Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Stifle 22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners

POV pushing article and original research. User:Medalstats (and suspected socks Them Medals and Wintermetal) have tried pushing the same sort of POV on the articles Total Olympics medal count and related articles. This table first appeared on the user's talkpage. Delete Kalsermar 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Response I refute Kalsermar's deletion proposal as follows:
    • 1. This is definitely not a POV (point of view) table - instead the table overcomes 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 Wikipedia on the article talk page: Although the International Olympic Committee IOC rejects medal tallies and rankings of nations (e. g., Sports Illustrated), the mass media and Wikipedia publish them anyway - compare the recent 2006 Winter Olympics medal count. Different sources follow wildly varying habits though. CNN and NBC and others rank nations by the total number of medals, BBC and others by gold. Some simply delete nations such as the USSR that do not exist any more; e. g., see here. 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 EU, just like in GDP tables, e. g.: List of countries by GDP (nominal); compare the Washington Times. The medals of the various fragments of Germany are often but not always added together, e. g., here and also in the German Wikipedia. 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., here at Wikipedia. Many mention the medals per capita, e. g., the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Sport1.at. 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. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • 2. This is not original research - the table is based on data already available at Wikipedia. Unless the activity of adding and dividing numbers counts as original research? But by that reasoning one would have to delete many of the Wikipedia medal tables, such as the Total Olympics medal count, which adds summer counts and winter counts. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      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. —Michael Z. 2006-03-31 18:27 Z
    • 3. Sock accusation: still unfounded - you should have received an admin notice telling you I can't be a sock! Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 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. —Michael Z. 2006-03-30 17:28 Z
    • Response No original research - see above! The table is purely based on data already available at Wikipedia. Or is the activity of adding numbers original research? But as I pointed out above, then one would have to delete many other Wikipedia medal tables, such as the Total Olympics medal count, which adds summer counts and winter counts. Of course you are right, the Wikipedia 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. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. Plus I very much doubt they have calculated the population by medal using the population from each year. Average Earthman 18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Response 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 all years when the nation participated." Should such methodology data go in the article page or in the talk page? Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Unless the population for each year the medal was won in is used, it is intrinsically flawed. Average Earthman 16:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. 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 Wikipedia. → J@red talk+ ubx  20:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Response I respectfully disagree. In fact the article should help to overcome 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 Wikipedia. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. People per gold per games? I respectfully request that the author get a life. Grandmasterka 10:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Response No original research - see above. Thank you very much, however, for your other helpful suggestion. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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, Wikipedia) and how the numbers were computed (by adding and dividing Wikipedia data, just like in many other Wikipedia tables). Therefore I propose to keep this (in my humble opinion) very useful table, reminding everybody that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Medalstats 14:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment the author has an obvious POV and 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 of the Games at a time since these vary widely between 1896 and the present. I respectfully echo Grandmasterka's advise to the author.--Kalsermar 15:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Response 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 [readily available at Wikipedia] is used for 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! Medalstats 16:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy, 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. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 17:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Response 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 Australian Bureau of Statistics. I cited several sources that sum up medals of countries / organizations that had several National Olympic Committees (NOCs) in the past, e. g., here at Wikipedia. Nothing I did is really new, I just collected data that's already available in the Wikipedia medal counts and in the Wikipedia population statistics. Medalstats 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't believe that this could be unverifiable, POV, or OR, but it manages to be all of these. Userfy or delete. Stifle 00:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Thanks for the comment. But I am afraid I have to disagree on all three counts:
      • Verifiability: Easy - just go to the Wikipedia medal counts for each year, and to the Wikipedia population data of any mentioned country - all the information is right there.
      • 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 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 article).
      • 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 Australian Bureau of Statistics. 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., here at Wikipedia. Once more, nothing I did is really new - I just collected data that's already available in the Wikipedia medal counts and in the Wikipedia population statistics. Medalstats 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. WP:NOR is quite clear that Wikipedia articles cannot "introduce an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". That is the case here. Medal tables from individual games (e.g. 2004 Summer Olympics medal count) have clear references (e.g IOC website). Cumulative tables, such as Total Olympics medal count, 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 IOC country code. Anything more is original research, as defined by Wikipedia. Andrwsc 10:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Response 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 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 article). 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 Wikipedia itself. You claim that "cumulative tables can do no more than simply sum up the totals by each IOC country code. Anything more is original research, as defined by Wikipedia." Can you back up your claim? Please show me the Wikipedia guideline that says you can sum up data from Wikipedia tables, such as in the Total Olympics medal count, but you cannot divide by, say, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia tables such as the Total Olympics medal count which mixes Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics - I've never seen something like that table outside of Wikipedia. Medalstats 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have to identify exactly what your POV is -- it is sufficient to know that some 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 no perspective in the medal table. That's good! That means that a neutral point of view has been achieved by only presenting a simple summation of counts.
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 would support 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.
Perhaps that would help you feel that there is some "perspective" in those tables. What do you think? Would that help?
However, I cannot support 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 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.
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 are 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. Andrwsc 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Response Thanks for your useful remarks! The text on my user page ("put medal counts in perspective") 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 Total Olympics medal count 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 Wikipedia publishes them anyway - then why should a count 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 Wikipedia should be deleted for the reasons you mentioned above, but such a discussion 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 a mere summation by NOC. Medalstats 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Saying Liechtenstein accumulated 9 medals in the history of the Olympics is not neautral you say? The IOC does not reject 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 the difficulty of bobsledding in Sydney in the middle of summer or sailing in Turin in February. In fact there have been two summer games that have in fact hosted sports that are now included in the winter 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.--Kalsermar 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Response 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 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? Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Is English not your native language perhaps? I pointed out the exact opposite of what you state, namely that the IOC does not endorse rankings based on medal counts but they do provide them for informational purposes. In fact, 'all medal count tables published on Wikipedia 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 hand.... go here 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 you.--Kalsermar 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This web site explicitly says: The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only. Well, that's what my table is all about: the data is displayed for information only. Medalstats 08:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Medalstats, how can your table possibly 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 variables. They don't! A medal count can only be just that -- a count -- 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 some relationship between medal counts and population, but I would hope most rational people could plainly see that it is not a direct and linear relationship and therefore, that ratio does not make sense.
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 Total Olympics medal count 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.
My suggestion is that you continue your work, but take it off Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic. Take a look at what Herman De Wael has done at this website. 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, does not belong in Wikipedia. Andrwsc 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Response 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 NOC to Total Olympics medal count. 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. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


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. Medalstats 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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 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?--Kalsermar 15:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Response 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 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. Medalstats 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
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. → J@red  19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Could it be that Jared fears that the above-mentioned problems with his Total Olympics medal count will come under scrutiny in case this discussion lasts much longer? Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of friends of Jared. Medalstats 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
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 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.--Kalsermar 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Response 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: "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." 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 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 the classic approach to spin-doctoring. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
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. → J@red  23:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Response 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: "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." 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 present their views on this site. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Summary of the debate so far: 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 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. Medalstats 09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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.--Kalsermar 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Response 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. Medalstats 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be original research 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. Just zis Guy you know? 12:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Response No OR - see repetitive arguments above! And again, by your reasoning we'd have to delete the Total Olympics medal count as well, since there are no other reputable sources using its methodology and analysis. Medalstats 09:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Repetitive arguments from your side only I might add. Are you even from this planet? No other reputable sources use the methodology of the Total Olympics medal count you say???? It adds them up for crying out loud! You won 2 medals in 1912 and 3 medals in 1984....boom, you have 5 medals total!--Kalsermar 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Response 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 Total Olympics medal count and my own table, doesn't it? How do you react to this? Medalstats 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, adding up medal number is NOT the approach you used for your table. You divide 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 relationship. That's not true. Andrwsc 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Improvement: I deleted the per capita data since it should be based on year by year population data unavailable at Wikipedia - 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 taken from Wikipedia. I hope that everybody will now be happy with this reduction and improvement. Medalstats 13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment - What you mean is that I deleted all of the OR elements of the table, and you restored all but the per capita data. WP:NOR defines original research as "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments." This table is full of new synthesis of published data and therefore fits the definition of original research. -- Jonel | Speak 13:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Response First of all, I am sorry that I did not mention your contribution, Jonel. But if counting and adding medals qualifies as new synthesis of published data then other tables such as the Total Olympics medal count do so too. It mixes Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics - I've never seen something like that table outside of Wikipedia. As I said before, I am ready to discuss whether ALL total medal counts at Wikipedia should be deleted for the reasons you mentioned above, but such a discussion 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. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment 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 Wikipedia, 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.--Kalsermar 17:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Response 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 have to delete the Total Olympics medal count as well, since there are no other reputable sources using its methodology and analysis. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree that it is slightly improved, but I still have several major issues with this table, all of which would influence me to recommend deletion of the page:

  • 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 makes an implied relationship which is then left undefined. It doesn't fit.
Response 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 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? Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "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 Wikipedia: no nation "wins" an Olympics, but medal counts are still presented (using their ranking method) for informational purposes.
Response I greatly sympathize with this view, but by this reasoning we'd have to delete all the medal counts of Wikipedia, since the official position of the IOC is: no medal counts! See this link. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The official position of the IOC is that medal counts are not used to compare nations in terms of "who beat who", but they do provide medal tables anyway. That's precisely what we do on Wikipedia. They certainly don't try to analyze the results any more than that, and neither should we. Andrwsc 19:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "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 much 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, 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.
Response Again you have a point. But by that reasoning we'd have to delete the Total Olympics medal count 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. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 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 water polo. 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?
Response 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? Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
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.--Kalsermar 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let's leave it as is; maybe insert a footnote. Medalstats 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
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 Total Olympics medal count instead of creating this new page. I still recommend delete of this page. Andrwsc 17:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Response While I agree that it is necessary to add such columns to Total Olympics medal count, I believe that the answers above show that the present table has its merits and deserves to be kept. Medalstats 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete: 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 Unified Team 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 original research.

Response 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 more informative and therefore more objective than quite a few others here at Wikipedia. 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 foreign Wikipedia. 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. Medalstats 11:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
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 the contributors to the pages on WP that deal with the Olympic Games. The one-issue account of User Medalstats cannot change that fact.--Kalsermar 14:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Response 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 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 Total Olympics medal count is somehow different from adding up the numbers for my Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. 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? Medalstats 15:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Wrong again.... I don't have 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 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?--Kalsermar 17:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Let it conclude? And here I thought we were competing for largest AfD page ever... 45 kilobytes just ain't gonna do it. -- Jonel | Speak 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
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 by Portuguese-speaking countries or Commonwealth countries or EU countries aren't really trying to be meaningful. Peter Grey 21:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Olympic_Medal_Statistics%7E_Medal_Count_Winners_18ee.html"