Talk:All-time Olympic Games medal table/Archive 2

Fifth column for Germany
I propose to make a fifth column for Germany where the medals of West Germany (FRG), United Team of Germany (EUA) and Germany (GER) are added up. Otherwise Germany is only on the sixth place behind Great Britain, France and Italy. This is disgraceful because Germany performed much better than Great Britain, France and Italy on the Olympics. Germany is number three, not number six. You can’t degrade Germany on sixth place only because you don’t like it. That is contradictory to the neutral point of view.

I think making a fifth column (like they did on the spanish wikipedia) is a good and fair solution which will stop the everlasting discussion about the german medals.

Equol (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But why include FRG rather than DDR? As people have noted (repeatedly) above, you can't have both, but even having one involves a controversial decision. And don't worry about the rankings: the table clearly shows the number of Olympics participated in, so people can see that this is significantly lower for Germany (13) than for GB, France or Italy (25, 25 and 24). Udzu (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Today the official name of Germany is still "Federal Republic of Germany", so it's obvious that FRG is the precursor of modern Germany and not DDR.

2) I doubt that many people take a look at the number of Olympics participated in. People are too focused at the rankings. I also didn't notice the number of Olympics participated in until you told me that this column exists.

62.167.85.237 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So East Germans weren't really Germans because of their political system? Udzu (talk)

They were Germans. But because of the political and economical system of the DDR (and the naming issue I mentioned before), the DDR is not the precursor of modern Germany, the FRG is it.

Equol (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Table still hides Germany's 518 gold medals
It seems that the problem with Germany is still unsolved. For example, Germany has 518 golds, more than half as many as the USA (which participated more often), and more than the old USSR (but they participated rarely). In the Winter Games, Germany is even leading the pack. But the sorted table totally hides this. At first glance it looks as if Germany is way behind the superpowers, because the former German fragments are listed separately. Why not imitate the standard medal tables of this kind: add a row for all of Germany, with a note stating that this is the combined total of the various German NOCs (which can also be listed separately). And please don't try to invoke the IOC again to prevent this standard procedure - as somebody said above: The IOC isn't officially supporting a total Olympic medal count, so if the IOC is setting the standard for this type of wiki entry, then this article should be deleted anyway. But if you don't delete it, then better correct the German entry. Olympicdreams (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A good way to deal with the years when East and West Germany had separate teams: increase the participation count by two, instead of 1. (Germany was often banned from the Olympics anyway, so that would also compensate a bit for its rare participations.) Note, however, that Germany would have even more gold medals if they had formed a single team back then because they'd have won some of the relays they failed to win when they were competing against each other. Olympicdreams (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Germany only won 223 medals, as you can clearly see on the table. The separate countries of West Germany and East Germany did win some more medals, but they were separate countries. As you are probably aware, West Germany and East Germany won medals in the same team events on occassion. For example, in 1972, in women's 4x100 meter relay, West Germany won the gold medal and East Germany won the silver medal. If you erroneously combined their totals, you would be inflating their medal totals, as such a feat in the women's 4x100 meter relay is impossible for a single country to do. Phizzy (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Germany won 518 golds, not just 228. Germany is the sum of East and West Germany, and takes full responsibility for all past actions of both, good or bad. True, West and East sometimes not only won gold in team events but also silver or bronze. But this does not affect the number of gold medals. You can win only one gold medal per event. In fact, Germany would have even more gold medals if they had formed a single team back then because they'd have won some of the relays they failed to win when they were competing against each other. Your silver and bronze counts are almost irrelevant here because in the IOC-like rankings they become important only when two countries have the same gold counts. Nevertheless, to deal with this remaining issue of silver / bronze if there is any: for the years when East and West Germany had separate teams, simply increase the participation count by 2, instead of 1.  (Note that this is actually a bit unfair against Germany, because East and West won at most one gold per event instead of two, despite the increased participation count suggesting otherwise, but at least this will take care of the fact that countries that participated more often tend to get more medals - Germany has a low participation count anyway since its teams often were banned from the Olympics). Olympicdreams (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan has won it's first Olympic medal
At the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, Afghan Taekwondo practitioner Rohullah Nikpai won his country's first Olympic bronze medal. Thus, Afghanistan no longer belong in the list of countries without medals. --213.113.127.232 (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you took the time to actually read the article, you'll see that it says more than once that these numbers are PRIOR to the 2008 Games. If you can wait a few minutes, I will have the 2008 numbers added to the totals.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Italian olympics medals
Italy has 183 gold medals not 182 please visit the official site: http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/BIO/NOC/ITA.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.242.208.81 (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Their data is wrong. If you compare the medals by sport and medals by year numbers with what we have at Italy at the Olympics, you'll see the difference is one gold medal in cycling at the 1900 Summer Olympics, and if you look at the 1900 Games official report here, you'll see there is no such medal. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bahrain, Italy stripped of medals
Two medalists were stripped of medals, 15 months after the 2008 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/18/sports/AP-OLY-Doping-Ramzi-Stripped.html This is significant because Bahrain will lose their only medal. Czolgolz (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan in Winter Olympics
Pakistan has sent a lone skier to the Vancouver Winter Olympics 2010. This is not shown in the medals table, according to which Pakistan has never sent atheletes to the winter olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.22.94 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * None of this article reflects the in-progress 2010 Games. It will be updated after February 28. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ratio medals to number of times in the Olympics
I am recommending to add a column or additional chart that puts the number of medals as a ratio of the number of times a country has competed in the Olympics.

Examples using figures for Total Metals, but could be created for each column.

USSR: 1204/18= average of 66.9 Metals per Olympics

USA: 2511/45= average of 55.8 Metals per Olympics

Russia: 393/8 = average of 49.1 Metals per Olympics

East Germany: 519/11=average of 47.2 Metals per Olympics

Germany: 689/23= average of 30.0 metals per Olympics

China: 419/16= average of 26.2 metals per Olympics

Great Brittan: 746/46=average of 16.0 metals per Olympics

This format is great because it finely lets you compare the different evolution of countries over time, without having to combine the different National Olympic Committees together through a complicated process.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xacobi (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding Medals of the EU
This debate was removed from this page because of its absurdity and lack of evidence to support it. It should not be replaced for any reason.


 * I do not know who wrote the unsigned statement above, but it seems to violate the spirit of Wikipedia, as there are many web sites on this topic, so it is apparently socially relevant and possibly worth a Wikipedia article. Here a few sites that I found, with arguments pro and con:

http://www.fcohen.fr/jo/

http://www.neurope.eu/articles/89031.php

http://shanghaiist.com/2008/08/12/2008_beijing_olympics_medal_count.php

http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/goldcountbeijing.html

http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/alltimegold2008.html

http://euobserver.com/843/26636

http://www.medaltracker.eu/

Olympicdreams (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.medaltracker.eu/ says the comparison is not entirely fair: "The 27 EU countries have much higher quota of starting positions than individual competing nations. The fictitious "EU team" has therefore a better chance to win medals than the other participating countries." But http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/goldcountbeijing.html argues that this affects only silver and bronze medals and that the EU gold count of a unified EU team would further increase: "If the EU sent only its three best athletes per individual event, and only one all-star team per team event, the EU gold count would actually increase, since almost all individual events are won by one of the top three favorites (sending additional inferior athletes is usually in vain), and the unified EU all-star teams also would win many team events (4 x 100m relays etc) currently won by non-EU teams.... we can safely ignore silver and bronze medals used in (inofficial) IOC rankings to break the tie where gold counts are equal".

In fact, if the EU sent all-star teams participating in the swimming relays they'd win most of them in world record time. Just add the times of the best EU swimmers that are currently competing against each other in several weaker teams. Unfortunately Michael Phelps would not have as many gold medals then...

Olympicdreams (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So according to you, Michael Phelps doesn't deserve his medals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.16.229 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh, there's no EU team so we don't sum it up here. See archived discussions. Why not add Commonwealth medals? ASEAN medals? Francophonie medals? --Kvasir (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

US not only place where standings are tallied by totals
In Canada, most broadcasters use total medals won as the primary ranking criteria in the medal standings. Can someone who has access please make the relevant change? Thanks. 137.222.61.7 (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally agree that the goal is to get the Gold and that always comes before someone who just has a lot of bronze medals etc.. Xacobi (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've always heard it expressed as total medal count. someone with a little knowledge in this matter should chime in to set the record straight. (Crunk04gtp (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Additional Overview Chart that directly competes Countries together per Olympics
The Existing chart is huge and overwhelming, but I do agree that it is necessary.

What I am proposing is an additional chart that shows the number of times a country has come in first, second, and third in the medal standings, (gold, silver, bronze respectively). Each Olympic games would be seen as a single competition between nations, and this table would quickly and easily give you a simple snap shot at the current relationship between the top competing nations in the Olympic Games.

To look at it an other way if each Olympics is individually looked at as a competition between countries, then at each Olympics a hypothetical gold, silver, and bronze metal is given to the country with the most medals (golds first, tie broken with silvers then bronze).

In this way you give a very easy and fast way to look at who has the most medals without having to look at a list of 200 countries. Additionally you are dealing with numbers that are all bellow 10 or 20, which makes it easier to combine or compare National Olympic Committees like Soviet Union and Russia, and the different Germany's.

What I like about this table/list, is that it directly relates to the big huge table, but a much simpler way of looking at it. It certainly doesn't replace the huge table, but I do believe that it complements it as an overview.

Here is what the table would look like in written format. Someone would have to put it into a table, I don't know how to do that.

Summer Games:

United States (gold-15 (silver-8) (bronze-2)

Soviet Union (gold-6) (silver-3) (bronze-0)

Germany (GER) (gold-1) (silver-2) (bronze-3)

China (gold-1) (silver-1) (bronze-1)

France (gold-1) (silver-0) (bronze-3)

Great Britain (gold-1) (silver-0) (bronze-3)

United Team (EUN) (gold-1) (silver-0) (bronze-0)

Sweden (gold-0) (silver-3) (bronze-1)

East Germany (GDR) (gold-0) (silver-3) (bronze-1)

Russia (gold-0) (silver-2) (bronze-2)

Greece (gold-0) (silver-1) (bronze-0)

Finland (gold-0) (silver-1) (bronze-1)

Italy (gold-0) (silver-1) (bronze-1)

Romania (gold-0) (silver-1) (bronze-0)

Hungry (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-2)

Japan (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-2)

Cuba (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-1)

Australia (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-1)

Bulgaria (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-1)

West Germany (FRG) (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-1)

Winter Games:

Norway (gold-7) (silver-3) (bronze-2)

Soviet Union (gold-7) (silver-2) (bronze-0)

Germany (GER) (gold-3) (silver-2) (bronze-1)

East Germany (GDR) (gold-1) (silver-4) (bronze-0)

United States (gold-1) (silver-3) (bronze-5)

Sweden (gold-1) (silver-0) (bronze-3)

Russia (gold-1) (silver-0) (bronze-1)

Austria (gold-0) (silver-2) (bronze-2)

Finland (gold-0) (silver-1) (bronze-2)

Unified Team (ENU) (gold-0) (silver-1) (bronze-0)

Germany (EUA) (gold-0) (silver-1) (bronze-0)

Switzerland (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-3)

France (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-1)

Total Combined:

United States (gold-16) (silver-11) (bronze-7)

Soviet Union (gold-13) (silver-5) (bronze-0)

Norway (gold-7) (silver-3) (bronze-2)

Germany (GER) (gold-4) (silver-4) (bronze-4)

East Germany (GDR) (gold-1) (silver-7) (bronze-1)

Sweden (gold-1) (silver-3) (bronze-5)

Russia (gold-1) (silver-2) (bronze-3)

China (gold-1) (silver-1) (bronze-1)

United Team (EUN) (gold-1) (silver-1) (bronze-0)

France (gold-1) (silver-0) (bronze-4)

Great Britain (gold-1) (silver-0) (bronze-2)

Finland (gold-0) (silver-2) (bronze-3)

Austria (gold-0) (silver-2) (bronze-2)

Germany (EUA) (gold-0) (silver-1) (bronze-0)

Italy (gold-0) (silver-1) (bronze-0)

Greece (gold-0) (silver-1) (bronze-0)

Romania (gold-0) (silver-1) (bronze-0)

Switzerland (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-3)

Hungry (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-2)

Japan (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-2)

Cuba (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-1)

Bulgaria (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-1)

Australia (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-1)

West Germany (FRG) (gold-0) (silver-0) (bronze-1)

Xacobi (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Xacobi, I have to agree with you, assuming this was a different chart in a new section. However, I think another column should be added to all of the existing tables as well, that being medal count per capita. It would be a big job to figure out, but if it were divvied up among 20-25 Wikipedia users it could be fairly easily ascertained. I have not run across readily available per capita numbers yet so it would be a very valuable service to provide.


 * While I don't have the time to do all of this myself, as a student I have the resources to find peer reviewed sources as to the population of these different countries at the times in which the medals were won and would volunteer to take five countries as well. Just a wild guess but I imagine it would take no more than one man-hour per country. (Crunk04gtp (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC))
 * actually, check that. It just dawned on me that it could be done fairly easily with excel. if I can get the go ahead I could do this on my own over spring break. (Crunk04gtp (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

I've added this proposed table, with minor corrections. Greyhood (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this change. There needs to be additional discussion for consensus for this addition, also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, though I won't have much time for discussions. Some arrguments pro this table have been named by Xacobi at the beginning of the talk section. What's wrong with them? What are the arguments contra? Greyhood (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see at least two problems. First, I think there might be an element of original research here, as I have never seen such a tabulation from all the medal table sources we use.  Second, the list is indiscriminate.  Why stop at top 3?  Why not top 5, or top 10?  The inclusion criteria for that table are invented for this Wikipedia page, which is not something we should be doing, of course.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This would certainly count as original research, for a start who sees each Games "as a single competition between nations"? The IOC don't, to quote from the Olympic Charter "The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries" - Basement12 (T.C) 16:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most people seem to view the olypmics as a source of national pride and view it as a competition between countries. Even if the IOC does not recognize this, it is not difficult to see that national pride factors in, and if it does medal count should be viewed as a competition between countries. I have never heard the Olympics not being cast in this light.(Crunk04gtp (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Hm, that's true, but the criterion is obvious: 3 top winners just follows the general lines of Olympic system. Personally, I would agree to apply more simple criterion and count not 3 but only 1 top team. Regarding what's written in the Olympic Charter, that's very nice, but come on, everyone knows that in every major sporting country people count combined medals and compare countries. If the unofficial medal tables exist, why not make their unofficial summary? Regarding OR, the info in the proposed table is got by plain looking through 46 Olympic medal tables and doing simple maths. Apparently, there is quite a number of people (at least me and Xacobi, to begin with) who are interested in such kind of information and do this looking and counting, so why don't make the life easier and present this interesting and quite encyclopedic information on this page? It's the same as adding this nice table and this too to the List of Olympic Games host cities. Greyhood (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Medal tables are a simple method of displaying the facts of the number of medals won by each team; there is no such thing as a winner of the Games. How would you address the issue of ranking by total gold/total medals? It is only WP:OLY convention to rank by golds as there is no official system? Basement12 (T.C) 09:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Both Google and the Vancouver 2010 website rank countries. They show the top medal winners and it is classified by total medal count. Clearly if it is in debate, we should defer to the method currently in use. This is the closest there is to an official system. Wikipedia should not make up it's own system. Further, in regard to the highest ranked, Google uses the top three. (Crunk04gtp (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Well, no. You are likely influenced by North American media, which has been using the rank by total method recently.  Other English language media (such as BBC in the UK and AOC in Australia) use the traditional system.  This is all well-explained in the Olympic medal table article; I suggest you read the references.  At WP:WikiProject Olympics, we have consensus to use the same method consistently across all our articles from 1896 to present.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"See also" link missing
The "See also" section should have a link to Jeff Dwork (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * List of multiple Olympic medalists

Germany divided ???
Why are the German medals tables divided in the way they are now - four seperate categories ???, its absolutely illogical and misleading. I can understand seperating the medals of East Germany into its own category but there is no logical reason what so ever to seperate "West Germany" and possibly "the unified German team" from the main Germany category. West Germany, officially the Federal Republic of Germany, is the exact same country as the Germany that has competed in the Olympics since 1990 (just with more territory) and has the same olympic commitee - it is also the successor state (legally and officially) of the three German "states" before 1945 (Third Reich, Weimar Republic, Imperial Germany). I understand East Germany should be seperated because it would be unfair to count both German states that existed between 1949 and 1990 as there were for much of this period two teams (excluding unified team period) allowing double the chances of success but West Germany and the main Germany category need to be merged as is done with World Cup results on Wikipedia, where East Germany (GDR) is seperated from the main listing for German results. Right now the seperation of Germany into the current categories make about as much sense as splitting the US into different categories/countries to represent the inclusion of new states, i.e US (50 states) -- medals US (49 states) -- medals US (40 states) -- medals. Or is you accept the current division you might as well make a category for Third Reich Germany, Weimar German, Imperial Germany as well (come on!)

West Germany and Germany need to be merged, possibly with the unified team as well but I am not sure about the status of its Olympic commitee! Otherwise there needs to be an additional (fifth) ranking for all German teams, excluding possibly the GDR. But I would be glad to hear other opinions on this. --62.245.143.34 12:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns and confusion, but we've had this discussion before, and the decision was to be as unambiguous as possible on Wikipedia, only using totals by the IOC country code. In Germany's case, four different codes were used:  GER up to 1936, EUA for the United Team of Germany for 1956-1964, FRG and GDR for the two teams from 1968-1988, and GER once again after re-unification.  That is why four totals appear on this list.  It's not a political decision made by Wikipedia editors; we're just using the IOC NOC codes.
 * I fully defend this decision for several important reasons. Basically, we want to avoid any POV that could be introduced by combining medal totals based on some other criteria.  Similar situations exist for the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and others.   Can you think of any way to combine URS totals with any pre- or post- Soviet nation and not offend someone?  I can't.
 * In Germany's case, the one thing I have personally been puzzled by is the use of EUA to refer to the United Team, instead of continuing to use GER for the single team. However, the IOC database is our primary source, and therefore, EUA should still be used here.  I'd like to change that, but I won't.  Consistency and NPOV is more important.
 * With respect to the main article, I think the best approach would be to add some footnotes to the article to help explain the situation, and perhaps add the NOC codes to the list for clarity, but not to combine medals from different NOC codes. I will work on that.  Andrwsc 17:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just checked out the page about the Total Olympics medal count today, so this reply comes almost a year late. I fully agree with the previous user that the medal counts for the Federal Republic of Germany (GER) should be merged with the ones of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the ones of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (EUA) while keeping the German Democratic Republic (GDR) medals separate - since they competed at the same time as FRG while all the other German teams have been the sole represenatives of Germany. This would be much less ambiguous compared to how it is at the moment. I find it much more confusing to see the medal count for Germany, then check out the footnote to find out that it includes the sum totals of Germany from the first half of last century, then there's a gap of half a century and all of a sudden all medals from 1992 onwards are added.
 * Considering POV and the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia etc. example, I think you can exclude Germany here. It's a difference whether you seek independence from a country or confederation of states or whether your country was unvoluntarily split in two during the Cold War and reunited at the end of the Cold War.
 * I can understand that going by IOC country codes is a way to set up this list, but as the Germany example shows it's also rather random at times. I guess the IOC avoided the GER code in favour of EUA to avoid touching Cold War sensibilities at that time. Then there is the FRG code which could have been kept since Germany is still officially called the Federal Republic of Germany, yet the IOC decided to switch back to the former GER code.
 * So to repeat and summarise it: Merge the FRG and EUA medals with the Germany medals and add a footnote explaining how the number accumulates different time periods in Germany's history. This is less ambiguous then having four German teams all with a separate explanatory footnotes. - JAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.223.189 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 31 July 2007


 * I agree that all medals won for Germany should be added to a single sum. Or we should divide UK before the Ireland became independent and the UK of GB and NI.


 * List which IOC maintains is not the Holy Bible, especially for encyclopedical work. In the article Germany at the Olympic there could be mentioned for all possible purposes the medal count of each and every IOC code under which Germany won medals.


 * Also I would like to mention that IOC in all their wisdom did not separate the medals won by Yugoslavia (which were won under some interestingly different IOC country codes) when it was a joint state comprised of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia (with Autonomous Kosovo; Autonomous Vojvodina) and Slovenia from the abbomination of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (comprising Montenegro and Serbia) which latter became State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.


 * We should substract the medals won under the IOC code YUG (1992-2003) and add them to SCG (2003-2006) in order to make the medal count neutral and for that matter correct. No matter for the IOC current state of their database which mentions several entities as Serbia and two Montenegros and some other strange stuff written there.


 * Imbris (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To split the German medals is just nationalistic motivated anglo-saxon way to keep the Germans down. Germany reunited. Reunited - what dont you understand about this word. I am not German by the way.212.183.32.146 (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A very good way to do it, can be seen on the Spanish version of this topic. They count the medals in total and give the subdivision within the entry. It should be easy and more clear to apply this here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.99.41 (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be pointed out that the combined teams of FRG and GDR competed at Germany (GER) at the time. Pls see List_of_IOC_country_codes as reference. Splitting it now is pure revisionism.
 * --Ohnder (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say that, but this list is absolutely rediculouse. Bye the way, in the german version of this article, Germany is by date the nation with the most winter olympic games medals of all time. Where to find this information at your list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.84.119 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you get it? Glory USA doesn't want to have Germany on the top of the Winter Olympics. Tip: Divide Germany even into Weimar Republic, Third Reich and German Empire... -- 91.96.234.207 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Russia and Germany
It's ridiculous to split the countries of Russia and Germany.

Germany is reunified. That is why the medals should be summarized. Because these were won by German athletes.

Russia is the successor to the Soviet-IOC and internatial recognized successor state. Therefore, the medals have to be summarized.

One need only note how they are composed Team Germany (FRG, GDR, etc;).

The same applies to the Czech Republic.

The current rating is just a ridiculous attempt two of the biggest sporting nations and to push hard to make the Americans and British.

If the score you have to be maintained at the Americans also divided into two groups. Once in the group of white which would then probably take a place between Pakistan and Albania and the black athletes were indeed the top, but the medals would be assigned to the African countries. Just as laughable is the current split of the German and Russian medals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.199.156.227 (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

All time winners
The country did not won the most overall medals.

Can we add tables like this ? YellowPops (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would oppose inclusion. It applies undue weight to the concept of a "winner" of each Games, which is not endorsed by either the IOC or individual OCOGs. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should Wikipedia strictly follow the official position of the IOC? Wikipedia isn't a branch of the IOC.The IOC follows its own goals and doesn't endorse official publishing of some information, but if this information is interesting and quite encyclopedic, than it's within Wikipedia's goals to include it.Greyhood (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but Wikipedia policy (WP:No original research) is that articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. These tables may be "interesting", but they certainly are not encyclopedic. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, according to the cited policy the whole this article may not exist ;)
 * The IOC itself does not publish all-time tables, and publishes unofficial tables only per single Games. This table was thus compiled by adding up single entries from the IOC database.
 * Yes, that's right. And if you look through the archives, you'll see proposals for this article's deletion. If you want to prepare another proposal for AfD, I would support it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If we can compile single entries from the IOC database into a sortable table that clearly endorses the prominence of the largest medal-earning teams, why can't we take top medal winning teams per Olympics and compile them into the tables proposed above? And certainly this information would be encyclopedic, since it convey a part of the general knowledge of the subject of Olympics history: which team earned most medals at a particular Olympics. Greyhood (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of opinion. I believe that the existing article is close to the threshold for original research, but the additional table would certainly push it over.  You believe otherwise. I'd like to see more comments from other editors, preferably in a couple of weeks when all the irrational nationalistic editors that we always see on Olympic articles every 2 years have moved on to other parts of Wikipedia after the Games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of Web pages that contain the all-time Olympic medal counts, like this link which is among the first Google gives me. Such links may be regarded as sources for this article or as justification for the direct usage of the IOC database for compiling the all-time medal table. So, if there are some source pages that contain the same information that the proposed tables, their inclusion into this article will be as justified as the existence of this article. Another option is to make a separate article, something like a List of countries that earned most medals at the Olympic Games. Greyhood (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Andrwsc here, undue weight and OR would apply to any such table, my comments above also apply here. This article is on the brink of OR as it is and whilst I wouldn't support its deletion i think the name should definitely be altered to remove the phrase "medal table" - Basement12 (T.C) 09:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you show any WP:Reliable sources that use this type of table? If not then I would have to say that this is just WP:OR. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi this is Xacobi, here chiming in again. I really appreciate this very sincere discussion about the table I proposed. First of all I agree with all the different points of view that have been brought up, and first and foremost propose that this entire article be looked at as a barely a level of Original Research (OR), because it does not exist anywhere else as a source. Yet I also agree that this is important information and although it can just barely be classified as Original Research, it is also completely based on factual statistics, so maybe there needs to be different classification for statistical organization of factual data, as separate from actual Original Research, because we are using statistics for no other reason than to make it easier to understand the huge amount of data. Most importantly I propose that on the MAIN OLYMPICS PAGE titled "Olympic Games", the first link for "Metal Tables" on the right side, should link to a list of each year's Medal Table, and not to the All-Time Medal Table, and instead the All-Time Medal Table should be within the List of Medal Tables under a section alluding to statistical analysis of medal tables. Additionally the table that I have suggested could be added as a separate table under the statistical section. If we are going to have one of these tables, then it should be possible to have both, but they should clearly be labeled and displayed as some type of statistical analysis, and not as the main Medal Table of the Olympics which is what it is currently being linked and displayed as. I also want to reiterate that the reason I originally proposed the new table is that the All-Time Medal Table is huge and overwhelming. As an example, it is a huge event that Canada is going to come in first place in the gold medal count for the 2010 Olympics. In the All-Time Medal count, even though Canada is listed high, there is going to be little, if no change, but in the table I am proposing you would add Canada, which wasn't even on the table before in the 12th, and 8th positions for both Olympics and just winter Olympics respectfully. They have done something that only 11 other IOC committees have ever done. Of course in the table I would like to see totals for all first, second, and third place standings in the medal tables, as well as (First Place-Gold) (Second Place-silver) and (3rd Place-Bronze) individually respectfully. Also in general I also want to see on all of these types of tables to have statistics on medals per number of times in the Olympics, as well as the idea to have a radio related to population. Eventually I would even love to see medals by tectonic plates to completely take out the country competition, but that is definitely OR. Overall I think what I think there is agreement on, is that this data is important and needs to be available to the public, but the question is where it should be located and how should it be labeled to make sure that it is clear. The IOC can put what ever they want on their protocol or website about not having competition between countries, but Wikipedia isn't just covering the IOC, it is covering the global history as written in an encyclopedia, and the world does look at the Olympics as a competition between countries, and I guarantee you that it helps alleviate the need for violence in other ways, so its not necessarily a bad thing. Xacobi (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Germany entry is not logic
Why is Germany split up in 4 different entities ? This does not make sense and is not a logical listing. West Germany has to be merged with the Germany entry. Only in times where two Germany´s competed, one of them (East Germany) can be listed separately. Right now it appears West Germany AND East Germany ceased to exist, this is wrong. West Germany is legally the same state as todays Federal Republic of Germany ! 78.53.11.223 (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Explain to us why it would make sense to combine East Germany and West Germany. Take into account that they sent two separate delegations to several Olympic Games, which made the following possible:
 * 1972, in women's 4x100 meter relay, West Germany won the gold medal, East Germany won the silver medal. This is only possible because they were separate countries, so combining them is unfair to other countries. Other examples:
 * 1972, in women's 4x400 meter relay, East Germany won the gold medal, West Germany won the bronze medal.
 * 1972, in boxing, light middleweight, West Germany won the gold medal, East Germany won the bronze medal.
 * 1976, in women's 4x100 meter relay, East Germany won the gold medal, West Germany won the silver medal.
 * 1976, in boxing, welterweight, East Germany won the gold medal, West Germany won the bronze medal.
 * There are many more examples as well.
 * See the problem with combining them? I hope so... Phizzy [[Image:SimpleMichigan.svg|30x15px]]  19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And how many team medals were not won by Germans as they were not allowed to compete as a true German all-star-team? Besides, a few additional silver or bronze team medals are hardly an excuse to deduct dozens of individual medals from the all-German tally just because the IOC web site currently lists the athletes under the codes FRG, GDR or "EUA". The allies prevented a unified Germany after both World Wars, and almost 100 years after WW1, parts of the international public still show a hostile Divide and conquer stance towards Germans. Phizzy, you declare yourself "proud to be an American". How proud would you be if this table would split the US tally into two or more, since the number of US states has changed several times since the Olympics began in 1896? And there are even matching Stars and Strips flags for every number of US states. -- Matthead Discuß   20:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Non sequitor. The United States Olympic Committee was the singular NOC for the United States since inception.  There have been two (or three if you count Saar) German NOCs, and you know that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And you, Andrwsc, know that you still insist on splitting the entries of a single German NOC into three different teams just because the IOC uses three different codes. Why don't you do that with other countries, eg. TAI/ROC/TPE? -- Matthead Discuß   01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the issue is not about different codes; the issue is about different NOCs. Clearly the IOC considers West Germany distinct from pre-WWII Germany.  For example, the July 1975 issue of Olympic Review has an article entitled The Federal Republic of Germany and Olympism that states that the NOC was constituted on 24th September 1949, and an article entitled Germany and Olympism that states that its NOC was founded in 1895.  As for 1956–1964, the IOC clearly makes a distinction between a unified team of two NOCs and a "regular" team representing one NOC. The Unified Team in 1992 and Australasia in 1908–1912 is handled the same way, as one team representing multiple NOCs. Look, I'm not anti-German. I'm also not anti-Russian, anti-Serbian, anti-Australian, anti-American, or anti-anything—except anti-nationalist.  We simply must strive for NPOV here, and I think the current arrangement is the closest to neutral. Personally, I actually believe that the GER, EUA, and FRG totals ought to be combined (with only GDR as a separate total), but my personal opinion—and yours—are both irrelevant. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering all the infamous things that the Nazi-Germany did (like for example murdering 6 millions Jews) it's not all that surprising that that the allies decided to devide Germany after WWII. Just sayin'. Dr. Loosmark  14:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, Dr. h.c. (hybris causa) Loosmark, still semi-retired ... and semi-stalking, it seems. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is not to merge all entries. But West Germany (FRG) has at least to be merged with Germany (GER) because this state is legally the predecessor AND successor of GER. At all times a "Germany " was taking part at the Olympics, it does make sense to split ONE entry when 2 teams competed, but not separating them both. Got it now ? It should be amended when Winter Olympics 2010 is over and the table is going to be updated.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.2.158 (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bloody hell, not this argument again! Every two years like clockwork...  We have had strong, lasting consensus on this article in its current form.  And more importantly, reliable sources (like the International Society of Olympic Historians) do not combine totals as you propose.  That will trump original research every time.  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus? There is anti-German bias, yes. And you know very well that the IOC does not provide all-time totals, so from that point of view, the whole article is bogus. The media does compile all-time tables, though, but you refuse to acknowledge that they do not split the German medals just because the IOC uses four different codes for medals won by Germans. -- Matthead Discuß   10:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no rational argumentation why West Germany should be split from GER. It is legally the same state. I´ll come up with a merged version soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.8.157 (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the FRG is the legal predecessor of GER. Therefore it is not irrational to split both, East and West. I merged the figures in the table. KarlMathiessen (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm adding FRG and EUA to the GER total in the table. There is no excuse for splitting them off. -- Matthead Discuß   01:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree - it should stay like it is. EUA could be added - but not FRG -- By the way if you look at the Olympic games after 1990 clearly the most medals were won by athletes from East Germany, especially in the first decade, but even in Turin 2006. So for the good results after 1990 East Germany is even more responsible. It is an interesting fact and it is good to see it, that East Germany was far more succesful -- and like the results after 1990 show it is not only because of doping, which is often polemical said (there were never comprable investigations in West Germany or the US for example, because they didn't dissolve). If you look at the medal tables of the Olympics over the years 1984, 1988, 1992 it is clear, that sportwise Germany got more the successor of East Germany than of West Germany. Only in resent years this is (like all things) slowly relocating to the richer West. And in legal matters Germany is the successor of both of course, but combine both would be unfair like stated above. Knarf-bz (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Häh? FRG could not be added to GER? FRG and GER are codes for the same country and NOC, just the number of states has grown in 1957 and 1990. The German NOC has sent teams to every post-1948 Olympics (save Moscow), and athletes from the Eastern part of Germany were part of these teams 1956-1964, and of course since 1990. It does not matter how successful the GDR was with their separate team and NOC from 1968 to 1988. The first freely elected East German parliament has chosen to dissolve the socialist GDR in order to join the FR Germany, and so did the majority of East German athletes. I am not aware of any East German athlete who has retired or emigrated just to avoid competing for the Klassenfeind. -- Matthead Discuß   10:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I said "should"-so it was my opinion. (By the way it was/is sold to the people as reunification and not as joining - but of course there are some different juristics). And why do you argue about this merging FRG and GER for nearly 3 years now. Do you feel better and do you get some satisfaction, when Germany is placed higher? Splitting FRG and GER may not be necessary, but it has definitly one big advantage - the list includes more informations, which is the most important thing for an encyclopedia. The simple addition of medals can be done by the least talented mathematican, but the information that the rückschrittliche Unrechtsstaat was fare more succesfull in sport would get lost. The more informations available the better of course. If you search on the IOC website for medals the FRG and GER are seperated and the IOC is more important then NOC. Knarf-bz (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Oh I read my comment and it sounds a little bit harsh - it was not meant that way, but nevertheless I prefer the splitted version. Knarf-bz (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree! FRG is the same that as GER with five federal states more. No one would argue to split the US because Hawaii and Alaska joined as 49th and 50th state in 1959. Also the EUA should be added as it was ONE common team of FRG and GDR athletics. The EUA described the same territory and the same population as the recent GER (unlike many other countries). Only the medals of the GDR between 1966 and 1988 should be separated when the two German states were competing each other. -- Rotfuxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.3.21 (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have merged the FRG/GER figures. This seems to be the most rational merger. As the FRG is the same state like the GER and vice versa. If there are no serious contrary argumentation (apart from "like it" or "don´t like it") the new version appears to be ready for inclusion. Cheers KarlMathiessen (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I for one am against merging the German entries. FRG, FDR and GER are all different entities and had different teams. Neither Hawaii nor Alaska had their own team to the olympics prior to joining the US. So it's irrelevant. Newfoundland did not join Canada until 1945 and it had its own team in the Commonwealth Games so it is treated as a separate entry. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Games#List_of_nations.2Fdependencies_to_compete
 * --Kvasir (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But you must admit that your argumentation would lead as I proposed to a "two German entries" classification. East Germany would be separated as competing team (like Newfoundland for the Commonwealth Games) but West Germany would be merged to with Germany as well as the United Team. It would not make sense to subdivide Canada in two teams "Canada before merger with Newfoundland" and "Canada after merger with Newfoundland". The same would account for the United States with Hawaii and Alaska. West Germany and Germany after 1990 are the same nation state. The federal states of East Germany joined with the German Reunification the German Federal Republic which exists today with the same constitution (although only labeled as "Grundgesetz"), political institutions, and visual signs of statehood since 1949. It was right to separate the historic results from the East and West German results during the times of cold war (as it would be very problematic to share the old merits) but times have changed. Rofuxx --134.102.3.21 (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While I also opposed the merging I have to say that this comparison is utter nonsense at least for the FRG. The FRG definitly not joined GER (which is officially still called FRG). You would have to compare it to Canada before Newfoundland joined and not to Newfoundland of course. Knarf-bz (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah... such utter anal-retentiveness displayed by some of these contributors. I only showed two examples for the 3 cases of FRG, FDR and GER. How about the separate entries of Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, Rhodesia, Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Zimbabwe, and Zambia teams in the Commonwealth Games? --Kvasir (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys, I have a proposal. Let's not merge the Germany entries in the existing table. But let's add additional smaller table, say, for 10 countries with the best performance at Olympics, sorted by total gold medals, and with Germany entries merged in that table (and USSR, Unified Team and Russia also merged). That would solve the problem, I believe.Greyhood (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Separating the FRG and GER tags is simply wrong! West Germany did compete between 1968 - 1976 under the official IOC code GER. The tag was just renamed to FRG in 1980 and in 1990 again to GER. This is stated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_at_the_Olympics and verified by this official document about the 1976 summer games: http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1976/1976v3.pdf. West Germany is listed as GER, there is no FRG. Furthermore, the official website counts the west German medals as won by "Federal Republic of Germany (1950-1990, "GER" since)", which indicates GER inherents FRG. East German medals are only stated as: "German Democratic Republic (1955-1990,". So at least the figures for FRG and GER have to be be merged.AlskieS (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

New version
This is how it looked in the past... (seemingly equal to version of 15:06, 28 February 2010 -- Matthead Discuß   17:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.2.158 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 16 February 2010

Comparison of versions
For convenience and comparison, here are three different versions, width 4, 3 and 2 German entries. Each has its merits. Courtesy of -- Matthead Discuß   17:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Version with four German entries
As of 2010-04-28.
 * 1) ^ a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h  i  j  k  l  m  Does not include medals won as part of mixed teams with athletes from other nations (1896–1904).
 * 2) ^  Competed 1896–1952 and 1992–current. Does not include the totals from the United Team of Germany (EUA, 1956–1964) nor the 1968–1988 totals of East Germany (GDR) or West Germany (FRG).
 * 3) ^ a b Competed 1968–1988. Totals not combined with those of Germany (GER).
 * 4) ^ Team competed from 1956–1964, composed of athletes from both East Germany (GDR) and West Germany (FRG). Totals not combined with those of Germany (GER).

Version with three German entries, FRG added to GER, plus EUA and GDR
It is indisputable that there is a continuity of the German NOC from (at least) 1952 to the present day. From 1968 to 1988, the German NOC results are listed by the IOC under FRG for Federal Republic of Germany, which is since 1949 the official full name of the German state. The case of GER and FRG should be treated as simple change of IOC code, as for HOL/NED, which occurred also for the 1992 Olympics.
 * 1) ^ a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h  i  j  k  l  m  Does not include medals won as part of mixed teams with athletes from other nations (1896–1904).
 * 2) ^ Competed 1896–1952 and 1992–current. Does include the 1968–1988 totals of the same German NOC (listed in hindsight as FRG, West Germany). Does not include the totals from the United Team of Germany (EUA, 1956–1964), which comprised also athletes from East Germany, nor the 1968–1988 totals of the different team East Germany (GDR).
 * 3) ^ a b Competed 1968–1988. Totals not combined with those of Germany (GER).
 * 4) ^ Team competed from 1956–1964, composed of athletes from both East Germany (GDR) and West Germany (FRG). Totals not combined with those of Germany (GER).

Version with two German entries, EUA added to GER/FRG, plus GDR
It is indisputable that the continuity of the German NOC from (at least) 1952 to the present day includes also the entries from 1956 to 1964, which are listed by the IOC under EUA for United Team of Germany, as also East German athletes had joined the team. It is self-evident that the totals of a German team comprising athletes of both German states of the time can and should be combined with the totals of a united Germany team.
 * 1) ^ a  b  c  d  e  f  g  h  i  j  k  l  m  Does not include medals won as part of mixed teams with athletes from other nations (1896–1904).
 * 2) ^ Competed 1896–1952 and 1992–current as GER, listed from 1968 to 1988 as FRG. Does include the 1956–1964 totals from the United Team of Germany (EUA), which comprised also East German athletes, but not the 1968–1988 totals of East Germany (GDR).
 * 3) ^ a b Competed 1968–1988. Totals not combined with those of Germany (GER).

Version with a single German entry
Adding up all medals won by German athletes into one total makes sense, too, but is rejected by some as on at least one occasion, when the GDR entered a separate team, two German teams won two medals in a single contest something which is impossible for a single unified team of a nation. For example, in the 1972 400m and 100m relays, the two German women teams won 4 out of 6 medals, two Gold, a Silver and a Bronze, while their male counterparts scored only a Bronze. So, in case two medals were won by the two German teams, the "undeserved" lesser one should not count towards the all-German total. On the other hand, a unified German team would certainly have been more successful than two split ones.

When two German teams competed, as from 1968 to 1988, it would be rather simple to count only the more successful one (mostly GDR) to the German grand total. In the boycott games, Moscow 1984 and LA 1984, there was only one German team present anyway. So, this "best of Germans" total would comprise the results of GER, EUA, GDR (assuming that except 1968, they've always beaten their Western counterparts), plus FRG at the 1984 Summer games where the GDR was absent. -- Matthead Discuß   17:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

South Africa Winter Olympic medals
I think there is an error in the table. It shows 6 medals - but no breakdown of gold/silver or bronze.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.171 (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe its the 6 medals thats wrong. Should be zero. The wiki page for S. Africa in the Winter Olympics shows no medals in the winter games. I have found nothing else indicating a South African athlete ever won a winter medal.Racerx11 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * er umm, scratch that last comment of mine. I revisted this just now and realized the "6" indicates the number of winter games S. Africa participated in. Not total medals. So the table is correct regarding S. African winter medals, none.Racerx11 (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous methods of counting
I have read (in a "semi-official" source) that during the 1912 Olympics, there was a hard struggle between USA and Sweden concerning winning the medal table. That struggle, it is said, was won by Sweden. The method used then, was the 3:2:1 points for gold:silver:bronze respectively. It is quite interesting that that Swedish "win" is mentioned nowhere today, as a completely different method is favoured by most present medias. Personally I have always preferred the 3:2:1 and will continue to do so, but most important is that the history is now rewritten, when the original result is all forgotten.

I see that points calculations like 5:3:1 and 4:2:1 and also 7:5:4:3:2:1 (for top-6) are also used, so that it would be complicated inserting a points column in the table, but I feel that my concern should at least be mentioned somewhere. Which it is now... :) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree the original result should be represented if our one-hundred-year view back to this event differs significantly. This is an issue I'm dear to, because I often feel history is rewritten after time puts a different perspective on things and well meaning and goog intentioned people dig up more info. Usually this brings us closer to the truth, but it can just easily cloud it or completely obscure it. In this case however, since Olympic "wins" by country are not listed at all here, then I don't know where it could be mentioned other than as you said, just now as you wrote it on this talk page. What is a/your "semi-official" source btw? Racerx11 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Totals are off
The last line of the main table is not correctly summed up.

The totals are, if I have calculated it properly, as follows:
 * Total Gold at Summer: 4504
 * Total Silver at Summer: 4476
 * Total Bronze at Summer: 4779
 * Total of all Summer: 13759


 * Total Gold at Winter: 860
 * Total Silver at Winter: 860
 * Total Bronze at Winter: 849
 * Total of all Winter: 2569


 * Gold (Summer & Winter): 5370
 * Silver (Summer & Winter): 5338
 * Bronze (Summer & Winter): 5628
 * Total of all Games: 16332

Can anybody check my numbers and correct the table (if I was correct).

Thanks. -- 89.201.194.93 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange Germany Counting
Why is Germany splitted in so many entities. Doesn´t make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.128.24 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 May 2010


 * Well, it does not make sense, but IOC does make it, see List_of_IOC_country_codes. On the other hand, IOC does not add up totals for different games, which is done here, in violation of No original research. -- Matthead Discuß   16:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See my comment below and the United Team of Germany article - prior to 1976, country codes were not standardized by the IOC at all, so "the IOC does make it" (in its historical database) is a weak argument. -- DevSolar (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting the Germany and Yugoslavia totals
We have been using Olympics at Sports-Reference.com as a reliable secondary source for many Olympic pages, because the editors behind that site are noted Olympic historians. For their medal totals, they combine GER and EUA appearances for Germany (http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/countries/GER/), while leaving FRG and GDR as distinct NOCs. That seems reasonable to me (although I would have also added the FRG results to this totals if it were up to me....) With respect to Yugoslavia, they (correctly, in my opinion) combine the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia totals of "YUG" with the Serbia and Montenegro appearances (http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/countries/SCG/), and only include the Kingdom and SFRY totals for "YUG" (http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/countries/YUG/). Would it resolve the problems with this page if we adopted the same approach? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * From a historic / juristic standpoint, the German Empire (1871-1918), the Weimar Republic (1919-1933), the "Deutsches Reich" (1933-1945), post-war occupied Germany, and the Federal Republic of Germany (1947-today) are legal successors. The GDR contested that view and considered itself to be apart from that (i.e., not being a successor, being a seperate state not being part of a larger divided Germany) from some time after its occupation by the Soviets until its demise, so there is some justification in keeping GDR medals seperate (although it's not done in Germany itself, as not to foster lingering feelings of apartness).


 * I can't comment with confidence on the Saar Protectorate status, regarding international law, but AFAIK it never made it to autonomous nation state, and thus should IMHO be considered occupied German territory. There would be sense in adding it to the German total, but I can also see why one would want to list it seperately.


 * But keeping EUA, GER and FRG seperate is historically nonsense. Heck, check out the United Team of Germany article - it states that prior to 1976 codes weren't standardized at all. And after 1990, the olympic country code was changed from FRG / GDR to GER simply because there was no "other" Germany to confuse GER with anymore, that's it. -- DevSolar (talk) 10:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Elaboration: What would you say if - for lack of a better metaphor - people would tell you that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were not Presidents of the United States, because there were less than today's 50 states to the USA in their time?
 * The fact that today's "Germany" is a continuation of "West Germany" and not a successor is documented in several other places on Wikipedia, including but not limited to the articles West Germany and BRD (Germany).
 * That the IOC used a different letter code before 1990 (FRG) and after 1990 (GER) does not change the fact that it was the exact same nation state before and after. Even when conceding everything that is controversial (the Saarland, "United" and GDR medals, which I want to leave out of this discussion), there is absolutely no reason in my eyes why the FRG and GER totals should be kept seperate. Thus, I am being WP:Bold and joining those two.
 * Again: You can argue about the Saarland, the EUA, and the GDR. But GER and FRG are the same nation, and always have been. -- DevSolar (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adopting my proposal above, "Version with three German entries, FRG added to GER". As nobody can argue about the United team of Germany of 1956 and later, which is a continuation of the 1952 German team (same IOC, same flag, just more athletes available), I'm "re-uniting" the results from 1956 to 1964 to that of Germany, as proposed in "Version with two German entries, EUA added to GER/FRG" above. -- Matthead Discuß   13:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I am not 100% OK with that. 95%, yes, but one can argue that the EUA should be kept seperate (while there is no case that could be constructed to keep GER and FRG seperate). Well, we will see... -- DevSolar (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you not allow this argument spill over to other pages, namely All-time Paralympic Games medal table. If this article adopts a new standard and it is stable then I see no issue. Until then please wait. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Right now there is no-one arguing in favor of keeping the entries seperate. The case is simple: The German Empire, the German Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany (1990-today) were abbreviated "GER", because there was only one "Germany" around. If the IOC hadn't used three-letter acronyms but full names, it would have been "Federal Republic of Germany" from 1949 until today. For a good quick summary of facts, check German_Reich, and note that the "creation of a united Germany" mentioned in the section "Reunified Germany" took the form of the GDR joining the FRG (see the intro of German_Reunification). And while the following is WP:OR, I am sure there are sources showing that FRG/GER always tallied its medals in total, while the GDR did not. Pointing to a change in the three-letter acronym used by the IOC 1968-1988 to avoid confusion with the GDR is a very weak argument in comparison. I call that stable enough. -- DevSolar (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh... by the way, the lead of this article actually states that "when different codes are displayed for different years, medal counts are combined in the case of a simple change of IOC code (such as from HOL to NED for the Netherlands) or simple change of country name (such as from Ceylon to Sri Lanka)". The Paralympics page lists the name change from RHO to ZIM as another example. Since the Federal Republic of Germany's NOC didn't even change when the German Democratic Republic joined in 1990, a case for seperate entries grows even weaker. -- DevSolar (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It gets better and better. Check out Germany at the Olympics. I especially like this part: "As a result of the Germany being divided, from 1968 to 1990 two independent teams competed in each of the Games; the original designations were GER for the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and GDR for the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). In 1980 the West German code was changed to FRG (which is currently also applied by the IOC in retrospect)." Sorry, but the case for keeping the entries seperate simply evaporates. -- DevSolar (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

looks like there is something wrong here -- Phoenix (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC) What is the point of posting an obsolete part of the All-time Paralympic Games medal table here at the Olympic Games medal table talk? You have taken these numbers from an old version, before I sorted them together, and added the totals that were divided to FRG and GER. Also, as the GDR had a too high number of participations, 2 instead of their single one in 1984, I fixed that along with the wrong numbers for medals. Yet, I missed that the number of FRG summer participations had been too high, 9 instead of 8 from 1960-1988, and as a result, the sum of the participations attributed to FRG+GER became too high, too. The faulty number had been changed by User:Phoenix79 on 16 February 2010, and now you want to use your own mistake as a pretext to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All-time_Paralympic_Games_medal_table&diff=next&oldid=401433626 revert all my edits with the summary ''How can germany have competed in more games than have been held? I think your math is off. I dont know if combining these actually will make sense if this is the result'']. My math is as on as Excel's math, and both my corrected combined German results and the totals at Germany at the Paralympics are consistent, with 13/433/425/399/1257 in summer games, and 10/121/108/101/330 in winter. I'll assume good faith for now, but you better do not test my patience with a third revert, following. -- Matthead Discuß   00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WTF? Why the attack? I reverted it because I knew that you would fix it. If Germany competed in more competitions then have been held the medals would most likely be incorrect also. I did not have the time to research this myself so I alerted you of the mistake reverted to the previous version and proceeded with my life. Man if the internet can get you this riled up from only minor edits that require fixing I think you need to take a break for a bit. -- Phoenix (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, it would be helpful if you could make a statement regarding the subject of merging the FRG, GER, and EUA entries, since that was where this discussion was at. (I won't get involved in the numbercrunching before that subject is solved.) -- DevSolar (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As no arguments are forthcoming, it seems we have achieved "stability"? -- DevSolar (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but combining several different NOCs into one seems really unprofessional, I know the IOC doesn't add games totals up together but if they did they wouldn't combine so many NOCs. But if it really must be done then can there at least be a footnote that this is in fact work from multiple NOCs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.231.88 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I have to summarize: Thus, the East German (GDR) appearances are listed seperately as they should, with all other medals won grouped as "GER" (as accepted by the IOC at the time of appearance). As it explicitly states in the article lead-in, this is an All-time Olympic Games medal table, not a backup mirror of the per-game IOC database (as the IOC does not tally any all-time statistics). The athletes represented by the officially recognized NOC of Germany - consistently labeled "GER" at the time of appearance except for the time when listed as "FRG" to disambiguate from "GDR" - won 1099 medals at the time of this writing. There's nothing "unprofessional" about it, and splitting this total into two, three, or even four different entries defeats the purpose of an "all-time" table and serves only one purpose IMNSHO: To fudge the table (and history) in favor of the USA. -- DevSolar (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been several official and undisputed successions of organizational bodies representing Germany (in 1904, 1917, 1925, and 2006). In all of these cases, both prede- and successor represented the sum of all athletes from the nation of Germany, as accepted by the IOC.
 * The "Nationales Olympisches Komitee für Deutschland" was founded in 1949, claiming to represent all German athletes as successor to the "Deutscher Olympischer Ausschuß" (1925-1946), and accepted as such by the IOC in 1950. The claim was disputed by East Germany (see next entry).
 * The "Nationales Olympisches Komitee für Ostdeutschland" (East Germany) was founded in 1951, renamed to read "DDR" instead of "Ostdeutschland" in 1965, but not accepted by the IOC (!!) until 1968.
 * The Saar Protectorate was a territory occupied and governed by France, but neither officially annexed nor declared independent, until re-unification with (West) Germany in 1957. It appeared under own NOC but once (1956), and didn't win any medals in that appearance. Let's drop this as pointless pointification.
 * The "United" team, comprised of bost West German and East German athletes (1956, 1960, and 1964), was officially represented by the NOKfD (West Germany), and started under the "GER" label at the time. (The "EUA" label was assigned by the IOC to their per-games database entries for that year retroactively - and prior to 1976, labels weren't standardized by the IOC at all, as already pointed out a couple of posts above.)

As for sources, all this information is readily available on Wikipedia, and can easily be looked up in any library. -- DevSolar (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My friend I think you missed Malta and it's medals thank you very nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.97.6 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No sort arrows on main table
The page tells me very clearly how to sort the main table to get gold, then silver, then bronze ranking, but there are no sort arrows :-( Rmallett (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I second that. 80.122.178.68 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Abhijit Sathe (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It still doesn't act as it's supposed to, though. 80.122.178.68 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the style parameter "background" (for the color of the column headers) makes the sort arrows disappear... -- DevSolar (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)