Talk:2008 Summer Olympics torch relay

An entry from 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 2 May, 2007.

Wikipedia

Environmental impact

Are you fucking joking? Change it to "trivia".

-G

Image and DYW

I'd like to nominate this article for the main page Did you know section, but an image of the torch would really help. Anyone who can locate a freely licensed image or confirm that the images on the official site are freely licensed, it'd be great. Ichibani 23:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Domestic Route

The Beijing authorities regard Taipei, Hong Kong, and Macau as part of their domestic route. Inclusion of Taipei in this segment is the cause of the opposition in Taiwan and thus should be noted in this article. I will make appropriate edits in a few days if there is no opposition.

ludahai 魯大海 00:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, "... Ho Chi Minh City >> Taipei >> Hong Kong >> Macau" were all considered a part of the "International Route", the "Domestic Route" consisted only of places on the mainland. --68.239.64.209 21:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Taipei, Hong Kong and Macau are all regarded as part of the "international route". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Taipei, Hong Kong and Macau are domestic as regarded by China, which of course is why some among the Taiwan goernment opposed. The "mainland China route" is not the equlivalent of "domestic route". Hong Kong's foreign relations activities are conducted by the mainland Central Government. Herunar (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced dot in torch relay image

The dot marking Buenos Aires is way off. Maybe the original creator has the image in an easily editable format and cares to correct it? Cheers! ironcito 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: The author (Aleenf1) has posted an updated version of the relay map (as at 14 August 2007) with B.A. in the correct location. — digitaleon • talk @ 06:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The dot marking for New Delhi, India is misplaced. Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.207.23 (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Page title

I would think that the "Torch Relay" part of the title should be lowercase. It seems that it would make more sense. At least until WP:OLYMPICS figures out a standardization for these types of pages. Jared (t)  17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Plane

Does anyone know how the fire was trasnported in the flight from greece to beijing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.151.209 (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The torch was carried aboard an Air China charter plane. (Photo) --72.75.56.66 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More info on the BBC article here [1]] Paulbrock (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Konnie Huq

Konnie has not spoken out against China publically - she just has not 'condoned' their action on Tibet. Also she chose not to wear a 'Free Tibet' shirt - stating that there is no need to use viduals to make a protest...yea right!

moved to bottom Ged UK (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What he said, but I could not find a quotable media source for that at the time. --Kizor 02:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

She spoke out against China on Sky News on 6/04/08 I believe. The reason she did not wear the shirt was because the IOC forbid it, so she wouldn't have been allowed to run. Jetekus (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of times flame was extinguished in Paris.

Since we have current conflicting reports of the number of times it's been extinguished, the current "several times" is sufficient until the matter can be resolved (just making the note, I don't mean to sound like I'm "declaring the matter closed" ;) ). Padillah (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The 8 o'clock news here in France on the France 2 channel showed videos of two occurrences, and earlier news broadcasts had said twice. On both occurrences, it was Chinese officials who extinguished the flame. The first time, a female Chinese athlete in a wheelchair was carrying the flame, when a Chinese official took it, switched it off, and had it carried back into a special bus. The second time, athlete David Douillet was passing the torch to another athlete, when a Chinese official took it (for reasons which aren't really clear) and, again, extinguished it, despite Douillet's protests. Other events and incidents reported in the French news include:

• Three people from Reporters Without Borders climbed up the Eiffel Tower (without protective gear!) and hung up a flag showing handcuffs in place of the Olympic rings;
• Other people from Reporters Without Borders, including Robert Ménard, got up onto the Notre Dame cathedral, and flew that same flag from it;
• Politicians from the Green Party flew the Tibetan flag from a window of the Hôtel de Ville;
• Several Members of Parliament (from more or less all parties, including the Socialists, UMP, Greens, Communists and Nouveau Centre) stood outside the National Assembly, holding the Reporters Without Borders "handcuff" flag as the coach with the torch drove by, and held a banner (I can't remember quite what was written on it; something along the lines of "Freedom for Tibet", I think);
• There was a gathering of exiled Tibetans and their supporters near the Eiffel Tower; Jane Birkin was there, as was French politician Corine Lepage.

That's what I saw on the news on TV. I'm sure there'll be sources for it in the written press fairly soon. Aridd (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The videos don't really add much evidence, i guess, simply that it was extinguished on camera twice. As this settles down we could edit the 'several times' to include the variety of times reported (and the sources, obviously), if a single number can't be agreed upon. I'm not sure it's hugely important how many times, the notability is in the fact that it was extinguished at all.

The Guardian report the Green Party flying the flag ([2]), and I expect the other stuff will appear soon enough, especially in the French press/web. Ged UK (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

France 24 says the torch was extinguished three times: [3]. Aridd (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's variable at the moment. If we (ie the media) come to a consensus, then I guess we should go with that, otherwise leave it as 'several' or explain the variety of the reportage. 20:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the line "French security officials canceled the torch relay ceremony after protesters hung a Tibetan flag on City Hall" is misleading. First, I'm fairly sure it was cancelled for a variety of reasons, the sum of the disruptions and protests, plus being severely behind schedule at that point, rather than just the appearance of one flag. Second, from what was said on French news, the ceremony was cancelled at the explicit request of Chinese officials, not on the initiative of French security. Third, I may be wrong but I don't recall a flag being hung from the hall; only one being flown from a window by Green politicians. I'll fix it when I have time to look up the sources. Aridd (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The police in Paris says the torch was extinguished 5 times: [4]. Aridd (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The US Media has agreed with this count. Leobold1 (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

London

I'm pretty sure that the torch had to be transported on a bus for some of the way in london as well, alhough this isn't mentioned in the article. TheTrojanHought (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just after the Blind Beggar pub in Whitechapel, I saw them turn tail and run back on the bus after they got pelted with eggs and snow balls, they were running late as well (the schedule said they should have been there by 3.30 but it was more like 4.15 by the time they got there) so I guess that's why they decided to drive the rest of the way - but this is all original material as they say, the IHT report is the nearest I can get to what I actually saw, so I put it up FOARP (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

good pic ...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Paris_2008_Summer_Olympics_torch_relay.jpg

maybe we could use this somewhere ... it's on the german main page Black Lab (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

In the first title in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.129.150 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be locked in order to stop the vandalism!Aleciampitti (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection

After reverting vandalism saying to boycott the Olympics, I did give the culprit a warning on his talk page. Later I received this remark on my talk page. I don't know how much vandalism this page has been getting, but with it being controversial and on the main page, I strongly recommend semi-protecting it. Reywas92^Talk 00:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There has been plenty of major vandelism, as well as some minor stuff. Lines like "police 'rape' a local protestor" rather then the word 'encounter,' 'detain,' 'arrest,' or even 'attack' are offensive/insensitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.254.86 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to WP:RFP. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Falsehood

Someone has written in the article: "However, the police presence was almost unable to stop the protesters attempt to attack two handicapped athletes carrying the torch". The source provided is a link to this video, which shows no such thing. It shows protestors getting in the way, and possibly trying to get at the torch, but there's no evidence whatsoever of an attempted assault against the Chinese athlete. I'm editing the article accordingly. Aridd (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

00:49. One protestor actually raised a leg to kick the handicapped athlete. You should watch it again. Herunar (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've gone over it several times, freezing the frames, and you may be right. I think he raises his leg a microsecond before being tackled by the anti-riot police. It does seem to be a despicable and cowardly attempt to kick a woman in a wheelchair. I've isolated frozen frames: [5], [6], [7]. However, the initial sentence in the article was erroneous. One attempt by one man on one athlete is not "protestors" (plural) attacking athletes (plural). It's always possible to find one violent idiot if you're looking for one, and an isolated incident in this case, disgusting as it was, doesn't characterise the rest of the protests. Aridd (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I reworded it. Herunar (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found out who the athlete is (and I've added her name to the article). The official torch relay website has a page glorifying her as the "guardian angel" and "two-wheeled smiling angel" of the Olympic torch, "shielding it with her frail young female body", but they don't mention anyone trying to kick her. They just say that the man, "an extremist favourable to the so-called independence of Tibet, rushed at her, attempting to derail the Olympic relay". [8] I would have thought that, if he'd tried to assault her, the Chinese Olympic authorities who wrote the page would have said so (in hyperbolic terms), but they don't. I don't mind it staying in the Wikipedia article, because it does seem to me that he did try to hit her, but I just thought I should point out that it's not mentioned there. Aridd (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The freeze frame you isolated was definite proof. The official news does not always go down to specifics. Herunar (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Flame attendants

The section about the torch's security team needs some elaboration. --Camptown (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Found some Chinese news source. F (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

anti-dictatorial

In the Paris chapter, it s written "Widespread anti-China and free-Tibet protests, including an attempt by more than one demonstrator ..." It s not anti-China protests, but anti-dictatorial protests. Just watch the videos and read the article --77.216.254.117 (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Toto

It says anti-China/anti-Chinese, as far as I know. Even if it did say anti-dictatorial, then it is fundamentally mistaken and should not be included in Wikipedia. First off, China is not a dictatorship. It is under the rule of solely one party, the Communist party, but that makes it a one-party leadership that does not recognize democracy, not a dictatorship. Some prefer to call it a totalitarian state, although personally I believe not, giving the immense economic freedom (much more than Hong Kong, a capitalist region). Taiwan (ROC) before 1996 is much more a dictatorship than China, and I don't see people protesting against Taiwan. Herunar (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Errrmmmm . . . that's because 1) Taiwan is now a democracy and 2) Taiwan is not staging a torch relay through cities worldwide. And China most certainly is a dictatorship, as the executive 'dictates' what happens in the country without having to consult anyone. FOARP (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

False. First off, nobody protested against Taiwan before 1996, and that's what I'm referring to. Anyway, this is inconsequential. Second, you display a basic ignorance of the political system in China. China, at worst, can be classified as a one-party dictatorship which is not a dictatorship. A "successful dictatorship" would ensure the political future of the dictator, obviously. That's not the case in China, where leaders are often upset by political maneuvering of others. As a simple example, the "dictatorial" Gang of Four which briefly held power (again, that's four people and not a dictatorship in the strictest sense) was upset by an alliance of Deng Xiaoping, Zhou Enlai and Ye Jianying, who turned out hundreds of thousands of protestors against the Gang of Four. The Gang of Four did not even dare angering the protestors who called for their downing. A pretty impressive democratic movement in a "dictatorial" state, no? Herunar (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Any group or cabal of people may form a dictatorship, and Hu Jintao was most definitely elected in free elections, give me a break!

See dictatorship. According to you, then, all the parties in the world who enjoy supermajority (66% mostly) are dictatorships. The western-supported Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. The U.S. removed the democratically elected government in Iran and enacted a monarchy not long ago. The position of the Dalai Lama itself was created by a bloodthirsty Mongol Khan. The U.S. supported the rule of the absolute dictatorship of Chiang Kai Shek in the ROC, as well as a fascist dictator in Spain (who, during WWII, created a foreign legion just to fight for his dear friend Hitler). Ahh, such hypocrites. Herunar (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See Single-party state which lists china as one. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Unquestionably, the US, the UK and other Western countries hypocritically have supported and do support ruthless dictatorships (and have even toppled a few democracies to replace them with brutal pro-Western dictatorships). Yes, the West supported the ROC when the ROC was a dictatorship. But that's not the issue here. In fact, whether or not the PRC is not a dictatorship is not the issue either. The issue is whether China was perceived to be a dictatorship by protestors, and whether protestors were explicitly "pro-democracy". I don't know whether they were in London, but they were in Paris. There were calls for "freedom of speech in China and Tibet". If there's a source establishing that protestors were pro-democracy, then the issue is settled. Whether or not Wikipedians believe China to be a dictatorship is then beside the point. Aridd (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

True, I've been off-topic. But I insist that, by logic, protestors who perceive China as a dictatorship is not the equlivalent, or represent, anti-dictatorial protestors (I've never even heard of such a thing - sounds more like political framing). Would those who protest the perceived dictatorship in Saudi Arabia go on to protest against China? Rarely. Anti-dictatorial is not a single classification - it should not even be a classification, in my opinion. I would suggest a more lengthy wording - e.g. supporters who call for more individual freedom in China. Herunar (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese language sources

Shouldn't all references be in the English language except where there are no other sources? I note that someone is linking to a blog called '西西河' for their information on the pro-China demonstrations in Trafalgar square - why can't they find an English language source for what they are saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not "they". Go find one yourself if you could - "they" couldn't. Herunar (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How does the torch travel by airplane?

When I was a wee lad, I believed the Olymplic Torch was carried by actual runners all the way from Olympia to the host country. If that were the case, the times and distances traveled wouldn't make sense. The article states "The relay ... will last 130 days and carry the torch 137,000 km (85,100 mi.) — the longest distance of any Olympic torch relay." Indeed!. If we recall that the Earth measures 40,007.86 km (meridional circumference), then the torch will travel almost 3 and a half times around the Earth. Moreover, if the relay "will last 130 days", it means the runners would have to travel close to 1,054 km each day, or 44 km per hour. I wonder, how do they manage to embark a live flame or torch on an airplane??? --AVM (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a special lantern, the same one that is used to relight the torch should it go out. I imagine that the lantern has some sort of dispensation for going on planes. I'll see if i can find anything out. Ged UK (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

More info on the BBC article here [9]] Paulbrock (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"rm nonsense"

User:Camptown just removed my well-referenced additions twice with the edit summary "rm nonsense", this despite the fact that one of the source is provided by himself. I'm attempting to start a discussion with him - let this be the beginning. From User talk:Camptown#2RR and [10], my hopes are not high. Herunar (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is well referenced about a comment that is followed by a citation needed tag or am I missing something? Ged UK (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I already provided a source to him, although I did not include it in the article because this article is about the torch relay and not the media. The assertations are clearly available in the article and it's Chinese version. Here is another source [11] underlining the structure of CNS, proving it to be independent and not "goverment-controlled" as some claimed, confusing it with Xinhua. Herunar (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that the source provided did not include critizism against Mr. Coe (that he is not in the position of critizising, has no proficiency in Chinese etc). If there are such critizism, it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources. --Camptown (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that I have been mistaken and cited the wrong source. Nonetheless, you should have given me time to find the source instead of engaging in an edit war. Nothing justifies repeated unexplained removals of referenced additions.

What about the "independent" edit? I have provided a source for that. Do you dispute it or not? Herunar (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Who can help me load this photo: Rub Olympic Torch

A person was rubbing Olympic Torch:

• http://laiba.tianya.cn/laiba/images/324388/12076606822078426609/A/1/m.jpg
• http://i25.tinypic.com/29et8ok.jpg

您可以在上述图片中选择一张或多张。请平衡报道。谢谢！You can choose one or more from the above. Please keep banlanced report. Thanks -Imachinese (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Before we upload it, we need to know its origin. See here for restrictions on uploading. Aridd (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We also need to know the names of people and the situation being depicted. And references to those situations. Remember, WP is not a primary source, as such we can't publish anything first-hand. Padillah (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The torchbearer is Jin Jing. [12] I don't know about the situation, though. Aridd (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The posts said it was in Paris. I'll have a try to find who owns the copyright and get permission. Thanks for your helps. -Imachinese (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I found the photos in the following posts. Now many Chinese people are very angry with western media.

• 最美丽的中国女孩
• 火炬过处尽显巴黎魅力 -Imachinese (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have tried posting a message on that bbs last night and I think I can receive no feedback for the above photos. -Imachinese (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Just now I found that the photo of savage action has been added to the article. Thanks. -Imachinese (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Parisian, that's definitely Paris. But we'll need to know a little bit more than that, about the second photo at least. The first one clearly comes from the incident already referred to in the article. (By the way, I gathered that the Chinese are pissed off at the "Western media", as though the Western media were some sort of monolithic bloc, but I'd interested to know why, exactly. Adding more on the Chinese perspective to this article could be interesting.) Aridd (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the CCP government, related businessmen and game players take the Olympic Game as a very and maybe most important event this year. But for most common Chinese people, I think it has little to do with them. Most Chinese including Tibetan Chinese are striving for better life, and what they care is their families and their own life. So not very many people know what western media reported or is reporting. In my observation on several internet forums, many Chinese including me think that most western people are misled by their media. In my opinion, I think foreigners and foreign countries are always been praised in Chinese media while Chinese and China may always or often be smeared in western media. So French is a very or sometimes potrayed as the most beautiful language, Paris is a very beautiful city and Frenchmen is very romantic in my mind and the form of these images in my mind are influenced by Chinese media since I have no french friends and also I haven't been to Paris. For Chinese, this kind of modest manner influenced by Confucius philosophy is not always good, I suppose. I think to different kinds of people we need different kinds of attitudes. But I think people in nature is always good and innocent. The reason a person become bad or evil is only because that he or she has bad or evil thoughts, believes or religions. -Imachinese (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We do need some balance here. There are seven photos of protest on the page. At least one photo of supporters would be good. F (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking that. It would be good to have an image of people waving Chinese flags as the flame goes by, or something. The protests are a very important aspect of the topic, but they're not the only aspect. By the way, this image seems to have been uploaded without information on its copyright status. If its copyright status can be ascertained, that web page also had an image of Reporters Without Borders' people scaling the Eiffel Tower (with very little protective gear) to hang up a protest banner. It's quite a striking and memorable image, so it would be good to have that too, if possible. In my humble opinion. Aridd (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. I agree with you. And more, I think a positive and bright picture should be placed in the uppest part. -Imachinese (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture which states Free Tibet was captioned as "Two banners hung by protesters who scaled the vertical cables of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California to protest China's human rights abuses in Tibet." Free Tibet doesn't necessarily implies the China's human rights abuses or at least not implied in this picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.160.238 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

The media is obviously supporting the Tibet protesters, some of the pictures which are up on the Chinese website shows a protester assaulting the paralysed torch-bearer. These pictures are the proof for the Tibet protesters disrupted the torch relay,however, this astonishing picture was never shown in any media in the western world. Everyone has a right to show their belief, but is it necessary to use violence to a handicapped person to show his belief? Olympics is about peace, not politics, so is it the right place for Tibet protesters to express themselves even use violence? The media seems only be interested in the Tibet protesters, but did they ever see that hundreds of people with red Chinese flags in both London and Paris, they are the people who try to welcome the Olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.120.219 (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No one "assaulted" torch bearers. They just tried to grab the torch and that was it. Stop fabricating and making stuffs up. 216.165.62.194 (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

First things first; if you are going to soapbox, do it correctly: yes, every news source I saw mentioned the people waving the flag of China and supporting the Chinese government. But the torch relay is political, it was made political when China decided to use it to show how much clout they have. It's only been televised two or three times before and one of those was when the games returned to Athens, the other was when the Nazi's used it for the same reason China is now. You can't make a political statement and expect people who oppose that statement to just sit on their hands. Padillah (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User 71.191.120.219, the Western media (or at least the French and British media that I've seen) did indeed show supporters with Chinese flags. You're mistaken if you believe they didn't. More to the point, however, this is an encyclopedia article's talk page, the purpose of which is to improve the article, not debate its topic. Aridd (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to flag this article as being biased. The documentary is one sided from the views of western media. There were a lot of supporters of the olympics, and indeed sport, who came out support the relay which is not mentioned in any way in this article. I would like to stress that wikipedia is not a forum to spread political or religious views, but to provide an un-biased source of information of the whole event.

Map on Mainland China

I'm currently working on to redo the map on mainland China. So, please keep this first until it done. Thanks! --Aleenf1 06:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese security personnel terminology?

The official term used for the security personnel is "escort runner". So should we call them "flame attendants", "escort runners", "Chinese guards" or some other name? F (talk) 08:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Independent says they are officially "flame attendants", but since the official torch relay website calls them "escort runners", go for "escort runners", I suppose. Aridd (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Media

• Video on YouTube Olympic Torch Relay in London - Protester tries to extinguish torch.
• Video on YouTube Olympic Torch Relay in London - Protester encounters a Chinese security official.
• Video on YouTube Olympic Torch Relay in Paris - Protester getting close to the Olympic Torch.

As regards to this, of course these links are not against WP:EL, as they are frequently used as temporary measures in current event articles. --Camptown (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New Delhi

I wanted to update that Kiran Bedi India's first woman IPS officer has refused to carry the torch on its delhi run as reported in news channels and link [13] Kindly help. Soumitra genpact (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

---

New San Fran news source

-ttp://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=10af13de-e174-4060-acf8-7c69a1b5abde --86.25.55.66 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Organization by Chinese Embassy

The opinion that "Detractors accused these people of belonging to groups organised by the Chinese embassy" found within the section concerning protests in London is not substantiated explicitly in the referenced article. The article mentions that the students "claim to have the support of the Chinese Embassy," but that is a far cry in my opinion from being "organised by the Chinese embassy." Therefore I feel that the current sentence in the Wikipedia article is unsubstantiated and perhaps false unless there is another citation with reference to this opinion.XRedcomet (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco protests

I can't edit the article so if someone could include that because of security threats route organizers weren't going to disclose the route but were later compelled to by the SF Board of Supervisors. Four different activist groups have collaborated to present organized protests and due to security issues the route has been shortened as well as SF mayor Gavin Newsome announcing the route can still change and will be kept fluid by organizers. Activists have flown in from around the United States to attend the protests. 71.139.14.116 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The route was almost completely scrapped with the flame ultimately being moved to a different part of the city after the opening ceremony. 71.139.4.155 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-London Stops

There were 3 stops before things started getting out of hand in London. Any report on incidents in Istabul, St Petersburg, and Alamaty, if there were any at all? --Kvasir (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)