Olympics Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Nipsonanomhmata's POV campaign of getting the pre-1896 Zappas Olympics treated as a full part of the Olympic Games has been debated to death at Talk:Olympic Games and has been rejected by unanimous consensus. For him to still keep pushing that same meme on multiple pages [1] after it was rejected on the main article is patently disruptive. This template is about the Summer Olympics, which is a clearly defined institution that began in 1896. The pre-1896 games, even though they bore the same name, were a different thing and are unanimously not treated as part of the same institution by all the relevant literature.

I will remove the two entries again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Observation:It appears to be one of your favorite pastimes. Reverting my edits in subjects that you know nothing about. Unanimous consensus in Fut Perf's view means 2 people against 1. The definition of unanimous is that everybody agrees. But you are just trying to make me look bad. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is quite clearly a consensus against the inclusion of any pre-1896 versions in such templates, you must know this by now Nipsonanomhmata. Where suitable information on Zappas, 1870 etc has been included in Olympic articles in a manner that does not give them undue weight however this template is only designed to deal with versions that would be considered IOC Games. Basement12 (T.C) 16:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then it should be made clear on the template that this template is specifically for the International Olympic Committee's series of Olympic Games. However, the IOC series does not include the Paris Exposition of 1900 since not even the IOC was referring to them as Olympic Games in 1900 or 1901. In fact, neither was Baron Pierre de Coubertin at that time. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Paris 1900 not part of the IOC series? Not what their website and any number of other sources suggest. As for specifying IOC on the template - I don't think anyone other than you would require such clarification and as you've had it explained to you here I see no reason to do so. Basement12 (T.C) 22:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

However, the International Olympic Committee's own report from the IOC Session at Paris in 1901 makes it very clear that the Games at the Paris Exposition were not recognised as Olympic Games. In fact, they were calling the 1906 Athens Olympic Games the second Olympic Games at that time. That is a historical document that has been written by the International Olympic Committee. Moreover, it is noted in a large format booklet published by the International Society of Olympic Historians, which is sponsored by the IOC, published in December 2008. The IOC is contradicting its own history. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just in case anybody wonders: the story about 1901 doesn't even seem to be true. The document, when seen in context ([2]), when talking about "second" games in 1906 and "third" games in 1910, quite clearly means "the second/third of those held in Athens", not "the second/third of all". The whole context clearly includes the assumption that the in-between dates (1904, 1908 etc.) would also be Olympic Games, and thus doesn't contradict the assumption that 1900 was also considered as such. (Note: I'm not saying this with an expectation of convincing Nipson, and won't be interested in his response.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now you are spreading rumors that the "story" isn't true. Fut Perf, you are utterly desperate. Here is yet another reference: Journal of Olympic History, Volume 10, December 2001/January 2002, The 2nd International Olympic Games in Athens 1906, by Karl Lennartz. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which, not surprisingly, doesn't support what Nipson claims it supports. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way I understand this (based on reading from a number of sources and accounts) was that the 1900 Games were initially organised by IOC who then handed contol over to the French government and/or the exposition organisers. The Greeks weren't happy at the time as they believed that the hosting of the Games should not rotate between nations but remain in Greece. They were poorly planned and by all accounts an absolute shambles but there is no doubt that they they were an IOC Olympics. The result of the Greeks desire to host and the poor organisation in Paris was what led to the decision in 1901 to have Intercalated Games - Basement12 (T.C) 12:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, the organisers of the Paris Exposition gave Baron Pierre de Coubertin to head athletics but he was not permitted to do so under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As this discussion of this topic is starting to get spread across multiple pages (1, 2, etc) not all of which are directly relevant to the content in question can we centralise any further discussion at WT:OLY? Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 12:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anywhere you like, I will gladly take on all comers. I can't lose. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All further discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#The Games at the Paris Exposition was not recognised as Olympic Games by the IOC during the event.2C nor in 1901 at the 4th IOC Session in Paris please. The fact that you think this is about winning or losing Nipsonanomhmata shows a clear misunderstanding of the concepts of consensus and verifiability. Basement12 (T.C) 14:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been debated by individuals that have no knowledge in the subject. The 1870 Athens Olympic Games were the first modern Olympic Games to be held in a stadium. The same stadium that was used for the 1875 Olympic Games. The same stadium that was used for the 1896 Athens Olympic Games and that was sponsored by the same sponsor of the 1870 and 1875 Athens Olympic Games. The same stadium that was used for the 1906 Athens Olympic Games. And the same stadium that was used for events at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games. It doesn't matter how many of you deny the facts. The historic facts remain. And these were preceded by the 1859 Athens Olympic Games held in a square in Athens. Moreover, the Olympic Games sponsored by Evangelis Zappas were not called "Zappas Games" at the time. They were called "Olympic Games" because they were the first Olympic Games to he organised in modern times. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A velodrome does not qualify as an atletics stadium. That is why it is called a velodrome. There is no merit in passing-off a velodrome as an athletics stadium. It certainly does not compare with a robust stadium, such as the Panathenaic stadium, built in marble and dedicated to athletics since ancient times. If you would like a category of Olympic velodromes I could create one for you but I doubt that there is enough content for the category. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The criterion for inclusion in this box is not how "robust" or perfect a structure was. Any structure qualifies as a "stadium" if it contains an area designed for athletic competitions in front of spectators. (According to our article: "a place, or venue, for (mostly) outdoor sports, concerts or other events, consisting of a field or stage partly or completely surrounded by a structure designed to allow spectators to stand or sit and view the event.") Beyond that, the only operational criterion for this box is whether the event held in it was part of the Summer Olympic Games. Which Paris 1900 most certainly was, whereas Athens 1870 was not. Simple. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No athletics competitions were held there. Therefore it is not an athletics stadium. Which makes this velodrome the odd-one-out in this category of Olympic Stadia (all of which, except for this one, primarily served athletics. Moreover, not even the IOC consider the sports events at the 1900 Paris Exposition to be anything to do with an Olympic Games (as noted in the official report of the 1901 Paris Session of the IOC). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, if anybody needs a ref: John E. Findling, Kimberly D. Pelle, Encyclopedia of the modern Olympic movement, p.30: "Events that constituted the games of the II Olympiad stretched from May 14 to October 28, 1900. […] The principal venue was a wooden stadium and velodrome built in Vincennes …" [3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact, at the time what was arranged at the Paris Exposition was not recognised as an Olympic Games. Most of the competitors didn't even know they were competing in an "Olympic Games". What was organised at the Paris Exposition does not even qualify as an Olympic Games. It did not come under the auspices of the IOC. Nor was it organised by the IOC. The Olympic Games that were held in the Panathenian stadium in 1870 and 1875 were far superior events. They were better organised. They were organised by the only Olympic Committee in the world at the time and that very same Olympic Committee sponsored the 1896 Athens Olympic Games (the IOC provided no sponsorship funding for the 1896 Athens Olympic Games). A temporary velodrome is not worthy of being called a stadium whatever anybody quotes. No athletic events were held there. It was a cycling venue. You are passing it off as an athletics stadium because it was the only thing that remotely looked like one. It was built as a velodrome and it was still a velodome after the Paris Exposition. Since I know I will have to repeat myself in the future I will say it again. No athletics events were hosted there. It's not an athletics stadium. It is a velodrome. If you would like to include it in this category I suggest that you list velodromes and leave the athletics stadia out of it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moreover, if you are justifying the inclusion of a velodrome used at the 1900 Paris Exposition which organised sports events (none of which were under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee and none of which were athletics). Then you cannot exclude the athletics stadium that was used to host Olympic Games in an official capacity by the only official and funded Olympic Committee on the planet for the 1870 and 1875 Olympic Games. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just cited a reliable source stating both that the "veolodrome" was a "stadium", and, obviously, that the event of which it was the "main venue" was the second Olympics. The second, of course, not the fourth or fifth. As you have been told numerous times, your personal opinions carry no weight here against the unanimous treatment of these events in the relevant literature. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quoting an encyclopaedia on an encyclopaedia is a bit desperate. But more to the point. The information that you are quoting is not historically accurate. Nor does it agree with the International Olympic Committee's own historical record. I refer you again to the Official Report of the Paris Exposition in 1900 and the Official Report of the 4th IOC Session in Paris in 1901 and the two secondary sources from the International Society of Olympic Historians. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Tabbing over to the left to save space.]

A reliable source must be based on the historical fact and not some flight of fancy that supports the arguments of those that have not made any effort whatsoever in identifying the original historical facts backed up by flagrantly abusive arguments of POV-pushing. Now here is a reliable source that has made the effort to find out the facts and it is not a POV:

"Journal of Olympic History" (The Official Publication of the International Society of Olympic Historians), Special Issue, December 2008, p. 4:

"Can we really say that in 1900 we had Olympic Games?

There are many indications which show otherwise:

From May 14 to October 28 1900 the International World Exposition (Exposition Universelle de 1900) took place in Paris. The programme for this International World Exposition contained a large number of both international and national sporting events. The overall director of the World Exposition Mr. Picard charged Mr. Daniel Merillon with organising the sports events, which he could do with the assistance of the sports organisations and clubs in Paris. Nor in the invitations (Exposition Universelle Internationale de 1900 a Paris [ed.], Reglement General des Concours Internationaux d'Exercices Physiques et des Sports, Paris 1900), in which the various sporting events have been described; nor in the French press-publications (like for example : La Vie au Grand Air 1900) the conception <<Olympic Games>> can be found."

i.e. during the event the games were not called or referred to as Olympic Games. In fact, there are no tickets that use the words "Olympic Games" either for the Paris Exposition in 1900 unlike the Olympic Games of 1870 and 1875 which had printed tickets with the word "Olympics" printed on them (nor was the phrase "Zappas Olympics" used anywhere for either of those two events at that time).

Moreover,

"In his autobiographic books, Baron de Coubertin also avoided this description in his obviously short critical comments about the events."

Not even Baron Pierre de Coubertin referred to the sporting events at the Paris Exposition in his own autobiographical works as "Olympic Games". Notably, because the IOC was not in charge of what happened at the Paris Exposition and what happened at the Paris Exposition was chaos. Although he was asked to be the head of the athletics events of the games but not in his capacity as the second President of the IOC. If anybody is POV-pushing it is you. You are pushing the wholesale fraud that is peddled by today's IOC. Not even Baron Pierre de Coubertin had the stomach to refer to what happened at the Paris Exposition in 1900 as "Olympic Games". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is evidently a revisionist minority opinion; the whole point of that article apparently is about questioning what is otherwise a firmly established, conventional view in the relevant literature, and of course also firmly enshrined in the IOC's own official perspective. If you want to give proper weight to this revisionist view (within the confines of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE), you are welcome to do that over at the relevant article about the 1900 Olympics; but for purposes of general naming, linking and categorising, we will stick with the dominant majority view. Whether you consider that majority view a "fraud" is immaterial; indeed, the fact that you talk in such terms clearly confirms you are here on a POV crusade to spread the WP:TRUTH. Which is not what this project is for; please go do it elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IOC is the only revisionist concerned. In 1900 and 1901 the IOC was clear in its own official documentation that the Games at the Paris Exposition were not Olympic Games and they did not come under the auspices of the Olympic Games. This is not a POV. This is made clear in the Official Report 1904 4th IOC Session (primary reference) and the Official Report of the Paris Exposition of 1900 (another primary reference) (which I have already provided the French-language reference for in the discussion of the Olympic Stadia article). Moreover I have also provided two superlatively creditworthy secondary references in the discussions on this page that back it up. One of which you have both claimed did not exist (until I posted up a scan of the cover on this discussion page, subsquently rapid deleted re: copyright law). Today, the IOC says that there was an Olympic Games at the Paris Exposition in 1901. But the fact remains that in 1900 and in 1901 it said the opposite and it contradicts itself. Therefore it should be made clear that it does so. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(BTW, I doubt a text in broken English like in your quotes above could have appeared in a reputable international journal, and I cannot find any reference to an article under that title anywhere on the ISOH's website. Can you give more precise information? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Yet another excuse! I have missed a few French accents on the titles of the French references otherwise it is verbatim. The authors are German. The board of the International Society of Olympic Historians is based in Germany. Their English isn't perfect but it is more than good enough. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another excuse from a POV-pusher. It is not a minority opinion. The quotes are from a book published by the board of the International Society of Olympic Historians. In the foreward that is signed by: Karl Lennartz, Tony Bijkerk and Volker Kluge. The following is said:

"One cannot change history ex cathedra (infallible).

We explained this with the example of the Olympic Games in 1906. These Games took place after an IOC decision taken at the 1901 Session in Paris under the name: Second International Olympic Games Athens 1906."

A title which I personally disagree with since this is the International Olympic Committee's title which ignores the 1859, 1870 and 1875 Olympic Games which were international events despite your POV-pushing disagreements otherwise.

Even the IOC, in 1901, called the 1906 Athens Olympic Games "Second International Olympic Games" and by doing so the IOC, of the time, cemented the historical fact that there was no Olympic Games in Paris in 1900. Ofcourse, the revisionist IOC claims otherwise now and ofcourse the fact that they have changed history for their own benefit is ignored by all and notably you. Now, what POV-pushing argument are you going to come up with now. The reference is iron-clad solid. The quotes are from the board of the International Society of Olympic Historians which is sponsored by the International Olympic Committee. These are the world experts on modern Olympic history. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We will change to their view when they will have succeeded in convincing the world at large. Not earlier. (Note: I personally don't give a damn either way.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I am fully aware that you are not interested in this subject. The only reason you are here is to revert my edits. There is no other reason why you are here. You don't care about the history of the subject matter. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the view of the IOC in 1901 was clear. 1906 Athens Olympic Games were the Second International Olympic Games (according to the IOC). I don't agree with them but that was their official view. It is historically documented. Now isn't it Wikipedia policy that the earlier historical record counts (and that the modern revisionist IOC version does not count)? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the Wikipedia policy is that we don't bother at all about interpreting the historical significance of contemporary (primary) sources on our own. We simply reflect what the majority of reputable modern (secondary) sources say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then this historical fact is covered either way. The primary source is the report of the 1901 Paris Session of the International Olympic Committee and the secondary source that discusses it has been published by the International Society of Olympic Historians. Belt and braces approach. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You conveniently forget the fact that the majority of present-day reliable sources discussing the history of the Olympics are still treating Paris 1900 as an instance of Olympic Games. That article is only one, minority, viewpoint. We cannot allow it to monopolise our treatment of the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already proved without question of doubt that the only reliable sources on the subject that we are discussing here today is the primary source of the Paris 1901 Session of the IOC and is backed up by the ISOH in their Dec 2008 publication as a secondary source. They prove without any doubt that the sports events at the Paris Exposition in 1900 were not considered to be anything to do with the Olympic Games. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the first time the principles of WP:V and WP:NPOV have been explained to you, and not the first time you have patently failed (or refused) to understand any of it. I see no other option but to ask for you to be banned outright from these topics, since this is evidently a hopeless case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Despite my unending patience with explaining all the history of this subject. Instead of showing me some gratitude you do the exact opposite. Moreover, this is all verifiable and documented, I have provided references above, and it is not a POV. Why do you continue to maintain that it is a POV? This has been documented by the International Olympic Committee and historians that have been sponsored by the International Olympic Committee. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the postponement of the games should 2020 beside Japan National Stadium be changed to 2021, or stay 2020 as at the moment the games are still being classed as the 2020 games? Dunarc (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]