Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

From Conservapedia

(Redirected from Talk:Olympics 2012)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

"1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S."

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. JeffreyB 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? JeffreyB 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Category 3 is sports-specific in the U.S., so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--Andy Schlafly 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. JeffreyB 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, Christianity, which liberals never want to credit).--Andy Schlafly 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? JeffreyB 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to Olympics 2012 that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--Andy Schlafly 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. JeffreyB 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that Tim Tebow, after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's NFL playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--Andy Schlafly 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Euro 2012

Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --FrederickT3 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

The Netherlands is a big same-sex marriage country, so no surprise there. Both Spain and Italy are very liberal, so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--Andy Schlafly 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. JeffreyB 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--Andy Schlafly 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? JeffreyB 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" JeffreyB 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.

Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia. As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist. Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. Gregkochuconn 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[1], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[2]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: Decline of atheism

In the journal article Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[3][4] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[5] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[6] See also: Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: Atheism and health and Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism and Atheism and obesity

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side! Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: Views on atheists) :) Conservative 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal

In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who.[7] See also: Atheism and depression and Atheism and health Conservative 09:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Do you have a link to that actual study? One in seven seems high. How big is this "Who's Who" list and how many missionary families are there in the USA?
Come on, everybody knows the formula to winning the gold. Preparation and conceive, believe and achieve! :) Doubters have a harder time believing than believers! Atheists are pessimists and have higher rates of depression. See: Atheism and depression and Atheism and suicide. Bible believers who are realists and optimists are more upbeat and win more gold medals. Plus, conservative Bible believing Protestants with the Protestant work ethic, are more able to outwork atheists and achieve more gold medals. Secular Europe is filled lazy doubters who love socialism. Lazy people are less likely to win gold medals. Conservative 10:08, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
yeah, that's good, really I just want to see how the study explains it
We know that per capita GDP increases Olympic medals. Therefore, when the shortsighted measures holding together the troubled Eurozone economy stop working, they will win less gold medals than countries which were more prudent. The lazy secular Europeans should have listened to the Bible about hard work and not getting heavy into debt. The gold medal counts of secular Europe are going to be lower than they needed to be in 2016. Conservative 10:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10394-public-debt-by-country.html#axzz1zqxAoMmm

I think it is self explanatory that those who have faith will have the discipline and the belief to achieve something extraordinary--OconnorM 12:46, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
I do know that post 1950 the USA became more secular and United States became less financially prudent. Socialism and communism do not have great track records over the long term and atheists have tended to like these systems more. Countries which adopted a Protestant work ethic have benefited and even those with a legacy of a Protestant work ethic culture have benefited.[8] The Bible also mentions sharpening the axe (Ecclesiastes 10:10), good stewardship of resources and orderliness. [9] No doubt the legacy of Protestantism in the country of Germany (birth place of Protestantism), helped to create the efficiency and orderliness that their society is known for. Athletes who train more efficiently using the best methods and get better nutrition, gain more medals. See also: Christianity and science. Christianity has one of the highest rates of creationism in the world and despite Darwinist persecution of creationists and intelligent design proponents (see: Expelled) manages to be leader in technological innovation. Conservative 13:48, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

One fair way to analyze

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. SharonW 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

It would still make no case for any causal relationship between same-sex marriage, atheism etc. and performance at the Olympics. CasparRH 19:54, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 MaartenG 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Baseball being removed from list

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [10] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. SharonW 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Baseball was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too conservative?--Andy Schlafly 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
If it is, why did Cuba win most of the gold medals? (And the most medals overall?) JeffreyB 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Same sex marriage and underachievement.

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. JeffreyB 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: Homosexuality and health. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of Homosexuality and obesity. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of Lesbos has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: Lesbianism and obesity).Conservative 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --FrederickT3 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Thanks! Corrected. Conservative 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages are permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. SharonW 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. MaartenG 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. MaartenG 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: Mental Health and Homosexuality Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual "marriages" Conservative 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? MaartenG 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: Homosexuality). Conservative 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Birth rates, already covered above: "A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't." Conservative
Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre.
Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. MaartenG 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Your last wordism isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the Homosexuality and health issue. Conservative 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist Chuck Norris lives in the state of Texas and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness.
Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. Gregkochuconn 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. GregG 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
But it's not the attitudes of the athletes that User:Conservative says are relevant. It's the actual orientation of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. Gregkochuconn 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts

We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[11] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates.

We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: Atheism and morality). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: Views on Homosexuality. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: Decline of atheism. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [12] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality having more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: Homosexuality). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality.

Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: Atheism and morality and Atheism and suicide. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. Of course, you would have to do statistical analysis to examine the relationship between societies accepting homosexuality and their suicide rates so you do not count other factors which cause suicides.

Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, Emotional intelligence (EQ) test score and a person's "Adversity quotient" test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[13] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. Conservative 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) JeffreyB 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. Conservative 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. JeffreyB 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

It takes time to develop winning programs and I am guessing they knew in advance they were going to host the Olympics. 09:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Caribbeans have low suicide rates.[14] They must be pretty mentally tough and not worry. :) Mental toughness increases performance. Hey mon, don't worry, be happy! Hey mon, I think I am going to kick back on a Caribbean beach and listen to Caribbean music while conservative, Bible believing families (which don't approve of homosexuality) keep winning more gold medals per family because they have more kids and have more mental toughness! :) And remember, conservative Bible believers with the Protestant work ethic, work harder to win gold medals than lazy, liberal, obese homosexuals with knee problems on welfare! See: Homosexuality and obesity and Lesbianism and obesity. Conservative 09:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
HAHAHA they do talk funny
That may be so, User:Conservative, but you are still miscorrelating. A conservative Canadian family wouldn't be made liberal by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If anything, the decline in medals should come before the legalization of same sex-marriage, since liberalization would come before the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, perhaps a better study would be looking at a country's attitudes towards homosexuality over time (both before and after legalization of same-sex marriage) and try to correlate that. But I honestly doubt the actual act of legalizing same-sex marriage has a magic wand effect. Which is why the evidence shows you are wrong even though your logic may be perfectly correct. It's only your conclusion that's flawed. Liberalization and shift in views on homosexuality take time to occur. They don't happen overnight upon legalization of same-sex marriage. There would only be evidence of what you're saying if it was a magical overnight shift. And it's not. Gregkochuconn 16:16, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

More evidence that homosexuality leads to lower medal counts and Bible believing enables more medals to be won

Homosexuals have higher suicide rates than the general population (see: Mental Health and Homosexuality). Historically, Christians have faced a lot of persecution, but they don't commit suicide. They know that God wants Christians to be strong and not commit suicide and the Bible has many verses about being courageous plus the Bible is against suicide. Bible believers are more mentally tough than homosexuals. Mental toughness increases athletic performance. Therefore, Bible believers, all other things remaining equal, are able to win more Olympic medals than homosexuals. Conservative 12:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Math'd -- Gay marriage

A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.

For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a "Pro-Gay" state. No marriage or civil unions, an "Anti-Gay" state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....

State Type Expected Medals Actual Medals Over/Under
Pro-Gay 29.8 45 15.2
Anti-Gay 42.2 27 -15.2
Total 72.0 72 0

If we look just at Gold Medals...


State Type Expected Golds Actual Golds Over/Under
Pro-Gay 8.3 14 5.7
Anti-Gay 11.7 6 -5.7
Total 20.0 20 0

(Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)


As you can see, "Pro-Gay" states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, "Anti-Gay" states underperform by 36%.

The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - "Pro-Gay" outperformes %69%, while "Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.

In conclusion, do I think "imposing" gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data. EricAlstrom 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. Conservative 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.

2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.

3) Most importantly, why should I isolate the homosexuality issue? You should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis. EricAlstrom 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: Homosexuality and health). Conservative 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
So...nothing about the Olympics then? EricAlstrom 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
You still haven't shown me that the homosexual population can clear Olympic hurdles as well as the heterosexual population. See: Homosexuality and obesity and Lesbianism and obesity. Are you saying that overweight people are better hurdlers? If so, I have a hard time believing this. Also, nations with bigger populations earn more medals. How does homosexuality promote procreation? After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Conservative 12:37, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
And kudos to you, User:Conservative. You once again can't resist bringing up us evil fat people as your argument. And lo and behold, it's even completely off-topic to the above comments. Color me surprised... NOT! SharonW 13:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
User:Conservative, you make valid points, but you are confusing two statistical populations. There is the homosexual population, and if your statistics are correct, they should perform worse. Let's assume that you're right for the purpose of this discussion. However, that would only effect athletes who are homosexual themselves, not entire countries. Legalizing same-sex marriage won't magically make the entire population into homosexuals. So you should be looking at the sexual orientation of the athletes themselves if you want to prove your point. Whether the country/state legalizes same-sex marriage is irrelevant to your point, one way or the other. I'd be interested in seeing your new study which focuses on the athletes themselves and not on the whole country. Gregkochuconn 13:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, you said that legalizing gay marriage leads to a country under-performing in the Olympics. I showed that the evidence does not support that, at least in America. I didn't say fat gays make good hurdlers. But, the Olympics usually doesn't draw athletes from the 'out-of-shape' population... EricAlstrom 22:45, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

Expected Medals

Hello all, I think it would be fun to track "expected vs actuals" with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a "per capita" basis, or a "per GDP" basis. Any thoughts? EricAlstrom 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

I think ranking on a "per GDP" basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--Andy Schlafly 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! EricAlstrom 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Added info re same-sex marriage

I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. Gregkochuconn 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

Joke sports

I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are "sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals". The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals most times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. WilcoxD 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

I realize that the U.S. wins many of these "joke" medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--Andy Schlafly 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? WilcoxD 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.
This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--CPalmer 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a "joke". Gregkochuconn 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278

Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: ""Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now."[15]

Move page

Can we move this page to 2012 Olympics? That's a more natural title. Gregkochuconn 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

How bout a redirect?brenden 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--Andy Schlafly 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. Conservative 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. GregG 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but 1984 Olympics would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name "Games of the XXX Olympiad". (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. Gregkochuconn 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Agree with Greg. Thirtieth Olympiad is too obscure for a generation that regards 3 month old music as outdated. Better call it the 2012 Olympics. --Ed Poor Talk 20:26, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Tables for medals

I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. SharonW 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

This page is preposterous

I can't believe that nearly everything you have to say about this year's Olympic games revolves around your overweening obsession with homosexuality and atheism. Even conservatives--well, normal conservatives--would want more substantive information. CasparRH 19:51, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

That's not enough to qualify as trying to improve this page. Are you saying there's no correlation, or are you indirectly registering an objection to this project's campaign against homosexuality and atheism? --Ed Poor Talk 20:25, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
In my opinion, the way to improve this page would be to delete all the content and start over. I understand that the project is against homosexuality and atheism. But that doesn't mean those things have to be the main focus of every article. And yes, I am saying that there is no known correlation between same-sex marriage, homosexuality or atheism and Olympics success, and even if one were demonstrated, it would not establish causality, which is clearly what you are after. CasparRH 21:20, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
Ideas do have consequences on productivity, achievement, happiness, etc. A high percentage of successful NFL quarterbacks are devout Christians. Why?--Andy Schlafly 23:17, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
Is that so? What is the percentage? --QuentinQ 23:57, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Where is the UK...

...in the expected medals section? --QuentinQ 21:02, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Whoops, I had it listed as Great Britain. Which I should have known better than to do - I lived in London for a couple years, and got yelled at every time I got the terms wrong... EricAlstrom 23:18, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
Aaargh! I checked UK and Britain but neglected to check Great Britain. Silly me. --QuentinQ 23:23, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

GDP

If GDP "may be a fair proxy" in relation to how many medals a country will win then why is the main part of the article all about how atheism and gay marriage are going to have such an influence over the results? --QuentinQ 21:04, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

I wanted to have a start point for comparisons and trend-spotting. It is my hypothesis that homosexuality and atheism have nothing to do with a country's athletic performance, and the table is my first step in testing. EricAlstrom 23:21, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
I am inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately it makes the article a little schizophrenic (if I may use that term in such an inaccurate manner). The top of the article asserts that homosexuality and atheism are solid indicators of Olympic performance for reasons, whereas your section is intended to show otherwise. An internal tension, if you will.
I get the feeling from the Nations that are increasingly atheistic section that there is supposed to be some reason that atheists are incapable of acting as members of a team (the reason is not explained). Beyond that, the article is not only utterly unsupported by any study or even by any observations made by eminent persons in the appropriate field, it doesn't even contain a hypothesis as to the means by which the asserted connections operate. I would suggest deleting and starting again but I have read Ed Poor's comments above and I assume any such similar request from myself would be resisted. --QuentinQ 23:36, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
We have explained those connections elsewhere, including on this talk page. Perhaps make separate articles and link to them? If we put all the explanations in this article, I think it would get a bit too busy. Also, we'd have to copy them for every future Olympics, which seems like a waste if we can just link to them. What does everyone else think? Gregkochuconn 12:04, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Rowing -> soccer

I see Andy that you have reverted my edit which asserted that rowing was the sport requiring the most teamwork. Apparently soccer is the sport that requires most teamwork (for reasons that are mysterious to me).

Why is that Andy? Why not (field) hockey, for example? Or American football? I would still assert that rowing is far and away the paramount team sport. Your edit comment that it is "emulating a machine" really does nothing to detract from that assertion. So what? If that means that each crew member must move their body in perfect time with each other then my point is all the stronger isn't it?

Obviously if this is a conservative insight then clearly I must be wrong, but if there is an actual reason that soccer is the ultimate team sport over rowing then I would be interested to hear it. --QuentinQ 23:52, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

There is no dynamic teamwork of any consequence in rowing - no passing a ball from one player to another, no reactions to defenders, and no mental strategy. Rowing is great exercise for those who have access to expensive equipment and placid lakes, but it's not dynamic teamwork as soccer is.--Andy Schlafly 00:43, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
Ok, so it's "dynamic teamwork" that atheists can't perform? They are capable of acting in perfect harmony with each other in a rowing shell but cannot pass a ball to each other or perform mental strategy? Interesting. Is there any evidence to support any of this? If so, why is it that atheists are incapable of such activities?
P.S. I performed a couple of Google searches on which (rowing or soccer) is more commonly referred to as "the ultimate team sport": rowing or soccer. I think that the hit numbers speak for themselves. --QuentinQ 00:57, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
Rowing is obviously a rich-man's sport, which gives an unfair advantage to a few nations like the U.K. While physically challenging, rowing is the only sport where the contestant should think as little as possible and simply act like a robot.--Andy Schlafly 01:12, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
In rowing, don't you have a coxswain telling you when to row? It requires everyone rowing together, yes, but as long as they all act like robots (as Andy put it) and row when the coxswain says row, that's the only teamwork required. I won't deny it's a difficult sport, but it doesn't require much teamwork when there's a coxswain. The reason it's the ultimate team sport is that, more so than in any other sport, the chain is only as strong as the weakest link. If you put me on a soccer field with the 10 best players in the world (assuming they're of different positions), we could win, even though I'm a terrible soccer player. If you put me in a four-man boat with the three best rowers in the world, we would do terrible, because I'm a terrible rower. That's the difference between rowing and other team sports. Gregkochuconn 05:35, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
I row 3 times a week and I am a coxswain. It is certainly not a "robot" sport, and it requires intense concentration from the rowers to make sure that the crew is in time, running on perfect technique and drawing through together. A physically stronger crew will often lose to a weaker but more technical crew. The reason that our crews look like robots are because they are concentrating as hard as they can to keep everything technical, and to work against what the body is intuitively telling you to make every single inch of pressure on the water count.
As for being a rich man's sport, I can sympathise. Those boats are bloody expensive, and are often donated through philanthropy. However many of us, myself included, come from very underprivileged backgrounds and are fortunate enough to row in university teams. But getting to Olympic level requires training from a young age, which usually means being brought up at a very expensive private school that has rowing equipment. So I agree to an extent there, but one must not forget the huge benefits that philanthropy gives to broadening the pool of rowers, which is a conservative virtue as far as this website is concerned. HumanGeographer 11:16, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
(edit conflict) Doesn't the above data prove my point? The wealthiest nations in the world have won nearly all of the rowing medals.
Rowing is a grueling sport - I rowed for a bit myself. But it is a rich man's sport, and it is the only sport that does not use the brain.
In reply to Greg's insight comments, I doubt a soccer team with 25% terrible players could win either, if the coaching by the opposing side is good.
In reply to HumanGeographer's good comments, I agree that concentration is required and that the sport is terrific exercise.--Andy Schlafly 11:29, 16 July 2012 (EDT)
Andy, soccer teams have 11 players (including goalie). So it would be 9% poor players. And considering that teams have won 10-on-11 after an early red card, it's not inconceivable. But in rowing, it would be impossible. That's where the "team sport" mantra comes from. Gregkochuconn 15:05, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Greg, you have missed Andy's point. If you are one out of the four rowers you now have 25% of a team being terrible, whereas in soccer, as you have put it, missing one player means only 9% of the team is terrible. What Andy is suggesting is that the better comparison would be if a soccer team had 3 of their players essentially non-effective, and his point in that regard is well-taken. A soccer team playing 8 against 11 would not fare well either.--Krayner 15:23, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

The Olympics and Economics 2012

Goldman Sachs has some thoughts on the matters discussed above: pdf

Britain has quite high per capita spending on elite sports for a western democracy. Sailing is a perfect example— boats are very costly. For equestrianism, you need a horse. For rowing, you need a boathouse, boats and oars. For track cycling, you don’t really have a chance without a wind tunnel, a velodrome. It’s different with running, where you just need a pair of shoes. There is a dramatic difference between sports that only a tiny group of countries can afford to invest in and the others.

—Matthew Syed, British journalist

They have a forecast for Gold and Total medals, too. --AugustO 05:50, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

During the Modern Olympic Games, the pagan origins of the Olympics have been replaced by faith-based achievement by the participating athletes

This seems to be wishful thinking: the Olympics were for quite a time dominated by nations which didn't allow their athletes the comforts of faith. AugustO 05:59, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

Group of Left

For those who don't get the "Group of Left" reference, it's a play on the phrase "Group of Death", which refers to an unusually strong group. I doubt Tunisia will finish in the top two and go to the medal round, but anything other than last place would be overperforming for them. Gregkochuconn 18:21, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Women's Soccer

Why would the US women's soccer team be expected to underachieve? They're not one of the atheist nations, same-sex marriage is only legal in six states, and if Title IX effected them in any way, it would have helped them (albeit at the expense of men's sports). We should either explain it or remove it. Gregkochuconn 18:35, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

As I understand it, women's soccer is very strong in the US. Still, the nature of Soccer means that results are more unpredictable than other sports. Very often the best team is not able to win. Its a funny sport in that respect. --DamianJohn 18:44, 22 July 2012 (EDT)
I know that. But that still doesn't answer the question. We could say the same about any of the favorites. There's no reason given to expect the US team specifically to underperform. Gregkochuconn 08:49, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
It seems as though "underperformance" and "failing to live up to expectations" are a preferred theme of the website's management. Maybe it's just a case of projection. RayM 09:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
Possibly. If that's all it is, we should remove it. But I'm going to wait and see if anyone has a better explanation before I do so. Gregkochuconn 18:07, 23 July 2012 (EDT)
Politically correct teams often underachieve.--Andy Schlafly 21:03, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
Very well. I removed the part about the coach being a foreigner, since surprisingly it isn't an unusual practice to do something like that. About half the women's soccer coaches this year are from another country (i.e. not the one they coach). And Jurgen Kingsman of Germany coaches the men's US national team, although it's unlikely he'd have coached at the Olympics even if they did qualify, since men's soccer at the Olympics is primarily Under-23 teams. However, I kept the rest of the footnote. Gregkochuconn 21:10, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
I don't think it's that common for a prominent sport like soccer. Germany, of course, has a very strong soccer program. But a coach from Sweden for the women's team???--Andy Schlafly 21:21, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
Ahhh.... Good point. Gregkochuconn 21:50, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

The coach in question was the coach when the US won gold in 2008. She took the job in 2007. RayM 00:14, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Early goal for France in Game 1 for the USA. 1-0. Plenty of time for us to come back. Gregkochuconn 12:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
2-0 France, less than 20 minutes in. A loss wouldn't eliminate the US, but a big loss would make it hard to go through in a tough group. Gregkochuconn 12:15, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
2-1. US goal came on a corner kick, which requires a lot of teamwork, against, atheist France. Still not even a quarter of the way through. Gregkochuconn 12:20, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

So let me get this straight: If France loses, it's because of atheism. If the US loses, it's because their coach is a foreign-born lesbian, even though she led the team to gold in 2008. Is that correct? RayM 12:29, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

It's only one game. And one of them had to win (or it could be a tie, I suppose). Let's see how the tournament progresses. It looks like they'll both go to the quarterfinals, but with 8 of the 12 teams advancing, that's not unexpected. Let's see how they do there. Then we can discuss this. Gregkochuconn 13:51, 29 July 2012 (EDT)
The US girls have won the gold medal! [16] --FrederickT3 17:40, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

"No Religion" in census response

There are three possible explanations for a citizen refusing to state a religious preference on a government census form: no self-identification with one of the listed denominations, fear of government recording of religious preferences, or protest against government intrusion into a citizen's private spiritual life. Do we know which is the case in Australia? I know that if the government were to knock on my door, I would be in the third group. We don't know if Australia is in a religious decline based on census data, when there are better measures, including church service attendance and audience ratings for religious radio and TV broadcasts. Are there better data sources for this article? Thanks, Wschact 01:08, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Over 11% of Australians refused to answer the religion question on their census forms. These people could have a faith. Wschact 08:22, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Beckham and the Olympic torch

I suggest not adding whether Beckham lights the Olympic cauldron until after it airs on NBC, even though we should know around 7:30 PM ET whether he has or not. Some people might not know and might want to not know until NBC shows it on tape delay. It's only a few hours, and since most of our users are American and won't have seen the cauldron lighting yet, I think it's a reasonable courtesy. Gregkochuconn 06:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Black Power salute controversy

I don't see a connection between the Black Power salute controversy, which was an act of political defiance on the medal stand that hardly anyone remembers (and which the Olympic committee forgave participants for) and Tebowing. Also, why would the comment be in the "TBD" column anyway?

I think that athletes may (understandably) refrain from engaging in overt religious activity due to the precedent set by Smith and Carlos. The Olympics are a major event, and being banned from them (even wrongly) can seriously affect athletes, especially those competing in sports whose major competition is the Olympics. That's why I think that athletes will at least think twice before engaging in such behavior.
The column where I added my explanation is headed "Answer," and my explanation is certainly an answer. Of course, it's just my insight, and maybe it will be proven wrong. But even if no one does end up doing Tebowing, we can rest assured that Christian athletes have Jesus' words in mind:
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

—Matthew 6:5-8, NIV

GregG 14:42, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
The "answer" is presumably provided by the results, as for the other issues, all of which is "TBA". Tebowing is not something that would likely be done during the medal ceremony, not even by Tebow himself. It's done before or after the athletic event, as in the American marathon medalist in 2004 who did the Sign of the Cross right after crossing the finish line.
As to the quote from the Bible, the context for that quote is clear: people should not pray in a hypocritical manner like the liberal Pharisees. There is nothing hypocritical about Tebowing.--Andy Schlafly 15:08, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
I think the precedent still applies, or at least it has an in terrorem effect, to all such displays, regardless of whether they are during a medals ceremony or before or after an event. I know that this is my opinion, but Tebowing seems to me to be nothing more than a gimmick, a practice designed to whack people over the head with the "HEY, IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, I'M CHRISTIAN!" hammer. Such efforts, no matter how sincere they are, are misguided, and Jesus tells us that this sort of public display is not at all required by Christians, just as Jesus goes on to criticize people who make a public display out the pious practice of fasting. GregG 15:41, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Reformat

Can someone with better formatting skills than me please make the table into a better, cleaner format? It's very hard to read right now. Gregkochuconn 15:42, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

Public Schools

Is the public schools example really that good? There are certain private schools in America that are infamous for training its students like athletes rather than students. More so in basketball and (American) football than other Olympic sports, though. Public schools don't do that. Nor should schools do that, it's called "school", not "training". I should point out that certain colleges are legendary for that too, including my own school, which is a public college under the State of Connecticut. But don't think that's why we're banned from the tournament next year - we're actually banned for not doing enough to game the system. And half the women's basketball Olympic team went to UConn. We actually care about academics for our women's basketball team, and do very well academically. But don't get me started on that, because it's irrelevant. Anyway, assuming you mean public high schools (or below), I think it doesn't present a very conservative argument. Private primary schools should not exist for the purpose of training athletes. The fact that some do indicates something is wrong with the system, not that the system is good. Not saying that's enough to make the whole system bad - the vast majority of private schools are very good academically. But these aren't the ones that produce the superstar athletes, for the most part. Also, other than basketball, it wouldn't apply to any of the Olympic sports, since football isn't in the Olympics. And there are only 12 American men's basketball players. I don't know how many of them went to the sham private schools whose main purpose is athletics, but I know LeBron is one of them. Gregkochuconn 15:49, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

The Swiss tweet in question.

Here is a link to an image of the tweet. As you can easily read for yourself, it's directed at "les coréens," et non pas contre "l'équipe coréen" ou quelque chose de même. RayM 18:33, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

"South Korean" is not a race, and there is no evidence that the tweet was racist as the liberals claim. Rather, this incident shows how much liberals oppose free speech, and will NOT defend the rights of others to speak their minds.--Andy Schlafly 18:40, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
So, just for the record, you do defend the right of a person to call an entire nation of people "mentally handicapped retards" and think that he should face no consequences for doing so while representing his own country at an international event? RayM 18:48, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
For the record, I do support free speech, even for statements with which I disagree. The tweet was not racist and athletes should be able to vent on twitter, just as they do vocally during games. Fans do also, by the way.--Andy Schlafly 19:13, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
Do you believe a private, non-profit organization such as the Swiss and/or Greek Olympic committees has the right to demand and/or expect behavior from its members that reflects well on the organization, and that organization should be allowed to sanction a participant when behavior does not meet those expectations? If you do, where do you think the line is drawn? SharonW 21:27, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
No, I don't think the organizations you mention should be expelling athletes based on what they say on Twitter (and I question whether the organizations are truly private, rather than publicly funded).
There was no evidence that the tweets embarrassed the nations in any way. Rather, this is liberal censorship run amok. Thirty years ago, liberals and the ACLU would have sided with the athletes.--Andy Schlafly 21:39, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
The only NOC that is 100% privately funded is the American one, although the vast majority of them are funded privately in part. Gregkochuconn 13:01, 2 August 2012 (EDT)

Atheistic Brits

I wonder...what percentage of the underachieving, God-hating British Olympians are actually Atheists? Willingham77 17:03, 31 July 2012

The better question is what percentage of the Brits are subjected to an increasingly atheistic media and culture? Unfortunately, nearly 100%.--Andy Schlafly 19:11, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
The better better question is why does an "atheistic" country have an established religion (COE)? Should all of us God-fearing Americans want the same for Christianity?Emmerich 23:23, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
Great Britain has an established church. That is something the Founders opposed - a state supported church.--Andy Schlafly 23:42, 1 August 2012 (EDT)
Wow Andy, you should use that statement as an example in a Conservapedia article entitled "Non sequitur". CasparRH 15:43, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Proposed table entry

Sport Political issue Answer
Netball Will Netball be played at the 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics? Wikipedia claims that Netball is an "Olympic sport"[1][2] played "at the Olympics".[3][4] Feminists have been demanding equality in Olympic participation. As a result, women have been playing the same game as men -- five-players-on-each-side basketball in the Olympics since 1976, rather than a watered-down version designed for Victorian women called Netball.

If there are no objections, I will move this to the table in the article. Wschact 11:19, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

That's not really a question about the Olympics, more a commentary on Wikipedia. Stick it in Bias in Wikipedia, not here. Gregkochuconn 17:11, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
Also, Wikipedia no longer claims Netball is an Olympic sport, only an "Olympic recognized sport", which is correct. Gregkochuconn 17:17, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
With all due respect to my friend Gregkochuconn, I just looked at the Wikipedia netball article and it is still in category "Olympic sports." I admit that the Wikipedia article "Netball and the Olympic Movement" is in category "Olympic recognised sports" but the radical feminists have insisted that Netball stay in the former category. Please see for yourself. The table entry was an assertion: We say netball will not be played in 2012 and 2016, Wikipedia says it is already an Olympic sport and keeps deleting statements that it could not possibly be added to the Olympic Programme before 2024.[17] Wschact 01:00, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
Its a bit hard to see exactly what the issue is. It is not hard to see that this issue is one for the Wikipedia page and not for the Olympics 2012 page. Whether or not it is deservedly and "Olympic Sport" or an "Olympic Recognised Sport" (these terms are not synonymous) is an issue for a general Olympics page, and whether Wikipedia is somehow censoring conservative thought is an issue for the Wikipedia page. Frankly I doubt very many of you even know what netball is. --DamianJohn 01:52, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
That edit seems to be adding the 2024 information, not deleting it. Gregkochuconn 13:24, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
Promptly reverted.[18] Wschact 03:52, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
Probably because it was in the article about the sport at the Olympics, and didn't belong in the main article. The main article doesn't make any claim one way or the other. Gregkochuconn 17:54, 5 August 2012 (EDT)
Also, the current version of the page includes that information. So what you are saying is wrong. In any case, this is not the place for it, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the 2012 Olympics. Wikipedia makes no claim that it will be contested at the 2012 Olympics, even if it is an "Olympic sport", seeing as that category includes present Olympic sports, past Olympic sports, and Olympic recognized sports. Gregkochuconn 13:27, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
Note that the article on squash, which has a far more significant chance of being added to the Olympic program than squash, also does not mention that it could be added no sooner than 2024. As I said above, the article on Netball and the Olympic Movement does mention that it can't be added until 2024. The fact doesn't belong in the main article for the sport, by WP standards, and other articles on Olympic-recognized sports don't mention it either. Gregkochuconn 15:17, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
  1. Category:Olympic sports. Retrieved on Aug. 3, 2012.
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Category:Olympic_sports
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netball_at_the_Olympics&action=history
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_12#Olympic_recognised_sports
Comparing medals from last olympics and expecting a country to get the same amount at the next olympics is pretty futile and a pointless exercise for a number of reasons. The biggest reason why it is pointless is due to the retirement of older and successful medal winning athletes and the emergence of the new generation of athletes in that sport. This is one of the main reasons why australia didn't win as many medals in 2012 as it did in 2008. The non swimming medal tally was pretty much the same, however the swimming team is going through a major generational change with a lot of the great athletes from 2008 retiring (or retiring and then failing to come back) that generation of swimming talent was a bit of a "bumper crop" similiar to what you have with phelps and locte. There was also a fair number of athletes who had ongoing injury concerns which doesn't help but that does happen in every team.

Funding is also a big factor as olympic sport has got to the level that if you don't put large resources into your athletes your not going to have a very big chance at rating in the top 5 in an event. The funding for althletes in a lot of european countries from both the government and the private sector has dried up due to the economic conditions. Spain did really well considering this however thier performance in rio is likely to suffer as funding is unlikely to increase. For example the womens 6m team from spain that won gold, barely made it to the olympics as there was bugger all funding for it. --Nacacube 09:20, 15 August 2012 (EDT)--Nacacube 09:20, 15 August 2012 (EDT)--Nacacube 09:20, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

Oh no, the tennis!

Look what's happening! One of the greatest conservative sports stars just lost the bronze medal match to an Argentinian who no doubt supports gay marriage, and an overrated Brit is smashing one of the all-time greats in the gold! What is going on?? Not only that, but we all just watched home-schooled gymnast Makayla Maroney underperform, right onto her bum! This page may need a re-write ... AlanA 10:43, 5 August 2012 (EDT)

While expressing doubt about your guess as to the Argentinian star's political views, I welcome further review of the predictions in the entry as more results pour in ....--Andy Schlafly 15:45, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
The predictions represent things that are "likely" to happen, not things that are guaranteed to happen. Murray also had the advantage of the home fans, and Federer was tired from his marathon match with Del Potro. Of course, Del Potro should have been tired too.

Will countries that have implemented same-sex marriage underperform?

Will someone please explain where the expected total medals figures in this section come from? Thanks. CasparRH 15:41, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

The table lower down in the article. Gregkochuconn 16:59, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
Oh, you mean the one based on GDP, which "cannot be used as a fair proxy". In other words, they're meaningless. CasparRH 22:15, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
Find a better proxy and we can use that. Gregkochuconn 09:17, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
I have changed the proxy to medals won at the last (Summer) Olympics prior to implementing same-sex marriage. The expected total is virtually unchanged. Gregkochuconn 09:28, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Better, but expected numbers should be corrected for any significant differences in total number of medals available and in a country's number of athletes competing between the base estimate year and 2012. Also, since it's conceded that it's too early to tell how these countries will ultimately perform, the +/- figures are premature. With about 59% of events concluded, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, South Africa and Sweden are on track to meet or exceed their medal count for the base year. The Netherlands and Norway could easily do so as well by the games' end. CasparRH 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Hence "too early to tell". It's unlikely (though not impossible) for the Netherlands and Spain to overperform, while Denmark and Sweden have overperformed already. The rest are too early to tell. That being said, I will remove the +/- totals until the Games are over - they are misleading at this point. Gregkochuconn 11:00, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Also, there are only a few more medal events (out of over 300) being contested in 2012 than in previous years, so that shouldn't matter. I think there were 301 in 2008 and 2004 and 302 this year. Insigificant. Since the theory centers around how many exceptional athletes these countries produce, adjusting for the number of athletes is incorrect. Gregkochuconn 11:02, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
What is "the theory"? CasparRH 09:37, 8 August 2012 (EDT)
See User:Conservative's rant somewhere above on this page. It's confusing, and I don't feel like repeating all of it, especially since I don't think it's accurate (though as an empiricist, I'm willing to put it to the test). Gregkochuconn 13:23, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Seems that the highly promiscous gay diver has been eliminated, news article said he has been spending to much time at gay rallies instead of training Gregkochuconn 12:33, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

I did not just say that about the gay diver. Who signed my name to that comment? Gregkochuconn 14:53, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
Looking through the edit history, it appears to be User:Nacacube, who for some reason decided to affix my username to his comment. I don't even know how he did it, since he obviously didn't copy and paste - the time is different. Strange. Message left on his talk page. Gregkochuconn 14:55, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Originally, the "developed nations" took most of the medals in the Modern Olympics. In fact, because of transportation challenges, the host country had a big advantage in the early years of the Modern Olympics. Since that time, there has been a long-term trend of spreading the medals to countries throughout the world. Over time, the portion of the medals going to smaller countries has increased and the number of medals going to France, UK, and Germany have declined. So, if one had to explain a 4% decline in Olympic medals, could one look to this long-term trend rather than to the gay marriage factor? Thanks Wschact 12:26, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

4% isn't a significant difference anyway, unless it continues. One sample showing a 4% change doesn't really prove anything by itself. You could be right, but we'd have to analyze it long-term, rather than just one year, given the small change. Gregkochuconn 16:14, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
Assuming GregG calculated the p-value correctly, he is correct in that there is no statistical significance just from this one test. Generally, you would need a p value of 0.05 or less for it to be significant (or by stricter standards, 0.01). 0.73 is nowhere near that. I'm not going to verify the calculations, but it seems right. And assuming it's right, GregG is correct that it is not significant. However, if repeated tests showed a 4% decrease, that would be significant. We can run it again in 2014 and 2016, and beyond. And possibly we would have more nations to work with in those years. Keep in mind that the Winter Olympics (2014) have fewer total medals, so a 4% drop would be less significant, by itself. But if demonstrated, it could show significance of the trend. Something inonsistent with the 4% decrease, such as a small increase, would indicate no correlation. Bottom line is that this one sample test can't disprove the correlation by itself, but it doesn't prove it either. I'm an actuarial science major at school, so I'm pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. A repeated 4% decrease would be significant. But for the moment, it's not. I'm going to retroactively analyze the 2008 medal data, although we'll have fewer countries. When I'm done, I'll post the results. Gregkochuconn 16:26, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
Here is the medal data from previous years from the original post, omitting any countries that legalized same-sex marriage after 2008

Belgium - 5 in 2000, 2 in 2008 Canada - 12 in 2004, 18 in 2008 Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 16 in 2008 Norway - 6 in 2004, 9 in 2012 South Africa - 6 in 2004, 1 in 2008 Spain - 19 in 2004, 18 in 2012 Total - 73 expected, 64 actual

This is a decrease of 9 medals out of 73, a 12.3% decrease.

Let's look at the countries that legalized same-sex marriage between 2000 and 2004, as far back as we can go.

Belgium - 5 in 2000, 3 in 2004 Netherlands - 25 in 2000, 22 in 2004 Total - 30 in 2000, 25 in 2004 This is a 16.7% decrease, but with far too small a sample size to be significant by itself. User:GregG, care to run the significance test? Also of note, there appears to be something going on with the Belgians and Dutch, who have seen a consistent decline, while the rest of the nations have not, apparently. Since they are geographically and culturally close, this may be relevant. Ignoring them, we have no data for 2004, a 4.6% INCREASE in 2008, and again a 4.6% increase in 2012, neither of which is statistically significant by itself, and probably still not together. (Note: 4.6% increase is just as statistically significant as 4.6% decrease. In this case, not very) Of course, we can't just kick the two lowest samples out of the data set. But there seems to be some factor that has steadily brought the Dutch and Belgian totals down, without influencing anyone else. Was something else going on in Belgium and the Netherlands at the same time? Or was the 2000 medals we're using as the baseline simply an anomaly? I'm guessing the latter. 2000 was the Dutch's best Olympics EVER. It wasn't the Belgians', but even the 40% decrease from 2000 to 2004 isn't significant when they only had 5 to begin with. I'm going to rerun this data when I have more time, using totals from the three previous summer Olympics, and totals from all Olympiads thereafter, multiplying the latter by 3 or 1.5 if necessary, where there are fewer years, although I'll note where so as not to effect the significance test. Gregkochuconn 16:41, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

Going in alphabetical order,

Belgium - 14 from 1992-2000, 8 from 2004-2012 (no reweighting necessary) Canada - 48 from 1996-2004, 36 from 2008-2012, multiply by 1.5 to weight as if there were 3 Olympics = 54 weighted total Denmark - 21 from 2000-2008, 9 in 2012, reweights as 27 Iceland - 2 from 2000-2008, 0 in 2012, reweights as 0 Netherlands - 59 from 1992-2000, 58 from 2004-2012, no reweighting necessary Norway - 23 from 1996-2004, 13 in 2008-2012, reweight as 19.5 due to lack of future data Portugal - 7 from 2000-2008, 1 in 2012, reweights as 3 South Africa - 17 from 1996-2004, 7 from 2008-2012, reweight as 10.5 Spain - 47 from 1996-2004, 35 from 2008-2012, reweights as 52.5 Sweden - 24 from 2000-2008, 8 in 2012, reweights as 24 Total - 262 "baseline", 256.5 actual+projected, decrease of 5.5, or 2.1%. Smaller percentage, but with a larger sample size, it could have a higher significance. Or the two could cancel out. I can't do the math in my head. User:GregG, do you mind doing the calculations again? Gregkochuconn 16:52, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

First, for countries that implemented same-sex marriage before 2008, I am going to use the 2004 total medals awarded for both 2000 and 2004 (there isn't much of a difference: 928 medals in 2000, 929 in 2004). The pre-same-sex-marriage proportion of medals won is 7.858%, the post proportion won is 6.681%. The p-value is 0.3244, which indicates no significance at any common alpha level.
Second, for countries implementing same-sex marriage before 2004, we have the proportion of medals won in 2000 by those countries as 3.233%, and the proportion of medals won in 2004 by those countries is 2.691%. The p-value is 0.4912, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level.
I will take a look at how to proceed with your final set of data. GregG 17:10, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
One would expect some time period before the adoption of the same-sex marriage and its harmful effect, so I don't think it's meaningful to go back to 2004 and 2000. The trend line from 2008 to this year is probably a better indicator.--Andy Schlafly 17:15, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
Using the data for countries that implemented same-sex marriage between 2008 and 2012 (Denmark, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden):
Those countries won 15 medals out of 958 in 2008.
Those countries won 18 medals out of 962 in 2012.
The proportion of medals won by those countries actually went up from 2008 to 2012 (1.566% to 1.871%); the p-value, though, is 0.6068, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level. GregG 17:21, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
The shortness of time between the adoption of same-sex marriage by those nations and their medals at the 2012 Games renders that particular analysis less meaningful. More significant, I think, would be nations that adopted same-sex marriage before 2008 and how they then trended lower in medal count from 2008 to 2012.--Andy Schlafly 19:49, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
Using the data for countries that implemented same-sex marriage before 2008 and the medal counts for 2008 and 2012 (Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain)
Belgium: 2 in 2008, 3 in 2012
Canada: 18 in 2008, 18 in 2012
Netherlands: 16 in 2008, 20 in 2012
Norway: 9 in 2008, 4 in 2012
South Africa: 1 in 2008, 6 in 2012
Spain: 18 in 2008, 17 in 2012
Total: 64 in 2008, 68 in 2012
Again, the proportion of medals won went up from 2008 (6.68%) to 2012 (7.07%). The p-value is 0.7369, which indicates no statistical significance at any common alpha level. And, since this data set is rather scant (and, to be fair, we are having to make assumptions that might not exactly hold water but should be good approximations, like the number of medals won being a binomial distribution, in order to draw any conclusions from the data), I would surmise that you're not going to be able to get much evidence from just these data. Perhaps we will have to wait and see at the 2016 Summer Olympics. GregG 23:57, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
Netherlands and South Africa seem to distort the results here. Removing those anomalies results in a decline from 47 to 42 - more than a 10% decrease. For example, it appears that Netherlands did unusually poorly in 2008, which may result in its analomous increase.--Andy Schlafly 00:27, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
Now it looks like you're just cherry-picking the data to get the conclusion you want. A priori, we would expect that such issues would average out. In fact, you suggested comparing 2008 medal counts to 2012 medal counts.
Also, I haven't run the numbers, but I think that even if you exclude the Netherlands and South Africa, you would still not have statistical significance due to the low number of successes that are expected by those countries. As an example, if we flip a fair coin 10 times, a result of 3 heads is not statistically significant at any common alpha (p=11/32). Yet 3 heads is 40% fewer heads than the 5 we would expect. GregG 00:50, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
If the Netherlands and South Africa are to be excluded then we should exclude Norway as well. I think that leaves 38 and 38? No change. WilcoxD 02:15, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
The data are worth analyzing before drawing final conclusions. I spent some time studying South Africa and the issue, and concluded it should not be in the list. I explain this in a footnote in the entry.--Andy Schlafly 23:40, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
Well there are several problems, the most fundamental of which is that you are selecting data points to exclude on the basis of the dependent variable (2012 medals won), as opposed to an independent variable, which leads to bias. GregG 02:09, 15 August 2012 (EDT)
When there is a valid reason to exclude (or include) data, then it makes sense to exclude (or include) the data. South Africa does not appear to have imposed same-sex marriage, so it should not have been included in the data in the first place. Correcting that makes sense.--Andy Schlafly 18:29, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

We should be comparing two sets of countries - those that implement same-sex marriage and those that prohibit same-sex marriage. When comparing sets with similar economies and populations, one could find that medal counts when down for both groups. The question is whether there is a statistically significant difference in the drop in medal count between the same-sex marriage and no same-sex marriage countries. I would guess that there are so many other factors that have a larger effect on the medal count, that any difference would be insignificant, but I welcome someone to run the numbers. Wschact 18:35, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

Nancy boys don't have kids which contributes to decline of populations as does pro-abortion/anti-life policies. see: Demographic winter In 2008, there were 70 countries with sub-replacement levels of fertility. So we look at trend of medals won by countries which adopt same sex marriage. Conservative 19:06, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
Male homosexual couples not being able to have children the natural way is a biological fact. It doesn't depend on them being married or not. Baobab 02:21, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
Also, not many 8-year olds win Olympic medals, so regardless there would be no data for at least a decade or so. Gregkochuconn 09:57, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

Comparing medals from last olympics and expecting a country to get the same amount at the next olympics is pretty futile and a pointless exercise for a number of reasons. The biggest reason why it is pointless is due to the retirement of older and successful medal winning athletes and the emergence of the new generation of athletes in that sport. This is one of the main reasons why australia didn't win as many medals in 2012 as it did in 2008. The non swimming medal tally was pretty much the same, however the swimming team is going through a major generational change with a lot of the great athletes from 2008 retiring (or retiring and then failing to come back) that generation of swimming talent was a bit of a "bumper crop" similiar to what you have with phelps and locte. There was also a fair number of athletes who had ongoing injury concerns which doesn't help but that does happen in every team.Funding is also a big factor as olympic sport has got to the level that if you don't put large resources into your athletes your not going to have a very big chance at rating in the top 5 in an event. The funding for althletes in a lot of european countries from both the government and the private sector has dried up due to the economic conditions. Spain did really well considering this however thier performance in rio is likely to suffer as funding is unlikely to increase. For example the womens 6m team from spain that won gold, barely made it to the olympics as there was bugger all funding for it. --Nacacube 09:20, 15 August 2012 (EDT)--Nacacube 23:41, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

Which is why you look at long-term trends. I agree that one Olympics' worth of data for two countries is pretty much useless. It will take more data to prove or disprove the theory. Gregkochuconn 18:15, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Medal weighting

It's been pointed out at talk:Main Page that some sports, notably swimming, are vastly over-rewarded in terms of the number of medals available. We would get a better representation of which nations were actually the best, sporting-wise, if we took this into account in our medals tables. One simple way would be to discount multiple medals won by the same individual, or perhaps to cap the number of medals counted in the same sport at, say, five. What do people think?

(Sadly the nation most affected by this would currently be that titan of the swimming pool, the USA.)--CPalmer 10:37, 7 August 2012 (EDT)

That would be hard to do, though. And nearly impossible to keep updating during the Games. I propose keep the current system for now, and discuss further when the Games are over. Gregkochuconn 10:53, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Capping at five gold medals per sport wouldn't be too tricky. The only countries affected are:
  • USA - 11 in track and field, 16 in swimming
  • China - 6 in diving
  • GB - 8 in cycling
  • Russia - 8 in track and field.
Something to think about. It wouldn't have a huge effect on the ordering of the table as it happens.--CPalmer 06:16, 15 August 2012 (EDT)
Capping it at 5 medals for athletics would be pretty pointless as pretty much all the events have their own set of athletes, with the only overlaps in athletes either being track guys competing in similar groups of races (like bolt in 200 and 100 and farah in 10k and 5k) and atheltes competing in their respective relay teams. Then there are the decathletes and heptathletes who comptete in individual events as opposed to the decathlon and heptathlon, however the top 10 athletes in each of these are pretty much outsiders to get a medal for the single events. In the cycling the events are very different with specialists in each event and most athletes only competed in one or two events + the team events.
How about counting only one medal per athlete, then? That's harder to calculate because of relays, though - I suppose a relay gold would only be discounted if every member of the team was also an individual medalist?--CPalmer 09:45, 15 August 2012 (EDT)
But then you would have to discount one of the medals won by the athlete who got silver in the 1500m freestyle and gold in the 10km swim. Whilst they are both swimming events, it would be like someone in athletics getting second in the 800, 5000 or 10000m and then winning the mens marathon. --Nacacube 23:12, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

Team Sports

I don't really have the time to finish off this nicely, but I just did a quick count-up of medals across handball, hockey, basketball, volleyball and football. as these are probably the sports best described as team sports (ie. multiple players on a field working together and reacting to each other). Could someone do it for me and add it to the main page perhaps?

Country Medals Status
United States of America 4 Christian
Brazil Christian 3
Australia Increasingly Atheist 2
France Increasingly Atheist 2
Japan Agnostic (see comment below) 2
Netherlands Atheist 2
Russia Christian 2
Spain Christian 2

Countries with only 1 medal in team sports are Argentina, Canada, Croatia, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Montenegro, Norway and Sweden. WilcoxD 02:51, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

The criteria seems pretty vague. Water polo? Tenis? Going out on a limb, cycling, and triathlon (The Brits certainly worked as a team to get gold and bronze). Nine 21:23, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
That's a fascinating table. I wouldn't describe Japan as atheist, however. Shinto, perhaps, although there is a Christian population as well. I cannot think of a single prominent Japanese atheist.--Andy Schlafly 23:38, 14 August 2012 (EDT)
I would also class some sailing events as team sports as you need perfect team work to do well in sailing. non communication between helmsman and the other crew members will result in a pretty poor performance ! If there are no major breakaways road cycling is also a team sport. --Nacacube 09:27, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

--Nacacube 09:27, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

Having lived in Japan, I would define it as agnostic. Virtually noone actively disbelieves in God (or a god). Most people have a very open mind to religion and are happy to visit the temples and partake in the rituals (both Shinto and Buddhist ones) and also to dip into church once in a while. Most Japanese people even get married in church, not at the temple! Nonetheless while my Japanese church had a core group of worshippers, the general attitude to religion in Japan is "Born a Shinto, convert to Christian in middle age, die a Buddhist!". The challenge for the church in Japan is keeping people saved once they get interested. HumanGeographer 11:15, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

A bit confused

Recent edits seem to downplay the US women's gold in soccer/football, despite the fact that it seems this site should trumpet every accomplishment by Americans. It seems to imply that Canada should have beat the US in the semifinals, despite the fact that Conservapedia earlier predicted that Canada should underperform in Olympics because of socialism and same sex marriage. Likewise Japan, which should underperform by this site's standards, as it's been ranked the #5 most atheist country in the world. Furthermore, this idea that the US advanced unfairly seems to contradict the idea that the Olympics is a prime example of the best of the public, in which winners are decided by pure skill and performance alone, and not by some committee of so-called "experts". Are the Olympic games not an example of the best of the public after all? PortlyMort 00:12, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

Interesting points, but:
  • this site does not unthinkingly cheer for Team USA; and
  • there is nothing wrong without pointing out how a referee imposed an almost unheard of penalty against the Canadian women's soccer team, which enabled the American team to advance.
None of this changes our support of the best of the public.--Andy Schlafly 20:39, 19 August 2012 (EDT)

Canada

Canada legalized same-sex marriage in 2005. Is there any reason we used the 2008 data instead of the 2004 data? It seemed like a mistake, so I corrected it and updated the numbers. If someone can provide an explanation for using 2008, feel free to change it back. Gregkochuconn 10:20, 19 August 2012 (EDT)

A full year transpired between the 2004 and 2008 Olympics before Canada passed the Civil Marriage Act and it became effective. But your point is a good one, so let's do a weighted proration on the 2004 and 2008 numbers.--Andy Schlafly 10:51, 19 August 2012 (EDT)

Great Britain

I think that any analysis involving Great Britain at these Games, either to prove or disprove the atheist theory, is problematic because hosts ALWAYS receive a big medal boost. Australia and France by themselves are insufficient to indicate a trend with just this year's data, even with the decreases. We'll have to analyze them again in 2016, along with Great Britain, but should probably throw out this year's data for GB, and factor in that there is an 8 year difference between the two data points we have for them, after 2016. Gregkochuconn 19:30, 19 August 2012 (EDT)

Superb point about how the host nation wins more medals almost automatically.--Andy Schlafly 20:36, 19 August 2012 (EDT)

The Durant question

One of the key points in the answer to the Durant question is that he scored a bucketload of points. While he indeed did, the question emphasises selfless play. Would selfless play be better indicated by assists and not points? Jacob Anderson 09:44, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

No, I don't think so, unless the player has a relatively low field goal percentage, as Kobe Bryant does compared with the best players.--Andy Schlafly 09:48, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
Okay, makes sense, just thought I would clarify. Thanks for the lightning fast response by the way, is there anything wrong with my little clean up of the page? Jacob Anderson 09:55, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
Please do improve the entry!--Andy Schlafly 13:04, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

Canada's years

I fail to see why 2008 is counted (even partially) as pre-gay marriage, when it became law in 2005. This isn't done for any other country. Seems like cherry picking data to me. Ideally we'd average about 3 years before and 3 years after (if there are enough, in most cases there won't be enough samples for quite some time), but averaging one pre- and one post- to the first number doesn't make any sense. BarryN 11:36, 19 June 2013 (EDT)

Suppose a nation converted to gay marriage 1 day before the Olympics began? Prorating the time makes more sense.--Andy Schlafly 12:57, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
But that isn't the case; it was 3 years, not one day. You haven't pro-rated Spain and they legalized gay marriage before Canada did. You argue that Norway's performance declined because of gay marriage, and they only legalized it in 2009. We'd need more data points before we could come up with much evidence of anything. If we look only at the countries which have participated in more than one Olympics since legalizing Gay Marriage, and take the averages from before and after, we have slightly more reliable figures. The Netherlands and Belgium have been in 3, and Canada has been in 2. If we average out the medal counts of the 3 Olympics before and after gay marriage and the first two, and the two before and after with Canada, we get even more inconclusive results. Canada improves: averaging 13 in the 2 before gay marriage and 18 in the 2 after. Netherlands basically stays even, with an average of 19.66 in the 3 before and 19.33 in the 3 after (even this is partly due to the Netherlands having their best year ever in 2000, which is a little bit of an anomaly the exaggerates your results). Belgium does significantly worse, going from an average of 5 in the 3 before and 2.66 in the 3 after. They have few medals historically, so their numbers won't mean as much, having such a small sample size. Their numbers are also somewhat exaggerated as they had banner years in 1996 and 2000, the former being their best year since the 1940s, so the last 3 Olympics are looking a bit like a reversion to the mean.
Since not all medals are equal, and gold is obviously better than bronze, we can examine weighted results as well, by counting bronze as 1, silver as 2, and gold as 3. This actually doesn't vary the results much. Canada goes from an average of 23.5 to 29, Netherlands goes from 38.33 to 37.33 (still basically the same, the difference of a single bronze medal; not statistically significant), and Belgium goes from 8.66 to 4.66.
If we look at the Winter Olympics averages, which presumably would be affected as well, we actually see improvement in these multiple-sampled countries. Netherlands goes from 6.33 to 8.33 (12.33 to 17.66 weighted), and Canada goes from 16 to 25 (33 to 54.5, weighted). Belgium has only one Bronze in any of the past 4 Olympics, and that was before gay marriage, so they go from .5 to 0, which again, isn't statistically meaningful. We'll have more data points next year, which should help figuring out if this hypothesis is true. BarryN 15:38, 19 June 2013 (EDT)
Personal tools