This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Olympic medal table article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
25 | 30 | 30 | 85 | 165 |
1 | ![]() |
7 | 66 | 12 | 85 | 165 |
1 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 165 | 165 | 165 |
1 | ![]() |
0 | 80 | 5 | 85 | 165 |
1 | ![]() |
55 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 165 |
Total | 302 | 302 | 302 | 906 | 1812 |
The table listed above is purely for demonstration only and no reflection on actual or future events. Country names were chosen purely at author's whim and no reflection on PPOV. To make a point on medal standings and applying rank based upon IOC's ranking. The scenario I pose is for discussion only and I have no opinion on which should be standard used for ranking.
Let's take the scenario above and apply 3 points for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for bronze. A total of 302 events and assuming one medal for each for a total of 906 medals which will give a point total of 1,812. The rest of the NOC's and medal counts are not shown for clarity of this discussion.
As you will notice each NOC has an exact point total and therefore have been applied same ranking. Which country is more deserving of the ranking, if I may ask such a biased question!!
Just to go out on a limb here, let's put some context around the countries, totally unrealistic, and serving only to foster discussion. Let’s assume the following athletes per NOC:
596 for
United States (USA)
302 for
China (CHN)
165 for
Russia (RUS)
85 for
Australia (AUS)
55 for
Canada (CAN)
Using the above number of athletes per NOC, you will note Russia, Australia and Canada will have achieved a 100% success rate, while China has a 28.15% and USA with a 14.26% success rate. Another question raised by this scenario is; Do success rates have a place in determining rank? -- HJKeats ( talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The IOC only uses the gold medal sort for information purposes only. At the bottom of every medal table, the disclaimer indicates that it does not endorse national rankings of any sort. For example the IOC's 2006 medal table. That's why you never hear the IOC never proclaims an "overall winner" of the Games. Nor would you hear it say that Country X did better than Country Y.
The national ranking phenomenon comes from the general public, press, and even the National Olympic Committees. (Likewise the various medal sort, medal points systems are never recognized by the IOC) That needs to be clarified in the article. -- Madchester ( talk) 13:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Some see in the gold-first ranking -- which is unofficially endorsed by the International Olympic Committee -- one reason why countries have become increasingly ruthless in cutting funding for sports where they don't have a clear shot at a gold. "The message is that winning is everything," says James Riordan, emeritus professor of sports history at Surrey University in Britain. "That's not the message the Games are supposed to convey. Why have silvers and bronzes?" | ” |
Explaining the implication for gold-first ranking would seem to be helpful. Banjeboi 12:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, unlike the claim that ESPN switched in 2008, which can be said to require a third-party reference, the fact that the ESPN website *currently* ranks past Olympics by golds [1] [2] and ranks 2008 by totals [3] does not need further citation. It is also relevant to the article. It has been reverted once (in this form) so I'm not going to re-add it, just throwing it up for discussion. Shreevatsa ( talk) 01:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the assertion that the USA has suddenly changed would be totally misleading, although I was acting in good faith at the time of my edit. Two points really.
Firstly I think the wording is misleading at the moment. Agreed, many American news agencies have always used total count, and it is right that the article makes this clear. However, to suggest that the Guardian are the only news organisation in the world ever to have claimed this is not the case is also misleading. For instance The Telegraph.
Secondly, I think we should look at this in a broader sense. The USA isn't the only country to be accused (rightly or wrongly) of being selective with how they count their medals. Far from it, I would suggest there are many more obvious cases. For instance Australia and New Zealand and Jamaica (although I have to say, the analysis there is very balanced). The US situation is very notable, more so for 2008 because it's the first time in the internet era that the USA didn't top both tables, but in some ways I'd say these cases are even more notable. I won't edit for now because if there's disagreement I'd rather get consensus first. 81.108.87.117 ( talk) 01:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've had a second go at it, it's generally considered bad practise to leave large sections quoted out indefinitely. Much of what was there was duplicate information, although I substituted a couple of good lines in place of what was there previously, and moved a couple of sources to appropriate points. The only thing that's ultimately been deleted is the Associated Press part, which I have no opinion on, but wasn't sure how to accomodate it. The quote box is unorthodox considering another quotation style is used above, but I think it really helps the section. BeL1EveR ( talk) 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I would eliminate the second two (critical) sentences of the paragraph on demographic weighting. Small countries have a point, and it is simply false to say that a large country could never win--if countries the world over were equally athletic, one would expect China, with 19% of the world's population, to win 19% of the medals, hardly an impossible feat. In the world as it is, with a number of small, sports-mad countries, yes it is practically impossible for a big country to win according to this system. And the problem with that is what, exactly? The big countries get enough glory. I recommend cutting those two sentences. Grammardon ( talk) 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact, athletes from large / dominant countries have a huge advantage as they are much more likely to win the relays and team events. Why do Spitz and Phelps (USA) and Latynina (USSR) have so many medals? Because of team events dominated by their countries. My17cents ( talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No, large countries are at a disadvantage in team events as far as per-capita ranking is concerned, because they can only send one team. If say USA wins one medal and Spain wins one medal in a team event, does that make Spain 7 times better because they have 7 times less people? No, that doesn't make sense. Per-capita ranking would only make sense if countries weren't limited in the number of athletes or teams they send per event. That is, if all the participants were the top X athletes/teams regardless of country. But in reality, every country is limited in the number of participants they can send, often one or two athletes. It's impossible for China to win anywhere near all medals because they're not allowed to send that many. That's why a straight-up per-capita comparison is simply illogical, people don't understand how the Olympics works.
To say China could lead in per-capita rankings because "China has 19% of population so they can win 19% of medals" doesn't make sense either. If China won 19%, that means they would be average in per-capita rankings. They would have to win a much higher % to be #1.
Furthermore, if a country were that dominant, the IOC would change the rules to make it harder for that country to dominate. Look at table tennis for example, China can now only send 2 athletes instead of 3, which means even if they won all 2 medals the country that wins the other medal would be many times better per-capita. Hypertall ( talk) 04:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the clause that says "and was used in the official report of the most recent Games hosted by the United States, 2002 Salt Lake City" for a few reasons:
1. The article already clearly says that the US doesn't always use the total medal table.
2. The article doesn't need to list every instance of a US-related entitity which used the gold-first table.
3. The cited report is made to the IOC. It does not represent the US or the US media. As the IOC uses the gold-first table, it makes sense the the OC on a games in the US would as well. Using this to support the claim that the US uses the gold-first table makes about as much sense as using it to say that the US uses French and English in its documents. The OC followed the IOC protocols...that's it.
I suggest deleting this phrase (and the sentence which it is in) as they don't add any new information to the article, are out of place with the text, and make the focus of the article too much on the US. LedRush ( talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it not odd that these counts ignore the question of how many participants got "the" medal? Whether a solitary skier or four in a bobsleigh or an entire hockey team these systems all count a single medal. Do we even have a record of how many pieces of hardware are awarded for each event? User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi.
The following sentence is not true: "Before 2008, the difference in ranking system received scant notice, since in recent Olympic history the country that led in total medals also led in the gold count."
See:
2002 Winter Olympics medal table,
1994 Winter Olympics medal table,
1984 Winter Olympics medal table,
1980 Winter Olympics medal table,
1964 Summer Olympics medal table,
1912 Summer Olympics medal table and
1896 Summer Olympics medal table.
-- Simy69 ( talk) 12:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The page Which country leads, New York Times, July 27,2021 show quite drastically how different parameters "Gold:Silver" and "Silver:Bronze" can affect the outcome of a ranking. For example, Ukraine with 1:5:12 medals is currently somewhere between 16th and 31st place. That might be a good link to add to the article, what do you think? -- 217.149.169.1 ( talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Olympic medal table article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Rank | Nation | Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ![]() |
25 | 30 | 30 | 85 | 165 |
1 | ![]() |
7 | 66 | 12 | 85 | 165 |
1 | ![]() |
0 | 0 | 165 | 165 | 165 |
1 | ![]() |
0 | 80 | 5 | 85 | 165 |
1 | ![]() |
55 | 0 | 0 | 55 | 165 |
Total | 302 | 302 | 302 | 906 | 1812 |
The table listed above is purely for demonstration only and no reflection on actual or future events. Country names were chosen purely at author's whim and no reflection on PPOV. To make a point on medal standings and applying rank based upon IOC's ranking. The scenario I pose is for discussion only and I have no opinion on which should be standard used for ranking.
Let's take the scenario above and apply 3 points for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for bronze. A total of 302 events and assuming one medal for each for a total of 906 medals which will give a point total of 1,812. The rest of the NOC's and medal counts are not shown for clarity of this discussion.
As you will notice each NOC has an exact point total and therefore have been applied same ranking. Which country is more deserving of the ranking, if I may ask such a biased question!!
Just to go out on a limb here, let's put some context around the countries, totally unrealistic, and serving only to foster discussion. Let’s assume the following athletes per NOC:
596 for
United States (USA)
302 for
China (CHN)
165 for
Russia (RUS)
85 for
Australia (AUS)
55 for
Canada (CAN)
Using the above number of athletes per NOC, you will note Russia, Australia and Canada will have achieved a 100% success rate, while China has a 28.15% and USA with a 14.26% success rate. Another question raised by this scenario is; Do success rates have a place in determining rank? -- HJKeats ( talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The IOC only uses the gold medal sort for information purposes only. At the bottom of every medal table, the disclaimer indicates that it does not endorse national rankings of any sort. For example the IOC's 2006 medal table. That's why you never hear the IOC never proclaims an "overall winner" of the Games. Nor would you hear it say that Country X did better than Country Y.
The national ranking phenomenon comes from the general public, press, and even the National Olympic Committees. (Likewise the various medal sort, medal points systems are never recognized by the IOC) That needs to be clarified in the article. -- Madchester ( talk) 13:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | Some see in the gold-first ranking -- which is unofficially endorsed by the International Olympic Committee -- one reason why countries have become increasingly ruthless in cutting funding for sports where they don't have a clear shot at a gold. "The message is that winning is everything," says James Riordan, emeritus professor of sports history at Surrey University in Britain. "That's not the message the Games are supposed to convey. Why have silvers and bronzes?" | ” |
Explaining the implication for gold-first ranking would seem to be helpful. Banjeboi 12:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, unlike the claim that ESPN switched in 2008, which can be said to require a third-party reference, the fact that the ESPN website *currently* ranks past Olympics by golds [1] [2] and ranks 2008 by totals [3] does not need further citation. It is also relevant to the article. It has been reverted once (in this form) so I'm not going to re-add it, just throwing it up for discussion. Shreevatsa ( talk) 01:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the assertion that the USA has suddenly changed would be totally misleading, although I was acting in good faith at the time of my edit. Two points really.
Firstly I think the wording is misleading at the moment. Agreed, many American news agencies have always used total count, and it is right that the article makes this clear. However, to suggest that the Guardian are the only news organisation in the world ever to have claimed this is not the case is also misleading. For instance The Telegraph.
Secondly, I think we should look at this in a broader sense. The USA isn't the only country to be accused (rightly or wrongly) of being selective with how they count their medals. Far from it, I would suggest there are many more obvious cases. For instance Australia and New Zealand and Jamaica (although I have to say, the analysis there is very balanced). The US situation is very notable, more so for 2008 because it's the first time in the internet era that the USA didn't top both tables, but in some ways I'd say these cases are even more notable. I won't edit for now because if there's disagreement I'd rather get consensus first. 81.108.87.117 ( talk) 01:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I've had a second go at it, it's generally considered bad practise to leave large sections quoted out indefinitely. Much of what was there was duplicate information, although I substituted a couple of good lines in place of what was there previously, and moved a couple of sources to appropriate points. The only thing that's ultimately been deleted is the Associated Press part, which I have no opinion on, but wasn't sure how to accomodate it. The quote box is unorthodox considering another quotation style is used above, but I think it really helps the section. BeL1EveR ( talk) 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I would eliminate the second two (critical) sentences of the paragraph on demographic weighting. Small countries have a point, and it is simply false to say that a large country could never win--if countries the world over were equally athletic, one would expect China, with 19% of the world's population, to win 19% of the medals, hardly an impossible feat. In the world as it is, with a number of small, sports-mad countries, yes it is practically impossible for a big country to win according to this system. And the problem with that is what, exactly? The big countries get enough glory. I recommend cutting those two sentences. Grammardon ( talk) 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact, athletes from large / dominant countries have a huge advantage as they are much more likely to win the relays and team events. Why do Spitz and Phelps (USA) and Latynina (USSR) have so many medals? Because of team events dominated by their countries. My17cents ( talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
No, large countries are at a disadvantage in team events as far as per-capita ranking is concerned, because they can only send one team. If say USA wins one medal and Spain wins one medal in a team event, does that make Spain 7 times better because they have 7 times less people? No, that doesn't make sense. Per-capita ranking would only make sense if countries weren't limited in the number of athletes or teams they send per event. That is, if all the participants were the top X athletes/teams regardless of country. But in reality, every country is limited in the number of participants they can send, often one or two athletes. It's impossible for China to win anywhere near all medals because they're not allowed to send that many. That's why a straight-up per-capita comparison is simply illogical, people don't understand how the Olympics works.
To say China could lead in per-capita rankings because "China has 19% of population so they can win 19% of medals" doesn't make sense either. If China won 19%, that means they would be average in per-capita rankings. They would have to win a much higher % to be #1.
Furthermore, if a country were that dominant, the IOC would change the rules to make it harder for that country to dominate. Look at table tennis for example, China can now only send 2 athletes instead of 3, which means even if they won all 2 medals the country that wins the other medal would be many times better per-capita. Hypertall ( talk) 04:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed the clause that says "and was used in the official report of the most recent Games hosted by the United States, 2002 Salt Lake City" for a few reasons:
1. The article already clearly says that the US doesn't always use the total medal table.
2. The article doesn't need to list every instance of a US-related entitity which used the gold-first table.
3. The cited report is made to the IOC. It does not represent the US or the US media. As the IOC uses the gold-first table, it makes sense the the OC on a games in the US would as well. Using this to support the claim that the US uses the gold-first table makes about as much sense as using it to say that the US uses French and English in its documents. The OC followed the IOC protocols...that's it.
I suggest deleting this phrase (and the sentence which it is in) as they don't add any new information to the article, are out of place with the text, and make the focus of the article too much on the US. LedRush ( talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it not odd that these counts ignore the question of how many participants got "the" medal? Whether a solitary skier or four in a bobsleigh or an entire hockey team these systems all count a single medal. Do we even have a record of how many pieces of hardware are awarded for each event? User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi.
The following sentence is not true: "Before 2008, the difference in ranking system received scant notice, since in recent Olympic history the country that led in total medals also led in the gold count."
See:
2002 Winter Olympics medal table,
1994 Winter Olympics medal table,
1984 Winter Olympics medal table,
1980 Winter Olympics medal table,
1964 Summer Olympics medal table,
1912 Summer Olympics medal table and
1896 Summer Olympics medal table.
-- Simy69 ( talk) 12:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The page Which country leads, New York Times, July 27,2021 show quite drastically how different parameters "Gold:Silver" and "Silver:Bronze" can affect the outcome of a ranking. For example, Ukraine with 1:5:12 medals is currently somewhere between 16th and 31st place. That might be a good link to add to the article, what do you think? -- 217.149.169.1 ( talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)