Talk:European Olympic Committees

NOCs

Wouldn't the NOC creation dates be more pertinent than "first use" here? -- Jonel | Speak 02:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the table completely, as it was simply lifted from a version of List of IOC country codes. We don't need to repeat the code history and/or participation history here. Agree that the NOC creation & recognition dates would be useful to add now. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Committee of Serbia

I do not know why we should have a carbon copy of the IOC data when we all know this is not correct. When Russian Federation has as a date of foundation 1989/1993 we should not accept the position of carbon-copying of IOC data.

Serbia founded the Serbian Olympic Club in 1910 which became Serbian Olympic Committee in 1911. Serbia participated in the 1912 games so the now called Olympic Committee of Serbia can as it date of foundation have 1911 and as it date of recognition 1912.

We cannot accept the politization of sport - and this is just that what the current SOK tryed to achieve by listing as the date of foundation 1919 (foundation of Yugoslav Olympic Committe in Zagreb, Croatia) which was recognized by the IOC in 1920.

Why could not our esteemed editors compromise a tiny bit and give the entire world a lesson. I am sure that nobody reasonable in Serbia would not mind we list even more historical data.

In my personal view the Olympic Committe of Serbia declared itself the successor of the Olympic Committee of Serbia and Montenegro so we should list the year 2006 as the year when Serbia once again joined the Olympic Movement. This way we should list 1911/2006.

Oppinions?

Imbris (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a "carbon copy" of outside sources because it is an encyclopedia, and that's what we do. Per Wikipedia:No original research, Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the IOC website directly support[s] the information as it is presented in [this] article, to quote from that guideline. The IOC says that they recognized that NOC in 1920, so you can't change the date to something else because you don't like it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

IOC list is not a "holy bible" and other sources can be as good as your main source. I have listed the source in every of mine uploads regarding this topic but you seem to missed observing them. -- Imbris (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your edit-war which is completely baseless. There are no better or worse sources but reliable and valuable ones. I have used the primary source which you contest on the solemnly basis of one secondary source (compiled from primary sources). -- Imbris (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On the validity of your secondary source to which you insist calling it primary - http://www.olympic.org/uk/utilities/legal_uk.asp -- Imbris (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a single line of response! -- Imbris (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The appropriate thing to do, of course, is use both references. It is logical to use the OKS's date of when they claim they were created, and the IOC's date of when they say they recognized the NOC, and also explain the discrepancies in footnotes, as I have done. Your blind revert (including the addition of improper English spelling and grammar) is not appropriate. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the great and mighty Russian Federation cannot claim as years of foundation and recognition the same years of foundation and recognition of the Olympic Committee of United Soviet Socialist Republics. Stop mixing Serbia with the Yugoslavia (a federal state of six republics and two autonomous provinces). Also I would like to witness a more calm approach from you + without name calling and provocations. We cannot use the IOC data as the Holy Bible because they themselves are not the primary source and their legal notice states that their data is not perfect but very much falable to the point of them asking the entire World community for help in information. If the mighty IOC is so humble - why are not you (being the solemn promotor of exclusively IOC's Website data. -- Imbris (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning only SOC in the context of YOC

This will not do. Better to exclude YOC from this story. If you want to include YOC then the entire story about it should be mentioned. Why bother to mention something that is not connected to SOC in its (SOC's) exclusive context. -- Imbris (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned to explain why the IOC considers 1919/1920 as the creation/recognition dates that they attribute to SRB. There is no bad intent here, just an honest attempt to reconcile the two conflicting sources in a clean explanation. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is not neccessary but if you insist on it then it must mention that Yugoslav Olympic Committee was the representant of entire Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia (Kosovo, Vojvodina) and Slovenia. If this is not acceptable for you, for any possible reason, then try to ommit Yugoslav Olympic Committee in a context of Serbian Olympic Committee only. This can be done so that the first ref explains 1911/1912 and the second 1919/1920 but without mentioning Serbian Olympic Committee in that second reference. -- Imbris (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)