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)

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)

slovakia medal totals

The IIHF specifically includes the history of Czechoslovakia with those of Czechia in their encyclopedia, they do not include them in Slovakia's history. Czechia took their place, specifically their seeding position in the World Championships, Slovakia had to start at the bottom and win their way up. Fair or not, these are the facts.18abruce (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the same situation as that of Serbia and Montenegro. IIHF, FIBA (basketball), FIFA (football) and probably other sports organizations consider Serbia as successor team of Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro. Official treaties between two states are ignored by sports organizations. – sbaio 10:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)