Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Olympic Games

Olympic Games

Article is still a featured article.

Non-NPOV style:

• in its section unofficial POV prevails over official (one of the IOC) one. Namely: Ray Ewry is on top of the table of gold medallists and his photo (the only photo in this section) says about 10 titles, although IOC recognizes only 8 of them (IOC POV considered minor and is present only in the remarks section).
• the subtopic of that section, "the most successful athlete", is itself non-NPOV item: e.g. in my POV, it is an athlete with most total number of medals, so, corresponding table should also be there.

So, I believe, at least one section of the article is not NPOV-style, an article needs attention and should be removed from the list. Cmapm 12:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Aliter 00:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. The IOC is not the "office" for this fact. Ray Ewry's victories were Olympic when he won them (1900, 1904, 1906, and 1908). The IOC no longer recognising Athens 1906 doesn't change history.
     1. I didn't say, that the IOC (and myself, independently from the IOC, BTW) is the "office" for some fact. I just said, that one POV by far prevails over another one (you didn't reply to this my argument): caption of the photo has even no corresponding remark, just is written - With 10 Olympic titles, Ray Ewry may be considered the most successful Olympic athlete in history, in the table Ewry's entry is not even marked by an asterisk - a reader should look through all the table of 10 items to accidentally find the remark in the end. Ewry did won 10 titles, e.g. athletes disqualified for doping also "won titles", but the question is: are all of them and by all people/organizations/whatever recognized as Olympic titles at present? Cmapm 00:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Avoiding all POV in ranking athletes is only possible through not ranking them at all, as participation in Olympic events does not have an inherent universal ordering. The criterion used in the article should be familiar to most, as it's used quite often for per country medal counts: Gold count; if equal: silver count; if equal: bronze count.
     1. Yes, one way is not to present this info at all. Alternative (more common in Wikipedia) way is to expand an article and present alternative POVs, e.g. the table of "most-all-medalists" should be appropriate in this case. "Is familiar" does not always mean neither "is acceptable" nor "is suitable". While this criteria is used for country rankings by most parties, including the IOC, ranking separate athletes by it is less popular and I saw ranks by total medal count in many sources (especially the Russian ones) as well. It seems, that I answered to all of your arguments, isn't it? ... But the discussed section of the article has even more bugs. There even is not mentioned, that the table deals with Olympians of the Modern era. Therefore, it can be treated as the table of all-time "most-gold-medalists" and in this case it lacks the famous Ancient Olympian Leonidas from Rhodes [1], who should be on top of the table with 12 Olympic titles. I feel enough strength in my arguments to go through all steps of the dispute resolution process in the nearest future, I invite you in advance to corresponding dispute articles. Cmapm 00:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Brookie 11:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with the points listed above. In addition, regarding the first point, the article is actually more NPOV than the IOC, since both standpoints are included. The IOC silently ignores these Games. As for the "succesful" count, it is very clearly noted that no fair measure is possible. To give an idea nonetheless, the most commonly used method of counting "success" is used. I do not consider that POV. Jeronimo 20:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • All my arguments in my answer to Aliter are suitable here. I feel enough strength in my arguments to go through all steps of the dispute resolution process in the nearest future, I invite you in advance to corresponding dispute articles. Cmapm 00:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see most problems here could have been solved without things ever getting this far. In some cases this would require splitting off subpages, though, as the main page is over the size limit as it is. I will, however, unwatch all Olympic content, as I do not want to be part of this. I found out in earlier discussions that I can not handle the style of discussion showing here, so I won't. I do wish everybody the strength to show eachother respect, and I hope the end result will be am improvement of the Wikipedia. Aliter 00:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I'm often getting nervous and border with personal attacks, this is due to many injustices and lies which I encountered dealing with other my main topics for now (e.g. lies in an article 1980 Summer Olympics). I am really very sorry if I hurted you. Cmapm 02:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other sections are NPOV-style in my view. My suggestion for the discussed section is (I'll do corresponding changes myself if nobody goes into discussing them):

• games of the Modern Era mentioned somewhere in the section
• an asterisk near Ewry's entry in the table or in the caption of the photo and near the corresponding remark.
• Either a photo of Larissa Latynina (I'll try to supply it; Ewry's photo may remain there), the caption on which just states: Larissa Latynina won 18 Olympic medals, including 9 gold ones - nothing else or a table of most total medallists, to avoid subtopics both tables may be limited to 5 entries each. Cmapm 16:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've realized this my proposal (as you can see, this is relatively soft, compared to what I proposed on the talk page, I believe it may be a sort of compromise) and change my vote to keep. Cmapm 11:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)