Wikipedia

Talk:List of IIHF World Championship medalists/Archive 1

< Talk:List of IIHF World Championship medalists
(Redirected from Talk:List of IIHF World Championship medalists/archive 1)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Lenev in topic Medal Table
Archive 1

Russia

Latest comment: 16 years ago79 comments15 people in discussion

As Russia is recognised worldwide as the successor to Soviet Union, should the hockey medals won by USSR be added to Russia's count? Don't forget, the players who won those medals were ethnically RUSSIAN: e.g. Valeri Kharlamov, Vladislav Tretiak, etc.--SergeiXXX (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was more than Russia. Can you find an IIHF source that proves that they consider all Soviet championships to now count as Russias? -- Scorpion0422 23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
You can see here that Russia is a member of IIHF since April 1, 1952. It means that all the titles was winning from April 1, 1952 now is Russia's titles. Also, Russia is official successor of the Soviet Union in all international organizations and United Nations. You can see also here. --Dmitry Nikitin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.78.185.39 (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The official website of the IIHF has several conflicting pages about the subject though. For example, this page says Russia won its first world championship in 1993. -- Scorpion0422 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was russian first gold, but Russia also is a successor of Soviet titles (and seccessor of membership). Which evidance do you need? --Dmitry Nikitin--91.78.185.39 (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Also: Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan etc. are members since May 6, 1992, and Russia since April 1, 1952. Why so? Dmitry Nikitin --91.78.185.39 (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree.Russian medals should be listed with USSR medals as per the 2008 IIHF Championship article with a NOTE explaining the situation and Russia being the legal successor to the USSR through which inherited its debt, UN seat & more.--76.68.68.186 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree that an explanatory footnote would be helpful, but there is longstanding consensus over many sports and hundreds of articles about how to handle USSR, Yugoslavia, etc. with respect to sporting statistics. That consensus is that USSR and Russia are not identical, and therefore need to be tabulated independently. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Where is this "longstanding consensus"? Show me proof.--SergeiXXX (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, can you provide links to such discussions where full consensus has been established on this issue (USSR/Russia). Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, are not the same, there were no full successor states in their cases.

This (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Successor_state) states otherwise, where Yugoslavia split up into equal countries, while Russia "released" the USSR republics before and then changed to Rus. Fed. by declaring independence. However it is the successor according to UN, so what arguments can beat that. —Preceding uns igned comment added by 76.68.68.186 (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And find me any "Soviet" star hockey player that wasn't ethnically Rusian:

All ethnically Russian players. Russia won all those medals, not Soviet Union. --SergeiXXX (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Russia was the biggest part of USSR, so it is not strange that most of the players were ethnically Russian. But several non-Russian notable players have contributed to USSR achievments, i.e. Artūrs Irbe and Helmuts Balderis. --Kildor (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
For consensus on medal count, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Olympic conventions. --Kildor (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

IIHF: "The win means also that Soviet Union / Russia now has equalled Canada's record of 24 World Championship gold medals. The precursor USSR won 22 gold medals before Russia took over in 1992."[1]. Case closed.--Berkunt (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The text clearly mentions Soviet Union. It does not say that Russia have 24 titles. And still, you will need to overturn the current Wikipedia consensus on medal count (se link above). --Kildor (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We are not saying that Russia has 24 titles, we are saying that Soviet Union / Russia have 24 titles, exactly as the IIHF says there (The win means also that Soviet Union / Russia now has equalled Canada's record of 24 World Championship gold medals). What concensus Kildor? That says "Olympic conventions". This is not the Olympics.--Berkunt (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no difference. If the pages for Olympics lists them separately, we should do it here as well. And several olympic tournaments counted as world championships. --Kildor (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok so basically you are just stating your opinion now as just because you say that there is no difference when there is does not make it so, it clearly says "Olympic conventions", part of "Wikiproject Olympics". This is not the Olympics.--Berkunt (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that these pages have listed USSR and Russia separately since it was added to the Ice Hockey World Championships article in 2006 (see history). And it was untouched until the Russia victory two days ago. So if you want to change that principle, it is your burden to show that there is consensus on doing so. The olympic convention is of course not binding for these pages, but it is a good indication on that most people think that these countries should be listed separately. The same thing applies to Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic and Slovakia. --Kildor (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the reasons cited above for why Russia and USSR should be lumped together is that the IIHF officially handed down the USSR's membership to Russia in some sense (for example, look at the "join date" of Russia in the IIHF). Why is the same not done for the Czech Republic? If you examine its entry date in the IIHF you will see that the Czech Republic is a founding member of the IIHF, having joined in 1908, while Slovakia only joined in 1993. I'm not advocating one position over the other, but I think CONSISTENCY NEEDS TO BE FOLLOWED. I think the IIHF is a better source to follow for ice hockey than the United Nations, but either separate USSR and Russia or join also Czechoslovakia with the Czech Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.161.239 (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a compromise, why don't we list Russia and the Soviet Union seperately with seperate counts, then in the medal count table give them a combined medal column (alongside the other two)? -- Scorpion0422 13:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea, and actually that's how it was on the IHWC article a while back. But please explain to me: what is your justification for doing this for Russia/Soviet Union and not Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic? I stress again that according to the IIHF, Russia succeeded the USSR and the Czech Republic succeeded Czechoslovakia (look at the membership dates, or look at the fact that after the split of Czechoslovakia, Czech Republic started in Top Pool, whereas Slovakia did not, etc.). We need CONSISTENCY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.161.239 (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another example of the amazing inconsistency of this. Even though we lump Russia and Soviet Union together, but separate Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia, we for some reason also lump Germany and West Germany together. Is there simply some plot here to make the Czech Republic look like a lesser hockey nation? Hrmrmrm... It seems to me that people ought to put aside their nationalistic interests, especially those fueled by Russia's recent win, and think more objectively about consistency. Either lump all countries, or list them separately AND together, or list them all separately, but do it across ALL the countries. Why would anyone have a problem with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.161.239 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Although it is a good initiative to resolve this matter, I don't think it is a good idea. It is confusing having the same country appear twice in the list. If we keep the list separated, anyone can easily see and calculate any combination of countries. Listing the countries separate is also more consistent in the way medals are presented in table for each year. The medal count is simply calculated by counting the number of medals for any occurance of a nation in the list. Soviet Union is listed for some years, and Russia is listed for others. And we don't need to analyze what numbers that should be combined or not. It also makes sense to use the same principle here as in the list of olympic medals. And as long as there is no consensus on changing the principle on medal count used in this article for over two years, I don't see any reason to change it. --Kildor (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is precisely because of this "slippery slope" that we have a long-standing consensus on WP:WikiProject Olympics to not combine any medal counts. Of course, copious footnotes and explanatory prose are used to explain the USSR, Germanys, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, et. al., but since it is impossible to decide upon the "rules" for which nations can be combined and which can't—not to mention the WP:Original research issues—we decided not to combine any medal counts. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. My point was simply that, at the moment, we have a combined total for Germany (combining W. Germany and Germany) and a field for "Russia & USSR". So let's separate these and remove the "Russia & USSR" field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.161.239 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And again: official IIHF site write: Gold No. 24 for Big Red Machine.

Maybe we will write like this:

Country   Gold   Silver   Bronze Medals
  Soviet Union/  Russia 22/2 7/1 5/2 34/5

or

Country   Gold   Silver   Bronze Medals
  Soviet Union/  Russia 22/2 (24) 7/1 (8) 5/2 (7) 34/5 (39)

The same with Czechoslovakia. --85.141.71.28 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That idea was rejected a couple of years ago by the Olympics WikiProject. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So long as we are consistent across all nations, I don't see a problem with either approach. Need there be agreement between the IHWC and the Olympics? After all, isn't one handled by the IIHF while the other by the IOC? Maybe I am wrong. But if the IOC lists Czech entry as 1993, then it would make sense to count them separately, while since the IIHF lists it as 1908 they can be counted together. In other words, the IHWC may consider Czechoslovakian medals to pass to the Czech Republic (and similarly for the USSR and Russia), while the IOC does not, and it is not up to us (nor is it desirable) to make the positions of these two institutions agree. But I am also happy keeping things separated on the IHWC (as it is at the writing of this response). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.197.118 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Man, who cares about the Olympics Wikiproject. We are talking about World Hockey Championships here, are we not? Here look at this: [1]

Canada 4-5 Russia, OT (25th world championship gold for Russia/USSR)

--SergeiXXX (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That article is dead wrong, The Soviet Union/Russia have won a combined 24 medals, not 25, and who cares if some bloggist lists them together? -- Scorpion0422 00:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If the Russians are willing to accept that those Lada cars exported to Canada are Russian not Soviet cars, then I have no objections to combining the medal totals. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, on behalf of the Russian people I accept that Lada is indeed a Russian car :D. And those 24 medals are also Russian.--SergeiXXX (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Seriously though, I suggest we follow the IIHF on this as it is an IIHF tournament. The Olympics are much more complicated. Alaney2k (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The concensus seems to be that their medals should be combined. Users opposing users seem to rely on the "Olympic conventions" argument which is not applicable to this as this is not the Olympics. With regards to "consistency", you have to look at each case - West Germany and East Germany were different countries and each had their own national sporting teams (West Germany had their own hockey team, East Germany had their own hockey team) while the Soviet Union and Russia were the same/continuation of each other, (as recognized the IIHF, in international law, vast majority of players were Russian as we have established) the only thing that changed was the name. With regards to Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic, if the circumstances are the same for them as they are for Soviet Union and Russia (if the vast majority of players came from Czech Republic, the IIHF lumps their medal count together, the IIHF says that Czech Republic inherits Czechoslovakia's membership date) then they should also be combined.

The IIHF themselves combines their tally. IIHF: Gold No. 24 for Big Red Machine "The win means also that Soviet Union / Russia now has equalled Canada's record of 24 World Championship gold medals. The precursor USSR won 22 gold medals before Russia took over in 1992." The evidence is overwhelming.--Berkunt (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we have arrived at the correct decision based on the IIHF's own regulations. Looks very good now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.161.239 (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the Olympic guidelines, generally we follow the same conventions on all of the pages for international competition, the consensus was just established by that project. While Russia may be a continuation of the Soviet Union, they are not the same nation and thus their medal counts should be listed seperately. Combining the nations also makes the medal count table less useful. If someone wants to know how many medals the Soviet Union and Russia won, you just add the two together. But if someone wants to know how many just the Soviet Union won, then they would have to go to the main table and count everything seperately. I wouldn't mind also including a combined table, but others do oppose that. There is clearly no consensus yet. A consensus is not waiting for three or four people who agree with you to post consecutively. -- Scorpion0422 13:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, Scorpion. You are on your own here. Ha, "others do oppose that", who are the "others? Yourself? You talk about yourself in plural form? Don't vandalise the article again. Noone wants to see your Canadian POV. Its kind of obvious, noone, except you, has any problem with combining the medal counts, none whatsoever. Sounds like a consensus to me. Its done. Just leave the article alone now.--SergeiXXX (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
How about me then? All of your IIHF links say "And the Soviet Union / Russia tied..." They don't say "Russia tied...". The IIHF itself makes a distinction between the Soviet Union and Russia for this purpose. I would support leaving the chart as it was, but there is no reason not to introduce some prose to the section detailing the history of the Soviet Union and Russia, as well as Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic/Slovakia. In the prose section, one could easily state, that "Russia, combined with the former Soviet Union has won 24 championships." Resolute 14:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, it is comical to combine Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic the way you have, as if the Slovakian half of the former CSSR never existed... Resolute 14:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly support showing Russia/USSR medals together as per common sense, as well as legal status succession confirmed by the United Nations.--Lenev (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an immense difference between cases like Yugoslavia and Czechslovakia and USSR/Russia. I was surprised there would even be a discussion.--Lenev (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Czechslovakia split into 2 equal states, Yugoslavia split into several equal states. USSR split up, with Russia being the LEGAL SUCCESSOR to it with all the responsibility and acknowledgement it implies.--Lenev (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See this list for True Successor states and not recognized ones: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Successor_state --Lenev (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We should just follow the IIHF and list things the way they do. That would move the debate to the IIHF where it should be. Label the table 'according to the IIHF'. Alaney2k (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I Agree. --Lenev (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So do I. And as soon as someone finds a chart with the IIHF listing a ranking of medallists, please let us know. Thus far I have been unsuccessful in finding one. Resolute 14:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If they don't, then possibly neither should this article? Alaney2k (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If they dont, then that leaves it to us to form a consensus on how to display the chart. It is a useful means of discovering at a glance how successful each nation has been. Resolute 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is NO difference between this case and Yugoslavia/Czechslovakia. On the one hand is a nation-state splitting up into two or more successor states, some or all of them which compete in the same sport; on the other hand is a nation-state splitting up into two or more successor states, some or all of them which compete in the same sport. This entire premise that the "legal successor" of a country has a "right" to the precedessor's medal count is speculative (and thus is not permitted on Wikipedia), based on no reliable sources and is nothing more than POV-pushing. It is the case Wikipedia-wide that such issues are based around the nation-states at the time, whether it be national medal count or the listed birthplaces of competitors, and we need a far, far better reason to make a unique exception in this article than that a faction wants to grab for nationalistic bragging rights.  RGTraynor  14:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The IIHF itself lumps the the Soviet Union's and Russia's medal count together. Of course there is a difference between the defunct countries, it is not as simple as "all those countries are defunct therefore they are the same" - West Germany and East Germany were different countries and each had their own national sporting teams (West Germany had their own hockey team, East Germany had their own hockey team) while the Soviet Union and Russia were the same/continuation of each other, as recognized the IIHF, in international law, and the vast majority of players were Russian. Now if the other defunct countries have the same circumstances - the IIHF lumps their medal count together as they did here, gives them the "defunct" countries membership date only to them, they are recognized in international law as continuing the legal personality of the "defunct" country, the vast majority of the hockey players were from that country - then by all means, include their medal count together as well.--Berkunt (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Great. Do you have a source for that assertion? I want an official statement, not a game recap article written by Andrew Podnieks and posted on the IIHF website. Beyond that, talking about Germany is a straw man argument. I was talking about Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, myself.  RGTraynor  15:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
"Eleven of the twelve members of the Commonwealth of Independent States signed a declaration on December 21, 1991 agreeing that "Member states of the Commonwealth support Russia in taking over the USSR membership in the UN, including permanent membership in the Security Council." One day before the resignation of President Mikhail S. Gorbachev, Ambassador Y. Vorontsov transmitted to the UN Secretary-General a letter from President of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin stating that:

the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation (RSFSR) with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In this connection, I request that the name 'Russian Federation' should be used in the United Nations in place of the name 'the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'. The Russian Federation maintains full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations, including the financial obligations. I request that you consider this letter as confirmation of the credentials to represent the Russian Federation in United Nations organs for all the persons currently holding the credentials of representatives of the USSR to the United Nations. The Secretary-General circulated the request among the UN membership. There being no objection, the Russian Federation took the USSR's place, with Boris Yeltsin personally taking the Russian Federation's seat at the January 31, 1992 Security Council meeting."--Lenev (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Err ... what the heck? We're discussing the IIHF here, not the United Nations. I'm sure that the international politics-happy editors can tend to their own knitting on their own articles.  RGTraynor  15:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And, as was noted above, the IIHF has also stated that Russia's first gold medal was 1993, not 1954. You really can't state as a fact that the IIHF lumps them together when even the IIHF contradicts itself. Resolute 15:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't. It lumps Russia and USSR into one Big Red Machine. http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/gold-for-russia.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=955&cHash=8c50f84117--Lenev (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
"The precursor USSR won" (from that article) I think that clearly show the special connection between USSR hockey team and Russia in IIHFs eyes.--Lenev (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolute, my friendly Canadian, your alleged "example" where the IIHF allegedly "contradicts itself" has no basis - it says "Russia wins its first World Championship gold, but it also marks the end of the Soviet Union/Russian dominance after 39 years." - yes, "Russia's", they are referring to the new Russian state's - first gold medal. Even there they lump the Soviet Union's and Russia together (but it also marks the end of the Soviet Union/Russian dominance after 39 years! - Just as we are doing in this article! There is no contradiction. As I've pointed out before, we are not saying that "Russia" has 24 titles, we are saying that Soviet Union / Russia have 24 titles, exactly as the IIHF says here (The win means also that Soviet Union / Russia now has equalled Canada's record of 24 World Championship gold medals).--Berkunt (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: Just for yucks, I glanced at the contribution history of those advocating combining the Soviet and Russian totals. Only two of those users are not SPAs whose only edits involve this discussion.  RGTraynor  15:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I hope you're not referring to me as a SPA, as I have been editing wiki since 2005, and took a break from 07 to now.--Lenev (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, you should know that IP Addresses change, and that just because a particular IP shows up only a few edits it doesn't mean the user has not contributed significantly.--Lenev (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
For reasons of anonimity/laziness/etc., many prefer not to create accounts.--Lenev (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, for all intents and purposes, I am. Your contribution history shows zero edits from December 2006 until now.  RGTraynor  15:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, its always fun when nationalistic pride hits wikipedia, but I must repeat what a number of others have already mentioned above. It is a wikipedia wide concensus for international competitions that the medals are not combined. -Djsasso (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

All except 2 that are opposing it are Canadians, funny that? In fact, I see that a Canadian is in favour of combining the totals.--Berkunt (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I am Canadian, from Toronto, and I support the merge. This is common sense and has nothing to do with nationalism.Canada still ranks #1 because of the many silvers anyways. --Lenev (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This talk page is a very small sample of the entire wikipedia population of editors. It has been established over and over in the past that the medals are to be separated. -Djsasso (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you look over the debate, there are more than two that have opposed combining the totals in the chart. At any rate, I have attempted a compromise by adding a prose section that details the 24 championships the Soviet Union and Russia have combined to win. Also, I would reiterate that there is very obviously no consensus to change the chart layout. Please stop reverting it until you do have consensus. FWIW, I am a Canadian with significant Russian/Ukranian ancestry. Resolute 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, User:98.206.161.239 and I are Americans, and three of the other editors opposing have no nationality listed. Like Resolute, I'm of Russian ancestry as well. For what that's worth.  RGTraynor  15:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, do point to where this alleged "concensus" in wikipedia for the Ice Hockey World Championships. Reverting to nationality arguments is an ad hominem tactic. You have so far provided no argument for not combining the totals like the IIHF does.--Berkunt (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
They are not the same countries, plain and simple. Even without a link to other concensus discussions, I can clearly see on this page alone there are more people opposed to combining them than there are supporting it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If reverting to a nationality argument is an ad hominem tactic, may I ask why you are noting the nationality of the people you respond to in your recent comments and edits? You know what they say about pots and kettles... Resolute 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my dear Canadian, you will have to use more sophisticated arguments than "they are not the same countries, plain and simple". Nobody is saying that they are legally the same country, we are saying that Soviet Union / Russia have 24 titles, exactly as the IIHF itself says - it lumps them together for obvious reasons and in fact gives Russia's membership date as 1952.--Berkunt (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And this exact statement has been introduced to the article. Why are we still arguing? Resolute 15:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Because for some reason you keep removing the lumping together of Soviet Union and Russia together from the medal tally when the IIHF itself lumps them together - The win means also that Soviet Union / Russia now has equalled Canada's record of 24 World Championship gold medals. The precursor USSR won 22 gold medals before Russia took over in 1992.--Berkunt (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm, take another look. The article now says exactly what you quoted. It states that the Soviet Union and Russia have a combined 24 titles, which equals Canada. It also states, via the chart, that the USSR won 22, and Russia has won two. So again I ask, what is the dispute? Resolute 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you are amenable up to a point. Now, go one step further. Label it in the table 'Russia' with a note that it includes the titles that the Soviet Union won as its legal predecessor. Why can you not do that? Alaney2k (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If the article acknowledges that the Soviet Union and Russia together have won 24 titles, as the IIHF does, then it would be logical to put them side by side in the medal table.--Berkunt (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Better question is why should we do that? As was mentioned, splitting the charts like this is a standing procedure on other international articles, and there is no reason to make an exception for this one. Also, it reduces the usefulness of the chart, imo. As constituted, one can easily see at a glance that Russia has been far less successful since the breakup of the Soviet Union. One can see that the Czechs and Slovaks have continued to win medals despite the split of Czechoslovakia, etc. The chart, as it is currently constituted, is more informative. The desire expressed to note that the Soviets and Russians have combined to equal Canada's championship total has been agreed to. It is now clearly stated. Again, I am not sure what dispute remains. Resolute 16:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Table Proposal

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

When I worked at the OECD, a highly-regarded international institution, (ahem) we would create two tables to show all the information. Because sometimes just one version of events is not enough. That is international diplomacy at work and it is better than endless bickering. Not everyone knows the predecessor/successor combinations.

The previous discussed proposal:

Country   Gold   Silver   Bronze Medals
  Soviet Union/  Russia 22/2 (24) 7/1 (8) 5/2 (7) 34/5 (39)

List the CSSR/Czech/Slovaks together too.

AND have the current table? Would that be too INSANE or 'politically correct'? This would show the combinations and show the independencies. I know if Canada were to ever split (perish the thought, though, I would want pre-Quebec leaving Canada to be lumped with post-Quebec leaving (especially to keep up with (CCCP/Russia) :-)) I will now put on my flame-retardent clothing. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I'd be OK with that. If anything, it adds clarity to the situation.--Lenev (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Really, the dispute is over the Soviet and Russian totals, and the desire for an exception to be made for them on the table. I've attempted to deal with this by noting in prose that the Soviet Union/Russia have a combined 24 championships. This would accomplish the same function, would it not? Resolute 15:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That would not be enough. The above-mentioned compromise is already too much, but if it may please some people so be it. To ignore facts completely is un-wikipedian.--Lenev (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately that would just confuse readers and is pretty much a rediculous idea which as you mention is far to politically correct. Secondly the Quebec situation would be very different as I am assuming the Canada part of the equation would still be called Canada. And Quebec medals I would expect would be seperate. -Djsasso (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No reason why it would be confusing. And what would Quebecois want from a situation as I have described? Alaney2k (talk)
Two tables in and of itself would make non-hockey followers go "Huh?". And who knows what Quebec would want. They would be no different than any other new country. Just because it split off from Canada doesn't mean it should claim Canada's victories. Just like Canada doesn't claim Britains since splitting from it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The Quebec/Canada thing is highly unlikely and there's no need to convince fellow Canadians that "if this might happen to us why not let Russia have a special list". The real fact is that there are no legitimate arguments against merging the medal counts and I am still waiting for someone to provide them.--Lenev (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I am waiting for the legitimate reason to combine two SEPERATE countries medals. What happens when other republics start winning medals? You going to combine all of them in as well? Because you would have to. And then it would become rediculous. -Djsasso (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The Toronto Maple Leafs are the legitimate successors of the Toronto St. Patricks and Toronto Arenas. We combine Stanley cup totals. Alaney2k (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Those two are the same legal entity. Russia and the USSR are not. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No they are not. The 1917-18 Arenas were a separate franchise. Legally, the Arena Hockey Club was formed in 1918. In 1919, the NHL sold a franchise to the St. Patrick's organization. Alaney2k (talk)
That's true, no lawyer in the world (well, maybe Mexico,  :) ) would consider them same legal entities.--Lenev (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Point by point. 1. UN recognition of Russia as the SOLE successor to the USSR, thereby transfering all of the claims and obligations of the USSR as well as international positions to the Russian Federation. Ex. UN Security Council Seat, IMF Seat, Paris Club Seat, etc. --Lenev (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

2. IIHF recognition of the Russian Hockey Team and the Soviet Hockey Team as one that can be directly identified as the successor to it. http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/gold-for-russia.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=955&cHash=8c50f84117 --Lenev (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC) As posted on the official IIHF site, stating that the Russian Hockey Team and the Soviet Hockey Team are for all purposes and intents part of the same entity called the Big Red Machine. It also states that "The precursor USSR won 22 gold medals before Russia took over in 1992" in the same article. This clearly shows that the USSR is the precursor and that Russia is the predecessor to the USSR Hockey Team and no one else can claim that unless stated by an official IIHF article/document.--Lenev (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC) For the "special" people this is the definition of "precursor" http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/precursor --Lenev (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RGTraynor As I said I took a break from end of 06 to now. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lenev If you cannot read then I have nothing else I can say to you.--Lenev (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, suddenly coming back to argue something like this would still put you in a position of being a SPA, break or not. -Djsasso (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
My point precisely, unless the gentleman prefers the term "meatpuppet." That aside, with all the irrelevancies and suppositions tossed up by the merge proponents, which fly in the face of existing practice both in this Wikiproject and in Wikipedia sports articles in general to divide into the discrete nation-states in existence at the time, I want to see not a sportswriter's article posted to a website, but an official IIHF national medal chart combining the totals. Please provide the link to the same.  RGTraynor  16:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If I was a Latvian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, etc., I would be offended if the achievements of my former country (USSR) were grouped together with Russia. As has been pointed out, the USSR teams clearly had a majority of Russian players, but not 100%. It should be obvious that the most WP:NPOV approach must be to treat each team fully independently in the tabular results and not combine anything. We can add as much prose and footnote text for additional explanation, including mention of the "successor" status of Russia, and even add a reference to Podnieks's article to support the combined total. But all of that should remain outside the table. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cutting to the chase

Latest comment: 16 years ago39 comments14 people in discussion

With all the verbiage above and claims of consensus going all ways, let's get an actual tally. The proposal on the table is to merge the medal counts so that "Soviet Union / Russia" and "Czechoslovakia / Czech Republic" each get a combined entry.

(And, by the bye, could we argue under another heading? It'd be nice to provide a clean, readable tally for the admin who will eventually have to come in to adjudicate.)

  1. Oppose: for reasons given above.  RGTraynor  16:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The two countries are clearly seperate legal entities and any titles won by such should be seperated as they are for any other country that has split as the USSR has. For more reasons see my above comments. Combining the Czech Republic with Czechoslovakia is the extremely rediculous as its ignoring the fact that Slovakia exists. -Djsasso (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Also for reasons stated above. The chart, as constituted, is more informative than it would be if different totals were crudely sewn together. Resolute 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support For reasons stated in the discussion; UN approval, and IIHF support. Without Czechoslovakia.--Lenev (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support On other pages we list legitimate successors together. I don't know about CSSR/Czech succession. Alaney2k (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    I would like to note, we do not do this for international competitions. All other international competitions are seperated by country. -Djsasso (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Stop debating every sentence I type. Alaney2k (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    If you don't want people to debate with you don't enter a debate. Typing clearly false information will obviously get objected to. -Djsasso (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Do you feel better? :-) Alaney2k (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Also, since the IIHF recognizes Russia as a member since 1952. Alaney2k (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Since the IIHF recognizes the Czech Republic as a member since 1908, then I'd have to go with merging CSSR and Czech totals. Alaney2k (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Which would be clearly offensive to Slovakians, no? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    I was stating why I would support merging the entries in the table. I suggested previously titling the table 'according to the IIHF'. I don't know if it would be clearly offensive, I cannot speak for the Slovaks. Did the Czechs dominate the team the way the Russians did? Did they secede from Czechoslovakia? Would they rather not be listed together? I also suggested two separate tables as a 'way out'. I also suggested removing the table entirely. Is there another compromise? Alaney2k (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support The fact that the IIHF themselves combines their tally. IIHF: Gold No. 24 for Big Red Machine "The win means also that Soviet Union / Russia now has equalled Canada's record of 24 World Championship gold medals. The precursor USSR won 22 gold medals before Russia took over in 1992." The fact that the overwhelming of the players were Russian. The fact that IIHF lists Russia's membership date as that of the Soviet Union, 1952, while the other newly independent states as in the 1990s. There is a reason why everyone is saying that Russia has "broken the 15 year drought" when they won the championship this year, because everyone attributes the Soviet titles to them.--Berkunt (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Those sports writers are not the IIHF. The IIHF is mearly reposting news stories. -Djsasso (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, the reason why they say the Russians broke their 15 year drought is because it had been 15 years since their last championship. That last championship was, of course, won by Russia. Resolute 16:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    I know that their last win was in 1993. Everyone attributes the Soviet titles to them because they are judging them on their Soviet-era record, otherwise there would not be such a fuss about "breaking the 15 year drought" because otherwise Russia would only have 1 title to attributed to them, hence why they are being judged by such lofty standards.--Berkunt (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Podnieks should not be referred to as simply a sports writer. He has written for the Hockey Hall of Fame and is the author of many hockey books. In this case, he must be working directly for the IIHF. Alaney2k (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Which would make him a sports writer if he wrote books about sports and for the hall of fame would it not? But he may have been working directly for them. -Djsasso (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    So he is not just a 'hack', thanks. Alaney2k (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose For reasons stated many times, in many places, for many years. Longstanding Wikipedia consensus should not be thrown out the door for this solitary article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    There is no longstanding wikipedia concensus, the concensus you are referring to was pointed out to be on Olympic conventions - this is not the Olympics.--Berkunt (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Go look at any other international competition pages. It's clearly done on all such pages. -Djsasso (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    (ec) Try again. How about National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup and Water polo world championship for a couple of articles I quickly found? Trust me, I've edited thousands of articles across many different sports. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    The National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup article clearly contradicts FIFA's Russia page. Is that a good thing to emulate? Alaney2k (talk)
  8. Oppose per all of my previous reasons. -- Scorpion0422 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose for obvious reasons.... --Krm500 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Team Russia & Team Czech Republic are not successors to Team USSR & Team Czechoslovakia. To claim they are? would mean ignoring, Team Slovakia, Team Latvia, Team Belarus etc. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think that they are easily demonstrable to be "successors" in that there is continuity in the organization (executive staff, coaches, etc.), and I think that is what the IIHF, FIFA, etc. pages refer to. This is analogous to the notion of "successor" at the UN, where Russia inherited the Soviet Union's seat in the Security Council, for example. But that does not imply that the national teams represented precisely the same set of people. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sure, but we are talking about an IIHF tournament, or a FIFA tournament. Why would we choose to go against those federations? I would argue, in Russia's case, that Russia dominated the USSR team and those other teams did not exist, legally or even in some made-up way to present the USSR's greatness. The training facilities were located in Russia, etc. Not that it is right that it occurred that way. I would argue that separating the USSR and Russia smacks of 'intent to injure'. :-) What the USSR did was not right, but we can't get back at them, so let's develop our own way of listing these things. Alaney2k (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    No one is saying they aren't successors. What we are saying is it would be more useful, and informative, and accurate to list them seperately. The IIHF hasn't listed a medal table so we aren't going against the IIHF. If and when they do issue a medal table then we will have to deal with that. The biggest issue here is that we will lose valuable information by combining them when the reader can easily combine them themselves if they need a total. Or heck even read the prose which already has the combined information. The table itself doesn't need to be altered. -Djsasso (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Russia is not the same as the USSR, just like the Czech and Slovak Republics are not the CSSR, Serbia, Croatia, et al are not Yugoslavia. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Everyone knows that the Soviet team was 99% Russian. This argument is ridiculous. The IIHF counts Russia as the official successor of the Soviet Union, and so does the rest of the world. Russia took all of the Soviet Union debt, all of the nukes, the UN security council veto, and even the national anthem. Further, no other former Soviet state has ever won a medal in any international hockey event since the collapse. Obviously it was Russia who won all of those medals, and they deserve full credit. Krawndawg (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Just because another republic has yet to win a medal doesn't mean that Russia went and won all the past ones. Yes a large portion of the teams were made up of people with Russian ethnicity, but not all of them were. The USSR was made up of more than just Russia when it won those medals. So there is no basis to claim that Russia was who earned all those medals. -Djsasso (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    The USSR didn't contribute equally to the success of the hockey program. Like I said, 99% of the teams were Russian, the non-Russian members were so few and insignificant (none of them were all-stars or noteworthy players) that you could easily make the argument that they would have been just as successful without them. And again, the IIHF as well as almost every news report considers this newest gold to be Russias 24th, not 2nd. Krawndawg (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Except the IIHF hasn't said either way. That is what the debate is. There are no sources showing the medals combined. All the newspapers and webpages I have see have the medals seperated. The merge side of the debate has yet to find an official source to prove they should be combined and the Russian Federation itself has said the earlier medals were won as another country. -Djsasso (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia doesn't work on what-ifs, crytal balling or wishful thinking. Resolute 19:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    here, the CBC lists them together for all time rankings. Canada's own official news station. Krawndawg (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. These are different countries and should be listed separately. Consensus on other project/sports articles is that these countries should be listed separately, and I don't see any reasons why ice hockey should be treated in a different way. --Kildor (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose: This is just plain silly. What happens when/if the Ukraine wins a medal? will they also lay claim to the USSR's totals? Jmj713 (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion's deletion

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Scorpion's recent deletion of the fact that the Soviet Union won 22 World Championships at 35 appearances, with the summary "First of all, the time period is already mentioned. Second of all, the Soviet Union is third in medal count. if we mention them, we'd have to mention Sweden too" is unacceptable. Medal count has nothing to do with it, your comparison of the relevance of Soviet Union to Sweden is frankly, laughable. The mention of the Soviet Union is to demonstrate their utter dominance of the sport, not "medal count".--Berkunt (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we also note the Soviet use of pros in an amateur event at that time also? That said, I do believe it is fair to note in the lead that the Soviet Union and Russia have also combined to win 24 championships. I can see what Scorpion is saying with respect to Sweden being second in overall medals, however consensus has been to organize primarily by championships won. Resolute 16:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Sweden is 3rd in medal count is not worthy of mention because Canada and Soviet Union/Russia have together been overwhelmingly dominant, each having 4 times more championships than Sweden, and because the Soviet Union/Russia only started competing in 1954 while Sweden started competing back in 1920, yet it still has 4 times more championships than them.--Berkunt (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually agreeing with you. There's no need to continue to press this argument with me.  ;) Resolute 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that, I'm just making my point to those reading :).--Berkunt (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This really is turning into something lame. Before you can say it, my edits have nothing to do with trying to make Canada look like a better hockey nation than Russia. I realize that in their time, the Soviets were more dominant than Canada ever was, so nationality has nothing to do with it. Usually the lead only mentions the top team in terms of win/medal count which in both cases is Canada. I also removed your statement because it belongs in an article about the Soviet hockey team, not here. The reason I said Sweden should be mentioned is because it's the second in medal count, and if we're going to list the Soviets, we'd have to list the nations that have more medals (and your comment about their amount of medals is irrelevant. If you want commentary about which team is better, go here and comment on their message boards).

But since you feel so strongly about the issue, I added Sweden and the Soviet Union to the lead. Happy? -- Scorpion0422 16:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The only time overall medal count matters is for the nation with the most medals, not the nation with the second most medals, while primarily it is nations with the most championships. As Resolute pointed out, concensus has been to organize primarily by championships won, for example, we count Champions League titles and FIFA World Cup, or even the Eurovision Song Contest teams by number of times they have won the respective competitions, not by how many times they have finished runner up or third. That would be silly as a nation with no championships could then have the most medals, hardly worth mentioning. --Berkunt (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes on USSR, no on Czechslovakia?

Latest comment: 16 years ago32 comments6 people in discussion

Well now ... NOW I see what this is about. Can we stop pretending this has anything to do beyond Russian nationalism?  RGTraynor  16:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia split up equally, there are no documents proving that there is only one main successor. Even the UN assumed that. I'm not gonna repeat this again I will just copy and paste it as a response to similarly ignorant questions.--Lenev (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
According to the IIHF [2], the Czech Republic has been a member since November 15, 1908, to use an argument posed by the USSR/Russia crowd. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I know that. And no one is claiming they weren't, I said that Czechslovakia as a country split into 2 equal countries according to the UN. Just like Yugoslavia split into all their republics and while Serbia claimed to be a successor, it was not recognized by the UN.
Russia was.--Lenev (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, just for fun, Russia - Member Since April 1, 1952. http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/countries/russia.html --Lenev (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You folks seem to want it both ways. For people who keep repeating "This isn't the Olympics," you do like to keep talking about the UN.  RGTraynor  16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Another case where Wiki contradicts the federations. FIBA lists Russia as a member since 1947 on their Russia page Alaney2k (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, listing when they joined a federation doesn't prove that the federation merges the medals. All it means is that they consider it to have been around in some form or another that long. No one denies these countries had successors. -Djsasso (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, the federation existed then and does today. The federation selects and sponsors the teams. So, like professional clubs, a valid argument can be made that all medals from the founding to the present were won by that federation. Teams change year-to-year. Alaney2k (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
On another page, FIBA lists the Soviets and Russia medals separately, although the federation existed from '47. So in a way, they contradict themselves. I wonder what went on behind the scenes there. So that is evidence of that behaviour by an international organization. See FIBA History page Alaney2k (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And that was pretty much my point. The membership in the IIHF doesn't indicate that they do or don't sort medals a particular way. For example Olympic ice hockey medals are always seperated and the IIHF runs the Ice Hockey portion of the Olympics. So in a way it shows that they do seperate them. -Djsasso (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
We're talking IIHF Hockey here, not the olympics or other sports.--Lenev (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
We are showing concensus for international sports competitions which this one is. -Djsasso (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you were reading Berkunt's comments, you'd see he's repeatedly challenged the notion that there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus on how to handle these lists, and (not unreasonably) demanded sources. We're providing them.  RGTraynor  17:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus. there is consensus on separate sports and olympics games, however there is no complete consensus or vote regarding ALL international competitions.--Lenev (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can find a sport that doesn't do it this way I would be surprised. You realize there is concensus by actions as well as concensus by voice. A discussion doesn't necessarily have to have taken place. -Djsasso (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There is clearly a problem with that consensus if several people do not agree with it. Also don't forget that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable."--Lenev (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
From http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus --Lenev (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is especially true when, like you said, no discussion has taken place.--Lenev (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That is correct, but if you want to change a wikiwide concensus you will need to go to Village Pump rather than try and change it on a single article. -Djsasso (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh G-d, what on earth do the olympics have to do with the UN??? --Lenev (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly the same thing it has to do with the IIHF world championships. -Djsasso (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
He stated "You folks seem to want it both ways. For people who keep repeating "This isn't the Olympics," you do like to keep talking about the UN. " --Lenev (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to know how the separation of the olympic consensus from the IIHF consensus affects UN decisions. It does not. On the other hand in case of any international sporting event the 1st word is that of the governing body. Since there is no official IIHF ranking, The UN argument merely emphasizes the importance of discussing legal facts and not speculation based on nationality or race.--Lenev (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Team USSR & Team Russia are different; Team Czechoslovakia & Team Czech Republic (and Team Slovakia) are different. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Please read the full argument before making such statements. No one said they're the same. It was stated numerous times that the IIHF considers Russia to be the successor to the USSR Hockey Team. The argument here is to list the Russia USSR medals in the table together with a note explaining why.--Lenev (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Should I split the listing for Canada pre- and post- Newfoundland joining the country in 1949? Don't forget that 12 (of a total of 24) Canadian golds came before Newfoundland officially became a part of the country. I don't think so.
It's silly to consider Russia/USSR separately in the 1st place, I mean everyone knows that it is the only legal successor and even the IIHF in the above-mentioned article counts 24 golds for Russia and its "precursor" (quoted form the article) the USSR.--Lenev (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Two things, one its never been proven that the IIHF considers that, all that has been linked are articles by sportswriters who opinions are being expressed. Secondly Newfoundland joined Canada. They didn't leave Canada. If they had won a medal before joining Canada I wouldn't list their medal with the Canadian medals either. -Djsasso (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Res to Lenev. There was a Team Newfoundland before 1949? GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No, but there could've been. Whatever, that's beside the main argument, now that I have official data (From the Russian Federation of Hockey, see below) I think the matter is pretty much settled, the rest is just blatant ignorance of the facts.--Lenev (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
But you don't have official data saying that. You have official data saying they were won as another country. You have data that actually goes against your position. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Official Confirmation

Latest comment: 16 years ago24 comments7 people in discussion

Here is the information from the official website of the Russian Federation of Hockey, which is a member of the IIHF.

Example:

From the "History" section, it is clearly identified that the Russian National Hockey Team is the successor to the Soviet National Hockey Team.

"1993 год. На чемпионате мира в Германии сборная России под руководством Бориса Михайлова стала обладателем золотых медалей, двадцать третьих и пока последних в истории отечественного хоккея и первых под трехцветным российским флагом. "

From http://60.fhr.ru/our_win/

It states that in the year 1993,the Russian National Hockey Team won Gold, of which in the history of domestic (homeland, etc.) team are the 23rd, therefore including the medals of the Soviet National Hockey Team and considering them as one continuous flow of awards.

The only differentiation it makes is that they were won under a different flag, however Canada also had a different flag until 1965. It clearly claims that the team and its achievements can and should be coupled.

Other former-USSR teams' Federations make this claim (http://www.hockey.by/National_Team.html, )

Latvia for example never considred itself part of the USSR or any of its teams at all:

"Pirmā organizācija, kuras uzdevums bija hokeja norišu organizēšana un vadīšana Latvijā bija Latvijas Ziemas Sporta Savienība (LZSS) (dibināta 1923. gadā). Sākotnēji šīs organizācijas pārraudzībā bija tikai bendijs (hokejs ar bumbiņu), bet 1931. gadā LZSS tika uzņemta par pilntiesīgu LIHG (Starptautiskās hokeja federācijas IIHF priekštece) biedru. No LIHG Latvija tika izslēgta 1946. gadā, sakarā ar Latvijas okupāciju.

Pēc Latvijas valsts neatkarības atjaunošanas 1991. gadā, tika nodibināta Latvijas Hokeja federācija, kuras galvenais uzdevums ir hokeja norišu organizēšana un vadīšana. 1992. gada 6. maijā IIHF kongress Prāgā oficiāli atjaunoja LHF kā pilntiesīgu Starptautiskās hokeja federācijas biedru."

http://www.lhf.lv/public/?id=2&ln=lv

Now, what official information disproves that claim?--Lenev (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

When they say it was won under a different flag that saying means it was won as a different country. It's not literal. -Djsasso (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It says what it says. No interpretation is needed.--Lenev (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You can't take a comment out of context and try to use it to prove your point. If anything it proves the opposite opinion, that they themselves consider the medals won by another country. -Djsasso (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You're taking things out of context. It clearly states something and you say that it means something else??? Again prove that Team Russia is not a continuation of Team USSR and you have a point. It should say it directly, otherwise it's pointless as people can interpret anything they want.

Why is the Russian HF page the only one listing Soviet victories on the page of Our Victories??? So far no one has provided any facts except for me. Until you have proof, I don't think I need to waste anymore of my time on discussing "oh, but what does the phrase really mean?".--Lenev (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And the case of Latvia, and to the same extent Lithuania and Estonia, was that of an illegal occupation by the USSR. They were not in the same situation as Belarus or the Ukraine. Modern Latvia sees itself as the successor of the pre-war Latvia, and doesn't recognize the former Latvian SSR. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's why there is even less reason to consider them for the medal count. They have no medals and since they don't consider themselves to be part of the USSR then they have no place in this discussion.
For the last time, no one is discussing countries, we're discussing how the medal ranking should be set up to be consistent with reality.--Lenev (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You wanted official data. Here's the best there is.

In the absence of better data the Russian Hockey Federation is more than qualified on making that assertion, especially with no official data disproving it.--Lenev (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would actually argue they are the least qualified to do so, because claiming them is in their best interest to make them look better. -Djsasso (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That is just low. What we have is an absence of a medal table from the IIHF. We do know that IIHF considers the hockey federation to have existed prior to 1993, and that is enough to claim the medals, but we are still dealing with a lack of info. Alaney2k (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Low? Hardly. It makes perfect and obvious sense for the Russian Hockey Federation to claim the Soviet medal history. Hell, we aren't even completely disputing this on this very article, as it is now prominently mentioned that the Soviet and Russian teams have combined to win 24 championships. Given this was the stated argument from our Russian friends, and it has now been addressed, I remain uncertain as to where the conflict lies.
The table, as constituted, offers readers the chance to see how the Soviet Union/Russia, Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic/Slovakia and Germany/West Germany each performed before and after their nations were divided or united. It would seem to me that the current arrangement provides the best of both arguments, and offers the greatest level of information. About the only thing I would suggest to add - either in prose, or to the chart - is a count of how many tournaments each nation has participated in as that legal entity. Resolute 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well if they did something against IIHF's perception, then they'd be penalized in one way or another and if that information was incorrect, then it would be removed, it's been there since around the year 2000.
The FHR is an active and legitimate member of the IIHF and the information on their official website is right there, and there has been no claims to its inaccuracy not even from former USSR nations.--Lenev (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Reguardless you pasted a link that explicitly states that those medals were won by another country. So what we have so far is a Russian Hockey Federation who say oh yes those are our medals but not really and an IIHF who doesn't say one way or the other. Looks to me like there isn't a basis for change and if anything based on the Russian Federation comments I would say that it supports keeping it as is. -Djsasso (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's just false. It explicitly states that it was won by their same team, but under a different flag. No way to mis-interpret that. A change in flag/country does not mean the change in team. The USSR dissolved, but the USSR team did not, it continued as the Russian National Team, which is what it says.--Lenev (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Because, of course, the IIHF has the strength to stand against it's largest federations, and because it has historically been known for it's fair, balanced and impartial decision making... <rolls eyes> Resolute 19:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow so now you're saying even the IIHF can't be trusted? Well that's your personal opinion but Wikipedia's not a place for personal opinions, it requires facts. You should know.--Lenev (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that your argument that the IIHF would take action against the Russian Federation for claiming Soviet medal history is ridiculous, and a straw man. Resolute 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Under a different flag means won by a different country. Its quite clear. A change in country does mean a change in team. That is the whole point. The USSR team dissolved into the Russian team, the Belarus team, the Ukraine team etc etc etc. -Djsasso (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree it a different country, but the same hockey federation's team. Just like Toronto. Really, we've got to get past this. Alaney2k (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ukraine, etc. are new teams. Alaney2k (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Team USSR successor? Team Unified not Team Russia. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's for 1992 only. The FHR considers the Russian Team to be the continuation of the Soviet Team. I never mentioned a Unified Team, I was talking about the official info. from the FHR website. Like Krawndawg mentioned above even the CBC lists them together.--Lenev (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
GoodDay has a point that the Commonwealth of Independant States was the true successor of the USSR team. -Djsasso (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Productive changes

Latest comment: 16 years ago36 comments9 people in discussion

Ok, so far the straw poll is 8-4 opposed to changing the table format. Add in earlier comments from people that already left the talk page (single purpose accounts or otherwise), and it seems fairly obvious that there is no consensus to change the table format.

So, as opposed to continuing to argue over how we display the tabled results, I'd rather look at how we can improve the article. I propose two changes that I believe would help this section:

First, introduce a new column listing how many tournaments each nation, or incarnation of such, participated. I think as a companion to this, we could include all nations that have participated in, whether they won a medal or not. It would be interesting to see, as an example, how many times the Ukraine has participated (and perhaps the highest finish of such nations, though we don't want this to become too unwieldly).

Second, expand the prose section that I started to denote that the Russian Federation succeeded the Soviet Union, that Czechoslovakia was succeded by the Czech Republic and Slovakia, etc, and that we note the old nations and their successors separately for convienence and informational purposes.

Thoughts? Resolute 19:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

All of that, and as a compromise, add a second chart. Obviously with a clear explanation. There's no need for the prose section to be too long, most people know that Russia used to be part of the USSR, etc. If they don't, they can find that info. in the article for the respective political entity.--Lenev (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
All of that other stuff is the compromise. Two charts is just becoming rediculous. -Djsasso (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not a compromise, that's statement of fact. Technically, a chart showing URS/RUS together would be the only solution, but like you I don't want to keep arguing obvious points forever I would be ok with something that would present both points of view.--Lenev (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
A second chart seems unnecessary to me, given that the only entity where there is even a claim of shared medal history is Russia/Soviet Union. Even many on the "Russian" side of this debate don't favour a combining of the Czech totals. This is why I favour expanding the prose to note this. We can say in prose that the Soviets/Russians have 24 golds and 39 medals combined, while noting why the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and West Germany all no longer compete (i.e.: they no longer exist, and were succeeded by other states). With the expanded chart, we can note that The Soviet Union competed in x tournaments, and the Russians in y tournaments. Combined, this should paint a very accurate history of how the Soviets flowed into the Russians, and how they compare against Canada, etc. Resolute 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. The way I see it, there are a lot more reasons to have a chart showing uRS/RUS together than not. So why should it not be there, everyone claims it, CBC does it, FHR does it. Before I have asked you to provide atleast ONE realiable source where that's not the case. I never got it.--Lenev (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And the way I see it, it should not be combined. At present, it would appear that consensus favours my side of the argument. However, I am looking at ways to be more inclusive of your argument. If we want to continue to argue how the chart should look, there are already several other sections to post in. My aims with this section was how best to present the data given the current consensus that the chart format that exists now should remain as such. Resolute 20:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The FIFA article is instructive. It says 'for the purposes of this article' the countries are listed this way. My suggestions: It should be labeled that the table is per country, and is not the official IIHF table. It should be noted that Russia/USSR and Czech/CSSR are the same ice hockey federations, and that is recognized by the IIHF. Good luck! Alaney2k (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with labeling it that way. -Djsasso (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
PRECISELY. Be consistent, label either according to the IIHF (and then lump USSR/Rus and CSSR/Czech) or according to current nations (and then don't lump anyone), but don't pick and choose based on organizations like the UN, which have NOTHING TO DO WITH SPORT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.197.84 (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we separate Canada because early on it was a British colony, using a different flag, and hence under a different form of government? No, because it had the same hockey federation, as recognized by the IIHF. Similarly with BOTH USSR/Rus and CSSR/Rus. So either lump both or lump neither. Don't pick and choose based on something like the UN, which has nothing to do with sports tournaments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.197.84 (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually Canada has been in its current state since 1867 before such tournaments existed. -Djsasso (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Canada continued to have some dependency on the UK until the Canada Act of 1982. My point, however, is of course not that Canada should be split up as two different nations. It is simply that governments change, flags change, territories change, and this HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH SPORT. All that matters are the federations, which, even though they are named in some cases after their respective nations (and not even all, if you consider for example Scotland and Wales and England in soccer, even though these are not sovereign nations), nevertheless are not government organizations (or not entirely in any case). Thus, any decisions we make here should be based on the federations, and in no way on the governments, politics, etc. of the nations which lend their names to these organizations. That is just silly, which is why I think it is almost comical that people bring up sources like the UN etc. for consideration in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.197.84 (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For some ideas, take a look at some work I did years ago to Ice hockey at the Olympic Games. The table in the "Participating nations" section shows the final rank of each team, with color coding for the medalists. The post-1988 table cells for the Soviet Union and the pre-1994 table cells for Russia are grayed out, showing that the nation didn't exist in that form for those years. This presentation style might appease everybody, I think. It clearly shows the succession of one nation to the next, but doesn't combine them, so stays as NPOV as possible. I used a similar technique on List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games, a featured list. The only problem I can see here is that there are tournaments every year, so the table might be too wide, but at least it's a starting point for ideas. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it would be too wide. They also don't indicate that Unified team succeeded USSR and Russia succeeded Unified team. Those three should have been grouped together in my book. Alaney2k (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've grouped RUS, URS and EUN at Ice hockey at the Olympic Games. Alaney2k (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I assure you I don't mean this to sound like its going to come out but, you do realize that list was in alphabetical order right? -Djsasso (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There already were similar groupings in the table. Germany and Czechoslovakia. I have not looked at the other. Alaney2k (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes you are right about Germany, I hadn't noticed that. I don't mind the change, just thought it might make other users change it not realizing why it was like that. -Djsasso (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec for the zillionth time today) Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia will obviously be next to each other alphabetically... As for Germany, the conventions by the Olympics WikiProject are that we place them alphabetically as though they were "Germany, East" and "Germany, West". (We do the same thing for "Korea, North" and "Korea, South".) You have just de-alphabetized that list. Thanks. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So, why is West Germany listed first? Alaney2k (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
We can make that a sortable table. I suggest moving the country code to a second column. Alaney2k (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I am guessing it was cause West Germany uses the country code FRG and East Germany uses the country code GDR. But I don't know the olympic projects conventions so this is only a guess. -Djsasso (talk)
Mistake, I guess. The Olympic articles get screwed around a lot, and I have about 4000 of them on my watchlist, so it's hard to keep up. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted my change. I still suggest grouping the three. I'll get around to making it a sortable table. Alaney2k (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(shrugs) The tally is going 9-4 against any change, and half those who support any change do so only for Russia/Soviet Union. This isn't a situation for "compromise." A handful of people pushed for a change that went against the way things are done, in the hockey articles in particular and in sporting articles in general on Wikipedia. Consensus went solidly against them. The end.  RGTraynor  03:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this may be the best solution, as some people seem to have no regard for whether this article ends up factually correct or internally consistent, so long as their own nationalistic agenda is satisfied. It is all right to lump Russia and the USSR according to these people, but to not do so for Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic, even though any reasons for doing the former apply equally well for the latter. Let's keep things separate, thereby keeping things consistent and fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.161.239 (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. People seem to get upset over the references in the article such as "Canada has won more medals than any other nation in history", Sweden is second, etc. Some want statements like "Russia has now equalled Canada in golds" or "the Czechs are second in overall medals", citing the fact that the federations of Russia and the Czech Republic are the successors to those of the USSR and Czechoslovakia according to the IIHF. Why don't we simply tone down some of these statements in the article, and let the medal table let the talking? Anyone with a brain can look at the table and say, "Ah, Canada has the most medals", or "Aha, Sweden has the second most, unless you consider the Czechs and Czechoslovakia together, in which case they do", or "Aha, counting Russia and the USSR together as I do, the Russians have now equalled Canada in golds". Why must me repeat so many facts from the medal table in the article? Let's in the article mention some of the more spectacular matches, rivalries, incidents, fights, venues, etc., and keep all statements like "Canada/Russia/Sweden/Czech Rep/Germany/whoever is the greatest nation in history in terms of such and such criteria" OUT of it completely, letting everyone read this for themselves (and in whatever nationalistic tilt they want). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.161.239 (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

While I do agree with you, there's one problem with that. If the page is to ever become an FL (which it would have if it wasn't for this silly edit war) it would need a lead that properly summarizes the topic and table (per WP:LEAD) and every other list of champions/winners mentions the team with the most wins/medals. It has nothing to do with saying which nation is better, it is simply stating the fact that Canada has won the most medals. The way it was stated before was not POV of any kind. And in case anyone brings it up, the reason Canada's withdrawal in the 70s is mentioned is because the pros vs. amateurs question has always been a question of debate in international tournaments, and I felt it was worth mentioning that one of the hockey powers withdrew over it. -- Scorpion0422 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that is what most of the people want to do in the first place. -Djsasso (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am onside with removing the comparisons. Those are completely unnecessary. That said, the lead paragraph about no NHL etc. and Canada not competing is unsourced and not discussed in the rest of the article. The lead should probably be split and some history summary section discuss these things. The medal table itself is unsourced, so I don't know if the list can become FL without it. Alaney2k (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well a source is easily enough found. -Djsasso (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The medal table itself doesn't need a source. The main list is sourced, and the medal table is just a summary of that list. -- Scorpion0422 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Do the lead vs. content rules apply to FLs like FAs? That's my point about the Canada not participating text in the lead paragraph. Alaney2k (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That statement is sourced. [3] (and there is also an IIHF one if you would like that added). The general rule is that stuff in the lead should only be sourced if it isn't mentioned later, but usually FLs only consist of a couple of paragraphs of text and a table, so sourcing stuff in the lead is perfectly acceptable. -- Scorpion0422 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought the cite was for Canada withdrawing. But looking at the text of cite kind of opens a can of worms there. That cite indicates that the paragraph is basically that of the HHOF site. Anyway, Canada was allowed to compete. Being 'unable to compete' may be POV, or at least challengeable? More like, the CSSR and USSR teams were not really amateurs and the competition was considered unfair? Would it matter that NHL players could play (that is, ones who had gotten an 'amateur card' back?) for the sake of that statement? I think the main point was that Canada withdrew and did not participate. That's probably all that should be stated? Alaney2k (talk)
Which part do you think is plagiarized? It looks different enough from the source to me. Some of the phrasing is a similar, but that's because it was the best way to word things. -- Scorpion0422 16:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Plagiarized is too strong. After thinking about it, I think it is a good summary for the HHOF article on the 1972 series, which is not encyclopedic. It is basically what should go in the list's paragraph I would agree, but the HHOF article is a 'secondary source' if you will. I mean 'unable to compete' I think is challengeable. Either a rewrite to use different terms, like 'considered uncompetitive' or 'considered an unfair competition'. It is not a small point, and I'm not really intending to 'over-debate it, it's not that crucial, but we are discussing improving the article. Alaney2k (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Other Wikipedia's Structure based on real facts not POV

Latest comment: 16 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

Last appeal to sanity here, Please scroll down to the medal charts and see how the rest of the world does it.

Why did they do it like that? Because like it says in some of those articles, Russia inherited USSR's medals OFFICIALLY and it turns out that Czech republic did in fact inherit Czechoslovakia's medals as well(without Slovakia).

These are the pages containing the same chart from other language Wikipedias, these are just a few examples:

Russian http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%8E_%D1%81_%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9

Spanish http://es.wiki.x.io/wiki/Campeonato_Mundial_de_Hockey_sobre_Hielo

Czech http://cs.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mistrovstv%C3%AD_sv%C4%9Bta_v_ledn%C3%ADm_hokeji

French http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Championnat_du_monde_de_hockey_sur_glace

German http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Eishockey-Weltmeisterschaft


The only countries that do it the way it is done here are Sweden, Norway, Poland, Japan, and Croatia. Not one of the former Soviet republics does it the way it is done here, not even Latvia.

What I'm saying is that there is nothing silly about putting them together, and not doing so in the 1st place goes against NPOV and officially supported facts. The compromise of having 2 charts is still on the table, if that's no good then there can be no deal. --Lenev (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And its generally well known that most of the smaller language wiki's do not have the standards in place we do. Which is why you will always have discrepancies at them. You are beating a dead horse, concensus is well against you. Not to mention I wouldn't doubt that people of the similar view as you went and changed many of those after the win. I will check the histories of those pages to confirm. -Djsasso (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha don't make me laugh, Spanish, German, Russian are small wikipedias??? German is 2nd in terms of articles, Spanish and Russian are in the Top 10.--Lenev (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And going back to look I was indeed correct. Atleast one so far was our way prior to someone changing it while we were in the midst of the debate here. French. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, and oddly enough, all those other Wikipedias combine the CSSR/Czech Republic totals, a result Lenev devoutly does not want.

 RGTraynor  15:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, they are in fact the successors just like Russia. I did not know that before, but now I do support their addition as it has factual support.--Lenev (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There is not going to be a deal, if by "deal" you mean to give you what you want, despite a solid consensus against your position and the uniform way which this subject is treated all through Wikipedia's sports articles; as far as the foreign language Wikipedias go, I'm sure they can decide for themselves how to run their own business without our interference. In any event, the nature of consensus means that sometimes you are going to be on the losing side, and the thing to do then is to lose gracefully and move on. That time has come.  RGTraynor  15:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not see a consensus (15 votes??? that's 0.01% of the # of Wiki editors, not to mention the anons.). I see several people that do not understand the meaning of official information and its importance to Wiki as opposed to POV.
The way I see you're on the "losing side" (although I prefer to think we're all working here to make Wiki better), and are afraid that my exposure of blatant fact ignorance will undermine the POV with which most of these article were written.--Lenev (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What official information? You have yet to produce anything other than information based on YOUR POV. Even the Russian Federation in your link said the other medals were won by a different country. We pointed you to numerous places on wikipedia showing how things are done which make up the remaining 99.99% of wikipedia. You tried to change a wikiwide stance on one page, and failed to prove why hockey should be the exception to the rule. If you want all of wikipedia changed take it to the right forum which would probably be Wikipedia:Village pump. -Djsasso (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Lie. I provided FHR info. which said it was the same team with a different flag. Do I have to explain the difference between Flag (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Flag) and Country (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Country) ???
Once again, there is no concensus and there never was. Just a few people with POV edited these articles and when people complained, they referenced some obscure "concensus" (Proof?).
This has nothing to do with all of Wiki, or even all of sports, it is a discussion on the structure of a very specific type of article.--Lenev (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
When you say played under a different flag its the equivalent of saying you played for a different country. That is the meaning of the phase played under a different flag. You wouldn't say the players who played for Team Canada in the 1950's were playing under a different flag even though they had a different flag. You are taking a comment out of context and twisting it. Yes and we showed you that on all pages that use this very specific type of article that its done a certain way. So yes go and look at those other articles. This does involve more than just a single hockey article if you are trying to change how things are done. -Djsasso (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Using other wikis as a reliable source for "real facts" is fairly humorous! I have seen other wikis gleefully combine medals from URS and RUS with respect to Olympic articles, although many individual medals for URS were won by Ukrainians, Latvians, etc. I've also seen Yugoslavian results combined with Serbia in some cases and with Croatia in other cases, depending on the author's POV! Just because other wikis are broken doesn't mean we have to pull en.wiki down to a similarly broken level. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not broken, they're factually accurate. This has nothing to do with the Olympics. Like I said somewhere above I provided a link from the Russian Hockey federation website stating that Soviet medals were inherited by Russia only under a different flag. Soviet nukes were inherited by Russia under a different flag, does that mean they shouldn't be counted as Russian in the nuclear weapons article?--Lenev (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And you are misinterpreting what that article says. As has been pointed out to you. You apparently don't understand what the phase under a different flag means. -Djsasso (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting what it means. "Under a different flag" metaphorically is an English phrase. That article was in Russian. And phrases or meanings have nothing to do with anything. There is a sentence directly stating information, and you're saying it means something else which is a weak argument, and it's in a foreign language. In Russian it means directly what it says, that the country changed flags/political parties/geography/etc. but the team remained the same.
Does Mercedez-Benz not have claim to its history before the Germanys reunited or before Nazi Germany collapsed? We're not discussing a country here, we're talking about its team, which its legal administration clearly labels as the continuation of the previous team.--Lenev (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Folks, Lenev isn't going to change his POV on this issue, on form, no matter what counterarguments, consensus, precedent or any other element is introduced to the contrary. As long as no one edit wars against consensus - and if that happens, steps can be taken - is there any reason to continue the discussion?  RGTraynor  16:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Not as long as there are no new ideas or arguments, or any new users who want to have their say. Otherwise, there seems to be consensus on keeping the current revision. --Kildor (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
BS. Show me the consensus. I see about 4 Canadians and a couple of swedes voting down information based on facts. Gee I wonder why? Why don't I see any non-POV users from countries like Germany, France, China, whatever, giving an unbiased opinion.
If you want consensus the opinion of non-biased participants must be included, and way more than 15 of them.
No sane person would consider the "vote" even remotely objective:
Of the votes Opposed: At least 7 Canadians, 2 Swedes. Of the votes Support: 2 Canadians, 1 Russian, 1 unknown.
At least 12 of the 15 voters can be assessed as POV, as the outcome directly affects the position of their country's team in the chart.
And finally, just because the initial people in the discussion gave up arguing against ignorance, and I'm the only one trying to fix this injustice, does not mean squat. Remember, "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and the logic may outweigh the logic of the majority."
&
"Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons." http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus --Lenev (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A Summary of Arguments

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Let's try to stay level-headed here.

Lenev is right that constantly pointing to a consensus on this issue is not a good reason in and of itself. The problem, however, is a lack of any actual documents to decide one way or the other. The only evidence Lenev has comes from the join dates of the national federations. I'm not convinced that this implies that the medals of the USSR pass to Russia and those of Czechoslovakia to the Czech Republic. I've sent an email to the IIHF, asking for their official stance on this, and have received no reply. I suspect they simply don't have one, perhaps even for the purpose of avoiding arguments like this. But in the absence of any such official evidence, consensus is all we can go off of.

With respect to the other sources you have put forth, Lenev, I'm afraid they hardly qualify as official or definitive. Citing other Wikipedia articles, some of them with recent alterations, bears as much relevance as citing previous alterations to this article; what makes the authors of those articles any more qualified than the authors of this one, especially as most if not all of those two sets of authors probably overlap? And as for the article on the Russian federation website, that is in no way an official confirmation of the facts. The Czech federation website has very similar entries, and the Czech media often prints such summaries preceding major tournaments. This is by no means done to fool anyone, merely to entertain. After all, many of the Czech and Russian fans were also Czechoslovak and Soviet fans, respectively, and it is still a great source of national pride for them. All of this is very understandable and beneficial to the sport, but it by no means implies anything about the medal counts. Czechs still refer to Masaryk as "the nation's first president", even though technically speaking they are not correct; would you use that, or an article printed somewhere stating this, as a reason to change the Wikipedia article on presidents of the Czech Republic?

In short, I think you ought to gracefully back down. As you yourself admitted, you were wrong about wanting the medals changed for Russia but not the Czech Republic because you were ignorant of the facts. Perhaps we are all ignorant of some facts. If and when you find an official document from the IIHF stating that "the medals of the USSR pass to Russia", then everyone in this discussion will back you up. Until then, accept the consensus on the issues which cannot be settled officially.

By the way, I am not Canadian; as you may have guessed, I am Czech. It would be nice to see the Czechs up there with 11 golds, instead of with 5, but I accept that because of the lack of facts. Thus I can understand your desire to make your country, with its rich hockey history, seem better than it does due to its poor performance over the last 15 years. But anyone who uses logic and "sanity" (to quote you) will realize that even though Russia has only five medals, it is one of the greatest hockey powers of all time (along with the Czechs, Swedes, Canadians, Americans, Finns, and the Slovaks). If you don't think enough people realize this, invest your considerable energies into writing an article on the "Big Seven" of hockey, if there isn't one already. Then, direct any of your friends that don't believe in the greatness of Russian hockey to that page.  ;-) --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ice Times (May 2008) Medal List

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

I hate to do this, especially in light of what I wrote above, because it might protract this debate. But has anyone mentioned or seen the following source?

http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/The_IIHF/08-1263_IceTimes_May08_V12_N2.pdf

The link is to the IIHF's newsletter, Ice Times, the main page of which can be found at:

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/ice-times.html

According the description there, Ice Times is the official newsletter of the International Ice Hockey Federation. On page 8, there is a medal table which rather clearly combines the medal totals of the USSR/Russia and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic. As evidenced by my last post, I think all we can do here is go off of official documents where available, and use consensus otherwise. But if this isn't an official IIHF medal table, then what is? --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly an official source. I am surprised, and although I would prefer to list the countries separately (as it is done with other sports on Wikipedia), this document is indeed a strong argument to combine RUS/USSR and CZE/TCH. I admit I was wrong, and I believe we should change the medal table. Good work finding that newsletter, DDD! --Kildor (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - we certainly wanted to know the IIHF's position, and that seems to be it - but only as long as we replicate that table exactly as the IIHF gives it, ranking not by championships, but by total medal count, which places Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic at the top of the table, Canada second, Sweden third and Soviet Union/Russia fourth. (By the bye, seeing as this is apparently an issue, I'm American, as is clearly indicated on my user page.)  RGTraynor  14:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, look again at the table. It is sorted by points, not by total medals (see even the subtitle at the top of the page). I think it's all right to sort the table the way the IIHF does, but I don't really see why you wouldn't want to just make it sortable (by any category you wish). Presumably the IIHF wrote that the table was "sorted by points" because they had to pick one sorting for the printing of their newsletter, and not because they don't regard any other sorting as possible. What would that even mean, to say that another sorting is not valid? But we could make the points sorting the default one, in accordance with the IIHF's preference. The table is nice in that it gives much more information than merely medal counts, and I think our table should include as much of this additional information as possible. --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It would mean we were sorting it in the official fashion. My ironclad belief is that this whole debate was driven by nothing more than nationalism -- the initial rejection of applying the same rules to the Czech team and the shrill countercharge of nationalism, presuming inaccurately that everyone who opposed this change must be Canadians, being major factors -- and if there was such an insistence that this must be done the IIHF's way and no other, well, so be it!  RGTraynor  20:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. I think especially Lenev rather soured the debate, by, as you mention, initially advocating the entirely inconsistent combination of USSR/Russian medals and not Czecoslovak/Czech medals, and then lunging out at everyone who opposed him. I was especially disgusted by him assuming that everyone who (rightly at that point) could find no official reasons for combining the medals was a Canadian or a Swede. Anyway, hopefully he can learn from this experience by seeing that even those who disagreed with him (myself among them) changed their mind once official information came to light, thereby supporting what we've been advocating all along, that information on Wikipedia needs to be based either on officail information or else consensus, and not nationalistic or personal beliefs. So what is the procedure now for unlocking the page and changing the table? --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Disgusted"? That's very nice of you. I was just trying to set things right. If I read anywhere that my information was incorrect I would have voted Opposed as well. Anyways, no hard feelings, I hope everyone understands this wasn't personal, I just saw an inconsistency and tried to fix it. It is quite proposterous to think that nationalism was the issue in the first place, I never said it was, I merely pointed out that the voters weren't diversified enough.
P.S. The reason I assumed most people were from certain countries is because their own userpages had things like "This user comes from *insert country*" or "This user is a proud *insert nationality*".
Irregardless, I never tried to offend or insult anyone.--Lenev (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I only mentioned the sorting as an option. I'm happy with your reasons for wanting to sort it by points, though this may require a bit more work to figure out now following the 2008 IHWC. --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is too difficult maintaining an up-to-date list with points. And I don't think that the choice of sorting key in the newsletter is significant, so I think it is ok to sort by number of gold medals. According to the newsletter, Germany and West Germany should also be combined. But there are some discrepancies between the Wikipedia and IIHF lists, and I believe the Wikipedia list is the more accurate (!):

  • IIHF list says Sweden has 9 gold medals, Wikipedia says 8. The total no. of medals for Sweden is 40, but is not equal to the sum of medals 9+18+14=41 in the IIHF list.
  • IIHF list says Germany and West Germany combined have 1 silver and 2 bronze medals. Obviously, the West Germany silver medal in 1953 has not been counted for.
  • IIHF list says Austria has no bronze medals, Wikipedia says 2. But the IIHF total column says 2 medals.

All these differencies seem to be typos in the IIHF list, and there are similar errors in the newsletters for previous years. This newsletter is perhaps not as a reliable source as I first thought. --Kildor (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think in a newsletter, typos are to be expected. There are errors in the sorting, too; for example, look at Poland versus Slovakia versus Austria. I think it is OK for us to find these errors and correct them. I don't think it matters how we sort it, or that we shouldn't even let it be sortable by anything you want, but some people care, and I'm fine with that. I think the newsletter's main import isn't in the actual data, which may be in error due to the printing schedule, shortness of personnel etc., but in the way it is presented, which gives official IIHF support for combining the golds of some former and current clubs. Isn't that the only reason we all got excited by this newsletter? All the actual data we already had. --DDD 99.140.176.116 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorting by points is "too difficult?" I can't imagine for the life of me how. Exactly six numerals change, once per year: the tallies for one gold, one silver and one bronze, and the subsequent changes to those nations' totals. Elapsed time, ninety seconds, about, just once a year.  RGTraynor  00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The only difficulty may be in verifying that the points are accurate on the IIHF medal table (i.e., that no typos have made their way into the May 2008 edition). This might take a bit of work, since the point scoring may have changed between different tournaments (in some years a win may have been 2 points, and in others 3). Maybe I'm wrong and this has been has always been the same in IIHF tournaments. Regardless, once this initial body of work is over, subsequent updates would be trivial, as RGTraynor suggests (all the information needed to be added, points, wins, losses, medals, etc., would be available right on the IIHF website following the tournament). --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe RGTraynor misunderstood. The IIHF table is sorted by game points. Not medal count. Updating the number of wins, losses, goals, etc. is much more of an effort than simply updating the medal count. I think a medal table is sufficient for this article. DDD: you are right about that the newsletter serves the purpose of showing the principle for combining the countries. Although the newsletter contains some errors, I think we should provide a link to it, but with note describing the typos. --Kildor (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't misunderstand at all, and I still don't see the difficulty. This is the sort of routine task done regularly and annually by Wikihockey project members for numerous hockey leagues (2007–08 NHL season, 2007–08 AHL season, 2007–08 ECHL season, 2007–08 OHL season, 2007–08 WHL season, 2007–08 QMJHL season ...) and numerous playoff championships and tournaments (2008 Calder Cup Playoffs, 2008 Memorial Cup, 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs, 2008 Allan Cup, Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics ...). This is trivial by contrast.  RGTraynor  12:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Article unprotected

Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

At my request the article has been unprotected. I have made a few changes to the article and added a "for purposes of" statement to the medal table. Feel free to make any changes to those edits. -- Scorpion0422 16:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just spent quite a bite of time copying the table from the Ice Times newsletter we found and making our table look like it, complete with all the details. Then, Scorpion reverted my edit as unsourced. I was in the process of also adding the link to the Ice Times newsletter. I'm not an experienced Wiki user, but did we not agree to use the IIHF newsletter as a basis for our table? It seems to be the only official source to settle this dispute. Are we now just to ignoring official documents or did I misunderstand? I wish Scorpion hadn't just deleted the table immediately, since some work went into it; could you at least explain what I did wrong? Thanks. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I reverted you because the statistics were unsourced. If they are based on the ice times newsletter then they are out of date because it does not include the 2008 tournament. I'm also unsure about how accurate it is, because it contains several glaring errors (for example, it says Germany and West Germany won a combined 3 medals. Several sources, including the IIHF website say they've won four) -- Scorpion0422 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The Ice Times article is from the IIHF. Is that not good enough? Myself, along with others was surprised to see the medal table that way, yet, there it is. You probably should not revert, you should let the edits stand and we can get consensus on this new info over the next day or so. Alaney2k (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the edits for the lead look good. Alaney2k (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. I actually corrected the medal totals in the table. The other statistics (points, wins, losses, and ties) I was going to look up and add to the table in a minute. Sorry to have changed the table without doing that first. But I think the issue of errors in the Ice Times newsletter was addressed above and it was agreed that these are likely due to the non-editable nature of printed media. Do you suggest we ignore the Ice Times newsletter altogether because its editor incorrectly copied certain statistics? Several users were of the opinion that we should simply adopt the format of the table and correct any of the mistakes we are aware of. If nothing else, surely we ought to combine the countries, since this was the central issue of this debate and we now have some official word on it. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I reverted is because out of date statistics were added (and at the time there was no source) and if you are going to add full statistics, then you should do it for every single nation, not just medal winners. The section is clearly "medal table", not "full statistics" and the article is called "List of IIHF World Championships Tournaments", not "List of ___ statistics". As for the article, I don't think the discovery of the article makes much of a difference. Our practices are not fully defined by what official sources do. Wikipedia standards are still to list everything seperately, and the table clearly says it is for purposes of this article. -- Scorpion0422 01:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I was sort of thinking that that's what we ought to do, to list of all the statistics of all the nations who ever participated, as in the Ice Times article. After all, this would give a beautiful summary of all participations at the IHWC, which the table of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places above doesn't. I actually think that it's precisely because the article is called "List of IIHF World Championship Tournaments", as Scorpion points out, that we should include all the different nations, their points, wins, losses, etc. And, yes, adding all the different nations would make "Medal Table" a less than optimal title; we could go with "All-Time IIHF World Championship Standings", as per the Ice Times article. What do you think? --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that, no other list of champions lists statistics of every single participant (which is why it was originally called "list of ... medalists" before it was moved). And the list would be based on a source with several errors (I've already picked out 2 major errors just with the medal count). -- Scorpion0422 01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine, that was just a suggestion about including all countries. I think it would make the article very complete and definitive, but I can also completely understand that in some cases too much information can be overwhelming and undesirable. On the issue of using the Ice Times article, however, I am still unclear by your argument. Did you read the discussion in the "Ice Times" section? Did you read the comments Alaney2k and I made above in this section, addressing the mistakes? Will you just continue to repeat over and over that you found two mistakes in the Ice Times newsletter? If you have other reasons for rejecting, please expand on them, but please don't continue to hold up the resolution of this debate by repeating the same thing over and over, even if that very thing has been addressed and explained by several people (btw, if you disagree with our explanation, please focus on that instead). No one is advocating cutting and pasting the table as it is. Everyone understands that we should update the information to make it more accurate. There are separate questions here, namely should we: combine the countries? list more statistics than just the medals? include the statistics of more countries than just the medalists? Can you find evidence that the IIHF combining TCH/CZE, URS/RUS, and FRG/GER is a mistake? --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I'd let everyone know I support DDD's proposal based on the Ice Times article (as well as additional supporting evidence provided by me). I believe that although it is true that there are errors in the article, the main question of the discussion (whether to list Russia/USSR, Czech/Czechoslovakia, etc. together) has been answered in full. I suggest correction of the specific errors based on more up to date information but keeping the structure of the medal table consistent with the one in the article from the official newspaper of the IIHF.--Lenev (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Lenev's position on all of this hasn't changed from even before we found any official information. My own, from the very beginning, was that we should be consistent, and either merge URS/RUS, TCH/CZE, and FRG/GER or keep them all separate, but not pick and choose. I was against merging without official information (see "A Summary of Arguments" above), but changed my mind once the Ice Times article came to light. I think a number of others took the same path as I did. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to have a vote of some sort, to see who thinks what, now that the Ice Times article is around. Scorpion's view, that we should keep the countries separated and make no changes to the medal table from the way it was a week ago whatsoever, regardless of any and all developments as a result of this debate, seems to be clear. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's an unfair accusation because I've tried several compromises. It seems that all you do is accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being closeminded. I would be open to including full statistics if we had a better source and not one riddled with errors (and those are just the ones that we can verify). -- Scorpion0422 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Scorpion, I am not accusing you of anything, I am simply trying to understand your reasons. You seem to be wholly fixated on the fact that the Ice Times newsletter contains errors. Everyone has noticed these, everyone has pointed these out, and everyone has agreed that we simply correct them. I repeat that no one is advocating preserving those mistakes. All anyone is saying is that we merge the countries because that is how it is done in the newsletter, and hence represents an official IIHF view of the matter (or at least, more official than anything we can find to the contrary). I would understand if there was a smudge next to the FGR/GER, or if URS was misspelled, or something indicating that the merging of the nations was in error, or that it wasn't clear that that is what the IIHF intended. But there is no way anyone can interpret that table in any other way other than as saying that the medals of URS merge with those of RUS, those of TCH with those of CZE, and those of FRG with those of GER, according to the IIHF. So please stop opposing this component of the debate (i.e., merging the medals because we have an official IIHF source supporting doing so) based on mistakes in statistics. Additionally, your claim that you support including more statistics "if we had a better source and not one riddled with errors" directly contradicts what you wrote earlier, where you opposed doing so on the grounds that "no other list of champions lists statistics of every single participant (which is why it was originally called "list of ... medalists" before it was moved)". Please adopt a coherent, noncontradictory position, and offer reasons for that position which do not consist of rehashing claims which have already been addressed by others (otherwise, your arguments become as meaningless and unproductive as Lenev's, if for the other side). --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You clearly are relying on attacking others as your main argument. Your claims are almost as bad as Lenev's belief that it's a huge conspiracy to make Russia look like an inferior hockey nation. I have stated my arguments, so I am finished with you. -- Scorpion0422 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't give xxxx about Russia, I'm not Russian, I don't care; I care about facts.--Lenev (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To DDD, why would my position change? If you read the whole discussion, you'd see that 1st, I didn't start it, and 2nd, that I was the only one who provided multiple facts supporting the merge (including a clear statement from the FHR).

As some may have noticed, after several requests for facts from the other side not one fact proving that my opinion is wrong has been provided. Please, pleease!! give me ONE fact, all I ask for is ONE official fact, that clearly proves the opposing view, that those countries should not be shown together. P.S. the word "consensus" is not a fact. Also notice how I'm the civil one, considering about half of the opposing people are admins, the fact that they resorted to claims of nationalism and insults is absolutely inexcusable. I even apologized for any misunderstandings and that I would follow any position if it was officially supported. I was expecting an apology from the people calling me a POV'ed Russian nationalist (I found it really funny considering I'm a Torontonian who merely engaged a discussion that was already started.) But I guess some people have yet to grow to that level. --Lenev (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lenev: your "arguments" were all addressed above. There was no official statement from the Russian hockey federation (please read my, and others', responses to all of these claims of yours above), not to mention that a statement by one national hockey federation does not constitute an official policy of the IIHF. If the Czech Republic hockey federation should tomorrow declare itself "the greatest hockey nation of all time", will I be justified in writing "The Czech Republic is the greatest hockey nation of all time" into the article? Also, your numerous appeals to the UN for justification of your position really made your credibility fall (you do realize, don't you, that just because it's called "Team Russia" it actually has nothing at all to do with the Russian state or its government, much as the Colorado Avalanche has nothing at all to do with the State of Colorado?). Finally, you showed very little forethought in quickly advocating the blatantly inconsistent position of merging URS/RUS medals but not TCH/CZE medals. So, no, Lenev, I don't think anyone in this debate owes you an apology. I still think you didn't offer a single credible source of evidence in support of your position, and had I not found the Ice Times article, I would still oppose your viewpoint. Just because the view that most people ended up supporting turned out to be the one you started with, doesn't mean you were "right all along" (if someone in 12th century Europe had shouted "The world is round because my head is bald", he would still have been wrong). --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I asked for an apology for calling me a Russian nationalist, etc. etc. I don't care what you think or what anyone else thinks, I'm sure you feel the same way about me. I care about the facts. Your article would've been found eventually.
Just because you now live in Toronto, doesn't mean you can't be a Russian nationalist. -Djsasso (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Your comments/opinions/statements/votes/etc. will now be ignored by me, have a nice day.--76.68.68.61 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Russian CBR publishes yearly inflation forecasts. They're the ones used for Wiki. According to your super amazing logic it is a biased source. If it states inflation is 2% (although in reality it is around 12%), no one would argue with it because it is official. Same as the FHR, I think the difference between a successor team and saying it's the world's greatest team is pretty obvious.--Lenev (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow the IIHF or not?

Latest comment: 16 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

Is it time for another not-vote? Consensus-building session?

To me the issue, from an encyclopedia point of view, is to follow the Wiki standard as is done on other articles, or to follow the IIHF. It is an IIHF tournament, so I think that both points of view are valid. The IIHF lists the medal table differently from the one in this article. So, we have to defend the choice of using the Wiki standard instead of the tournament organizer's standard. And, the references to Russian nationalism are doing no one any good. It's only a table. It's only hockey. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to the official IIHF list? I didn't know they had one. Krawndawg (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's within the PDF of the "Ice Times" newsletter. The link is: Ice Times May 2008 Issue Alaney2k (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. After seeing that, I really don't see how or why anyone would argue against combining them. Krawndawg (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that the table has a very large number of mistakes, so it becomes hard to believe that the table is the official position of the IIHF and not some hurried news letter creaters mistake just like the other mistakes. -Djsasso (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Accuracy aside, it is an (interesting,ambitious?) attempt at a stats table. It would be great if they published that on their site, accurate and up to date. I think I will write them and request that. Alaney2k (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup if their site had an acurate and up to date table I would go with that list in a heart beat. Or would do it like some of the other languages do it. Have a line with the total of the two countries and then two indented lines with the individual totals. But until an accurate table is found I think they should still remain seperated. -Djsasso (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you really honestly think that the TCH/CZE and URS/RUS combination could be a mistake? Another source has been found and quoted on here, which reaffirms combining the medals. If that second source has a lot of misspelled words, will you also discount it? What exactly will it take to convince you that this is the IIHF's official position? Will you at least stop reverting changes to the medal table if there is a consensus that this is the IIHF's policy, and that we should follow it? --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so will we have a vote? Not having one doesn't seem fair, since the table stands as it was, and Scorpion and others revert all attempts at changing it even though the debate remains unresolved. --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for others, but I would suggest making a specific proposal section on this page, and put a note at WT:HOCKEY. And finally accept whatever consensus emerges. I think that would be the best way to go. Alaney2k (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I find some of the comments like Djsasso's "it becomes hard to believe that the table is the official position of the IIHF and not some hurried news letter creaters mistake" fairly ridiculous. Past issues of Ice Times going back to 2002 are available at

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/ice-times.html

  • Ice Times, April 2002, p. 10, below table: "Gold medals: Soviet Union/Russia 23,Canada 21,Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic 10,Sweden 7,USA 2,Great Britain 1,Finland 1"
  • Ice Times, April 2003, p. 8, below table: " Gold medals: Soviet/Union/Russia 23,Canada 21,Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic 10,Sweden 7,USA 2,Great Britain 1,Finland 1, Slovakia 1."
  • Ice Times, April 2004, p. 8, medal table combining TCH/CZE and URS/RUS
  • Ice Times, May 2005, p. 8, medal table combing TCH/CZE and URS/RUS
  • Ice Times, May 2006, p. 8, medal table combining TCH/CZE and URS/RUS
  • Ice Times, May 2007, p. 8, medal table combining TCH/CZE and URS/RUS
  • Ice Times, May 2008, p. 8, medal table combining TCH/CZE and URS/RUS

Book "World of Hockey: Celebrating a Century of the IIHF", published by the IIHF..

  • p. 180: "admitted in 1908 (as Bohemia)....When Bohemia became Czechoslovakia after World War I, it was re-admitted to the IIHF under its new name on April 26, 1920....After the fall of Communism, the Czech Republic and Slovakia split, and the Czech republic replaced Czechoslovakia in the IIHF program."
  • p. 187: "admitted in 1952 (as Soviet Union)....The famous CCCP was replaced by Russia in 1992"

What more evidence do you nedd that the IIHF officially regards the Czech Republic as a successor to Czechoslovakia and Russia as the successor of the USSR? Yes, mistakes can creep into things like statistics and tables of them. But if the IIHF did not combine these countries, don't you think someone would have noticed over the course of six years?--DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't agree with the language you used, but I do support the idea that the IIHF considers the hockey federations to be the same, etc. etc. However, the World Cup wiki articles differ from FIFA, which considers the federation similarly to the IIHF. So there is a precedent for the Medal Table as is. I would rather follow the IIHF unless we are breaking some Wiki rule. But I don't believe that is the case. But I am also not an admin and have not been on Wiki that long. I think this debate has really blown way out of proportion to the content in question. However, if we don't float a proposal, I think that could be grounds for reversion, whatever your opinion is. I know that the intent is to make the article an FL. We could go through this debate all over again in the FL review process if we do not get the Hockey project on-side. Alaney2k (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall repeat a comment I made above, as it seems to have been overlooked:

The following two statements are both true, yet not contradictory with each other:

  1. The Ice Hockey Federation of Russia is the successor organization to the Soviet organization that the IIHF recognized in 1952.
  2. The Russia national ice hockey team represents a different nation in international competition than the Soviet Union national ice hockey team used to represent.

It is possible to fairly represent these two points properly, but not by combining results together in the medal count. With respect to this article, I think it is important to remind ourselves of one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. I think a strong case can be made that the point of view expressed in the IIHF's newsletter may not be the most neutral point of view. I think it is offensive to Slovakians, for example, to attribute all of Czechoslovakia's results to the Czech Republic successor. There are very good reasons why there is strong consensus on so many Wikipedia articles for not combining results in this way. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read and addressed this remark of yours above. Quite simply, I find the status of a country's political system, name, flag absolutely irrelevant to the ice hockey team representing it, since the words "representing it" are not in any sense real. Do the Colorado Avalanche "represent" Colorado in any sense? No, they are simply named for it because that is where they are based, where the owners of the teams live, etc. It is for some reason much harder for people to accept this about national teams, even though the situation is really no different. Thus, dividing national teams' accomplishments by the countries they represent is artificial, and should instead be based on the teams themselves. Please do try to think about this. Essentially, we are arguing over whether the Quebec Nordiques and Colorado Avalanche deserve to have their victories and stats counted separately or together. The NHL does not do so for its teams, the IIHF does for its, that is all.
But let me turn to a different point now.
When I first started reading this discussion, all I advocated was a consistency in the medal table. At one point, Russian and Soviet medals were combined, as were West German and German medals, but not Czechoslovak and Czech medals. This prompted my "Are we just trying to make the Czechs look worse?" comment, which was taken out of context on the main IHWC discussion board. I didn't mean that seriously, of course, but rather intended it simply to highlight that something was dreadfully wrong in the way the medals were tabulated. So long as we are consistent in the way we proceed, and
  • either base the medals entirely off of current countries
  • or base the medals off of the official way the IIHF counts medals
I don't see a problem either way. However, we should not ignore the other view, whichever we decide to go with. If we decide to combine the medals, I think this means italicizing the names of defunct countries, or writing "of which x many were won by Czechoslovakia", or something to this effect. If we decide to keep the medals separate, I think we ought to write "The IIHF regards the Czech, Russian, and German ice hockey federations as successors of those of Czechoslovakia, the USSR, and FRG, and thus inheriting the medals of the latter defunct countries", or something to that effect, with the appropriate sourcing to the Ice Times articles and the IIHF book. I grant that adopting the latter requires us to trust that the IIHF does officially regard these federations as the successors, which some people seem to have a hard time with despite all the blatantly obvious facts. --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to clear something up, the only reason Germany and West Germany used to be combined is that is how the table was when I started work on the article. It had completely slipped my mind and that's why I hadn't fixed it (but did the second it was pointed out). -- Scorpion0422 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's this latter approach you suggest that I advocate, per my comments that it is possible to fairly represent these two points properly. It is, in my opinion, the most neutral point of view. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of the previously mentioned facts there is nothing else to discuss. But here's another article that may help this discussion move along. "Russia and Canada are now the most successful teams in the history of international ice hockey. After Russia's latest win they now have 24 world titles each." http://www.russiatoday.ru/sports/news/24910

Oh wait, it's a Russia-related source, that means it has to be POV'ed. How dare they make a claim that agrees with the IIHF's official stance on medals?!


In any case, I think the statement "we have three Russian ubernationalist carpetbaggers " (from http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#List_of_IIHF_World_Championship_tournaments.E2.80.8E)

sheds light on the blatant racism/and POV of some of the editors.--Lenev (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that was a response to you and another calling us biased because we were Canadian (when a number of the people commenting were not). I hardly think you can cry foul too much as they were complaining about your POV/racism on the subject. -Djsasso (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Medal Table

Latest comment: 16 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion

I wish to see this article become Featured too. However, I think that 1st we need to come up with clear consensus on what to do with the medal table. I realize that there may be few compromises available, but I think it would be beneficial to discuss them in order to make this article completely valid.

As of now, it does not meet not only FLC criteria, but also general Wiki article criteria as the medal table contains Original Research. This is because no sources have been provided for that particular structure while several official sources clearly show a different counting method.

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." From http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

These are just a few of the sources available that support an alternative arrangement for the table:

The official newsletter of the IIHF May 2008(See medal chart): http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/The_IIHF/08-1263_IceTimes_May08_V12_N2.pdf

As well as any other Ice Times editions: http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/ice-times.html

I think that if official sources clearly showing the table as it is right now are provided, a change in the overall opinion may occur. --Lenev (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "As of now, it does not meet not only FLC criteria", Okay, which criteria does it not meet?
  • Its not Original research because the medal table is based on the main medalists section, which is fully sourced. -- Scorpion0422 17:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Your 1st point: "A featured list exemplifies our very best work. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular, naming conventions, neutrality, no original research,..." It cannot be considered to be Featured if it's not even a good regular article.

Your 2nd point: It is original research. The table should be based on a list when no better source is available. The question was about the way the table counts/arranges the medals not the actual medalists. Many have acknowledged that there is a good source of the official IIHF position, so why keep ignoring it? --Lenev (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The medal table (which is the least important part of the article and can easily be removed if you can insist) is based on these two sources: [4] and [5]. Those two sources say that the Soviet Union won the tournament 22 times and Russia won twice, so that is what the medal table says. It is hardly original research if it is based on sources. -- Scorpion0422 18:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Those are excellent sources, but like I said they do not contradict with the IIHF table found in Ice Times, because although they are good sources for the list of medallists year by year, the tally has a more direct source, which is why this is a bit confusing for some people.
For the sake of objectivity and creating full consensus, I again suggest putting two tables, or one "double" table that could show both versions, which would not conflict with any official sources provided by you, me, or any other editor involved in this discussion.
If anyone wants to make it more neutral, the medal table could have a 3rd version besides the 1st two, based on the one found on http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/feature-menshockeyworlds.html
It lists the teams by total medals won including CZE and RUS with their predecessor teams. Showing CZE & CAN tied for 43 total medals and SWE with 40, and RUS/URS with 37.
Although CBC is not an official source it is no less legitimate than TSN.
Anyways I just want to make sure that the table is arranged in such a way so that discussions such as this one would not arise in the future. --Lenev (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think concensus was long ago acheived. What you want is to change concensus. -Djsasso (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually think no consensus was officially reached. There was a vote on changing the medal table before the IIHF book and Ice Times newsletter were found. No vote has subsequently been undertaken. Several people have subsequently expressed wanting to follow these sources, while others, including Djsasso, have objected. Unfortunately, because the article was originally written with incomplete information (i.e., without knowing the IIHF's official stance on medal tables, as set forth in the book and newsletter), the burden of proof is on those of us wanting the change. Thus, it is tremendously easy for Djsasso and Scorpion0422 to object to any change, since they can always oppose a vote, and can revert any changes made by others to follow the more official (and hence more neutral) point of view. This has led to several of us, including me, to simply loose patience with them and abandon this debate. I would welcome a vote, and I would welcome further discussion. But only if the discussion can be restored to a reasonable one; as it stands, Djsasso and Scorpion simply continue to insist that all the sources put forth as official IIHF documents are flawed because of typos and misprints. Why this indicates that the combinations of countries themselves are misprints, I don't know. But that's where we stand, so please don't say that any consensus has been reached. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Take this to the next step of dispute resolution, but please don't look for more "voting" until you get what you want. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm here to merely offer my opinion, as someone who has followed hockey for years. I'm not aware of the specific Wikipedia procedures. I saw a poll earlier, which is why I thought this is what is done. My point was simply that either we should continue to discuss this ("take this to the next step of dispute resolution", as you so professionally put it), or else abandon it, but let's not claim that consensus was reached, when none has been. Or is these some other discussion somewhere where people are not as split on this as we are here? --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is an illustration of why I think the current table is POV and undesirable. Instead of breaking up medals based on countries, why not do it based on flags? Flags, as objects, have as much bearing on the IIHF clubs as countries, as objects, do: that is, none. Clubs may be named for countries, and team jerseys may have images of flags on them, but clubs are rather like businesses in that they are non-governmental, non-political entities. So, if we're going to follow the artificial standard of basing the medals off of political units, why not base the medals off of vexillological units instead? Have a separate entry for Canada 1912, Canada current, Soviet union 1912, Soviet Union latter, Russia, USA with 49 stars, USA with 50 stars, etc., etc. This would fit with the proposal floated by Andrwsc to "fairly" represent both viewpoints. Then let's represent not just two, but all viewpoints, if we're taking into account considerations which do not have anything to do with the IIHF or ice hockey. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. Or are you making a point? Either eay, this does not fit with anything I've proposed, so please don't attach my name to this nonsense. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course I am joking. I am arguing for why breaking up the medal table based on countries is irrelevant to the IIHF. And let's not forget: IIHF is a non-governmental, non-political organization, which simply hosts a championship; I can create the "DDD World Championship" and the difference between these two "world competitions" would be only in which one is more popular, not in which one is more "official". I am a little baffled by why you would think I am making a point: I haven't edited or disrupted any pages. Is it forbidden to make a verbal point in a discussion? The reason I ascribed this to your viewpoint is that you advocated (please see the discussion above) for representing both sides of the argument; my point is that when artificial considerations (like national entities somehow affecting sports teams) become part of what we put into an article, there might be no objective barrier to what constitutes a "legitimate viewpoint". --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was one to leave things as they are, a concensus has to change in order for a change to happen. A no-concensus result for the sake of wikipedia defaults to concensus to leave as is. Other than you and lenev, no one else has argued to change it. As has been mentioned that table is just a product of the information laid out above in the article, and as such doesn't have to follow the IIHF's format because its not necessarily the same table. I can't help but mention the fact that the only edits you make to wiki are to this discussion makes it look like you are probably Lenev or someone he knows that was asked to come here and help him. -Djsasso (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Before saying silly things like "you are probably Lenev", please take the time to read the history of this discussion. I opposed Lenev's viewpoint at the beginning, until I found the Ice Times article. I've disapproved of his nationalistic reasons for his position (appealing to the UN, etc.) and his (and yours) inconsistent treatment of USSR/Russia, FRG/Germany, and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic. My position all along was that this article should be NPOV and consistent. With no information at the beginning, I advocated leaving the table alone, although I pointed out some mistakes the table had in it (including some of yours, Djsasso) which have subsequently been corrected. My viewpoint only changed once I, after a lot of research, found the Ice Times article. I thought that this was in the best spirit of Wikipedia editing: you advocate as neutral a point of view as possible until you can locate a reliable and official source. The source I found was the IIHF, which apparently isn't good enough for some. I also resent your comment of "Other than you and lenev, no one else has argued to change it". This is blatantly false: if you actually look at the archive of this discussion, you will see quite a few users who agreed with my position that we should follow the Ice Times article. Just because most people didn't have the patience to continue this debate, doesn't mean they didn't share my viewpoint. For that matter, none of the people save Scorpion who sided with you have stuck around either. If you wish to make an intelligent debate, please do read what others have said before you (you might learn something), and don't confuse the issue with petty personal attacks and omissions of facts to strengthen your position. Otherwise you drop to Lenev's level in terms of the maturity of your debate. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually your first edit was providing the links to the ice hockey times article so I couldn't assume any of the previous IPs were you because there is no proof of that. So I can't see that you at first opposed lenev because all your edits under this IP have been supporting him. While I am willing to believe the other IPs earlier were you, I just can't assume it. (See the benefit of logging in?). Secondly others agreed with using the IIHF table until it was discovered to have many errors in it. Since then its only been you and lenev who have been consistantly pushing the subject. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Compare the IPs and signatures of the first post of the current discussion, and the last post of the archived discussion. You will notice they are the same. In the former comment I advocated a position contrary to Lenev's due to the lack of sources (and I criticized him for his weak arguments) and in the latter I advocated merging the medals due to the discovered Ice Times article. This is precisely as I stated it above. That you don't so much as bother to check the facts before posting on here raises the question of whether you are interested in facts at all, or whether you simply have an agenda which you will defend despite any new information which may become available. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If you read what I said, that I can't assume. I do believe it is you. But when I go back and read your comments I actually see you agreeing with him, your only complaint seemed to be that he wasn't also suggesting combining Czech etc. While if you would look waaaay back you would see that people didn't have a problem with a line that has the combined total of the various countries as well as a seperated line. Even scorpian was cool with this idea. Not sure why this isn't acceptable. -Djsasso (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've never opposed a dual system like that. What I opposed was 1) not being systematic in the combination and 2) combining medal totals when there is no official information of this from the IIHF. After the Ice Times article was discovered, I haven't "opposed" anything, I've simply advocated following the IIHF. And saying I agreed with Lenev means you again did not read the posts. "Agreeing" can only mean that I either supported his reasons or I supported his conclusion. If you read the post I made at the conclusion of the archived discussion, you will see that I supported neither. I changed my position to agreeing with his conclusion once the Ice Times article was found (as did many others), even though we still did not support his reasons (which I still do not). I think that being open to new information, being open to changing your mind when facts become available, and not defending your original position no matter what is the definition of open mindedness, and ultimately leads to a more progressive and better article. Your philosophy is different, not to mention that you continually ignore and misrepresent what I wrote simply to suit your agenda. So I'll follow what others had the good sense to do earlier, and that is to drop out of this debate. Logic and facts can't prevail in a debate when not being used by both sides. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I object to that, if it is inside the same table. It is double-counting, and confusing (yes, we've tried that before in articles like ice hockey at the Olympic Games). What is appropriate (and acceptable to me) is a fully referenced footnote (or line(s) of prose text) that describe how other sources combine the totals. But not a convoluted table with multiple combinations of totals. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am fine with that way of doing it as well. To be honest I am pretty open to how we do it as long as its not only a combined total. Because having only a combined total will mean that valuable information is lost. -Djsasso (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then why are you opposed to doing it like the Germans did it? http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Eishockey-Weltmeisterschaft Scroll down to the table to see what I mean. Or a 2nd table showing the list version, or something like that. They show all versions, combined, separate, etc.--Lenev (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the german version as long as there are seperate lines for each country that make up the total. They only have a Russia line and a Total line. I don't like the two table method as I think that would lead to more confusion. -Djsasso (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
So how about adding two separate lines, one for Russia and one for the SU? Same thing for Czech, and Czechoslovakia of course. Obviously everything with a note explaining why this was done. --Lenev (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well? What do you think. --Lenev (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/26/rangers-picked-to-play-in-first-victoria-cup/
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_IIHF_World_Championship_medalists/Archive_1&oldid=1222221271"