Talk:Olympic medal table

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Olympics High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
1	United States (USA)	25	30	30	85	165
1	China (CHN)	7	66	12	85	165
1	Russia (RUS)	0	0	165	165	165
1	Australia (AUS)	0	80	5	85	165
1	Canada (CAN)	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)[reply]

This encyclopedia has no place for

Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays, so I don't know where you are going with this talk page thread. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If its on a discussion page, does it put me in contravention of

Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays as you have stated above. The forgoing is not original research nor is it an essay, It's just simply another way of viewing facts. Not much different actually then the thread from the discussion page as noted here and here! If I'm in contravention of Wikipedia policies, I'll gladly revise or remove the offending items above --HJKeats (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, really, this talk page ought to be just about the article itself, so unless you are planning to add that content to the article, it is off topic. That is certainly why the {{

notaforum}} template was placed on Talk:2008 Summer Olympics medal table, to help reduce the off-topic discussion there. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hence, the reason for this article. The ranking question always come up at various medal pages (every two years) and the conversation do get very dis-jointed. This article should be more of a focused attempt to streamline the mis-information and to establish what ranking is. I'm very un-clear as to the ranking used by IOC, so I used subjective numbers, if its the way its done then I would have fluked into it. IMHO, healthy and constructive conversation is the root of a good article. --HJKeats (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we're using IOC convention, end of story. you can sort the columns if you'd like to manipulate the rankings and make yourself feel better about your country. Wikipedia is staying neutral on this. Wikipedian06 (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I start up the aluminum/aluminium argument now? Manning (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The article was meant to explain the term "rank" in terms of the Olympic ranking as noted in numerous articles such as 2008 Summer Olympics medal table and as noted in the the many NOC infobox such as Canada at the 2008 Summer Olympics. To rename the article without prior discussion is un-warranted at this point in time. By renaming it diminishes the need for the article and hence an end to a means. Why not delete the article and be done of it!!!--HJKeats (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I vote for keeping it - I found this article extremely useful. I don't see why it needs cleanup - it's succinct, explains its topic very well, is referenced and serves as a useful reference point for the biannual confusion that arises over medal tallies. Manning (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As do I... vote to keep it!! I was given so much grief, I've totally given up on it (I just monitor it now). It was discussed on the Wikiproject Olympics talk page to remove/merge it (see here). The original article name was "Olympic medal rankings", it could have been tightened a bit to be acceptable to all, but to change it unilaterally to "Olympic medal table"; waters down the intent of a very controversial subject matter of "Rank", which BTW is pervasive throughout all articles dealing with Olympic medal count. As well most of what I had written on alternative rankings on this talk page was removed, which I don't believe is right. --HJKeats (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should stay, however, it's use for ranking nations at an olympic games would be erroneous to say the least. The IOC does indeed NOT rank nations, ever! They use their system to simply create a list. If we are to rank nations, and use official resources and references, then the official source for each olympic games should be used for the rankings. Not to mention, using the Total first, then Gold, then Silver, then Bronze shows the most information for any ranking. For example, if we use the IOC system, a nation that wins 0 gold medals, 20 silver medals, and 30 bronze medals for a total of 50 medals would be ranked BELOW a nation that wins 1 gold medal, 0 silver medals, and 0 bronze medals for a total of 1 medal only. It's clear that the nation that won 50 medals should be ranked ABOVE a nation that only wins 1 medal. This is a standard ranking system used in hundreds of sports for ranking teams, and athletes.Brendan OhUiginn 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the olympic medal table is based on an IOC listing system and NOT a ranking system I've updated the table for the current olympics to change the "Rank" header to say "Listing". This would be more appropriate since, as the IOC, and this article specifically, has stated, the system used by the table is NOT a ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohuiginn (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the implication for gold-first ranking would seem to be helpful.

No, that's opinion, and not relevant for the lead. Shreevatsa (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say thank you Benjiboi and Shreevatsa for helping to clean up the article. --Jh12 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And actually per

Banjeboi 14:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

I don't think it is relevant, one news outlet changing the way it ranks doesn't make any difference. This article is there to explain diferent ranking methods not give a list of how every single newspaper/tv channel etc ranks, regardless of how interesting or not we think a change in their system is. If it does remain it needs a single source that shows the difference between ESPNs two systems, like there is currently for USA today. However I would also suggest that the mention of USA Today's change is removed as it seems to suggest some kind of conspiracy to keep America top of the table (which may have been the case but we can't prove it). Basement12 (T.C) 01:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank User:Shreevatsa for the critical eye he is using on this article. But I would also agree that the sole ESPN page is not necessary, and point out that there are probably an incredible number of sources I can find through American newspaper and magazine archives that show ranking by total. How about an article about Carl Lewis from 1984 by the Associated Press [4], The New York Times from Atlanta 1996, also using the Associated Press [5], or Sports Illustrated from 2004 [6].

Here is my concern. The assertion that the United States in one month suddenly underwent a switchover by medal ranking in national, state, county, city, and community television & radio programs, newsletters, magazines, newspapers, and journals is for me a most incredible assertion, and therefore one that needs most significant references. For one thing, where is the proof that the major broadcasters of the games by CBS and NBC showing rank by gold? Given that television is a major format for broadcasting the Games in the United States, I would really like to know where video documentation of ranking by total suddenly doesn't exist. On Wikipedia, the only thing that should matter in this instance is Verifiability. --Jh12 (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting (and thanks for the sources). I agree with you; the sole ESPN page page is not necessary. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmm... you bring up excellent points and interesting sources. I just don't know how it can be claimed that it is not "more common to publish medal tables ordered by the total number of medals won" when it has such established precedent. There was even an article by a UNC professor published by China's state information office about the issue. I think it can be changed back to "In the United States it is more common to publish medal tables ordered by the total number of medals won, although it has been claimed that it has not always been so," though even the The Telegraph article seems to take a more neutral approach by mentioning the New York Times and Associated Press.

The article should most definitely also include other countries and at least mention the existence of accusations, as well as the concept that counting medals is a controversial topic because countries set goals and configure sports programs around such numbers. (e.g. US goal of 100 in 2004, China's Project 119). --Jh12 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go, any thoughts? BeL1EveR (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor note: it's good to arrange whitespace changes so that Mediawiki doesn't end up showing a lot more change than actually happened. I "refactored" the whitespace changes so that the change from Jh12's version to your version can be seen as the composition of this (minor) change and this change. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about keeping the detailed information; I thought it was simply good background on how the United States ranks. Edit summaries like "They did it only in 2008. It wasn't "common"" are what highly disturb me because it is against the policy I believe in most strongly: WP:Verifiability. I think the way it is now is good and it balances the IOC convention with what is written in the Olympic charter and the existence of alternative rankings. --Jh12 (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are completely correct. It is not "impossible", but merely difficult, and I have changed the article accordingly. Also, I deleted the second sentence you mention as that is unnecessary and is factually incorrect (it assumes that if China won more medals that other countries would NOT have earned fewer).LedRush (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an empty argument against per capita rankings! The given reference claims: "For China to beat the Bahamas to the top spot their population of 1,325,730,000 would have had to win 8,011 medals, an impossible feat." That's complete nonsense, of course. To make sure it leads the per capita rankings, China just needs to win all medals (a small number compared to 8,011). Then all other nations, including the Bahamas, would have zero medals per capita. Better delete this source right now. My17cents (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can any one country "win all medals," given the restrictions on the number of athletes and teams each country can send to the Olympics? For example, how could China win all three men's basketball medals when they can have only one men's basketball team compete? Or, how could China win all three super-heavyweight boxing medals when they can have only one super-heavyweight boxer compete? It's amazing that people make statements like "China just needs to win all medals", given these facts. Do you even watch the Olympics? Don't you wonder why in team sports there is only one team (at most) per country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.237.48 (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That is why, as I indicated above, I have deleted the sentence and the source.LedRush (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

china cannot win 8000 medals because it has only 600 athletes ! PaxAmericana (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just to make my position more clear, I think this sentence should be deleted: "The gold first ranking has been used on occasion in the United States media, and was used in the official report of the most recent Games hosted by the United States, 2002 Salt Lake City." for the above reasons. To address Andrew's issues, I have moved one of the deleted citations to an early point and changed a sentence to make it even more clear than it already was that the US media doesn't always use the total-medal table: "However, newspapers in the United States primarily *but not exclusively* publish medal tables ordered by the total number of medals won, and Canada used the total medal count on the official website for the Vancouver Olympics."

The * denote a change that I made to address Andrew's issues which has since been deleted.LedRush (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the use of the SLOC part either. How often are people exposed to the official reports by organizing committees? I don't think an individual report by the SLOC can be comparable to media rankings across the United States, and I question how many times the SLOC report is cited by literature published in the U.S. --Jh12 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I think both the use of the Vancouver 2010 webpage and SLOC are

WP:UNDUE. One webpage is not sufficient evidence that the majority of Canadian media rank by total, and one report is not sufficient weight compared against a much larger body of U.S. media. --Jh12 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

First, I presume LedRush means me, and not User:Andrew, who is somebody else. I believe that a key point to this article is that the system used within the United States (and now Canada, apparently) has not always been rank-by-total, and I think that a full (referenced) sentence is necessary, instead of merely a phrase such as "but not exclusively". I used the SLOC report to support that, in lieu of old newspaper articles that pre-dated the internet era. It would be speculative of us to interpret SLOC's motivation for publishing the results the way they did. I agree a better reference should be found, but I insist that a complete sentence is needed to convey that point. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrsc- when I say Andrew, I will always be referring to you :)

I am not sure what you mean by "I believe that a key point to this article is that the system used within the United States...has not always been rank-by-total". If you mean that there is evidence that at one time and one page, the USA Today did a gold-first table (though on the main olympic page of the same site they do a total-medal table), that is already conveyed by stating that the US media "primarily" use the total-medal table. By saying "primarily", it is clear that at some times, some media have published a gold-first table (though the citations only point to one instance of this). However, I will compromise and add the superfluous language to explicitly state this point, as I have above.

If you mean by that sentence that the US media once primarily used anything other than the total-medal table, I would like to see a citation for that. The cites currently in the article clearly indicate that this is not the case.

I also do not know why you must "insist" that this idea gets a full sentence. Why one sentence? If the idea is adequately explained, why put an arbitrary goal on it? Also, why should the USA Today be specifically mentioned? Is the point of the article to explain which media outlets have used which methods and when? Should we start listing the examples of every non-US media source which has used a total-medal table and when they have used it?LedRush (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to respond to my own post, but I think it might be useful if I clarify some of my ideas on this subject.

The article starts by saying there is no official way to rank the table, and then, in the lede, goes on to explain the dominance of the gold-first system. The next section affirms that there is no official way, but explains the origins of the IOC unofficially beginning to use the gold-first system in 1992. Then, we introduce other systems and list some examples of who uses them and why. In that context, it is unnecessary to even mention that the alternative system is not exclusively used by all persons, corporations and government entities in a specific nation. The idea is to give some color to the idea of the alternate (non-gold-first tables) and where or why they are used.LedRush (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit is a little better, but I'd still like to find another reference. This article now conveys the message that it is America with one method versus the rest of the world with another method, but I think it should also state that the USA used to use the same method as everybody else but changed a few years back. We need a reliable source that says that, and the onus is on me to find it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you will find a citation that says what you want because I don't know of any media source which used to use the gold-first method and then switched. I am middle aged, and I had never seen a US-based organization use the gold-first table, until this argument started in 2008 and someone showed me a USA today summary which on the cover ranks by total medals but within the full table, shows by gold-first. The citations in this article actually indicate that US media outlets have always used the total medal table. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856271893833843.html?mod=psp_free_today and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2602029/US-accused-of-medal-table-spin-Beijing-Olympics-2008.html

While the one page on the USA Today indicates that at least once, one US-based company used the gold-first medal, you'll never find a citation that the gold-first table was the primary way the US media counted medals until a switch occurred.LedRush (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am older than middle-aged, alas. But I don't recall the total-first ranking until recent Games. I distinctly remember the "silver is the first loser" Nike posters at the Atlanta Games, so I would be surprised if the "all medals are equal" position existed then. But I will look. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, are you American? If not, there'd be no reason for you to see total-medal tables (unless you watched US TV or read US newspapers).LedRush (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived in the United States various times since the 70s, but not always. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

As an example, the US Men's Hockey team had 23 players on the roster, but goalie Jonathan Quick was never played. Did he get a silver medal, or were there only 22 for this event?User:LeadSongDog come howl 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All 23 players received a physical medal. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Do we have a source for that sort of info? User:LeadSongDog come howl 23:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, found the List of 2010 Winter Olympics medal winners. So there are over 90 x (G,S,B) more medalists listed than medals counted. Exact numbers do vary (at least in team pursuit) between teams. User:LeadSongDog come howl 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have just added a {{

cn}} to that statement (which has previously been changed to begin "Before 2002"). It is not just "the country that led" that attracts notice. I can conceive that if, say, France and Germany alternated 5th and 6th place on alternate measures in 1976 it might have attracted comment in Le Figaro and Die Zeit. Perhaps the statement means "received scant notice in the US and Soviet Union, because the 1-2 Summer Olympic ranking was the same on both measures".jnestorius^(talk) 00:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]