Talk:2024 Summer Olympics medal table

First ever medals in the lead section

Countries' first ever medal or gold medals are always mentioned in the lede of the article. This can been seen in almost all of the previous editions' medal table pages (majority of which are Featured Lists). A country's first ever medal in a specific sport is not mentioned on the medal table page. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 13:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A lead should not have sources "although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead." Which is why a separate section should be there. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Accomplishments

The Accomplishments is well sourced and cites the information listed in the article. It should not be removed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Just because a bit of information is sourced does not mean that it needs to be featured. As mentioned above, none of the previous editions have an "Accomplishments" section and none of the articles mention a countries first medal at a specific sport. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 13:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

[1] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234 2020, 2016, 2012, 2008 and on an on. A single Start-Class article does not compare to the other Featured lists articles. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 13:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is never complete. Just because featured lists do not have this section does not mean that those featured lists can not be improved by including that section. You haven't actually given any reason against this practice. All you've done is argue that an article being featured must mean it cant be improved, which is just nonsense. SSSB (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@SSSB I am afraid of the Accomplishments section turning into the trivia section per MOS:TRIVIA. The user Sportsfan 1234 added the line, Meanwhile, Canada won its first ever Olympic medal in fencing.. User from other users would feel the need to add trivia of their country. An Indian user may add that "Manu Bhakar is the first Indian female athlete to win two Olympics medals in a single edition or a French user might add, Léon Marchand is the first French swimmer to win three Gold medals or that Kosovo won its first Olympic medal that isn't a gold. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 14:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need to mention a specific athlete. It should be national accomplishments. We should be listing first ever medal (and first ever gold) and a first medal in a specific sport. That's where the line should be drawn. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234 But the nation participation articles are there for that. You can mention that even in that specific sports page but the overall medal table should only contain the general and overall information about the medals won during the games. Mention a country first medal, first gold at a particular event or sport is too niche. If a reader wants further information, they can visit the individual sports pages and country participation pages. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 14:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

AIN

Hi, the official medals table here [[2]] does not list Individual Neutral Athletes (AIN), so is there any reason why they are listed here? MSalmon (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

When an Individual Neutral Athletes wins gold, what anthem do they play? 32.209.69.24 (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

they play an especially composed tune. why did you not google that? 2806:2F0:9FA0:64CA:6886:594F:1300:C1CF (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we list someone who won a medal? Jmj713 (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

MSalmon has already answered your question. Their answer is: "we shouldn't list them here, if they are not listed in the official Olympics medal table" ... or some variant of that concept. "And, if we are going to deviate from the official Olympics medal table, why is that?" 32.209.69.24 (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a list of medals won at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Jmj713 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a helpful comment. And not a non-sequitur. Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

the phrasing used repeatedly is "medal table", the article would have to be moved first. 2806:2F0:9FA0:64CA:6886:594F:1300:C1CF (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

They are listed here so that the total numbers of medals shown at the bottom of the table match the numbers of medals awarded. pasta3049 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

None of the above comments have to do with sorting those athletes into the middle of the medals table. If they appear as the last row, or better yet as a single row spaced apart from the rest of the table, that would satisfy all the relevant concerns. 2806:2F0:9FA0:64CA:6886:594F:1300:C1CF (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Would it? The issue here seems to be AIN's inclusion within the article - because AIN is not a competing team, but rather a group of individuals with nothing officially in common. I would suggest that objection exists regardless of where in the table AIN appears. I also think that the current way we deal with AIN is entirely appropriate. We identify that they don't appear in an official medal table but not giving them a rank, and explain the situation with a footnote. Based on my original comment I would suggest that the only way to appease them would be to list the names of the individuals rather than put AIN. SSSB (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

According to the IOC's rules for the AIN, they should not be listed on any medals table by 3rd parties - Principles of Participation for Individual Neutral Athletes and Support Personnel with a Russian or Belarusian Passport at the Olympic Games Paris 2024 - Public (olympics.com)[3]https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/News/2023/12/principles-of-participation-for-individual-neutral-athletes.pdf 90.121.67.80 (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me just summarise what we have said so far, so that I can get this straight. We want this article to account for all medals. We acknowledge that IOC has ruled that AIN should not appear on medal tables. We have compromised and listed AIN, but not given them a rank, and explaining in a note why not. I think this is a reasonable compromise. Alternatives I can think of are: don't include them at all, and mention the missing medals in the prose (where we explain the tie in swimming etc.) Or we list the names of the individual athletes (as they are competeing as individuals). These both have the same two issues: how do we deal with this in the all-time table, and this contradicts the practoce with independent athletes in years gone by (where we listed thier medals collectively in the table, even though they are not officlal team.) What do you suggest we do? SSSB (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not really relevant what IOC wants as far as medal tables. "AIN" is effectively an IOC NOC code and for annual Games tables and all-times table, we need to account for every participating NOC, and this wold include AIN. Jmj713 (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Should the explanation of why there are two bronze medals in some events use the word "repechage"?

Hey man im josh added the word "repechage" to the explanation that some sports awards two bronze medal for each event, Agmonaco removed the word "repechage" and Hey man im josh restored it. I understand Agmonaco's position since the definition of repechage has nothing to do with the fact that there is no playoff for the bronze medal. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lophotrochozoa: I'm not sure where you're getting "their position" from. Unfortunately, when people remove text without an edit summary, it's difficult to tell what the reason behind the removal is. For what it's worth, in this context, repechage may be relevant, but the wording can definitely be improved upon, which I'm working on at the moment (so give a guy a chance). Hey man im josh (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, as a point of clarity, they definitely removed far more than just the word "repechage", they removed most of the explanation for the two bronze medals being issued for those events. I've now updated the explanation and had originally intended to add a mention of the repechage stuff, for historical reasons since the Olympics source does mention it as well. It currently reads, "Events in boxing, judo, taekwondo, and wrestling make use of tournament style systems which result in a bronze medal being awarded to each of the two competitors who lose their semi final matches, as opposed to fighting in a third place tie breaker." I may later choose to add more, which would include the word "repechage", since the Olympics specifically mention it as a number of times in the sourcing. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That is inaccurate, though. Taekwondo, wrestling, and judo all use repechages involving those who lost in prior rounds (in slightly different formats.) Only boxing automatically awards the bronzes to the two losing semifinalists. Smartyllama (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Smartyllama: Help me out then please and make appropriate changes since I don't seem to be properly conveying everything that I want to and I'm about to hop offline for a bit. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to leave it so I made a quick change now to say "Events in boxing result in a bronze medal being awarded to each of the two competitors who lose their semi final matches, as opposed to fighting in a third place tie breaker, while judo, taekwondo, and wrestling make use of a repechage system which results in two bronze medals being awarded." Please modify as necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I wrote sloppily; I meant that Agmonaco's edit made sense. I still think it doesn't make sense to use a wording that suggests that two bronze medals are awarded because the tournaments use repechage, as it has nothing to do with the definition of repechage. Maybe we could write "judo, taekwondo, and wrestling, which use a repechage system, also award two bronze medals." Lophotrochozoa (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lophotrochozoa: I don't see anything wrong with your proposed wording. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

And yet you reverted the article to again conflate the use of repechage with the fact that two bronze medals are awarded. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Official names of NOCs

Hi, how can we change the names of Turkey (now Türkiye) and Czech Republic (now Czechia) to their official names recognized by the IOC? MSalmon (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't use the official names recognised by the IOC for either of the Koreas (this is the most obvious examples there are others), we use the common name. We should follow the same practice for Turkey and Czech Republic. SSSB (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of the medal map

Hello SSSB, I don't understand your removal of the map. The athletes from Russia and Belarus are still not banned, they can participate if the IOC allows them and their flags or country names still cannot be used. Look to all previous games:(2016,2018,2020,2022) Anyway, this map do not represent the NOCs, but what nation the participating athletes are from. Therefore I see no reason to remove this map, there is nothing factually wrong with it.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

In most cases NOC and country are very similar. But indeed since the 2019 (and later) bans this has become a bit more confusing.

The current ban started in 2022 after the winter games for Belarus and in 2023 for Russia. None of the maps before that moment are relevant. It should also be kept in mind that (1) Wikipedia articles are not good references in any discussion which is made even more problematic here by the fact that (2) none of these maps are backed by reliable sources.

Russia, but not the Russian NOC was banned in 2020 and 2022 for governmental involvement in doping. So per your argument above Russia must be removed from the 2020 and 2022 maps (the Russian athletes represented the NOC not the country in 2020/22). It could be argued that for the 2020/2022 maps Russia could be given another colour.

The legend (as is now) does not talk about home countries of athletes but about medals won by nations. Given that the independent athletes are banned from using their national flags or anthems it seems obvious the nations are banned from the games; and hence should not be referred to. Arnoutf (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

For starters, the caption read "nations that won medals", not "nations where medal winning athletes are from", so it did represent NOCs. Secondly, where the participating athletes are from is also inappropriate. Because medal tables are not determined by where an athlete comes from, but the NOC they compete for. Otherwise Kenya would no doubt claim Bahraini medalist Winfred Yavi (you can be from two countries). I've actually seen threads of Americans claiming Armand Duplantis - I'm sure I can find an example which would affect how the map is coloured if I had the time. In fact, when Cindy Ngamba wins her guaranteed medal for the Refugee Team, will you colour Cameroon?

This brings us onto why Russia can be coloured in 2018-2022 but not 2024. In 2018-2022 they were allowed (under various names) to compete as representatives of Russia, or representatives of the Russian Olympic Committee even if they werent diectly allowed to as Russians - therefore colouring Russia makes sense. This time is different. They are being forced to compete as complete neutrals. They have no nationality, they have no supporting Olympic Committee

Therefore, when you colour Russian and Belarus, you doing WP:OR. You find a source which gives Ivan Litvinovich as Belarussian. You find a second source which says he won a gold medal. You reach a conclusion stated by neither source: Belarus have won a medal, this leads you to colour Belarus gold.

(Ps. Russia shouldn't gold in any case, as no athlete Russian athlete has won gold, only silver.) SSSB (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll give you an example. If we look for example at this map, it also shows what citizenship individual people have, it doesn't have to be just who flew with NASA or another organization. It's the same with this map. Good point with Cindy Ngamba, because Kameron should be colored, just as is colored astronauts, for example Afghanistan or Korea. These details can always be adjusted later. On the contrary, I disagree with Ivan Litvinovich, you can find many sources with both being from Belarus and winning gold medal.1. Ok, I changed the caption of the picture, to make it clear that it is their home nation.Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You are right about the silver, I did change it. It also makes no sense to dye it to a different color, as the medals have three given colors.Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Two comments (1) Why is US federal agency NASA relevant as comparison to an international sports event (2) and more importantly - were any of these countries officially banned from participating in NASA programmes when their astronauts went into space? Note that it is the banning during the games that is the main problem of the map.

I strongly object to listing Cindy Ngamba for Cameroon (and I guess SSSB only mentioned it as an in absurdis argument). Making that link would put the use of the map beyond merely incorrect to outright cynical. She fled her country and applied for asylum in the UK because merely being herself is punishable with long term imprisonment in Cameroon. There is a (human rights) reason why the IOC considers the refugee team independent athletes (of course if you have neutral reliable sources that list Ngamba as Cameroon representative in any way this can be considered otherwise it is clearly orginal research). Arnoutf (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant because the map shows people and their nationalities, not different organizations. Hm, maybe you're right about not tagging the refugee team people.Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Your NASA example is only applicable if the medal map shows nationalities. This is an issue for multiple reasons. Firstly, it would go completely against the practice of previous games, which are based on NOC (making your examples of 2016, 2018, 2020 and 2022 completely irrelevant). And it would also end up directly contradicting the medal table, which is based on NOC. This is why Belarus would be WP:OR, because whilst your source identifies a Belarussian as winning a medal, it stops short of crediting Belarus with the medal. But if we ise nationality that won't be a problem. However, I don't think we should use nationality, we should use NOC. There is no justification in having a map which contradicts the medal table.

(edit conflict)And as I write this reply, I find out that you don't want to colour Cameroon - you can't apply one standard for the refugee team, but another for the AIN athletes. Then you end up creating a map based on your political opinions (you believe neutral athletes from Russia and Belarus win medals for Russia and Belarus, but not the same for Cameroon athletes) and that is completely unacceptable. SSSB (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Arnoutf and SSSB, ok I see that you do not agree with the map displayed in this way, so what do you suggest, how to display the map in the article? Although I don't really agree with it because I don't see much change since the last Olympics, but it would help to discolor any medals from Russia, Belarus and Cameroon, yes? We can do it this way for now, and come to some kind of accepted state for the time being.Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

To be frank, I do not think the map adds much relevant information. Most of it is already in the tables where smaller countries are much more easily identified (e.g. try locating Luxembourg and Belgium on the global map). But I also have no special objection to including a map.

You solution seems fair. I would just discolour these medals as you suggest and just use the flags in the medal tables as indicative which countries are to be coloured.

The difference (for Russia) compared to the 2018-20-22 games is open to interpretation as Russia was not allowed to compete under its country name in those games too. There are some substantial differences though. Firstly no team sports are admitted all athletes compete in individual event, each individual athlete had to apply directly to the IOC rather than some sort of national body, and the Belarus and Russian athletes are now both in the same team (if you can call a collection of individual athletes a team). Arnoutf (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I had a similar discussion regarding my opinion that the note about the AIN should include the country of said medalists over on Talk:Chronological summary of the 2024 Summer Olympics, and your source (amongst others) clearly proves that including such information on a footnote does not constitute OR. 2804:868:D042:26AC:7989:F4C7:C236:46DB (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A different map was previously added to this article and removed on the grounds that tthe editor in question thought we should wait untoil the end of the games. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is Greenland red?

Greenland doesn't have its own NOC. It participates in Olympics as part of Denmark, so it should be the same color as Denmark, just like previous Olympics. Unless I'm missing something?Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2024

olmypic = olympic 2603:8000:D300:3650:C896:8524:E457:4714 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Next time can you please be more specific about where the typo is. SSSB (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2024 (2)

olmypic = olympic 2603:8000:D300:3650:C896:8524:E457:4714 (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Resolved in thread directly above this one (#Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2024) SSSB (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2024 (3)

The article says, "Cape Verde,[9] Dominica,[10] the Refugee Olympic Team, and Saint Lucia won their nations' first Olympic medals." However the Refugee Olympic Team does not represent a nation. I suggest mentioning the refugee team's accomplishment in a separate sentence. 2600:1700:B1E0:1620:1C4F:39A3:43E:46B7 (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done CloakedFerret (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Czechia

The IOC now uses Czechia. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

They also use "Republic of Korea" and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", but we use common names (South Korea and North Korea respectively) SSSB (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The sports announcers have also used Czechia. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Then I suggest we need a broader discussion on the commonname of Czech Republic/Czechia. Possibly more WP:CENTRAL, like at WT:OLYMPICS. Only because it would be strange to "Czechia" here and "Czech Republic" everywhere else. SSSB (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Recommend it for WP:OLYMPICS, as IIHF pages already use Czechia for their tournaments, beginning with 2022. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancy in which country is listed first in “Most gold medals” in the event of a tie

On this article, China is listed before the U.S., despite the U.S. having just as many gold medals and more silver medals and bronze medals than China, but previous articles have shown the country with the most total medals listed first among countries tied in their number of gold medals, as shown by this article where Norway was listed before Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Winter_Olympics_medal_table 2600:100A:B1C6:5C9A:3C33:1C62:992:B55C (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It's very easy. "Most medals" or any rankings, when tied, are based first on the number of gold medals, then silver medals, the bronze medals. So the US is first and China is second. Jmj713 (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This article even has a note saying that the tie between the U.S. and China was broken by the U.S. having more silver medals. So, could someone edit the article so that the U.S. is listed first in the infobox instead of China? 2600:100A:B1C6:5C9A:3C33:1C62:992:B55C (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I see that someone else already tried to fix this, but their edit was reverted by another editor who claimed (while providing absolutely no evidence for their claim) that it’s standard practice to list the tied countries in alphabetical order, apparently even when the tie is broken by the total medal count, which is clearly untrue, as I demonstrated with that other article I linked to where Norway is listed before Germany. Norway was listed before Germany in that infobox because Norway had more total medals, and the U.S. should be listed before China in this infobox. Can someone please restore that edit? 2600:100A:B1C6:5C9A:3C33:1C62:992:B55C (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Editor “Hey man im josh” is again displaying bias against the USA, editing this article to obscure how tie-breakers are done and pretending that there isn’t already a talk page discussion despite also recently editing the article I linked to and apparently having no problem with Norway being listed before Germany there. Someone without bias needs to handle this and get rid of the discrepancy between these two articles, because it is clear that there are biases against the USA and Germany and in favor of China and Norway, since the two articles are being held to different standards. 2600:100A:B1C6:5C9A:3C33:1C62:992:B55C (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Either the countries are supposed to be listed in alphabetical order even when other medals act as a tie-breaker and the 2018 article is biased against Germany and in favor of Norway, or the countries are only supposed to be listed in alphabetical order when there aren’t other medals acting as a tie-breaker and this article is biased against the USA and in favor of China. Exactly one of these statements has to be true, and someone needs to fix it instead of just letting “Hey man im josh” be the one controlling everything and perpetuating the double-standards between these two articles. 2600:100A:B1C6:5C9A:3C33:1C62:992:B55C (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The way things stand now this article gives the misleading impression that China won more silver than the USA, when that is very far from the truth. 2600:100A:B1C6:5C9A:3C33:1C62:992:B55C (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to cast aspersions then maybe you could at least ping me so that I can respond. This is obviously not the implication and I think that's a conclusion that people do not reasonably draw. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Remember this is 2024 Summer Olympics medal table, so in the description at the top, we should describe which NOC is the top of medal table, then second and third. not only see most gold, silver and bronze medals. So I've revise contests. Thanks.Stevencocoboy (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Compare this article to 2018_Winter_Olympics_medal_table where Norway is rightfully ahead of Germany despite both of them having 14 gold medals. Some editors simply display anti-USA bias and it is regretful. 217.66.157.127 (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is superficial. In terms of gold medal totals alone, there is no tie break. Both countries should be listed as having the most gold medals. No country is better than the other in terms of gold medal totals. And generally the typical way to list countries that tied in gold medals is by alphabetical order. This removes perception of bias to any country if they are both tied for gold medals. A likely unintentional error in other articles doesn't justify making deliberate biased errors in other articles. Evibeforpoli (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That's actually an argument against your point. In the text, which has been reviewed and passed through WP:FLC, Germany was listed before Norway even though Norway topped the medal table. The infobox listing Norway ahead of Germany in the "most gold medals" parameter was an oversight on my part and thankfully someone else came along and fixed it. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: Let's not show American bias here. There's nobody disputing that the United States led in the medal table, that much is obvious from viewing the article. The issue at hand, and the only relevant context when implementing the standard wording of x country led in golds and x country led in total medals, is who did so in what. When two teams are tied, we would write that China and the US tied for golds. To write "The United States and China tied for golds" is not standard practice. It's adding an unexplained tie breaking factor to the statement that those reading it are not aware of, don't recognize, and don't understand without the tie breaker explanation in the medal table section. Instead, it comes off as a bias of needing to present the US first, when in that context, all that matters, and the only qualifier for that portion of the sentence, is the country that won the most gold medals. As such, since that's the only qualifier, you list the two countries that meet that criteria in alphabetical order. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with josh, speaking for gold medals both China & US have tied, and the best/standard practice is to list them alphabetically. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, there is no American bias. For comparison, look at the table where Ukraine and Romania has the same amount of gold medals (3) but Ukraine has one more silver medal. Ukraine is listed before Romania even thought the letter U comes after R. Jonipoon (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonipoon: What's the relevance? There's an obvious tie breaking procedure in the table, and it's defined above the table, but when speaking about strictly gold medals (as we are in the disputed context), there's no reason to even have a tie breaker. You simply list the countries that are tied for the most golds, as that's the only criteria in that context that matters. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

US is listed first in the table by tie breakers; but when it comes to the most gold medals listed on Infobox-there are no tie breakers, so they should be listed alphabetically. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 04:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I've tidy up again about the description. I have no opinion wherever China and United States or United States and China tied for golds because the significance is same. However, U.S lead the medal table is a fact and it's the most important as put in first. Does anyone have any problem? If not, I believe that it's acceptable. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Stevencocoboy: There's obviously objections, that's what this discussion is about. Do not make disputed changes in the middle of a discussion about said changes, that's inappropriate and I've reverted your edits. You very clearly do care and have preference considering your edits. The US is absolutely not more important to mention because the words "won the medal table" are never mentioned. The context is simply who had the most golds, for which China and the US are tied. It's also immediately followed by a mention that the US had the most medals.

I can't understand why people are so desperate, without any logic or sense, to list the US first in a tie. "Yeah we tied in that, but we need to be listed first" – what? Read the words literally. It's not a statement about who won the Olympics or led the medal table. It's only golds! As such, in ties, you list alphabetically. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You didn't actually restore your version, check the edit. 95.164.122.136 (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I've actually restored it now. Editing on mobile is certainly not my favourite thing. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I support the position of @Stevencocoboy . I agree and it is fine to say "China and the United States tied for the most gold medals among NOCs" as the second sentence of the paragraph. But the first sentence should be which country actually topped the medal table? It is the truth that the United States topped the medal table for 4 consecutive Summer Olympics games (2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024).

If you argue otherwise, I suggest you look at the medal table displayed by the Official Website: https://olympics.com/en/paris-2024/medals Pyruvate (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pyruvate: The IOC officially does not support an official medal ranking format, they're very clear about that. It's for that reason that we don't have any medal table articles, that I'm aware of, that state "x country won/led/topped the medal table." It's not encyclopedic phrasing and it's pretty much already addressed by the phrasing there. I did however add a mention that the US has led in golds and total medals for four straight Olympics.

If you argue otherwise, I suggest you look at the medal table displayed by the Official Website – I suggest you look at literally every other medal table on the IOC website. They always have it lead by golds during the games, then revert to alphabetical after some time has passed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Which country to list first in tie for "most gold medals"

Please select which option you believe is best for the lead.

• Option 1: "China and the United States tied for the most gold medals among NOCs, with 40 each..."
• Option 2: "The United States and China tied for the most gold medals among NOCs, with 40 each..."

Please also explain why you're selecting the choice that you are. Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics has also been notified of this discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: This sentence, as well as the "most golds" parameter in the infobox, should both list China first. We are not discussing who "won the medal table", for which we'd obviously list the US first, but that's absolutely not the language used in the lead. and the only relevant context for the sentence, and for who won the most golds, is who did so. In this context, we do not care about anything other than golds, which both China and the US are tied in, so you list them alphabetically because everything other than golds, when explicitly mentioning who won the most, is irrelevant. To list the US first would be adding a sort of secret tie-breaker to the sentence that's not explained until you get to the medal table section, where the tie-breaker information is actually relevant. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Alt Option: How about changing the sentence format to The United States had the most overall medals among NOCs, with 126, tying with China for most golds, with 40 each. or similar? --SuperJew (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Agree with you. Also I don't understand why we can't descript to U.S is leading in medal table with xx golds and xx overall medals and put in first sentence. This is the most important information about the page, but it seems that some other user disagree it. Stevencocoboy (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Stevencocoboy: You're showing the clear American bias again because the most important information is not "the US led the table", that's never discussed in any of these Olympic table articles as far as I'm aware of. We mention who led in golds and who led in medals, but we never made a definite statement about who led the medal table. The reason for this is that the IOC does not endorse any type of medal sorting at this point in time and don't technically ever declare a winner. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: The tie breakers are used for the medal table and the overall medal count only. Speaking of only the most gold medals there's no tie breaker; so they should be listed alphabetically. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, alphabetical order.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2, just for how I think it flows best - the "the" in the middle of option 1 makes reading it kinda lumpy. And specifying my !vote is not because of most medals or more silvers, which IMO shouldn't be factors when only talking about the most golds. But then if the sentence changes focus, maybe they will be factors. Kingsif (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The sentence discusses most gold medals, the fact that the USA had more silvers is completely irrelevant to that statement (the statement is not describing why the USA and China are first and second in the medal table). The common practice (as far as I'm aware) in situations like this is to name them in alphabetical order, so that is what we should do. This is what we do later in the lead when discuss first medal/first gold medals, after all. SSSB (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Neutral alphabetical order is best. I didn't see any compelling argument against this approach, as the statement is about gold medals only, not silvers or bronzes. When both are equal, using alphabetical order is the most consistent and unbiased method.

Evibeforpoli (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Meellk: Please revert your edits, as they go against what the current consensus of this discussion is. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 2: I see no reason why we should go by alphabetical order. What matters is who won the first place, there cannot practically be a tie there. The United States is #1 and the lede should reflect the standing in the leaderboard. The 2024 Summer Olympics page reflects this. Meellk (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The leaderboard explicitly states, above it, that the IOC does not endorse any sorting of the table. It's why, after the Olympics have concluded, they always end up sorting their table alphabetically. I'm not sure why it's important to explicitly state that "the United States is #1" instead of presenting that there was a tie in golds and the US led in medals. Let the reader interpret it how they'd like. Alternatively, we could start sorting these alphabetically since that's what the IOC does. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The IOC states that as a formality, but at the same time it "unoficially" does provide a ranking, since forever, and it follows the principle of golds first, then silvers, then bronzes. Meellk (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

This page is about the overall medal table. And it is wrong to list another country first that came 2nd. It is a clear China bias, designed to mislead the reader. Jimmkk (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Alternative option: Use the wording that I introduced in the 2024 Summer Olympics article:

The United States placed first in the medal table with 40 gold medals and 126 medals in total. Tied in terms of gold medals, China finished second with 40 gold medals and 91 medals overall.

The proposal introduces the medal ranking into the prose order, invalidating alphabetical arguments. – IntGrah (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Using the phrasing "placed first" is very undesirable to me. It implies there's an actual consensus about how one does so, but the IOC has repeatedly explicitly stated they do not endorse or believe in any specific ranking method. I recognize the US "won" by just about any metric, but some might argue that a different country "placed first" based on per capita rates. Placed first can have multiple meanings. That's why I'm focused on the idea of presenting what's stated instead of WP:SYNTH to push a narrative that one country explicitly won. I've been working on these medal articles a lot the last month or two and we don't make these types of definitive statements typically. They usually get weeded out at WP:FLC, which is where I do intend to take this article eventually.

The medal tables typically state who led in golds and who led in most overall medals. They don't state that someone definitively won the games, we leave that open to readers to interpret. To be clear, I'm totally open to alternative wording, but I'd like us to use wording that can be applied to all of our medal tables, 28 of which (out of 54) are currently featured lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh I think the main issue is the wording "X and Y tied", which seems to be the cause of the commotion. How about:

Athletes from the United States won the most medals in total, with 126. They tied with China with 40 gold medals each, the most out of the NOCs. China finished with 91 medals overall.

This borrows some of the wording from the 2020 article. It achieves the goals of my previous proposal whilst removing words like "placed first" and "second". – IntGrah (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@IntGrah: X and Y DID tie for the most golds among NOCs though, there shouldn't be any controversy around that fact. Your proposed wording is essentially just switching the sentence around to put most medals in front of gold medals so that the US can be listed first and then mention China's total, making one sentence into three. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that my proposal is not the most concise. Here is a third proposal, similar to the one by @SuperJew:

The United States won the most medals with 126 in total, whilst they tied with China for the most golds at 40 each.

The purpose of switching the sentence order is to avoid having to list "X and Y" in close proximity, which implies a certain ordering.

I should also point out that I personally do not care about the order of words. I would be happy with both Option 1 and Option 2, should there be a consensus. My proposals are for consideration if there is no consensus between 1 and 2. – IntGrah (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Previous medal table articles sometimes list total medals first, and some list gold medals first. My proposal lists total medals first. I then use the power of prose to connect the total medal clause with the gold medal clause. Is there anything wrong with that?

I reiterate my theory that the argument would be solved if we didn't place "X and Y" in close proximity, which some perceive as bias towards X. You have said that only the alphabet is being considered here, but clearly, some people interpret it as a bias, even though it isn't.

C.f.

• X and Y tied in gold medals, and Y won the most medals overall.
• Y and X tied in gold medals and Y won the most medals overall.
• Y won the most medals overall, and they tied with X for most golds.

The use of a pronoun "they" distances the words X and Y, diffusing the supposed comparison between them, which many editors believe is implied yet you deny.

– IntGrah (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is that there is a sense to list in the opening sentence the NOCs in the same order they are in the medal table. However much one claims that the IOC isn't willing to call a winner, they still list the medal tables by a decided ranking (gold medals primarily...) and based on this ranking decision there is one NOC which tops the list. --SuperJew (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@SuperJew: What gives you the sense that we need to explicitly declare a winner? We do mention that the US led in both aspects. I don't understand why we need to make this even more US centered when it already states the relevant information. Do you have any thoughts on the fact that after the Olympics they always revert back to alphabetical? Hey man im josh (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Where did I say I'm declaring a winner? I said it makes sense that the opening sentence in an article about a medal table lists the NOCs mentioned in the same order the table lists them. Please don't put words in other people's comments to support your position. --SuperJew (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@SuperJew: The opening sentence should absolutely not be mentioning the totals, the first paragraph should remain as is, as it defines the scope and intent of the list, as lists are meant to. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologise, I thought the discussion was about opening sentence, but we're talking about part of the lede, not the opening sentence itself. Anyways the point was talking about the relevant sentence. You should've understood this as the two options you suggested mention the totals. Putting these semantics aside, the bottom line is that when summarising a table in prose, the most sensible thing to do is list the contents in the same order the table lists them. --SuperJew (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@SuperJew: Not necessarily. We defined the scope, noted notable inclusions or milestones in the table, then we listed those who led in specific categories. We start with the leader of a stat in the table, golds, then we go onto total medals. We're listing them based on the two most important bits in the table already. Are you suggesting we just list China second because of a tiebreaker that's not defined or mentioned / relevant to the lead? We defined the most important stats, the ones that are included in the infobox. Note that that doesn't include someone who led the table or won in any capacity beyond most golds or medals. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're just randomly listing who led in specific categories, why not start with the leader of total medals and then go onto golds? Why not list who led silvers and who led bronzes?

You're once more trying to put words into my mouth to support your agenda (which is clearly not to have USA first as you think that's American-centric). I did not suggest we just list China second because of a tiebreaker that's not defined or mentioned / relevant to the lead - I suggested an alternative wording which would also end up listing the NOCs in way the table lists them. I also don't understand why it seems you think that the order of the table on an article about said table is not an important stat. Furthermore, listing USA first is not American-centric, it's just the place they finished on the medal table in these Olympics. SuperJew (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

On a sidenote, looking back at previous editions (trying to see how this might've been handled in the past), it seems this is the first time two NOCs tie for most amount of gold medals won? If that's true (and I didn't miss anything), that's surely worthy of mention. --SuperJew (talk) SuperJew (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@SuperJew This suggests competition between the two countries. It also assumes that only ties between 1st and 2nd are notable, which tends to Sino-American bias. It's not that rare in the grand scheme of things, it just happened to be this year that 40 = 40. It's happened in the Winter Olympics three times. Prefer including this bit of minor trivia in more specific articles like China at the 2024 Summer Olympics – IntGrah (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, we are meant to write based on external sources, so here's an example of NBC News reporting the first stalemate in Summer Games history.

Secondly, all these assumptions you're writing in seem to be yours. I just mentioned the facts. Fact: This is the first time two NOCs tie for most amount of gold medals won at the Summer Olympics. "Most gold medals" seems a notable enough stat to be included in the infobox on a separate line and in the lede, therefore having it drawn for the first time in history of Summer Olympics is notable for inclusion too. --SuperJew (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@SuperJew I apologise for not tailoring my response to your proposal (it was an automatic retort to a similar edit made on the 2024 Summer Olympics article, which was definitively biased). I can probably accept having the fact added in this article. But it shouldn't be something like "the first time in history that China and the United States tied in terms of gold medals". If you can work it into concise clause, I would be okay with it. – IntGrah (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Examples of how the clause could be injected:

My proposal:

The United States won the most medals, with 126 in total, whilst they tied with China for most golds at 40 each, the first such tie in the Summer Olympics.

Option 1:

China and the United States tied for the most gold medals with 40 each, the first such tie in the Summer Olympics. The United States won the most medals overall, with 126. IntGrah (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Can also be another option in a separate sentence. Such as The United States won the most medals, with 126 in total, whilst they tied with China for most golds at 40 each. This was the first time in the history of the Summer Olympics that two NOCs tied for most gold medals won. --SuperJew (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, I'm not opposed to a rewording, but something about that just doesn't really sit right with me. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@IntGrah How is your option 1 any different from what I wrote, in which you spent a lot of time arguing with me to remove it and then went ahead and removed it despite I never agreed? I’m the one who originally added something like this: China and the United States both tied for the most gold medals, marking the first time a gold medal tie has occurred in Summer Olympics history, while the United States also secured the highest total number of medals of 126. It’s well-structured and provides the necessary details and it doesn’t delve into geopolitics at all, despite your claims. Ironically, your proposed Option 1 is virtually copying what you earlier removed completely. Evibeforpoli (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

My comment was showing how the clause (first ever tie) could be added to some of the current proposals going around. "Option 1" is the one proposed by Hey man im josh, not me; obviously, I prefer my own. It's also a compromise between me not wanting it included, and two people who do want it included. – IntGrah (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC) (edited 09:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC))

After giving it thought, I'm fine with option 1 that @IntGrah gave, but I do prefer this version by @Evibeforpoli. I feel this one has better flow and is less choppy, while still getting all the relevant information across. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2 Just because I find the argument listing them in alphabetical order a bit weak. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 14:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 The IOC does not endorse medal rankings, yet it has posted one for Paris 2024 on its website where NOCs are ranked by gold first, then silver & bronze. Hence, it is safe to say they do have a preferred version. Pizzigs (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Pizzigs: Do you have any thoughts on removing the standard wording at the top of the medal table section? Or that the past iterations of the Olympics always switch to alphabetical sorting after the games have concluded? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Funnily, the 2020 Olympics medal table ranks by medals briefly if you refresh, and then switches to alphabetical order. :) – IntGrah (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hey you're right, that's pretty funny lol. It looks like all of them actually intentionally override the sort. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 2-

This is what the Mandarin medal table page is saying-

最終，美国代表團以40枚金牌、126枚獎牌，坐擁獎牌榜首位；中国代表团以40枚金牌、91枚獎牌排名第二；東道主法国代表團則拿下16枚金牌、64枚獎牌位列第五。

In the end, the U.S. delegation topped the medal list with 40 gold medals and 126 medals; the Chinese delegation ranked second with 40 gold medals and 91 medals; and the host French delegation won 16 gold medals and 64 medals. Ranked fifth.

If the writers in mandarin are clear as to who finished first and who is listed first. I see no reason why English writers can't state the most obvious truth. Jimmkk (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jimmkk: France finished fifth by gold medal count but fourth by overall medal count, GB finished third in overall medals but seventh in gold medals. Being that the IOC explicitly states that it does not endorse any medal count sorting beyond alphabetical, and will eventually switch to alphabetical, as they have with every Olympics on their site, it becomes difficult to designate who finished third, fourth, and fifth. That's why we simply state, across all of these medal table lists, who finished with the most golds and total medals, as opposed to trying to pick out who we think finished in what place. It also has multiple sorting methods in its current state.

Also, what do you mean by most obvious truth? Stating that China and the US tied IS the truth, it's not deceptive in any way whatsoever. It immediately distinguishes the US in the follow up sentence by stating that they led in overall medal count, so I can't see how it would be biased if it lists people alphabetically in the event of a tie. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

IOC only states that artificially, but in reality it promotes the medal table more than anyone. It likes to nationalise every little thing. It relies on the nation vs nation contests, to engage the NOCs and global audience. If it was just about the individual athletes, they wouldn't need to put the national flag next to athletes' names at every instance at every opportunity. It is ultimately all about the table sorted and ranked by overall medals. Thats because of the global interest it generates which directly translates to money. (People associate with their nation so they are eager to see their nation finish higher on the table). Does it even matter what the IOC does like 9 months from now with regards to the medal table?

What matters is what they show and how they sort the table EACH and EVERY DAY of the Olympics while the games are running and at the conclusion. Because that is when the whole world is watching. 99% of the 'table following' happens while the olympics are running and upto few days after the olympics have passed. Almost nobody bothers about the olympics or the olympic table a month later. So how is it relevant what the IOC does to the table many months after the conclusion of the olympics?

Even then, if you check the Tokyo 2020 Olympics medal page, it may be alphabetically sorted at first with Argentina at the top, but if you click on the gold icon, it will sort by gold, and those who are tied on gold, are automatically further sorted by silver and then bronze.

So for example in Tokyo Olympics: Netherlands, France, Germany and Italy all finished on 10 golds each. But IOC states Netherlands first, then France, then Germany and last Italy.

Thats because Netherlands finished on 12 silvers and 14 bronze, France also had 12 silvers but only 11 bronze (meanwhile Germany and Italy had fewer silvers), so Netherlands were placed first just ahead of France due to more bronze, despite being tied on golds and silvers with France and even despite the letter 'F' coming before the letter 'N'. So there goes your false theory about so called alphabetical order when there is a tie. No such thing.

Germany had 11 silvers & 16 bronze, and Italy had 10 silvers & 20 bronze. So in every instance that there is a tie, they sort by silvers first and then bronze to determine who finished ahead and who is listed ahead!

There is no alphabetical arrangement anywhere when there is tie in golds. So USA should rightly be listed first and then China. Because USA finished 1st on the official medal table with China in 2nd. We can't escape facts even if we try to twist them in ways that are convenient to us. Jimmkk (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jimmkk: Could you please provide sources for any of your statement? The multiple sources that say otherwise are already in the article.

I also want to encourage you to speak more neutrally and to point out anything that's not a fact in the article. Your assertions very heavily imply that the article is factually inaccurate in ways, but everything in there is reality sourced. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologise if I have come on too strongly above. I only just saw your message on my talk page after sending the reply above.

Back on topic, I know you will now argue that there is no official table, but the de facto official table is the one that is shown to us every day of the olympics and at the conclusion of the olympics by the IOC on their website. Even today if we go on the 2024 olympics medal page, it states United States next to position 1, and China next to position 2.

I am not from USA or have anything to do with USA. I am from New Zealand a country far removed from America and its influence. Jimmkk (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 flip a coin and be done with. This discussion about a minute issue of a minor detail has taken on insane amounts of effort and space. Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your wonderfully helpful comment and contribution towards consensus building @Arnoutf. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

medals per-capita and other statistics

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-countries-that-have-won-most-olympic-medals-per-head-of-population-20240811-p5k1dw.html

https://english.elpais.com/sports/olympic-games/2024-08-13/olympic-medal-table-by-population-and-wealth-which-countries-fared-the-best-at-the-paris-games.html

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1102056/summer-olympics-average-medals-per-capita-since-1892/

https://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/images/uploads/faculty/andrew-bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf

https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1248&context=parkplace

https://repository.gatech.edu/entities/publication/4212420f-0588-430b-a8e7-d50239423c55

https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/eeb/vol11/iss1/5/

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-27259-8

https://now.tufts.edu/2024/07/17/why-do-some-countries-win-more-olympic-medals

add paragraph or illustration? 98.248.161.240 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I almost feel like per capita medal counts, if there were interest in them, should have their own article to show the values by year. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring over "winner"

Due to repeated edit warring over the infobox and the article text, the article has been fully protected for one week. I also did my best to identify what seemed to be the stable version of those two parts of the article based on the edit history and restored it as per WP:FULL.

Remember, we're all here to build an encyclopedia so please use the talk page to reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution. It looks like there's a discussion above at Talk:2024 Summer Olympics medal table § Discrepancy in which country is listed first in “Most gold medals” in the event of a tie that's a good start on that. If the content dispute is successfully resolved before the protection ends, someone can leave me a talk page message requesting unprotection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a U.S. website which is banned in China. I think we should take this into account. Currently this article looks like befitting Baidu more than Wikipedia. Meellk (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Meellk: Is Baidu what you're referring to? We absolutely DO NOT consider or care about what China does or does not ban when writing articles. Wikipedia does NOT write from a US centric POV. To do so would discount everyone else in the world. This is the English Wikipedia, for people who speak English, not the US Wikipedia. Consider how many other countries share English as their language, such as the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.. We maintain a non-country specific approach when writing. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You do not own this article. You do not speak for Wikipedia. You are just a user with an opinion, which I frankly don't care about. Stop pushing an agenda that, at its heart, clearly tries to present a novel solution as some sort of obvious standard, which it isn't. All the previous articles go by total medals first, then golds. You are trying to use the IOC formally not disclosing a winner as some sort of gotcha, when IOC still lists a medal table ranked by golds first, then silvers etc. I fear your arguments are disingenous and not in good faith. There is no reason for this article to break the established standard. "Alphabetical order" is pure "bollocks," as a non-American English speaker could say :) Meellk (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

All the previous articles go by total medals first, then golds. - no, they don't. And you don't own this article and you do not speak for Wikipedia either. If we considered whether Wikipedia is banned when we write articles we would not be adhering to a neutral point of view. SSSB (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Meellk: Nobody owns any articles on Wikipedia (see WP:OWN), which is why we worked based on consensus building. I also encourage you to read WP:AGF, because you're stating that I'm pushing some type of agenda, which is ludicrous. Your argument for putting the US first is that Wikipedia a "a U.S. website which is banned in China", which is not a valid rationale in discussions because it's part of it's untrue and the other part of it is irrelevant. I have the intention of promoting all of the medal tables to featured list status, that's why I take an interest. Lastly, I'm not sure why you used British slang on a Canadian. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

My argument for putting the US first is because... it is first. According to the IOC's own medal table, that they put out. Meellk (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with you (Meellk).

IOC ranks by golds then silvers and large majority of the world uses the same format. So any conversation that is pushing for a country to be listed first that actually finished 2nd is clearly disingenuous. Jimmkk (talk) 08:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• I have added another week of full protection, so hash this out, and don't just revert back and forth. Lectonar (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is what the Mandarin medal table page is saying-

  最終，美国代表團以40枚金牌、126枚獎牌，坐擁獎牌榜首位；中国代表团以40枚金牌、91枚獎牌排名第二；東道主法国代表團則拿下16枚金牌、64枚獎牌位列第五。

  In the end, the U.S. delegation topped the medal list with 40 gold medals and 126 medals; the Chinese delegation ranked second with 40 gold medals and 91 medals; and the host French delegation won 16 gold medals and 64 medals. Ranked fifth.

  If the writers in mandarin are clear as to who finished first and who is listed first. I see no reason why English writers can't state the most obvious truth. Jimmkk (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  As mentioned above, the IOC does not endorse any default medal rankings, and has, historically, changed their site to list medals alphabetically. On the current site there's optional methods for sorting, which I do actually hope they implement on past tables as well. Anyways, because of that, it makes it hard to state who finished in what positions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  I want to clarify my opinion. My only issue is, if we have a sentence that discusses gold medal count in isolation then we should list China then USA, because they have the same number of golds and we should revert to alphabetical order as a neutral way to reflect this. However, it is not incorrect to say that the USA topped the medal table, and China finished second. We can even add a note to specify that the IOC does not offically support a medal ranking. But an arguement that we shouldn't mention medal ranking is fatally undermined by the fact that the article has a table which ranks nations based on medals won. SSSB (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @SSSB: I'm glad we agree om the capitalization issue if the sentence is in isolation. By the main two metrics, it is true that China came in second, but the concerns start to come up more-so when you get beyond second place in this instance. We also have a big disclaimer above the table that our ranking in this medal table is not endorsed by the IOC. It's a bit of a weird ground to walk, and I recognize that. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  @SSSB

  There is no alphabetical order when there is a tie for golds.

  Refer to the Olympics website, you can check both the 2020 and 2024 medal tables. There is an option to sort by gold medals.

  When you do sort by gold, and two or more countries have equal number of golds, IOC table doesn't rank them as equal or in alphabetical order, it ranks/lists/positions them higher or lower based on number of silver medals.

  Gold count is never in isolation. Two countries are only tied if they have equal number of every medal. Then they may be ranked equal and may use alphabetical order to list them. But this is not the case at hand, USA have significantly more silver medals, the near misses.

  So as per the official olympics medal page, even if you sort by gold, USA is placed in position 1 above China in position 2. This is a fact, not an opinion. There is no alphabetical arrangement in the 2024 gold count nor the 2020 gold count. 115.188.18.40 (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I forgot to login in above ^^ Jimmkk (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Gold medal isn't in isolation in the table. But in the sentence that is the subject of this edit war we do discuss gold medals in isolation. The medal table, when there is a tie reverts to alphabetical order. The two nations are tied for gold medals (the metric being discussed), how many silver and bronzes they got are not mentioned in that sentence and therefore cannot be used to justify the order in which we list the countries. Likewise, in the sentence where we discuss the nations who won their first medals, we don't mention St Lucia first (because they finished highest up the medal table amongst those countries) because that is not the metric being discussed. It isn't relevant. Now, as I said before, I have no issue listing the USA ahead of China, so long as we are discussing a metric where the USA is ahead of China (therefore overriding the alphabetical order). But if it is a metric where they are tied (and it is 100% correct to say they tied in gold medal count, woth 40 gold medals each) we should stick with the neurral alphabetical order. SSSB (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  This page is about the medal table, which never sorts golds in isolation so why discuss golds in complete isolation as well as ignore countries which finished outside of the top 2. I'd much prefer the paragraph like this-

  "The United States topped the overall medal table for the fourth consecutive Summer Games, with 40 gold medals and 126 medals in total. China tied with the United States in terms of gold medals (40), but finished second due to having fewer silvers; the nation won 91 medals overall. Japan finished third with 20 gold medals. Australia finished fourth with 18 gold medals and the host nation, France, finished fifth with 16 gold and 64 medals overall." Jimmkk (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would support that. However, there is still the issue of the infobox field "most golds" SSSB (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  @SSSB

  The medal table in the article has US at the top based on gold count (silver tiebreak). You can argue about listing China first so that its alphabetical but it'd remain weird seeing China listed before the US. Even the Mandarin page has listed the US before China in the "most golds" infobox field. Jimmkk (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  I would argue it is weird listing the USA first based on an undisclosed metric. And I would argue that just because the manadrin editors do it that way doesn't mean we should. SSSB (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  @SSSB Unfortunately am dealing with a lot of weird gaslighting or copium claiming that USA somehow now beat China on the gold medal count. Their typical reasoning is that they first unilaterally redefine the gold medal count to somehow also engage the silver and bronze. Despite the gold medal count is known as a singular facet that simply counts gold medals and in this regard, both USA and China are tied at 40 each. Almost all media recognise that. When media specifically says that China top the Summer Games gold medal chart[4] and also became the third country after the US and the former Soviet Union to top the gold medal count at a Summer Olympics away from home soil. [5] It means just that. Equal to USA on having most gold medals. I don't understand how others can seriously claim with a straight face that somehow USA beat China on most gold medals metric but that is wrong and not reality. And it indeed makes the most sense to stick with the neutral alphabetical order when it comes to the metric of most gold medals, when they are both tied on that. Evibeforpoli (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Evibeforpoli are you deliberately ignoring all the information published about how there are only two main types of medal tables. Gold medal table and total medal table.

  Gold medal table (which is 'THE Medal Table') includes both silves and bronzes, in event of a tie. How can you keep ignoring this fact.

  US topped the Gold medal "table" though they tied on number of gold medals won.

  Stop publishing links to sensationalist media articles which have little basis compared to what you find on official Olympics website.

  You can only choose the medal tables by gold, total medals or alphabetical order. So choose the gold medal table, and observe what happens!! Thanks and stop twisting facts.

  China and US are equal on gold medals won but NOT equal on (gold) medal table. Jimmkk (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Jimmkk You are very much mistaken and wasting people's time if you cant understand that error. There's at least 3 frequently used main charts. One is total where they count total medals. Another is for golds where they only count the golds. And the third is overall where they take an order of medals in consideration, where they start off with counting golds. Later will use silver in case of a gold tie. Then bronzes in case of a silver tie. That third type is never called the gold medal chart but usually just the 'summer olympic chart' or 'overall chart' or just "chart".

  Am frankly tried of having to explain that obvious fact many times and why I sympathize with SSSB above who have to deal with your constant pov pushing insisting that only the United States came first on gold medals count when all reliable sources state that both China and USA lead on gold medals chart. And on wikipedia, I believe we use the general view from reliable sources to support what we write and those sources are deeemed reliable and support the fact that both China and United states led the nations in terms of gold medals= count. None of them claim that only USA led in gold medals and that China was behind. Evibeforpoli (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

  @SSSB in the infobox field we can choose to go with an alphabetical order, it doesn't matter so much.

  As for the write up, we can go ahead with whats written on the main page, to avoid conflict and confusion.

  The United States topped the medal table both by gold and total medals for the fourth consecutive Summer Games, with 40 gold medals and 126 medals in total. China tied with the United States in terms of gold medals (40), but finished second overall due to having fewer silvers; the nation won 91 medals in total. Japan finished third with 20 gold medals and Australia fourth with 18 gold medals. Meanwhile the host nation, France, finished fifth with 16 gold medals and 64 medals in total.

  . Jimmkk (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 August 2024

Add "United States topped the overall medal table, though they tied China for the most Gold Medals" Jimmkk (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: There's an ongoing discussion above in the topic #Which country to list first in tie for "most gold medals". Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 August 2024

In between restoring the stable version and adding page protection due to edit warring, an editor has changed the article to their version. Please restore the stable version again. IntGrah (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I find this version to be a more stable version. IntGrah (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Your original version does indeed have the disputed sorting backwards from what was the statusquo before the above discussion started. I agree that this link you just shared represents the stable version. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

 Administrator note: there are only trivial differences between that version and the current version (USA and China order swapped) so I don't think it is worth reverting to that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not looking in earlier...RL always in the way. I agree that reverting isn't necessary at the moment; if consensus isn't found before full protection runs out, an RfC might be another option. Lectonar (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lectonar: I'm obviously involved, but I strongly disagree. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the standard is to restore the status quo. Otherwise editors are encouraged to edit war for their desired result. By not restoring the previous version, it's encouraging anybody to do so themselves/giving priority to the last edit before a protection, even though it was disputed. To not restore the previous version is to dismiss the above discussion, and all those who participated in it entirely, which I find to be very frustrating. You may see it as trivial, but it's the reason this page has been protected twice and the reason this protection was necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: I'm obviously uninvolved, but probably should have let someone else decide about the edit request. As it is, restoring a/the stable version is not required or encouraged by any policy or guideline, and administrators can fully protect articles mid-dispute, even if the protected version contains controversial edits. So probably doing nothing would have been the better choice here. I have reset the edit request to "not answered". I find it trivial because I am uninvolved, but am aware of it being in dispute, viz my full protection. Lectonar (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Lectonar: I personally don't find it trivial based on the amount of time people have put into the discussion and wording above, so I think it's unfair to be dismissiveness of that. The user who made the change and edit warred to keep it, against the common practice of participating in the discussion while the disputed edit is in place, should not be rewarded and taught that's how we do things. Frankly, it spits in the face of our processes that encourage discussion and consensus building if that's how people get their way. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:WRONGVERSION and all that. Unless there is some strong BLP concern the article can be wrong for a while. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Well this is very disappointing that this is how the disputed change gets implemented. Enough new accounts seem to have won out for the time being by repeatedly making that edit instead of actually going through the consensus building process. Guess it'll be a while before I'm comfortable nominating this article at WP:FLC. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)