Talk:Olympic medal table

Ranking questions

1	United States (USA)	25	30	30	85	165
1	China (CHN)	7	66	12	85	165
1	Russia (RUS)	0	0	165	165	165
1	Australia (AUS)	0	80	5	85	165
1	Canada (CAN)	55	0	0	55	165
Total		302	302	302	906	1812

The table listed above is purely for demonstration only and no reflection on actual or future events. Country names were chosen purely at author's whim and no reflection on PPOV. To make a point on medal standings and applying rank based upon IOC's ranking. The scenario I pose is for discussion only and I have no opinion on which should be standard used for ranking.

Let's take the scenario above and apply 3 points for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for bronze. A total of 302 events and assuming one medal for each for a total of 906 medals which will give a point total of 1,812. The rest of the NOC's and medal counts are not shown for clarity of this discussion.

As you will notice each NOC has an exact point total and therefore have been applied same ranking. Which country is more deserving of the ranking, if I may ask such a biased question!!

Just to go out on a limb here, let's put some context around the countries, totally unrealistic, and serving only to foster discussion. Let’s assume the following athletes per NOC:
596 for  United States (USA)
302 for  China (CHN)
165 for  Russia (RUS)
85 for  Australia (AUS)
55 for  Canada (CAN)

Using the above number of athletes per NOC, you will note Russia, Australia and Canada will have achieved a 100% success rate, while China has a 28.15% and USA with a 14.26% success rate. Another question raised by this scenario is; Do success rates have a place in determining rank? --HJKeats (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This encyclopedia has no place for original research, and Wikipedia is not a place for personal essays, so I don't know where you are going with this talk page thread. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Well, really, this talk page ought to be just about the article itself, so unless you are planning to add that content to the article, it is off topic. That is certainly why the {{notaforum}} template was placed on Talk:2008 Summer Olympics medal table, to help reduce the off-topic discussion there. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Problems with article

The IOC only uses the gold medal sort for information purposes only. At the bottom of every medal table, the disclaimer indicates that it does not endorse national rankings of any sort. For example the IOC's 2006 medal table. That's why you never hear the IOC never proclaims an "overall winner" of the Games. Nor would you hear it say that Country X did better than Country Y.

The national ranking phenomenon comes from the general public, press, and even the National Olympic Committees. (Likewise the various medal sort, medal points systems are never recognized by the IOC) That needs to be clarified in the article. --Madchester (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Suggestion for lede

“ Some see in the gold-first ranking -- which is unofficially endorsed by the International Olympic Committee -- one reason why countries have become increasingly ruthless in cutting funding for sports where they don't have a clear shot at a gold. "The message is that winning is everything," says James Riordan, emeritus professor of sports history at Surrey University in Britain. "That's not the message the Games are supposed to convey. Why have silvers and bronzes?" ”

Explaining the implication for gold-first ranking would seem to be helpful. Banjeboi 12:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

You're welcome. And actually per WP:Lede we should include opinion and dissenting views as part of the summary of the article. To me, this is amongst the most interesting points. That some believe the rankings themselves have adversely affected what sports are given support by their countries seems quite relevant. Banjeboi 14:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ESPN

In my opinion, unlike the claim that ESPN switched in 2008, which can be said to require a third-party reference, the fact that the ESPN website *currently* ranks past Olympics by golds[1][2] and ranks 2008 by totals[3] does not need further citation. It is also relevant to the article. It has been reverted once (in this form) so I'm not going to re-add it, just throwing it up for discussion. Shreevatsa (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Medal count

I agree that the assertion that the USA has suddenly changed would be totally misleading, although I was acting in good faith at the time of my edit. Two points really.

Firstly I think the wording is misleading at the moment. Agreed, many American news agencies have always used total count, and it is right that the article makes this clear. However, to suggest that the Guardian are the only news organisation in the world ever to have claimed this is not the case is also misleading. For instance The Telegraph.

Secondly, I think we should look at this in a broader sense. The USA isn't the only country to be accused (rightly or wrongly) of being selective with how they count their medals. Far from it, I would suggest there are many more obvious cases. For instance Australia and New Zealand and Jamaica (although I have to say, the analysis there is very balanced). The US situation is very notable, more so for 2008 because it's the first time in the internet era that the USA didn't top both tables, but in some ways I'd say these cases are even more notable. I won't edit for now because if there's disagreement I'd rather get consensus first. 81.108.87.117 (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I've had a second go at it, it's generally considered bad practise to leave large sections quoted out indefinitely. Much of what was there was duplicate information, although I substituted a couple of good lines in place of what was there previously, and moved a couple of sources to appropriate points. The only thing that's ultimately been deleted is the Associated Press part, which I have no opinion on, but wasn't sure how to accomodate it. The quote box is unorthodox considering another quotation style is used above, but I think it really helps the section. BeL1EveR (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)