Talk:2012 Summer Olympics medal table/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rank numbers wrong

WHY SO MANY PEOPLE HERE TYPE WHAT THEY DO WANT AND NOT WHAT IS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BY INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTE (IOC)? Such behaviour is nasty, arrogant and cheating! In the pages of the national committees in the official IOC website it is indicated the number of medals OFFICIALLY recognised to every IOC at the moment. So, if we go to the page of the NOC of Ukraine we see that in the games of LONON-2012 the following medals are recognised by the OIC for this country: 6 gold, 4 silver, 9 bronze. https://www.olympic.org/ukraine (Roll a bit down the page) However, some people here, which probably consider having more authority and knowledge than the IOC have input 6 gold, 4 silver, 8 bronze for Ukraine. The same holds for other countries, including RF. PLEASE WAIT TILL ANY CHANGE IS OFFICIALLY DONE BY THE IOC AND STICK STRICTLY TO THE OFFICIAL IOC PUBLICATIONS. I would like to correct such disrespectful information in this Wikipedia article, but it is really impossible to talk in a decent way with such "ultra wise and full of authority" redactors. Please, be down to earth! --GabEuro (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

per WP:BOLD I've closed the unproductive discussion below. Please stay on topic: whether this article should use a different ranking system to the one used currently. Currently No consensus to that change. Things that like "Superpowers medal tally" belongs to userspace. Ibicdlcod (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Rank numbers are wrong. China and the USA are tied for 1st. Japan is ranked 13 when they should be 3rd. Please repair. 97.81.50.48 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you would have read the "Medal table" paragraphs you would see how it sorts. it ranks by gold, than silver, bronze, and last total.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not understanding. Total medals should be rank. If go by Gold, many countries would not be ranked at all. 97.81.50.48 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What is not understanding? Medal table have always been ranked by gold well beside the US mostly but CNN Olympic portal also ranked by gold not total medals. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought it ranks by gold, silver, and bronze, then alphabetically by IOC country code --MSalmon (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

97.81, you'll find more information at Olympic medal table. You presumably live in one of the minority of countries that report the medal table by number of medals. This is not the way most of the world - or the IOC itself - does it. --Dweller (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the IOC doesn't recognize any particular method. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/24/AR2008082400851_pf.html

"China has won the most gold medals and the United States of America won the most total," International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge said during a news conference Sunday. "I believe each country will highlight what suits it best. One country will say, 'Gold medals.' The other country will say, 'The total tally counts.' We take no position on that." Phizzy 19:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Rank by Gold is only good for big Countrys like USA and China. Small Countrys who get more metals get sent to bottom because USA and China get all gold. Unfair to other Countrys. Please understanding. 97.81.50.48 (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but you'll need to persuade the International Olympic Committee to change things, not me, or Wikipedia. And incidentally, Kazakhstan, a "big" country by size, but "small" in terms of international sport success, are looking pretty good in the table with their three golds so far. On medals won, they'd be way down the list. You win some, you lose some. --Dweller (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

IOC searched their website. NO medal table. Only London commity. IOC has no table. IOC has no rankings. This table bassed on Contrys media of large Countrys. USA and China win all Gold, not fair to other Countrys that have no money. Can only get Silver or Bronze at best. IOC does not have rankings. Should remove ranking numbers, set board to ALL medals won. Be fair to all the World.97.81.50.48 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"You win some, you lose some." - Subject to the drug test. Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree this ranking method seems nonsensical. North Korea is ranked above Russia. Why? They have one more gold medal but six fewer silver medals and seven fewer bronze medals. An objective person would conclude that Russia has had a much more successfull Olympic games thus far compared to North Korea.

Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
8	North Korea (PRK)	4	0	1	5
9	Russia (RUS)	3	6	8	17

And then there's Kazakhstan and South Africa ranked above Japan. Huh?

Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
10	Kazakhstan (KAZ)	3	0	0	3
	South Africa (RSA)	3	0	0	3
12	Japan (JPN)	2	6	11	19

Ideally, I think the medals should be weight (3 for gold, 2 for silver, and 1 for bronze, for example), and then ranked the NOCs by the weight. Phizzy 20:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it. It is not a matter of what you or I or anyone else thinks "should" be the way it's ordered. That approach leads only to interminable disagreement, such as the above discussion. We use the ordering supplied by the IOC itself. They don't endorse it as better or worse than any other ordering, and outside organisations are free to re-order it any way they like. The way Wikipedia likes is to use the exact same ordering as the IOC supplies, whatever it is. That way, the IOC makes the decision, not Wikipedia. If you don't like the ordering, take it up with the IOC. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think we can leave the ordering exactly as it is but dispense with rank numberings. For many comparisons between countries, the rank number is NOT indicative of their relative "success". It is essentially meaningless. It should go. But we have to order the countries in some way, and the current order is perfectly fine for that, for my reasons above. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack, I agree with most of what you say above. However, I disagree that the rank numbers are "meaningless". First, that is the rank assigned by the IOC. Second – be it good, bad, or indifferent as a ranking method – it indeed does have meaning: namely, which nation won the most gold medals, which nation won the second most gold medals, etc. There is some value in that. It is not random, arbitrary, or totally devoid of meaning. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to stick to what is in the sources rather than making stuff up because we don't like it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, so that would appear to rule out making any changes to the present ranking system, as it is the one presented by the IOC. However there might be room to present alternative ranking systems alongside the official one, as long as they have a reliable source and are not just something invented by wikipedia editors, as that would constitute original research. G-13114 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The total number of medals is not used in the rankings (goes gold, silver and bronze, then by IOC County Code) --MSalmon (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What MSalmon has stated is the correct system used by the IOC. On a different note though, how is Phizzy allowed to have an image (Image:SimpleMichigan.svg) in their signature? I thought they were not permitted per WP:CUSTOMSIG? Have the rules now changed depending on the user? Wesley Mouse 21:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Joseph, take this scenario: Country A has 1 gold but no other medals, and is ranked 9th; Country B has no golds but 23 silvers and bronzes, and is ranked 17th. Even the IOC does not suggest that Country A is "more successful" than Country B just because it's higher up the list. Any ranking system that seeks to deal with multiple values simultaneously is fraught with compromise, and this is simply the way this particular system places countries with these sorts of results. I'm not suggesting we change the order in any way at all, but to give Country A the label "9th" and Country B the label "17th", just because that's where they happen to end up on this list, seriously over-eggs the pudding. It's obvious that the country at the top of the list is number 1, and it's just as obvious that countries lower down the list are where they are. But adding the labels 9th vs. 17th tells us absolutely nothing about the relative strengths of those two countries. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand all of your points. I am simply saying that the rank numbers are not completely devoid of meaning. At the very least, they tell us where the country falls on the list (number 1 or number 28 or whatever) in terms of rank by gold, then silver, then bronze. It provides relative context, as opposed to absolute numbers. To say (for example) that a country earned three gold medals does not tell us as much as the fact that having three gold medals ranks them at number 17 (since 16 other countries earned more gold medals). The rank does have some meaning and does provide some context and information, albeit not a perfect system. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what is so difficult about this as that is how medal tables are always ranked regardless of how many each country got. --MSalmon (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is getting old. It is obvious that it is not about country A or country B, but about USA vs. China. China might win more gold medals than the US, whereas the US is more likely to win more medals overall. So the US might rank second again like in the Beijing Olympics. Of course the ranking system will not be changed because of this, you can only hope the US wins more gold than China, then this discussion will be over - at least for 4 years.

Why, if IOC rate gold, then silver, then bronze and disregard total numbers, why are USA ranked ahead of China. Please amend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AV8or89 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed - Some numpty thought it would be funny to reorder the medal table based on their fantasy land ideas again. Reverted it back to normal anyhow, and seeing as one user has already warned them once, I've just given them a reminder not to be so foolish. Wesley Mouse 03:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Second I second that! (Can I second that? I will anyway.)--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the US counts by total medals simply because they know that they have a much better chance of winning the total count than just the golds. Everyone knows that the US has the deepest team at every summer olympics so obviously they will win the most medals. But China's genius strategy of streamlining events has put a wrench into the US's plan. China now has a great chance to win the most golds but lose the total medals at every olympics. Ranking total medals without weighting them is basically useless, my team had the most people that finished in 3rd place, that should be equal to champions. No it should not. This website emphasizes how idiotic it is to rank simply by Medal count China finished first in every list except when simply counting the medals. Gold>silver & bronze. I think that the US will win the most golds and total medals in London due to the lack of depth this year in swimming. 1906cubs (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well now, would you look at that. LOCOG switched the London 2012 medal table over to ranking by total medals. – RVJ (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

...and now they've switched it back to golds. However, the leftmost column heading now explicitly explains "Rank by gold". Seems they just resolved their own little squabble over it. – RVJ (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think to label the column on here as "rank by gold" would be a suitable solution to this too. It helps to explain to the general reader that we have also ranked the table by gold first. Wesley Mouse 11:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Vancouver 2010 committee also had their ranking done by total medals for the first couple of days before switching over to rank-by-gold. Weird stuff. Kingnavland (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Superpowers medal tally

Actually, here is a more accurate portrayal:

Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
1	European Union	27	38	35	100
2	United States (USA)	26	13	15	54
3	China (CHN)	25	16	12	53
4	Great Britain (GBR) (Includes the Commonwealth countries)	23	25	16	64
5	Japan (JPN) (includes the former Japanese colonies)	15	13	18	46
6	Russia (RUS) (Includes the former Soviet SSRs)	13	18	21	52

*Commonwealth countries: GBR, CAN, AUS, NZ, South Africa, India, Kenya, Jamaica

• Former Soviet SSRs: RUS, KAZ, UKR, Belarus, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Moldova
• European Union members: GER, FRA, ITA, NED, HUN, SPA, Belgium, DEN, SWE, NOR, GRE, SLO, CZE. ROM, BUL
• Former Japanese colonies: KOR, Tw

--J.M.Douglas (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. Including Korea and Taiwan as part of Greater Japan may be offensive for Koreans and Taiwanese, and EVEN MORE offensive for PR China citizens.

Very nice. Now if ever I need a definition of WP:OR I can refer to this - Basement12 (T.C) 00:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks! BTW the Commonwealth consists of far more than just the countries listed here... Roger (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Only the ones that have won medals are included, otherwise it makes no difference to the tally. --J.M.Douglas (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha that is funny. I love that you have excluded Great Britain from the European Union, when in actual fact they are a member. Wesley Mouse 11:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you aren't aware that NOCs (countries) are limited to one or two competitors in most events? And, that this limits single countries in your list (like the United States and China) to one medal in many events? For example, in Men's Basketball, the United States and China could only win one medal, but European Union could win three. Phizzy 15:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This topic is a load of junk and as such breaks the rules on the use of article talk pages - it's not contributing to the improvement of the article, so please shut this nonsense down. Roger (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If you really want to do this do it right. EU includes GB as well as many others not mentioned Rumania, Bulgaria etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.13.234 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Romania and Bulgaria have now been included. For the purposes of this medal table, GB will not be included as part of EU because GB is strong enough to stand on its own; I'm sure most British people wouldn't mind. GB uses the British pound and has no declared plans to adopt the euro in the foreseeable future.--J.M.Douglas (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is not European Union then, just Eurozone; would be nice to have one with the actual EU, i.e Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. EU would be way ahead of everyone, even after correcting for multiple NOCs like when multiple medals are won for instance in basketball or volleyball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.232.230.254 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that everything on Wikipedia that requires common-sense needs to devolve into a bunch of pathetic little Napoleon complexes in a micro-weanie measuring contest? With the current, moronic, gold first situation, a country with one gold in 25 olympic games, would outrank a country with 400 medals total, but no golds. It really does take a particularly small, and arrogant mind, to rely on what is listed by the IOC which itself, expressly admits it has no interest in the order, to justify cleaving to this format. Any kindergarten child would look at a system like this and find it silly. What is your excuse? It is ABUNDANTLY clear, that the current argument has NOTHING to do with which system is better, and is more about two groups of absolute tools arguing simply because they either enjoy it, or they are too much the internet weasels to ever admit they could be wrong. I suspect that advocates for various countries who stand to move up or down in the rankings based on the choice are also contributing to the stupidity. Might I suggest an OBVIOUS solution that should have been implemented the MOMENT this argument started? Put two ranking columns. One by total medals, one by gold, on the left side. That way it is always abundantly clear what each rank is no matter how one has ordered the table using the other columns. One last point. This accomodation should have been implemented not only because it is common-sense to end the argument, and the fact that it includes the common-sense, logical ordering by total medals. It should have been implemented FIRST AND FOREMOST because not all countries default to the intellectually retarded, politically self-serving gold first. As we all instantly understand, only some nations do that. Have a LOVELY day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.178.51 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Xanax. You're complaining about this "silly" argument and your rant is the longest post on the topic. Second, two ranking columns? Really? Have you seen how screwed up the table gets during the day with fly-by editors screwing it up, and you expect there to be two ranking columns in real time? All this page does is relay the information provided by the IOC. Why you want us to reorder it, I'm not sure. Even if we did that, it wouldn't end the argument because people would fuss about which ordering the default was. Sorry you don't like it, but the consensus from previous Olympics is to rank-by-gold because that's the way the IOC provides it. Deal with it. Kingnavland (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay Sparky. Let's take you to school, shall we? 1. My post was not a "rant". It was a reasoned, logical argument, with a sardonic overtone. But hey, that probably went right over your head. 2. Did I change anything in the table? Nope. You are arguing that because there is another week where the table will continue to change daily, that any argument for a permanent solution which might temporarily confuse the issue is invalid. If you feel the world would end if it was implemented immediately, that is a perfectly reasonable argument to make. Making a specious leap to using that as a justification for doing nothing is moronic. 3. The consensus is NOT to rank by gold. The wiki-twits have bludgeoned that particularly moronic format onto everyone. I outlined precisely why such a ranking scheme is beyond ridiculous. You CLAIM the IOC provides it that way. THEY MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT. They SPECIFICALLY state that they do NOT rank nations. They then provide a table of total medals, as best as they can despite border and nationality changes over the years that ranks by gold first. In other words, any thinking person would be FORCED to conclude that what the IOC provides is anything BUT a national ranking. They order their table focusing on the individual athletes as best they can while showing all the medals won by nations over all olympiads. The fact that a bunch of lazy media outlets then reproduce the IOC table verbatim is not an endorsement of it as a "ranking". 4. Finally, it is ludicrous for anyone to produce a generically formatted table, where the last column says TOTAL and the ranking column on the left applys to ANY other column. As I pointed out. It is reasonable to accomodate the little internet Napoleons of the world by providing two appropriately labeled ranking columns. However, there is LITERALLY not a single, logical, reasoned argument for the default and only ranking provided to be by total gold. If you have one, please provide it. If you read this entire section, the ONLY argument used by everyone in favor of this solution is that the IOC does it that way and it has always been that way. Unfortunately for you, I've obliterated both of those faux arguments. They amount to saying just because. I'm sorry if it is inconvenient to you, but "just because" is NOT an argument. So, follow your own, pithy advice, and d-d-d-deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.178.51 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil. BulbaThor (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The LOCOG page ranks by golds, and that's good enough for wikipedia. Don't try to mask your blatant jingoistic indignation by trying to conceal (very unconvincingly) the only real reason as to why you even bother to bring up this dead horse of an argument once again; That your and/or your preferred NOC happens to benefit from one ranking methodology above another. Come to think of it, that goes for some of the muppets on the other side of the argument as well.

That guy is writing from Switzerland, they have won 2 medals so far, so I don't think his NOC will benefit from either ranking system. As far is I can remember consensus has always been to rank gold medals first.

Lots of USA patriots live in Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.4.151 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I declare these 2012 Olympic Table Ranking Discussions -- Never-Ending. - Tenebris 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.184 (talk)

(Although this chapter of the traditional argument of golds first vs totals first vs weighted standing first has been much, much, much shorter than during previous Olympics. I think I am disappointed. - Tenebris 00:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't this discussion fall foul of WP:NOT, or specifically WP:SOAP in that this is discussing the subject itself rather than the article? If so this thread should probably be deleted. The only topic up for discussion is whether this article should use a different ranking system to the one used currently. This topic has been discussed endlessly at every Olympic games since wikipedia started, and I think we have established beyond reasonable doubt that the answer to that is no. G-13114 (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Medal table note?

Does the following note still apply for the medal table? "Note. The table includes the official changes in medal standings, but does not include the possible changes announced in 2015 (see below). IOC has not yet decided on these cases and has not yet stripped the medals." Jeff in CA (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think already does not apply.Nitobus (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrestling 125kg freestyle

As we know IOC disqualified both finalists in this event, and UWW originally (and quickly) reallocated the medals. source and our table is based on that. but that was premature and apparently there were some protests and etc. there was nothing in UWW rules about this situation when both finalists get disqualified, but in their new version of rules, they award two gold medals in this case and apparently IOC applies the new 2019 rules to what happened in 2012 , IOC website shows both Ghasemi and Makhov as gold medalists ! source. even though I know no medal is re-distributed yet. but I assume IOC stands above UWW and we have to update the medal table with 1 more gold for Russia (and 1 less silver). but since I wasn't sure I thought I could ask here. is it possible that IOC just made a mistake in its website ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a very good question. Month ago I asked this question to IOC and UWW and later to facebook of WrestRUS. IOC replied: "olympic.org is correct regarding the re-ranking of this event and reflect the current ranking with two gold medals". UWW did not answer. WrestRUS replied: "Из Федерации нам об этом пока не сообщали, как только у нас появится информация - мы сообщим об этом на сайте и в социальных сетях (From the Federation we have not yet been informed about this, as soon as we have information - we will inform about this on the website and in social networks)". A very strange situation, looks like the IOC itself redistributed the medals and did not notify either UWW or WrestRUS :) Nitobus (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's good they answered you back, I usually don't get an answer lol so you are telling me it was there months ago ? I thought I checked that website couple weeks ago and it was different but I'm not sure, maybe it was months ago. this is weird because per my previous experiences IOC website is the last one to show the medal changes !

I know the Iranian point of view in this matter, actually it became a controversy (I'm not going into details) Ghasemi is upset he didn't receive his medal yet. This is a report from Iran NOC about this, you probably can use the google translator but there are 3 letters in English inside the article. the 2nd one is IOC's response in December 2019. in December 2019 they said Ghasemi has to wait. the 3rd letter is from Iran few days ago. apparently IOC didn't answer that one yet. (or at least they didn't publish it)

but there is another thing, exactly when we heard about the doping (July 2019) I checked UWW rulebook to see who is going to win the gold medal, there was absolutely nothing in their rules about this situation when both finalists test positive for doping! I don't know based on what UWW awarded the gold to Ghasemi, and silver to Makhov. but interestingly when I checked the recent UWW rulebook there is a paragraph about this. in this case, they award two gold medals and no silver. so I think UWW is well aware of the story, they even modified their rules for a situation like that. maybe IOC website was just too quick this time, maybe UWW will have the same result but after the end of legal procedure! but still I don't know what we should do here, Olympic.org is the main source and it was never wrong (maybe until this time) Mohsen1248 (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked this question to IOC on May 21, so on this date changes to their website have already been made. What we should do here? I think it would be good to wait for at least one more confirmation from other source (UWW, Rus, Iran). For me personally, the stopper is the lack of any information from Russian sources, they usually react very quickly if the case is about Russian athletes. Nitobus (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense, I know when Bakhtiyar Akhmedov received his medal that made the headlines. my guess is there were some talks between UWW, IOC and Russia about rules being silent in such case. maybe they decided to give joint gold medals but it had to go through all those lengthy legal procedures but someone in IOC was caresuless and already updated the website, I think after all they will award two gold medals. (that just makes sense) but it will take months, and until that it's better to leave it the way it is right now. Makhov himself failed a doping test recently, I don't know if this matters or not, IOC apparently has no problem anymore to give medals to athletes with previous doping history. I'm sure Iran NOC will make it public whenever they receive anything important from the IOC. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to thank both of you, Nitobus and Mohsen1248, for always being up-to-date, diligent and honest about the counts and attribution of medals and the history of events held at Multi-sport Games, such as the Olympics and World Games. I know that when I see your names as editors, I can always trust the results. Kudos for all of your interest and hard work. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nitobus: I just heard an interview with Iran Wrestling Federation president (who was also in contact with Russian Wrestling president Mamiashvili), he claims IOC intervened here and since UWW rules were silent in cases like this. after some discussions in December 2019 they decided to award two gold medals (and made cases like that clear and written in UWW rule book) he expects this to be official and public in next IOC board. in short it seems IOC really decided to give two gold medals but only some paperwork is still left. and it seems someone in IOC was too quick to update the website but after all that wasn't wrong. Mohsen1248 (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Today appeared the first confirmation from a Russian source: The Russian wrestler Makhov is recognized as the champion of the 2012 Olympics. His opponent was disqualified for doping. Quote: "… In this regard, Makhov and Iranian Comel Gasemi are recognized as champions. Both athletes will receive gold medals instead of bronze …". Nitobus (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC) And official info: WrestRUS News Nitobus (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

so I think it's better to update the page (and other pages regarding this matter) because as you can see others already started to make edits and will make a mess. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. And one more source: Olympic Analytics Nitobus (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And this is getting funny, if you check that link again, they reverted their changes, they are both still "bronze medalists" ! that makes sense based on IOC's new response to Iran NOC. it seems they have to test everybody else (maybe rank 3 to 10) before upgrading their ranking. I think it's better to not change anything, after all if nobody else fails the doping test they will award the medals like that. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

IOC updated results: [1]. Case is closed. Nitobus (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

List of possible changes in medal standings

@Birdienest81: Difference between revisions

What does this list have to do with WP:Crystal ??? It was a verified list of cases, when athletes were already disqualified, but medals had not yet been redistributed. So it was not a thinking about the future, but a list of actual cases. Each case can lead in the future to either the cancellation of the disqualification in court, or to the redistribution of medals, but this is not a reason to delete the verified list of actual cases as such. Nitobus (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

By my understanding, the only verified fact for those cases is that the doping medalists have been disqualified and their medals have been stripped. However, there is not yet any decision by the IOC whether the involved medals will be redistributed. If you look at this article, there had been several events where the stripped medals were decided by IOC to leave vacant instead of reallocation, though they all happened only on or before the 2008 Olympics; but this does not mean that it is a must for IOC to redistribute the medals since the 2012 Olympics. Everything should just follow the Olympic official website. Therefore I think the act of Birdienest81 at that time is not totally wrong. However I think it is better to use hidden mode instead of completely deleting the contents. 215XBus (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear 215XBus, your understanding is perfect. However, the situation with the medal tables up to 2008 and 2012 is slightly different. Indeed, some medals were not redistributed up to 2008, however, in all such cases, the IOC or international federations issued an appropriate clarification, that they will not be redistributed in future. Thus, we could write in the main table something like this: "the meadals in this event will not be reallocated", and this will fully clarify the appropriate case. In 2012 is not so. Since 2012, there are cases when medals are not redistributed, and there is no any decision that they will not be redistributed. Thus, the attentive reader (for example, me :) ), having studied the first table, may ask the question: where are the lost medals? The second table gives information that serves as an answer to this question, so in my opinion it is valuable information. Nitobus (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The main problem is that a few editors treated them as that those medals have been confirmed to be reallocated but just not known when, so that they added or promoted those medals in the corresponding athletes' or representing teams' articles. However in fact IOC has not made any decision yet. And indeed Wikipedia has rules that everything must be verifiable and provided with reliable source. Since what the table represented is just a guess and possibility, and there are no online sources saying that this will happen, indeed the table may violate those rules. I suppose hiding the contents using <!--XXX--> is the best, so that while the information cannot be shown to the public, wiki editors can still see them during the edit, so if finally those medals are indeed reallocated, wiki editors can just move that to the official cases section. 215XBus (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

In general, I don't protest against using ! - - for this table. However, I disagree with the evaluation of this table as what the table represented is just a guess. You yourself write that the table is based on two facts: 1) doping medalists have been disqualified; 2) IOC has not made any decision yet about redistribution. And if even with the presence of information in this table, few editors are trying "to redistribute medals", then in the absence of this information they "will redistribute" these medals all the more. So I don't think this will improve the situation with the incorrect edits, rather the opposite. Nitobus (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(pinged by Birdienest81) I reviewed this list during FLC, but I am otherwise uninvolved with this article. As an outsider, I agree with 215XBus; unless you can find a source arguing that the medals will likely be redistributed, the table is entirely WP:OR and should be removed. That's why WP:CRYSTAL was invoked during the edit; if you can't find a source to predict a future event, then predicting it yourself is OR. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with RunningTiger123. 215XBus (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

As checked from the Olympic official website again, they have just updated information of some of the involving athletes (say Erik Kynard, Derek Drouin, Mutaz Essa Barshim) with the medals promoted, so those are no longer predictions now. 215XBus (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

While it's nice that some of these changes seem to be showing up on the official Olympics website, neither that site's medal table nor the provided source here lists the U.S. as having won 47 gold medals yet (which would back the potential Kynard upgrade; I haven't checked the other items). Given the apparent verifiability issues involved, I'd suggest not changing the main table wholesale until we get a source to back the new numbers. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not mind following Giants2008's suggestion. 215XBus (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)