Talk:Olympic Games/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

September 11 Attacks Edits

I do not think that the September 11 attacks have any relevance to this article. I have noticed these edits come into the article before both in the "Violence" and the "Opening" headings. If you can provide a reasonable and cogent rationale for the applicability of these edits to this article then I welcome them. Please discuss the issue here though, rather than with unsupported and speculative edits in the article. These are my reasons for not including it in this article: If we are going to discuss the increase security spending we will have to cite how much the increase was. We will also have to not speculate that the Olympics can be subject to terrorist attacks, and instead insert language that is concrete and factual. This information is in other articles, 2002 Winter Olympics for example. The context of the Violence section is about violence that has occurred at the Olympics, not would could potentially occur due to a terrorist attack that did not happen at the Olympics. I am eager to hear reasoning for including these edits in this article. I am also eager to hear from other editors as to their opinions regarding the addition of this subject matter. H1nkles (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I second your thoughts, its not relevant here unless sources are provided giving actual figures for the increases in security measures. I removed the edits once but they were replaced, hence my tagging them to draw the attention of some of the issues with the paragraph. Basement12 (T.C) 12:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Modern Olympics

The Modern Olympics are held every four years and are always in a destination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.61.191 (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2008 Edit by: Wolfbane007 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)(UTC)

Request for Peer Review comments

Comments copied from the WP:WikiProject Olympics talk page.

• Overall it is very good. It is well-referenced, though for an article of this length there could definitely be more.
• Rostrum needs to be disambiguated or replaced.

• Done

• I have already made some edits correcting phrasing, punctuation, and other details. A dash is not the same as a hyphen so &ndash does not need to be used for a hyphen, and &nbsp is not needed in every instance of a number (WP:MOS).
• The information about hockey and figure skating previously being in the summer olympics is repeated in the Sports section.

• Done

• I also suggest that you clear out some of the excess external links.

• Done H1nkles (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Some more individual statements could use references, although it is overall very well referenced, and you have done a very good job using summary style. You may want to take the article to WP:PR as well. Thanks for your great work and good luck at FAC! Reywas92^Talk 23:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your review. The hard dash/hyphon issue has been confusing for me, I appreciate you clearing some of that up. I will look into removing duplicative information and clearing out some superfluous external links. Thanks again!!! H1nkles (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

End of the Ancient Games

I didn't want to add too much to this article, but re:

In 393 AD Emperor Theodosius I, who re-asserted Christianity as the official religiion of the Empire, banned all pagan observances, of which the Games were one of the most important in Greece. After over 1000 years in existence, the Olympic Games were banned due to their roots in paganism

...could have had a phrase, "who re-asserted Christianity, which had been adopted as the Empire's official religion by Constantine I, after an attempted pagan revival by the Emperor Julian....". Another maybe more pertinent addition might be "Olympia itself was buried by a flood in the 8th Century" (7th?) after the earthquake of such-and-so a year had collapse many of its temples, including the Great Temple of Zeus. But this isn't the Ancient Games article, I just wanted to make sure it's worded right for now....Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your contribution. I have tried to keep this article as summary in nature as possible, relying on the main article links to provide more detail should the reader wish to pursue it. I think leaving out the earthquake and the references to Constantine/Julian are appropriate. Those subjects delve deeper than I feel is necessary for this particular article. They certainly would have more place in the Ancient Olympics article. H1nkles (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection???

What do you think about semi-protecting this article again? Check the history, ever since it has been unprotected it has been hit with vandalism. I'm seeing 5 and 6 reverts a day, which is bad. In trying to prep this article for FAC it doesn't look good for stability to have all these reverts. Please consider protecting the article again. Any body else have a comment on this? H1nkles (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Having it protected wouldn't be a bad idea, its an obvious and common target for vandalism so a request at WP:RFP would be a sensible thing to do. Basement12 (T.C) 11:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do, I didn't know where to go for that. H1nkles (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Audio File

The audio file has the modern greek pronunciation of the word "Ολυμπιακοί Αγώνες" which I think is irrelevant since it reffers to the ancient games so ancient greek should be used. Thanks --Egmontaz (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Continued FAC review

• "The allegations also served to sour many IOC members to Sion's bid and in fact may have helped Turin to capture the host city nomination." Bid of wordiness there. Considering that this is a featured article candidate, I sure hope that we're dealing with facts.
• Symbols: "Once arrived at the Olympic stadium" is a grammar issue.
• Opening: According to the Manual of Style, unspaced em dashes shouldn't be used. The last paragraph of the section has a pair of them. These also need fixing in Boycotts.
• Remove comma after "several doves were burned alive in the flaming cauldron".
• Medal presentation: "with the gold medalist ascending to the central and highest platform" is another noun plus -ing.
• Amateurism and professionalism: Change semi-colon after "further eroded the ideology of the pure amateur" to a comma?
• "the only sports in which no professionals compete is boxing". Make "sports" singular, because there is only one. Also, change 3 to three in the section's last sentence; numbers lower than 10 are usually supposed to be spelled out.
• Boycotts: "due to the "All Blacks" having toured apartheid-ruled South Africa." To provide context for our readers, this should state who the All Blacks are (a rugby team).
• Politics: "between its athletes and athletes from Israel." There's some close repetition of "athletes". I think that one should be changed.

Not quite finished yet, but I'm getting there. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• All of the above items are now corrected. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

One more round:

• Comma after "white Zimbabwean swimmer".
• Champions and medalists: Awkward wording: "at the 1896 Olympics only the first two received a medal, silver and bronze." Needs work on the transition after the comma.
• "Since the IOC no longer recognizes these games as official Olympic games". Remove the first games, and capitalize the second.
• Host cities: "which the IOC no longer considers official Olympic Games." Add "an" before Olympic.
• "Equestrian events held in China's Hong Kong SAR." Add "were" before held, like in the other similar note.
• Something is wrong with the full Olympic Charter reference. It says it was retrieved in 1997. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Everything suggested above has been changed. Thank you Giants2008 for your thorough review! H1nkles (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Olympic Games Host Cities table status

I'm going through and making edits based on an FAC review. One of the suggestions was to remove the host cities table and add maps. I've added the maps but they are images and aren't very clear unless you click on them. What do you think about removing the host city tables? The reviewer suggested replacing them with a prose summary. Since there is a list of host cities it may not be necessary to duplicate it here. But it is a very nice table and I'd hate to remove it based on one person's opinion without some discussion. Anyone have a thought on this? H1nkles (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Master article back on top

Nice! Congratulations to all who helped this important article achieve the state of development it required to get back into the featured gallery. A special thanks to H1nkles who undertook this humongous task of nominating and replying to every major and minor reviewing concern. This page must be kept current as possible and I believe there's always something else to be improved. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I must echo this statement and thank you for the consideration. There were many who helped with peer reviews and responses to suggestions when I was either unavailable or frustrated. Since it is such a time-oriented article there will always be more to say and update. Thank you again. H1nkles (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty awesome collaborative work here all. I still think improvements can be made but the article as it is nothing less than very good. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Calling All Athletics Fans!} 03:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, congratulations to all: especially H1nkles who did a terrific job shepherding the article through the FACs. This article has really deserved its bronze star back. henrik•talk 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You haven't put anything about where the Olympics originally started ( which was Greece). As I thought that wikipedia would help me with my project on the greeks and I was researching the topic of the Olympics I decided to go on this site but know I have relised that I have wasted alot of time.With that time I could have spent on my project that is worth around half of my English score for my SATS. I will probably not come onto this site again as I have been on this site a couple of times and not found the main facts about things i have researched. So know I will probably go onto the BBC website as I find it is much easier to use and you actually get the infomation you are looking for!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.25.52 (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you happen to come back, check the "Ancient Olympics" section as well as the Ancient Olympics article. I think it pretty clearly spells out where the Games originated and some interesting history on the Ancient Games. Alternatively you could also add to this article or the Ancient Olympics article with information that you find at the BBC or any other credible source. That would help make the project more useful for others in the future. At any rate, happy hunting! H1nkles (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia ain't perfect... but these people thinking we have gigantic knowledge gaps on very basic subjects, like the Ancient Olympics, never cease to amaze me. At Talk:Football several people have chimed in not just complaining that they couldn't find the article on American football, but more or less solemnly believing that there is no such article. Maybe Wikipedia isn't as famous as we like to think it is...? (On the other hand, people like this don't seem to be in the habit of actually reading the articles they complain about, or even the lead sections of said articles.) —JAO • T • C 20:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Although that was pretty silly not to notice what is stated, I agree that we aren't as explicit as we should be. It mentions Olympia, Greece in the lead, but the Ancient Olympics section does not explicitly say where they were. It starts off with info about the mythical origin, but does not clearly explain where the original Olympic Stadium, etc. was. Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that as well after reading the anon's comments, one could infer from the context that the Ancient Games were in Greece but it isn't explicitly stated. Perhaps a simple sentence would suffice to clarify. H1nkles (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Section called 'Re-introduction'

"Re-introduction" is not an appropriate title for this section. It's not a word that is commonly used or used at all to describe this part of modern Olympic history.

Can I recommend the following title instead. "The Revival Continues" or something like this.

The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas and that took place in Athens in 1859, 1870 and 1875 was a true revival with international competitors (from Greece and the Ottoman Empire and even Crete which was an independent country prior to 1913 only that it was part of the Ottoman Empire at the time). In my opinion the national Olympic Games organised by Dr Brookes and held at the Crystal Palace in 1866 is also a true revival. Both of these earlier stages of the revival of the Olympic Games in modern times were important steps leading to what happened in Athens in 1896 and cannot be ignored. Likewise any false claim that these were failed revivals is outrageous. Both revivals were incredible achievements at the time they were achieved.

To call what happened in 1896 a revival in itself or a "re-introduction" that is distinct from what happened earlier ignores the fact that this "re-introduction" as you've called it could not have happened without what happened before.

It is more honest to say something like "The Revival Continues" or "Continuation of the Revival" or "Enter the IOC" or something like that. This is like a relay race. Both Dr Brookes and Evangelis Zappas passed historic batons to Baron Pierre de Coubertin through Dr Brookes. Dr Brookes cross-fertilised the content of the programmes from 1859 incorporating Zappas' achievements. Dr Brookes contributed a prize at the 1859 Athens Games. Baron Pierre de Coubertin took Dr Brookes ideas and Zappas' Panathenian stadium and got a Greek IOC President (Dimitris Vikelas) and a Greek Olympic Committee to organise the Olympic Games of 1896. The Greek Olympic Committee incorporated Panagiotis Soutsos (another founder of the Olympic Games) ideas. The date that the 1896 Olympic Games started was a Soutsos idea that was accepted and implemented. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling what happened in 1896 a "Re-Introduction" or a separate "Revival" is not satisfactory. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Calling it a re-introduction when you are using the same stadium and the Zappeion (for the fencing events) is a fraud. Bearing in mind that the Panathenian stadium hosted international Olympic Games events in 1870, 1875, 1896, 1906 and 2004 and the Zappeion hosted the fencing of 1896 and was the first Olympic Village of 1906 (to the Hungarian team). It is a fraud to call it a re-introduction or to claim it is a separate revival, re-invigoration, re-establishment, re-whatnot. It's not a re-anything it is a follow on part of the revival of the Olympic Games in modern times. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Olympic flag photo

It seems to me that the olympic flag on the photograph in the Symbols section features a bluish ring instead of the green one. Am I just colourblind? Otherwise I would propose to replace the photo. Goodwisher (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Host city

There seems to be a lot of editing going on regarding the host cities, especially the one in 2016. I suggest protection or a reliable reference? --Scythre^Talk_Contribs 19:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, me too!--66.170.192.5 (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The pun regarding Turin (shrouded) is very clever, but it hits my (very rare) phobia about relics of the dead... removal would be appreciated. -tigercat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.39.135 (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

1200 years of history mean the 1894 revival is less important than the ancient games!

Olympic Games should direct to a disambiguation page at worst, or directly to Ancient Olympic Games at best. The Coca-Cola festival of sport is less than 120 years old - how can this compare to 1200 years!93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Logo

I'm surprised there isn't an article or section about the Olympic Games logo and/pr hosting country logos... maybe someone should create one? LOctopus (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish, but they're all copyrighted. One of these Olympic articles at least used to have a link to a very nice page with all of them. Reywas92^Talk 23:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Original Olympic Nations

The 14 Original Olympic Nations

United States Of America Greece Germany France Great Britain Hungary Austria Australia Denmark Switzerland Slovenia Italy Sweden Chile —Preceding unsigned comment added by TG405 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Intersex contoversy?

Sould we add something about intersex people are not allowed to compete in the olympics, and if a person is found to be intersex after they won a medal the medal is taken from them? its quite controversal but the article does not mention anything about it 67.142.130.28 (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why should we? Where has the "controversy" been? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Typographic error

{{editsemiprotected}}

Under the first section, "Ancient Olympics"

The first sentence, "The Ancient Olympic Games is a series of competitionss held between representatives of several city-states from Ancient Greece, which featured mainly athletic but also combat and chariot racing events." has a typographical error. "competitionss" should be corrected to "competitions". Anivisual (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Done -Optigan13 (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

hahaha thank you for reading!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hey i have been doing a project on snowboarding and i did well so thank you for putting heaps of information....

NHL players allowed to play in 1988

According to the Ice hockey at the Olympic games article "In 1986, the IOC voted to allow all athletes to compete in Olympic Games starting in 1988" and that "The NHL decided not to allow all players to participate in 1988, 1992 or 1994 because the Winter Olympics typically occur in February, during the league's regular season", making the picture in this article incorrect. It's minor and I'd ix it myself but the article is locked so I can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.248.16 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what you're talking about. The picture is of the Olympic hockey tournament at the 1998 Games. That would be consistent with the information in the other articles. Did you read 1988 instead of 1998? H1nkles (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Under the picture it states that players were allowed to participate starting in 1998, but the olympics allowed them to participate in 1988, only the NHL didn't take a break as they do now so players could play. I'd just want it changed to "NHL players were allowed to participate starting in 1988 but the first time players played was 1998" or something along those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.248.16 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is a reference for this information I'll happily put it in. H1nkles (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Olympic Games Sponsored by Zappas

1. These Olympic Games were called Olympic Games and not Zappas Games. The tickets sold for these event had "Olympics" printed on them. They did not have "Zappas Olympics" printed on them.

2. These Olympic Games were international (and multinational) from 1859. It only takes two athletes from two countries to make an event international (and multinational). Competitors attended from independent Greece (freshly independent from the Ottoman Empire) and from the Ottoman Empire (which was a completely independent entity from Greece). Competitors also attended from Crete (as part of the Ottoman Empire) which was an independent country up till 1913 when it was united with Greece and other competitors attended from Macedonia (you don't even want to get me started on that one, but part of the Ottoman Empire at that time) and from Constantinople and Smyrna in the Ottoman Empire (and they were still called Constantinople and not Istanbul, and Smyrna when all of the Olympics Games happened). Interestingly enough the athletes from Constantinople and Smyrna would be from Istanbul and Izmir (in the Republic of Turkey) today (but at that time they were part of the Ottoman Empire, practically the same thing only less land in Turkey). But the clincher is that there was also an ethnic Bavarian who was born in Athens (from Bavarian parents) who competed at the 1875 Olympic Games. Why do I bother going to all the effort of remembering Mark Mindler the Bavarian. The reason that I go to all that effort is to prove that without any doubt that these Games were not ethnically challenged. These Olympic Games were open events. They were not Greeks-only events and they were not a Greece only event. These Games were international and multinational. All of the above referenced in Professor David C. Young's fine work called "The Modern Olympics, A Struggle for Revival". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like you all to use your common sense since the 1896 Athens Olympic Games was not the first international or multinational Olympic Games. The first was that held in Athens in 1859. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your speculation about the role of Mindler seems to be your personal "original research". "International", in the context of the Olympic games, clearly means: open to all nations. The Zappas games were, even according to your description, open only to people who were either of Greek ethnicity or of Greek nationality (and, in fact, I have seen no evidence that Mindler wasn't in fact regarded as ethnically Greek too.) Young, who you cite as your prime source, seems to leave no doubt that he considers the 1896 Olympics as the "First international Olympic Games" – in fact, that is explicitly the heading of one of his chapters. If he says anything else elsewhere, please quote it here and now. Also, if the argument that the earlier games were "international" because Mindler participated was ever proposed in a reliable published source, and isn't just your own idea, then please cite it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Mindler's parents were Bavarian. He was born in Athens therefore his ethnicity was indisputably Bavarian and his nationality was Greek.

My description clearly states that these were not restricted to ethnic Greeks (and Mindler is proof of that fact). But more than that these Games were not restricted to the geography of Greece either since the event was published in advance in international magazines. I have original copies of the publications. No where in any of them does it say that the Games were Greek only.

Moreover, it is very clear that athletes participated from Greece and from the Ottoman Empire. Two very separate entities who were at war for a fair part of the 19th Century and some of the 20th Century. Moreover, it is very clear that even within the Ottoman Empire athletes that competed from the island of Crete were from an independent country preceding 1913. So that makes 3 countries. Crete was occupied by the Ottoman Empire and it was an independent country.

Now I know that I have made my self perfectly clear in the English language. If you don't understand I will gladly rephrase if necessary. The Olympic Games sponsored by Evangelis Zappas were open and international events. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote above, and look up the meaning of either - or. Also, there is nothing "indisputable" about the ethnicity of second-generation immigrants, ever. Your opinion about Mindler's ethnicity is not of interest here. Your opinion about the significance of that assumed ethnicity isn't relevant either. What counts is reliable sources, which you will need to bring forward for both these points. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

His parents were Bavarian. His mother and father were Bavarian therefore his DNA is 100 per cent Bavarian. What are you talking about? And I have already provided full references. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not, ever, going to exchange any more discussion with persons who think somebody's ethnicity is a function of their DNA. What a despicable racist assumption. This discussion is over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're quitting on me by claiming this is a racist issue. Well it's not. Now since you claim that you can speak some Greek. Here's a completely independent reference in the Greek language that has got nothing to do with me or any reference I have quoted thus far. What I find notably touching about this article (and I had not read it anywhere else before) is that every year the Greek Scout Group that Markos Mindler founded commemorates his death using the colours of the Bavarian flag. How sweet is that? Touching or what? That's how much they loved Mark Mindler:

http://www.3oan.gr/auto/l2-111.html-7

Now come on. Don't chicken out on me Read the article. You never intended to have a meaningful discussion on this subject Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ok I do the work for you. Here's a mediocre translation from Google with the Greek and English.

Mark Mindler

---

Ιδρυτής Αρχηγός της 3ης Ναυτοπροσκόπων. Founder Head of 3 Sea Scouts. Γεννήθηκε στις 28-3-1860 στην Αθήνα και σπούδασε Νομικά. Born on 28/3/1860 in Athens and studied law. Το 1885 διορίστηκε στο Πρωτοδικείο και αργότερα στο Εφετείο σαν άμισθος Πάρεδρος. In 1885 he was appointed to the Court and later the Court of Appeal as Judge unremunerated. Απόφοιτος του Ωδείου Αθηνών, μετείχε σαν τακτικό μέλος στις πρώτες του συναυλίες. A graduate of the Conservatory of Athens, participated as a member of the first concerts. Μανιώδης φίλαθλος, διετέλεσε γιά πολλά χρόνια μέλος και Πρόεδρος του Διοικητικού Συμβουλίου του ΣΕΓΑΣ, του Ναυτικού Ομίλου Νέου Φαλήρου, του Πανελληνίου Γυμναστικού Συλλόγου, του Ποδηλατικού Συλλόγου και άλλων σωματείων. Keen sportsman, he served for many years a member and Chairman of the Board of SEGAS, the Yacht Club New Pavilion, the Panhellenic Gymnastic Association, Association of cycling and other clubs. Γιός του Ιωσήφ Μίνδλερ, ο οποίος εισήγαγε την στενογραφία στην Ελλάδα και εργάσθηκε ως στενογράφος της Βουλής ολόκληρες δεκαετίες. Mindler son of Joseph, who introduced the shorthand in Greece and worked as a stenographer of the House decades. Έτσι γνώρισε τον Βουλευτή Αττικοβοιωτίας και Πρόεδρο του Δ.Σ. So he met Attikovoiotias MP and Chairman of the Board του Σ.Ε.Π. the SEP Νεγρεπόντη και έγινε μέλος της προσκοπικής οικογένειας. Negreponti and joined the Scout family. Ο γιός του Γεώργιος, που υπήρξε κι αυτός υπαρχηγός της 3ης Ναυτοπροσκόπων, κατά την Κατοχή ήταν Γενικός Γραμματέας του Ελληνικού Ερυθρού Σταυρού. His son George, who was and was lieutenant of 3 Sea Scouts during the occupation was General Secretary of the Greek Red Cross. Επειδή η οικογένειά του Ιδρυτή είχε βαυαρική καταγωγή, όταν ο Τάσος Αντωνόπουλος σχεδίασε τον θυρεό της 3ης, χρησιμοποίησε τα χρώματα κόκκινο και μαύρο. Because the family was the founder Bavarian origin when Tasos Antonopoulos designed the crest of 3, used the colors red and black. Κάθε χρόνο στις 28 Μαρτίου τα παιδιά προσέφεραν στον Ιδρυτή ένα μπουκέτο με κόκκινες και μαύρες τουλίπες. Every year on March 28 gave children founder in a bunch with red and black tulips. Μετά τον θάνατό του το 1957, κάθε χρόνο στις 28 Μαρτίου γίνεται τρισάγιο στο Α΄ νεκροταφείο στην μνήμη όλων των μελών της Ομάδας που δεν ζούν πιά. After his death in 1957, every year on March 28 is the trisagio A cemetery in memory of all members of the Group which do not occur anymore. Πάνω στην πλάκα αφήνουμε ένα μπουκέτο κόκκινες και μαύρες τουλίπες. Over the plate leaving a bunch of red and black tulips. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

[moving tabs over to the left to save space] Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There you go Fut Perf. A bunch of red and black tulips specially for you. Distinguishable as ethnically Bavarian down to the last tulip. That really is touching. I'm so glad you made me go to all that effort to find that out. That's really sweet. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh Christ, not again. Nipsonanomhmata, this has been discussed to death in your talk page. No one aside from you see the Zappas Olympics as "international" just because Mindler or Ottoman Greeks participated. Please respect that or come up with some credible source backing this theory up. Constantine ✍ 13:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Constantinos, it is not a theory. It is all fully backed up and referenced in Professor David C. Young's book. Obvioulsy the Mark Mindler references come separately. The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas involved more than one country and therefore fully qualify as international Olympic Games. The Games were not restricted to Greece or to ethnic Greeks. If you hold your hands over your eyes and fingers in your ears then so be it. But referenced facts are referenced facts. btw did you like the tulips above? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have gone over this with you ad nauseum and will not do so again. Mis-citing Young is not OK, neither is (mis-)interpreting his references to suit your own POV. Holding your hands over your eyes and fingers in your ears to what every other editor who has come across the same article and read the same references understands them to mean is also not OK. People from different states but from the same ethnic origin/identity/citizenship also does not make an event "international". Mindler's father, by your own reference, was a naturalized Greek citizen. Mindler himself also does not appear to have had anything to do with Bavaria in any capacity, except for his father's origin, and that is irrelevant to his son's status. BTW, red and black were the colours of Württemberg, not Bavaria (blue and white). Constantine ✍ 13:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not mis-cited Young. I am not interpreting his references. I have just quoted the facts. Where have I misquoted Young? I don't agree with all of his POVs but agree with all his referenced facts. Where does it say anywhere that Mindler's father was a naturalized citizen? Show me the quote/reference. [User:Nipsonanomhmata|Nipsonanomhmata]] (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another reference with the variant of Bavarian flag that has two stripes and a central coat of arms. Now tell me that the red is tomato sauce and that the black is a coffee stain. http://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/flags/de-by_v.html Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

btw I have read Young's Olympic books several times. There are errors in his text that he himself has corrected either later in the same book or in a later publication. Ofcourse we have to assume that the more modern publication is right since the more modern publication is an opportunity to correct previously published errors. Be careful if you want to claim that I've mis-cited Young. I try to cite the most accurate version. If it doesn't agree with an earlier citation that's not my fault. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

Ok, I'm going to weigh in here. I have stood by and watched several editors discuss this issue ad nauseum with Nipsonanomhmata. I have followed the discussion both here and on various talk pages. So I am fairly familiar with the issues. I am not going to get into whether or not the 1859 Games were an "international" Olympics. I'm also not going to even debate what is considered the "first" Olympics. My concerns are factual accuracy, adherence to the sources, good writing, and following the MOS.

• Factual accuracy: no question Zappas made an impact, and should be considered part of Olympic history. You very clearly spell out Zappas' contributions in the Revival section. I feel that the amount of weight given to Zappas' contributions is sufficient and appropriate as the article currently stands.
• Adherence to the sources: As you have consistently pointed out, Young is the key source and you feel you are properly citing Young. This question has been hammered away at both here and on the talk pages. Interpretations vary but I feel that the source gives credence to Zappas' contribution and as such it is important and necessary that the article do the same.
• Good writing: This is a Featured Article, which means it is an example of the best work in the project. If you are going to add information please do so with caution and write properly! Information added should be important and support the overall flow of the article. Here is an example of my concerns with your contributions:

"The Panathinaiko Stadium hosted Olympics in 1870 and 1875.[26] Thirty thousand spectators crowded in to and around the stadium, in 1870, bigger than almost any crowd at Coubertin's IOC Olympics from 1900 to 1920.[27]"

If this is the only Olympic Games then it should say "...hosted the Olympics in 1870 and 1875..." How many spectators came to the 1875 Games? Why specify to the 1870 Games only? Also the comparison the "Coubertin's IOC Olympics from 1900 to 1920" conveys one simple message, "Zappas' contributions and the "original" Modern Olympics have never gotten their just due in history and come hell or high water I'm going to make sure Wikipedia honors Zappas for what he did." No one is comparing Zappas with Coubertin, nor am I trying to minimize his contributions. What use is this comparitive information? Also saying, "...bigger than almost any crowd at Coubertin's IOC Olympics" kills the effectiveness of the statement. "Almost" any crowd, why the qualifier? So there were crowds bigger than 30,000 people? Really this comparison between Zappas' Olympics and Coubertin's Olympics serves no purpose except to display an inferiority complex.

It was necessary to mention the crowd of 30,000 because the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas are belittled in other sections including "Athens 1896". Others claim, without references, that the Olympics sponsored by Zappas were small. That was not the case. Young states "almost" in his book but does not identify a reason why with a backup reference. From what I know the word "almost" is not needed. But I was respecting the source by keeping the word "almost". I believe that Young believed that a football game at the 1920 Olympics had a larger crowd. But personally I don't think so since the crowd at the FA Cup of the 1920s in the UK was smaller by a third and FA Cup crowds were huge. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What I don't see in this article is where the Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas is belittled. Please point this out to me and I'll happily reconsider. Also I don't see in this article where there is a claim that the Olympics sponsored by Zappas were "small". What then is the need for this detail? Really actually I don't mind the mention that the 1870 Olympics drew 30,000 people, that's fine to me if it's properly sourced. What irks me is that need to compare it to the crowds at the Olympics from 1900-1920. The only point that comparison serves is to display the animosity between the two sides. See below for more on animosity. Just because it may be a fact does not mean it has to be in the article, in preparing this article for FA consideration I took out a lot of facts that were either too detailed, distracting, or were simply not helpful to the article. I would contend that this comparison between Olympic Games crowd size is too detailed, distracting and not helpful to the article. If you still feel as though Zappas has not gotten his deserved credit in the article then let's discuss constructive ways in which he can be further credited, rather than rely on negative phrases. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally what are IOC Olympics? Does Young use that term? If so then fine, if not then let's use a different phrase.

If we are going to insist that the Olympics sponsored by Zappas is not going to be called the Zappas Olympics then I think it is reasonable to not call the Olympics sponsored by the IOC the IOC Olympics. Fair? H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is another example:

"The legacies of Evangelis Zappas and his cousin Konstantinos Zappas were used by the Greek government to fund the Athens 1896 Games."

How do you use a legacy to fund something? Did Zappas leave a trust to pay for future Olympics? I'm not asking for more information, I think the article has enough about Zappas but the wording in the sentence is unclear. Please make sure that the contributions are written correctly, using proper syntax and good grammar. And please ask whether or not the information is relevant to the article.

Yes, that is exactly what Zappas did. He left an enormous Trust Fund to fund all future Olympic Games. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well, then I will reword the sentence to say this. "Legacy" is a vague term that doesn't really communicate effectively. Give me a bit to retool the phrase and let me know what you think. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• MOS compliance: I count two stub paragraphs (a paragraph of one or two sentences). I also count at least three sources that are not formatted properly. If you include a new source make sure it hasn't already been cited elsewhere (Young for example) and then format it so that it is consistent with the formatting of the rest of the sources in the article. My examples are as follows: #1 The Modern Olympics, A Struggle for Revival by David C. Young. John Hopkins, 1996, p. 117. ISBN 0801853745, #2 Memoire sure le conflit entre la Grece et la Roumanie concernant l'affaire Zappa - Athens 1893, by F. Martens, #3 L'affaire Zappa - Paris 1894, by G. Streit. Books are in the reference section with only the author, date and page number(s) in the article as in-line citations. Young's book is already in the References section so simply putting his last name, book year and page number is all that is required in the in-line cite. These other publications need the other information necessary for a citation per WP:CITE. Are they books? Then where is the publisher, isbn, and url (if online)? Are they in French? Then it should say so in the citation.

ok I hear you. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In closing, what confuses me about this entire discussion, and the various ideations of it on people's talk pages, is the animosity between the Zappas Olympics and the IOC Olympics (your term). I think this rivalry has been created here and exists only in this ethereal world of Wikipedia. So why then does it work its way into the article? How has it worked its way into the article? I contend that the statement comparing the amount of people who attended the two different Olympics demonstrates an underlying negativity that obviously exists here in the talk page and elsewhere. There is no need for such contentiousness. It certainly doesn't serve the greater good. I always want to assume good faith and I believe that your contributions are intended to adhere to the historical record. With that in mind let's work together to maintain the quaility of the article. A lot of people worked really hard to bring this article to featured article status and I for one want desperately to keep it there. I welcome your feedback. If none is forthcoming in the next week or so I will make edits as I see fit. I am ready and willing to engage in dialogue about what I have just outlined above. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 21:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The animosity has always existed from the day that Baron Pierre de Coubertin walked in to the Panathenian stadium during the Olympic Games in 1896. He wasn't treated with the respect that he felt he deserved. Can cite this from Young. The Baron, and his IOC that followed, has been carrying a chip on his shoulder ever since and have been belittling what Zappas did ever since. That's a fact that the IOC downplays and few know about. It's the reason that the Athens 1906 Olympic Games has not been recognised by the IOC and why Evangelis Zappas has not been given his due credit by the IOC.Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Very well, then one would think that after over 100 years this battle could be put to rest. More below in the next section. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Forerunners and Revival

It is important to distinguish between "forerunners" and "revival" and not throw them both in to the same melting pot. Young acknowledges that what Zappas did was part of the revival (and clearly not a forerunner). Also, it is hard to discount Dr Brookes' 1866 Olympic Games. It was the first Olympic Games to be held outside Greece to resemble an Olympic Games (albeit without a stadium). Also Dr Brookes had the provenance by incorporating elements of the Athens 1859 Olympic Games in to the programme of future Wenlock Olympian Games. The London 1866 Olympic Games was the first proper national Olympics in the UK and that deserves credit as part of the Olympic revival since Dr Brookes beat Baron Pierre de Coubertin to that finishing post. Dr Brookes organised the first Olympic Games outside of Greece before Coubertin. Moreover Coubertin's Paris 1900 side-show Olympics didn't have a stadium. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, how can anybody exclude Zappas from "revival" when he funded 1859, 1870, 1875 and 1896. 1896 jointly with his cousin and with George Averoff. And when the stadium that Zappas refurbished first and provided funding for forty years before anybody else was reused in 1896, 1906 and 2004. And when the Zappeion was used to host fencing events in 1896, was used as the first Olympic Village in 1906 and as the Media Centre at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games. The IOC claim that Baron Pierre de Coubertin was the sole founder of the Modern Olympic Games is outrageous. Moreover, Jacques Rogge stated in his Opening Ceremony speech at the Beijing Olympic Games that the Baron "created" the Olympic Games. Rogge is attempting to deify the Baron. As though the Baron pulled out a rib and created the Olympic Games from ancient times. Outrageous. It all follows on from what happened in the stadium during the Athens 1896 Olympic Games. And ofcourse, there was no funding from Baron Pierre de Coubertin. The Baron was riding on waves of eliteness that Barons' emanated at that time. The Baron didn't put his hands in his pockets to revive the Olympic Games he just jumped on the bandwagon and waited for all the other founders to die before he and his IOC started to claim that he solely revived the Olympic Games. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I think you're doing to the Baron and the IOC what you accuse them of doing to Zappas. But I don't want to go down that road as it really isn't constructive. As I've stated earlier, I'm not interested in whether or not Ottomon athletes were "international" or in engaging in any of the other fights that have preceded this conversation. What I want is to reach an acceptable compromise that can be reasonably articulated and then put down our swords and get to work on other articles to help the project. If we are going to quibble over who gets credit for the Olympics then we must go all the way back to those unnamed individuals who created the Games 2,700 years ago. They are the true innovators and dreamers. In that light, Zappas, Coubertin, the IOC and everyone else are standing on other people's shoulders; reviving old ideas, not creating original concepts. So let's keep this all in perspective. The reality is that the Olympic Games were not revived in a bubble, several Games had come before the 1896 Games and several people made important contributions. My question then is what do you feel is missing from the article as it currently stands? I'm all for keeping the section title as "Revival", I think that's a properly descriptive title. In fact I think it would be fine to combine the Forerunners and Revival sections into one. The Modern Games section has too many little sub-sections anyway. What do you think about that? What else? Please re-read the sections in question and we can discuss. For my part, I take issue with the comparison in attendence between the 1870 Games and the Games from 1900-1920. I would like to see that small section removed. Keep the 30,000 people attending fact that's fine but remove the comparison. My reasons are articulated above. Thanks. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The comparison can certainly be deleted. But I think that the 30,000 should be kept mainly since other editors, misguided by some historians (who invented their own version of history), have claimed that these Olympics were small insignificant events. The 1870 Olympics clearly was not. I need some time to re-read the sections and contribute as requested here in the talk. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice that in the disambiguation history is invented! The claim that the Cotswold Olympicks was a revival of the Olympic Games is outrageous. The Cotswold Olympicks had nothing to do with the Olympic Games. It has no provenance. No connection with Greece. No connection that would give credence to the comparison of Olympic Games. No stadium. Moreover, its blue riband event was and still is the shin-kicking contest. The Olympic revival claim is a well worn joke. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I won't make any edits to remove information until you have a chance to read the sections in question. Thank you for your thoughtful input, I appreciate the dialog. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Spoken Word Pronunciation

I am working on the spoken word version of this article, and I'm looking for help with pronunciation.

How would you pronounce these words: Coubertin, Coroebus, Oenemaus, Pisatis Becky Sayles (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this! I can help with one of the words. Coubertin is pronounced cu (rhymes with to) - ber (rhymes with bear) - tin (rhymes with ten). The other three words are Greek and I wouldn't be of much help with those. User:Cplakidas would be a good resource for those words. Hope that helps. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Cotswold Olimpick Games nonsense

Can someone inject a bit of common sense and get rid of Cotswold Olimpick Games from the hatnote and infobox of this and all other Olympic articles? A annual shin-kicking competition in an insignificant English village hardly merits mention anywhere let alone in this article. --Simple Bob (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it from the infobox and the top of this article, you're right it doesn't merit mention here but an annual sporting event which can trace its origins back 400 years certainly merits attention somewhere. Where else have you come across links to it? Basement12 (T.C) 23:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Under the list of sports that have been held at each Olympic Games, cycling should be added. You're probably referring to 1904, unless it was a mistake, but most current sources (and the IOC) list it as an Olympic sport in 1904. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billbambam (talk • contribs) 10:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

2008 Trivia

I moved the following sentence from the main article to here because while it is correctly cited it has nothing to do with the section it was in: "Host nations and cities".

The countries that sent the most athletes to the 2008 Summer Olympics are China with 639, the United States with 596, and Russia who brought 455 athletes.

---

On the surface this appears to be trivia, especially since it only provides statistical facts for a single year. If it can be integrated into the text or a related artice great but as is it seems to be a rather orphaned statement having no current place in the article. 66.102.204.203 (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking forIndividual teams data starting from 1960

For every years data that exists on wikipedia's olympic games page, there is a total count of sports men and women. I was interested in gathering individual data of each and every country. Where can I find this data? where does wikipedia get this data ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notnarayan (talk • contribs) 09:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Grand Olympic Festival in Liverpool

The only thing "wholly" about this paragraph is that it is "wholly" ridiculous:

"Between 1862 and 1867, Liverpool held an annual Grand Olympic Festival. Devised by John Hulley and Charles Melly, these games were the first to be wholly amateur in nature and international in outlook.[22][23] The programme of the first modern Olympiad in Athens in 1896 was almost identical to that of the Liverpool Olympics.[24]"

1. For starters, the Wenlock Olympian Games were wholly amateur in nature and the Grand Olympic Festival could not possibly have been any more amateur. At Liverpool:

<<Entry was open to "Gentlemen Amateurs," which clearly excluded working-class entrants.>> (Young (1996), p.31)

<<The most notable feature of these Games is surely their introduction--to the Olympic movement and perhaps to all of history--of elitist "amateurism" and their exclusion of the working class.>> (Young (1996), p.31)

<<There, surely with a critical eye north toward his friends in Liverpool, Brookes said in his annual speech, "As Christians we should, on moral grounds, endeavor to direct the amusement of the working class." Brookes's activity started with a view toward the working class, and he never forgot it.>> (Young (1996), p.31)

At the second Liverpool Olympics:

<<... the call went out to "Gentleman Amateurs of all nations" to come to compete in Olympic Games in Liverpool on June 13, 1863. Yet this international feature failed, probably because there were, as yet, no "Gentleman Amateurs" outside of England ...>> (Young (1996), p.32) Ofcourse, completely forgetting that the 1859 Athens Olympics had already been promoted outside of Greece before the event in newspapers and magazines of the 1850s.

Objections were raised that some of the "Gentleman Amateurs" had trainers. So much for the claim of amateurism! (Young (1996), p.32)

Neither, the 1859, or 1870 Athens Olympics excluded the working class.

2. Every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks that they can jump on a bandwagon and call their event "Olympic" when the only Olympic stadium on the planet at that time was the yet to be excavated and refurbished Panathinaiko stadium. The Liverpool "Olympics" were only "Olympics" in name. They were local, not national, they were exclusively elitist, there was no stadium. The Liverpool Olympics is only a distraction in Dr Brookes' movement towards "International Olympic Games".

3. Anybody who makes the claim of an "almost identical" programme to the Athens 1896 Olympic Games is a blatant liar and should be made to post copies of both original progammes here for all to see. Regardless of sourced quote. Not to mention the cart before the horse: Dr Brookes adopted events from the 1859 Athens Olympics programme in to the programme of future Wenlock Olympian Games and he contributed to the programme at Liverpool. Trying to claim that Liverpool's programme was the first "Olympic" programme is yet another wholly ridiculous claim.

4. As for international in outlook. It wasn't even a proper national event. Crystal Palace 1866 was the first truly national event in the United Kingdom. There were no international participants. Either it had athletes from outside of the United Kingdom or it did not. You can't claim "international outlook" whatever source it is quoted from. Moreover, the 1859 Olympics held in Athens had participants who had travelled from outside the boundaries of Greece to be there (they came in from Asia Minor). Dr Brookes was an organiser at Liverpool and he used to think about an international Olympic Games. Unfortunately, all he did about it was think about it and tell Baron Pierre de Coubertin and the Greek government about it. Meanwhile, Ottoman citizens had already competed at the 1859 Olympics in Greece. AND when Brookes first initiated an honorary roll at the WOS the first man he listed on that roll was an athlete who competed at the 1859 Olympics who lived outside Greece!

5. What happened in Liverpool was just another step closer by Dr Brookes. The closest that he got was Crystal Palace in 1866. That was the first event outside Athens to even come close to looking like an Olympic Games. AND like everything else to do with Dr Brookes, it had no stadium, the Wenlock Olympian Games still has no stadium and is nothing more than a well organised sports event. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bakrnl, 12 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like someone to please change the mistake in the first sentence involving the plurality mistake in "The Olympic Games are a, as that should not occur. I would change it, but I am not yet autoconfirmed.

Bakrnl (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks for the suggestion, but an internet search reveals that many reputable sources treat "The Olympic Games" as a singular (not plural) term, including Britannica. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, you surely mean the other way round? The Britannica page you cite is clearly using it as a plural. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So it is. My apologies; I'm not sure what went through my head last night. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. Amendment has been made. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Games" is a plural. There can be no doubt about that. There is sometimes some confusion in English usage in copula sentences when a plural subject is joined to a nominally singular predicate nominal or vice versa ("the games" vs. "an event"). However, the rule found in careful standard English and also in English grammars is that it is always the subject, not the predicate, that determines agreement. Thus, "the Olympic Games are ..." is the only correct option. In sentences with verbs other than be, where a number conflict with a following predicate cannot arise, there can be no issue at all; only the plural syntax is English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just noting this came up in two FA reviews (archive 1, archive 2). In both cases the reviewer advocated treating Olypic Games as plural, as does Future Perfect. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous removal of Cotswold Olimpicks from Olympic history

Frankly, I'm rather baffled and disappointed at your decision to remove any mention of the Cotswold Olimpicks from this article, seemingly on the basis of a request from one contributor. I quote:

'Can someone inject a bit of common sense and get rid of Cotswold Olimpick Games from the hatnote and infobox of this and all other Olympic articles? A annual shin-kicking competition in an insignificant English village hardly merits mention anywhere let alone in this article. --Simple Bob (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it from the infobox and the top of this article, you're right it doesn't merit mention here but an annual sporting event which can trace its origins back 400 years certainly merits attention somewhere. Where else have you come across links to it? Basement12 (T.C) 23:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)"

To dismiss the important cultural and other significance of the Robert Dovers Games, on the basis of what seems like uninformed prejudice is rather unfair.

Yes, the shin-kicking competition (which now gets most of the publicity in the media) is just one of many sports that take place at this annual Games. But it's a bit of a red herring.

For instance, other ad initio events at the Olimpicks include standing jump (which was only dropped from the modern Olympics in the last century), tug o'war (ditto), putting the shot, hammer throw, spurning the barre (ancient English version of tossing the caber), plus athletics (a 5 mile running race). In addition, sports that have been competed for, albeit not every year include wrestling, high jump, archery and shooting. Hardly a litany of weird and wacky sports (ignore shin-kicking, even if that has taken part in the event since 1612).

The importance of the Cotswold Olimpicks (and its 400th anniversary in 2012) was even recognised by the British Olympic Association, and used as part of their successful bid for the Games! To quote The BOA (this was used on the London 2012 website as well:

""An Olympic Games held in London in 2012 will mark a unique anniversary - it will be exactly 400 years from the moment that the first stirrings of Britain's Olympic beginnings can be identified. In 1612 in the tiny village of Chipping Campden, Robert Dover opened the first Cotswold Olimpicks, an annual sporting fair that honoured the ancient Games of Greece. Those early 'Olimpick' competitors were as remote as you could imagine from the Olympic stars of today, and the sports included singlestick, wrestling, jumping in sacks, dancing and even shin-kicking. But whatever the eccentric nature of the event, this was the pre-dawn of the Olympic movement, and the Cotswold Games began the historical thread in Britain that was ultimately to lead to the creation of the modern Olympics."

Jan Paterson of the British Olympic Association said: ""These are the first games to originate in this country with 'Olympic' in the title and we will support them any way we can,"

The Robert Dovers Games society has long had this Olympic tradition recognised. The Cotswold Olimpicks was one of the few events authorised to fly the flag of the British Olympics Association.

In addition, Robert Dover was entirely aware of the Greek Olympic Games and his intention was to revive the noble sporting tradition in a modern era. Surely this alone makes it one of the first true uses of the Olympic ideal and name in the 'modern era'.

References to the Games as Olimpick appear in literature as early as 1640. Jean Williams, writing in Sport in History, notes:

A reference to the games appeared in the 'green world comedy', Richard Brome's Jovial Crew or The Merry Beggars. It was acted in 1641 at the Cockpit Theatre, Drury Lane (and published in 1652) and in it two young men, Vincent and Hilliard, invite sisters Rachel and Meriel: 'Will you go up the hilltop of Sports then, and Merriments, Dover's Olimpicks or Cotswold Games?'

And from the same article:

"As Ron Pickering, the teacher, coach and journalist claimed in 1972:

The influence of English rural sports, and the work of William Penny Brooks [sic] and Robert Dover, have been significant in the development of the Olympic Games philosophy. Almost half the events in the Modern Games are historically connected to British rural sports. Therefore we have a certain arrogant claim and a responsibility to the development of the Modern Olympic Games."

There is no doubt that the Much Wenlock Games have a claim to be a precursor of de Coubertin's revival. However, I would strongly argue the case that, while there may not be a direct linear link between the Cotswold Olimpicks, Much Wenlock and de Coubertin, Robert Dovers Games has a valid and documentable right to be considered as a precursor to the modern Olympic Games. To remove it entirely from this article therefore seems incorrect, not to mention spiteful.

One final correction. Chipping Camdpen is now a somewhat sleepy, and peaceful, TOWN (not village). However in the middle ages up to 17th century, it was one of the wealthiest small towns in England, thanks to the importance of the wool trade. The preponderance of expensive vernacular architecture, not to mention its fine church, and the remains of it's grand Campden House, bear testament to its' historical importance. IN more recent times it was one of the birthplaces of the Arts and Crafts movement.

Giuliettista (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Cotswold Olympicks is an important sporting event however it is not a predecessor of the modern Olympic Games nor is it genealogically connected to the Olympic Games. And yes its blue riband event is a shin-kicking contest and legs do get broken.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Cotswold Olimpick Games article, which is FA by the way, states that the British Olympic Association (BOA)does acknowledge the Cotswold Olimpicks as a precursor to the modern Games in the same vein as Brookes. After reading the source (which is the Cotswold Games site rather than the official state of the BOA as I'd like) I can see a point. The original request was that the Cotswold reference be removed from hatnote/infobox. I agree with this request as, in my opinion, putting info into a hatnote/infobox is intended to draw attention to it and give it weight. In this case I don't feel the contributions of the Cotswold Games warrant that level of attention. But, a mention in the article is reasonable and I will address that. On a side note, when making an argument for including something that has been excluded I recommend leaving out inflammatory language such as accusing editors of being spiteful. I'm sure there was no malice intended in the removal of information about the Games. It's best to keep a level head about such things. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

review -46.12.59.98 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)