Talk:Ice Hockey World Championships

Ice Hockey World Championships was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result March 13, 2009 Good article nominee Listed March 26, 2009 Featured topic candidate Promoted February 9, 2023 Good article reassessment Delisted June 29, 2023 Featured topic removal candidate Demoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 20, 2009. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that from 1963 to 1991, only four nations—Canada, Czechoslovakia, Sweden and the Soviet Union—won medals at the Ice Hockey World Championships? Current status: Delisted good article

	This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Ice Hockey This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

The legend for this photo says that that the Mercuries were the last Canadian team to win a gold medal in the 20th Century.
That might be true of the Olympics but this is the World Championships page and Canada won the Worlds in 1994 in Italy, and again in 1997 in Finland.
Not sure this pic as well as the Olympic anecdote, which clearly reflect a North American perspective on the legacy of the World Championships, deserve such emphasis in the context of this page.
Canada would have to wait for 50 years for its next Olympic gold but as far as World Championships are concerned, they would not have to wait that long. They would win it again in 55, 58, 59 and 61 when a World Championship drought of its own started, lasting until 1994. I think another jersey picture could be used here.

While Russia is the core state of the former USSR, I dont think Cezch Republic should be called the core state of Czechoslovakia as it is the case in the article. Former Czechoslovakia - 15 million people - 10 czech, 5 slovak —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.73.63 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While your point is well-taken, the IIHF recognised them as such. The CR retained Czechoslovakia's spot, while Slovakia had to start from the bottom.213.210.157.14 (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are missing, did they (olympics) count as world championships?

No, they didn't. While, e.g., 1956,1960,1964,1968 did, according to my source. Cmapm 00:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page because the IIHF refers to the championships in the plural, which is only reasonable. Trontonian

The IIHF only lists championships starting at 1920. Should the pre-1920 championships be listed here? Abelsson

Those would be European championships -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the European championships should be moved to a page of its own. John Anderson 10:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As some people believe (see List of international ice hockey competitions featuring NHL players) several other tournaments in the past were not less important than these ones, may be it'd be better to rename this page to official name of these tournaments: IIHF World Championships? Cmapm 12:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are just one tournament which is called World Championships. While its importance is debateable, it is still the only World Championships. John Anderson 10:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Ajshm changed my latest edit when I put a sup1 next to every year the Olympics also counted as the Worlds. I intentionally put it next to the year so you could easily see which winners were also Olympic winners. Having it in the venue column where it already says "(Olympic)" doesn't make much sense to me. I suggest changing it back, but I don't want to do it if Ajshm is just going to change it again. So, what do others think? --Sarke 00:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think both look pretty silly, one just looks sillier than the other. Besides the notes do not have to be footnotes. How about a different approach, like shading the boxes of the olympic years? --Ajshm 09:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shading is a good idea, but something subtle. Although I thought the sup1 next to the year was subtle... --Sarke 09:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about placing next to/before Olympic years a little image of an Olympic flag :-)? If no one agrees, shading looks also nice for myself (although it shoud be explained somewhere in the article, what does it mean). Cmapm 16:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the medals of Czechoslovakia are usually added to Czech republic (because most of the players of Czechoslovakia were from Czech part of the country). Or could be added Czech republic + Czechoslovakia and Slovakia + Czechoslovakia. The reason is that Czechoslovak hockey is much more succesful than Sweden´s and it should be seen from the chart.

Then Russia's medals should be added to medals earned by the USSR, as most of players were from Russia. I don't support such changes. But I think, that number of tournaments the country played in should be added into the table. Canada played in most of the tournaments since 1920, while USSR played just in the ones after 1954. Similar situation is with Czechoslovakia's performance compared to Sweden's. Cmapm 18:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The swedish page has a good overview of the medal statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.12.222.43 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please could someone who knows this subject check I reverted back to a 'clean' version of this page (i.e. the best one so far). Also if you do know the subject please could you add this page to your watchlist to check for subtle vandalism. Thanks. --Petros471 19:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This pages is somewhat long, I think the Junior Championships should be split off into a separate page, like the Women have. 67.68.64.37 11:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the juniors should be split off. I think each tournament, mens, womens, U20, U18 should each have it's own article. Of course there would be links from each so that the interested reader can find the information they want. -- Jeff3000 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have split if up to Ice Hockey World Junior Championships. -- Jeff3000 03:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear author, the problem of your article is that you`re distinguishing in the medal tables between the USSR and Russia. This leads to a deformation of the medal tables - Russia seems to be as succesful as f.e. the UK. BUT: 1) The owherwhelming majority of the players of the USSR-Team was Russian. 2) Russia is the official succecor state of the USSR, in each aspect! I would suggest you to melt the USSR and Russia succeses in the medal table but with a special comment. This would increase the objectivity and neutrality of this article. Or ist this article written by a Canadian? :-)

If you don't like it, fix it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is a new country. There is no aberration. An aberration would be if USSR's stats were lumped with Russia, then it would appear as if Russia won more medals than the number of years it has existed as a country. 132.205.45.110 21:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I respect your point of view and don´t want to change your text, cause you are not d`accord. But the fact, that Russia is the formal succecor of the USSR (in ALL international conventions) underlines, that your splitting the statistic in Russia and USSR is very problematic. For somebody, who does not know a lot about icehockey it seems like, as if we, Russians, can´t play icehockey. By the way, congratulations to your great victory in the u20 world championship! Konstantin

This is a very interesting point that Konstantin makes. Under international law, when a new state is formed, it may or may not be designated as the successor in title to a previous country. If Russia is the official successor to USSR, perhaps it is the sporting successor as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.56.76.140 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

But I believe the IIHF considers them to be the successor team (as they do with the Czech Republic for Czechoslovakia (and, previously, Bohemia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.210.157.14 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some controversy about the medal table I added a while back. Here are a few points I'd like to make:

- Separate countries should have separate counts (e.g. USSR/Russia, Czech Rep./Czechoslovakia, Germany/West Germany) because combining them would skew the results. If we start combining the USSR and Russian totals then we need to consider doing the same for the Czech Rep. and Slovakia, etc. Combining the medal totals would be just as, if not more, misleading because the USSR and Russia have had vastly different success for example. We'd be making Russia (as an independent country) look better than it actually is. The fact is that Russia has only won this many medals, stating otherwise would be misleading. It also wouldn't be fair to the other countries involved because Russia or the Czech Rep. for example would be taking sole credit for something that they didn't win on their own.

Leaving the results separate will allow people to make their own minds up about how they want to view it. I will however add a few notes about the Russia/USSR totals and other similar situations to try to minimise any controversy.

- Sorting. The two ways that make sense to me is to sort either by total medals or by gold medals, then silver, then bronze. Since gold > silver I am in favour of sorting it by gold medals first (this is usually how Olympic medals are sorted too). An example of this would that Sweden would be ranked second ahead of the USSR if it was sorted by totals, it is clear that the USSRs 22 gold medals show them as more successful than Sweden (even though I'm Swedish I favour this). Another example is the Czech Republic compared to the US.

- I am in favour of adding the number of tournaments participated in (as previously mentioned) so it's easier to see each countries success, and I will do that now.

Sarke 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The swedish wikipedia page has two good overviews of medal statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.12.222.43 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The super script says Canada got the bronze in 1964, but the table lists just Czechoslovakia. Also, I ent to iihf.com, and it doesn;t show Canada as medaled in 1964 -- Mre5765 03:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put together stubs for West and East Germany, but I can't find complete standings on the web. Just the pool A standings, and both Germanies sometimes were dropped from pool A.

Is anyone thinking of having more detailed resuls as each Olympics has?

-- Mre5765 03:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the English ones. A good Russian source is, for example [1]. Cmapm 18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, entries "USSR+Russia", "Czechoslovakia+Czech Republic" are confusing and irrelevant IMHO (it's a simple arithmetics to get those numbers). Second, USSR had 15 republics, which are now separate states, not only Russia, therefore writing "USSR+Russia" is IMHO unfair to other former Soviet Republics. Cmapm 18:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, that edits by 88.154.218.148, which introduced those confusing entries, were vandalism, because, e.g. for 1976 Czechoslovakia was "moved" to the second place and USSR - to the first, which is wrong. The same user seems to have vandalised other pages, including Ice hockey at the Winter Olympics, where he also introduced similar factual errors and confusing table format. Cmapm 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To response to the USSR+Russia being unfair - there were almost all Russians on the Soviet team throught its history.

Hasnt IIHF come out with some statement, as i think FIFA have about countries as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Soviet for their medals there. As for example, "FIFA considers the Serbia national team the direct descendant of the Serbia and Montenegro and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia national teams." How wrong or right some may think it is. Serbia and Yugoslavia go together there, and if IIHF have made such statements, i think it should be changed here.

Well, the official IIHF site says that the Russian Team has been a member since April 1, 1952 and Czech Team since November 15, 1908, so I'd say in both cases they should be considered direct successors of the Soviet and Czechoslovakian teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.223.63.174 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have argued about "USSR+Russia" and "Czechoslovakia+Czech Republic" entries in medal tables, but the one that irritates me is listing West Germany separately from Germany. Why? The country known as "West Germany" is officially Federal Republic of Germany which was founded in 1949 and is still in excistence. The "West German" medals from 1953 and 1976 olympics should be added with German ones. East Germany should stay in it's own column because that country and the East German hockey federation membership in IIHF ceased to exist in 1990. They didn't get any medals though.

Of course Germany only has medals from pre-WWII championships besides that of 1953, but as long as some of you are stating that it's "unfair to some nationalities to unite/separate statistics", the thing is that these are all Germans.

I like to organize my statistics thinking that while these international tournaments are dubbed as "competitions between nations" the goverment teams aren't playing, the ice hockey association teams do. So when Germany is on the ice, it's the team appointed by Deutcher Eishockey-Bund (which was established in 1963 and took the place of its predecessor in the IIHF). There was no change in 1990, the DEB is still a member and sending German teams to competitions. And when the IIHF announces that Ice Hockey Federation of Russia is taking the place of Soviet federation in world championships I dub in my statistics the Russians as Soviets "heirs" and add those up. There are good points against at the Russian case, but the German one is clear: Germany 1909-present and DDR 1949(whenever the hockey federation joined)-1990.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilder (talk • contribs)

Why can't we just have Germany instead of a bunch of different entries... --HJV 22:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer it added in as well, though I'd prefer the 1953 medal earned listed as West Germany in the table, and a footnote or something in the end noting that Germany's medals include West Germany. Lejman 10:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The venue column should have the flag of the venue country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.115.196.175 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, good idea. John Anderson 07:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that in the section of winnters for the IIHF World Champions, Team Canada links by default to the National Men's team, when it actuality it was a senior team from Canada representing the whole country. For example the Whitby Dunlops in 1958, and the Belleville McFarlands in 1959. Does anyone have a complete list we can wikilink? Flibirigit (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically, those teams became the National Team. -Djsasso (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. However, the team should be mentioned somewhere as reprsenting Canada. Flibirigit (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not be on the team's page? -Djsasso (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listing that accomplishment only on a team's page would not be a complete list. We need either a category of "hockey clubs" that have represented Canada, or a list. A pseudo-list exists at the Allan Cup article for the senior champions of Canada, and the Canada national men's ice hockey team article lists "hockey clubs" from 1930 to 1963. However, the "Canada national men's ice hockey team" article makes no specific mention of of when "hockey clubs" started or stopped representing Canada in place of individuals selected to form a team. I will also raise that point on its talk page. For the World Championships article itself, and the Ice Hockey at the XXXX Winter Olympics articles, there should be mention of not only "Team Canada" but the "hockey club" itself. Flibirigit (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why has Russia scored so badly since Soviet fell? The team only changed the name in participations to Russia, nothing remarkabled happened, so why have they been scoring so bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.7.139 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IIHF European Championship table history should be deleted from the article, because the European championship existed til the year of 1991. The year of 1992 til present has only been dominated by the World Champs and minor competitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.7.139 (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.177.210 (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the table to a new article, Ice Hockey European Championships. --Kildor (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan or creating sucession boxes and categories for the championship final venues. Any objections? Anyone want to help? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is appropriate to have a Sports infobox at the top of the page. I have added one as such, and if anyone has any complaints, please lodge them hereFunga (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great initiative! Every article deserves an infobox (my opinion, at least). A World Championships article is more than qualified for an infobox, every other sport has one.
I've added the rest of the information in the infobox. But do you think the "No. of teams"-field should include all of the divisions, like now, or should it just state "16" as it is in the top division and just mention the other divisions in the "Qualification"-field? lil2mas (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think That the way it is now (with divisions) is good.Funga (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC) by the way, do u think the caption for the medal should be reincluded?[reply]

I tried, but it only shows if you hover over the image with your mouse. If you can fix it, please do =)
I noticed User:Scorpion0422 removed some parts of the infobox, stating that this isn't a sports league, and asks if this is necessary. If you're reading this; the name of the template might not be ideal, but it serves its purpose: To give the reader a small summary of the most important aspects of this championship! Please take a look at some other team sports: Football (soccer), Handball, Basketball, Cricket or Rugby. They've all got an infobox in the article lead, this one shouldn't be any worse. lil2mas (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should include a joint statistics for Soviet Union/Russia.

That is what I have done: I have created joint record in the table for Russia/Soviet Union, as well as each team separately, one for Russia and one for Soviet Union.

I believe this should have been done before, otherwise it seems like the team who had won 22 Ice Hockey World Championships is being unfairly hidden from the readers.

The difference between Russia and Soviet Union is clearly visible by the changes I have made, however those changes also show the following:

The fact that Soviet Union had won a total of 39 medals.

The fact that Russia had won a total of 5 medals.

The fact that Russia is recognized as a successor of Soviet Union and jointly they have won 44 medals in total.

PLEASE NOTE:

Russia (RSFSR) is the official successor to USSR

The core of the Russian (RSFSR)team in the 90s were made of ex-USSR players

The official IIHF site says that the Russian Team has been a member since April 1, 1952 (The day USSR became a member of IIHF) Ice Hockey Federation

I've provided the source (International Ice Hockey Federation. Retrieved on 2009-03-08.) for the numbers I’ve used.

I also believe that this should be done for Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia. We should recognize historical achievements of the Czechoslovakian team , but we should clearly show that the Czech Republic is a new team which once was a core of Czechoslovakian team.

Andreyx109 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to combine CSSR w/ Czech, then you have to combine Slovakia as well. This is a slippery slope me thinks --Lvivske (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not this again. See this discussion for the reasoning. The table is just meant to be a quick summary of current members, which is why no previous members are included (a list of previously competing teams could be added, but I don't know what the point is, since there is a long and comprehensive list of champions). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should include Soviet Union/Russia in the list as this article shows the winners of the IIHF World Championship medalists since 1908 to present. If you want to show the recent winners only, then this table should be removed and only the most recent champion must be shown.

Russia is is recognized by IIHF as successor of Soviet Union (explained above and below). If you have any proof that it is otherwise, then we can discuses it further.

The discussion you are referring to and arguments provided there are nothing more than original research. I don't know whether its yours research or not, it does not considered to be a reliable source.

We need to have a reliable source to proof that Russia is not a successor of Soviet Union, the only reliable source I see available is IIHF, which puts the day Russia joind IIHF as the date Soviet Union joined.

If rolling back of my edits continues, I will have to rise the question of Neutral point of view in regards to the existing tables and the whole article.' Andreyx109 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of the table is to show the current nations that compete in the World Championships. The number of medals is just included for comparison. Nobody is denying that Russia is the successor (in fact, the article itself says that), but wikipedia custom is to list previous nation medal totals seperately. Please read the discussion, then you will understand. Also, there is already a List of IIHF World Championship medalists, which covers everything. Would this be an acceptable compromise. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is such a heated case, I have removed the medals from the table. (This is also better in consistency with the other division tables) As Scorpion0422 says, this is only a table to show the current nations competing, and there is another page showing the whole list of medal winners. This discussion should be moved to Talk:List of IIHF World Championship medalists. lil2mas (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be too hasty here. The medals do add to the article and I would rather try to reach a compromise than simply get rid of those columns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is the successor to Great Britain; you don't see those two combined! --Lvivske (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the medals do add to the article in a visual way, but since there is lack of consistency it represent a wrong impression. If we were to put the medals back in we would have to put in empty medal rows in the other divisions (not pretty) + make another table below the Armenia/Bosnia-table, which includes ...what you just did right now! =P But I'm anyway keen on seeing a IIHF-document/page saying Russia having 24 or 2 gold medals? lil2mas (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean be "current nations"? The current name for successor of USSR is Russia - it is current nation, and it has won 24 gold medals in total, if you want we can change the name to Russia and avoid putting the USSR at all, but the total number of medals won by Russia will have to reflect the medals won by USSR as well. However, I am against it, as all these original research and as you might know Wikipedia does not allow original research. The right way will be putting USSR /Russia jointly, and then each country separately.

I have a concerns about the Neutral point of view in this article. You have not provided a single reliable source to support your arguments except an original research you are referring to. The arguments listed there are original research or original thought.Andreyx109 (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion we should list USSR somehow (options i can think of: 1.jointly Russia/USSR, 2.USSR and Russia Separtley 3.Russia only, but the number of medals should include those won by USSR 4. No medals count whatsoever. ) and only this way we'll achive an acceptable compromise. Andreyx109 (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your third option is revisionism, which I am completely against. Russia did not participate at the 1954 World Championships, the Soviet Union did, so should most certainly not put down that just Russia won 24 Championships. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't understand why this argument even exists. If the Russian SFSR participated in a tournament he might have a case, but this is a union of states; Russia now competes individually and it should not take historical credit for a supranational entity that no longer exists.--Lvivske (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same should be true for Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic. Although the situation there is a little bit different, as the there is no clear successor, like in Russia/USSR case. Andreyx109 (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently your number 4 option is used. But there is a possibility that your number 2 option will become relevant, as it has been added to the article here. lil2mas (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both options are acceptable and they will only make this article better. Andreyx109 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also include the U.S.S.R. total with Ukraine's totals, Kazakhstan's totals, and so on? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only Russia is officially considered to be the successor of USSR. This is explained above. Andreyx109 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting a footnote (the same one) next to both Russia and U.S.S.R. with their combined total. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thats one of the ways we can do it. Andreyx109 (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, if we combine USSR/Russia metal totals? Then we'd have to doe the same for USSR/Latvia totals, USSR/Ukraine totals, USSR/Katzhistan totals etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the IIHF considers Russia as part of the IIHF since 1952, but Ukraine since 1992, Kazakhstan since 1992, Belarus since 1992, etc. The article List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation says that the Soviet Union's membership rights were "transferred to Russia" (although there is no reference provided yet to back this up). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to comment here by Andreyx109, though I'm not sure why. However, the matter is fairly clear in my opinion. True, Russia is the largest part of what was previously called the USSR. However, the USSR also included many other now-sovereign states, e.g. Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, etc. So placing the achievements of the USSR together with Russia would be misleading, since you could just as easily argue for grouping USSR with any other of the former Soviet states. The same goes for Czechoslovakia. Their achievements could just as well be grouped with those of present-day Slovakia. So I strongly argue against this sort of move. The case with fusioned states are different - there's little problem, IMO, with grouping East and West Germany together with present-day Germany for statistical purposes, as long as a footnote states how many of the medals were won as East Germany, West Germany, and post-1990 unified Germany. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 08:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what is your issue with the neutrality of the page? I admit it does have more stories about Canada than, say, Sweden or Finland (because I used a lot of Canadian sources), but I don't think it is biased in any way and I think it's reasonably neutral. The only thing you have cited is that we don't say "Russia has won 24 championships!!!!" in big bold letters. We are simply following wikipedia standards where the totals of different nations are recognized differently (this is done with all of the Olympics pages, and it's a tradition we follow here). It's not like the Soviet Union's accomplishments are hidden in any way and it does now say that Russia joined as the Soviet Union.

The table was simply meant to summarize the nations that currently compete at the World Championships. I felt it was missing something, and decided to add the medal totals for all nations. Following wikipedia's standard, I only listed Russia and the championships that they won since the Soviet Union dissolved (just like what was done for the Czechs). The Soviet's medal accomplishments are mentioned in the body (and here), so it seemed unnecessary to add them in seperate table table. The article itself does acknowledge that fact that Russia is recognized as the successor, so I decided it also wasn't necessary in the table. I think your neutrality complaint is not valid, and is clearly just a strong arm tactic. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of this page is disputed because this article or some parts of this article mislead the readers and do not show the correct medal count for Russia (successor of USSR) and Czech Republic (successor of Czechoslovakia) etc.

Up to this time, I've not seen a reliable source to support your claims and as you know original research is not allowed on Wikipedia.

At the same time arguments presented in favor of joining medal counts for named countries are being unfarely rejected althouth the arguments are supported by a reliable source. The lack of arugments (supported by a reliable source), the way you show the medal count (not including USSR in it) and unwillingnes to find a compromise rise the question of neutrality of your views, the whole article and/or medal count section.

I am willing to find a compromise. Medal count is a good (but not necessary)addition to the article, but it should not mislead the readers.

Andreyx109 (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my response:

• "Neutrality of this page is disputed because this article or some parts of this article mislead the readers and do not show the correct medal count for Russia (successor of USSR) and Czech Republic (successor of Czechoslovakia) etc."
  • Let's get something right here, it shows the correct count for both Russia and the Czech Republic. What it does not show is the combined count of Soviet Union/Russia and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic. The Russian national team has won two World Championships, the Soviet national team has won 22. What is so wrong with listing their totals seperately? They are not the same team (the IIHF saying Russia joined in 1952 is revisionism), and if you think they are and that their stats should be grouped together, why don't you go the full way and push for the Russia men's national ice hockey team and Soviet Union national ice hockey team articles to be merged? Also, notice that the IIHF's official count [2] lists both the Soviet Union AND Russia, not just Russia or Soviet Union/Russia? It's a tricky issue, and a consensus was established in this discussion a year ago.
• "Up to this time, I've not seen a reliable source to support your claims and as you know original research is not allowed on Wikipedia."
  • What claims? All I'm saying is that we're following wikipedia's standard of listing different nations seperately. I've never once denied that Russia is acknowledge by the IIHF as successor to Russia, and the article does say that. And how exactly is it original research? It just lists the teams seperately, which is based directly on the IIHF's list of medalists.
    • IIHF does recognize Russia is a successor of USSR, so does Russian Hockey Federation and those sources are recognized by Wikipedia, but you are trying to prove that those are two different teams what your arguments based on? Your personal thoughts are not recognized by Wikipedia, they are considered to be original research. Andreyx109 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "At the same time arguments presented in favor of joining medal counts for named countries are being unfarely rejected althouth the arguments are supported by a reliable source. The lack of arugments (supported by a reliable source), the way you show the medal count (not including USSR in it)"
  • For the final time, the Soviet Union was not included because that table just lists current nations. It is not meant to be a complete summary of all medal winning nations. For that, there is List of IIHF World Championship medalists.
    • Russia is a current nation and it considered to be a successor of USSR (IIHF), and USSR achievements and responsibilities are passed on to Russia. We can avoid using name USSR at all, we can just put all the medals under Russia with a footnote saying that it includes USSR medals. Andreyx109 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "unwillingnes to find a compromise rise the question of neutrality of your views, the whole article and/or medal count section."
  • Wait a second here, how am I unwilling to find a compromise? I re-added the original join dates to the table, and even added a seperate table for the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, and the medal counts are now gone. It seems like I have been working pretty hard to try to find a compromise.
• "I am willing to find a compromise. Medal count is a good (but not necessary)addition to the article, but it should not mislead the readers."
  • What a great philosophy, "if I can't get my way, lets just throw out a useful feature." I don't think its misleading at all. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not trying to get anything my way. I am trying to make sure that this article follows Wiki standarts. Andreyx109 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You worked hard indeed. I have noticed that the conflicting medal count is gone and there is a seperate entry for the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and other teams. That's was one of the fair options i was talking about earlie. That seems like we found a compromise. Andreyx109 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some compromise. I would like to re-add the medal count, so could you please respond to my responses so we can work something out? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to show the correct medal count we need to find a way to reflect that (in case of Russia/USSR) USSR's official and recongnizable successor is Russia, and we should make sure that we show the medal achivments of predeccessors country. There a couple of options we have discussed above. Let me know what do you think. Andreyx109 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat my question, if you think they are the same team and that their stats should be grouped together, why don't you go the full way and push for the Russia men's national ice hockey team and Soviet Union national ice hockey team articles to be merged? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't encourage them. -Djsasso (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right place to discuss the possibility of merging two other articles. However, I am might work on it later on. What i am expecting though is that there are going to be some arguments for and against the merge, but, those arguments will rise not because someone is trying to dismiss the fact that Russia in all respects is a successor of USSR, but because the past players and team has to have a separate entry to note its achievements, and I believe they do have the point, can the verify it, I don’t know. Andreyx109 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that these users never seem to want to go the full way towards making sure wikipedia awknowledges Russia as the successor to the Soviet Union. They just seem more interested in the tables with comparable stats. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to throw a hypothetical out there. Lets say the federation that is Canada split up, Quebec separated, and Ontario and the West stayed together but the atlantic provinces left as well. Ont/West were the IIHF successor. Do you combine all of Canada's medals with newly formed British Ontarioberta? Or list the new countries and the old federation separately? Furthermore, with Canada not defunct, do you list then as a "current nation"? I think the obvious answer speaks for itself--Lvivske (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say to just leave the chart out. It also, ironically, denies the Russian POV pushers their ability to force their on viewpoint onto the article. Resolute 05:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really is a shame that we can't do something like that without it turning into a contentious issue. I shudder to think of what kind of edit war will erupt if Russia wins the World Championship again. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly IIHF aren't (imo) 100% clear about how they stand on this (if we compare it to FIFA where all this successor nations etc is very clear), I looked at around at IIHF.com to find some clues:

• From IHFFs timeline [3]
  • 1988 – The Soviet Union wins its seventh and last Olympic hockey gold, in Calgary, Canada. ←Indicates a break?
  • 1992 – The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) – the former Soviet Union and the future Russia – wins Olympic gold in Albertville, France. ← Indicates succession?
  • 1993 – Russia wins its first World Championship gold, but it also marks the end of the Soviet Union/Russian dominance after 39 years. ←Indicates separate medal count, but team succession
• From the country pages
  • Czech Republic [4]
    • Member Since: November 15, 1908 (founding member) ←Indicates successor of TCH and Bohemia?
  • Russia [5]
    • Member Since: April 1, 1952 ←Indicates successor of Soviet?

It would be easy if IIHF had a medal table for us to go by, but they don't even list number of gold medals for example on the country pages... It's a hard case to solve, but I feel that until there's a IIHF source stating that Russia and Czechia inherits Soviets and Czechoslovakias records the best would be to separate them, as indicated at "1993 – Russia wins its first World Championship gold" chandler ··· 15:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I mean, it's a spiritual successor, not a literal one. If this was Russian Empire vs. Russia, that's a different story. That was a Russian state. The USSR wasn't a Russian state; the RSFSR was. --Lvivske (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If we were to combine USSR/Russia medals? then we'd have to do the same for USSR/Latvia, USSR/Katzhistan etc. Same with combining Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic, we'd have to combine Czechoslavkia/Slovakia totals. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Officially Russia (not Ukraine, not Uzbekistan, no one else) in all respects is recognized as USSR successor::: including but not limited to: for membership rights, agreements, govt. debt of USSR, well you name it. However, in this article double standards are being used for medal count, this is why Neutrality of this article is disputed. There is no reliable source to support claimed arguments and original research i.e your personal opinion does not count. I've offered a couple of options for compromise; however it seems that some members don't follow the common sense or Wikipedia standards here, but rather follow hatreds and discrimination towards the Russian/Soviet team. Andreyx109 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As was explained above, the IIHF contradicts itself many times on whether or not it combines the medal totals. Although the IIHF does recognize them as the same entity, that does not mean that they are, which is why for simplicity, their totals are seperate.

And I was right, I knew the first accusation of an anti-Russia bias wasn't far off. Do you actually have any evidence of hatred towards Russia (ie. actual text that downplays their accomplishments)? It's funny because I don't think you have actually bothered to read the article (you know, the most important part of the page), which I think is not biased at all. Instead, you're focusing on such a minor/trivial part of the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've provided not one, not two reliable source and official sources to support my claims that Russia is a successor to USSR in all respects, but instead of accepting it you are dismissing all the arguments and instead trying to push an original research as better source for the medal count. The only thing comes to mind is that there are some bias towards Russians. I hope that is not the case. Do you have any prove that Russia does not inherit USSR sport achievements? If you don't then there is no point to continue arguing, as Wikipedia asks for evidence which i have already provided plenty in support of my edits. Andreyx109 (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR ceased to exist in December 1991. That's a fact which can't be denied. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIHF is very clear, Russia joined the IIHF the day USSR joined, it cann't be more clearer. Moreover, above IIHF there is an International Law. Thus, we should end using double standards in regards to Russia and its pre predecessor USSR.

The Russian Federation (Russia) is recognized in international law as continuing the legal personality of the Soviet Union (USSR) which was dissolved on 31 December 1991.

Link If anyone does not like or agree with international laws and standards, then you shouldn’t argue here, but rather in international court Andreyx109 (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Scorpion0422 response above. PS: The onus is on you to get a consensus for your changes. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 sources, are the about hockey (from the IIHF?) or just that Russia are successors of USSR in international law? Because federations like IIHF don't have to abide by things like that, one example is FIBA which don't seem to recognize Russia and Serbia has inheriting the records of URS and YUG. Another example is TCH/CZE/SVK, where most organizations that I know of recognize the Czech Republic as successor of Czechoslovakia, but FIFA attributes both the Czech Republic and Slovakia the records of Czechoslovakia. chandler ··· 18:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quickly turning into a nationalist debate like it was last year. The issue is resolved, the medals have been removed, so let's quit while we're ahead. Although if Russia wins again this year, the situation likely will get very ugly (again). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it does turn into a nationalist debate. By all means we should avoid it. The article shows enough information without the medals count.Andreyx109 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The onus remains on Andreyx109 to prove the article and all Olympic article's otherwise. Though Russia took the USSR's place, doesn't mean it inherited it's statistics or that it is a mutual history. Wikipedia itself does not consider Russia to be the immediate and sole successor to the USSR, but rather one of several. It doesn't take credit for CIS play, nor Unified team play either. I don't see why this debate has to go an inch further than a footnote at the end of a medal count. Russia as a sovereign state did not exist from 1917 to 1992, nor did they ice a Russian national team. This debate is nothing more than revisionism and hoping to inflate numbers. Yes, there is a bias here, and it is a pro-Russian bias. Even I, a Russian-centric hockey editor can't find something legitimate for the Russian side in this argument. End it. --Lvivske (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The onus to prove is on those who are trying to reject the fact that Russia isn't the successor of Soviet Union in all respects. I've provided enough reliable sources to prove my point [6][7] [8], however instead of accepting this point, it is being rejected in favor of an original research and original thought. Your personal opinion does not count here. I have supplied enough evidence to prove my point and join the medal count for Russia/USSR. However, we found a compromise and excluded medal count to avoid further conflicts, so this discussion is over. Andreyx109 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those references proove the IIHF combine medals. While they may make Russia the successor as pointed out in other sources above they make comments stating the Soviet Union won their last medal and Russia won their first medal. It's probably the same situation as FIBA which calls them successors but does not combine their medal count. -Djsasso (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the FIFA World Cup, for example. The Russian team page considers Russian Empire and contemporary Russia as one continuity (ie. 1st world cup 1994). The soviet team page lists the USSR stats separately. Why should hockey be any different? As stated, andrey, you have yet to provide a source where the IIHF combines statistics of the two countries. FIBA, FIFA, and IOC keep them separate, why should IIHF be an exception to the rule in your eyes? Without proof?

Just too shoot in, FIFA does NOT consider the medals and records separate. See [9] chandler ··· 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, then the football team pages should be merged IMO--Lvivske (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are currently split because they indicate that there was a change. Sort of for the same reason Soviet Union isn't merged into Russia, they are there to indicate the historical perspective. I personally don't see a reason why they can be split but still have a combined record. For example in the Czechoslovakia case it isn't even possible seeing how FIFA attributes both match record, medals and everything to both Slovakia and Czechia chandler ··· 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IIHF site says Russia won their first in 1993 [10]. The RHF says "24-times world champion and 8-time winner of the Winter Olympic Games" [11]. That being the case why don't we 1) Keep the old modern medal list as it was. It showed only countries in now, and would properly differentiate between RUS and USSR continuities, since the latter dissolved. 2) Put a footnote explaining the situation, ie "does not include the X amount" from USSR/CIS 3) Like FIFA page, have a hypothetical table showing the combined totals of USSR/RUS/CIS and the Yugo team, and Czech team - displaying the combined counts since they combine as single memberships to the IIHF and not new ones.--Lvivske (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide the prove that Russia is not considered the successor of USSR in sports achievements not me. From legal stand point of view it is successor in all respects this is recognized by ALL international bodies and institution and you have do not have anyreasons to doubt it.

Please explain on what basis you dismiss the evidence I have provided from the reliable sources.

One of the sources (Ice Hockey Federation of Russia) is cleary list all the meadls in one single list. Ther are two options, one is that you are being bias towards the Russians or second you don't accept Wikipedia policies no - original research as that the only argument you have provided so far. I've repeated you 10 times, personal opinion or thoughts do not count on Wikipedia.

It will be clearly that the problem of neutrality and bias in this discussion exisit unless you will show the evidence from a reliable source stating that medals and titles won by Soviet Union are not inherited by Russia. I have supplied you with 3 different sources stating otherwise. Please stop dismissing these sources and by doing so discriminate Russian team. Andreyx109 (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Medal totals will remain seperate & that's the way it shall be. If you don't appreciate that fact, then by all means take your complaint to the Administrators. You're just repeating yourself here. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am repeating myself, that because you don't want to accept the :::facts::: and thus I have to take further action in order to enforce Wikipedia standards in this article. I've a prove on my hands Ice Hockey Federation of Russia, and you don't have anything to support your claims. Andreyx109 (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey, you keep repeating your case but nothing we say seems to be sinking in. You keep arguing that we use original research or biased views, and that you have proof....when in reality it's the exact opposite. This is all your opinion, and all original research on your part. You have backed nothing up with fact in regards to the IIHF, the governing body of the tournament. Russia may have inherited the USSR's place in the tournament, but that doesn't mean they inherit their statistics. There is absolutely no bias on this page, and it's directly in line with its FIFA/FIBA/IOC counterparts in the regard to this continuity. The onus is on you to prove the IIHF and this article otherwise, not the other way around. I don't understand why you think the IIHF has to prove your opinions wrong...--Lvivske (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any evidence from a reliable source in support of your claims. Not link to another Wikipedia article but to an original and official source. Andreyx109 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, and several here, have already posted links to the IIHF's wording on the matter. Russia's first was in 1993.--Lvivske (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the Administrators. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russia indeed won its first title under new name in 1993 but it does not say anywhere that the medals of USSR will not be inherited by Russia under legal right of successor. However it says otherwise on the website of Ice Hockey Federation of Russia. I am working now on attracting greater attention to this article. Until then it shall be left without medal count.Andreyx109 (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say the medals were inherited either! I aknowledge that the FHR wants to accredit itself for all of them, and I agree that warrants a footnote and the aforementioned extra table showing combined totals. But the FHR doesn't trump the IIHF. --Lvivske (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to the Administrators. GoodDay (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IIHF doesn't say under a new name. They say Russia won its first title. -Djsasso (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My tuppenceworth. The IIHF website says that Czech Republic joined in 1908, so we can go with that for this page, with the footnote to the table to explain this. Same with USSR/Russia - it says 1952. It isn't up to us to argue that the IIHF is wrong. The article as it stands presents the info just fine. I was invited to comment on this by Andreyx109, but I'm a neutral party with no previous interaction with Andrey, and no stake in ice hockey, Russia, or the Czech Republic. If the dispute continues, try one of the dispute resolution mechanisms. Fences and windows (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thank you for you input Fences and windows. I agree with you, and i agree that the article is good as it is now. Andreyx109 (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem that Andrey seems to be missing is that no one disputes the continuation that the IIHF makes. However, the IIHF also through how they write certain things indicate that while the countries are continuations they do not assume the medals of the previous countries. Until the IIHF actually makes a combined medal list we have to assume they are seperate since that is how they describe them on their website. There is no real dispute. One user is pushing a POV WP:POINT which he has been shown via reliable sources is currently unverifiable. He is trying to use original research to back up his claim. -Djsasso (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Djsasso, I am not trying to argue about what IIHF web-site says. Their statements are confusing and are not very clear. However I'm not assuming and I'm not trying to think instead of them, however that's what you are trying to do by saying:

the IIHF also through how they write certain things indicate that while the countries are continuations they do not assume the medals of the previous countries. Until the IIHF actually makes a combined medal list we have to assume they are separate since that is how they describe them on their website.

That's an original research. We can not assume anything about IIHF , as again IIHF web-site is not very clear, its not clear on whether the medal count is joint for USSR/Russia nor that its separate. That's why I went further and supplied you the legal stand point of view, which states that Russia is internationally recognized successor to USSR. In addition to that I’ve supplied evidence from the Russian Federation of Ice Hockey, and their medal count for Russia and USSR is joined in one single table. Those sources are reliable and verifiable, so I don't feel that there is any reason to reject the fact that Russian medal count is a continuation of USSR’s . Nevetheless, I totally agree with Fences and windows, that the article as it stands presently is just fine. The day before we have found a compromise with Scorpion0422 not to include the medal counts at all on this page. I thought that this option is fair for everyone. Andreyx109 (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would be original research to assume that the medals are combined when we have no source that backs it up. The Russian Federation is not a reliable source in this because it is not a secondary source and could be biased. In order to have a valid reliable source in this it has to be straight from the IIHF. -Djsasso (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, we aren't using original research AT ALL. Just going strictly by the IIHF's publications on the matter. To the point. Secondly, I do not find them to be confusing...it is a matter of fact that "Team Russia" won its first medal in 1993. Period.

• Well, Team Russia according to IIHF web-site joined IIHF in April 1, 1952, since then they participate in tournaments and win medals. Period. Andreyx109 (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, in light of reading the FHR's view on the matter, am willing to cede that maybe it *might* be a good option to show the shortened member medal count...with combined stats for all IIHF members this applies to (based on their entry), and a footnote detailing what the separate stats are. They should remain as separate entities on the full official list, however.--Lvivske (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske, I agree with you, I think that combined stats with a footnote is a fair option. Andreyx109 (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more solid evidence from IIHF. The heading of the main page of IIHF web-site in 2008 says it all: Gold No. 24 for Big Red Machine I think this is pretty reliable source to support my claim and join the medal count, or its still not enough?. Andreyx109 (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and "The win means also that Soviet Union / Russia now has equalled Canada's record of 24 World Championship gold medals", straight form the IIHF site. I think this is all we need? Either way, I think the "short list" on the main page should have the combined in this case (for all cut up nations that the IIHF considers successors), but keep it separate on the full list. Footnotes on both. --Lvivske (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, this seems to clear up the Russia case, what I would propose is something like this in the table " Russia¹" and the note under "¹ Includes XX golds as  Soviet Union 19XX-1990" or something like that (there are many different ways this is done in football articles). When it comes to Czechoslovakia, is there anything that might indicate that IIHF have done the same as FIFA? Because it was split into just two, more or less equal countnries in size etc FIFA has given the records, honours and everything to both countries. chandler ··· 12:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would note, that that source was rejected last year because it was a game recap written by an independant blogger which was then posted to the IIHF site. We need an actual statement from the IIHF....someone should just write them an ask. -Djsasso (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, it is just a blogger....but that combined with the official FHR I think deserves some credit. I'll write them if noone else does. Gotta go watch the game now! --Lvivske (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for what it's worth, TSN just said "both nations are tied up at 24 a piece"--Lvivske (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Lvivske, thats what I think Chandler proposed, it looks good and I am for it(slight change in medal count):

Country	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total medals
Russia1	25	8	7	40

"¹ Includes 22 gold’s as  Soviet Union 19XX-1990"

• • I will try to find some sources for Czechoslovakia as well. Andreyx109 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted IIHF last week on this matter. Howver, i feel like there is no reason to doubt the information available on IIHF web-site, and which is supported by at least one more source RFH. To conclude all in all we have:

• IIHF web-site with article saying 24(25 now) gold medals.

• RFH web-site saying 24 gold medals in total.

• IIHF web-site saying that Russia joined 1/04/1952.

• Bunch of different unofficial internet sources confirming that.

• Exemplary sports organizations (like FIFA) official web-sites confirming that rights were transferred.

• Sources which confirms that from International law stand point of view Russia indeed is a successor to USSR.

• Eurosport channel confirming it again The rivals came into the final with identical records of 24 world titles each.

There is no reason to doubt such a large number of sources confirming. It cann't be more clearer. Do we have a consensus? Andreyx109 (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, only reliable source for this is the IIHF outright stating it. Not us trying to interpret what the IIHF is saying since their website contradicts itself. There are just as many unofficial sources saying the medals are seperated as together such as tsn and espn etc etc, most of these sources also contradict themselves probably because the IIHF contradicts itself. Until there is an actual table published by the IIHF or a statement by them we can't pick and choose what info on their website we like. -Djsasso (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think there is enough to combine for the "short list" with a footnote explaining the sources and "succession". The long list should undoubtedly remain separate. In any case, I just emailed the IIHF about this, hopefully I get a response.--Lvivske (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso, if you don't trust almost ten reliable sources - its your problem, prove your point and list all reliable sources who list the medal count separately. IIHF by saying that the first title in 1993 clearly means under new name. I agree with Lvivske, if to put the medal count here then it should be combined. Andreyx109 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep arguring rights were transfered. But no one has disputed that. However, rights transfer and medals being combined are two completely different things. And as I mentioned a bunch of those reliable sources also have articles claiming the medals are seperate. -Djsasso (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IIHF does not consider it to be a different thing, and ultimately they are the ones who decide this. Per WP:OR, "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." Fair or not, this is how it is. --Eightofnine (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the point of that comment, there was no proof that the IIHF did consider them the same thing. Since their website makes it sound like they are not combined. That was the point of the arguement, that we didn't know for sure which made saying they were combined Original Research. -Djsasso (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Eightofnine i totally agree with you , this is how it is Russia inherited medals from USSR. Reply to Lvivske from IIHF confirmed it one more time. Andreyx109 (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the IIHF's media relations dept.:
"I am just inquiring as to whether the official IIHF stance on Russia's medal count is that they A) inherited the Soviet Union's statistics, records, and medals, or B) Russia's achievements are recorded as separate from the Soviet Union."

response:
"Inherited = 25 golds"

Done deal, guys? --Lvivske (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Lvivske! Its 100% clear now. We can put back the medal count. Andreyx109 (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, there it is. Add the table. People will argue to all night about it but none of it matters as Wikipedia only reports what sporting bodies decide, we don't make these decisions ourselves. Since that is the IIHF's declaration, it's a done deal. I would suggest pasting the email here in the discussion page though. On another note, the Russia national football team should also reflect FIFA's USSR/Russia combined scores.--Eightofnine (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I post the email? --Lvivske (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do something through OTRS. I don't know the exact process but I am sure you can see on the WP:OTRS page. -Djsasso (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I asked someone who works OTRS and they said forward the email to OTRS and make sure the IIHF's email address is still in the forward. This is how they handle official emails to back up facts as references. -Djsasso (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm getting lost in all this. What's the email address do I forward to? --Lvivske (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

info-en@wikimedia.org -Djsasso (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second here Even if the IIHF says the inherit the medal count, it's still revisionism to say Russia has won 25 World Championships. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source, not the mouthpiece of the IIHF and I don't see what is being hurt by listing the totals seperately. If you want to say Russia has won 25 championships, then why not go for complete revisionism and go the article and replace every single mention of the Soviet Union with Russia? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were just putting the combined total for the short-list on the article with a footnote, not the all time (which would keep separate based on country)...? --Lvivske (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, I think you're slightly confused as to what neutral is supposed to mean. Neutral doesn't mean we disagree with an official source and then choose to ignore them, as you're implying.--Eightofnine (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eightofnine, and I am sorry but this is becoming ridiculous. Is it Wikipedia or one-or-two-hockey-fun-point-of-view-pedia? An official source and ten other sources puts that Russia has 25 gold medals. We should stop misleading readers. The total is combined. period. Andreyx109 (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, last time I looked through a hockey history book, it said the Soviet Union competed from 1952-1992, not Russia. And to say otherwise and follow the IIHF's revisionism goes against wikipedia policy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept the fact, IIHF is an oficial body, and what IIHF saying its not revisionism, it is how it is and how it always was. Andreyx109 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"how it is and how it always was"..... What? Okay, now I'm curious, please show me a source that says Russia competed in 1954 (or 1969 or 1981). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not revisionism, its successor teams inheriting the records of the team the succeeded. chandler ··· 02:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What policy does it go against, Scorpion? You keep throwing around the term "revisionism" like your opinion is relevent to what this table will ultimately display, but I'm not concerned with your disagreements with the IIHF's decision. There is NO Wikipedia policy which says we are to ignore official, authoratative, and the most widely published views. On Wikipedia we attribute our information to sources, preferably the most authoratative. Since the IIHF is the most authoratative source; in fact, they are the source of all medal statistics in international hockey, Wikipedia will continue to display this information. I'm sorry you don't like it. Get over it. --Eightofnine (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be revisionism if someone said "Russia won gold in 1958". I don't think it's revisionism to factually state that "Russia is credited with winning 25 golds with both the Soviet Union and Russian national teams"--Lvivske (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to add the medal count tomorrow. Andreyx109 (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I thought we decided it wasn't needed sincer there is already a list of medalists and because it would look very mad to have medals for all four tables. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he only agreed to that when he didn't have an email to back up his claim, now he wants to plaster how great Russia is everywhere. -Djsasso (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a stinker, the fella on TSN announced that Russia won its 25th Gold. Andreyx is accurate about USSR & Russia being clumped together (at least in everyday life), as people continue to think they're a the same thing. It didn't help of course, that the USSR was erroneously called Russia during the 1950's to 1991. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS has received an confirmation email from IIHF (ticket number #2009051110001265) which states that the number of inherited medals is 25. I was asked to bring notification of this here. The email is from the official IIHF email address, if that helps. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page indicates that Japan won the far east qualifier every year but finished last every year in the world tournament. This is untrue, they never won a game, but in 2004 they finished ahead of France. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that they would have been relegated every year, or simply that they never won a game.174.90.245.169 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there somewhere an explanation as to why the official IIHF participant is Great Britain, and not the United Kingdom? Seems very odd, but I am sure there is an explanation somewhere.18abruce (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but it hasn't made it to Wikipedia yet. I'd expect one at either Great Britain men's national ice hockey team or Ice Hockey UK; I don't see it either place. There's also no citation at Great Britain at the Olympics where it talks about the IOC assigning Great Britain and GBR as the name and country code for the team in 1908. —C.Fred (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page http://www.iiha.org/ice-hockey/national-squad, the Irish national team uses players from Northern Ireland as well, I would imagine there might be a problem if either Ireland or Great Britain had a shot of playing in the olympics.18abruce (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no problem. At Great Britain at the Olympics reads: Under the terms of a long-standing settlement between the British Olympic Association and the Olympic Council of Ireland, athletes from Northern Ireland can elect to represent Ireland at the Olympics, as Northern Irish people are legally entitled to dual citizenship. So, there is an agreement. 85.217.15.109 (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were those played back then as World Championships also or have they been recognized as such later?
Articles about games from 1920 through 1948 have no mention whatsoever about that (though they have the Ice Hockey World Championships template). 1952, 1956, 1964, 1968 articles have strange 'World Championship Groups', and 1956 through 1968 have a mention in the header: This tournament was also counted as IIHF World Championship and IIHF European Championship. Some clearance could be nice. 85.217.15.109 (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just started to check this article for the above. And it reads: The IIHF considers the ice hockey tournament held at the 1920 Summer Olympics to be the first Ice Hockey World Championship.^[9]

There is cite [9], though when I clicked and read that, there is no mention about the 1920 Olympics being considered as the first World Championships. At least not that particular page. Either the link is wrong or something else is wrong. 85.217.15.109 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure about the 1920-28 Winter Olympics, but from what I've read in the IIHF media guide, the Olympic Games were (at the time they were played) considered the World Championships. As for your second concern regarding the cite, I have fixed it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not mentioned there, that Finland won the 1995 championship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.100.144.231 (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is "The following year in Sweden, the Finnish team won its first ever World Championship. Led by their top line of Saku Koivu, Ville Peltonen and Jere Lehtinen, the Finns defeated rival Sweden in the gold medal game." The word "the following year" contains a link to the 1995 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships page.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's coming on three years since this article was made a good article and part of a featured topic, but up to now it did not openly state the gender of the championships' participants. Only once was the gender mentioned in the prose ("Each player must be a citizen of the country he represents"). It can be easy to overlook the most simple and obvious things, but such things are important when writing an encyclopaedic article, which should assume little prior knowledge in this case. The player eligibility section should also be amended because the statement "The World Championships have been open to all players" is not true. SFB 19:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is true, from what I understand there is nothing barring a woman from competing on the "men's" team. I think it is unlikely it would happen. But I believe it is technically possible. -DJSasso (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IIHF Statutes and bylaws does seem to indicate that it is only available to male players. Section 700 describes who is able to particpate in a "senior men's" tournament, section 800 describes who can participate in a "women's" tournament. Neither specify that you must be a man or a woman directly, so perhaps you could argue that point. However, it is worth noting that the "IIHF World Championship" is specifically classed as a senior men's event. Additionally, it is not true that it is open to all players, there are age restrictions spelled out in detail, under 18 years old they must obtain a waiver, under 16 years old they are barred from playing.18abruce (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from this source, it would appear that this is classed as a "men's" tournament. Thus, I think it is logical to state that women are not eligible. As an analogy, if it said it was an "North American" tournament, it would be counter-intuitive to assume that Europeans could compete. I think both the gender and age limitations are both worth a sentence in the player eligibility, for what is a competition without its rules? Thanks for taking the time to dig up the relevant info 18abruce. It's much appreciated. SFB 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead discussion now, but just noticed that it is explicitly stated in the rules that women cannot compete in men's event (section 1, rule 2)18abruce (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, starting in 2012 not only system of Championship division will change, but also the system of Division I and II. There is a word about this in the article, but I think there should be at least one sentence that describe the change and says the reasons ("to increase parity and the number of competitive games") in the "Tournament Structure" part of article. The reference is here: http://www.iihf.com/channels-11/iihf-world-championship-wc11/news/news-singleview-2011/browse/1/article/changes-in-worlds-structure.html?tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=3650&cHash=5db3e0e757 There maybe should be a short paragraph about the format change in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_IIHF_World_Championship_Division_I

I would do this myself, but I am not a native speaker so I don't think my English is good enough to do this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHadesCZE (talk • contribs) 13:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the erroneous material, but still needs improvement. Thank you for bringing it to everyone's attention.18abruce (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intro to the article says "Big 6". It should say "Big 7" Slovakia is clearly on the level of the others, despite who the IIHF thinks Czechoslovak history belongs to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.215.172 (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article not be IIHF World Men's Championship, to bring it in line with the IIHF World U18 Championship and the IIHF World U20 Championship? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the current title would be the common name for this championships. In the case of the U18 and U20 there isn't really a common name. There was debate at one point of changing the U20 to Ice Hockey World Junior Championships but I think the objections was that it was only known as that in Canada. But in this case I think its pretty clear that the common name is what it currently is at. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the sub articles about the annual championships lack the word 'ice hockey' in their name. For example, the logo of the 2017 edition says '2017 ice hockey world championship', but the article is called 2017 IIHF World Championship.

This is also confusing for non-insiders and suggests that the name of the federation is more important than that of the sport itself. (The same applies of course to 2014 FIFA World Cup, but I first noticed it here.) Bever (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it simply suggests what many hockey federations and media outlets call it. Are non-insiders having trouble finding the information they are looking for?18abruce (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the championship was mentioned on Paris but without an indication which sport it was about. :-) Bever (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does Canada really hold the most titles in IIHF? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IIHF_World_Championship_medalists) What is the official wiki criteria for determining the achievement status of teams that no longer compete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.125.144.76 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Australia has 1 participation in Top Division. It participated one time in Olympic Games but not in World Championship, right? Learned cat (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They played in the top division in 1960. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This table needs to be updated with Division IV participants, and any other teams missing. And updated totals and placement. Is anyone able to take a stab? Jmj713 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news § Remove ITN/R: Sports cleanup.
Currently this event is listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items, meaning that it has been judged significant enough that, if nominated, it will always be posted to the In the news section of the main page (subject to article quality being sufficient). However as it has not been nominated recently as proposal has been made to remove it from that list. If the proposal is successful, the event may still be nominated but the nomination will debate the significance of the event as well as article quality. To avoid splitting discussion, please leave your comments in at the linked discussion rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Give the answer 2401:4900:384C:D22C:1:2:12F7:A543 (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IIHF World Women's Championship has the details. Flibirigit (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
1	Canada	28	16	9	53
2	Russia	27	10	10	47
3	Czech Republic	12	13	22	47
4	Sweden	11	19	17	47
5	Finland	4	9	3	16
6	United States	2	9	9	20
7	Great Britain	1	2	2	5
8	Slovakia	1	2	1	4
9	Switzerland	0	3	8	11
10	Germany	0	3	2	5
11	Austria	0	0	2	2
12	Latvia	0	0	1	1
Totals (12 entries)		86	86	86	258

• Include 11 Editions in Olympic Games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hommez (talk • contribs) 13:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia took over the IIHF membership from the USSR and the Czech Republic from Czechoslovakia. Therefore, these countries are considered together in the official STATISTICS. So it should be written that the Czechs have their 13th title, please correct it. 77.119.202.194 (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]