Talk:2024 Summer Olympics

Opening Ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics

Paris, France – 2024-07-26

End

Local Time ()

RFC on Participating National Olympic Committees

The "Participating National Olympic Committees" section is all over the place. The two maps don't match agree with one another, nor do they agree with the text and the table. For example, why is Russia shaded green in the first map? — Kpalion^(talk) 21:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Russia and Belarus are not participating at this Olympics. Thus, they should be gray on the map of participating countries. Do you agree? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Although there is an Individual group (AIN), Russia and Belarus nations are not participating. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

People from these countries are allowed to participate. It is not true that they do not participate. As in the previous Olympics, where the Russian National Team was banned. The map is correct.Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the map be representing the participating NOCs? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it represents countries the participants are from, not NOCs, look to all previous games:(2016,2018,2020,2022).Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is seriously convoluted (not only because country, state and nation seem to get confused). Before the relatively recent ban of Russia (first due to doping and then together with Belarus due to the Ukrainian war) this was fairly simple as national Olympic committee and states were not meaningfully different. However in 2020 and 2022 Russian authorities involvement in doping coverups resulted in banning the state of Russia for 4 years (ie 2019-2023). Participation of Russian athletes under Russian Olympic Committee not showing Russian flag or anthem was allowed. The question whether the 2 relevant maps (2020-2022) should feature Russia as country for theses is indeed dubious. In 2022 (after the winter games) the Belarus Olympic Committee (due to support of Ukraine war and treatment of its athletes) and in 2023 Russian Olympic Committee was suspended as Olympic committee (after it included substantial part of Ukraine (and their athletes) as belonging to Russia). This means that for the 2024 Olympics these committees can not send athletes. This is a distinctly different situation from anything before. While individual athletes from both countries are allowed to compete on personal title they can not have any explicit connection to their home country. Hence in any case for the 2024 map Russia and Belarus should be shown as not competing on the map (and not as having won any medals). (of course if there are neutral, strong sources that contradict my interpretation above I am willing to discuss). Arnoutf (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hm, could you explain more thoroughly what exactly has changed so much since the last Olympics that the map had to change as well? I think it's still the same, athletes from these countries are still not banned, they can participate if the IOC allows them and their flags or country names still cannot be used. Yes after the start of the war, the IOC said that it would completely ban the participation of Russian athletes, but that later changed. Anyway, these two maps do not represent the NOCs, but what countries the participating athletes are from. If the maps showed NOCs then yes, those states should be greyed out.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "from"? Where the ahtletes were born? Where they primarily reside? What county's passport they hold? What is the data source? — Kpalion^(talk) 07:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Officiating controversies

There have been a lot of controversial decisions by referees and judges in these Olympics in several sports, I think this should be mentioned in the Controversies section. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:58E5:63D0:C79A:AB91 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of alleged controversial decisions by referees and judges in every Olympics. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Still, there have been enough instances in this Olympics that I believe it should be mentioned, at least the most notorious ones. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:D023:AA2C:6B1:F0AB (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

For example? JacktheBrown (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The controversy over the Floor results in Women's Gymnastics is probably the best example of it. CAS just recently stripped Jordan Chiles of her bronze medal and gave it to Romanian Ana Barbosu. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:AC26:3A2B:52BF:D4FD (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

What makes that a controversy? HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a causing a lot of controversy actually, and its just the most notorious example of bad officiating in these Games. 2804:29B8:5183:100C:AC26:3A2B:52BF:D4FD (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a great example of the judging controversy that I was thinking about. And the controversy hasn't quieted down any since the Olympics endedOhioGirl42986 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes it has. I've seen no mention of it whatsoever in my local media in the past two weeks.HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Equal treatment to all 5 countries in lead

I noticed in lead, all top 5 countries, except for one, are described with having this much x Gold medals and this much x total medals. Australia, Japan, France, USA all are described that way. The only country that doesn't get described this way is China only. I see one editor went out of their way to reduce the sentence for China only.[1] That same editor has edit summaries attacking others as "pro-china" so safe to say they really don't like China.[2] But you can't target and single out China in the lead as this is inconsistent with our approach to other 4 top countries. Additonally the change is trivial and makes it unnecessarily harder for most people to understand. But I guess that's the purpose of such an edit. Original version [3] makes it easier to understand quickly for many people without having to rack their brains as much. So I reverted it so people can easily understand without mental strain, but more importantly it is back in an equal consistent + neutral manner that doesn't go minimize as much space on China's achievements as possible.[4] A new ip editor reverted it again without explanation, but it's not an improvement but makes it more unequal and more ambigous and unncessarily harder to understand with ease in comparison, so I reverted it again. Evibeforpoli (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Also the original sentence was more ambiguous. It starts off with, “Tied in terms of gold medals’. But tied to who exactly? The sentence wasn’t perfect and could be easily improved. So I reworded it to be less ambiguous with the final sentence being “China tied with the United States in terms of gold medals (40), and finished second on a countback with 91 medals in total. [5]. I find that version to be clear and detailed enough. And additionally doesn't downgrades China as nothing more than as a backdrop to USA instead of being the focus of its own dedicated sentence. But reverting back to the unequal version makes no sense and just shows starkly that we only single out China for minimization which we don’t do for 4 other countries, and why I addressed it. Evibeforpoli (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Medal-winning nations in the lead

There's no convention or consensus to include/non-include specific nations in the lead. This edit's summary misrepresents the facts given that articles up to the 1996 Summer Olympics list only the top medal-winning nation. Furthermore, there's no "gold medal count" that China topped as the gold medals-first version endorsed by the IOC uses silver and then bronze medals to break potential ties. Hence, in this table China finished second and claiming otherwise is disingenuous. Pizzigs (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

We have always shown at least the top 3 nations in on all Olympic pages consistently since 2004. The only difference now for this year, is that China tied with USA on golds and seems you like to find an excuse to trim mention of that factoid by reducing the number of top countries to just 1 now. I addressed this in above thread - "Equal treatment to all 5 countries in lead", and you shown to have issues particularly with that one sentence in particular - China tied with USA on golds. [6] And it looks wrong to only limit it at the one Olympics where china tied with usa. But if we decide to remove the top 4 countries after USA for this article to only show the top country and the host, we have to do the same with all the other Olympic articles. Otherwise why the sudden change for only this year compared to the past 5 olympics? People will notice the change and ask why. Evibeforpoli (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pizzigs Also in case I am mistaken on you, go explain to me why the sudden change? In 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 Olympics. We have consistently added in the top 3 to top 5 five nations in lead. Why is this year suddenly so different in which we need to urgently now limit it to only USA being mentioned as top nation? It's obviously because you don't like to read the part that China came close this time and tied with USA on golds. But going out of your way on changing the MOS consistently done for the past 5 Olympics just so you can remove the sentence that China came second and tied with US on gold, is just disruptive editing WP:OWN, where you are removing info simply because you don't like it, and not because it violates any Wikipedia policies, like verifiability, neutrality and relevance. Evibeforpoli (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that it was so close between these 2 nations makes it noteworthy for sure. USA passed China on the last day. But i think top5 is too much, maybe mention hosts, but some of that paragraph is too specific (like rank by overall medals). Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes that too; it's also because China and USA were also so exceedingly close to each other this year - that alone is merit enough for at least China to be included for the lead. It wasn't an olympics where US lead by a big margin over second place and makes others irrelevant. But actually got tied at gold medals, and had to then rely on silvers to win overall. Though if not top 5, then we can just do top 3 like we always done with other past olympic articles since 2004. And given the closeness, China should definitely be included either way.Evibeforpoli (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

The current revision is worded in such a way that viewers might get an impression that China and the United States tied in the gold medal count, while China finished second in the overall medal count. This is false. The gold medal count uses silver as a tiebreaker when the two nations are tied on golds. Pizzigs (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pizzigs

I also agree that China did not top the gold medal count since the gold medal count uses silvers as the tie breaker when nations are tied on gold. 115.188.18.40 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pizzigs First you argue on this thread that only the top country should be mentioned and not second place. Now you return to your original main goal to reduce the sentence that China tied with USA in golds as you don't like that info. But it's true and supported by top sources that they tied with US on gold medals. They came second overall but on strictly on gold medals, they were equal to USA and no sources claim they were beaten by US on golds. Don't contradict the consensus of majority of media on this. Evibeforpoli (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pizzigs Yes, the gold medal count does indeed use silvers (and then bronze) to rank countries who have equal number of golds. In other words, the gold medal count uses silvers as the tie breaker, so I agree with the newer wording you have published. 115.188.18.40 (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

They did top the gold medal count and that's not even debatable, and supported by many sources where they tied with the US on golds. But they didn't top the overall medal count. There's a difference between gold medal count and overall medal chart. Evibeforpoli (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pizzigs Your stated purpose for this thread was that you believed that we should go trim the second place country from lead, because you say they are irrelevant. As well as the third and fourth. Do you still argue for that? Or are you now making a new argument here and abandoning that? if you are still advocating to change the last 5 Olympic pages and how it's consistently done. All of this, just so you can now support a poor reason to trim this year's second ranked country in the lead, and in particular - the notable mention it had tied with the US on golds. Which you demonstrated above that you still claim to be false and want to remove. Then that's an extreme way to go about it. Nonetheless top 3 countries should be mentioned and not be suddenly be different for this year,

And yes, China tied with US on golds. Stop conflating the overall medal tally with gold medals in which there are no official tiebreakers for golds, and both silver and bronzes are irrelevant on gold medal counts. Evibeforpoli (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no gold medal count in isolation. You are very mistaken. Whenever there is a tie in the number of golds, the official table uses the silvers as the tiebreaker.

Countries are never placed as equals based on gold, they are always further differentiated by the number of other medals. Gold medal count in isolation is not used anywhere. Just because the sensationalist media has used the term in some places doesn't mean it exists. Find me a table where gold medal count is used in isolation? It just doesn't exist.

There are only two main types of medal tables. 'Gold medal table' and 'total medal table'. Please refer to the olympics medal tables on the official site for both 2020 and 2024 and try to sort by different medal tables. Gold, total medals, alphabetical.. The gold medals table will position countries higher who have more silver, after an equal number of golds. This is a fact you cannot dispute.

...Based on the official 'gold medal table', China did not finish on top. They finished 2nd in the gold medal table, as well as 2nd in the total medals table.

American media only uses total medals table, so when they saw that the top two countries finished on equal number of golds, they started using the term 'tie in gold medal count' because they don't use the Gold Medal Table. Countries who use the gold medal table have clearly stated that US finished on top, that US edged past China in the very last event to finish on top of the table. It is a fact that China did not finish on top of any medal table. They tied for the number of gold medals only, and I don't see a problem with what he has written. He has been very clear. He has stated that China tied in gold and finishing 2nd due to fewer silvers. He has even listed the top 5 countries, which is the right thing to do. There should not be any arguments. The whole paragraph is as clear and accurate as it gets. Jimmkk (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant the current version as it stands is fine. Jimmkk (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jimmkk I really do not want to go through more of these weird copium conversations where same people argue that United states somehow beat China on gold medal count despite having the same number of golds. The reality is both the United States and China topped the gold medal count after tying at 40 gold medals, however USA came first on overall medals for having more silvers, while China came second overall. And it's self explanatory. Gold medal tally only counts golds and there is no tiebreaker for who wins the most golds. Multiple media outlets report that United States and China tied on golds and never claim that USA beat china on gold medals. [7] But you say you like the current version then good. As long as the basic vital information is included in there, it does not really matter to me much on how others state it. There's only so many ways but OP has been arguing to remove china completely from the lead, which is something I oppose. Evibeforpoli (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Gold medal table and 'who won most no. of golds' are two separate things. Gold medal table is the main olympic medal table that we use.

US topped the gold medal table (which is also referred to as 'the medal table'), but they tied on gold medals with China. They won same number of golds as China.

You are calling topping the (gold) medal table as topping the overall medals. This is the reason for your (earlier) confusion because you are using different terms to those used by the IOC on their website. Jimmkk (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to overall medal chart where they count not just golds but also the silvers and bronzes. When media specifically says that China top the Summer Games gold medal chart[8] 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> [9] It means literally just that. They refer to the tally counting only the gold medals in which both USA and China have topped. Silver and bronzes are completely irrelevant to the gold medal tally. Evibeforpoli (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jimmkk And honestly can't tell if you are gaslighting or innocently misunderstanding because of maybe English vocab issues. But I will try to assume good faith and explain to you clearly one final time. When people say that US came first on Summer olympic medal chart. It means they counted the golds but will also consider silver after a gold tie to determine that. But if they specifically refer to gold medal chart or tally, and mention the key words - 'gold medals", they are not talking about overall medal chart but a more specific narrow criteria where they only tally up the gold medals and nothing else.

I am not nefariously pulling your leg on this and encourage you to go and ask the other people on it only if you genuinely don't believe me. And also ask yourself this, why do most if not all media constantly refer to China as topping the gold medal count? Are they all just wrong and lying to you as well? no, it's because it's the reality where people generally understand a special term that only tallies gold medals and in that regard, China as well as USA both topped the gold medal count.[10] I hope that helps.:) Evibeforpoli (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There are always ties in gold medals won. There was a 4-way gold medal tie among Netherlands, France, Germany and Italy in Tokyo Olympics 2020. They all finished on 10 golds each but no one called it a tie. No one said that they all finished 6th equal in the "gold medal count".

They were further differentiated by the number of silvers and bronzes and ranked 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th. This was their ranking that was mentioned. The olympic medal table also listed them in order, rather than as a tie. Gold medals are not given in isolation, they are always given along with silver medals and bronze medals. If it was only about gold medals and gold medal count in isolation they wouldn't be giving all the other medals.

We are talking about a tie in gold medals, only because it has happened at the top of the table. If it had happened for like the 3rd position, no one would be calling it a tie. Nations would be called and said to have finished 3rd and 4th, based on their medal table ranking.

You are calling it an overall medal table, because you are using terms straight from unreliable media, but it is actually called the gold medal table, as it is sorted by gold medals, instead of total medals. Jimmkk (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

omg. It's not "unreliable media". You can't just label any media that doesn't support what you want, to be "unreliable". Especially when it's the overwhelming majority of professional media. I really tried my best to inform you but I clearly failed. That doesn't mean I am going to just let you ruin an article out of ignorance. Unfortunately I am not in the mood to forever discuss with you so I guess I have to go and find some alternative route to deal with you. Evibeforpoli (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit Dispute on including certain info

I made this edit recently[11], which will likely be opposed by same edit warring editors and so creating this discussion. It to state China as being the only modern country, other than US, to have topped gold medal count at an olympics without having a home ground advantage. I reviewed Wikipedia’s core content policies - 'Neutral Point of View (NPOV), Verifiability, and No Original Research (NOR)' and believe that exclusion of that edit, conflicts with these guidelines.

1. 'Neutral Point of View (NPOV)':

Wikipedia should provide fair balanced coverage. Historically and consistently in many recent Olympic articles, whenever there's notable info like US winning its 1000th gold medal in 2016 Olympics or UK becoming the first country to increase medal tally after hosting a games, they are included in lead without issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Summer_Olympics This year also had plenty of historic firsts and to ensure neutrality and fair treatment, China’s achievement of being the only modern country, other than US, to finally top gold medal count without home ground advantage, should receive mention too without issues. Failing to do so while mentioning that UK in 2016 merely increased medal count right after hosting games), only creates a biased view by acknowledging only certain countries' achievements.

2. 'Verifiability': The Verifiability policy ensures that all content on Wikipedia is supported by reliable, published sources. Here are just a few examples of reputable outlets confirming China’s achievement:

NBC Philadelphia: Stated that the U.S. and China ended with 40 gold medals each—a first for the Summer Games—emphasizing that this was a tie rather than a win based solely on gold count.(https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/paris-2024-summer-olympics/medal-count-who-won-most-golds-united-states-china-olympic-history/3941130/).

Bloomberg: Confirmed that both the U.S. and China led all nations in gold medals, reflecting their joint top position. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-12/china-touts-olympic-gold-medal-tie-with-us-as-new-sign-of-power?embedded-checkout=true).

3. 'No Original Research (NOR)': I received replies claiming that China came second on gold medal tally but that reasoning isn't supported by reliable sources but just made up by anon editors. Wikipedia’s NOR policy prohibits the use of unpublished arguments or interpretations. The removal of China's achievement, despite substantial coverage by reliable sources, appears to favor editor-created narratives over verifiable facts. Wikipedia should not replace documented facts with personal interpretations or original reasoning.

Additionally, on China's unique status as the only modern country, besides US, to top the gold medal count without competing on home soil:

CNN: Reports China achieved this unique feat, being the only country besides the U.S. and the former Soviet Union to do so. (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/12/china/china-celebrates-olympics-gold-tie-us-intl-hnk).-

Newsweek: Also underscores this historic accomplishment, highlighting China's achievement in topping the gold medal chart without a home advantage. (https://www.newsweek.com/olympic-medal-count-show-china-making-history-team-usa-cant-stop-them-1937541).

These sources clearly establish widespread recognition of China’s accomplishments at the 2024 Olympics. To align with Wikipedia's core policies, it is essential to reflect this information in the article. Evibeforpoli (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jimmkk @ I see you have continued to remove the phrase without discussing it on talk or giving any explanation at all. But I also see you had also at least added a major historic first and seems you now recognize it as factual. Instead of needing to be edit warring and progressing this to DRN, I propose two versions – One that is closer to what you already earlier wrote days ago – The United States topped the medal table for the fourth consecutive Summer Games and 19th time overall. China tied with the United States on golds (40), marking the first time a gold medal tie has occurred at the top in Summer Olympic history, but finished second due to fewer silvers; the nation won 91 medals in total. Or my original proposed version - China tied with the United States on golds (40), and consequently became the third country after the United States and former Soviet Union to top the most gold medal count at a Summer Olympics without the advantage of competing at home, but finished second overall due to fewer silvers; the nation won 91 medals in total.

Both really should be okay. But what I cannot agree is not letting any of that info in as both deserves brief mention. Evibeforpoli (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I've tidy up again in the description. – The United States topped the medal table for the fourth consecutive Summer Games and 19th time overall, with 40 gold and 126 total medals. China tied with the United States on golds (40), but finished second due to having fewer silvers; the nation won 91 medals overall. This is the first time a gold medal tie among the two most successful nations has occurred in history. I believe that it's more acceptable. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Stevencocoboy Thank you, it's def an improvement over my version. It breaks it into two sentences and made it easier for readers so your tidying up indeed is a welcome improvement and I agree it's more acceptable. :) Evibeforpoli (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Paris 2024

I'm placing the following comment on both the 2024 Summer Olympics and 2024 Summer Paralympics talk pages.

Though this was not entirely novel for the Olympic and Paralympic Games, more than ever before, Paris 2024 was a common 'platform' for both Games.

More specifically, the following list of things were common to both Games:

• The organising committee
• The emblem
• The visual identity (aka Look of the Games)
• The slogan ("Games Wide Open")
• The wayfinding
• The music - eg, for victory ceremonies
• The volunteer programme
• The ticketing platform
• The official shops

This is not an exhaustive list.

While this commonality may seem inevitable or obvious, it was not always like this, and Paris 2024 has provided the most extensive common platform for both Games in their history, a fact which I don't think is fully reflected on the English-language Wikipedia at present.

While I am not for a second suggesting that we merge the 2024 Summer Olympics and 2024 Summer Paralympics articles, by doggedly adhering to the historical precedent of having only separate articles for the Olympics and Paralympics, we miss the opportunity to properly document everything that was common to what was the largest event ever held in France. (Or, alternatively, we end up duplicating it in both articles.)

My proposal therefore is as follows:

• We remove the redirect from Paris 2024 to 2024 Summer Olympics.
• We create a new Paris 2024 article, which complements the 2024 Summer Olympics and 2024 Summer Paralympics articles, to cover all of the common parts of Paris 2024 (including but not limited to the topics listed above).

Kennethmac2000 (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The most successful games

The statistics are in: 12.5 million tickets have been sold for the Paris Olympics, and 2.5 million for the Paralympics, according to the French sports newspaper ‘L'équipe’, setting a new record for both. What's more, in the last line of the last paragraph I would have added a success for the locals (who were unfavourable to begin with). Is it possible to add these two pieces of information to the introductory paragraph? 46.193.65.57 (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The numbers could be added, with sourcing, but not any claim that this means the Games were the most successful. That would be subjective, and depend on many factors. HiLo48 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Translation of the official name in the local name ?

Should we add the names "Jeux olympiques d'été 2024"/"Jeux de la XXXIIIe olympiade" at the summit of the page? 2A01:CB16:2003:4532:E9DB:E46B:7FB9:CC32 (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Double dagger symbol for United States?

Does anyone know why the United States's name is followed by a double dagger (‡) in the medal table? That symbol doesn't seem to appear anywhere else on the page, and there is no explanation. I tried to edit the table, but it seems to be pulling information from somewhere else and I couldn't figure out how, so I wasn't able to get to the bottom of it. 2603:7000:34F0:1BB0:C57B:B7D3:40A2:80 (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The double dagger (‡) is for Changes in medal standings. Specifically for the demoted of Jordan Chiles from bronze to fifth. Now the legend for the table should also appear in the article.Nimrodbr (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)