Talk:Zimbabwe at the Olympics
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Results before 1980? edit
A user has unilaterally added results from before 1980 - i.e., from the time of Zimbabwe's precursor state (Rhodesia), and from a time when the ZOC was not yet recognised by the IOC. This seems... odd to me. The IOC records use separate codes for Rhodesia and Zimbabwe, and treat them as separate states. Which is why we have the page on Rhodesia at the Olympics. We talk about "Rhodesia at the 1928 Summer Olympics", not "Zimbabwe". Thoughts? Aridd (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- The same situation happened with a number of different nations. This was a name change, such as Zaire changing into DR Congo. Zimbabwe's prior participation as Rhodesia should be noted. Jmj713 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Zaire's name change to DR Congo did not make it into a different country. By contrast, although Zimbabwe is the successor state to Rhodesia, they are clearly distinct states, and are treated as such by the IOC. (In the same way that Russia is considered to be the successor state to the Soviet Union, but is not the same state.) You need to establish a consensus before making such a change - and particularly before deleting the entire content of the page "Rhodesia at the Olympics", as you have done. There is obviously a sensible argument in favour of that page existing, and for that reason it also exists as a separate page in the Wikipedias in other languages. For now, I'm going to restore the Rhodesia page, but I'm not going to revert the information you've added to the Zimbabwe page (although I find it very questionable). We can wait to see what consensus is established. Aridd (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- if you'll note, I've merged the two pages. Jmj713 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would oppose such a merge firstly on the grounds that the country competing as "Rhodesia" at the Olympics was not always equivalent to Zimbabwe (in 1960 for example the team represented the entire Central African Federation), and secondly simply because the IOC considers Rhodesia and Zimbabwe as separate competitors—why should we make a different judgement? —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- You can take a look at the All-time Olympic Games medal table and see that the number of Games Zimbabwe has participated in matches the current table, counting participation as Rhodesia. Also, read this: "For the period 1972 to 1979 the Rhodesia Olympic Committee was suspended from the International Olympic Committee. At independence in 1980 the Rhodesia Olympic Committee suspension was lifted. In the same year its name was changed to Zimbabwe Olympic Committee (ZOC) to reflect the new political dispensation." So this was a simple name change and in such instances we combine statistics, not separate them. Jmj713 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Neither of these are IOC sources (the first is Wikipedia itself and the second is the Zimbabwe Olympic Committee rather than the IOC) and neither of them take into account the fact that the 1960 team was not all Southern Rhodesian. Neither the ROC's suspension from 1972 to 1979 nor the renaming to ZOC in 1980 have anything to do with the 1928, 1960 or 1964 Olympics. I am not arguing that we should omit Rhodesia's statistics from Zimbabwe's record (in fact I would consider that sensible); I am merely saying that separate pages are merited for context and explanation. So far as the 1928, 1960 and 1964 pages go, I think that altering them as you have to describe the team as "Zimbabwe" is ahistorical and misleading. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- So if we're keeping Zimbabwe's and Rhodesia's participation statistics together, why the need for a split? Additionally, you'd be hard-pressed to find any legible statistics from the IOC, since their website is horrendous (and it would be a primary source). Jmj713 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Because a separate page is merited to exclusively discuss the teams that went to the Olympics under the name "Rhodesia", with all the context and explanation that goes with them. As I have explained this was not in every event simply a case of a team going that would today be called Zimbabwean. (This isn't even getting into the legal complications of what Rhodesia's constitutional status was between 1965 and 1979). I see no harm in having the two pages separately; one looking for information on the post-1980 team can easily find it from the pre-1980 page and vice versa. Merging the two, on the other hand, in my mind oversimplifies matters at the expense of accuracy. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- So if we're keeping Zimbabwe's and Rhodesia's participation statistics together, why the need for a split? Additionally, you'd be hard-pressed to find any legible statistics from the IOC, since their website is horrendous (and it would be a primary source). Jmj713 (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Neither of these are IOC sources (the first is Wikipedia itself and the second is the Zimbabwe Olympic Committee rather than the IOC) and neither of them take into account the fact that the 1960 team was not all Southern Rhodesian. Neither the ROC's suspension from 1972 to 1979 nor the renaming to ZOC in 1980 have anything to do with the 1928, 1960 or 1964 Olympics. I am not arguing that we should omit Rhodesia's statistics from Zimbabwe's record (in fact I would consider that sensible); I am merely saying that separate pages are merited for context and explanation. So far as the 1928, 1960 and 1964 pages go, I think that altering them as you have to describe the team as "Zimbabwe" is ahistorical and misleading. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- You can take a look at the All-time Olympic Games medal table and see that the number of Games Zimbabwe has participated in matches the current table, counting participation as Rhodesia. Also, read this: "For the period 1972 to 1979 the Rhodesia Olympic Committee was suspended from the International Olympic Committee. At independence in 1980 the Rhodesia Olympic Committee suspension was lifted. In the same year its name was changed to Zimbabwe Olympic Committee (ZOC) to reflect the new political dispensation." So this was a simple name change and in such instances we combine statistics, not separate them. Jmj713 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would oppose such a merge firstly on the grounds that the country competing as "Rhodesia" at the Olympics was not always equivalent to Zimbabwe (in 1960 for example the team represented the entire Central African Federation), and secondly simply because the IOC considers Rhodesia and Zimbabwe as separate competitors—why should we make a different judgement? —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- if you'll note, I've merged the two pages. Jmj713 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Zaire's name change to DR Congo did not make it into a different country. By contrast, although Zimbabwe is the successor state to Rhodesia, they are clearly distinct states, and are treated as such by the IOC. (In the same way that Russia is considered to be the successor state to the Soviet Union, but is not the same state.) You need to establish a consensus before making such a change - and particularly before deleting the entire content of the page "Rhodesia at the Olympics", as you have done. There is obviously a sensible argument in favour of that page existing, and for that reason it also exists as a separate page in the Wikipedias in other languages. For now, I'm going to restore the Rhodesia page, but I'm not going to revert the information you've added to the Zimbabwe page (although I find it very questionable). We can wait to see what consensus is established. Aridd (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Zimbabwe at the 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622162855/http://www.amateur-boxing.vip.interia.pl/Championships/OlympicGames2000.html to http://www.la84foundation.org/5va/reports_frmst.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 20:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)