Talk:United States at the 2024 Summer Olympics

Stevencocoboy's edits

I find these poorly written so they have been reverted. Anyone else with an opinion? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

A little bit late to the party, but this user kinda feels like Raymarcbadz trying to get around their ban. Torlek (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Howard Shu not yet qualified.

howard shu is not qualified yet. as of April 30th, he didn't achieve the save zone to play in Paris. 182.2.50.69 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Individual article for 2024 men's basketball team

Why isn’t their an individual article for the 2024 men’s basketball team? Are those articles (e.g., 2020 United States men's Olympic basketball team) created once the Olympics officially begin/end?

I was going to create the article myself, but I realized such a notable article would likely exist by now if it were ready to be created.

For the sake of posterity, I was curious about guidelines for when such an article can/should be created.

Thanks! MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Olympic Standard in Athletics

Hi all-

I'm not the most well-versed in Olympic qualification rules, but I noticed a few athletes who have qualified in track in field in the last couple days have not met the Olympic standard for their sport. Does that still mean they should be listed on here as an Olympian at this time? Rscala1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

World Athletics' Road to Paris is now showing the qualified athletes... mostly. For somewhat complicated reasons there are a handful of events where the US still has four or more people entered to potentially get Olympic spots. But basically, at this point, IF you finished top 3 at Trials and IF you are still appearing on the Road to Paris list, you're going to get a spot. A few more people will also get spots, but the conditions I've just described are sufficient to say you're a lock to go and to warrant inclusion at this point. Paulthomas1984 (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible revisions to total number of US athletes

The table in this article currently lists 12 US divers competing in Paris (5 men, 7 women). The actual number is 10 divers (4 men, 6 women).

Rylan Kissell is not listed on the USA Shooting roster under the men's section. Once this athlete is added, it should increase the number of shooting athletes to 17 (8 men, 9 women).

It also appears that men's and women's water polo rosters should include 13 players on each side for a total of 26--the table on this article lists 12 players per side for a total of 24.

It might also be helpful to note that Taylor Knibb is double-counted as an athlete in Cycling and Triathlon for the women's side. 47.145.102.228 (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Number of sports

The infobox says US participants competed in 34 sports at the Olympics, while 2024 Summer Olympics says there were 32 sports in total (2 less). Why is that? Brandmeister^talk 17:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

USA tied with China on golds and won by silvers

I made this edit to lead because it's accurate and informative. The team tied with China on having the most gold medals among NOCs, marking the first time in Summer Olympic history that the USA shared the top gold medal rankings with another country. However because the USA had more silvers, they ultimately topped the overall medal rankings with a total of 40 gold, 44 silver, and 42 bronze medals. Yet it's constantly removed because some editors argue that USA came first on a tiebreaker. Except I am not even saying they didn't come first. In fact, I made it very clear that the reason they came first was because they had more silvers. The other editor doesn't seem to understand that and frustratingly edit warring at this point. Evibeforpoli (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also the revision that Stevencocoboy made, is good enough for me.[1] Evibeforpoli (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Tiebreaker definiton

@Starigniter You removed the term "tiebreaker" in lead because you argue that a tiebreaker can only consist of extra gametime. That's false and you have a very limited idea of what tiebreaker means. Definition of a tiebreaker is any method used to determine a winner or to rank participants when there is a tie—meaning two or more participants have achieved the same score or result. And a tiebreaker provides the additional criterion or set of criteria to distinguish between the tied participants and establish a clear ranking or winner. In the context of Olympic medal rankings, if two countries have the same number of gold medals, the number of silver medals is often used as a tiebreaker to determine which country ranks higher. If still tied, bronze medals may be considered next. Also if you ever follow group stage FIFA football. You would know their common tiebreaker for rankings doesn't even involve any extra playing time but similarly on comparing pre-existing stats just like the IOC does.[2] Evibeforpoli (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations @Evibeforpoli, you genius.

You just sent me a link to a Wikipedia page with little or no almost no references at all, so it's nothing other than somebody's imaginations that have no effect in real life whatsoever. It's meaningless and your actions are pointless. I can also write some of my thoughts and the question is: would that make it valid? No, I don't think so.

But you know what? Maybe I can edit that page providing necessary references and then it would make sense! And actually I think that's a great idea.

Here is definition via Cambridge dictionary: "extra play at the end of a game or stage in a game, or an extra question at the end of a quiz, when both or all teams or players have the same points, to decide who is the winner". I do believe that "extra" is the key-word. (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/tie-breaker#)

Note: obvious lie #1 ("you argue that a tiebreaker can only consist of extra gametime. That's false and you have a very limited idea of what tiebreaker means") debunked.

And here is what countback means: "a method of deciding the winner of a competition when total scores are equal by comparing particular scores, for example scores from an earlier stage in the competition, or the scores on the last few holes in golf". This time a fragment containing "when total scores are equal by comparing particular scores" is of A-class importance to me. (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/countback)

Note: obvious lie #2 ("if two countries have the same number of gold medals, the number of silver medals is often used as a tiebreaker to determine which country ranks higher") debunked.

Again, you were wrong and you have to try harder.

"Also if you ever follow group stage FIFA football. You would know (...)" What a nonsense explanation is that? Unbelievable, man. Would you have an argument with a dictionary? What should be highier: rules of some silly sport, that in 21st century still did not hear of action called time pause, or Cambridge dictionary? This is a serious question.

"If you ever follow" a dictionary we wouldn't have this argument in the first place, but because you clearly never opened the book in your lifetime and instead you prefer empty and vague Wikipedia pages with up to three references in total, then you have a problem. And even if you actually did open, would you still make some silly mistakes of that caliber? Better check the bloody book again and again and again until you learn.

Also, "if you ever follow" English language, you wouldn't took away precious twenty minutes of my life, but because you clearly don't understand these four words: "tie", "count", "break", "back", you actually did take them away. (Not so much) thanks, Evibeforpoli.

But because you do not understand them, then you have it. And by the way, you don't have to thank me.

I'm willing to change my mind upon the evidence, but the dictionary is on my side in both cases.

Just remember, that dictionary is an incredibily useful tool and because people communicate by using words daily, it's absolutely necessary and there is no way around it. Otherwise everybody would have their own definitions and our lifies would be a mess, just like this discussion is.

It's a challenge. I dare you, I double dare you! Go ahead, make my day. Starigniter (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

A dictionary isn't meant to be a complete source of reference but designed for a quick reference. However dictionary doesn't claim that a tie break must always use addtional gameplay as you claim. And your claim is already proven wrong. In Fifa football, their tiebreaks for group stage rankings do not rely on any addtional gameplay but rather on finished games statistics. As Tiebreak means anything to break a tie. Similarly, IOC also uses pre-existing stats to break a gold medal tie, by comparing silvers only after a gold tie. Hence it is correct to call this comparison on silver medals a "tiebreak." Also there are no sources supporting term "count-back," making it an unsourced reference. All reliable sources commonly refer to it as a "tiebreaker".

Also if this is how you behave and get all defensive and refuse to acknowledge my reasoning. Then I won't waste further time on you as I already explained myself and may just report you to Administration noticeboard if you continue to edit war and mock others like this. Evibeforpoli (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Also in golf, they have tiebreakers where if players are tied after the final round, some tournaments have tiebreaker rules where they use total number of strokes on the back nine, back six, back three or even the final hole as the tiebreaker They don't require any additional gameplay but instead rely on scores already recorded during regular rounds, Both Fifa football and golf tournaments have tiebreaker rules that do not have any additional gameplay. Who are you to argue that they have no right to call it as a tiebreaker if they don't do additional gameplay. Clearly not every sport or games use additional gameplay to break a tie and so don't push an unrealistic definition. https://www.wgawp.com/page/show/1186503-wgawp-tie-break-procedure#:~:text=The%20winner%20is%20determined%20based,(holes%2016%2D18). Evibeforpoli (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

@Starigniter Lastly since you are so dependent on dictionaries. Here's OXFORD defintion - tie-breaker, n. A means of deciding a winner out of two or more contestants who have tied; also figurative. https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=tiebreaker Notice it doesn't say anywhere that tiebreaker methods must only have addtional gameplay but instead describes it broadly as anything that decides the winner among those who have tied. Oxford dictionary backs me up fully. Evibeforpoli (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

0) You made my day. Thank you.

1) "A dictionary isn't meant to be a complete source of reference but designed for a quick reference." → Dude, what? Is it another of your "brilliant" definitions?

2) "However dictionary doesn't claim that a tie break must always use addtional gameplay as you claim." → You can't read and understand at the same time, don't you? It is written "extra" and that's enough. Just because there is no word "always" it doesn't take away anything. If you look at definition of i.e., Paris ("the capital city of France, situated in the north central part of the country"), it also doesn't contain that word. Does it mean Paris is not always or all the time the capital city of France? You just have think a little bit, and it doesn't hurt, I can assure you, to get it, but you don't want to do any of those. Pity.

3) "And your claim is already proven wrong. In Fifa football, their tiebreaks for group stage rankings do not rely on any addtional gameplay but rather on finished games statistics." → Lol. Those halfbrains that never heard of highly complicated procedure called "pausing the time and resuming it back again" and you expect them checking definitions in a dictionary? Seriously? And just because they don't you just follow them blindy like that?

4) "As Tiebreak means anything to break a tie. Similarly, IOC also uses pre-existing stats to break a gold medal tie, by comparing silvers only after a gold tie. Hence it is correct to call this comparison on silver medals a "tiebreak." Also there are no sources supporting term "count-back," making it an unsourced reference. All reliable sources commonly refer to it as a "tiebreaker"." → Blah, blah, blah. Not, unfortunately for you are wrong, again. I provided the necessary evidence and you still "think" (sic) and behave it doesn't count. It's like me opening geographical atlas that says "London is located in England" you come with some revelation like "no, London is in South America, bEcAuSe FiFa aNd/Or OtHeR fOoTbAlL fEdErAtIoNs SaY sO". Can't you see how ridiculous you look?

5) "Also if this is how you behave and get all defensive and refuse to acknowledge my reasoning." → Your what!? Reasoning!? Bloody nerve. You throw a dictionnary away because FIFA does something wrong, again, as per? Laugh, I nearly died!

6) "Then I won't waste further time on you as I already explained myself and may just report you to Administration noticeboard if you continue to edit war and mock others like this." → Well, I hope you can at least keep your word and don't be a liar and "Tesla of the 21st century" at the same time. Yeah, do that. Go ahead and report me, as writing nonsense is only thing you can do. And I'm not mocking anybody. Feel offended that I called you "genius" for multiple of reasons? "Oh, no! Anyway..."

7) What a pathetic liar you are... "I won't waste further time on you" and then you proceeded to write two more posts. And you expect me to take you seriously? Not only "genius", but also obvious liar at the same time. Congratulations.

Can you go a single day without writing or saying "FIFA"? So what in golf they do wrong? Does that justify them?

Can't you understand we need definitions to avoid trolls like you? Well, I can say that in mind "tie-breaker is walking using your left leg and right hand only". And if you show me a definition I can clearly denied it because genius Evibeforpoli is an ultra troll. Satisfied?

8) Wow! Oxford dictionnary.... You reject dictionary and then you provide a bad one (because it doesn't even contain a word "countback" and that may explain your poor vocabulary...) to claim your point...

"Oxford dictionary backs me up fully" → no, it doesn't, because it lacks basic terminology. And funny, because when proper dictionnary (Cambridge) backed me up, you came up with this silly idead "BuT iN fIFa" and now you are happy because, oh sweet irony, the other dictionnary backs you up....

9) "Lastly since you are so dependent on dictionaries." → And you aren't, knowing that you just used one and sent me a link? What a pathetic hypocrite, liar and gEnIuS you are at the same time. All three at once. Starigniter (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Again I repeat that a tiebreaker doesn't necessarily need to involve additional gameplay. The key purpose of a tiebreaker is to resolve a tie between participants, and this can be achieved through various methods, not exclusively by playing more. My profession is a lawyer so am familiar with nuances of vocabulary. But since you call to follow a dictionary, the Oxford dictionary defines it as "the means of deciding a winner from among those who have tied." This definition does not mandate that a tiebreaker must have additional gameplay. Instead, it can involve alternative methods, such as comparing previous results or using predefined criteria. And I have already pointed out that in professional sports like FIFA football, chess, US golf tournaments, their tiebreaker policies demonstrably prove that additional gameplay isn't always necessary for tiebreakers. So it's neither unconventional nor incorrect for Forbes magazine to use the term - tiebreaker. If however you still refuse to agree that Forbes magazine and also consequently FIFA, and US golf association are correct in their usage of "tiebreaker" then it it's clear we are not able to discuss further and I propose to advance this to be resolved at Third Opinion noticeboard. Evibeforpoli (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Evibeforpoli, I'm here from 3O but I think I'll just remove the request with no action since the other editor involved has been blocked. If someone else shows up and this discussion gets stuck again, feel free to come back and ask again. -- asilvering (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering I highly doubt they will stop as 31 hours isn't forever. The issue is I can't reason with that editor. Since you are here, you might as well give your opinion in which is the entire reason I went to the 30. Starigniter claims that it must have additional gameplay in order to be called a tiebreaker and that why it should not be included and claims a dictionary supports him. I argue that the dictionary doesn't clearly say that, and that it is the means to break a tie and doesn't necessarily need additional gameplay to be called a tiebreaker, and gave Oxford dictionary definition as well as multiple real world examples to support my reasoning. I already have enough evidence to disprove their claim, but they respond by dismissing my evidence. And so I only really need one other person to join in and confirm the facts that they willfully ignore, when it doesn't suit them. Evibeforpoli (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, in that case: I do not support calling it a tie-breaker. It is much better to avoid the dispute entirely, which is very easy to do simply by rewording the sentence. Tied with China on having the same number of gold medals (40), the U.S. placed first in the overall medal tally. is a true statement that does not require clarification with the word "tiebreaker" or any other word. If that sentence is felt to be too ambiguous, you could write something like "Tied with China on having the same number of gold medals (40), the U.S. placed first in the overall medal tally, with 126 total medals to China's 91." -- asilvering (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree and that's not the opinion required. You are only to state whether or not it's correct to use the term - tiebreaker. That's the only input required from 3O and to give fair reasons for it. I think it's informative to readers to understand why USA got ranked first despite tied with china on golds, but that's not the disagreement I have with the other editor. Evibeforpoli (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

3O is a form of dispute resolution. The aim is to end the dispute so we can all get back to writing a better encyclopedia. It is not required that the 3O respondent simply pick one of two options laid out by the two involved editors; the respondent is to provide advice. I've given my advice. You don't have to take the advice -- the 3O process is non-binding -- but I would encourage you to avoid getting into a protracted dispute about something that can be solved so simply and painlessly. If you really must have my opinion on whether tie-breaker, specifically, is an appropriate word choice here: no, I do not believe that it is. -- asilvering (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Try to understand from my pov here on why I went to 30 - I have been trying my best to give reasoning and tell Star igniter that tiebreaker doesn't necessarily need additional game play. I gave him evidence for that reasoning and they respond by ignoring it and rudely insulting me for 3 days now. After having to tolerate that alone, that's why i went to 30 so someone can just at least confirm the my evidence to prove his claim (a tirbreaker must always involve additional gameplay), as false. That's all. I may agree with you that tiebreaker may not be necessary but you quickly took off my request so also don't even address the dispute, at least with any substantial reasoning. I just do not find your 3o "response" to be conducted fairly and I prefer you at least give me the courtesy to provide reasoning for why you believe it's not appropriate. Do you think Forbes magazine is wrong to use that term and why? If you can't do that, then please do not remove my request at 30 and let someone else whose willing to address specifically that, to answer. Evibeforpoli (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like you are more focused on winning this argument with Starigniter than you are on putting the dispute to rest. I don't think you're going to have a very enjoyable or productive experience editing wikipedia if this is your approach to minor content disputes. In any case, they're now indefinitely blocked, so you don't need to worry about them showing up to edit war and yell at you some more when their 31 hours are up. -- asilvering (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think countback is only every rarely used officially for sports like boxing but never once heard it used for medal chart rankings. So why I support the term - tiebreaker as sourced from Forbes. So unless you are prepared to give an opinion on whether "tiebreaker" is a correct term to use and give your reasons, i am restoring my request on 3O as it's not answered and still needs a neutral opinion. Evibeforpoli (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It was removed by Mgp28. I planned to remove it myself as clearly invalid request. The guidelines clearly say 3O is only for disputes where there are only 2 editors involved. This discussion now has five and is about to have six. It doesn't matter if one party thinks the opinions are invalid or insufficient or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Also after reading your reply, you called me a hypocrite and pathetic liar, and so on, abecause I showed you Oxford dictionary. We are all volunteers here and I don't want to put up with this. So lose the tone, and remember it's yourself who claims that a dictionary is important and that you are willing to change your mind. But I can tell you from your disproportionate verbal defensiveness after showing you Oxford as well as multiple real world examples of tiebreakers that don't involve additional gameplay, that you can't accept being wrong. but I warned you before and so you will be reported for personal attacks. Evibeforpoli (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There are several other sports and games in which further play is not allowed under the rules (often because it would not be practical), and ties must be broken some other way. These include:

1. Olympic field sports (jumping and throwing) count back through competitors' other attempts. This is very common in events with a fixed bar (high jump and pole vault), where several people may succeed at one height and all fail at the next.
2. We have a detailed article, tie-breaking in Swiss-system tournaments, on some of the methods used in games such as chess and bridge.
3. As last resort, pure chance, such as a coin flip, may be prescribed.

Narky Blert (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I came here after seeing it on WP:3O. I see several people are already participating in the discussion but my thoughts on tiebreak seem to differ from those discussed so far.

While I don't object in principle to a tiebreak based on additional considerations as described by Narky Blert, I would be inclined to avoid it in this context as it might seem to suggest (1) that the United States won the Olympics, and (2) that it was an unusual or special measure taken to find the winner. While this year's games were unique in needing to refer to numbers of silvers to determine the top of the medal table, this is very routine for placements further down the table. It's just how the table is ordered, not a special measure. So instead I would suggest simplifying to something like, Tied with China on number of golds (40), the U.S. placed first overall as it won 44 silver medals against China's 27. Mgp28 (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. -- asilvering (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I too agree with Mgp28, and like their suggestion (at least as a first effort). "Winner of the Olympics" isn't an actual title, but a journalistic invention. Narky Blert (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fair to call this a tie-breaking system, but I agree with the other 3 it seems unnecessary for this article. As has been said, there is nothing unusual about needing to use silver and even bronze medals to separate countries. It might be unusual for first place but it's a very normal part of the process. If we have a generic article on medal tables in Olympics (or something), it's easily possible that the word tie-breaker would be used, but not here. Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

If you all agree with Mgp28's phrasing, then I will add that in. I wasn't trying to be difficult but the other editor really got under my skin when reading their replies. So I am willing to make a compromise and adhere to Mgp28 input. Evibeforpoli (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

As Narky Blert above shown, those examples, like FIFA World Cup tiebreaker, are the evidence that tiebreakers don't always necessitate additional gameplay, a principle that is well-established in various sports. Despite that, the other editor was obstinately attached to an unfounded notion that tiebreakers must always involve extra gameplay, even though it's blatantly contradicted by numerous real-world cases.

So I believe there's no problems with using the word - "tiebreaker" and my understanding that the only reason why Starigniter opposed it, was because they alleged it was incorrect. But if you all agree it's the correct term then I honestly don't see the problem in just stating "tiebreaker". It is what it is.

However for the sake of ending a dispute that has gone for too long, I will add that word in only if you all agree to it. So don't say that I am "focused on winning this argument with Starigniter than I am on putting the dispute to rest". I am not inflexible nor unreasonable as I have now no longer added in "tiebreaker" to the article, and adhered to Mgp28 simplified wording instead. Evibeforpoli (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

China in the lead

China's performance is not relevant to this article which is focused on the United States and its athletes. I struggle to understand the logic behind pushing the China-focused version of the paragraph. Pizzigs (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you seem to like the fact that China has tied with USA on golds. I noticed in past weeks, you made this edit that only targets China that goes against principle of impartiality and equality.[3] I reverted and fixed it so it has the same treatment as the other top 4 nations.[4] You tried to revert back to the downgraded version multiple times and went nuclear and doing this edit just to remove any mere mention of China tying with USA.[5] I had to revert that as it goes against MOS.[6] Just because you really don't want info of China tying with USA to be mentioned, it doesn't means the readers won't benefit from that knowledge.

The real question is whether or not readers will benefit from this knowledge? Knowing that USA for the first time in summer olympic history has tied with another country on golds at the top, is a very notable historic milestone that shouldn't be swept under the rug just because you don't like it. It's highly relevant to USA and isn't focused on another topic but instead it talks about the US having to beat China on silvers in order to top that medal, and that this wasn't a straightforward usual "win by most golds" like they often used to in past Olympics, as they tied with china on golds now. Something that has never happened in the past century of Olympics, and so I believe readers would want to be aware of that historical milestone that btw is still centered on USA. Evibeforpoli (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you've registered on this platform for the sole purpose of introducing China-friendly content to Olympic articles, but it does not matter. What your doing violates WP:OWN and WP:PLOT. Pizzigs (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

How ironic. You accuse about bias yet I see you constantly only wanting to treat China differently and making editors like myself having to maintain a neutral article. When China ties with gold with USA, such info is neutral and factual and yet you constantly remove it many times, not on just this article but the main Olympic page too. And in relevance to the discussion above, you don't own the page either WP:OWN and that information you reverted is neutral, notable and relevant. Readers would want to know briefly about that context and as i mentioned before, you constantly don't contribute but only target to remove the sentence that there was a gold tie, not because it's not informative and necessary, but you just don't like that fact. But this directly involves the USA in a major way, and if you think readers shouldn't need to know what is briefly a sentence of useful information, then go get consensus for your edit to override the wording that actually has consensus of a few editors including me. Evibeforpoli (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pizzigs Also for 2 whole weeks, you have edited this article too and not once seem to raise problems with that general info which btw is agreed by others like stevencocoboy.[7] You even made edits yourself saying this is the 'better version" where you did not oppose that info and endorsed it.[8] If I didn't know any better, you just want to start a dispute with me because I earlier reverted your edits on Summer Olympic page, that isn't fair on China like excluding them completely from the lead.[9] I suggest you do not start an edit war with me and either get consensus from established editors and please stop reverting my edits for the sake of reverting me. Evibeforpoli (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pizzigs And it was yourself above who claimed that the article shouldn't be overly focused on China despite my edits was there to explain minimally why USA won the overall medal table; - because of more silvers despite tying in gold. You then ironically added in an extra sentence afterwards, directly comparing USA to China on overall medals [10] despite that sentence is redundant, as it got no relevance on how USA won the overall medal table, but only serves to actually make the entire article unnecessarily even more focused around China. Evibeforpoli (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)