Talk:2022 Winter Olympics

Why does it say "1998 Winter Olympics" in the article?

I figured that was wrong, but I was afraid that it was written like that because of somehthing I don't know about. Surely it should be "2022 Winter Olympics"? Gaster2411 (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, it was vandalism. How do I remove this topic? Gaster2411 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Canada Missing From Medial Table

Missing Canada in the Medals Table under the overall "2022 Winter Olympics" page until you click the link to see the "2022 Winter Olympics medal table". Canada sits 4th in total medals and is not listed at all in the main page's table. ~2026-83311-4 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

WP: SYNTH /MOS:LEDE plus removing sourced info

@LionTank: You had removed these sourced info without reason in the relevant body section. These info clarifies and give a full picture. Additionally note Twitter themselves never confirmed those accounts were from the gov and so you can't remove Twitter's statement on not verifying it. The lede should also comply to MOS:LEDE. The previous version was misleading. It made it sound like China literally arrested and jailed heaps of foreign journalists. But sources don't support that but only mentions a one off Dutch incident, that was hardly detention but shortly moving him a few metres to the permitted journalist area. Also the vast majority of NOCs did not make their athletes bring burners. Only a handful (around 5 western nations), and so it's disproportionate to give too much detail to burner phones in a lead per WP:UNDUE. The lead should only summarise the sporting event itself, with controversies mentioned only briefly and in proportion to their overall coverage in article.Smalledi (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Five words sums it up appropriately ("foreign journalists were harassed and detained") so no need to put all details of this in the lede. The Dutch journalist has complained of other incidents besides his own detainment, while Human Rights Watch has noted that foreign journalists faced a challenging environment reporting on the Games. LionTank (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, "foreign journalists were harassed and detained" is brief and concise so I don't think most readers will be misled into such an exaggerated conclusion/interpretation like yours (It made it sound like China literally arrested and jailed heaps of foreign journalists). LionTank (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You understand it's incorrect to say that China jailed or locked up foreign journalists journalists at the games. If we were to do a RfC and ask experienced editors if your statement risks giving that very impression, most will agree with me that it does even if you didn't intend it. This is a clear case of WP:SYNTH as sources didn't say China detained any journalist, let alone multiples. What they describe is a single incident in which one reporter was escorted back to a permitted zone and allowed to resume reporting minutes later. Recasting that single incident as "detention" in the lead is an exaggerated interpretation that goes beyond what the sources support.Smalledi (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You also have not explained why you removed my sourced material. Simply reverting it without a policy-based rationale isn't acceptable. Also when I say summarise per MOS:LEDE - I mean a proportional summarisation of the entire article, and not cherry-picking eye-catching controversies. A lede is meant to reflect the entirety of the article as a whole, in due proportion. How is burner phones even lede worthy when it's just a small subset of countries doing that? This isn't a defining feature nor reflect the majority experience in the games. And if it's not representative of the experience of most participants or overall article, then it violate WP:UNDUE when highlighted at the level. Human rights issues can and should indeed be summarised in the intro but proportionally. The more detailed and exhaustive discussion belongs in the body, where it already exists. That is how MOS:SIMPLIFIED is intended to work. Per lede policy, the intro should accurately and proportionally summarise the whole article, rather than amplifying selective or marginal points to the highest level of prominence. Smalledi (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Your aim is to regard the detained Dutch reporter as an isolated incident and then you explain it away to minimize it. However, as this and other attacks on journalists fit a pattern of a state-backed campaign then this is significant enough to mention in the lede. 'Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China says reporters tailed and manhandled by security despite assurances from Games officials. The FCCC also highlighted significant online trolling and abuse of journalists who had covered Olympic events and related stories. “In some cases these attacks were fuelled by Chinese state media accounts and Chinese diplomats,” it said, describing an observed aspect of state-backed online harassment and propaganda campaigns.' LionTank (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Your source says "some" harrassment cases were fuelled by state media and gov. I am deducing they mean that most aren't. All countries have heated nationalism, and is not particularly lede worthy. And again, if this was an article dedicated to China's politics then your approach might be reasonable. But this is primarily an article about a sporting event with political or human right issues as secondary. If there were bigger and more severe stories than that one Dutch guy then we would have heard of it by now. Yet, I have compromised for you and summarised in a neutral tone that there were concerns over media freedom, surveillance, freedom, and restrictions during a games with heavy restrictions during COVID. If you're unhappy with this, a third opinion or even RfC may be appropriate and we can agree to follow whatever concensus decide. But I have explained how MOS:LEDE applies here and revised the lede accordingly. Unless there's an extraordinary exception agreed via concensus, you cannot override the standard recommended policy for the lede. Smalledi (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

In the lede, a few words on each issue doesn't do them justice, while having a sentence on each issue is concise enough without being overbearing. LionTank (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

We don't even mention that winter Olympics was run on entirely renewables in the lead as we can't fit everything. Especially when it comes to events like the Olympics, grievances shouldn't overshadow the main topics like sporting events itself. A lede is not meant to be exhaustive but a summary but you don't seem to get or accept that. Ok, don't take my word for it. I will ask this at WP: UNDUE and WP: SYNTH noticeboards to assure article is following policy. After that, we follow what veteran editors recommend. Agree? Smalledi (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I am fine with adding a sentence on carbon neutrality in the lede. LionTank (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

We really shouldn't. Adding in that Beijing grew many trees to offset emissions, used mostly clean energy cars and powered Olympics with largely renewables is really just the background info for the body unless coverage treats them as a major defining points of the games. It will be undue despite being highly notable for the development chapter. The lede should summarize what the Games were, and not every marginal thing that happened around the competition. Organisation, competition, venues, athletes, results are the core important things for this article and everything else is secondary. Smalledi (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@LionTank Also you again reverted my sourced edits and at least 5 of my edits in one go. You broke the 3RR rule. You pushed synth that those twitter accounts were state run. The sources do not state this. And why I first corrected it then later added sourced info that Twitter did not confirm these accounts were state-run and they will disclose if they found evidence. You reverted that. You should revert it back. Smalledi (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The existing version is fine, its not WP: SYNTH and isn't explicitly stating that these were state-run Twitter accounts.

Such accounts appeared to operate solely to amplify state media, as most of these accounts were recently created with very few followers, and their activity consisted solely of reposting China comments including from one account called "Spicy Panda" whose cartoons and videos rallied against the Olympic boycott. A Twitter spokesperson said that hundreds of accounts included in the investigation's findings have since been suspended for violating the "platform manipulation and spam policy," which prohibits "coordinated activity that attempts to artificially influence conversations through the use of multiple accounts, fake accounts and automation." LionTank (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You claim you were not explicitly saying they are state-run. 🤦‍♀️ Check again. Your first sentence is "the Chinese government deployed dozens of fake Twitter accounts to push the Government's position". That is clearly saying they are state-run Twitter accounts. Smalledi (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Didn't notice as I presumed that the dispute was over the bottom of the paragraph. Reworded the first sentence of the paragraph:

In the run up to the Olympics, thousands of fake Twitter accounts pushed the Government's position in the Peng Shuai scandal and the IOC's involvement as well as attacking foreign journalists. LionTank (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Here from the NO OR board. I am in agreement with Smalledi, the claims that multiple journalists were detained, that the government deployed twitter accounts, and that the government censored discussion of environmental concerns are not supported at present by they references being used. Looking through the edit history Smalledi has edited the text to align as necessary with what the sources say. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Have addressed these concerns in latest edit. It is permitted to mention that journalists were harassed, as per the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China. LionTank (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

According to MOS:LEDE, It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. On Donald Trump many prominent controversies are highlighted, so it applies here too as they are properly supported. LionTank (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

MOS:LEDE says "summarise the most important parts" meaning proportionally the most important parts of entire article. It prioritise the far reaching topics that reflect majority of the games and not on some marginal points. Btw online influence or “troll networks” are not presented by sources as a defining characteristic of the 2022 Games. They occured but they are not major. Even ASPI and ProPublica describe them as barely influential with 3 or 4, or zero likes and very low subs of typically less than 5 followers on twitter. They do not affect majority participating in the games. Burner phones are precautionary advice issued by a limited number of NOCs. They don't impact the outcome of the games or the experience of participants as a whole. China media downplaying a controversy of the Xuzhou chained woman incident is notable for its own article, but it's background blip to the olympics, and not lede worthy. Smalledi (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

On Trumps article, some of his controversies are mention in the lede due to their prominence within the article body. If the body of this article contains substantial text on controversies relating to the 2022 Winter Olympics, then yes mention can be included in the lede. If the body does not contain such substantial text, then it is probably undue for inclusion in the lede. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 It wouldn't matter if an overzealous editor made the Mixed team ski jumping normal hill event or Sjoerd den Daas incident the longest controversy section in the entire article by far. It's not going to be in the lede. Mos:lede summarizes the most important aspects of the topic. Importance is judged by significance, prominence, and impact, not by word count alone. Otherwise editors can easily game the lede by controlling section length. The Trump comparison is rhetorically appealing but analytically weak. He is a politician and WP:BLP are governed by different norms where controversies significantly define political careers. The Olympics are not defined by controversies, and lede should mostly be about the sporting events and outcomes. Smalledi (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

My wording seems to have implied assumptions that should have been explicit, my apologies. The underlying assumption is that such controversies should only constitute significant text within the article body if those controversies are of such note that they warrant such significance within the text. That is, as an example, if such a controversy existed which became the protracted lasting point of comment of the games within RS, we should reflect such significance within our text. As to the significance of any suggested controversies, I can not say beyond the ones you previously highlighted, as I do not keep up with the olympics. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

That's cool. But should familiarise with Olympic article mos then. Note that past experienced editors had made a dedicated article for controversy. And then moved approx 90 percent of controversies to that dedicated chapter[] partly to avoid overshadowing this article with the lesser important controversies like the Dutch manhandling incident. But this is only recently been altered by an anon editor who unilaterally added tremendous amounts on the Dutch manhandling and other controversy, only after this article became less monitored. The Dutch manhandling study don't even have weight for the body section for this article and should be moved to the dedicated controversy section, which is already mentioned there along with Hanbok row and team Russia doping and etc.Smalledi (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

By analogy, I doubt we can overly heavily add bid-rigging underground corruption allegations or broader geopolitical double-standards like Israel vs Russia or the US ice agents controversy to the lede for the 2026 Winter Olympics. Being notable for a section on controversy doesn't mean it's also automatically for the lede. It has a much higher criteria to be proportional of entire article for sporting events. Yet I already compromised by including in a brief, neutral sentence adding concerns over surveillance, media freedoms, and COVID-19 restrictions despite that already may exceed what MOS:LEDE requires. If you are still unhappy, do not edit war to bloat up lede, but get WP: CONCENSUS instead of making me and Binksternet continually revert you over and over. Or take it to either RfC or the dispute resolution noticeboard and you will need to agree to respect whatever broader concensus is for a MOS:LEDE. Smalledi (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Cdjp1Thank you for replying and giving your expertise. I been telling them constantly that no sources report actual detention of journalists at the Games itself. "Detained" is misleading synth and nowhere in the body or any sources actually use this term. Yet they also ignored you and restored that OR back in soon after. Some readers are going to be disappointed when they read that lede and then go to the body, and frustrated in not being able to find such a story. Smalledi (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Propaganda is mentioned in the lede of 1978 FIFA World Cup. In the 1996 Summer Olympics, the bombing is mentioned in the lede and then the body. Harassment of journalists (will removed "detained" even though it happened) aptly describes both the FCCC report of online attacks and the Dutch journalist complaint. The main Olympic Games article isn't supposed to be a whitewash, regardless of a spin-off controversies article being created. LionTank (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You cherry picked out of context. 1996 Summer Olympics had a terrorist bomb attack and not once does it mention any propaganda. I don't think manhandling a journalist is comparable to a terrorist attack. And the 1978 FIFA World Cup was primarily on the Argentine gov itself directly gaming the competition with match fixing and cheating and undermining fair play for its own promotional purposes. China did not cheat or manipulate the winter games unfairly so it's not the same. Also I am not saying we shouldn't mention controversy at all in the winter Olympics lede. We already do with human rights esp ughhurs and boycott, and surveillance and media freedom and issues with COVID restrictions concisely in lede. But you are making controversy now risk overshadowing the rest of the games with general level background issues that is WP: UNDUE and undermines MOS:LEDE. Smalledi (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

And this is not a dispute about whether criticism or concerns exist. The question is whether proposed material constitutes defining characteristics of the Games under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The article is primarily about organisation, competition, venues, athletes, and outcomes of the Games. None of the your extra items dominate the article body or are treated by secondary sources as central features of the Games themselves. Elevating them to the lead would give them undue weight. You were reverted not just by Binksternet but also by me multple times, so there's a concensus of 2 vs 1 that your edit is unacceptable. So quit forcing it in.. If you feel you need to dispute, don't edit war and go through dispute resolution and you have to agree with the broader concensus. Smalledi (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

FobTown's edits long removed

The version of this article was better four months ago and reasonably restrained in due weight for the controversy section. But it changed 2 months ago, when anon editor ~2025-33131-96 added a substantial amount of material, significantly expanding that section.

The thing is, looking further back in the edit history, all of that material appears to have originated with the blocked editor, User:FobTown, who first added it with edit summary -My2022 app, to the body of the article in early 2022. But that content was however quickly reduced by @HiLo48: and then later entirely trimmed from main article. And that had stayed as the stable version for years.

Yet recently the same material has re-emerged back to main article word-for-word by both LionTank and ~2025-33131-96, and also further emphasized in the lede, despite the long-standing version had omitted them completely.

I should note FobTown also previously added other material, including the troll networks and "Spicy Panda" claim, to the Concerns and controversies at the 2022 Winter Olympic article, and that both LionTank and ~2025-33131-96 have not only selectively added 100 percent of that to main article but elevated it to the lede. They only bring in identical content that was first created by just one editor who is now blocked.

That was suspicious so I did a check. FobTown was last blocked in 24th May 2025. LionTank was shortly created later on 26th May. Their most recent edits were on articles like North American P-51 Mustang, Panzer III, Mitsubishi G4M and Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. FobTown have edited all those same articles in the past. Diffs -

In total, a comparison of editing histories shown an additional 70+ such overlap in niche topic areas between FobTown and LionTank over a nine-month period, including same specific sporting people, the same video game titles, same WWII aircraft and battles, and the same highly specific Canadian infrastructure articles.

Editor Interaction Analyser: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=FobTown&users=+%7E2025-33131-96&users=LionTank&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki

Not sure but given the content history, selective restoration, and behavioural overlap, I think these patterns are worth noting for transparency and may merit independent review by others. Pinging most recent reporters. @Akishima Yuka, LilAhok, Qiushufang, and Aloha27: Smalledi (talk) 09:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest submitting a Sockpuppet investigation. Qiushufang (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the edit overlap, LionTank is definitely a FobTown account. The name also follows the same capitalization format. Qiushufang (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

FobTown originally added extensive content in January 2022, but it didn't last long, it showed it wasn't widely accepted by community then. By late February 2022, overall editors had formed a stable version that trimmed those edits and focused on the most important issues - boycotts, Russian doping, and similar major developments per WP:DUE. That stable version remained in place until 19 December 2025. Since LionTank and anon account are confirmed and blocked, I have restored the chapter back to the stable version that predated their contributions. Smalledi (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Qiushufang Hi. Can you file a sock report again. You seem experienced. As it appears a new user popped up and restored all of LionTank's edits word for word. See this edit . Things like troll network, mass surveillance, burner phones and intimidating people overseas are back in the body and lede. I had earlier reverted those sock edits. I think it's very likely that 2026-20326-17 is them considering their first edit was to only add a tremendous amount of reverted sock edits only. Smalledi (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: It's also obvious that Psychlock is FobTown too. They edit this article shortly after ~2026-20326-17 does. If you look at their edit history, there is a strong overlap in niche topics. See here. https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Psychlock&users=FobTown&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwikiSmalledi (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)