913:
compliment for a
Dutchman living in Canada!), grouping nations together didn't work, going through the Olympic Conventions page (currently at the Olympics ortal) didn't work so now he tries this table. 2)Verifiability/OR (I'll group these two together). It is original research because author performed analysis on figures purely in an arbitrary manner. Author simply added up 110 years worth of data and divided it by current population values. That is trying to make a point in author's favour. Did author gather the population figures of historical Games. Could author then perhaps describe how he got say... Hungary's population figure for 1908? Bohemia 1920? What about the EU. Surely author discounted EU medals before EU existed and correctly calculated the EU's population for each year it did. If so, that would make it OR again imo. Author cited a Australian analysis based on population for 2004. A reputable source I'm sure. What are his reputable sources of like analysis for 1932?--
724:
with separate NOCs be allowed, and another one forbidden? For example, summing up all the German medals is routine in
Germany and other countries (typically an asterisk is used to indicate that East-Germany's medals are added), why not here? Similarly, EU counts don't have more or less IOC support than any other medal count. And obviously it's not the quantity but the quality of the athletes that counts - sending more athletes will help you only in sports dominated by luck (there are not many of this kind). I share your general scepticism towards total medal counts, and I am ready to discuss whether ALL total medal counts at Knowledge (XXG) should be deleted for the reasons you mentioned above, but such a discussion should not be limited to this particular article. If we
1581:
am heartened to see that you are beginning to finally see the light, namely that WP should not endorse a POV, so we finally agree that performing no analysis or manipulation of the data but simply keeping the raw numbers as noted on the total medals count table is the best way to go so that our readers may interpret the numbers as they see fit? BTW, I actually have stated what your POV is. One needs only to look at your contributions to see that you have a one-issue account created solely for the purpose of presenting the medals counts any way but straightforward because you don't like who's on top. If unsuccesfull, you'd rather see them deleted altogether. Now, may I respectfully ask we stop repeating our arguments ad nauseam and let the AfD process conclude?--
719:) was badly chosen; I removed it, because that's not really what I want. I want to overcome various existing POVs by providing data (a simple summation of counts is not really neutral as it represents just one of many possible POVs without IOC support). I agree also with what you said about inherent inaccuracy and subjectivity in making comparisons over 110 years! But of course this holds not only for population data which, as you said, has changed over the years, but also for other things that have changed, such as names of nations etc. All total medal counts (with or without per capita rankings) are problematic for such reasons; mine not more so than the
886:. That would be a good idea, I think. The number of medal count victories should be listed as well, I think, at least for the medal count winners (this is part of what the current table is about). Finally, I actually agree that per capita data should be based on year by year population data - this may need work, at the risk of becoming OR. What about removing the per capita data from the table? The other data is not subject to similar criticism. Since this seems to be the only serious issue I am addressing it again further down in my summary of 5 April.
455:
the per capita entries - maybe one could instead average out the medal per capita data for all years when the nation participated". So please take note that I wouldn't mind the creation of per capita entries based on year by year population data. I suspect though this will yield rather similar results - as the populations grew, so did the number of disciplines and medals per Games. But yes, this would be an interesting task. Thanks also for reinforcing
Grandmotherka's excellent suggestion!
1528:
more informative and therefore more objective than quite a few others here at
Knowledge (XXG). Re: your specific points: I think many Russians and ex-Soviets want to include the old USSR medals in the rankings. Similarly for Germany. It's also done frequently: many sum up USSR/CIS/Russian medals and those of the various fragments of Germany, e.g., here at the all time winter medal count of the
865:. He has put together a system that assigns a score to each athlete. I have always thought that something similar could be done to "score" the Olympics, and would be more reasonable than medal counts. You could take this approach and present scores relative to population, GDP, etc. I think many people would find it interesting! However, it would not be encyclopedic, and therefore,
624:
how many Games some nation needed to collect how many medals, those who are interested in per capita data, etc. Obviously no particular case is favored by the editor, since different countries rank first in different categories (keeping in mind that none of these rankings is endorsed by the IOC, the only authority, which actually rejects medal tallies and rankings of nations: see
930:
against it, if you don't like it, but don't try to discredit the article by discrediting its author. 2) Apparently for lack of new ideas, you repeated issues already settled above: the methodology is clear, nobody claimed that
Hungary's population figure for 1908 etc. is used. Please read the previous answers before bringing up the same issue again and again.
247:, which adds summer counts and winter counts. Of course you are right, the Knowledge (XXG) sources should be mentioned - but it's easy to do this - no reason to delete the article. In the talk page or the article page? In the talk page you mentioned an error for the USSR data - thanks a lot! - just an oversight, can easily be corrected.
471:, per all the above. @Medalstats: "original research" in this case refers to the fact that you invented the methodology of comparison. Instead of deleting it, I suggest userfication, which means you'll be able to keep your own personal statistics in your userspace, but this is definitely not material for an encyclopædia. —
1353:"Medal count wins" and "Gold count wins" certainly implies that there is a competition between NOCs to win the most. I think the official position of the IOC must be followed on Knowledge (XXG): no nation "wins" an Olympics, but medal counts are still presented (using their ranking method) for informational purposes.
157:. So we observe that there are a lot of medal count POVs out there! What I did was to combine all the data such that nobody's POV is dominant - different countries rank first in different categories, but of course we must keep in mind that none of these rankings is endorsed by the IOC, the only authority.
1580:
a table. The total counts table is compiled by simply adding up the numbers using IOC provided data, how official can you be. They provide them for informational purposes and so does WP. For your information btw, the total medals count table has been through an AfD and survived with flying colours. I
1300:
Please point out: where on this page did I attack you in a personal way? I could point out places where you personally attacked me, but never the other way round. And your comment on "1+1=2" misrepresents what I said above. Is
English not your native language perhaps? Finally, by your reasoning you'd
433:
conducted original research here contrary to his transparant claims to the contrary. Could author explain how he got the EU's data and the USA's population figures for previous games for instance? (Using external, verifiable sources of course.) The ratios per capita can only really work for 1 edition
1339:
You have a point. The best way to include population data would be to use year by year data, but that would amount to OR. What a devil's circle! On the other hand, as the population grew, so did the number of
Olympic disciplines - the latest population data is quite representative in terms of former
1056:
So I'd argue for ignoring those votes that push their POV by forming cliques and suppressing data, and take into account only serious suggestions. I'd also argue for making this article more widely known, such that those who are apparently eagerly tracking every move I make are not the only ones who
1005:
So I'd argue for ignoring those votes that push their POV by forming cliques and suppressing data, and take into account only serious suggestions, such as those of
Andrwsc. I'd also argue for making this article more widely known, such that those who are apparently eagerly tracking every move I make
745:
medal tables, they don't endorse rankings but provide them for informational purposes, as do we. The IOC site is full of medal tables. As for mixing winter and summer games... that is a non-issue as both are
Olympic Games organized by the same IOC seperated only because of practical concerns such as
1607:
It's not exactly a typical NPOV problem, but the article give undue legitimacy to its calculations. The various
Olympic games have had different participants, different events, different numbers of medals awarded. There isn't a meaningful way to put them together. The weird lists like medals won
1554:
Russian or German POV, huh? Seems like a rather funny contradiction in itself. Traditionally the German and Russian POVs have been extreme opposites, haven't they? This is an international encyclopedia which should not endorse any POV. My table certainly does not - so far even Kalsermar himself has
1220:
I deleted the per capita data since it should be based on year by year population data unavailable at Knowledge (XXG) - as has been pointed out in the discussion above, creating such data could be interpreted as Original Research (OR). The other elements of the table are not OR though; all data are
1074:
The only serious criticism has been that per capita data for all time medal counts should be based on year by year population data (already suggested in the article's talk page, but not implemented). This may need work, at the risk of becoming Original Research (OR). Maybe we could save the article
766:
How can it be neutral if it does not say how often Liechtenstein participated? And the IOC charta does reject medal tables, as has been pointed out frequently, with sources. Please show me an IOC web site that endorses medal tables. But don't show me a non-IOC web site (e.g., the site of some local
723:
which mixes Winter Games and Summer Games (btw, Summer Games involve many more disciplines, a fact that currently is brushed under the carpet). Regarding combined counts from different NOCs: the IOC charta rejects ALL medal counts, but Knowledge (XXG) publishes them anyway - then why should a count
694:
any proposal that combines counts from different NOCs. There was never an EU team at any Olympics; you cannot invent a medal count for this hypothetical team. You cannot add GER, FRG, GDR and EUA together because in some events, that "team" would have twice as many competitors (i.e. chances for a
640:, but you cannot divide by, say, Knowledge (XXG) population data. Why should one of the tables be free of "introducing a new analysis or synthesis" but not the other? It seems clear that deletion of the present table due to OR would imply deletion of several other Knowledge (XXG) tables such as the
454:
Kalsermar claims the author has an obvious POV, without saying what that POV is. What is it? And please keep in mind what I said above about the population data (also in the article talk page), such that I do not have to repeat it again every time: "The latest available population data is used for
279:
No original research - see above. And the article talk page precisely addresses the issue above, by stating the methodology (plus an alternative methodology): "The latest available population data is used for the per capita entries - maybe one could instead average out the medal per capita data for
1541:
That is a Russian or German POV respectively. We are the English language WP. I will repeat once more, the IOC provides medal tables on their site. We use those. We also have them added up to compile a total count. No POV whatsoever, in line with the IOC and in line with the supermajority views of
1527:
Thanks for your opinion. Given some of the comments above, I am already glad that the delete votes are getting weaker. I totally agree that medal counts are contrary to Olympic spirit. But if we are to use them, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that my current table is much
1328:
Inclusion of the population data, even though you removed the derived statistics from those numbers, is still problematic. It is unclear at best, or intentionally misleading at worst, to show a "latest data" figure on a table that shows all-time (110 years) medal counts. The presence of this data
881:
But a classic way of making data subjective is to simply omit some of the data! In general, more data is more objective than less data. That's why I am including numbers of Games etc. But I am sorry, Andrwsc, for failing to address your support of a move to add the number of games competed by each
623:
But again, what exactly is this so-called "particular case favored by the editor"? What is it? Isn't this just an objective table compactly summarizing all the information you need to put medal counts in perspective? It serves all: those who care for absolute medal numbers, those who want to know
548:
POV: Kalsermar also claimed there is some POV, but then failed to explain which POV. So which POV do you mean? I'd really like to know. As pointed out above, the table actually overcomes the problems of narrow POVs: there is no obvioulsy dominant POV; different countries (which may or may not have
103:
POV problems by objectively providing all data such that no particular POV is emphasized. To clarify this point, I made a list of frequent POVs regarding medal counts, and cited sources inside and outside of Knowledge (XXG) on the article talk page: Although the International Olympic Committee IOC
1399:
smaller: Winter Games used to have 20-25 events, for example. Therefore, this kind of derived measurement would skew negatively towards NOCs that did not compete in the Winter Games, and would skew positively toward nations that competed only in recent games. Your placement of "CIS" (imprecise,
1287:
Medalstats, I respectfully ask you to stop your personal attacks. I also would like to suggest you set up your own website where you can address the alleged POV pushing of saying that 1+1=2 and that it really only equals 2 in certain cases depending on how you look at the data. It has no place on
987:
The quality of the arguments is such that there are 7 delete votes and two userfy and only one user, the author, who actually thinks this page is a good idea. Could someone else but author explain what is POV about saying that 1+1=2 whether you're from Liechtenstein or Australia? The total medal
929:
1) Kalsermar, I totally disagree with your claim that I don't like a particular nation! I feel you made a very offensive and personal statement here, and I'd appreciate an apology. Then please try to get back to the issue at hand: which are the pros and cons of the article? Try to find arguments
411:
To summarize, the objections either are not valid (no POV etc, no original research, many relevant sources cited) or can easily be addressed, by inserting statements about where the data came from (namely, Knowledge (XXG)) and how the numbers were computed (by adding and dividing Knowledge (XXG)
1272:
do so too. It mixes Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics - I've never seen something like that table outside of Knowledge (XXG). As I said before, I am ready to discuss whether ALL total medal counts at Knowledge (XXG) should be deleted for the reasons you mentioned above, but such a discussion
784:
medal count tables published on Knowledge (XXG) have been compiled by using IOC pages for verification! You might want to try a novel concept here and actually surf on over to the official IOC website where you will find medal tables for every edition of the Olympics. I'll even offer a helping
912:
Medalstats, I'll humor you. 1)POV, look at user's contributions, the raison d'etre of user is because he doesn't like the nation on top of the medal standings and thus to try everything to get that addressed. Personal attacks didn't work (I was called an ugly American patriot once, quite the
833:
be more objective than a simple count? Do you know the meaning of the word "objective"? On top of the inherent inaccuracy of population figures, the biggest problem with your analogy is that it assumes that all medals are equal (they are not), and that medal counts scale linearly to other
628:). Generally speaking, you cannot simply claim that a particular case is favored by me as an editor, you must also say what it is. If you fail to do so then your whole argumentation breaks down. Finally, the reputable source of the data is cited: it's Knowledge (XXG) itself. You claim that
1200:
one variable by another. That is a huge difference, and that's what makes your work original research. I repeat again: your method implies a direct linear relationship between medal counts and other variables such aspopulation, and assumes that a value can be computed and ranked for that
186:
Choosing figures, labelling them, deciding what calculations to perform on them is indeed original research. For example, labelling a figure as the population of the Soviet Union, which differs by 23 million from the estimated 1991 population, doesn't do anything to overcome POV problems.
172:
2. This is not original research - the table is based on data already available at Knowledge (XXG). Unless the activity of adding and dividing numbers counts as original research? But by that reasoning one would have to delete many of the Knowledge (XXG) medal tables, such as the
1019:
Truthfully, Medalstats, I didn't even read many of the above blurbs. I just know that 7 people think it should be deleted. Keep this debate open as long as you want, but I know it's just going to end up getting deleted. I only said that for your sake of not being humiliated.
242:
No original research - see above! The table is purely based on data already available at Knowledge (XXG). Or is the activity of adding numbers original research? But as I pointed out above, then one would have to delete many other Knowledge (XXG) medal tables, such as the
1000:
Ah, but the problem is that most of the delete votes here and the support votes there are from a clique of users that have a record of systematically trying to suppress certain information. For example, at 23:40 25 February 2006 Jared wrote on Klasermar's user page:
1414:
as well - it skews positively towards nations that did better in the Summer Games than in the Winter Games, which have fewer disciplines! Moreover we'd have to delete ALL total medal counts as they skew positively towards nations that participated frequently.
144:
and also in the German Knowledge (XXG). The medals of the USSR and its successor state CIS are frequently but not always added together. Often the medals of USSR and CIS are added to those of Russia, which is smaller but viewed as their political heir, e. g.,
556:
OR: None of the arguments above sufficiently explained why exactly this should be considered OR. I certainly did not invent a non-trivial methodology of comparison. I did cite highly visible sources of medals per capita statistics, e. g., the
1097:
Kalsermar, the OR accusation does not hold, as shown in repetitive arguments above, and until now you have failed to point out what is my POV! You repeat there is a POV but what exactly is it? I suggest you solidify your claims or be quiet.
1051:
As I just said, the problem is that most of the delete votes are from a clique of users that have a record of systematically trying to suppress certain information. For example, at 23:40 25 February 2006 Jared wrote on Klasermar's user page:
1006:
are not the only ones who present their views on this site. Finally, this is not about facts such as 1+1=2, but about the way such facts are used to make a certain impression on the reader. Omitting crucial facts (such as number of Games) is
504:
Thanks for the comment. But which non-trivial methodology of comparison do you think I invented? In case of non-trivial comparisons I gave references. For example, I cited highly visible sources of medals per capita statistics, e. g., the
1273:
should not be limited to this particular article. If we are to combine totals from across games, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that my current table is much more informative and objective than previous ones.
901:
To summarize, none of the critics so far was able to identify a particular POV, or to back up the OR claim, or to show that the data is not verifiable, or that the source of the data is not cited. I still propose to keep the table.
1288:
Knowledge (XXG), as pointed out by different users and any analysis of suimply adding up the numbers is OR. There are no other reputable sources whop use your methodology and analysis and therefore it doen't belong here.--
1512:: Although contrary to Olympic spirit, people do like obsessing over medal totals and rankings, sometimes by very odd criteria. But I don't see this article as making a contribution. For example, the whole point of the
838:-- and trying to include it in a mathematical formula introduces POV because it implies a direct relationship with the other factors in each equation you present. I think most people might agree that there is obviously
789:
and on the right somewhere you will see somewhere down the page a link to "Medals by country". Click on it and you will get the table for Athens 2004. It even has a nice little "1." followed by "USA" to start it off for
1174:
Thanks for explaining how you add numbers, Kalsermar. By a strange coincidence it's actually the approach I used for my table - no OR there! But "Just zis guy" says we need reputable sources. This applies to both the
549:
different POVs) rank first in different categories (but of course we must keep in mind that none of these rankings is endorsed by the IOC, the only authority, which rejects medal tallies and rankings of nations: see
767:
organizer)! I agree though on one count, Kalsermar: balanced per capita data may need work, at the risk of OR. What about removing the per capita data from the table, along the lines of what Andrwsc suggested?
1400:
should be EUN) as first in golds per games and medals per games bears this out. That team only competed in 1992. Any kind of "per games" data would have to be normalized across all games to have any meaning.
943:
I pretty much think this debate if over, because the only one giving "responses" to the affirmative side is the person who created this page. If an admin wants to close out this debate early, be our guests.
853:
It is becoming clear that you are not willing to consider the arguments and other suggestions presented by other editors here. I offered to support a move to add the number of games competed by each NOC to
1432:. The "EU team" would have multiple entries and win multiple medals. No single nation has that opportunity. What does a "98%" value for "Medal count wins per Games" for the "EU team" mean? Who can tell?
1340:
population ratios. And isn't some sort of information about the population necessary to clarify certain facts such as: tiny Norway had nearly half as many medal count wins as the 60-fold bigger biggies?
698:
I agree that the notion of "total" medal counts that span multiple games may be problematic. I would prefer to see only medal table for each games individually. Those are unambiguous. However, if we
1395:"Medals per Games" and "Gold per Games" are problematic because the number of events per games varies widely. Summer Games now have about 300 events; recent Winter Games around 90. Past Games were
1442:
True. In water polo and ice hockey and relays etc the EU could not win gold and silver and bronze, but only one of them. But the EU would simply win more gold medals - maybe mention only those?
565:
at Knowledge (XXG). Once more, nothing I did is really new - I just collected data that's already available in the Knowledge (XXG) medal counts and in the Knowledge (XXG) population statistics.
351:
the various POVs surrounding the issue of medal counts. I actually made a list of such POVs (see above, or the article talk page), and cited the sources inside and outside of Knowledge (XXG).
1363:
I greatly sympathize with this view, but by this reasoning we'd have to delete all the medal counts of Knowledge (XXG), since the official position of the IOC is: no medal counts! See this
680:
Other editors have pointed out the inherent inaccuracy and subjectivity in making comparisons over 110 years using only the 2004 population. That should be obvious to you too. However, I
695:
medal) as any other team. You cannot add BOH and TCH (or CZE) together because they represent nations with different geographic boundaries. Similar situations exist in many other places.
545:
Verifiability: Easy - just go to the Knowledge (XXG) medal counts for each year, and to the Knowledge (XXG) population data of any mentioned country - all the information is right there.
858:
etc. if you thought it would be a sufficient compromise, but you did not respond to that. You continue to offer rebuttals to every other message here without adjusting your position.
728:
to combine totals from across games, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that my current table is much more informative and objective than a mere summation by NOC.
684:
a proposal that added the following data (only) to those total medal table: number of games competed and first & last years competed. Those numbers are also completely objective.
1516:
was that they didn't want to be thought of as the Soviet Team. It's too diverse a topic for simple calculations to provide meaningful insights, and a more complex analysis would be
513:
at Knowledge (XXG). Nothing I did is really new, I just collected data that's already available in the Knowledge (XXG) medal counts and in the Knowledge (XXG) population statistics.
307:
Per nom. This data is obviously only existant in the efforts to push the POV of the creator. Further, this is original research (no citations) and doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG).
754:
edition. Finally, as Medalstats points out lower down, nobody used Hungary's 1908 population figures. Precisely why this table of his is flawed. If he did use it it would be OR.--
128:. Many omit the number of participations per country (the USSR participated rarely, but usually won the medal count whenever they did). Some demand tallies with an entry for the
1380:
provide medal tables anyway. That's precisely what we do on Knowledge (XXG). They certainly don't try to analyze the results any more than that, and neither should we.
561:. I cited external and internal sources that sum up medals of countries / organizations that had several National Olympic Committees (NOCs) in the past, e. g.,
220:
This appears to be original research, with no sources for the data and no documentation of the methodology used to derive the statistics. Doesn't belong here.
1563:. The IOC supports none of them, as explicitly stated on the IOC web site. Why is my table OR / POV but not his? One stands or falls with the other, right?
1054:"As long as we continue to bash our opponents outrageous views, I think we can draw in enough supporters to make for a "pro us" resolution of these debates."
1003:"As long as we continue to bash our opponents outrageous views, I think we can draw in enough supporters to make for a "pro us" resolution of these debates."
1473:
If you take out all of these problematic items, you are left with medal counts and "Number of Games" counts, and that can be achieved by adding a column to
412:
data, just like in many other Knowledge (XXG) tables). Therefore I propose to keep this (in my humble opinion) very useful table, reminding everybody that
1532:. My table is objective in the sense that it provides variants: with and without CIS, with and without East Germany, etc. No particular POV can dominate.
1451:
Arbitrarily add another twist to the equations....mention only certain ones. Sounds like more OR to me, as well as making a point by manipulating data.--
861:
My suggestion is that you continue your work, but take it off Knowledge (XXG). It is not encyclopedic. Take a look at what Herman De Wael has done at
669:
POV exists. That is clearly obvious because of your desire to "put medal counts in perspective". That implies that you believe that there is currently
703:
to combine totals from across games, it must be done as objectively as possible, and I think that summation by NOC is the most objective way possible.
558:
506:
150:
1612:
1598:
1585:
1567:
1546:
1536:
1501:
1485:
1464:
1455:
1446:
1428:
The combination of different NOCs as "teams" to be compared is highly problematic. You are comparing apples to oranges. Look at a team sport like
1419:
1384:
1371:
1344:
1309:
1292:
1277:
1256:
1225:
1205:
1183:
1166:
1146:
1126:
1102:
1089:
1079:
1061:
1041:
1014:
992:
982:
965:
934:
917:
906:
890:
873:
807:
794:
771:
758:
732:
707:
648:
615:
569:
534:
517:
492:
459:
442:
420:
403:
387:
355:
335:
293:
284:
267:
251:
208:
181:
161:
83:
52:
636:
Can you back up your claim? Please show me the Knowledge (XXG) guideline that says you can sum up data from Knowledge (XXG) tables, such as in the
509:. I cited several sources that sum up medals of countries / organizations that had several National Olympic Committees (NOCs) in the past, e. g.,
988:
counts have been AfD'd and discussed at the Olympics portal and consensus was overwhelmingly in favour of retention of said article if I recall.--
1075:
by removing the per capita data from the table? I could at least temporarily live with that. The other data is not subject to similar criticism.
1429:
801:
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only.
1085:
Wrong! the AfD nomination rests on the premise that the whole concept of the page is POV and OR and not appropriate for an encyclopedia.--
1542:
the contributors to the pages on WP that deal with the Olympic Games. The one-issue account of User Medalstats cannot change that fact.--
382:
1118:
combined with POV-pushing from a single-issue or role account. When it's been published in a reliable source I'll take another look.
133:
1364:
625:
550:
105:
17:
1324:
improved, but I still have several major issues with this table, all of which would influence me to recommend deletion of the page:
1560:
58:
596:
109:
607:, to be free of "introducing a new analysis or synthesis" of these counts, can do no more than simply sum up the totals by each
746:
the difficulty of bobsledding in Sydney in the middle of summer or sailing in Turin in February. In fact there have been two
1590:
Let it conclude? And here I thought we were competing for largest AfD page ever... 45 kilobytes just ain't gonna do it. --
263:
original research. Plus I very much doubt they have calculated the population by medal using the population from each year.
1376:
The official position of the IOC is that medal counts are not used to compare nations in terms of "who beat who", but they
842:
relationship between medal counts and population, but I would hope most rational people could plainly see that it is not a
141:
776:
Is English not your native language perhaps? I pointed out the exact opposite of what you state, namely that the IOC does
1264:
First of all, I am sorry that I did not mention your contribution, Jonel. But if counting and adding medals qualifies as
975:
687:
Perhaps that would help you feel that there is some "perspective" in those tables. What do you think? Would that help?
644:
which mixes Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics - I've never seen something like that table outside of Knowledge (XXG).
477:
413:
1629:
1555:
not been able to say what kind of POV there is. Instead he is still trying to claim that adding up the numbers for his
36:
1234:- What you mean is that I deleted all of the OR elements of the table, and you restored all but the per capita data.
1556:
1494:
1474:
1411:
1302:
1269:
1176:
1154:
1139:
971:
883:
855:
720:
641:
637:
604:
280:
all years when the nation participated." Should such methodology data go in the article page or in the talk page?
244:
174:
73:
1608:
by Portuguese-speaking countries or Commonwealth countries or EU countries aren't really trying to be meaningful.
631:
608:
318:
1628:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
204:
3. Sock accusation: still unfounded - you should have received an admin notice telling you I can't be a sock!
487:
377:
72:(and suspected socks Them Medals and Wintermetal) have tried pushing the same sort of POV on the articles
1238:
defines original research as "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or
1221:
taken from Knowledge (XXG). I hope that everybody will now be happy with this reduction and improvement.
786:
600:
290:
264:
124:
and others by gold. Some simply delete nations such as the USSR that do not exist any more; e. g., see
1497:, I believe that the answers above show that the present table has its merits and deserves to be kept.
1162:
for crying out loud! You won 2 medals in 1912 and 3 medals in 1984....boom, you have 5 medals total!--
780:
endorse rankings based on medal counts but they do provide them for informational purposes. In fact, '
137:
399:
No original research - see above. Thank you very much, however, for your other helpful suggestion.
526:
I didn't believe that this could be unverifiable, POV, or OR, but it manages to be all of these.
482:
472:
435:
434:
of the Games at a time since these vary widely between 1896 and the present. I respectfully echo
372:
140:. The medals of the various fragments of Germany are often but not always added together, e. g.,
1029:
953:
591:, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor,
289:
Unless the population for each year the medal was won in is used, it is intrinsically flawed.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1138:
No OR - see repetitive arguments above! And again, by your reasoning we'd have to delete the
674:
1529:
562:
510:
226:
193:
146:
1517:
1235:
1115:
584:
154:
1609:
1595:
1564:
1533:
1498:
1461:
1443:
1416:
1368:
1341:
1306:
1274:
1253:
1222:
1180:
1143:
1099:
1076:
1058:
1011:
979:
931:
903:
887:
804:
768:
729:
645:
566:
514:
456:
417:
400:
352:
281:
248:
205:
178:
158:
69:
1305:
as well, since there are no other reputable sources using its methodology and analysis.
1142:
as well, since there are no other reputable sources using its methodology and analysis.
1582:
1543:
1452:
1289:
1163:
1086:
989:
978:, it's the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of friends of Jared.
914:
791:
755:
439:
80:
1151:
Repetitive arguments from your side only I might add. Are you even from this planet?
1119:
803:
Well, that's what my table is all about: the data is displayed for information only.
1513:
1482:
1381:
1202:
1036:
1021:
960:
945:
870:
862:
704:
612:
330:
325:
313:
308:
125:
542:
Thanks for the comment. But I am afraid I have to disagree on all three counts:
531:
223:
190:
49:
108:), the mass media and Knowledge (XXG) publish them anyway - compare the recent
1591:
1249:
1329:
makes an implied relationship which is then left undefined. It doesn't fit.
737:
Saying Liechtenstein accumulated 9 medals in the history of the Olympics is
974:
will come under scrutiny in case this discussion lasts much longer? Since
99:
1. This is definitely not a POV (point of view) table - instead the table
970:
Could it be that Jared fears that the above-mentioned problems with his
630:"cumulative tables can do no more than simply sum up the totals by each
76:
and related articles. This table first appeared on the user's talkpage.
611:. Anything more is original research, as defined by Knowledge (XXG).
1410:
Again you have a point. But by that reasoning we'd have to delete the
634:. Anything more is original research, as defined by Knowledge (XXG)."
595:". That is the case here. Medal tables from individual games (e.g.
750:
games that have in fact hosted sports that are now included in the
593:
without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable source
149:
at Knowledge (XXG). Many mention the medals per capita, e. g., the
834:
variables. They don't! A medal count can only be just that -- a
677:
has been achieved by only presenting a simple summation of counts.
587:
is quite clear that Knowledge (XXG) articles cannot "introduce an
1622:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1241:
any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data
1244:, statements, concepts, or arguments." This table is full of
121:
117:
113:
347:
I respectfully disagree. In fact the article should help to
1493:
While I agree that it is necessary to add such columns to
1248:
and therefore fits the definition of original research. --
850:
relationship and therefore, that ratio does not make sense.
129:
715:
Thanks for your useful remarks! The text on my user page (
112:. Different sources follow wildly varying habits though.
1179:
and my own table, doesn't it? How do you react to this?
1559:
is somehow different from adding up the numbers for my
120:
and others rank nations by the total number of medals,
1477:
instead of creating this new page. I still recommend
1153:
No other reputable sources use the methodology of the
104:
rejects medal tallies and rankings of nations (e. g.,
673:
in the medal table. That's good! That means that a
1460:Ok, let's leave it as is; maybe insert a footnote.
371:I respectfully request that the author get a life.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
92:I refute Kalsermar's deletion proposal as follows:
1632:). No further edits should be made to this page.
177:, which adds summer counts and winter counts.
1561:Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners
665:your POV is -- it is sufficient to know that
59:Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners
8:
1196:the approach you used for your table. You
589:analysis or synthesis of established facts
1010:classic approach to spin-doctoring.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
741:neautral you say? The IOC does not
1057:present their views on this site.
976:Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy
867:does not belong in Knowledge (XXG)
414:Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy
134:List of countries by GDP (nominal)
132:, just like in GDP tables, e. g.:
24:
1201:relationship. That's not true.
717:"put medal counts in perspective"
661:I don't have to identify exactly
597:2004 Summer Olympics medal count
110:2006 Winter Olympics medal count
1266:new synthesis of published data
1246:new synthesis of published data
829:Medalstats, how can your table
799:This web site explicitly says:
603:). Cumulative tables, such as
559:Australian Bureau of Statistics
507:Australian Bureau of Statistics
151:Australian Bureau of Statistics
1268:then other tables such as the
429:the author has an obvious POV
1:
1072:Summary of the debate so far:
599:) have clear references (e.g
44:The result of the debate was
1649:
1557:Total Olympics medal count
1495:Total Olympics medal count
1475:Total Olympics medal count
1412:Total Olympics medal count
1303:Total Olympics medal count
1270:Total Olympics medal count
1177:Total Olympics medal count
1155:Total Olympics medal count
1140:Total Olympics medal count
972:Total Olympics medal count
884:Total Olympics medal count
856:Total Olympics medal count
721:Total Olympics medal count
642:Total Olympics medal count
638:Total Olympics medal count
605:Total Olympics medal count
493:17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
460:16:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
443:15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
438:'s advise to the author.--
421:14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
404:14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
388:10:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
369:People per gold per games?
356:14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
336:20:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
285:14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
268:18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
252:14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
245:Total Olympics medal count
209:14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
182:14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
175:Total Olympics medal count
162:14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
84:16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
74:Total Olympics medal count
1613:21:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1599:20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1586:17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1568:15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1547:14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1537:11:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1502:09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1486:17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1465:15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1456:14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1447:09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1420:09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1385:19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1372:09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1345:09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1310:09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1293:17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1278:09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1257:13:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1226:13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1206:19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1184:15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1167:14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1147:09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1127:12:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1103:09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1090:17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1080:09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1062:09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1042:23:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
1015:09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
993:15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
983:14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
966:19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
935:14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
918:15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
907:13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
891:09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
874:17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
808:08:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
795:17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
772:09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
759:16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
733:14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
708:18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
649:13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
616:10:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
570:13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
535:00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
518:13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
294:16:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
53:22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1625:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1530:foreign Knowledge (XXG)
367:as original research.
675:neutral point of view
64:POV pushing article
1320:I agree that it is
1301:have to delete the
1192:up medal number is
68:original research.
230:2006-03-30 17:28 Z
197:2006-03-31 18:27 Z
106:Sports Illustrated
1518:original research
1116:original research
1033:
957:
322:
231:
198:
1640:
1627:
1572:Wrong again....
1123:
1039:
1034:
1031:
1027:
1024:
963:
958:
955:
951:
948:
632:IOC country code
609:IOC country code
528:Userfy or delete
485:
480:
475:
385:
380:
375:
328:
323:
320:
316:
311:
291:Average Earthman
265:Average Earthman
229:
196:
138:Washington Times
34:
1648:
1647:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1630:deletion review
1623:
1481:of this page.
1158:you say???? It
1121:
1037:
1030:
1025:
1022:
961:
954:
949:
946:
483:
478:
473:
383:
378:
373:
333:
326:
319:
314:
309:
136:; compare the
70:User:Medalstats
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1646:
1644:
1635:
1634:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1549:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1458:
1434:
1433:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1402:
1401:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1331:
1330:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1169:
1130:
1129:
1114:appears to be
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1046:
1045:
1044:
995:
940:
939:
938:
937:
921:
920:
900:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
876:
859:
851:
821:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
797:
761:
710:
696:
692:cannot support
688:
685:
678:
671:no perspective
654:
653:
652:
651:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
554:
546:
523:
522:
521:
520:
496:
495:
465:
464:
463:
462:
446:
445:
409:
408:
407:
406:
391:
390:
361:
360:
359:
358:
339:
338:
331:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
271:
270:
257:
256:
255:
254:
234:
233:
214:
213:
212:
211:
202:
201:
200:
167:
166:
165:
164:
94:
93:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1645:
1633:
1631:
1626:
1620:
1619:
1614:
1611:
1606:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1584:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1553:
1550:
1548:
1545:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1535:
1531:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1503:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1466:
1463:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1426:
1421:
1418:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1386:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1352:
1351:
1346:
1343:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1323:
1319:
1311:
1308:
1304:
1299:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1291:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1224:
1219:
1207:
1204:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1173:
1170:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1104:
1101:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1073:
1063:
1060:
1055:
1050:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1035:
1028:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1004:
999:
996:
994:
991:
986:
985:
984:
981:
977:
973:
969:
968:
967:
964:
959:
952:
942:
941:
936:
933:
928:
925:
924:
923:
922:
919:
916:
911:
910:
909:
908:
905:
892:
889:
885:
880:
877:
875:
872:
868:
864:
860:
857:
852:
849:
845:
841:
837:
832:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
809:
806:
802:
798:
796:
793:
788:
783:
779:
775:
774:
773:
770:
765:
762:
760:
757:
753:
749:
744:
740:
736:
735:
734:
731:
727:
722:
718:
714:
711:
709:
706:
702:
697:
693:
689:
686:
683:
682:would support
679:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
650:
647:
643:
639:
635:
633:
627:
622:
619:
618:
617:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
583:as per nom.
582:
579:
578:
571:
568:
564:
560:
555:
552:
547:
544:
543:
541:
538:
537:
536:
533:
529:
525:
524:
519:
516:
512:
508:
503:
500:
499:
498:
497:
494:
491:
490:
486:
481:
476:
470:
467:
466:
461:
458:
453:
450:
449:
448:
447:
444:
441:
437:
436:Grandmasterka
432:
428:
425:
424:
423:
422:
419:
415:
405:
402:
398:
395:
394:
393:
392:
389:
386:
381:
376:
370:
366:
363:
362:
357:
354:
350:
346:
343:
342:
341:
340:
337:
334:
329:
324:
317:
312:
306:
303:
302:
295:
292:
288:
287:
286:
283:
278:
275:
274:
273:
272:
269:
266:
262:
259:
258:
253:
250:
246:
241:
238:
237:
236:
235:
232:
228:
225:
219:
216:
215:
210:
207:
203:
199:
195:
192:
185:
184:
183:
180:
176:
171:
170:
169:
168:
163:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
97:
96:
95:
91:
88:
87:
86:
85:
82:
79:
75:
71:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1624:
1621:
1577:
1573:
1551:
1524:
1514:Unified Team
1509:
1508:
1490:
1478:
1439:
1407:
1396:
1377:
1360:
1336:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1297:
1284:
1265:
1261:
1245:
1240:
1239:
1231:
1218:Improvement:
1217:
1216:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1171:
1160:adds them up
1159:
1152:
1135:
1111:
1094:
1071:
1070:
1053:
1048:
1007:
1002:
997:
926:
899:
878:
866:
863:this website
847:
843:
839:
835:
830:
820:
800:
785:hand.... go
781:
777:
763:
751:
747:
742:
738:
725:
716:
712:
700:
691:
681:
670:
666:
662:
629:
620:
592:
588:
580:
539:
527:
501:
488:
468:
451:
430:
426:
410:
396:
368:
364:
348:
344:
304:
276:
260:
239:
221:
217:
188:
100:
89:
77:
65:
63:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1510:Weak Delete
690:However, I
601:IOC website
1610:Peter Grey
1565:Medalstats
1534:Medalstats
1499:Medalstats
1462:Medalstats
1444:Medalstats
1430:water polo
1417:Medalstats
1369:Medalstats
1342:Medalstats
1307:Medalstats
1275:Medalstats
1223:Medalstats
1188:Actually,
1181:Medalstats
1144:Medalstats
1100:Medalstats
1077:Medalstats
1059:Medalstats
1012:Medalstats
980:Medalstats
932:Medalstats
904:Medalstats
888:Medalstats
805:Medalstats
769:Medalstats
730:Medalstats
646:Medalstats
567:Medalstats
515:Medalstats
457:Medalstats
418:Medalstats
401:Medalstats
353:Medalstats
282:Medalstats
249:Medalstats
206:Medalstats
179:Medalstats
159:Medalstats
1583:Kalsermar
1544:Kalsermar
1453:Kalsermar
1290:Kalsermar
1164:Kalsermar
1124:you know?
1120:Just zis
1087:Kalsermar
990:Kalsermar
915:Kalsermar
792:Kalsermar
756:Kalsermar
440:Kalsermar
155:Sport1.at
101:overcomes
81:Kalsermar
1552:Response
1525:Response
1491:Response
1440:Response
1408:Response
1361:Response
1337:Response
1322:slightly
1298:Response
1262:Response
1172:Response
1136:Response
1095:Response
1049:Response
998:Response
927:Response
879:Response
831:possibly
764:Response
713:Response
621:Response
540:Response
502:Response
452:Response
397:Response
349:overcome
345:Response
277:Response
240:Response
90:Response
1483:Andrwsc
1382:Andrwsc
1318:Comment
1285:Comment
1232:Comment
1203:Andrwsc
882:NOC to
871:Andrwsc
705:Andrwsc
626:article
613:Andrwsc
551:article
474:Nightst
427:Comment
305:Delete.
224:Michael
191:Michael
1576:don't
1479:delete
1236:WP:NOR
1198:divide
1190:adding
1112:Delete
848:linear
844:direct
790:you.--
752:winter
748:summer
743:reject
585:WP:NOR
581:Delete
532:Stifle
469:Userfy
379:master
365:Delete
261:Delete
218:Delete
78:Delete
50:Stifle
46:Delete
1596:Speak
1592:Jonel
1254:Speak
1250:Jonel
836:count
484:llion
374:Grand
16:<
1578:have
1397:much
1365:link
846:and
840:some
787:here
667:some
663:what
563:here
511:here
153:and
147:here
142:here
126:here
116:and
1194:NOT
1122:Guy
1038:red
1008:the
962:red
869:.
782:all
778:not
739:not
726:are
701:are
489:(?)
431:and
332:ubx
327:red
122:BBC
118:NBC
114:CNN
66:and
1594:|
1520:.
1378:do
1367:.
1252:|
553:).
530:.
416:.
384:ka
227:Z.
194:Z.
130:EU
48:.
1574:I
1032:@
1026:J
1023:→
956:@
950:J
947:→
479:a
321:@
315:J
310:→
222:—
189:—
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.