisions by referees and judges in every Olympics. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Still, there have been enough instances in this Olympics that I believe it should be mentioned, at least the most notorious ones. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:D023:AA2C:6B1:F0AB (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

For example? JacktheBrown (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The controversy over the Floor results in Women's Gymnastics is probably the best example of it. CAS just recently stripped Jordan Chiles of her bronze medal and gave it to Romanian Ana Barbosu. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:AC26:3A2B:52BF:D4FD (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

What makes that a controversy? HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a causing a lot of controversy actually, and its just the most notorious example of bad officiating in these Games. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:AC26:3A2B:52BF:D4FD (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Participating National Olympic Committees

Why are both Chinese Taipei and The Gambia/Republic out of alphabetical order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59C8:50D5:910:21D9:CD9D:6129:D74F (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2024

olmypic = olympic 2603:8000:D300:3650:C896:8524:E457:4714 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2024 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CloakedFerret (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it an uncontested fact that it wasn't reenacting the last supper?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Summer_Olympics#Opening_ceremony_2 Wikipedia is stating it as a fact that it wasn't the last supper, but as far as I'm aware it's an open question. Tikaboo (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There are several sources explaining what it was. Unless you can provide a contrary source, our content stays. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see that the director said he wasn't inspired by the last supper, I thought there were just apologies. I added his denial. Tikaboo (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Czechia

Doesn't the IOC now use Czechia? If so, shouldn't we? GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The first sentence of Czech Republic at the 2024 Summer Olympics says that, and also tells us that we should change the name of that article too. HiLo48 (talk)

When do we change the article to past tense?

I am not sure whether to declare the games finished when the last event (which appears to be the women's basketball tournament final) finishes, the start of the closing ceremony or the end of the ceremony. Thoughts?

I am RedoStone (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be after the end of the closing ceremony. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur. The ceremony is part of the event. At the close, the current Olympics becomes the 2026 winter games. Then, the 2024 Olympic games have happened, in the past. 172.56.179.211 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Can someone with an older account add something for me?

In the last paragraph on the first section "The United States topped the medal table both by gold (40) and total medals (126), with China finishing second (40 and 91). Japan finished third with 20 gold medals and sixth in the overall medal count. Australia finished fourth with 18 gold medals and fifth in the overall medal count. Host nation France finished fifth with 16 gold and 64 total medals. Dominica, Saint Lucia, Cape Verde, and Albania won their first-ever Olympic medals, the former two both being gold."

Can someone add the Olympic Refugee Team as also having won their first medal? Thanks! KittyScholar (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Done – IntGrah (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Question: why does the lead say the US topped both medal counts?

Why would the US tying with China in gold mean they "topped the medal table both by..."? Didn't they tie the gold medal table with China?

I mean, when I go down to this page's Metal Table section and select to organize the table by gold medals, I understand that it still places the United States above China because it seems to use the number of other medals as a way to break ties, instead of just alphabetizing things (see similarly Italy and Germany being equal in gold metals but Italy still being listed above Germany when you select to list by gold medals because they got more medals overall even though they come after Germany alphabetically).

But that's that table and how it functions. Why would we just in general consider the US as having topped the table in gold medals? Because for some reason we must use other medals received as tiebreaker? Can the lead not just say the US and China tied in gold and the US topped in everything else (silver, bronze, total)? Asking aloud. Thanks 2601:644:9281:4427:DDA7:8766:440A:B7DB (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

i agree,that makes zero sense since when theres 2 countries or more when the most gold obtained. check the suggestion below i made Fireyneedshelp 301 (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

New version is:

The United States topped the medal table with 40 gold medals and 126 medals in total. Tied in terms of gold medals, China finished second, with 40 gold medals and 91 medals overall.

– IntGrah (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

no actually, USA team did win overall medal count! However it was China who was leading in Gold Medals up until Yesterday Aug 11th, 2024 when Team USA Tied w China! ( BTW medals as in what they won is spelled medals, metal that you wrote is like what ppl mine for. Does that make sense? I know English language can be difficult for many!! Blessings!) SandcastleLyndy (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error I made twice, I didn't notice. Born and raised in the US, monolingual English speaker, college educated. I wrote the comment haphazardly (ooo big word there!). However, notice I never said the US didn't win the overall medal count. The point of my comment is that they tied in gold medals. So while you've correctly corrected my spelling, you still seem to have misread what I wrote. Hope this helps! Thanks!! :) :) 2601:644:9281:4427:DDA7:8766:440A:B7DB (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

the bottom texts before host section should be changed

since china and both usa tied with most gold medals,it should be changed from below to new one below the old one

heres the old one: The United States topped the medal table both by gold (40) and total medals (126), with China finishing second (40 and 91). Japan finished third with 20 gold medals and sixth in the overall medal count. Australia finished fourth with 18 gold medals and fifth in the overall medal count. The host nation France finished fifth with 16 gold and 64 total medals. Dominica, Saint Lucia, Cape Verde, and Albania won their first-ever Olympic medals, the former two both being gold, with Botswana and Guatemala also winning their first-ever gold medals. The Refugee Olympic Team also won their first-ever medal.

heres the new one: The United States and China both Topped The medal table by Gold Amount,Marking the First Time Where Olympics Ended with 2 countries or more taking the most gold/Sharing the title with the most gold. However Due to United states Having More total medals,it also tops the medal count,therefore United States Finishing First with 40 Gold and 126 total medals,while china has 40 gold medals and 91 total medal overall takes second, Japan finished third with 20 gold medals and sixth in the overall medal count. Australia finished fourth with 18 gold medals and fifth in the overall medal count. The host nation France finished fifth with 16 gold and 64 total medals. Dominica, Saint Lucia, Cape Verde, and Albania won their first-ever Olympic medals, the former two both being gold, with Botswana and Guatemala also winning their first-ever gold medals. The Refugee Olympic Team also won their first-ever medal. Note:from japan finished 3rd to end will remain unchanged,but the beginning of the final pre host nation section will need to be changed i am requesting the change since i am afraid of getting blocked,and if anything above agrees,maybe you can also do some minor change to finalize before publishing,it may be imperfect Fireyneedshelp 301 (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Reworded lede to mention gold medal tie. However, I don't think it's worth mentioning that this is the first ever gold medal tie for first/second place. – IntGrah (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok but confusing as read now. The lede paragraph seems to be discussing one rank but then switches to another. It says China finished second in overall total but then lists Japan as finishing third in gold.

In other words, as a paragraph it reads as listing which country was first, second, third, etc, with a sentence beginning for each rank. But what rank is referenced switches, the first two sentences placing US in front of China per total medal count and each sentence after listing the ranks of gold medal count.

If the paragraph is about gold medal finishing, the first sentence should reference both US and China as tying, with sentences after for third, etc, however many wanted to list. If the paragraph is about total medal finishing, Great Britain should be listed before Japan. 2601:644:9281:4427:DDA7:8766:440A:B7DB (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The ordering is consistent. We mention the total medal count for USA/CHN as evidence that a tiebreaker was used, be it silver medals or total medals. But the ranking is by gold medals the whole way. IntGrah (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Evibeforpoli you added a bit saying this is the first time in history a tie at the top has occurred. I don't think it's that important, as it disrupts the flow of the paragraph, but more opinions are needed. What say you? – IntGrah (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion respectfully. It's obviously needed to be mentioned and saying it disrupts flow is not even a good enough reason to exclude it. If gold medal ties occurred before and is common, then your point may stand. Except it's obviously significant as this never occurred before in history. The only issue that I can think of on people wanting to remove this is because they are too used to seeing USA have more golds than everyone else, and it may be upsetting to them that the first time a gold medal tie occurred in summer Olympic history is this year when it's USA having to share the gold medal tie with China. But the first ever gold medal tie is history worthy for an encyclopedia and has to be acknowledged even if you aren't fond of such an unprecedented occurrence. Evibeforpoli (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is "obviously" meant to be included. This is an undue focus on USA/CHN rivalry, when the paragraph ought to only summarise the raw medal data, not give a perspective on the general trends in medal ranking. – IntGrah (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing in that sentence that specifically mentions rivalry. It's just one sentence that is necessary as it's historically significant as it never happened before, highlighting an unprecedented level of competition and parity at the highest level of international sports. Virtually every top media that talks about the gold medal tie, feels the need to tell readers that a gold medal tie has never happened before in the history of the Summer Games. It's not insignificant as you make it out to be.[1] Evibeforpoli (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The vast majority of those sources are American based; their main focus is highlighting the rivalry between the USA and China specifically, rather than simply pointing out that the tie was a first. They also twist facts in the spirit of sensationalising the news. Many news outlets also repeat the same information as others, or share the same wording.

NBC Philadelphia

"The Americans wound up in a tie with China at 40 in the gold medal count — a first for the history of the Summer Games." [2]

Here, the focus is on the tie with China specifically.

NYTimes

"The U.S. and China both leave Paris with 40 gold medals, marking the first time two countries have tied in gold medal total at the Summer Games." [3]

A slightly stretched fact, since it assumes only ties between first and second place.

Newsweek

"Olympic Medal Count Shows China Made History After Battle With Team USA"

"The tie between the U.S. and China marks the first tie at the top of the table in Summer Olympics history. The only previous Olympics gold medal tie occurred in the Winter Games in 1948 between Norway and Sweden." [4]

An incorrect fact: There were ties in the 1924 and 2018 Winter Games.

CNN

"Both countries finished with 40 golds, marking the first ever tie for total golds at the Summer Games – but the US claimed top spot overall with 126 medals to China’s 91."[5]

Focuses on the drama of the medal tiebreak.

I am yet to find a neutral source which states this fact in a way that doesn't destroy the spirit of the games. IntGrah (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're only viewing it from one perspective. In reality, it's simply an observation of a unique event: the first-ever gold tie at the Summer Games. This historic moment should be seen as a testament to the global advancement in sports, rather than a threat to the spirit of the games. It highlights how the rest of the world is improving and catching up with the traditionally leading country.[6] Evibeforpoli (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Evibeforpoli China doesn't represent "the rest of the world" though. Also… that's precisely what makes it a non-neutral statement, highlighting how they are "catching up with the leading country". I am viewing it from a global perspective, because we shouldn't indulge in the drama between USA/CHN specifically. There are plenty of other rivalries. We don't mention that "GBR performed particularly poorly, the worst deficit compared to FRA since time X", even though it may be interesting to some, or might possibly highlight some lack of funding in British sports. We would rather present the raw data. Or is it because the tie occurred at the top of the table? To me this adds no value. IntGrah (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you're over-fixated on the shift in the USA's dominance. Unless there's a stronger argument against including it, I won't continue this discussion. Historically, the USA consistently won significantly more gold medals than other countries. However, this gap has narrowed not just because of China, but also due to nations like Japan, Australia, and various smaller countries winning more golds from USA. In the context of an article on the Olympics, it's standard to note the top-ranking countries. In this unprecedented case, where there's a tie in gold medals at the top, it's both notable and informative to readers to explain how a silver medal tiebreaker determined the leader.[7] Evibeforpoli (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Evibeforpoli I apologise if my previous comment was unclear. I support the mention that "China tied the USA" – this is the necessary information to explain that tiebreak.

I oppose the addition that "the tie for gold is the first ever in history … therefore a tiebreak was used … based on silver medals … 44 compared to 27" – this is far too dramatic. The first time a tie occurred in history is not something special on a global scale; what if there was a tie at the 1896 Olympics? It would be fine having it mentioned in a more specific article such as China at the 2024 Summer Olympics, which it already is. IntGrah (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The only relevant qualifier, when stating that two teams tied for a lead, is the gold medal count itself. As such, you list it alphabetically, with China and then US. No one is disputing that the US led in the medal table, it's just an obviously better way to write out country names in that context. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The last chapter is not neutral. It herads Thomas Jolly's embarassed and cowardly explanation, and does not stress the fact that the unknown painting he pulled out of his sleeve to get out of trouble, this painting itself is a notorious parody of da Vinci's masterpiece! So, Thomas Jolly just continued the parody of the Christ's last supper. He should have honnestly admit it.

NB : I am an atheist architect with a French protestant background, highly educated in Art History at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris (unlike Jolly who is a self-taught liar on this matter), and a democrat at heart, not a Catholic Trumpist Popist!

D.T. 2A01:CB1C:8288:F00:2D43:2910:A2A0:E2D4 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

China finished second. Silvers are used as a tiebreaker when there is a tie for gold. IOC website lists USA FIRST AND CHINA SECOND. https://olympics.com/en/paris-2024/medals 217.66.157.127 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Read it again carefully and slowly. Nobody is claiming that China wasn't second overall. The article already states they came second. But in regards to the gold medal total, they are tied with USA. Evibeforpoli (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Text should be reverted back, as the changes push an American-centric POV. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

"Paris Olympics" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Paris Olympics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 11 § Paris Olympics until a consensus is reached. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

Mohitssss1 (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

yes Mohitssss1 (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Paris Olympics: छह पदक और छह लगभग चूके; पदक तालिका में भारत 71वें स्थान पर रहा Paris Olympics

नीरज चोपड़ा, मनु भाकर, सरबजोत सिंह, स्वप्निल कुसाले, अमन सहरावत और भारतीय हॉकी टीम ने एक रजत और पांच कांस्य सहित छह पदक जीतकर जश्न मनाने का कारण दिया।

पेरिस 2024 को उन छह पदकों के लिए याद किया जाएगा जो भारतीयों के लिए खुशी लेकर आए और साथ ही

छह चौथे स्थान पर रहे जिसके परिणामस्वरूप दिल टूट गया।

पिछले संस्करण में देश को मिले पदक से कम पदक ने भले ही भारतीय खेमे में जश्न को सीमित कर दिया हो,

लेकिन हिट और लगभग मिस का मिश्रित गुलदस्ता भारतीय खेलों की एक आशाजनक तस्वीर पेश करता है।

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think "mostly football" shld be taken out of beginning!?

So the beginning of this seems to be untrue!?Paris didn't only host MOSTLY football,the Beach Volleyball was in the shadows of the Eiffel Tower!Not to mention the Triathlon!Can You Take out Mostly?!I feel It seems Confusing to reader!&Can we add All 16 cities/locations!? I find all ppl wld find interesting especially in respects to travel& Olympics!Thank You! Blessings SandcastleLyndy (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you've slightly misread, its saying that 16 other cities hosted events and those cities were mainly for football.The additional venues are listed in the article, see 2024 Summer Olympics#Development and preparations, but would be cumbersome to include in the opening of the article - Basement12 (T.C) 22:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Tiebreaker?

I have just added a "cn" tag to the claim in the lead about the need to use a tiebreaker to resolve a tied medal count. That's not mentioned in either of the two sources immediately after claim. It may be what is done, but we shouldn't be making up claims like this. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2024

Revert vandalism edit linked below, removing the words "PALING TEROK PUNYE OLIMPIK MAIN KOTOR JILAT TELO"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1240064821 GermaniumSpot (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Already done by Rsjaffe. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

Please change war in Palestine to war in Israel OR Israel's war with Hamas following the atrocities of October 7. Israel is a recognised state,Palestine is not. 2A13:54C2:F000:992C:D49B:7FF:FE86:780B (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 145 of the 193 member states of the United Nations, or just over 75% of all UN members.. See International recognition of the State of Palestine.HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced it with the article titles. Tollens (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Specific controversies

Following the precedent set at other Olympic articles, I believe the lead should contain a brief summary of the most notable controversies that occurred prior and during the Paris Olympics.

Example (1996 Summer Olympics):

There was some criticism of the perceived over-commercialization of the Games, with other issues raised by European officials, such as the availability of food and transport.

I propose the following:

At the conclusion of the games, despite some controversies throughout relating to politics, logistics and conditions in the Olympic Village, the Games were considered a success by the press and observers.

All of the mentioned controversies are notable and covered in the article. Pizzigs (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)