Talk:2000 Summer Olympics

The medal count on this page is based on the total number of medals. The IOC follows a different procedure: the number of gold medals is most important and if that's equal, they look at silver and bronze. Does somebody object if I change it?
IOC-link: [1] (http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/table_uk.asp?OLGT=1&OLGY=2000) (a subpage of [2] (http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/index_uk.asp?OLGT=1&OLGY=2000))
(Also, some numbers are wrong.) 80.126.123.127 13:32, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 Population figures 2 How about this for a solution 3 External link 4 3,000 million?

Population figures

I've removed the pseudo-statistical pop. vs medal count info. It is completely irrelevant, inaccurate and meaningless. Mintguy (T)

This has been added back again (with revised figures I note). This data is completely flawed. The criteria for gathering population statistics varies widely from country to country. The figure given by the UN is merely an estimate, for example India held their census in March of 2001 they came out with a figure of 1,027,015,247 persons. This was a rise of over 100 million people since the previous census. This was not because the population had actually increased by 100 million, but because they picked up a lot of people that had been missed in previous census. The data is therefore inaccurate and trying to use this as the basic for further statistical comparisons is flawed. The criteria for selection of athletes also varies widely, this includes, for example people from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man who can compete for Team Great Britain, but their populations are not included the population of the United Kingdom. I'm sure there are other similar examples. Some citizens hold dual nationality and can compete for one other nation. This is true for some people living in Northern Ireland for example. Also many people living in Britain (or indeed any other country) are not allowed to compete for that nation for various reasons. Mintguy (T) 12:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please do not remove the data again. If you think that other people should not see it then perhaps the best thing to do is bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Bobblewik  (talk) 17:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss the rationale for including this data. I doubt that such analysis can be found accompanying any other table of medals and the basis of the analysis is flawed. Mintguy (T) 18:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The population of a country is completely irrelevant to the medal count. Many of the medals, which will only count as one, on the medals table will have in fact been awarded to a larger number of people. For instance in gymnastics awards are given to the teams that come first second and third overall. In athletics, individuals are awarded medals for their participation in relay races, but this only counts as one medal. In all of the teams sports in the games a nation may receive only one medal even though there may be many people who actually contribute to that award. In the olympic football competition for example a football squad will usually consist of 23 competitors. Placing the population of a country next to the medal table is about as usful as placing the area of a country. It is totally misleading and flawed to try to work out the medals per number of population. you might as well try to work out medal per square mile. Mintguy (T) 19:28, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please do not remove the data again. Your contribution on this topic at Talk:2004 Summer Olympics medal count makes it clear that you are aware of the interest in this information and disagree with it. However, instead of reverting the article, please allow others to look at it and express their own opinions. If you think that other people should not see it then perhaps the best thing to do is bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Bobblewik  (talk) 20:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are obviously mis-reading the comment by Docu on that Page. He is not talking about the population of a country. He says - "I think it may be interesting to see the number of athletes participating per country" The format that has been agreed for the 2004 medal list is to not include this bogus statistic. There is absolutely no reason to include it here. Mintguy (T) 21:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That data, although interesting is not germane on a list that is limited only to medal count. Please find another forum, perhaps, 2004 Summer Olympics participation count for such information. Other items to think about including: annual gross domestic product GDP, domestic Olympic committee budget, country gross GNP, country population (with % of world population). I believe this is a full-fledged article of its own -- and does not need to be piggy-backed upon the smaller medals table. Davodd 00:44, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

The following was copied to here by User:Mintguy, because I think it is pertinent to this discussion.

The inclusion of this type of information is interesting but incomplete. Does it reflect athlete primary nationality? (for example, many U.S.-born or naturalized U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents were athletes for other countries this year. Do they count as U.S. winners or not?) Does it include domestic annual budget of individual countries Olympic committees? Also - the total U.S. population used in the census includes possessions - which compete as individual countries in the Olympics. Is that reflected? If not, there should be a major disclaimer stating such. Davodd 01:24, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

How about this for a solution

I also think that the medal by people, guess this means population but it doesn't make that clear, information although vaguely possibly interesting to someone should not appear on the main pages of events as it is not directly relevant to the article. As I have mentioned on previous talk pages mentioning the subject I feel it about as relevant to the main article as a comparison of success in sport based on pet ownership (gold fish, dog, cat etc) or such like. If it is felt that the info. warrants an rtcl then a detailed article such as Sports Success by Population or Relative Sporting Achievements by Population should be written to include all data and accompanying commentary explaining the comings and goings of sporting success through the years ie; Eastern Bloc doping, emergence of african sporting success, decline of the old guard ie; great britain, influence of professionalism on sport etc. If the details were used in that way then I can see the article being of great interest and a very interesting project to work on. The time spent in these never ending discussions could have been spent writing possibly the most interesting rtcl on Wiki. But the only way that this disagreement will be solved is by arbitration I feel as repeated discussions by parties with completely differing views is getting nowhere.

External link

At the moment about two thirds of this page is taken up by medal tallies and various related statistics (medals per million population etc). Why not get rid of the third table and just have a link to http://www.simon.forsyth.net/olympics.html (the best page of that type that I have found)? Also, why do we have an abbreviated list, followed by a full list of the same thing? -- Chuq 13:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At the absence of any comments, and the moving of the full tally to 2000 Summer Olympics medal count, I've gone and replaced the per capita table with a link -- Chuq 01:17, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

3,000 million?

Last time I checked, that was 3 billion, wasn't it?--Txredcoat 02:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was to me and most of the english speaking world. However some people seem to think that 3 billion is 3 000 000 000 000, so I guess the 3 000 million was used to save confusion. -- Chuq 05:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)