Talk:1988 Summer Olympics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To editors about the citations of the article of 1988 Seoul olympics boycott[edit]

Hi. I read that the editors needs some citations about the source where the information and fact about the 1988 Seoul Olympics boycott was taken. Well the information that was the source is the German edition of Wikipedia about the games this is the source address [[1]]187.149.241.137 (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Nesty?[edit]

This article says that Anthony Nesty was "the first black person to win a swimming title". but the article on him says that he was "the second black athlete to win an Olympic medal in swimming (after Enith Brigitha) in Montreal 1976)". I assume that it is this article that's at fault? MagicBez 10:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the IOC database, Brigitha won a pair of bronze medals in the 1976 Games. That makes her the first to win a medal, but not a title. Nesty was the first to win a gold medal (i.e., a title). -- Jonel | Speak 01:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

"The host was chosen in a 1981 vote, defeating the Japanese town of Nagoya" sounds a bit anti-Japanese. --Menchi 23:59, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why? Graham  :) 00:08, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
For starter, the author seems to be carefully degrading Nagoya, a huge city, as a "town". Not any town, a "defeated" town. --Menchi 00:14, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I expect that calling it a town was an honest mistake. I've changed it to "city". As for it being "defeated", well... it was defeated in this vote, but OK, I'll tweak it a bit. See what you think. --Camembert
Excellent paraphrase. --Menchi 00:21, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello. I removed these IMHO what is perhaps severely POV against Koreans and seemingly dishonest additions that were made by 59.171.229.61 on 05:17, 17 December 2006 and somehow left undetected until 21 February.

  • In the opening ceremony, white doves, “the symbol of peace” were hit during the ignition ceremony of the flame-holder. However, they lighted it although these doves were standing on the flame-holder, so lots of doves were burnt to death.
Unfortunately, this is quite real. I saw it happen. It was terrible. It spoiled the whole games for me. I've rarely seen anything as brutal and uncaring. During the Nagano games, when dove-shaped balloons were released, CBC announcer Peter Mansbridge commented that this and future opening ceremonies would no longer use real doves because of those that had been burned at Seoul. This fact should be included somewhere in the article, and I have a recording of Mansbridge's statement. --Bluejay Young (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the games, native Korean spectators rushed to the competitions Korean players participated in. However, on the other hand, in the meeting places Korean players didn’t participate in, the seats were completely vacant.
  • The second round in bantamweight class boxing, a Korean boxer lost a judgment to a Bulgarian boxer. Then the Korean coaches got furiously angry, entered the ring, struck a referee and raised a scuffle uproar. And although other matches were still performed on the other rings, Korean officers turned off electricity of the amphitheater and went home.

If someone can find citations for these statements made by the above user (who seems to have a japanese right-wing tendency by his editing of Ito Hirobumi) please post them back. If not, then please delete this.

24.203.170.94 01:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the rest, but the boxing one was actually understated. There where also several other boxing-scandals involving Korean boxers. If it hadn't been for Ben Johnson, it would probably had been the biggest scandal of the Games. --213.225.83.82 (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics leads to democracy?[edit]

"South Korea's government became a democracy under the pressure of organizing the Olympics." This sounds wonderful, but do we have anything to back up this statement? I find no reference to the Olympics in any other articles on South Korea's history, and to be honest, this statement just seems a little too bold. Ghost 14:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think that there is enough evidence to point to a quelling of democracy. To prove to the world how modern and clean Seoul was the government hired gangsters to clear out slums which were bulldozed, often with possessions still inside. Seongyedong Olympics a documentary by Kim Dong-won (perhaps the first Korean documentary) shows the struggle of one such community against an uncaring government. Also the recent film Holiday (also based on a true story about a group of prisoners that break out of jail around this time and caused quite a stir in Korea especially in their protest of a law that allowed the government to add additional "preventative" sentences to repeat offenders...this law was not repealed until 2005) has a dramatazation of these events. I believe that this article should contain information (or link to another article) about these events. Although I believe it will be hard to find english language resources to cite. Rufusde 16:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics did not lead to democracy in South Korea. Rather, they almost halted the pro-democracy movement because the incumbent president/dictator used the Olympics to increase his support among South Koreans. Any history book on South Korea, whether in Korean or in English, sufficiently shows that there was no link whatsoever between the Olympics and democracy. It was the plight of the growing South Korean middle class, pressure from the Carter and Reagan (yes, Reagan) Administrations and political opening in Taiwan that led to democracy in South Korea. Hence, I have deleted this section of the article because it is false. In fact, there is no evidence to support the claims in that sections, while there is ample evidence in support of what really happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.152.95.74 (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that there was contention 1 years ago. you'd better find that document. But that document was subscribe only in Korean Wikipedia. If you want to know about that contention, copy 6월 민주항쟁 than paste it in the search tab.--Alpstiger0 (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Judo[edit]

"Women's Judo"... We're kinda left hanging as to why Women's Judo is a highlight. Anyone got something to add here? Ghost 14:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Women's judo was new in 1988, so I'm guessing that that's what whoever put that bit in there was aiming at. I've completed the sentence in the article ;). -- Jonel | Speak 17:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference[edit]

American boxer Roy Jones Jr. loses the gold medal to South Korean fighter Park Si Hun in a controversial 3-2 judge's decision, despite clearly dominating the fight.

As this is a non factual statement but a matter of opinion (I've never seen the fight) a reference is needed or IMHO it should go no matter how clear the dominating is. Even if a reference can be found, it should be rephrased to make it clear this is an opinion (e.g. despite dominating the fight in the opinion of many/some/whatever). References from a fairly neutral party, e.g. a UK source or something rather then an American (or South Korean) source would be good Nil Einne 01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube links[edit]

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 06:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the 1988 Olympic Games begin in September?[edit]

Why did the Games begin in September and not July? Isn't South Korea in the northern hemisphere?Politician818 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering about this. I recall hearing (by word-of-mouth, not in the press) that South Korea was afraid North Korea would sabotage the games (e.g., opening reservoirs to cause flooding) and they spent a lot of time setting up various methods to defend the games (e.g. building channels to divert floodwaters). I thought perhaps there'd be a better explanation in the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Korea, summer(June~August) is hot and rainy season.
But autumn(September~October) is clear and sunny.
So autumn the most pleasant season of the year.
This is why the Olympic was opened in September. -- Plus 06:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC+9)

Official anthem[edit]

Anybody know the Seoul Games' theme song? Eaglestorm (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hand in Hand (Olympics) 

Produced by Giovanni Giorgio Moroder (Italian)
Composed by Tom Whitlock (American)
Sung by Koreana (Koreans)
Length - 4:13


lyric:

See the fire in the sky
We feel the beating of our hearts together
This is our time to rise above
We know the chance is here to live forever
For all time

Hand in Hand we stand
All across the land
We can make this world
a better place in which to live
Hand in Hand we can
Start to understand
Breaking down the walls
that come between us for all time
Arirang

Everytime we give it all
We feel the flame eternally inside us
Lift our hands up to the sky
The morning calm helps us to live in harmony
For all time

Hand in Hand we stand
All across the land
We can make this world
a better place in which to live
Hand in Hand we can
Start to understand
Breaking down the walls
that come between us for all time
Arirang

Hand in Hand we stand
All across the land
We can make this world
a better place in which to live
Hand in hand we can
Start to understand
Breaking down the walls
that come between us for all time
Hand in Hand

Breaking down the - hand in hand - wall between us
- Hand in Hand - breaking down the wall

-- Plus 17:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC+9)

Highlights?[edit]

Isn't that just another way to say "Trivia"? Or, stated differently, if one were to change all the trivia sections (which are frowned upon) by the word "Highlights", it suddenly becomes acceptable? 97.103.80.222 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 7[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://110.45.145.134/10_search/index.asp
    • In 1988 Summer Olympics on 2011-05-25 05:44:13, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In 1988 Summer Olympics on 2011-06-24 07:37:13, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear paragraph[edit]

I found the following section of the article difficult to follow:

In preparation for the 1988 Olympics, the International Olympic Committee worked to prevent another Olympic boycott by the Eastern Bloc as had happened at the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. This was made more difficult by the lack of diplomatic relations between South Korea and communist countries. This prompted action by the IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, who was committed to the participation of these countries. Thus, at the Assembly of National Olympic Committees in Mexico City in November 1984, the "Mexico Declaration" was adopted; by it, the participants agreed to include the host of the Olympic Games in 1988. The agreement of the Soviet Union brought a pledge of equal participation. However, various communist National Olympic Committees reacted with incomprehension. After the Los Angeles games, East Germany had already decided to participate again in Seoul.
  1. What does it mean that the participants agreed to "include the host of the Olympic Games in 1988"? Include it how? Was South Korea not already a member of the Assembly of National Olympic Committees?
  2. Why would the other Communist NOCs react with incomprehension to the Soviets' pledge to participate in 1988? The only other Communist NOC mentioned here is the East Germans, and it says that they had already decided to participate in Seoul. Where is the evidence that other Communist NOCs were already planning in 1984 to boycott Seoul in 1988 and were taken aback by the Soviets' decision to participate? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Johnson Steroid Claims[edit]

The current article says Ben Johnson has since claimed it was sabotage. Though, that is incorrect. He has admitted his steroid usage in the documentary "If You Don't Take It, You Won't Make It". He did claim immediately after being busted but the Dr that supplied him with it had recordings of him knowing exactly what it was and later in deposition for the IOC Ben stated that he indeed knowingly took the steroids. That part of the entry should be edited.69.140.193.99 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1988 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "No Sources" Maintenance template[edit]

There is a Maintenance template for lack of cited sources hanging over the section Significance of the 1988 Olympics in South Korea. There are cited sources there now; shall I remove the template? Mikalra (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important topic of camps for “vagrants” [homeless persons], including children[edit]

Doctorow, Cory (April 20, 2016). "Before 1988 Olympics, South Korea sent 'vagrants' to camps where rape and murder were routine". Boing Boing. Retrieved April 9, 2017.

AP: S. Korea covered up mass abuse, killings of ‘vagrants’, Associated Pres (AP), Kim Tong-Hyung, April 20, 2016.

As always, we want to be right down the line, including saying the extent to which we have evidence for various reports. And, as always, please jump in and help if the topic interests you. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

——————————————————————————————————————

I have removed this contentious section. Please see WP:IRRELEVANT, which states: "Information that clearly has no relevance to the subject named in the article should be removed. For example, if in the article tiger you find one or more paragraphs about light bulbs, and there is no explanation from the text as to why this is there, it should be removed." The material about vagrant camps clearly HAS NO RELEVANCE to the subject named in the article – how does this relate to the 1988 Summer Olympics?? The section does not even mention the Olympics and there is no attempt to explain what it has to do with the Olympics!! OK it relates to South Korea, but really so do a multitude of other things that are equally unrelated to the Olympics, surely you can see that? No matter how carefully you word it / cite it (per previous objections and subsequent removal of content), it is nothing more than irrelevant political material which should surely be tackled in a separate article, if at all. I'm not saying it's unimportant per se, just that it doesn't belong in this standard Summer Olympics article. And I don't see how it's been allowed to creep back in and sit there for so long (I clearly haven't been watching this page very closely for ages). Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for jumping in and speaking out. The point you bring up is a central point. And my answer is that the relevance is that these camps were ramped up specifically for the Olympics, as the section does mention, but obviously not adequately. For if you read past it, likely other people have or will as well.
These camps, as terrible as they are, are part of the broader context of the Olympics. As an analogy, the topic of the Tlatelolco massacre in Mexico City is relevant for our article on the 1968 Summer Olympics.
As far as our article here, I'm going to re-work the section slightly, leading with the connection to the Olympics. Please keep helping, time and interest permitting of course. Sometimes when people initially disagree, we get some of the best working together on Wiki. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FriendlyRiverOtter: Thank you for your understanding and for not biting my head off for removing your content which I appreciate you have spent a lot of time and effort on. However, I do think the onus is on you to demonstrate how the section is relevant to the 1988 Olympics. In the latest version, all it says is "In the years prior to the Olympics, this number was approximately doubled from 8,600 to more than 16,000" which doesn't really provide a link to the Olympics as such, because without providing the reader with a specific explanation, this could have been for any number of other reasons. Can it be reliably shown that the increase was due to the very fact that the Olympics were on the horizon, and they wanted to remove the vagrants from the streets and hide them away from the watching world? If this can be verified, then the section can be shown to be very relevant indeed! However, I would still have an issue with its position within the article. It maybe needs to be placed further down in a slightly less prominent position; after all, the main purpose of the article is surely to describe the Olympics themselves rather than all the political issues going on around them. For example, in the 2018 Winter Olympics article (also concerning South Korea...) there is a section lower down, called "Concerns and controversies", which I think covers these things in a more appropriate and respectful manner, whilst preserving the standard structure of the article. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I try not to bite people's heads off! And thank you for your understanding on something you have strong feelings about. And I agree that the onus is on me, and I'm referring to the AP article which draws a connection. And I have learned not to second-guess references. If a reference is saying something, it's my job to merely summarize a reference, which at times can be quite challenging! And also to go with a variety of good references, and we're not even at that stage yet.
I do not agree that the focus should be on the Olympics themselves, as if we're doing some kind of NBC Sports retrospective. To me, context and breadth of coverage is what we're after. For example, I don't think we talk about the Pro-Democracy demonstrations in Korea prior to the Olympics, and we probably should. And I'm guessing we don't really dive in how much money did the Olympics make or lose for the Korean economy. Most Olympics lose money, and most multi-use facilities don't get near the multi-use their proponents predict!
On the controversial topics, it's my goal to include them, to be middle-of-the-road and to use good sources. And I think AP is a good source. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again and happy new year. Yes, AP is a good source but the section relies entirely on that one source so strictly speaking a refimprove tag is required, especially as it is such an important and controversial subject area. Also, the clumsy section title has been bugging me for ages so I've taken the liberty of improving it (the term "vagrants" is now qualified in 1st sentence rather than title). I've also changed the name of the AP ref. because it was far too longwinded. And I still think the section has too much prominence in the article, but as no-one else has complained thus far, we'll leave it as it is. I'll perhaps make some general copy edits to the section later on, if you don't mind. Cheers for now. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And happy new year to you, too. Hopefully, we'll both have some good projects this year, maybe even occasionally the same project such as this one. Okay, I'm not crazy with us having to accept or deciding to accept the government's terms as our reality, and I mean any government regarding this. But I'll see if I can get used to vagrant without quote in the heading, and qualified in first sentence, and that's kind of all I can promise.
I agree that we only have one reference, and very much welcome help in this area. In fact, in any area. There is a second reference potentially available, listed above:
Doctorow, Cory (April 20, 2016). "Before 1988 Olympics, South Korea sent 'vagrants' to camps where rape and murder were routine". Boing Boing. Retrieved April 9, 2017.
But taking a single look at it last week, it seemed like more of a scandal sheet. I'm just not familiar with boing boing, maybe it is solid journalism in our new digital world, I don't know. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of removed material from page on homeless camps that should be here[edit]

as you request:

Camps for “vagrants” [homeless persons], including children

<redacted>

I did my best to summarize a long AP (Associated Press) article. If there are problems, let's please fix them. This is an important topic. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

++++++++

The phrase "the largest of dozens of such facilities" does appear in both the article and my summary. It is, however, a very straightforward phase.

The phrases "dictator President Park Chung-hee" [1975] and "to police and local officials to “purify” city streets of vagrants" are in both. Maybe the second could have been rewritten.

The phrase "group of healthy inmates worked for hours to prepare a sanitized version" appears in both the article and my summary. Again, relatively straightforward.

The phrase "the only ways to run a place filled with thousands of unruly people who didn’t want to be there" essentially appears in both, with me merely putting quotes around "unruly." This is the very interesting part in which the man who is now a school principal and who used to teach at "Brothers Home" both acknowledged that it was a concentration camp and defended its practices.

However, when I got to the part about good-guy prosecutor Kim Yong Won, I clearly messed up.

The sentence in the AP article reads, "Internal prosecution records reveal several instances where Kim noted intense pressure from Chun’s office to curb his probe and push for lighter punishment for the owner." I merely added an "also," changed "where" to "in which," and did not include the phrase "for the owner" at the end.
And regarding the next sentence in the AP article: "Kim had to reassure presidential officials directly and regularly that his investigation wouldn’t expand," I merely changed "wouldn't" to "would not." This is not near good enough.

I really don't know how I made these mistakes! I know I did a lot of work that Saturday afternoon, both on Wiki and elsewhere. I'm thinking in part, I may have partially rewritten the sentences and, when they didn't flow that well, essentially ended up rewriting them back? And thank you for catching these mistakes. That's all I can say.

I think the clear better alternative is to use a longer block quote to talk about the opposition prosecutor Kim Yong Won faced.

However we do it, I look forward to other people's help as we re-write and improve this important section.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camps for “vagrants” [homeless persons], including children[edit]

Copyright issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#New_listings

I attempted to give a better and longer summary of a pretty long AP investigative article.

Regarding the brief summary which was already there, ' . . . Thousands of people, many of them small children, were sent to a "welfare facility" called the "Brothers Home", where they were subject to human right violations such as severe, often fatal beatings and routine rape. . . ,' No, that's not accurate. The cabinet of South Korea did not have an afternoon meeting and decide, we're going to now implement a policy of pro-rape of children.

Instead, and much more difficult to prevent, the policy was one of drift. They ramped up pre-existing camps. The owner of the "Brothers Home" camp had a financial incentive as he received a government subsidy based on the number of inmates. In additions, promotions for police officers were based in part on how many "vagrants" an officer arrested. The owner had also received two medals and a 1985 film was made by someone else which celebrated his work. And "Brothers" had the window dressing of religion. There were visits to the camp, but they just showed the healthier, more well-fed residents. No unannounced inspections.

There was a guy who sometimes taught at "Brothers" and who later become a principal at a local city school. He even described it as a concentration camp, but . . . he justified the severe beatings as the only way to maintain order with the large number of "unruly" inmates. That is, he rather accepted the whole negative mindset around the label of "vagrant."

Which parts do you want me to leave out?

I mean, the details of how these awful things could go on for so long, to me, is crucial, almost central part of the story.

Now, I feel I was too long, a little bit. And I tried to summarize the AP article sparsely (I wasn't successful, please see below). I think in one or two cases, I may have left a very straightforward sentence from the article the same. I hope not. But I'm open that I made mistakes. And please help me make it right. The topic's just too important (I used two sentences with minimal re-write, bad mistake, see below).

For example, the fact that the good guy prosecutor Kim Yong Won was under heavy pressure and could only go after some aspects of "Brothers Home," that part has to be told, too. And more fully than merely a single sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

++++++

I made a bad mistake. These two sentences from my summary:

"Internal prosecution records also revealed several instances in which Kim noted intense pressure from President Chun Doo-hwan's office to curb his probe and push for lighter punishment. Kim had to reassure presidential officials directly and regularly that his investigation would not expand."

were much too close to the original article. The other approx. 700 words of my summary was actually pretty good.

I plan to re-write being much more careful, and I thank my fellow editor for catching this mistake. And, if the topic interests you, please jump in and help. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my opinion, (1) you could do with finding at least another 2 or 3 sources to provide further evidence of the subject matter and to make it more balanced (see WP:EXCEPTIONAL), and (2) if you plan to write a lengthy section on this topic, you should consider creating a new article with a link from this article, as it will be far too long and specific for general consumption within the main 1988 olympics page. Alternatively, you could drastically cut down the material and provide a summary, rather than trying to include all relevant details, and direct the reader to find out more by looking at the sources. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of re-adding in summarized form. Please see this addition for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1988_Summer_Olympics&diff=849869535&oldid=849383077
Yes, I want to do the work in more a series of medium steps. But, for a highly negative topic such as this, I rather need the right kind of energy for an extended block of time. Still going to try to do medium steps. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20180227215939/https://apnews.com/c22de3a565fe4e85a0508bbbd72c3c1b/ap-s-korea-covered-mass-abuse-killings-vagrants and https://boingboing.net/2016/04/20/pre-1988-olympics-south-korea.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Something I observed just recently, the official logo of the Olympic Games appears to have been pirated by the Italian company Enerpetroli. Worthy of a mention? Fry1989 eh? 18:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"1988 Seoul Olypmics" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1988 Seoul Olypmics. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 04:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1988 Calendar[edit]

The current calendar is littered with errors and I am unable to upgrade it due to the fact I am unable to figure out the correct figures so please can this be sorted so a better version can be uploaded. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The last time Doves were used"[edit]

"This (edit: 1988) is the last time that live doves were released during the opening ceremony as a symbol of world peace, but a number of the doves were burned alive or suffered major trauma by the lighting of the Olympic cauldron. As a result of protests following the incident, the last time live doves were released at the opening ceremony was in 1992 in Barcelona, hours before the cauldron was lit and the doves were represented by flags during the opening ceremonies."

So which is it? Is 1988 the last time doves were released during the opening ceremony, or was 1992 the last time live doves were released at the opening ceremony, or are we only parsing "as a symbol of world peace", which seems very fussy and particular, if so. Honestly, I've been going through a lot of the Olympic articles and there's a lot of "first/lasts" that contradict one another and I probably should have documented those, too, instead of this more minor point. Having said that, I'll defer to someone who knows more about wikipedia editing. 96.27.27.76 (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1988_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1196241357"