Was awarding the 2008 Summer Olympics to China a mistake?

Set as news: False

http://www.economist.com/debate/index.cfm?action=summary&debate_id=7

An interesting and obviously relevant debate on the Economist to link to this issue
 

Set as news: True

OK... I'm not intentionally trying to hold this issue up... so if everyone else is fine with the "mistake" phrasing (which it seems they are, for the most part), then let it rip.

I love that Nick argued a point that I often argue about the "should have" wording on this issue all of a sudden.

Meanwhile, we've previously approved the following issues with it (and the affirmatives sound terrible for all of them since it's unsure as to whether the things occurred or not):

Should the Phoenix Suns have traded for Shaquille O'Neal? (did happen)
Should the Texas government have removed the children from their families at the polygamist ranch? (did happen)
Should Yahoo! have accepted Microsoft's bid? (didn't happen)

I argued vehemently against the wording for this issue: Should Barack Obama have accepted public financing? and it never got approved... basically the wording is always "iffy" when it's about an event... yet we've used it numerous times before to get around the bias wording of saying whether things were "good ideas" and "mistakes"... I just think we're putting ourselves in a stickier situation if we start approving issues with "mistake" and "good idea" in them... which is generally why the "should have / should not have" issues regarding events (as opposed to legal / governmental issues) exist.

We're assuming that the majority feel as though it was a complete mistake, but that's not our place to assume that, is it? OK... maybe I'm being somewhat picky on this one, but I don't like "good idea" and "mistake" issues more than I dispise the "should have" wording for events.

Let's just keep "2008 Summer Olympics" though. For search purposes I always like to be as specific as possible. Let it rip? Geeoff?

I'd like to let this one fly with the last wording i proposed and if it works perhaps use it as a guideline for setting a bias range... where "some bias" is deemed almost inevitable and the point is that we tried to word it without bias and not that we were ultimately academically successful... I'm looking to stick to a practical framework here... ok? Anybody vehemently opposed?

I'm going to pipe up after this comment...

First... for most people that disagree with giving the olympics to china, it doesn't matter which olympics... Second, Marina's suggested wording, while I liked initially, makes it seem like a competition in which some other country was somehow more qualified, rather than keeping the focus on china.

Why don't we give a try to...

Was awarding the Olympics to China a mistake?

which satisfies the "china doesn't deserve it", "should have never gone to china", etc. for public figurers... and we'll just see if people complain that the wording is biased... ok... time to move on on this one....

Aha, the return of "appropriate"! Sounds somewhat awkward in this case, though...

I agree with Nick about easing up on the bias-meter...  "Mistake" seems biased bigtime to me, but if we're turning down the meter, might as well go for it.

One other alternative: "Should the 2008 Summer Olympics have been awarded to another country? (or ..."awarded to a country other than China?")

ok... ok...

Was awarding the 2008 Summer Olympics to China appropriate?

[oh...why the hell not? it's grown on me]

What say... are you with me???

Well, I agree "good choice" is just as biased. I don't like either option but I think after the fact and considering all the problems surrounding China and the games this won't come off as too biased. It's a slippery slope.

My next issue: Was electing George W. Bush a mistake?
 

I don't like that wording... "IOC" is redundant since no other organization awards olympics. Also in English that particular construction reads as though it wasn't awarded to Beijing... as in Should they have awarded the games to Malta?

Guys... I think the bias-meter needs to be turned down a notch. If "mistake" is negatively biased, then "good choice" is positively biased... how do you make value judgments when the words used to make value judgments are off limits? I feel like a journalist in China....

Was awarding the 2008 Summer Olympics to China a mistake?

I really don't see how this could be considered biased... the entire controvery is whether or not it was a mistake, not whether it was a good choice. Other choices may be better without the choice you made being a mistake....

That works!

Should the IOC have awarded the 2008 Summer Olympics to Beijing?

How about "Is China a good choice to host the 2008 Summer Olympics?" (We've gone the "good choice" route before.) Do we need to mention the IOC?

I'm OK with "mistake," but you can't get more biased-sounding than that!

(Actually, you can: "Should the IOC be smacking themselves in the head for awarding China the 2008 Summer Olympics?")

"Was it a mistake" kind of goes against what we've always filtered. Yes, it is biased and loaded. In this case I'd like to keep it because I strongly believe, even without the news of web censoring, that it was a mistake. ATTENTION: BIASED EDITOR APPROVING BIASED ISSUE. Doesn't two wrongs make a right, or at least balance each other out?

What are the alternatives without losing the essence?

Should the IOC have accepted Beijing's bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympics?

 

censoring the web... yup... a mistake

but with all the controversy surrounding these games, there's really no other argument.

That was exactly my concern, Geoff. Although, it might be hard to word this any other way... also, do we need to clarify that it was the IOC's decision to award it to China?

is mistake too loaded...too biased ?

I'm into that.

changing...now

I'd like to reword this issue to...

Was awarding the Olympics to China a mistake?

The Economist says yes....

Sally Jenkins at WaPo:

It's time for the IOC to make the Chinese government live up to its word, and to the Olympic charter and spirit. Otherwise, take the Games away from Beijing.

earlier in this article she explains that she doesn't want to boycott however.

I'm not going to post evidence for those who think they shouldn't host the games (because you can browse the public figures that took a 'no' stand on the boycott issue and most of the organizations and companies continue to support the games in Beijing.

Also, this will be good for dated evidence. When Beijing was announced as the host back in 2001, I'm sure it was a debate back then as well.

I think it's more theoretical. I just feel like it's middle ground between those who opposed to China's human rights violations but aren't willing to go far enough to call for a boycott.

I'll find some evidence

(Sample evidence would help, tho.)

I like it... I don't think it has to be about whether there is a choice, just whether it is a good or bad idea that it's happening.

Interesting issue, but is there really even a choice to be made this late in the game? The IOC isn't going to back down with the amount of money already invested...