Number of nations?[edit]

The infobox states 24 nations competed, which matches the IOC website, but 28 nations are listed further down in the article. Andrwsc 00:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Wael's website which generally takes results directly from Mallon's The 1900 Olympic Games: Results for All Competitors in All Events, with Commentary, lists 28 (30 if Algeria and Ireland are considered separate from France and Great Britain, respectively). That's where the list of nations comes from. Each nation listed has at least one competitor identified, which creates problems with the IOC's notation that 24 competed.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a list at the IOC website other than the medals by country list, which includes only the 20 nations that actually won at least one medal. They are:
  1. Australia
  2. Austria
  3. Belgium
  4. Bohemia
  5. Canada
  6. Cuba
  7. Denmark
  8. France
  9. Germany
  10. Great Britain
  11. Hungary
  12. Mexico
  13. Netherlands
  14. Norway
  15. India
  16. Italy
  17. Spain
  18. Switzerland
  19. Sweden
  20. United States of America
The others we have listed are:
  1. Argentina
  2. Greece
  3. Haiti
  4. Iran
  5. Luxembourg
  6. Peru
  7. Romania
  8. Russia
Of these, Greece almost certainly is included in the IOC count. Luxembourg is not. Which of the other 6 were among the 3 the IOC has? Can't be sure unless the IOC publishes a list. -- Jonel | Speak 19:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My guess is that Argentina, Romania and Russia are those 3. If you search through the PDF file for the official report here, there is evidence of those three countries. I could not find anything for Haiti, Iran or Peru. Andrwsc 18:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flags[edit]

Why Does Cuba have the same flag as the united states? 68.55.26.227 15:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was their flag in 1900. See Flag of Cuba for an explanation. Andrwsc 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is the flag again like today? Aminabzz (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iran/Persia[edit]

Could somebody put Persia instead of Iran in the text? The country was named Persia until 1935. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.66.224.202 (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I don't know where that flag came from.Theknightswhosay (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you also have the same question about the flag of India? In historical contexts in Wikipedia the flag of that particular time is included. Aminabzz (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ireland[edit]

The IOC list the winning polo team as "Great Britain / USA / Ireland"... maybe we should list Ireland as a separate country in that list (and also in the 1896 list... I'm still thinking John Boland should be considered an Irish.Souris2005 (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over a thousand?[edit]

The first paragraph says that over a thousand athletes participated. But the sidebar says that 997 participated. Last I checked, 997 is not over a thousand, although it is close. So which is it? GregorR (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sporting events at the Paris Exposition were not organised by the IOC nor came under their auspices[edit]

I have provided two references that prove without any question of doubt that the sporting events that were held at the Paris Exposition were not organised by the IOC, nor were called Olympic Games in 1900 or in 1901. In fact, the IOC itself, at the time referred to the Athens 1906 Games, in their official report of their Session in Paris in 1901 as the "Second International Olympic Games Athens 1906" (verbatim) and Baron Pierre de Coubertin himself published an edition of the "Revue Olympique" on "the occasion of the Olympic Games in Athens". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I have challenged you to provide exact quotations, both from the 1901 document and from the 2008 article that allegedly proposes the argument about that 1901 document, each with sufficient context to assess the soundness of your allegation. Neither of which you have done so far. Please post those quotes here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've pointed out elsewhere the IOC didn't organise the Games, they handed that responsibility over to the French organisers of the exposition - though this is not exactly unusual given that today the host city appoints an organising committee and it is not the IOC which does the job, e.g London 2012 Organising Committee. And surely if 1906 were the "Second International Olympic Games" then you can provide evidence for not counting the 1904 Summer Olympics as well? Perhaps having this discussion in a central location rather than spread across a dozen different talk pages would be a good idea, I suggest WT:OLY - Basement12 (T.C) 12:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be glad to discuss these issues anywhere you like. But the IOC did not hand over the responsibility to the organisers of the Paris Exposition. The organisers of the Paris Exposition never gave the IOC any choice. They allowed Baron Pierre de Coubertin to oversee the athletics events but not in his capacity as second President of the IOC. Yes, you are right about 1904. What applies to 1900 also applies to 1904. But I haven't got started on 1904 yet. One issue at a time. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I understand, the "Second International Olympic Games Athens 1906" may refer to the second time the Games were held in Athens, not the second time the Olympic Games were held. The hope, then, was that Athens would hold an Intercalated Games every four years, counted separately from those Games marking an Olympiad. Yoho2001 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gold medals were not awarded during the sporting events at the Paris Exposition[edit]

I note that gold medals were not awarded during the sporting events at the Paris Exposition. Therefore it is incorrect to refer to "gold medallists". There were none. You can refer to them as winners or the champion or champions. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the Gold Medals were not given, how is it that the table contains a column of Gold Medals?Karia 12:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Gold, silver, and bronze medals have been retroactively awarded by the International Olympic Committee to bring early Olympics in line with the modern awards. These tables follow that decision. -- Jonel | Speak 06:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When did the IOC retroactively award the top three finishers, and did they present them with physical medals? Were there ceremonies for each of the top three athletes, wherever they may have been by then? The IOC's Olympic Museum collection includes medals for Paris, dated 1900, which refer only to the Universal Exposition. Were these the ones used, or are they, too, deemed retroactive "Olympic" medals, but never actually presented to the winners? Yoho2001 (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try to answer these questions.

"Retroactively award" is just a figure of speech. All it means is that the IOC accept 1st, 2nd and 3rd in 1900 (or any of the early games) are equal to 1st, 2nd, 3rd in more modern Games for statistical purposes. Remember that gold-silver-bronze for 1-2-3 wasn't awarded uniformly until 1908. For example in 1896 the winners got a silver medal, 2nd got bronze, 3rd got nothing and in 1900 a whole range of different medals and trophies were awarded.

The IOC only agreed on a definitive list of champions about twenty years ago so all competitors from 1900 would have long dead by then.

The medals on the IOC website are some of the ones actually given out in 1900. The reason why they have Universal Exposition on them and no mention of Olympic Games is a long story but it's basically due to a power struggle in French sport. One faction wanted to downplay the importance of the Olympic Games. Topcardi (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correction needed: Wrong color for Vancouver Island[edit]

Vancouver Island is shown in a different color from the rest of Canada, on the map identifying countries' first Olympic participation. Yoho2001 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official medals and faux posters[edit]

The medal used in the design at the top of this page is completely different from any of those for the Paris Games in the collection of the IOC's Olympic Museum, which are rectangular. Where is the round medal in the poster from? Who created the faux poster, and when? Were there other posters also created later? Do any of them have official status? Yoho2001 (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first official Olympic poster appeared in 1912. Nothing created before then or created later for the earliest Games has any official status. If the IOC want to illustrate the 1896-1908 Games they use a variety of programme covers and single sport posters. The one on this page looks a complete fraud. Topcardi (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rugby[edit]

We have a number of articles that mention that Moseley Wanderers competed in the 1900 Olympics. But the sources and our articles seem to be split on whether they won a silver or a bronze medal.

Facts: Moseley Wanderers turned up in Paris played one game, losing to France the gold medal winners and then immediately returned to England. The did not stay to play the only other nation competing in the rugby competition -- Germany (represented by Frankfurt) who also lost to France.

Some of the confusion may be explained by this text from the 1900 Summer Olympics medal table article:

Gold medals were not given at the 1900 Games; a silver medal was given for a first place and a bronze medal was given for second. The International Olympic Committee has retroactively assigned gold, silver, and bronze medals to competitors who earned 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes respectively in order to bring early Olympics in line with current awards.(Mallon, Bill (1998). The 1900 Olympic Games, Results for All Competitors in All Events, with Commentary. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. ISBN 0-7864-0378-0.)

Wikip Article Medal Cited source
Rugby union at the Summer Olympics Silver Mallon, Bill (1998). The 1900 Olympic Games - Results for All Competitors in All Events, with Commentary. McFarland. ISBN 0-7864-0378-0.
Moseley Rugby Football Club Bronze Woodroofe, Peter and Birrell, Ken. "Rugby football in the Olympics". Archived from the original on 2009-07-25. Retrieved 2008-12-13.((cite web)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Moseley Wanderers Silver Rugby Football History. "Rugby at the Olympics". Rugby Football History. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
Great Britain at the 1900 Summer Olympics Silver no source
List of Olympic medalists in rugby union Silver no source

The following source: ""Date base search: Athlete: All, Olympic Games: Summer Olympic Game, Paris 1900, Sport: Rugby, Event: rugby, Gender: Men, Women, Mixed, Classification: Team, Individual, Country: Europe, Great Britain". Official website of the Olympic Movement. Retrieved 26 October 2010. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)" would seem to be authoritative. So I am going to use this as a source and change the articles to says sliver. --PBS (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

I've proposed that Cannon shooting at the Summer Olympics be merged with this article because it was only once an unofficial event, and as the article itself admits "details are unknown". It's therefore very difficult to see how it could ever be expanded from the micro-stub it is presently. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before that's discussed Cannon shooting at the Summer Olympics and Cannon shooting at the 1900 Summer Olympics should be merged. And since this was a demonstration sport at only one Olympics, the infoboxes should be canned and the information in them typed out in the article. Besides, two infoboxes is total overkill. In re merging it with the main article for the 1900 Summer Olympics...I'd do this work first. And maybe make a request for more work or something. There's also the issue that because the 1900 Summer Olympics Games were spread out over months, held as part of the World's fair and seriously under-promoted, that there's a lot of confusion. It was so bad that according to olmypic.org "many athletes never knew they had actually participated in the Olympic Games". Was it a demonstration sport as a part of the Olympic Games or was it a demonstration at the World's Fair happening at the same time that has in some cases been attributed to the Olympic Games? I know additional research would require people to read old books and articles and not just summaries on web pages already linked to on other Wikipedia articles (I know, RL research is so hard), but it might be worthwhile. It doesn't seem of any harm to keep it as a separate stub and encourage growth. But two stubs--that needs cleaning up. This stub was created by someone working on the other one (intentionally or unintentionally) by editing on infobox.
Ok, hold that, just checked something. If you look at all of the various articles on the unofficial sports at the games (there are 6), five of them were started by the same person who started this one (the original one, Cannon shooting at the 1900 Summer Olympics. They are all more filled out, and contain more information, and according to one, the games were in fact part of the World's Fair and the IOC doesn't recognize them as having been a part of the Olympics even though they were in some cases promoted in the same vein. There are more ELs on the other articles that could help this one, and he clearly has other sources that unfortunately he didn't reference in any way. Also, four of the articles use the title "---- at the 1900 Summer Olympics", one was started under that name before being redirected to Pigeon racing at the Summer Olympics and this one which currently exists under both titles ("at the 1900 Summer Olympics" and "at the Summer Olympics"). I don't know if there is a standard for these types of articles. If there is (and I assume there is one), it should follow that standard. If not, they should at least be standardized among this subset. So before you choose which title to stick with, and which page to become the redirect, I'd check in on the Olympic project page. Also, Topcardi wrote the original version of the cannon shooting page and four of the other ones and is still active on Wikipedia, so I'd certainly suggest contact asking for help with at least this page and references, if not all of them. Or Topcardi could be helpful with expanding the section in the 1900 Olympics page and merging these two pages and some of the others back, if that's what people decide.
But in terms of merging to the 1900 Summer Olympics there's clearly more information available and other issues that need to be resolved first. Maybe after getting in touch with the original authors and looking for people to do more research, we'll be back here. With a stub that cannot be expanded further and then this should be brought up again. But I think it's worth trying. 76.171.119.85 (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The plot thickens... Looking through the unofficial and demonstration sports listed in the "Sports at the Olympic Games" navbox, there's at least fifteen events that were only held once and have duplicate articles at "X at the Summer/Winter Olympics" and "X at the xxxx Summer/Winter Olympics". Some others have already been redirected to one or the other, so I'm getting the impression that there isn't any consensus on how to deal with these articles. I'll ask at WikiProject Olympics. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cannon shooting at the 1900 Summer Olympics would be worthwhile, if expanded. Cannon shooting at the Summer Olympics should point to the former article, as should all instances of such single-appearance sports. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, that's all taken care of. Now, as to whether cannon shooting and the other unofficial sports should be merged into this article... I'd have to say no. They may be stubs now, but it's not unfeasible that more information might be dug up one day. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that three of us are opposed to the merge, and I doubt we'll get much more input, I'm going to go ahead and remove the merge tag. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Female Olympic champion...Charlotte Cooper?[edit]

Hi, I couldn't help but notice that Charlotte Cooper is regarded as the first female Olympic champion in the article, whereas a look at the Sailing results indicate Hélène de Pourtalès as part of the winning team in the 1-2 ton event, which took place before the tennis events started. Given that Charlotte Cooper is generally regarded as the first female Olympic champion, I thought it would be worth putting this on the talk page before editing it later.

One thought which springs to mind is the Olympic report (or World Fair report!) of 1900, I can't read French, can anyone tell me if Hélène de Pourtalès is actually mentioned by name? Is this where we get the details about this event? Mike476 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I have edited the article to amend the error, although maintaining that Charlotte Cooper was the first winner of an individual women's event. It seems like a pretty clear-cut case to me, I'd be happy to discuss the edit if necessary. Mike476 (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charlotte Cooper picture[edit]

The picture probably doesn't show Charlotte Cooper. According to my source (Gillmeister: Cultural History of Tennis), it's taken from the French magazine "La vie en Grand Air" from July 22nd, 1900, and depicts "Mademoiselle A. Gillou" (I assume Kate Gillou).--Kompakt (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're probably right. I've swapped the picture for the one used in the Charlotte Cooper article. It's a better picture, anyway. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 1900 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned references in 1900 Summer Olympics[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 1900 Summer Olympics's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "medal count":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1896 Summer Olympics which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attribution[edit]

Text and references copied from André Tintant to 1900 Summer Olympics. See history of former article for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable sources on the quality of the games[edit]

See this:

These poorly organized games — derisively called "The Farcical Games" — and so poorly publicized that even competitors years later were unaware that they had competed in the Olympics in 1900.[1] No official records for the games exist.[1] For example, the fencng competitions are is not even mentioned in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica.ref>Robinson, Charles Edmund Newton (1911). "Épée-de-Combat" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 9 (11th ed.). pp. 667–669.</ref> De Coubertin commented later to friends: "It's a miracle that the Olympic Movement survived that celebration".

The material should be kept. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. No one is questioning the reliability of the highly esteemed Dr. Bill Mallon, one of the world’s experts on Olympic history. (By the way, the citation should say page ix, not page 271.)
2. The source of the term “Farcical Games” is a 1976 paper by Reet and Maxwell Howell, so it should be attributed as such.
3. The fact that the Brittanica article on the discipline of Épée fencing does not mention the 1900 Olympics is not itself indicative that those Games were poorly organized and publicized. The cited article harbors a discussion of English fencers and English competitions in Épée fencing. It mentions the 1906 and 1908 Olympic Épée winners only from the perspective of English fencers. This Brittanica article is not an example for, nor does it support, the premise of poor organization of the 1900 Games. Therefore, it should not be included as an “example.”
4. It is not necessarily true that the international sporting events in Paris in 1900 were poorly publicized. They, however, did suffer in comparison to the publicity for the Exposition Universelle (of which they were a part), which was widely publicized. It can be said that public awareness of specific events varied widely. For example, although croquet reportedly drew a single paying spectator, several of the archery events were the finals of a tournament that had begun with over 5000 French competitors.[1]: 30  Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly true that many competitors were unaware that they had competed in the Olympic Games, but not for reason of poor publicity. The Games were certainly publicized and the quality of that publicity can be argued. However, the reason that competitors were unaware is that these Games were simply not called the Olympic Games. [Note: It is also likely that many competitors and most of the public had never heard of the first modern Olympic Games held four years earlier in Greece, in an age of zero telecommunications. (How many people today remember the Goodwill Games?) And if they had heard of games in Athens in 1896, how many were keeping their eyes peeled and ears open regarding a second celebration?]
5. The article already mentions earlier, “Many athletes, some of whom had won events, were unaware that they had competed in the Olympic Games.”
Jeff in CA (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ a b c Mallon, Bill (July 11, 2015). The 1900 Olympic Games Results for All Competitors in All Events, with Commentary (Ebook). McFarland. p. 271. ISBN 9780786489527. ISBN 0786489529.
I think the point is that the Union des Sociétés Françaises de Sports Athlétiques and their allies who ran the sporting programme of the exposition deliberately downplayed the use of "Olympic" in 1900 for internal Fremch sports politics reasons. Topcardi (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1896 Summer Olympics which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My reverted edit[edit]

It doesn't need a source to say 1900 wasn't a leap year. It's a known fact which you can find by a simple search too. Also, it doesn't need a source to say all Summer Olympics games were held on leap years. It's a known fact too. So the only Summer Olympics games that were held on a common year was the 1900 one. Because 1900 was the only year after inauguration of the Summer Olympics games that the leap day was skipped. Aminabzz (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine, but it’s irrelevant trivia.Jeff in CA (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories