Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2000 Summer Olympics medal count

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:33, 29 July 2008 [1].

2000 Summer Olympics medal count edit

This is modeled after the myriad other medal count FLs. It's complete and sourced to the officials, with bits about Marion Jones's medals being stripped. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medal productivity

Would a "Medals per capita" and/or "Gold medals per capita" column be a good addition? Daniel (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would said statistic be based on number of people per team, or number of people in the country? I'm not sure it's wholly necessary, but it could be interesting. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest the 2000 population of the country. Shows how many medals they got relative to the size of the country. Daniel (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medals per citizen. There is a table of exactly that at [Economics Expert]. Seems like a good idea to me. Lightmouse (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should it be done in a separate section, or mess with the table and add it in to the "medal count" section? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the per-capita information needs a separate table. So a separate section is better. Lightmouse (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Although I would change 'Population/Medals' to 'Population/medal'. Lightmouse (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IOC designation of 'nation', 'country' or 'Region.

I notice that the article uses 'Nation' in one table and 'Country' in another. I know that these are not a direct match to what we would think of as countries or nations. Many people are not aware of this indirect mapping but it is important. For example, the UK and Eire are countries or nations but their Olympic selection rules overlap). What is the official term? Lightmouse (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, a nation is a group of people who have a common culture (but not necessarily a country - which is a "self-governing political entity" according to about.com.) It should say "country", but there is at least one nation/sort-of-country (Taiwan) that competes; that seems to be the reason the template says "nation". Should I change it to "country"? Keilana|Parlez ici 14:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comments below, the table with "Country" should be removed ASAP—the reference for that data is a mirror of a Wikipedia article since deleted through AfD. Look at the very small text at the bottom of that page for the link. Anyway, the intro to the medal table explicitely defines a "nation" as "an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee". This is perfectly sufficient. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it pending my finding some reliable population data and a calculator, then I'll do the division myself if you all feel it's necessary info to have for FL. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the consensus from WP:WikiProject Olympics in the past is that we do not feel it is necessary—on the contrary, we find it to be original research, POV, and/or misleading at the least. I recommend you solicit feedback from that WikiProject if you feel strongly that the data be computed and included. Also, it would probably be best to withdraw the nomination for FL, as a change this substantive is certainly opposite to the stability requirements of WP:Featured list criteria. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's what I'll go with. I only added the data in response to concerns brought up here—I have no strong feelings either way. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  • Comment I don't understand the second sentence in the Reallocation of medals section. Can you rephrase and/or elaborate? Who will get the other medals?--Crzycheetah 06:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Effectively, the second-place winner in one of Jones's events also got banned, so the Olympic Committee hasn't decided if they are going to give her the gold, or strip her of her silver and give the gold to the bronze medalist and so on. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's just the discussion about one gold medal, how about the other two gold medals? Who gets those? Who gets the bronze medals that were stripped off of Marion?--Crzycheetah 23:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I know, they haven't done anything with any of her medals; according to my sources they "have them [all] in [their] possession." Keilana|Parlez ici 17:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sayng that the reallocation is on hold because of that other athlete is incorrect. I think you should mention that it is on hold because "IOC officials need more details from the ongoing investigation into steroids in the US to determine whether any other Olympic athletes were linked to the scandal."--Crzycheetah 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Image captions are fragments and so don't need a full stop.
      • Fixed.
    • Not keen on such a short lead with another section (the reallocation section) - why not merge into a more fulsome lead?
      • Well, I think they're separate topics, but considering that Jones's medal was the only one reallocated (as far as I know), then the sections can be merged. Done.
    • "with 4 individual " four.
      • Fixed.
    • "least 1 medal" one.
      • Fixed.
    • There are a few more of those.
      • I think I got all of them.
    • "(in this context a country is an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee)" why in parentheses? Why not just have a sentence of its own?
      • Changed to "The ranking sorts by the number of gold medals earned by a country—in this context, an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee."
    • The Guardian is a work, not a publisher. Check the others.

Support I'll support since I don't see nothing wrong with this article. Good job! Annoyomous24 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • MOSLINK and CONTEXT both say to avoid the linking of common geographical names, especially of anglophone countries.
  • "2 year ban"—see MOS on spelling out numbers and hyphenating.
    • Changed to "two-year ban".
  • Cr. 2—the lead is threadbare; can't you fill it out to make it more interesting for the readers?
    • There's not much more to say; is there anything that I'm missing? Thanks for your helpful comments. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TONY (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose as long as the "per capita" information is present in the article. We have already deleted such material by consensus, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita. Also, www.economicexpert.com is hardly a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/All#www.economicexpert.com. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that an article is deleted containing content X does not mean Xcannot be added to another article; it is the rationale for merge and redirects. That being said, I think it should simply be incorporated as one row onto the main table, rather than a whole separate table. For reliable sourcing, simply use the data at <http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=1> and do the division yourself. Daniel (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you not read the AfD discussion? The consensus was that the content (including "doing the division yourself") was original research. Why is such a fundamental change to this article, which was previously stable, being made now? I thought that once an article reached FLC, only minor prose edits and MOS changes were left to complete, not major additions. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and that consensus doesn't translate here as binding precedent. Any changes can be made at any time. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think the other Olympics FLs have this information, and I don't think it's particularly necessary. Daniel, the problem with adding it on is that the first table is a template, and as it's used in all the Olympics articles I'm not too keen on messing with it. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe that dividing one number by another counts as original research (we're allowed to make elementary manipulation of data in a consistent manner). However, any conclusions drawn from this data does count as original research. And simply including the data may be POV Bluap (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the idea is not original or controversial. It is often mentioned (sometimes in passing) in Wikipedia and elsewhere. The claim that the IOC does not support 'medals per country' is interesting.

  • Wikipedia: East Germany at the Olympics "doping allowed East Germany, with its small population, to become a world leader in the following two decades, winning a large number of Olympic and world gold medals and records"
  • Wikipedia New Zealand Olympic medallists First two sentences of article: "New Zealand Olympic medallists have built up a fine sporting reputation for their small country which has only a fifth of the population of greater New York city. The international media has often reported that New Zealand punches well above its weight in Olympic Games competition."
  • Wikipedia User:Medalstats "the International Olympic Committee IOC rejects medal tallies and rankings of nations (e. g., Sports Illustrated), the mass media publish them anyway. ... Many mention the medals per capita"
  • Sportsletter (1996) "California, with about 12% of the nation's population, produced 28.5% of the U.S.A.'s medalists ... India, with a population of 937 million, produced only one 1996 medalist"
  • Bernard and Buse 2000 Why does China win 6% of the medals even though it has 1/5 of the world's population?"
  • Economist "While rich countries typically win most medals, the top ten looks different if population size is taken into account, as calculated by our sister publication Intelligent Life.
  • Sydney Morning Herald "when population is taken into account, this country, Australia, population 20 million, de-couples itself from all the other top nations when assessed by medals per million population."
  • Quote of The Times of London "The Times table, which was compiled using the United Nations official population figures, shows that Eastern European and Scandinavian countries, along with Australia, punch well above their weight in Olympic competition
  • Austrialian Bureau of Statistics "The ABS said the traditional measure of medals as a 'raw score' did not take into account the population of the competing country, a possible factor in the ability of nations to field medal winning athletes. When this was considered, it presented a different picture to the traditional measure."
  • CNN "The International Olympic Committee does not officially recognize national medal totals, nor recommend using one way of assigning medals by country over another. The original Olympic charter forbade a medal count that included a "ranking per country." Also, early official Olympics reports, up until at least 1920, are ambiguous and incomplete. From 1896 to 1906, athletes entered the Olympic Games as individuals, not as members of a national team. Athletes from different countries would also join one another during team sports, regardless of their national origin.

Google is your friend. Lightmouse (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're using the user page of "Medalstats", a single-purpose account from a couple of years ago that pushed POV everywhere, as a reliable source to help make a point? Seriously?
As has been pointed out before, it is highly misleading at the least, synthesis and original research at the worst, to combine these numbers. It presumes a directly linear relationship between medal count and population, which is false on both sides of that fraction:
  • Not all medals are equal. Team sports only offer a single medal per nation, but individual sports like athletics, swimming, etc. are "medal rich".
  • Nations cannot enter numbers of athletes in proportion to their population. Team sports have a limit of one entry, and many individual sports also have limits (one per NOC for boxing, sailing, etc.; two per NOC for swimming, etc.)
Also, why compute medals per capita—why not per GDP? Surely the wealth of a nation is more relevant to a nation's sporting success than its raw population. Well, the reason we don't try to make that calculation is that it is as much OR as any other calculation of this sort. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Why is Australia's medal count in a blue row?
  • The source that verifys the table should be placed in a general reference section in the reference section, and all other references in a specific reference section.

SRX 15:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's medal count is blue because it was the host country. I'm not entirely sure that the table reference should be in a separate section, as it doesn't reference the entire article. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/2000_Summer_Olympics_medal_count&oldid=1089082037"