Talk:2008 Summer Olympics medal table/Archive 2

Kim Jong Su/North Korea
I noticed that an editor has been making frequent edits to add asterisks and/or notes relating to that athlete's removed medals. Reviewing the page history, it seems multiple editors have removed that person's Kim Jong Su/North Korean additions.

First, we have a dedicated section on medal changes. It allows up to expand on the circumstances of these changes, something that can't be indicated by the medal tallies alone.

Second, adding asterisks and/or notes to the table would be considered original research. We follow IOC conventions as close as we can; its tabulation doesn't include special asterisks/notes and neither should ours. Wiki's not a primary source of information, like ESPN. It has its own "Power Rankings" to supplement official professional league standings. It also has, for example, its own Pitcher Game Scores to supplement the official MLB boxscores. And so forth. By adding our own asterisks/notes that would be changing the intended meaning of the IOC's medal table. The dedicated "medal changes" section works around that problem. We can still list any medal changes without affecting the intended meaning of the IOC's medal table/sorting system. --Madchester (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your second point is a misunderstanding of what NOR is about. The idea that annotating a table with obvious facts, particularly facts that are recounted elsewhere in the article, is in any way a violation of the original research guidelines is silly.  The prohibition on original synthesis was never intended, nor is it written, to be so severe as to suggest that the table on Wikipedia must slavishly exclude any element not appearing in the IOC's table.  (If you really believe that, then feel free to remove the wikilinks and host country coloring.)


 * That said, I do see the asterisk/note as rather redundant, and the paragraph of explanation is far more useful. So, I don't really see any need for the asterisk.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just don't get it, why a shooter needs steroid to enhance performance? For me, the most likely explanation could be an accident. Maybe this guy ate something in Beijing's streets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.99.48.26 (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Steroid, eh? Propranolol is a beta blocker, just the sort of drug you would expect from someone trying to enhance his performance in slow-paced precision sports. -- Jao (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Singapore's first Olympic medal as an independent nation
Should we include this note? Is it noteworthy enough? Their last medal was in 1960, but they gained independence in 1965. Back then they were still demographically under the larger umbrella nation known as "Malaya". Just a thought that it was somewhat similar to Serbia and Montenegro. ZephyrWind (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly the same situation. I think the comment about SRB was that it was the first time as an independent NOC.  Singapore has always had an independent NOC (except for 1964), even when it was not an independent sovereign nation.  Clarification text would be needed if this fact was added.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would probably rephrase the Serbia part, given that "independent nation" here means differently from the meaning of "independent nation" in a political context (hence the point raised about Singapore). Perhaps something like "Serbia won its first medal competing as an independent NOC under its own flag, having previously won medals as part of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro.". Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That works. As for Singapore, I'm not sure that it's medal is as notable, as the NOC had previously won a medal in 1960.  Independence was so long ago that I don't think the "first time since then" statement carries much significance.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 11:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that mean it actually carries more significance, since it has been so very long? As to Serbia, to start specifying here the political entity it used to be opens up a very big kettle of fish, since every new country used to be part of something else. For example, I notice no one jumped up to mention that Tajikistan previously won medals as part of the Soviet Union, and yet the relevance is the same. It is something traditionally mentioned on the main table of the country page under "Other related appearances" - isn't that enough?


 * It also by implication takes away from Montenegro. Makes no difference that Montenegro has not yet won a medal: several of the old Yugoslavia's medals were in team sports. We have noticed repeatedly in these discussions that the parts don't yet seem to make up the sum of the whole. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.148 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't the same case as Serbia, Serbia competed as "SERBIA" in 1912. SIN existed before independence, hence it's the same idea as HKG. It is just a change of the nation's status, no change in the NOC or the composition of the pool of athletes, if you will. While I don't think it's notable in this article, it's definitely worth a mention in Singapore's own 2008 olympic page. --Kvasir (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Image proposal
A quick check of Wikimedia Commons shows that there are now a few more pictures added to the medal winners category. Most notably, a Dutch user has uploaded pictures of several Dutch athletes who won medals at some post-Olympic event. Since so many believe that the current image of two Americans and a Hungarian is "POV" or "Biased" (which, honestly, it isn't), I suggest the following pictures that might not have as many objections.

Image 1
Maarten van der Weijden, gold medal winner for The Netherlands in the 10km Open Water event. It's an image of a gold medal (which is semi-readable).

Image 2
Femke Dekker, silver medal winner for The Netherlands in Women's Eight rowing. It is an even clearer image of a medal, and is not an image of the winner and therefore might have less objections.

Image 3
Ketleyn Quadros, bronze medal winner for Brazil in Women's Judo. Another clear image of a medal, however she is not in any sort of uniform and it's clearly not taken at the Olympics.

Keep current
Or, for the fourth option, simply keep the current picture because it featurse all three medals, as well as a mix of countries (United States and Hungary). Feel free to discuss. The359 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A gallery would be a good idea. Since China won many gold medals there should be a Chinese gold winner. Else your images are pretty heterogene: black-white, male-female, America-Europe, rowing-judo. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep current as first image:


 * 1) It really isn't U.S. bias to me (note that the U.S. also won the most medals)
 * 2) It actually is the least bias out of the five images, as it shows people from different nations, while the others do not.
 * 3) Michael Phelps' gold medals are probably the most representative of these Olympics.
 * 4) It's the only image that features all three medals.
 * Of course, a gallery of other medal winners is almost necessary at this point. We also should insert a Chinese gold-medal-winner in the article as well, if we can find any. Do U(knome)?  yes...or no 22:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I vote we keep the image until one that either shows just the medals, or three nations comes available. I wouldn't oppose adding the other images to the page, and I'll do that right now. -- Scorpion0422 23:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Three nations is not a problem, Image:BeijingSkeetMedalists.JPG is what comes to my shooting-centric mind. But I happen to agree that if an athlete should be prominently depicted in this article, it should be Michael Phelps. -- Jao (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the three images which have been added to the article are nice, but it might be helpful to avoid the POV/Bias arguements by finding another picture for either the gold or silver, just so we don't once again have two athletes from the same countries. The359 (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fifth option
A quick search of Flickr also presents another possible option, this image of a medal ceremony at the Olympic velodrome, showing the raising of the British, New Zealand, and Danish flag. It's unfortunately not a very clear photo and the flags are obviously reversed, but the image does show three countries and athletes.
 * Sorry, you're got a fair use image again. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The image is uploaded under Creative Commons, it can be freely uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. It is not a Fair Use image. The359 (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't know. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

 * Or, for the fifth option, simply show enlarged photos of the medals. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean the image of the three medals showing their colored inserts, that image is Fair Use and cannot be used on this article. The359 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For the Turin Games, we were lucky to have a behind-the-scenes photo of the gold medal, just before it was handed out in a medal ceremony. Obviously, a medal-only photo would be the most ideal image, but any other combination of medal winners across different countries and disciplines is also suitable. --Madchester (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait... what? the image IS fair use and thus NOT allowed? You totally lost me there. As far as I can tell, the 5 rings and that beijing 2008 logo is also copyrighted and IOC HAS sued people for misusing the 5 rings design. Nonetheless wikipedia has always used the 5 ring design images in coverage of the Olympic Games. As far as I can tell, it IS allowed under the NON-free use policy. Just click on the "Beijing 2008" image in the 2008 Olympic Games article. 64.229.239.26 (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair use policy only allows an image to be used if there is no suitable free replacement. We have dozens of suitable replacements.  There is also a fair use rationale for 2008 Summer Olympics on that image's summary.  Fair use images can only be used on the specific article they are being used, in fair use, for. The359 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No image
If there are so much disputes, why don't just leave it image-free? -59.149.32.77 (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC) or Put a section of gallery where medalists of different countries are shown if their importance is high enough. -59.149.32.77 (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the kind of debates we need to wage over just one picture, I find it all largely unnecessary considering how little any image will add to the viewers' knowledge. At best, pictures of individual winners should appear at List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners, not here. A global map with one colour highlighting all countries which has won a medal and another colour for those which has participated but not won a medal may be far more useful to the reader (but not the one which is colour-coded by per capita).--Huaiwei (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential change to medal table
I added the following, and someone removed it. So I've come here for opinions. In my view, since the medal table is provisional until the ruling is made, we should indicate that. Aridd (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Court of Arbitration for Sport is currently examining an appeal by the National Olympic Committee of the Netherlands Antilles against the disqualification of Churandy Martina in the men's 200 metre sprint in athletics. A ruling is expected by September 30. Should Martina's silver medal be restored, the United States' Walter Dix would lose his bronze medal, reducing the US medal tally to 109, and increasing the Netherlands Antilles' medal tally to 1.
 * That's fair and has good reason to do so. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We do not report potential medal losses - there is no indication that the arbitration committee will rule in favor of Martina. If and when the committee does so, it will be reported here. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearing up medal count and gold count differences
I don't want to change the table (actually, I do, but I am not proposing that), however, I do hope to have some introduction to the fact that the AP reports total medals (as it has since about 1934 or so) and that reuters reports gold medals while ranking countries' performance. The IOC officially doesn't take a stand on the issue (saying that no country should win the medal count) but does have a gold list.

To ignore this difference of tabulation seems a bit odd.

This article sparked some interesting, later ones, on the issues. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856271893833843.html

Let's not ignore the different, deal with it fairly, and let people know that not all the world thinks like their country does, regardless of where you're from.LedRush (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue is dealt with in the main Olympic medal table article, to which this page links. Basement12 (T.C) 15:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not here, which is why I brought this up. It seems misleading to include this article without discussion of the long history of an alternative table in some countries.  Encyclopedias are supposed to educate, not mislead.LedRush (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok so you are suggesting we discuss medal ranking conventions in each article there is a medal ranking list? *rolls eyes* --Kvasir (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You can roll your eyes, but it may be more persuasive if you make some sort of coherent or intelligent statement.LedRush (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Discussion of the "long history" on alternatives belongs in the article on the "long history" of the medals table. Not in each and every individual article on the subject. Basement12 (T.C) 16:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there is already a discussion on the history of it, but it presents only one side of the story...one sentence or two would be enough to present an accurate picture and alert people that there is an issue here.LedRush (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The Netherlands Featuring quite prominently in the pictures, Suggestion - Discuss
I don't think it is appropriate to have 2 out of 3 of the medal pictures to be of athletes from the Netherlands, they may be good pictures but they finished in 12th position. Just a suggestion but how about a gold from a Chinese athlete, a silver from an American and a bronze from a Russian to reflect the medal table? Bpfan1990 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment i expect they are the only free images available. If you can find another free image of an athlete that shows the medals clearly then one of the two Dutch athletes could be replaced. I don't think there's any reason one of the two images couldn't remain, finding Chinese gold, silver American and Russian bronze images that are free may not be easy. Basement12 (T.C) 18:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know the procedure but on the Danish Wikipedia April 1st there was an announcement on the main page "April's Fools wanted!" appealing to the Wikipedians to canvas the newspapers for April's Fools. Several Wikipedians must have been visiting Beijing or receiving the homecoming athletes in their own countries. A lot of pictures must have been taken. If it's possible the en.wiki main page could have a "Free images of Beijing medal winners wanted!" --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea but i'm don't know if such a system exists here or not. Try searching the creative commons section of Flickr. - Basement12 (T.C) 19:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Gold-centric
Since when are statistics organized as gold first? This goes against common sense and tradition. Does the following make sense?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.240.244.118 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-10T09:30:12Z


 * (1) Gold first is the tradition.
 * (2) By clicking on the symbol next to "Rank, "Nation", "Silver", "Total" etc. you can organize the list according to your preference.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-10T12:35:06Z


 * In that case, why bother calling it the "medal count"? The name itself seems to imply that teams will be arranged, first, by number of medals won. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Medal count" can imply gold medal counts, silver medal counts, or total medal counts. As mentioned, gold first is the tradition. But if you like to view the table according to total medals, you can always sort it (click the arrow button next to the "Total" title). Heilme (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you mean gold medals first, that's what should be said. Placing golds before even the overall count can lead to a situation, as shown above, where a team that has won significantly more medals finishes lower in the count.  You can justify that stupidity all you want...you can even say, "Well, you can sort it a different way if you want to"...but that doesn't change the default setting nor the stupidity thereof. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he meant that it is not the tradition to ignore the total medal count in favor of the gold total count--as shown in his example. Of course, golds are listed first--i.e. in the leftmost column. However, the entire list is sorted by descending order of total medals by default--as on this site: http://www.nbcolympics.com/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.139.116.178 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * NBC is sorting by total. The ICO/Beijing site is sorting by total golds as they always do. -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  00:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not see any problems at all with the way the table is compiled at this point. One person says "gold-centric", then another shouts "total-medal-centric"...you cannot make everyone happy at the same time. NBC listed according to the total, while the International Olympics Committee website listed by the golds. Let's not make a big deal out of this. The purpose of the SORT function in the table is meant to solve this issue. So, use it. Heilme (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Or, if your issue is with the country ranking # which reflects only the gold medal counts now, then I suggest you modify it at your own will. Perhaps, a different ranking #s for each counting system. But this will be messy. Heilme (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the medal count that is most often referred to is total medals. That is what China, for example wants, they want to "beat the US in the total medal count".  the example given above illustrates this very well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I wouldn't even bother arguing your point, as valid as it is. It's clear that to some people who edit Wikipedia, tradition is allowed to trump logic.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. It probably makes since to arrange by total medals, but unless Mr. Rogge changes it, it will be ordered by the way the IOC does it. -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  06:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose you know this, but just in case, this is Wikipedia -- not the IOC. Wikipedia editors have the prerogative to make the page in a way that reflects most-common usage.  The majority of news websites give gross medal count.  The vast majority of commentators list the gross medal count of past Olympics and speak of the current battle for the gross number of medals.  I'll state a bit of OR here, but I'd guess most Olympic fans consider the gross count as equivalent to the "Olympics medal count".  So, I'm afraid that even though your argument of what Rogge and the IOC uses is valid, it does not does over rule Wikipedia in any such simplistic manner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Show me common usage. The first place I went was to the BBC and they had it arranged by golds. -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  07:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I've never, _ever_ seen it organized by total medal count. Must be a by-countryn thing. Offical IO listings always are gold first. Of course, it has its drawbacks, but for a really "fair" ordering, you'd probably need to assign weights to the different medals. After all, is it better to have 5 silver, or 8 bronze medals? Gold first has always been the traditional way of ordering, and until a generally accepted better sorting surfaces, it should stay gold first.--Flosch (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Regardless, the medal count that is most often referred to is total medals." Not the case. Bragging rights always go to the country with the most golds. Often this is also the country with the most medals - but if we're just going to count all medals as having equal value, what's the point of having first, second and third? How is that logical? (194.110.194.1 (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)).


 * So what you're saying is, even if the country with the most medals were to win, let's say, 30 more than the country with the most golds, the latter would have bragging rights? "We got 89 total medals, including 38 golds" speaks of a better Olympic Games than "We got 119 total medals, including 37 golds"?  Be serious.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is serious. Most people would regard a nation who won 37 golds to have "beaten" a nation who won 36 golds in the Olympics, regardless of how many times the latter nation won a runner's-up medal. That's the way the International Olympic Committee count the medals. That's also the way the BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian and pretty much every other news source I've ever seen counts the medals.86.157.9.214 (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See my point below re: Russia v. Thailand. If you consider a country that had won six medals (as of that comment) to be having a less successful Olympics than a country with only one, based solely on the color of the single medal, then that's your affair.  But you're still wrong.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen your example of Russia and Thailand, and I would consider that a single gold beats any number of silvers and bronzes in the same way as I would consider winning the FA Cup or the Superbowl to be a bigger achievement than being the runner up three years running (from a purely results-driven point of view). As the late great Ayrton Senna is claimed to have said, "I race to win. Second place is nothing". If you think that I'm wrong and I think that you're wrong, maybe we should start looking at what the major news sources from practically every country on Earth considers to be the conventional way of ranking the nations, and the way that the IOC sorts the medal table.86.132.185.178 (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The FA Cup and the Super Bowl aren't exactly parallel cases, though, are they? There you have one single team prize to be given, in one event, staged in one country, and a multitude of teams pursuing it.  Here, you have multiple prizes to be won PER EVENT, multiple events, and a multitude of athletes and teams pursing the top prize in each one, not only for their own glory but the glory of their homeland.  I grant you that the prizes are graded from most to least prestigious, and I further grant you that nobody goes to the Olympics aiming for a silver medal if they think there is even a slight chance for them to take the gold.  But there are enough differences between the types of competition and the prizes awarded that your analogy fails at the most basic level.  Perhaps you need to examine your thought process instead of urging me to examine the opinions of others -- opinions which I have already rejected ad nauseam for reasons which I have explained over and over again.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Each member of the FA Cup final's losing team gets a runners up medal. And I didn't ask you to reconsider my opinions. I suggested that if we disagree here (and we clearly do), we should follow the common usage of the IOC and almost every major news source in every country in the world.212.124.225.66 (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that settles it!, obviously only the British report news on this planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany), China Daily, Daily Globe (Canada), Radio 24 (Italy), The Australian - CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  00:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia, therefore you should be quoting only English references to look for common usage. So perhaps Commonwealth countries prefer a gold-centric, and the United States prefers medal-centric?  Regardless, it certainly looks funny to see Thailand in 12th with one gold medal, but Russia in 16th with seven medals.  Saying that golds define who 'wins', is as stupid as the argument that any country somehow wins the Olympics.  This gold-centric medal counting does nothing more than to belittle those athletes who received silver and bronze medals... so CONGRATS!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not going to change. Deal with it. -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  03:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that's what I like to see -- a well-reasoned argument. "Deal with it."  Why did I ever doubt?  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "argument" has been made for years. Yes, it should be arranged by total medals in my opinion, but its not.  Until the standard changes, neither will Wikipedia. -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  04:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm giving the British media sources as those are the media sources I knew about before researching this and those are all widely recognised media sources. If the British sources aren't good enough for you, then how about sources from France, China (the host nation) and Germany? And if that's not enough continents, then how about Australia? As far as I can tell, the biggest national newspaper in Australia is "The Australian" and their website's front page has the "medal tally" sorted by Gold. In fact, I haven't yet seen a SINGLE major news organisation from anywhere outside of the USA which sorts the table by total number of medals rather than by Golds.86.132.185.178 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see:


 * Gold Ordered:
 * IOC, BBC (UK), Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany), China Daily, Daily Globe (Canada), La gazzetta dello sport (Italy), Marca (Spain), Le soir (Belgium), The Australian, Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan), The Chosun Ilbo (South Korea), El Norte (Mexico) (edit: added many leading world newspapers, which means pretty much most of the world is counting this way)
 * Total Ordered:
 * NBC, ESPN, Yahoo Sports, NYTimes, CNN/SI (which means USA only...)

Feel free to add others. Dragons flight (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how the Globe beat out the Star to represent Canada but here are the rest:
 * Gold Ordered: CBC, Toronto Sun
 * Total Ordered: CTV, Toronto Star, National Post, La Presse, Vancouver Sun (It's worth noting that CTV, the Star and La Presse all have a 'Position' column which you can click to sort the tables by golds.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxtreme (talk • contribs) 07:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the Globe is the Canadian newspaper of record. So the editor is correct in using the national newspaper to represent Canada. The Star is only a local newspaper. 76.69.63.234 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

In Brazil: UOL/Folha This is from the biggest newspapper, but all the others are the same way: Gold Ordered. And Brazil, would win 4-5 positions if it was total ordered. But we still don´t stealing, as U.S do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.75.118 (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Hardly any other country is listing by total. Only the USA is doing so. So this is obviously not "common" as tghe whole world is counting correctly, just as the IOC does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.113.248 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So far it looks like a US vs the World thing. - CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  08:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made my case. I didn't pick and choose.  I went to List of Newspapers in _____, picked one of the national newspapers and posted the link. -  CWY2190    ( talk  •  contributions )  08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chinese are heavily favoured to win the most golds this Games. The Americans are probably going to end up with the most medals overall, which is why all the AMERICAN networks are ranking by total medals (although as of now, China is leading in both categories at 9 golds and 13 total). The IOC tradition is golds first, and this has been the case since 1896. Wikipedia will not tweak things in America's favor. Wikipedian06 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a ridiculous thing to say. "Total-centric" is how it is always done in the US (which explains why some people are amazed to discover that it's done in a different way elsewhere).  In this Olympics and in every other.  We didn't suddenly change to a more sensible system because the Chinese were going to beat us in Gold.  That said, even though I absolutely believe that the IOC system is inferior...it doesn't matter.  "Gold-Centric" is the commonly accepted standard in the IOC, the world at large, and the English speaking world.  Wikipedia ought to reflect that.Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with who benefits or doesn't benefit from a change. That would be an inadmissible argument, whether made in favor of or against a proposal.  Read a logic book sometime.  If you're going to advertise a "medal count," then all the medals should be counted, either with equal weight or via some kind of system that assigns points to various medals.  As I said above, ranking a country that has won 30 more medals overall at the completion of a Games below a country that has won just one more gold is objectively ridiculous.  Just because the IOC has been doing it this way for over 100 years doesn't automatically make it right, by the way.  So apparently, what it takes to cement a flawed policy as acceptable in your mind is a century of tradition.  Good to know.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no "weights" or "point values" assigned to each medals. If you feel the IOC gold-sorting method is flawed, that's your personal opinion, and it has no placed in a Wikipedia article per WP:NPOV. --Madchester (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. You haven't even noticed that I've been making an argument, not simply expressing an opinion, have you?  (See my Russia-Thailand example below, from this Games.)  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we all saw the example. Good job. What I noticed in your example was that the country with the most golds was still ranked first. Here's an example for you: Two nations participate in the Olympics. Nation A participates in 50 events and gets gold every time. Nation B participates in 51 events and gets Bronze every time. Nation A beat Nation B in every event they participated in. By your logic they should be ranked as below Nation B even though they are obviously superior athletes. In my example the current way works. This is why we stick with tradition. We can't simply switch because it seems more logical this year. One year things could happen to be the way they are in your example and the next they could be like in mine. Can you imaging how china would react if the IOC suddenly said "this year we are going to rank by total medal count" and moved them down to second? There is some LOGIC for you. It would Piss off everyone but the US to switch the ranking system now. Is that LOGIC enough for you?
 * If we count 3rd as being worth as much as 1st, then what about fourth? What if Nation C came 4th in every single event in the Olympics? If 51 3rd place medals are worth more than 50 1sts, why aren't 52 4ths worth more than that? or 53 5ths? Can you apply LOGIC to that question?
 * We do it the way it's always been done because changing to make one nation happy now would make another nation mad. If you are so fond of logic you should understand this. Maybe you think it should have never been set up this way in the first place but you must know that no amount of logic can reverse this decision. Time goes forward. The only logical thing to do is to accept the way it is done and deal with it.--Matt D (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First, in case you didn't notice, my example was meant to point out that it was a BAD THING that the country with the most golds was ranked first in that case. Second, I am still comfortable with ranking Nation B ahead of Nation A in your example, as extreme a case as it is -- because my way also allows me to rank --
 * Russia (92 medals, 27 gold) ahead of China (63 medals, 32 gold) in the medal count for Athens,
 * Germany (36 medals, 12 gold) ahead of Norway (25 medals, 13 gold) in the medal count for Atlanta,
 * Canada (13 medals, 3 gold) ahead of South Korea (6 medals, 4 gold) in the medal count for Lillehammer,
 * Italy (14 medals, 4 gold) ahead of the United States (11 medals, 5 gold) in the medal count for Albertville,
 * and South Korea (29 medals, 12 gold) over Spain (22 medals, 13 gold) in the medal count for Barcelona.
 * It's not like I looked hard, either, to find these examples where your way simply doesn't work at all. And there are plenty of others that I didn't cite.  Third, since we're talking about medal count tables, and no medals are awarded for fourth place, your question makes no sense in the context of the debate, unless you'd like to start awarding them.  There.  Logic applied.  (Ooh!  We could have copper for fourth place, and pewter for fifth!  And every last-place finisher could get a tin medal just for trying!)  Fourth, my objection to the way the table is laid out has nothing whatsoever to do with any national affiliation.  I am not from Russia, yet I do believe that winning 29 more medals than another country qualifies you to be ranked above them, even if they did win 5 more golds than you.  Fifth, whether someone is more happy or more angry at this method of sorting should have absolutely no bearing at all on whether the rankings change or stay the same.  I am fond enough of logic to understand THAT.  That is why I am presenting an objection with examples; you're the one dragging hurt feelings into it.  Sixth, although I agree that it would be very difficult for the IOC to switch at this late date, Wikipedia is not the IOC.  It does not have to adhere to their flawed ranking system, or to some misguided sense of tradition.  Finally, since you say that "everyone but the US" would be pissed at a switch, here are some examples of nations who would not be -- Australia, Italy, Russia, North Korea, France, the Netherlands, and Brazil.  All would have higher places on the list as of this moment, and most other nations would stay the same.  Nations like the Czech Republic, India, and Thailand would suffer some significant drops, but again, France has 9 medals and India and Thailand have 1 each.  Care to take a stab as to why both are ahead of France?  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For starters, you might want to come up with a fair system. Let's take two countries, equal number of gold medals, but country A has 1 more silver medal than B, while B has 2 more bronze medals than A. Which one comes first? Is a silver medal worth twice as much as a bronze, or 1.5 times, or 2.5 times? Want to come up with a weighting system for how much a medal is worth? Go ahead, that might be the only way close to being "fair". I doubt it'll get accepted though, because a) it might be considered "too complicated", b) I've never seen it used anywhere else, and I'm not sure this is the best place to start a crusade for a new ranking system. --Flosch (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did my best. Every system will have problems; I admit that.  I simply claim that the one I advocate is MORE fair, in that it won't result in Country A being ranked behind Country B, when Country A has won significantly more medals yet slightly fewer golds.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "My system" doesn't work at all? "my system"? It is the official IOC system. And it is a bit of an exaggeration to say it doesn't work at all. Also you completly evaded my point that third and first are not the same thing. The reason they don't award medals for fourth is because it is not the same as first or second or third. That was my point. You seem capable enough of understanding why fourth doesn't get a medal but not of understanding why third is not the same as first. Evading my point is not the same thing as thinking about it. Saying that making countries angry or not is not an issue is blatant over simplification. You say both systems are flawed. Yet you think your system where, if nation A beat nation B every time they competed, nation A could still rank as lower than B because B got a bronze in one other event is MORE fair? perhaps it is more fair in some situations and even then only if you believe a bronze is worth the same as a gold. You can argue all you want that a million bronzes are better than one gold but your system would still make a gold and a bronze equal. Which is the same as saying that Nation A, B and C should be tied if one has 20 golds, one has 20 silvers, and one has 20 Bronze. How is that for fair? That is what your system, your awesomely fair system, would translate too. A country with 50 golds would be tied with a country with 50 silvers. 'A' beats 'B' 50 times and they tie. Okay... you admit their are flaws in both systems. Why call for change? It amounts to saying "Hey let's switch one flawed system for another because I have some examples where it would have worked out better even though there are just as many examples where it would have been worse". Just stop. The IOC being an international body of experts has, I'm sure, thought about this a lot. The examples I have provided are just as valuable as yours even if mine are hypothetical. There will be no switch. Because the current system IS more logical, wise, and fair.
 * Also, It is called a "Medal Table" now. Not "medal count" So you really should just stop. A) you are wrong. B) It isn't even a medal count any more. It is table which assigns more worth to gold inherantly. If you really want a table that shows number of medals as most important perhaps you could get some card board, and magic markers and make one.--Matt D (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In keeping with my promise below, I have confined my response to this post to the respective user's talk page. I respond here only to point out that I did agree to drop the subject and move on, almost five hours BEFORE this user castigated me for not dropping the subject and moving on.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, your position totally lacks logic, although you bring in logic as an argument. Every event has one winner who gets a gold medal, everyone else is a loser in that event even the silver and bronze medalists. Therefore, 1 gold medal is worth more than an infinite number of silver and bronze medals. Therefore, the current ranking system is correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.126.176.165 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, first off, logic is not an ARGUMENT. We use logic to make sure our arguments are valid.  If you're going to criticize someone else for their lack of "logic," it might behoove you to first learn the definition and some basic principles of reasoning.  Second, your argument only holds if I am willing to admit your unspoken postulate that winning is the only thing that matters.  I am not.  Clearly the IOC agrees with me, on this issue at least.  Else, why would they bother to give awards to those who came close but didn't win?  Why wouldn't they just recognize the winners?  Just because France was edged out by the United States in the men's 4x100m freestyle relay, that doesn't reduce the greatness of their swim -- they did shatter the old world record, after all.  Their team, nominally at least, is better at that event than every other team in the world save only one, and then only by a few hundredths of a second.  They deserve to be recognized for the level of excellence they have attained, as (to continue the example) does Team France generally.  Their nine total medals, as of this writing, should result in them being listed BEFORE a country who has been represented on the podium by only a single athlete.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's called tradition. Why did they lit the torch at Olympia in all Olympics? Because it's tradition. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tradition has supported a lot of things in the past, not all of them good. It is, moreover, not an adequate defense for any action; just because something has ALWAYS been done doesn't mean that way is somehow better, or even right at all. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One example of what some of us have been talking about -- Right now, Russia is ranked below Thailand on the default table setting. Russian athletes have won a total of six medals in these Olympics so far, while only one Thai has mounted the medal stand. Objectively, who has had the better Games to this point? With six medals to one, I would say Russia, and I think most people outside of Thailand would agree. However, because Russia has no golds, and Thailand's only medal is gold, the IOC says Thailand has had a better Games. So, this is the point of view some of you are actually championing? --68.97.115.26 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest to make the Ranking # column to be fixed (i.e. non-sortable). In other words, just direct numbering 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... from top to bottom and will not change when different sortings is used. In this way, the ranking # can be used to reflect ANY METHOD each user wants to sort the medals.....including assigning Ranking #1 to the country with the lowest medals!!!! :D Heilme (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, in this way, Wikipedia listing will not be seen as biased compared to the media who use different counting systems. This will also solve the traditional vs. logical argument above. Please, this issue is actually not new. The 2004 Summer Olympics medal count also had similar argument before. Let's all stay friendly. Olympics spririt!! Heilme (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However, the drawbacks of this system is 1) it may assign ranking #1 to countries with 0 medals (depending on how you sort up or down), 2) it will not be able to reflect ties i.e. two or more countries with the same amount of medal types/counts. But this will be very neutral. Another alternative, but a lot more work & messy, is to insert the ranking # as parenthesis next to each medal types. So, for instance, USA, gold: 5 (rank #1), silver: 4 (rank #1), total: 9 (rank #2). All in all, I still prefer to do nothing and let things stay the way it is with ample explanation. Heilme (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break
We've gone through this discussion many times, most notably during the 2006 Olympics, where we finally standardised our Olympic reporting guidelines. (See here)

Note that the IOC intended the medal count for "information only"... "as it does not recognise global ranking per country." This disclaimer is present for every IOC medal table, from Athens 1896 to Turin 2006. The IOC uses the gold-medal sort method simply for presentation of medal information. It in no way makes claims of one nation's "superiority" over another nation due to the number of medal (types) won. The media and public may use the medal count for that purpose, but not the IOC.

If there's any confusion from editors thinking that the IOC sorting system is not properly reflected in the article name... then change all related articles from "medal count" to "medal table". The latter term is the one used by the IOC. --Madchester (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support a movement of pages to "medal table". I note that the WP:OLY convention for section headers in individual sport articles (e.g. Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics) is to use "Medal table", and the consistency with the per-Games totals would be welcome.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You may have gone through the discussion. I have not, and your earlier decision continues to seem illogical.  However, if the only remedy any of you are willing to countenance is a switch of terminology to "medal table," I suppose I'll go along.  At least it removes the implication which "medal count" seems to carry to me, and others like me.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote oppose to any sorting system except the IOC official one. Python eggs (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * YAY, VOTING!!! *roll eyes*  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I saw some edits to this page and came to suggest that maybe a sortable table would solve the problem... but then I see that it's already a sortable table. What's to argue about? (ESkog)(Talk) 02:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. We have this same discussion every 2 or 4 years when newcomers start editing/browsing Olympics articles on Wikipedia.  Folks, this horse has been beaten to death multiple times, and the current format is the consensus, backed up by reliable sources.  Several of these lists are also featured, it should be said.  Nobody had any issues when these went through the FL candidate process. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a case of Mr. Anonymous from Oklahoma trying to push his POV and engage in OR. The consensus has been firmly established and should remain. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, congratulations on identifying my location. It must have been difficult.  Second, you will please note that I have not edited the medal count one single time -- only the talk page, trying to make a case for a better method of presentation.  If I were REALLY trying to push my POV, I would be editing the main page instead, and getting barred for my efforts.  As for engaging in OR, I freely admit the charge, but this "capital offense" has only become necessary because so few people on here seem willing to engage in thought at all.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we all must do as you want, eh? Now we have India ahead of France, very logical.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you list a major media outlet from India or France that arranges it by total medal? or even find one outside of America? the Olympics are organized by the IOC. I do not see an issue if we follow their guidelines on medal count. Find me a list of the amount of times a team has made it to the Super Bowl ranked ahead of the number of times a team has won the Super Bowl, very logical. 209.195.79.131 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Be realistic. There is no prize equivalent to a silver or bronze medal in American football.  You sound like the person above, who said that he considered a gold medal worth more than any number of bronzes and silvers, just like he considered a win in the FA Cup or the Super Bowl better than any number of runner-up finishes.  To my reply to him above, I will only add that if you show me Cardiff City's silver medal trophy for being FA Cup runners-up, or show me video of the Packers and/or the Chargers mounting the medal podium in bronze position alongside the Giants and Patriots, I will reconsider my position.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to reply to only half the argument I presented and totally ignore listing "a major media outlet from India or France that arranges it by total medal? or even find one outside of America?" Also, the Super Bowl's participating teams are referred to as National/American Football Conference champions. I would say that is equivalent to a silver/bronze. Funny how you can use the IOC in favor of you medal count argument and then disargee with them at the same time. Olympians train to win gold. silver and broze are only consolation prizes. When the Olympics plays the national anthem of all 3 medalist I will reconsider my position.


 * Well here's some video footage of the Cardiff players looking rather dejected as they step up to receive their runners up medals...212.124.225.66 (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll see France jump way ahead of India soon. I'm guessing you are show that the U.S. is at the top of the tally right now. Thankfully, none of this will matter soon as China basically has a lock on the Gold and total medals from 2012 and onwards.


 * I have no idea what you're talking about.


 * If this would be changed to cumulative medal totals it would be an injustice to the world as a whole. Can anyone name any website or major news outlet based outside of the United States that sorts by total medals?  I doubt it as it is simply an issue of American bias.  Sticking with the official formatting will keep this article considered legitimate outside of the USA. Weather130 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, the fact that China has now more medals than US, also in the total count, should lessen the number of objections. Anyway, the official IOC count should very logically be the reference. And no, Wikipedia is not the place to correct what the rest of the world is doing. Indeed, this would be the whole point of WP:OR Ratfox (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To get the section break back on track...
I know that all of you are getting sick of me. I'm sorry about that, I really am. HOWEVER, anyone who is responding to me in this section break has missed its point. Regardless of my exchanges with numerous posters above, the purpose of this section break (initiated by Madchester) was to propose a switch of terminology from "medal count" to "medal table." I support this switch for two reasons:

1) It ends the argument.  This would not change your precious sorting system IN ANY WAY, and it would remove my initial reason for objecting to the sorting method.  As I have said above, "medal count" implies to me that the medals will be counted by quantity alone, unweighted as to color.  Clearly, it does to others as well (though not to the majority of you, I admit).  A table, on the other hand, can be organized in any different number of ways.

2) It is the terminology used by the IOC.  This alone should win most of you over.  See this page for the Turin Games for an example of what I mean.  Surely if you're so committed to the IOC counting method, you won't have an objection to the IOC terminology.

Is this an acceptable compromise? --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been called a "medal table" for hours... Dragons flight (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know, but it's not changed in the article itself (bold text, first paragraph). That's what I was referring to.  Would you mind changing it?  Once that's done, I will drop the issue forever, I swear.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for changing it, Dragons flight. I still have issues with the way the medals are sorted, but the change of terminology is satisfying enough to me.  To the relief of everyone, myself included, I am withdrawing my objection.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My personal belief is the fairest way is to assign 3 points to a gold, 2 to a silver, and 1 to a bronze. And then add it all up and sort by the totals. Alternatively, you could strengthen the value of a gold by making it 4 points. It worsk as a good compromise. In my opinion.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the major underlying reason for having this discussion at all has nothing whatsoever to do with common usage or logical order or any other reason which has been mentioned. Rather, it has directly to do with what formatting will show *my* nation to best advantage over others, and especially over its closest rivals. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agress with Medallurgist, it's the fairest way to organize the table, that way a country with 75 silver medals doesn't get beat by a country with only 1 gold medal Redekopmark (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually do not care if my country (US) or my favorite countries (Russia, Mongolia, etc...) are on top. I don't think favoritism is as strong as you think it is, but whatever.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So why the determination to overturn the IOC method of ranking in favour of original research, in the name of "fairness"? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.161 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't do any research. I used common sense on what is the most practical and fair way to do it. It's interesting that this isn't the way it's done. Because it should be done by weighting the different medals and totalling it all up. Metallurgist (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Original research is any idea, including systems and structures and categorising, the (more or less objective) validity of which has not been verified independently, preferably through peer-reviewed work. Original research is also any interpretation of events rather than simple reporting of events, be it through "common sense" or otherwise. (All newspapers around the world ultimately rely on the IOC statistics, whatever their reconstruction of them, making those the primary source.) For neither of these is any form of data gathering required - one reason that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia or any respectable encyclopaedia. There can be no perfect system of ranking, but to alter the existing IOC system requires delving into original research. Reading that a thing "should be done" due to "common sense" is an almost certain signal of editorialising, which also qualifies as original research (see second point). - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.27.230 (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Coudn't a sentence be added stating that some countries prefer to sort the medal table by total medals rather than by Gold? There was something on there the other day but it's been removed because it singled out America as a notable example. I assume someone was worried that it could lead to American bashing. I think it is important to point this fact out though (but don't need to single out America). The only reason I came to the WP page on medal tables was too find out why America seemed to be sorting the table differently. In fact I wasn't even aware that anyone sorted it other than by Gold total until yesterday when browsing other countires olympic coverage and looked at a couple of American news sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.139.74 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, if you took the rankings as shown in the article as of August 17, and further sorted the first three alphabetically, you could move Great Britain up to second place. Everybody happy?JGC1010 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I knew this disagreement was going to happen. This is my first olympics living in the US and I was amused to see their table ranking method, yet no American I talk to seems to think the other way is more sensible. In Australia we always did it like the IOC. For all the people who think total medals are more important (ie: 2nd and 3rd being just as good as first), if your team won 5 "superbowls" and another team was runner up in six, would you consider that other team more successful? Does a team that scores 1000 baskets in the year but only wins 70% of their games deserve to be on top of the NBL ladder instead of the team that won 75% of their games but only scored 950 baskets? Winning is what counts. I didn't see NBC going on about Phelps' quest for "Eight total medals" - he was after EIGHT GOLD. If we are going to give equal ranking to a first and second runner up then why not just rank everyone who competed equally?

The IOC's method also makes more sense because it recognises the nation with the best overall athletes rather than the nation with the largest training programme and broadest net cast to find possible competitors. I'd consider a team with a high strike rate of success better than a team with more also-rans than winners.70.180.211.82 (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC) 70.180.211.82 (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

According to this Article, the IOC does not OFFICIALLY recognize either format for medal tables. They release information in the Gold first manner, but under the Olympic charter there is no 'Official IOC Medal Table'. There has been a split on this subject for decades. More here: http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121856271893833843.html?mod=psp_free_today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.131.28 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has admittedly not read the vast majority of this discussion (in this section let alone the numerous others devoted to it), I submit that we stick to the way it's been done on the pages for prior Olympic games and leave it alone. The IOC doesn't have an official rule because different organizations do it differently, and there's nothing wrong with the status quo unless someone wants to modify every medal tally with hundreds of insignificant changes. Although that's probably too logical an argument to work. Thompsontough (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The best table would recognize the special prestige of gold medals but also value silver and bronze. You can make a strong case, based on how everyone talks about the results and the relative attention that various medalists get, that silver is worth double bronze and gold worth double silver. So a points table that gave 4 pts for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for bronze would be a fine way to reconcile the differing views above. It would avoid the absurdities of the various extreme examples quoted above (on both sides). 100 bronze medals are of course better than 5 golds, but 5 golds are of course better than 6 bronzes, etc.

As of August 19th, this would give the following table: 1. China   219 pts 2. USA  178 pts 3= Great Britain 86 pts 3= Russia 86 pts 5. Australis 78 pts There's a lot to be said for having a single points system. As a voice of rationality, Wikipedia could add this as a calculated 'prestige points' column and see if it catches on. Thephilosopher (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The would violate WP:OR. also your point allocation is entirely arbitrary. G=3, S=2, B=1 or G=10, S=5, B=2 could both be defended. Any scheme other than IOCs official ranking is pointless. Jooler (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's true that any new points system is 'arbitrary' until it catches on. But either 4-2-1, or 10-5-2 wd be better than both the IOC table or the US media total medal tables -- because these point systems take all medals into account in a reasonable way. Is any credible body out there trying to promote such a system? Someone should. Thephilosopher (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe somebody should, but it is absolutely certain it shouldn't be created on Wikipedia, which by its own rules should not be considered as a credible body... It's the whole point of WP:OR Ratfox (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm getting tired of this debate. It really doesn't matter what any of us think, only what IOC says. They organise the event, they count the medals, they are the authority, that is it.They have been doing this the same way for decades, we do not have the right to change anything just because we think it's "more logical" or whatever. Imagine that, say in the UK, some backward retarded newspaper decides to sort the premiership teams by hair length cause then their favourite local 3rd division team turns out to be first... If IOC says "sort by penis length", then we sort by that, that's it, end of story. If anyone objects, send an official request to IOC to change their table, then we will of course change this one. Alpha-Toxic (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is tiring, especially since people continue to harp 'it's how the IOC does it' when in fact, the IOC has NO OFFICIAL TABLE and is expressly prohibited from doing to by their charter. As long as that is clearly pointed out, I have no problem listing it either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.131.28 (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have all agreed that the medals should all be organised in a table, I believe there is an error in the first sentence of the article. The first sentence states that the medal table is ranked by number of medals won but the medal table itself shows the teams ranked by number of golds won. I think the first sentence of the article should be changed to show that their is some controversy as to how the medal table should be organised. Bazwerth —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the first sentence does not suit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.159.38 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reiterating an earlier point, the only reason to argue about the relative value of medals is to assume that the table is intended to somehow place one nation's abilities objectively and absolutely over another's. Yet an encyclopaedic table is only a system of classification, not a system of valuation. If we thus assume that a table in Wikipedia should be an expression of data and not of value, as is much more typical in kinesiology and other sciences, then this whole debate becomes moot.

(Consider - hydrogen is listed above helium, but does that make hydrogen more valuable? or even *always* lighter than helium? Mr A is always listed in a conventional encyclopaedia ahead of Mr F, but does that make him more valuable?)

Still, as a proposed clarification edit to replace the existing version with a more neutral "method", try this. (It has been sitting far below this flurry of argument for a week, invisibly.)


 * "The information in this table is based on data provided by the International Olympic Committee. Following the IOC method, ranking sorts first by the number of gold medals earned by the athletes representing the country. In case of ties, the number of silver medals is taken into consideration, and then the number of bronze medals. If still tied, countries are listed alphabetically by IOC country code.In this context, a country is an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee and recognized by the International Olympic Committee."

The purpose of this edit would be to clarify the reasoning for the ranking choice up front, and also clarifies both country recognition (see Kosovo) and that athletes representing a country are not necessarily "from" that country. It does not include the requested "not worldwide", since that ought to be implicit from "IOC method" (which after all is not a governmental body). - Tenebris

A gold medal means you WON an event while a silver or bronze means you came in SECOND and THIRD place. The rankings go by the number of events won. Obviously, a country with one win (Gold Medal) will finish ahead of a country with 4 THIRD PLACE finishes (Bronze Medal) who didn't win any events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.21.101 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and here's the official medal table from the IOC in 2004. Note that China is ahead of Russia because it has more golds but less overall medals: http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/table_uk.asp?OLGT=1&OLGY=2004 Enjoy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.21.101 (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be total medals, in my opinion. Look at these examples (medal counts as of 8/22 12:30 AM EST):

The Netherlands is ranked above France. The Netherlands has one more gold medal, but eight fewer silver medals, ten fewer bronze medals, and seventeen fewer total medals. France has more than twice as medal total medals.

Georgia is ranked above Cuba. Georgia has one more gold medal, but six fewer silver medals, three fewer bronze medals, and eight fewer total medals. Cuba has more than twice as many total medals.

It is nonsensical to rank simply by gold medals. If anything, the medals should be weighted (perhaps 5 for gold, 3 for silver, and 1 for bronze). Phizzy (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For those who trust in the American media, take a look at ESPN Olympic records: all medal tables sorted by gold first (Example: Athens 1896 - Medals), but not 2008. Remember, free press doesn't mean reliable press. --ClaudioMB (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but here in South America people are starting to wonder if NBC is trying to "cheat" in the medal count. I don't know what the tradition is in the U.S., but at least in Brazil and in Paraguay the medal count was always gold first. So it was for Atlanta 1996, for instance. Brazilian TV correspondents at Beijing and at New York have started to point out this oddity. Besides, this Olympics is one of the few in which the USA team is not in first place, and that arouses suspicion about NBC's intentions, if they have any. I think that we in Wikipedia should rely on official information, and I consider the IOC more official than NBC. In any case, we should inform our readers about this disparity. Aldo L (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can remember, NBC has always ranked by total medals. See here, for example: http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/2004standings/index.html Phizzy (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You realize that 2004 medal table was created in 2008 right? It didn't even exist until this year. Also, BBC (Britain) ranks gold first, CBC (Canada) ranks gold first, Lequipe (France) ranks gold first, The Australian (Australia) ranks gold first, China Daily (China) ranks gold first, the official website of the 2008 Olympics ranks gold first, and the IOC (governing body) ranks gold first. In fact, I can't find a major news source outside the US that does not rank gold first.


 * http://www.bbc.com
 * http://www.cbc.ca
 * http://www.lequipe.fr/Jo/TAB_MEDAILLES.html
 * http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
 * http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/
 * http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/95A/GL0000000.shtml (Official site of the Beijing Olympics

A gold = winning. A silver or bronze = coming up second or third place and thus not winning anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Growler998 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So why even have silver or bronze medals? And, why are most athletes elated when they win a silver or bronze medal? Phizzy (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of a consolation prize? A silver or bronze medal definately fits the description and definition. Case closed.
 * Consolation prize (noun)- A prize given to a competitor who loses or does not win the first prize.
 * Consolation prize (noun)-Something given to console the loser of a game.

And I wouldn't say most athletes are elated when they win silver or bronze. Brandan Hansen was visibly upset with his silver in Athens. When Walter Dix learned he won bronze he said "So what, I still lost", all three Lopez siblings expressed dissapointment in their bronze and silver medals, and not to mention the wrestler who threw his bronze medal on the ground. Growler998 (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest already
Whether you consider the system most used in the world, or you consider the absolute reference regarding Olympic Games, i.e. the IOC, the table should stay gold-centric. It is useless to start saying things like "in my opinion", "logically", or "it isn't fair". All three are WP:OR and possibly WP:NPOV. Ratfox (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Original Research my anal cavity. It is merely an opinion that is part of consensus. As I said, the only neutral way to do this is to assign values to the medals and total it up by the values. No other argument is valid and the IOC really should be using this. Maybe I'll write them a letter.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

USA is the only place where this is being discussed. The rest of the wolrd always have ordered the medal score table by golds. As well as I bet U.S used to do since 2008. I´m from Brazil. Brazil always wins a lot of bronze medals, but we still counting it by gold ones. As all others countries does. Gold medals means: "Olympic Champions". And the medals table is about which country has the most number of Olympic Champions. China won. Please, accept it. It is increadbly how U.S always wants to change the rules when they lost. Here in Brazil, the local press showed some fun news about how the U.S press changed the way they count the medals to manipulate local people. Luiz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.75.118 (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where the local press in Brazil is getting their information (bad research, I suppose) but for the most part, the US media has ALWAYS ranked by total medals. For example, the US media did this in 2004, ranking Russia ahead of China because they won twenty-nine overall medals more than China, but just five fewer golds. The news reporting in Brazil seems to be motivated by an anti-American sentiment. Phizzy (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't know what you're talking about and neither do the newspapers in Brazil. The U.S. has never ranked Olympic medal winners by any manner other than total number of medals won; we do it in years when we win the most medals and in years where we don't. We even did it in the 1970s and 1980s when we finished third every time. Very few U.S. media outlets have ever ranked just by number of golds won. It's just a case where we decided long ago to do things differently, like we do with weights and measures. That said, I agree with using the IOC policy here, since this is an English-language wiki and not just a United States one. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually both ESPN and USA Today ranked strictly by gold medals until this year's Olympics. I would call both very large media outlets which flys face to your claim. Gee, I wonder why ESPN and USA Today changed it this year? Maybe because the US would not come out on top? I would call that changing their rankings. Colemangracie (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * USA Today has used both methodologies in the past, I really don't know about ESPN but it's irrelevant to the facts. The front page for USA Today's coverage of Athens '04 (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/athens/front.htm) lists the top nations by total medals. But their full medal table (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/athens/medals.aspx) orders them by gold. In any case, I said very few, not none. It's an easily provable fact that the vast majority of U.S. media outlets always have listed by total medals, and did not change in 2008. Learn how to read. Jsc1973 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ranking by gold medals vs. ranking by total medals
Before I start, let me first say that I am NOT proposing that this table be sorted by total medals. This argument has been beaten to death and has gotten uglier and more ridiculous than it ever should have. I think that it might be interesting to have a few sentences on the differences between the reporting of medals between American media and international media. As an American myself, I have always seen the Olympics being ranked by total medals and was surprised to find out that that isn't really done anywhere else. I think that many other Americans who browse Wikipedia might not be aware of this and may find it interesting and relavent to the article. Someone added something about that was more of an attack on Yahoo! than informational, but if we could get reliable sources that discussed the difference it could be interesting. As always it should be NPOV but would does everyone else think? And does anyone have some good sources that describe the differences? -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure why that's notable. Independant sources can sort medals in any way they choose, so why should we mention it? Besides, I think saying "The American media chooses to rank by total medal count" will welcome users to add "solely so that the United States will be ranked first" or something along those lines. -- Scorpion0422 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's true, though. ESPN 1896 ESPN 2004 ESPN 2008 What other reason, besides to manipulate the data and America look good, would the media suddenly change the ranking system this year? Wikipedian06 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That medal table manipulation from one Olympics to another by ESPN is quite funny and quite shameless too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.202.178 (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose you're right. It'll be interesting to see if any controversey erupts if China wins the most gold and America wins the most total medals (which I would bet is going to happen), though. Only time will tell. -- Mr.crabby   (Talk)   19:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's always been the case of US media ranking by total medals: . Interestingly, some predict that this will be the last Summer Olympics which we have competition for the most total medals. The Chinese are simply too strong and have such a huge pool of talent to draw from. Should be interesting to watch! 70.24.136.195 (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that within 2-3 more Games there will be no more competition for total medals, either. Wikipedian06 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will add that I don't necessarily think the US wikipedians or US media is going by total medals over gold medals to make the US look better. The past two Olympics the US has won both categories so it hasn't been an issue (at least for Wikipedia). Logically one could assume a country's win was based on the total medal count since the US was ranked first in both. That and you make the logical argument that since three medals are awarded in each event, all should be counted towards a nation's win total; not just the golds. By ranking by golds, the silvers and bronzes become meaningless unless for tie breaking purposes. So I would agree with Mr Crabby's idea. Tedmoseby (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One could also logically argue that my considering the total medal count, you can potentially hugely undervalue gold medals and even silver medals. The most credible standard (IOC) should stick. This issue has been debated to death in previous Olympics and in other pages and it's clear that there is no consensus for change for this Olympics. 76.65.22.118 (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that NBC USED TO rank their totals by Medal's worth (Gold as priority). It seems they have changed in this Olympics. Did they figure out that China would likely to get the most golds beforehand? Furthermore, the IOC DOES NOT HAVE a "standard". They DO NOT OFFICIALLY recognize "Medal Rankings by Country". They do not have a rule for this. I think it should be noted here. They were not really kept in the Olympic Book. I think this Medal Ranking Interest started in the Cold War (US vs USSR). Post-Soviet Olympics basically left the US as the dominant Olympic powerhouse.68.127.183.136 (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe NBC did, and ESPN definitely did: ESPN 1896 ESPN 2004 ESPN 2008


 * Read the documents your linking to. You're using 2008 fan guide's table of past games to show what the U.S. media did in past years. It's a 2008 guide (created in the year 2008). It wasn't a new system. My local newspaper has always gone by total medals. That doesn't mean total medals is the right system, but it's false to claim that total medal ranking is something that was concocted by the U.S. news media for the 2008 Olympics. --JamesAM (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Re "figuring out": Everybody knew. The betting odds for Team China winning most golds were -250 to -300 long before the Games opened. This means the American media were able to adopt this new ranking method from the beginning of the Games to avoid any potential embarrassments. Wikipedian06 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What potential embarrassments? China leading in gold medals and possibly taking the overall medal count doesn't mean the United States, or any country for that matter, should be embarrassed by their own results. I realize it's fashionable and hip to be in the anti-American crowd, but I think you're reaching with the idea that there's some sort of conspiracy here by ESPN or other media outlets. A glance at the medal counts from 1896 to 2004 shows the United States doing quite well. The US has participated 24 times in the Olympics (boycotting 1980), claiming the most golds 15 times. They've claimed the overall medal count 12 times as well as both the gold and overall medal count 12 times. Certainly nothing to be embarrassed about. In fact I think it's pretty amazing and a point of pride for Americans. :) I think 2008 is shaping up to be another successful campaign. For the record I agree with the standard practice of sorting by gold medals first. Carry on with the paranoia, gloating, conspiracy theories and whatever else makes you folks feet better.... Geologik (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As a proposed clarification (re)edit (to replace "standard" with a more neutral "method", try this:

"The information in this table is based on data provided by the International Olympic Committee. Following the IOC method, ranking sorts first by the number of gold medals earned by the athletes representing the country. In case of ties, the number of silver medals is taken into consideration, and then the number of bronze medals. If still tied, countries are listed alphabetically by IOC country code."

As hidden text:

"In this context, a country is an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee and recognized by the International Olympic Committee."

The purpose of this edit would be to clarify the reasoning for the ranking choice up front, and also clarifies both country recognition (see Kosovo) and that athletes representing a country are not necessarily "from" that country. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it really asking too much to add 10 words explaining that U.S. news sources traditionally deviate from the IOC method or ranking medals??? Surely it is noteworthy mentioning this phenomenon — without passing judgement. I think it's noteworthy and interesting and would have explained a lot to me and saved myself (and editors who had to revert) a lot of work. — Deon Steyn (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like the tradition didn't exist as recently as 2004, since the ESPN site's 2004 ranking is indeed by gold, then silver,then bronze, so it may not be that much of a "tradition".--Ramdrake (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going by the informal research of the other contributors (earlier in this thread) as well as the answer from a Yahoo representative when I queried their ranking:
 * So, perhaps "traditional" wasn't the correct word, but "typical", since it's definitely common on US sources, see NY Times, CNN, LA Times, Washington Post.
 * — Deon Steyn (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the point though because I'm sure there are non-American news sources that rank by total medals; and I'm sure there are American news sources that rank by gold. It's really not that notable. -- Scorpion0422 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's really NOT notable as the the U.S. is only one country and thus by no means deserves a mention. Also, it looks suspicious that several news outlets such as ESPN have decided to rank by total medals starting this Games. 76.71.49.176 (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not notable in this article. Just because the IOC's medal system is not in favour of the Americans for the 2008 Summer Olympics does not make it notable. You would have to repeat this information in every medal table article making it redundant. It is already mentioned in Olympic medal rankings. --Zxcvlkj (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Aaaah, you are correct indeed (can't add it to every page with a medal table), but I hadn't seen this article before. I have add a "see also" template tag linking to this article, because I couldn't find any mention of it or wlk to it in the rest of the article. Problem solved, thank you Zxcvlkj. — Deon Steyn (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks very good now with the see also and current format. But I hope people understand that the United States has ranked by total for most of modern Olympic history. The format of "ranking" medals by gold has never been officially endorsed by the IOC, and may have only started as recently as 1992 . It has always been confusing for Americans when they see a rank other than total, and so a bit of clarification is desirable. And while the United States is only one country, that is no reason to completely exclude its practices when its traditions are different, particularly when there is no official method. If it were completely un-notable, there would be no reason for Jacques Rogge to specifically mention it in his press conference. --Jh12 (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * People you have read the numerous discussions above understand (seems like you have not). various sources have been provided to back up both systems. The issue that has been resolved here is the validity of singling out one country's sorting system in an article titled "2008 Summer Olympics medal table" included with the Olympic games medal table template. --Zxcvlkj (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

United States won the most total medals
If bolding the medals are redundant I do not understand why stating the "The United States won the most total medals, with 110" derseves to be in the article. Why not just bold the medals again? I removed it and had it reverted. --Zxcvlkj (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It summarizes an important aspect of the article. Why would you need to mention China's number of Gold medals if you were worried about being redundant?  The Lead should summarize important information, winning the most gold, winning the most medlas, winning first gold, and winning first medals all seem like important aspect of this.  Sure, you could take this too far and start listing every country's accomplishments, but I don't think anyone is proposing that.  As it stands now, the Lead is short and hits the important points.  Of course, if there is something we have missed, we should include that as well.LedRush (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, why don't you also object to saying that China was the gold medal leader? -- Scorpion0422 23:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Per capita medal table
After all the medals are in, it would be interesting to have a medal table showing how countries performed per capita. A number of different media outlets have been calculating and showing this table so it isn't original research, but it isn't worth doing until the numbers are final. Sad mouse (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia consensus is against adding such statistics to these medal table lists. you can find out more here and here. -59.149.32.77 (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagreed. The basis for that discussion was that it is original research. While it may have been then, the concept has now been reported by multiple media outlets and is therefore not original research. Sad mouse (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't worth doing and is misleading. Perhaps you are not aware that nations are limited to a number of entrants per event, and cannot enter a number of entrants in proportion to their population. Team sports have a limit of one entry, and many individual sports have limits. For example, there can only be one team (at most) per country for men's basketball, baseball, etc. There can only be one athlete (at most) per country for each weight class in boxing, judo, etc. Phizzy (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I respect your opinion that it isn't worth doing, it is frankly just your opinion. There are many things I find not worth doing that are done anyway. The basis of the decision should be whether people will find it of interest and I believe they will. I also dispute that it is misleading, since it is far less misleading than not giving the population. The entry criteria will only have very minor effect. Yes, China could only enter three people into table tennis, but it still won gold, silver and bronze. And since every countries enters the best people it has for the event the distortion at the very top is going to be the lowest. Sad mouse (talk) 13:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Yes, China could only enter three people into table tennis, but it still won gold, silver and bronze." Intersting that you pick an event where a country can have three entrants. But, again, many (if not most) events are restricted to one or two athletes per event, such as boxing. And, countries are restricted to one team in all team events. Suppose, for example, that the United States could field the three best 4 x 100 Medley Relay teams, and Australia could field the fourth best, and New Zealand could field the fifth best. Well, due to current restrictions, the United States can only enter their best team. They take the gold, Australia takes the silver, and New Zealand takes the bronze. If these were the only medals each team won in the Olympic Games, obviously Australia's and New Zealand's per capita ranking would be higher than the United States'. Phizzy (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Faircompare (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC) The "per capita count" provides a fairer assessment of the medal count. The olympic medal ranking serves to (ac-)count for to which participating nation olympic medals were issued.

The ranking list is published by various organizations; below I attach the hyper link to a ranking list from the Deutsche Presse Agentur, © Deutsche Presse Agentur GmbH 24.08.2008 / 11:18:45, http://sporttabellen.faz.net/artikel_9426.html

Since medals as such are ranked gold, silver and bronze, it is not straightforward how to attribute and count medals properly. Some people just count the number of medals per nation, and then put this number in the ranking list. Somebody may oppose then and say “but a gold medal counts more than a silver or bronze medal”. This be-comes obvious in the list of the attached link, where China leads the ranking list with 51 gold medals before the USA, who have only 38 gold medals. But USA leads the list in terms of overall medals. The USA claim 110 medals in total, whereas China may claim “only” a still impressive number of 100 olympic medals. Now if we want to make a numerical ranking list, we also have to numerically account for the different values of a gold, silver and bronze medal. I have tried this approach by assigning a gold medal 3 points, a silver medal 2 points, and a bronze medal 1 point. Obviously, assigning the silver medal and the bronze medal no point at all yields the ranking list as shown in Wikipedia, where China leads the medal count because they have most gold medals, whereas the USA may claim the highest medal count in total: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics_medal_count So, it is not really far off to weigh the gold, silver, bronze medals with factors 3, 2, 1. One might think of an even logarithmic ranking, but 3, 2, 1 appears a more reasonable weighing. Based on this correction, China would lead with a weighed 223 points before the USA with 220 points. But how fair, or better, objective is this corrected ranking ? China and the USA are clearly outnumbering the nations with smaller populations, this is easy to see. But are they also outperforming these smaller nations? Let’s have a look how the medal count and ranking list changes when we take the population of each nation into account. As a source for the population, I take the CIA World Factbook. There may be similar sources, but I just had access to this one here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/jm.html Now I divided the medal “weight” corrected (gold =3, silver =2, bronze =1) ranking list entries by the popula-tion of the corresponding nation, and here is the surprise: Bahamas have a rounded 98 points per 10 million population, followed by Jamaica with 93. The Top 10 in this list are Bahamas, Jamaika ,Iceland, Norway , Slowenia , Australia, Bahrain , New Zealand , Estonia , Trinidad und Tobago ,Cuba. USA ranks 45 with some 7 points per 10 million population. China ranks 66 with 1.7 points per 10 million population. Out of the Summer Olympic 2008 big shots, only Australia remains in the Top 10 list with a fair correction for medal weight and population. Clearly, Bahamas and Jamaica and some more Carribean states outperform the big Olympic shots. I believe this is a very educating and not only entertaining view on the medal count issue. Faircompare (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a media example of a per capita medal tally: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/olympics_blog/2008/08/medals-per-ca-4.html Here is an example of a full medal tally that could be used: http://www.billmitchell.org/sport/medal_tally_2008 Alternatively, we could just add the "weighted total per million people" number to the current table, so that people could sort the table on it if they so desired. Sad mouse (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Bill Mitchell site is a personal website and fails WP:RS and WP:NOR standards. The title even states that it is an Alternative Olympic Games Medal Tally.  In other words it's recognized by no one but the creator. Furthermore, his introduction states I am currently hating the idea of China hosting the Olympic Games.... so you can throw WP:NPOV out of the window.  He created his personal counting system with personal prejudices in mind.
 * The LA Times entries are somewhat better, since it's from a reliable news source. However, the author presents his views as a blog not a full-fledged article.  We generally don't use blogs as reliable sources per WP:SELFPUBLISHED, let alone creating an entirely new article or section using a blog as a primary source.  The same policy applies the Mr. Mitchell's self-published findings above. --Madchester (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was just an example, there are multiple other media examples of a per capita medal tally that I can bring up if that is your only problem with the concept. Sad mouse (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No credible media or news outlet uses a medals/capita system as its main method of presenting Olympic medals. It's primarily the IOC gold medal ranking, with the remainder using a total medal count.  Other systems are discussed in passing, but have never gained common usage.  On Wiki we simply follow common convention; we don't create conventions of our own.
 * WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:NPOV are tied together when determining whether content is suitable for inclusion on Wiki. Right now such a system is only endorsed by isolated individuals.  Per WP:NPOV: If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.  Unless I woke up tomorrow morning and every newspaper and news agency adopted such a medals/capita system, such content is not permissible on Wikipedia.  Feel free to USERFY such independent content, or share it on a personal blog/site, but not on Wiki.  Thanks --Madchester (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A quick google search shows that many, many reputable news outlets, including the LA Times (not just their blog), ESPN, NY Times, New Zealand Herald, etc. use this chart. There is no basis to exclude it on an article about medal tables for 2008.LedRush (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are there always someone suggesting Medal Count per capita?
I guess it is someone from countries with high so-called Medal Count per capita. If the number of attending athelets is proportional to population, maybe, only maybe, this will make some sense. Say, if US can send a 600-people team, australia is limited to 70.--Haofangjia (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, didn't you know Singapore (0.22 medals per million) crushingly outperformed China (0.0061 medals per million) in the table tennis at the 2008 Summer Olympics? Counting only gold medals per capita would make for less absurd results, though. Actually, I wouldn't oppose such a table, if it was done in a non-OR way and placed in its own article (it doesn't belong here). But medals per capita is obviously stupid. -- Jao (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, even if China were as good at every sport as they are at table tennis, and won every medal it was legally possible for them to win, they would still have no chance of winning this "medals per capita" table, unless all the other medals were won by large countries. If the Bahamas finished third in the 4x100 relay, 20 seconds behind China, that would be enough to make the Bahamian "medals per capita" performance better than the Chinese. Sounds like a reasonable measurement? -- Jao (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not respond to the section above? The reasons for suggesting a per capita medal count are obvious: 1) people find it of interest, and 2) it allows a more fair comparison of sporting ability. Comparing the US directly to Australia is absurd unless you consider that the population of the US is 15 times bigger than that of Australia. Anyway, the point is that there are as many reasons for showing the per capita table as showing the absolute number table, so why not show both? Sad mouse (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for inclusion. Liking/Hating a topic is not a valid reason for inclusion/exclusion.
 * Well I don't see a reason from you not to include it other than you not liking it. Sad mouse (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This content is undoubtedly interesting but fails WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Madchester (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The system has been discussed in some outlets, but it is not universally recognized/practiced among all reliable sources. Even those who use it follow different formulations to relative national values and that would violate WP:NOR.  A passing mention on a personal website  does not satisfy WP:RS.  A blog reference like  is a bit better since its from a reliable source, but also holds less weight since blogs are frowned upon as reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISHED.
 * There is no universally practised table count at all, hence the discussion above about Gold vs Total. It is NOT original research, as it is published in media outlets. Yes, a smaller number than publish Gold or Total, but it is NOT original research. Sad mouse (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You may think that we recently reached consensus on going against "rankings per capita", but it was well-discussed even during the Turin Games. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners.  Reading through this (and other AFDs) you'll see why such material is considered original research, and thus inappropriate for Wikipedia.   Thanks --Madchester (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, the idea of original research is destroyed as soon as a main-stream media outlet published it. Yes, it may have been a correct decision during the Turin games, but this article is about the Beijing Games and main-stream media outlets did discuss the per capita medal tally. In every way, shape and form that makes it no longer original research. Sad mouse (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Madchester, your standard for inclusion is simply ludicrous. "Unless I woke up tomorrow morning and every newspaper and news agency adopted such a medals/capita system, such content is not permissible on Wikipedia". I'm sorry, but since when has every single media outlet needed to endorse a position before it can go on wikipedia? That is just not standard practise. The content can be verified, is not original research and is of interest to people, hence it belongs in wikipedia. Sad mouse (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Verification of such a system via a personal website and a blog entry fails all three core Wiki policies (WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV).
 * By that logic, we could add ESPN's in-house "NBA Power Rankings" to replace the official NBA standings on Wikipedia, since the former has been presented by a recognized media outlet. While the info may satisfy WP:RS, it certainly does not satisfy WP:NPOV, since that information is only endorsed by ESPN and not by any other media outlets.  That's the problem with listing that single LA Times source (a blog at that) to support your stance on having a medal/capita count on Wiki.
 * And again, a topic being "of interest to people" does not satify any inclusion arguments per WP:ILIKEIT. You need to refer to proper policies to make your case. --Madchester (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can find multiple other examples of main-stream media referring to per capita counts. Your standard though is "every newspaper and news agency". That I cannot meet. I think any decent editor on wikipedia would agree that your standard is simply unobtainable and is not wikipedia policy, but I am not going to go to the effort of improving this article if you intend to delete my improvements because they do not meet your unobtainable standard. Sad mouse (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know why everyone here is married to one POV...a medals per capita table seems to make perfect sense to me. It is used in many countries, is of interest, and can educate people.  The level of POV on this article seems a little silly and probably fueled by mistaken notions of nationalism.LedRush (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Table
Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've nominated your article for deletion here: Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This could be a reasonable substitute - add this abbreviated version to the main article rather than create a new article: Sad mouse (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The top 10 nations in the 2008 Summer Olympics medals were calculated on a per capita basis as an alternative measure of Olympic success by Culpepper from the LA Times and were widely reported in the media.

No thanks. Almost every one of those linked articles comes off as POV. It's a cute way of trying to manipulate rankings for the benefit of the country in question. And why cut it off at 10? Why not list all 200-some-odd NOCs participating? It's arbitrary. As has been noted a few times now, NOCs are limited by the number of teams and athletes they're able to send. Once again this all comes off as very agenda-ish. Geologik (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, assume good faith. It is offensive to accuse editors of having an agenda with absolutely no basis (and not even a specific accusation of what my mysterious agenda is). I cut it off at 10 as people who proposed a merge suggested an abbreviated version. I would not be adverse to a full list either. Just because you have ideological disputes with a per capita ranking doesn't mean it violates any wikipedia policies - your opposition is original research and as such doesn't matter. Sad mouse (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Map
Perhaps we should have a map to indicate which countries win medals: Would anybody object to it? Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gold color for winning at least one gold medal
 * 2nd color for winning at least one medal, but not gold.
 * 3rd color for participating but not winning any medals.
 * 4th color for not participating.


 * I would not object to a map like this, but the map that is currently on the article needs to go. Medal count per population (based on a completely random choice of scores per medal) has no place on this article. The359 (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't intend to offend anyone by doing that map. I just thought it was interesting to see the real achievements of each country. If Bahrain gets a gold medal it's a great success, but if Germany had got just one gold medal it would have been disappointing. Of course the score is arbitrary, but there are many other arbitrary maps that have been made to show interesting information. Anyway, if most of the people think it needs to go, it's fine. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A map comparing population is in no way a ranking of "real achievements". Who considers medals per population to be any determination of Olympic achievement?  Wikipedia is not here to determine who is "better". The359 (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, what about comparison in terms of funding, GDP, etc? Population isn't the only parameter. Save that map for a school project or research paper. But to your original suggestion, the colour scheme may be chosen to reflect the rank on the table instead of number of gold medals. For example, the darkest shade reflects the highest ranking while white reflects no medal and an entirely different colour for non-participation. --Kvasir (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As The359 said, such a map is no ranking and doesn't determine who is "better". Such things are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Nevertheless, these maps can (!) be informative and are of no more harm to anyone than the official medal table. Thats why I have created some more maps showing the capita per ration medal: Capita per Gold medal ratio, Capita per Silver medal ratio, Capita per Bronze medal ratio, Capita per medal ratio. They haven't been linked anywhere but here yet, but if anyone finds them useful, he may use them. That's part of what makes Wikipedia. Toscho (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those images violate WP:NOR. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Olympic_Medal_Statistics:_Medal_Count_Winners for past discussion over medals/capita rankings. Feel free to WP:USERFY those images on your personal user page, but not on any wiki article.  Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you are an administrator, but are you familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Please see WP:CCC and WP:OI for the reasons that you are not applying the rules correctly.  And if you insist on letting your accusation that I am pushing a point of view stand, would you mind, please, telling me what you think the point of view I am trying to push is? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)




 * I have just added Image:2008 Summer Olympics medal map.png, showing the achievements of each country, as suggested by Chanheigeorge. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I dislike the colours of Image:2008 Summer Olympics medal map.png because they don't make sense. Gold looks like mustard, there is too much grey and orange bronze medals? If this map should be of any help its colours should match the table:
 * AB "for countries achieving at least one gold medal".
 * AB "for countries achieving at least one silver medal".
 * AB "for countries achieving at least one bronze medal".
 * AB "displays the host city".
 * Feel free to suggest a colour "for countries that didn't get any medal." - something pale like this AB . --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Necessary Evil here. The colours suggested are those used for all other representations of medals in Olympics articles, and should be used here. Other than that I like the added map. Basement12 (T.C) 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I just changed the colours. However I used yellow for the host city, as that's the colour used in most of these maps (see, for example, Image:2004 Olympic games countries.PNG. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks much better now, thanks. Basement12 (T.C) 11:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the use of green for countries that didn't win a medal because in most tables, grey is the colour used for nations not highlighted. -- Scorpion0422 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think grey would, in this case, be too easily confused with silver. Basement12 (T.C) 21:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made an alternative version of the map. The reason I did that is my brain keeps associating green as a positive colour and grey/silver as a negative color. So included on the right are the maps for 2008 Summer Games and 2006 Winter Games. See which version do you think is better, and feel free to make suggestions. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I used green, because it is the colour of participating countries in other maps. Even if a country didn't get a medal, they took part, which is always something positive, isn't it? Eynar Oxartum (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true. Your map is fine as it is. It's just some sort of problem with the perception of colours. Really, we wouldn't be having this discussion if silver isn't basically same as grey! Chanheigeorge (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Doping offense in Men's Hammer Throw
"*IOC investigating the silver and bronze medalists in Olympic men's hammer Source: Drugs hammer blow hits Belarusian medalists Mb731 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Belarusian athletes Vadim Devyatovskiy and Ivan Tsikhan both tested positive
 * If found guilty of doping they would be disqualified and stripped of the medals"

Chinese athlete picture
I know this picture has been long awaited, but a couple of editors don't like it because they feel it is biased towards China. Your thoughts would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammyfox (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That image looks like it was pirated from somewhere, which is probably why it was removed. -- Scorpion0422 22:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No that's not the reason. Check the license. Why would you say that? Check my talk page and you'll see it's because people feel it's biased. This was a very hard to find picture.Jammyfox (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into it. If it's a valid image, then I'll add it. I hope it is, because that flickr photosteam has several good images that I could use. -- Scorpion0422 22:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actualy I don't care about any possible bias myself, but others will (see all the issues we had with the Phelps image). The license is valid i believe, i did check it. The issue is that because it depicts 2 Chinese athletes using it to replace the main image at the top of the page (which contains athletes from 3 countries) will lead to a lot of claims of bias towards the Chinese team. Using it anywhere else in the article will open the door for anyone to add any images of medallists with their medals to the page. Overall it will cause far more trouble than its worth, hence the reason the current images are there in the first place. Basement12 (T.C) 22:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right Scorpion, since you've added that why not add  etc? It is simply not feasible to include all these images so none should be. It removes any potential for conflict, claims of bias or edit warring. I appreciate the desire for a image of a Chinese athlete on the page but this is not the way to go. Either we need a podium image depicting 3 different nations or one of a single Chinese athlete with a gold or silver to replace one of the Dutch athletes. Basement12 (T.C) 23:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason those two aren't included is because the cycling one isn't very good, and the phelps one would mean there are three Americans on the page which was strenuously objected to during the games. I have no problem with including any image of an athlete with their medal, as long as we don't use too many of athletes from the same nation. -- Scorpion0422 23:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you, on your own, have arbitrarily decided three is too many? What about the Hungarian (Cseh) in the image with Phelps, Hungary have no representation here? The fuss kicked up during the games was simply because there were two American's, not three, the other image wasn't here then. Why is it different now with China....and so on. I would love to believe that everyone who reads and edits this page will be mature and understanding enough to see that Chinese athletes deserve representation and that is the only image available but I highly doubt that will be the case. It can stay but unfortunatley I suspect all this has done is open another potential channel for conflict in the article. Basement12 (T.C) 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * China should definitely be represented in a picture. This picture, however, is horrible and doesn't deserve top billing.  Isn't there another one...or could we put this further down?  It'd be great if we could represent China with a picture that doesn't ruin the aesthetic of the article.LedRush (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the image showed the gold medal more clearly I would have suggested it be cropped to show only the gold medallist and then used to replace the picture of the Dutch gold medal winner (killing off 2 potential issues in one go), but there is too much glare off of the metal. I haven't been able to find any other images of Chinese medallists but flikr seems to be the best bet. Basement12 (T.C) 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This Makes No Sense
"After Kim Jong Su was disqualified, the bronze medal in the 10 metre air pistol went to Jason Turner of the United States; in the 50 metre pistol, the silver medal went to Tan Zongliang of China, and the bronze medal to Vladimir Isakov of Russia.[14]"

On both Vladimir and Turner's wikipedia sites, it also says that they won bronze metals. I've never heard of medals being listed, bronze, silver, bronze.

JohnWycliff (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's correct, it's talking about two different events, so two different bronze medals. -- Scorpion 0422  17:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow didn't read properly JohnWycliff (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to switch the "changes in medal standings" section to a table format
I decided to give it a try because there was a lot of repeated words in the section, and it was basically a list anyway, so a table makes it more convenient. So what does everyone think? I'm pretty sure that there is a better way to word the nation that lost the medal than "losing nation", so all suggestions are welcome. -- Scorpion 0422  01:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Article organization-improving methods are always welcome, and this suggestion of yours seems to present the content in a more practical, direct and clear way, than plain running text where, as you said, there's a lot of repetition. How about "Stripped nation" (or "Medal-stripped nation") and "Benefited nation(s)"? Parutakupiu (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposed new table looks okay on my widescreen monitor, but if I reduce my window size to simulate a lesser resolution monitor, the table becomes more compressed and the Reason column has an excessive amount of line wrap. Perhaps the "reason" should be left as main body text while detailed medal changes could be placed into a table.  I also think listing medal changes per-nation on separate rows may make it easier to see the net effect of the medal counts, especially in cases where existing medals are promoted (bronze to silver or silver to gold).  Possibly something like:

-- Tcncv (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your version of the table so much better than mine. It's clearer, easier to read and simpler. However, part of the reason I wanted to switch to a table was because I wanted to include the reasoning in a seperate row. Maybe it would work as a series of notes? -- Scorpion 0422  18:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Footnotes are an option, but I think it might be better to present the change descriptions first followed by the tabular summary. The current descriptions read fairly well so the table might best be used as a supplement rather than a replacement for any of the existing text.  (I know that wasn't your original goal.)  Perhaps with the addition of a table, some of the existing text can be simplified. -- Tcncv (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there any objections to adding the above table to the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table article? -- Tcncv (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I like your suggestion. Go for it. -- Scorpion 0422  04:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. I changed the date label to "Ruling Date", date format to DMY, and compressed the source a bit.  After adding it, it occurs to me that there's still room for an athlete column, which may allow the text to be trimmed of some of the tedious details.  I'll try that tomorrow.  -- Tcncv (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)