Talk:List of IIHF World Championship medalists

Time for a break

Tempers are clearly rising (yes, I admit I am guilty) and several users are starting to attack one another. I don't think any of us want to go to mediation, so let's try and reach a peaceful resolution.

Here is my position: I think this list should stay to what it is, a list of champions. This article does not need to be a database of statistics and if one wants to find them then we could provide an external link. As for the combining of successor nations, I think they should remain seperate for the reasons all stated above, and I do not believe that the discovery of an IIHF source that combines them changes things much. If somebody wants to know how many gold the Soviets and Russians have won then all they need to do is add 22 + 2 and voila, there you go. As I have suggested above, I am open to a seperate table, or adding an extra column.

All I want to do is try to get this page to FL status and this edit war has prevented this and is continuing to prevent this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this version is a good candidate for FL status. It needs some minor copy-editing, but it represents the tournament medalists in the most NPOV manner available and therefore does not need any dramatic changes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look somewhere above, I was open to having two tables all along, as a compromise. More information is always better than less, and if those tables are explained then it should work.--Lenev (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and to this discussion. If I was doing the medal table I would combine USSR/Russia and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic and Germany/West Germany. In 2007 the IIHF published a book titled World of Hockey: Celebrating a Century of the IIHF. The book contains a section which gives a brief history of each of its member nations. It makes the following statements about the above teams: Czech Republic: from page 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." Russia: from page 187/188: "admitted in 1952 (as Soviet Union)....The famous CCCP was replaced by Russia in 1992" Germany: from page 181/182: "admitted in 1909....was reinstated as the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) on March 10, 1951....(continued as Germany)following the re-unification of the country" WCan (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. I will look up this book and try to double check. Scorpion, will this work for you, or not? You write "all I want to do is try to get this page to FL status"...does that mean at a bare minimum of quality? We are trying to improve it, after all. Sorry to have to put your plans on hold. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me make one additional attempt at very clearly spelling out my reasons for supporting the merge. My reasons for rejecting arguments based on which country succeeded which, or what the UN says and so on, is that national hockey clubs have nothing whatsoever to do with the nations they are named for, except for the name of course. Since the Czechoslovak and Czech federations have different names, I initially had no reason to believe that they are one and the same federation (albeit renamed), since we could find no official confirmation of this. But now we have two sources, the Ice Times newsletter, and the book mentioned above (which I have found easily on Amazon). What we have now are two sources which clearly state that while the Slovak, Latvian, Ukrainian, etc. federations are new, the Czech, Russian and German federations are simply the Czechoslovak, Soviet, and FRG federations renamed. This is akin to the Anaheim Ducks being called the Anaheim Mighty Ducks prior to 2005, even though they are still one and the same team and all of their team statistics are combined, not separated due to the name change. It takes a certain cognitive leap, I think, to look beyond the country names at the actual clubs, since most people (quite naturally though erroneously) associate Team Canada with the country of Canada, Team Russia with the country of Russia, etc. This is why I see very little basis for separating the medals. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so painfully difficult for some people to realize that 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.

— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That is what I have been saying all long. -Djsasso (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is completely indisputable, and indeed it is one of the reasons why I initially objected to all of Lenev's arguments involving the UN and the definition of "successor state". My point all along has been that we need to be consistent, and rely on official documents where available in order to avoid questionable decisions of what constitutes a "nation being represented". To this end, I think we either need to set out some very specific guidelines for what makes one nation different from another, or else base our medal and history sections entirely off of the federations. Was Canada the same country as today prior to the entry of Newfoundland in 1949? Territorially it obviously wasn't. Was Canada the same country as today before the Canada Act? Politically it wasn't, as prior to 1982 Canada still had some legislative dependence on the UK. Colloquially, the name "Canada" gradually replaced "Dominion of Canada" in common usage throughout the 20th century. So what exactly dictates that the medals won by Canada in the 1940s, or the 1960s, or the 1990s, were all won by by the same nation? And what of Germany? FRG and GER were both officially the "Federal Republic of Germany", so at least in name they were the same. My point is not to suggest that we change Canada's medal standings. It is simply that there are many elements which go into determining what constitutes a country or nation; the name, the political system, the territory. Why do some of these have greater bearing than others? It is precisely because I find this slightly arguable at best, and hence slightly POV, that I suggest we go off of the federations exclusively. I also repeat for the millionth time that just because a hockey club is called "Team Canada" it does not actually represent Canada in any real sense; this is an entirely colloquial notion used by the fans. The only thing which is actually happening is that a club is playing a game, not that a nation is playing a game. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Except you're overlooking one crucial factor. At the end of every game, they don't play 'We Will Rock You' or 'Seven Nation Army'. They play the NATIONAL ANTHEM of the winning COUNTRY.HenryLarsen (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not that it really matters but Canada has been the same Country since 1867. The only thing that has changed is its form of government which does not affect what constitutes the country. I would also disagree that the teams don't represent the country, they do represent the country in the same way any ambassador or military officer or anyone who is the face of a nation does. The nation is playing the game as the players are "elected" to represent us by being the best the country has to offer. Just like the head of state is a representative of the nation as a whole. We would not say that the head of state doesn't actually represent the nation. Its not a club in the sense the Montreal Canadiens are a club, when we have athletes on a team representing the country they are essentially a branch of the government. -Djsasso (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mixing up a few things here. The PM of Canada does actually represent the country of Canada, in an official capacity as dictated by the laws and constitution, as does any ambassador, minister, etc. The hockey team does not, as it is not a governmental or political organization. You can talk about representing a nation instead, where you use "nation" in a colloquial non-political sense, and then may have a point. But such a debate can rapidly degenerate into one of who considers which word to mean what, and so on, and will thus be inherently POV. Now I gave some reasons (for the sole purpose of making a point) for why it might be conceivable to regard Canada as a different country now than in the 70s or 40s. If you disagree, please tell me which if my criteria for "same or different country" you find fault with and why, or, if you wish to be NPOV, cite a source which states that the "name of a country is irrelevant to whether it is the same country", or "the political system of a country is irrelevant to whether is it the same country", or something like this. Simply stating "It has been the same country, its political system may have changed, but that doesn't matter" as divine fact makes for a very useless debate. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If they are funded by the government to represent Canada at an international competition then they are representing the government in an official capacity. Team Canada is most definately funded by the government. The issue isn't that big a deal to me but I think nit picking because the wording of a document (ie the Canada Act) has changed is stretching pretty far to say there is a case to split Canadian medals. It's quite simple really, Canada's official birth date is 1867. Russia officially consideres itself a seperate country from the USSR, while acknowledging (rightfully so) that the USSR was its predecessor. That is the difference between the two. -Djsasso (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow the IIHF or not?

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.wikipedia.org/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

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.wikipedia.org/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: [1] and [2]. 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.wikipedia.org/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)

Medal table incorrect

The medal table is incorrect. Russia does simply not have 25 golds itself, many of the former Soviet players were also Latvians playing in the tournaments and players from 13 other federations could be listed as Soviet Union, as these federations only played in the world cup as Soviet. And Czechoslovakia cannot be listed in the Czech Republic list, as Slovakia was also part of the country and there were Slovaks playing as well. I don't want to change it myself without to discuss it, but the list is simply not correct. I would suggest to use the old medal table, the way it used to be, as it is more fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The change is because the IIHF considers only Russia to be the successor to the Soviet Union and the Czech Republic to only be the successor to Czechoslovakia. -Djsasso (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the membership rights within IIHF of Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia rolled over to Russia and Czech Republic respectively and the others had to make their way up to the main competition from the lowest. But I agree it does not make sense to sum up the medals for the countries that simply do not exist anymore. Especially since they are also credit to the prior partners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.40.97 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Slovakia hasn't got Czechoslovakia gold medals? Should not be (1/7) in 2002 gold medal? Czech republic in 1996 has (1/7), so is completely right to put the same for slovakia in 2002. And in final table as well: Slovakia (1,1,1) Czechoslovakia (6,12,16) total (7,13,17). I changed it, hope all regular updater agree with me about this change, otherwise change it back the way it was and answer in this discussion please.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 19thnervous (talk • contribs)

As with the Russia example above, the Czech Republic is considered the successor to Czechoslovakia, and not Slovakia. The Slovaks are are considered a new entity, so they started from 0. Resolute 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned by Resolute, and me above, the IIHF has awarded the Czechoslovakian medals to the Czech Republic officially. They did not award any of Czechoslovakia's medals to Slovakia. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

New medal table

I created a new medal table under the old one only for history after 1993. It partly solves the problem of counting medals of Czechoslovakia and Soviet Union to Czech republic and Russia. It also gives some interesting information, but I am open to discussion whether this table should be on this page or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.181.92 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in it because it seems arbitrary. Why not also split up the table based on other significant periods in IIHF history, like 1920-1953 (before the Soviet Union participated), 1954-1975 (Soviet dominance of the event) and 1976-1992 (the first era of when NHL players participated)? Heck, why limit it to that? Why not also add 1976-present, which is the entire period of when NHLers were allowed? And what "interesting information" is added? The table is the exact same format as the other, so nothing is added. I assume this "interesting information" you are referring to the fact that the Czech Republic is the most successful team of the period. So, why is that so significant that it deserves an entire table to point the fact out? Why not add other tables to show the eras when Canada and the Soviet Union were dominant? For the sake of simplicity and length, it's easier to stick with the current table. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the reason is quite simple if you think about it and stop being arrogant. There are many people how think it's not a good medal table, because it's not fair - Czech republic has more medals than it should have, so does Russia. Deleting SSSR and Czechoslovakian medals isn't a good solution, because then Canada (and Sweden, and USA...) has had more opportunities to get the medals, that's what is interesting about this new table. And why there should be only for recent years and not other eras too? Because the recent past is the thing everybody is interested in the most. PS: Cause you deleted my table without discussing it, I am putting it back without discussing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.151.217 (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

But again, why not include tables for other eras? Surely there are quite a few people interested in the medal tallies for other periods? The table is about summarizing the main list, and also including summary tables for other eras, simply to show how successful certain teams are, is quite unnecessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This new table is arbitrary, and therefore WP:POV. And per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, I have reverted the inclusion. Please gain consensus support before reinserting. Now, if sources say this, the situation since 1992 might make a good paragraph of history, expanding on the breakup of the Soviet Union, noting the split of Czechoslovakia, and commenting on how the Czechs and Russians have fared since. Resolute 16:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what you find as a "consensus support" and I am 95% sure that any number of people would seem to you as a minor group. It is sad that sites about hockey on wiki has better quality in Czech, Svenska or Paruski than in English...I thought Canadians do care about hockey, but I was probably wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.79.234 (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And how does a lack of a summary table for 1993-present severely dimish the quality of the article? Every wiki has their own way of doing things. We tend to have tougher inclusion standards for tables (but I should also point out that the English wiki is the only one to have Ice Hockey World Championships at GA). However, the Czech wiki does have a complete table of Worlds placings which we don't have, which I must admit is quite good. The members of each wiki should focus on making their wiki as good as possible, and not be too concerned with what the others are doing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks won't help your cause. Resolute 19:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if you took this as an attack, I was just sad about how you are not open for discussions. And one last thing - after 2 eras of dominance of one nation, the hockey got finally interesting in 1992 (probably more accurate year than my 1993) - the table for the whole history gives no interesting stats...and I am not saying it because my country leads my table, I personaly think that the number of medals is more valuable than number of gold medals so in my eyes Sweden is the team who has the best performance since 1992... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.79.234 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, chalk me up as a non-Canadian who likewise can't see any rationale for this arbitrary date beyond "I want a table that will make my country look good." Certainly "the hockey finally got interesting" is a nonsensical reason; we don't redefine basketball tables to avoid the eras of dominance of the Boston Celtics, UCLA Bruins or the USA national team, we don't dodge the periods of the New York Yankees' dominance, and we don't omit the 1942-1970 period from the NHL's annals just because all but one of the Stanley Cups in that nearly thirty year period were won by just three teams.

  That being said, perhaps you do indeed define "better quality" and "open for discussions" as "They do things the way I want," in which case I encourage you to continue to patronize such wikis. In the meantime, should you come up with a consensus here backing your version of things, that would be another matter. So far, though, it does indeed seem to me that a minority of a single editor is a "minor group" which completely fails of consensus.  RGTraynor  14:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And again - you want me to do something, but you didn't say anything specific. What peopla shloud have the same opinion? How many? Where do I found them? I thought that wiki works the way when there is a discussion, there is a big red line "There is a discussion here" and people are welcome to say theier opinion. Some nonsences you said: 1. Czech republic has a quite good position in this table too, so there is no need for putting there a new just so my country looks good (and it is rude that you think so even I said many times, that this is not the point). 2. Spliting medal tables in other sports might be interesting too, but this is a bit different case - 2 big countries stoped existing and the system changed a lot too... I don't want you to say "what the hell, put it there so he shuts up", that wouldn't make any sence. I just want you to tell me WHAT exactly support I need and HOW can I get this support right here on wiki. There surely is a protocol for this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.151.217 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• There is. For one thing, you're not allowed to ask for people to come here to support your POV; that's called canvassing, and it's a violation of Wikipedia rules. You state your case here, and see if the editors who regularly update or follow this topic agree with you. Generally a consensus ought to be at least 2:1, so since there are currently three editors opposing, you would need at least a half dozen editors to support your POV provided that no one else opposes. It's also the case that the views of non-registered anonymous IP addresses - especially if they've made few or no edits outside the discussion in question - often are discounted, given the high likelihood that they were canvassed or otherwise solicited to the debate.  RGTraynor  02:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Okey, so wikipedia isn't "free encyclopedia" and any changes are very unlike to happen. I thought it is a bit different here, I was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.181.92 (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

More ad hominems, nice. Resolute 14:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You might want to consider setting up your own webpage, which will have the advantage that all changes and content will be exactly as you like, and no one can do anything without your permission and approval. Neither the English Wikipedia nor any other national Wikipedia, of course, works that way. Good luck.  RGTraynor  18:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I thought that was my last sentence, but you guys are so rude I have to react. I am not angry that you put my change away. I am dissapointed, because I thought that wiki works as a democratic utopia - if somebody wants to make a change, there is an open discussion and everybody can tell his or her opinion. The fact that wiki works that only editors have the right to vote is just a dissapoitment to me (of course I understand the reason why this is, it's much more easier and the other system won't probably work at all, I just thought that wiki works this way). And one last thing - I don't know why are you so rude. I didn't say anything bad about you, I just tried to explain to you my POV and that I thought that wikipedia works a little bit differently. But I see that editors on wiki are even more arrogent than editors on other pages so come on, one last shot on me so I can see how you are reacting in your patterns and are not capable of a simple apologie. PS: I am sorry if I offended you in any way, but this is just how this situation looks from my spot...just try to think about it, ok? (i know you won't) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.151.217 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Ultimately, a debate on en-wp comes down to strength of argument. Personally, I don't feel your argument is that strong, and that it does hint at a POV. Afterall, why just that table? Why not a pre-1954ish table that predates the emergence of the Soviet Union? Why not another for when the Soviets and Czechs used pros masquerading as amateurs? Why not a third for when the IIHF openly began to accept professionals? These examples are just like yours: they mark a significant change in direction for the tournament. But in none of these cases do I see a real benefit to a separate table. The point of this table is to list the winners in the tournament's history, not just at various arbitrary ranges. Resolute 05:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your assertions that editors here are rude might go over a lot better if you hadn't launched repeated insults and attacks, from your second post forward to your last posts. What part, for instance, of "stop being arrogant" do you think is not "saying anything bad about you?" If you insist on insulting other editors in violation of WP:CIVIL, you cannot object if people call you on it.  RGTraynor  10:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what I said - I apologized, but you won't. And you don't care about my opinion and you never won't, cause you think you are somehow better or bigger than me... It's just sad, that's all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.79.234 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fix or remove "totals" additions from the medal table

Assorting the medal table by e.g. name or counts is completely broken due to the few added "totals" that some want to credit to countries that did not win them. Consider whether these are needed, and if so, fix the table for it to be properly sortable or remove them, as currently the table does not work with them included. 2A00:11C0:4:794:0:0:0:180 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Rows merged. Flibirigit (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)