Jump to content

Talk:Russia men's national ice hockey team

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox

[edit]

I found this on an old user page. It needs a lot of info before it will be good enough to put on the page. For example: Who has played the most games for post-1993 Russia? The most points?

Team Jersey
Association
Ice Hockey Federation of Russia
Current coach
Vyacheslav Bykov
Most Games
First Game
Largest win
Largest defeat
World Championships
Gold medalists: 1 - 1993
Olympic medal record
Men’s ice hockey
Silver medal – second place 1998 Nagano Team
Bronze medal – third place 2002 Salt Lake City Team

If we can fill in the needed info, this box will help the article tremendously. Kevlar67 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hockeyrussiajerseylogo.PNG

[edit]

Image:Hockeyrussiajerseylogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Hockeyrussia.PNG

[edit]

Fair use rationale completed. Flibirigit (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1992 World Championships

[edit]

This article keeps referring to Russia's participation at the 1992 World Championships. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was a CIS team and not only Russia. Djob (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afinogenov playing defence?

[edit]

I have changed him to Forward for now, especially because there are only eleven listed forwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexRochon (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2018

[edit]

Please refer to e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/sports/olympics/ioc-russia-winter-olympics.html?mtrref=t.co or other sources before adding the medal again. Officially, this medal is not credited to Russia, so we should keep it off from the page. It can be added to the OAR team's wiki page instead. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:3:7431 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah I had fully intended to split it out to its own OAR page like the Unified team once the games were done, it is pretty much wrong to have the information included here. The medal table can still be notated as it was for the Unified Team if the IOC recognizes the medal as belonging to Russia, but I doubt they will and I am not totally sure its up to the IIHF to overrule them on that. It will take some time for the dust to settle to figure that out I would think. -DJSasso (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does the IOC recognize any of the OAR medals as belonging to Russia? GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the key element right here. The IOC is the official body in charge of who's credited with what at the Olympics, and the IIHF can't overrule it. So what does the IOC say about it? Ravenswing 01:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it is hard to tell as IOC did not update the countries' profiles as can be seen here or here. IOC also wrote that OAR won the Olympic tournament, but that is it. However, if we look at Russia's profile at IOC's page we can see that they write "Address: *NOC suspended since December 5, 2017", which implies that none of the medals are credited to Russia. And yes, Russia gained IIHF points as can be seen from their newest rankings, but IIHF has no say in this. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether IOC credits it to Russia or not does not change the fact it was played by the Russian team, i.e. this team and not some totally unrelated team. A simple statement to the fact it was "as 'Olympic athletes from Russia'" is quite enough. Reliable sources, such as The Guardian, CNN, Reuters, and probably others, refer to the team as either "Russians" or "OAR" or some other variant. The IIHF might not be able to overrule the IOC on whether the medal was given to "Russia" or to "OAR", but the IIHF giving ranking points is important, because that's official recognition that the games in the Olympic tournament were played by the team from the Russian hockey federation, i.e. again, this team and not some other one. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually the point, this wasn't a team from the Russian hockey federation, because the team from the Russian hockey federation was banned. This was a team made up of players from Russia, but it was not officially linked to the Russian Hockey federation. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Russian Hockey Federation" wasn't banned. It was the Russian Olympic Committee which was (and it was widely reported as such). (IOC, for diversity a Russian source (in English), CBC, ...). The team was not officially linked to the Russian Olympic Committee, but it still was linked to the Ice Hockey Federation of Russia and is accepted as such by the IIHF (which is the governing body for hockey, unlike the IOC which isn't), therefore Q.E.D. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Each individual sport federation falls under the Russian Olympic Committee in reguards to the Olympics, when the ROC was banned all its sports federations were also banned as they together make up the ROC. -DJSasso (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Djsasso: Except the Russian ice hockey federation was not banned, their president received credentials to be a dignitary there. And please read this article which plainly says, "The Russian Ice Hockey Federation is not suspended (by the IOC) it’s the Russian Olympic Committee that is" in regards to Tretiak's attendance.18abruce (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No the dignitaries were not you are correct, but the team was, as the teams represent the ROC on behalf of the federation for Olympic games so in banning the ROC the federation could not itself send a team as individual federations don't send their representatives to the games directly, they send them through their NOC. -DJSasso (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the clearest way to state it is, the federation wasn't de jure banned, they were de facto banned because while they weren't actually banned, they couldn't send their players to the games as the Russian national team because they needed the Russian Olympic Committee for that, and the ROC was itself banned. -DJSasso (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. It could also be said that the quote came from the IIHF, and he had the ability to be there as an official representative of the IIHF, so we don't actually know in what capacity he was there, or what the IIHF was trying to say or make a point of.18abruce (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]

If the IOC decides that the OAR's 17 medals are not Russia's? then I'll side with removing the 2018 men's hockey gold from this article. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the IIHF that governs hockey medal rankings, not the IOC, and most definitely not the New York Times. And as someone who worked with the IIHF, I can tell you that they're crediting the Gold Medal to Russia. But since this is Wikipedia, and WP:NOR, here's an actual source: http://pyeongchang2018.iihf.hockey/men/news/happy-medal-winners/ "What is usually known as the Russian men’s national team in IIHF events played under a neutral flag as the Olympic Athletes from Russia men’s ice hockey team in PyeongChang 2018." The IIHF also accredited the CIS' Olympic medals to Russia, the USSR's Olympic medals to Russia, and the CSSR's Olympic medals to the Czech Republic. Here's how it should be phrased: "The Gold medal winners are the Russian men’s national team playing under a neutral flag." 47.144.144.50 (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They govern hockey rankings, but they don't govern Olympic medals. CIS is a different situation because the CIS was considered a successor state to the Soviet Union and then Russia was the successor state to the CIS. The same has happened for other countries that have split up. The IOC and only the IOC gets to determine who is credited with the Olympic medals. The IIHF can award points for win in their rankings if they so choose, but this table isn't about the IIHF rankings, it is specifically about Olympic medals. -DJSasso (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it is the IIHF's tournament in co-operation with the IOC, and the IIHF has officially stated that the Russian Ice Hockey Federation won the Gold Medal (with a footnote). The IOC does not decide on tie breakers, the IOC does not decide how the teams are ranked for medals either. So to say that "The IOC and only the IOC gets to determine who is credited with the Olympic medals," is categorically untrue. It is an attempt to oversimplify a complex ambiguous problem. I implied earlier that the IIHF statements can be suspect, I still believe that, but I also believe strongly that some time to evaluate 3rd party sources is needed to determine what is appropriate.18abruce (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they use the IIHF rules, that is how they do all the sports. But it is the IOC who administers and gives out the medals. It is the IOCs tournament with participation by the IIHF. I do agree time needs to settle things out so we can get a true picture, especially since the IIHF website is suspect at the best of times with so much errors in it. -DJSasso (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC hasn't decided whether or not accredit the medals to Russia, nor did the object to the IIHF's rather blatant accreditation. Until we get a statement from the IOC that's contradicting that of the IIHF, I think we should keep the article how it is. To pretend that Russia got credit for OAR's medals, and that, despite them having the same players, the same coaches, and the same staff, heck, even the team captain is the same, they're completely different entities, is a bit absurd. The fact that none of the players, nor any of the fans were punished, despite singing Russia's National Anthem, rather loudly, would simply add to the absurdity. My issue was also with someone claiming that NYT might have a stronger case than IIHF, which is simply untrue. Also, wasn't it Rene Fasel who handed out the medals? And if the IOC pushes too hard against IIHF, can't the IIHF just eliminate the Olympics from team rankings? Would the IOC take that risk, in order to promote that, which is essentially B/S? 47.144.144.50 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I am not to sure anybody won't be punished yet, they have stripped medals for political statements on winning in the past, so they could very well be building a case to do just that. However, that is just conjecture at this point. As for removing the Olympics from the rankings, I honestly don't think that would matter to them. Technically per standard Wikipedia practice the NYT could have a stronger case, because as a secondary source they are often considered more reliable than primary sources. I am not making an argument either way, just pointing out typically primary sources are taken with a grain of salt vs secondary sources. (The IIHF and the Hockey Hall of fame websites for example are both notorious for factual errors to the point I almost never use them to source anything) -DJSasso (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The IIHF page might have some errors on it, but the main pages that everyone checks, such as the rankings, are updated and corrected on a daily basis. I've yet to see a rankings page that's incorrect after two days. The same goes for official IIHF statements. Furthermore, from Wikipedia: "While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." In this case, the IIHF website is independent, authoritative, when it comes to rankings rather than hall of fame it's high quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Furthermore, I am using it to support a direct quotation, see above. As thus, it exceeds Wikipedia's criteria. The main issue is one of bias; I doubt that the IIHF is going to be biased against hockey. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"it's high quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher." It's these things that people often have issue with. It is often questioned whether its actually someone at the IIHF that handles it, or if its a 3rd party without any fact checking. Either way, again you keep referring to the rankings, the rankings is a separate issue from the medal table. It wouldn't be biased against hockey, but it could be biased against the IOC for example. It is known for example that the only reason any athlete from Russia in any sport was at these Olympics was because the IIHF threw up a fit when they found out that Russia would be banned after already loosing the NHLers. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who handles it - it's the official IIHF website. The rankings are based on the medals. If you get a gold medal - you get 1,200 points. If you get a silver medal, you get 1,160 points. If you get a bronze medal, you get 1,120 points. When the IIHF awards 1,200 to Russia, they're saying "we recognize that Russia earned the gold medal at the Olympics. The rankings are based on the medals. The IIHF doesn't magically go "well, my good lad, the Russians shall have 1,200 points, they're good chaps!" Furthermore, the IIHF's tournament is the World Championship, which is quadruple the value in the rankings when compared to that of the Olympics. It was NBC who threw a fit after realizing that they could lose KHL in additional to the NHL, not the IIHF. The IIHF's World Championship remains unchanged since 1972, with the exception of the round robin game format change, to recognize developing countries and give them a better chance to compete. Also, do you have a source, other than the New York Times, for that being the only reason? 47.144.144.50 (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely missing the point, as a primary source its bias is an issue, that is why it matters and why secondary sources are generally preferable. Yes the IIHF as far as we know in their rankings seem to indicate they consider the Russians to have won the gold. But this table is not about the rankings, it is about the Olympics performance itself. The IOC determines that. As you say in your comment the World Championships is the IIHFs tournament, the Olympics is the IOCs. Also the IIHF themselves stated it was them who insisted that Russians still come in as OAR because they felt it would hurt the sport to lose both the NHL and KHL players if Russia were to not be included. Prior to their complaint, the IOC had been intending to not let them any Russians compete at all. I don't even know what NYT source you are talking about. I was just pointing out why their argument wasn't as ridiculous as you make it out to seem. Just because something is an official source doesn't mean that it automatically over rule secondary sources. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I cited to a Wikipedia Guideline that clearly explained why the IIHF was preferable to other sources, in this specific case. You generalized. I again explained why it's better in this specific case. You, again, generalized. Now you're making the unreferenced claim that the IOC wasn't going to let the Russians attend, until the IIHF intervened. And yet, the statement from Bach, head of the IOC, clearly refutes that: “An Olympic boycott has never achieved anything,” Bach said. “I don’t see any reason for a boycott by the Russian athletes, because we will allow the clean Russian athletes to participate.” I've yet to see a legitimate source claiming that he was pressured to say that by the IIHF. Now please, stop making false claims. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's ironic you mention generalizing, because you generalized in your pointing to the guideline. I specifically indicated why the IIHF site was not necessarily as preferable as a secondary source would be when indicating who the IOC considers to have the gold. The IIHF site would obviously be biased to whom they say won the gold when its not them who decides that, the IOC does. -DJSasso (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the guideline, and pointed out that the IIHF meets the guideline's criteria. You keep on claiming that the IIHF is biased against the IOC, without providing any information to back it up, thus violating WP:NOR. Show me a single source that states that the IIHF is biased against the IOC. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying they are biased against the IOC, I am stating that the IIHF will state who they feel the gold belongs to, but that doesn't necessarily line up with who the IOC will state it does. For example the two differ on who the 1992 medal is credited to. So stating that the IIHFs decision to indicate Russia is who the gold belongs to doesn't mean that is also who the IOC indicates the gold belongs to. The IIHF site is going to state the IIHFs opinion on the matter. But they don't speak for the IOC, thus they aren't a reliable source for the IOCs opinion on the matter. They are only reliable for what they feel. There is a difference between having a bias and being biased against. So far all sources indicate the IOC attributes it to the OAR not to Russia, unless that changes the IIHF site is not reliable for the IOCs opinion on the matter, only their own. -DJSasso (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier you wrote, and I quote: "It wouldn't be biased against hockey, but it could be biased against the IOC for example." You also stated, and I quote: "IIHF site would obviously be biased to whom they say won the gold". Your entire effort against the IIHF has been consistent of the claim that the IIHF has some mythical bias, which you've yet to demonstrate with actual sources. I am saying that until we hear something contradictory from the IOC, the IIHF is the best source for the information. The IIHF is the international body that administers the sport of hockey as recognized by the IOC, https://www.olympic.org/ioc-governance-international-sports-federations and the medal in question relates to men's hockey. If CAF stated that Morocco was bidding for the World Cup, that would be in the news, until FIFA said otherwise. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stating an organization expresses its own opinions is not mythical. You keep thinking of bias in a nefarious way that is not how I am intending. I am using the term bias in indicating they are making their own statement. Everyone has their own biases in everything they do, bias does not only mean negative. The IOC so far in all of their publications indicate the medal belongs to the OAR. In all their medal tables, on all their results pages etc etc. Until something else comes out from them that contradicts all of their publications the IIHF isn't in a position to state what the IOCs intentions are because the IOC as it stands already has made that clear. Clearly the IOCs publications have a stronger claim than the IIHF. That doesn't preclude them later giving the medals to Russia once they are in good graces again. But as it stands everything the IOC has put out has the gold medal belonging to the OAR. -DJSasso (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The IIHF is stating two facts: the Russian Men's Ice Hockey Team received 1,200 points, and the Gold Medal winner of the Olympics received 1,200 points. It takes no bias, and minimum brain activity, to reach a conclusion based on those facts. By the way, those are facts. They are not opinions. Facts are inherently unbiased. The IOC publications have not stated that the Russian Men's Ice Hockey Team cannot claim the Gold Medal. The Russian Hockey Federation was not banned. Rather, the IOC said that the ROC cannot claim the Gold medal. But this article isn't about the ROC. It's about the Russian Men's Ice Hockey Team. In the medal tally for Alina Zagitova, the IOC says that she can claim the Gold Medal and the team's Silver Medal as her own. She is listed as the winner of both medals. In team events, the Russian Ice Hockey team functions as an athlete. That's why no athletes are listed, even though you don't have ghosts winning medals. The IOC's OAR designation was intended to punish the ROC, not the Russian athletes, and stating that the Russian Men's Ice Hockey Team cannot claim credit for their victory would be punishing the athletes, which the IOC stated they will not do: "Bach has defended the right of individual athletes to be judged separately and shied away from collective punishment". Yet, the IOC denying Russia those 1,200 points would be just that, punishing the athletes. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion comes in when they state the Russian Men's ice hockey team was the one that was competing and won the gold. It wasn't. It was the Olympic Athletes from Russia team that was competing. There was no Russian team at the Olympics, there was only a team made up of athletes who came from Russia. While I agree it is a silly distinction, it is the one the IOC set up. The ice hockey team can claim credit for their victory, just not as the Russian national team. They won it as the Olympic Athletes from Russia. And the IOC couldn't deny the 1200 points, because they aren't the ones who deal with the points. The IIHF can completely independently award the 1200 points to whomever they choose. You keep heading back to the rankings, but the rankings are an IIHF thing, and have no bearing on who the IOC considers the winners. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian Ice Hockey Teams were the ones competing at the Olympics. If you look at the complement of the Russian Ice Hockey Team, and the team that competed in the Olympics, they are identical. You're confusing the Russian Olympic Team with the Russian Ice Hockey Teams. The Russian Figure Skating Team also competed. They cannot claim the points as anyone but the Russian Ice Hockey Team, because the other entities do not exist. Again, the RHF was not banned. The ROC was. The only entity that is denied the credit was the ROC. Furthermore, the IIHF cannot randomly award points; they can only award points based on performance, which means that they can only award points to teams that performed, i.e. the teams that competed. So please, stop confusing the Russian Men's Ice Hockey Team with the Russian Olympic Team; one was banned. The other wasn't. They're two different entities. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hockey federation was not banned, but the national federations don't directly put the teams in the Olympics, they put them in through the NOCs. In this case the Russian NOC was banned so they went through the quasi-NOC known as the OAR. The IIHF are the ones who decide to whom they award the points too, they are not beholden to anyone, they have in the past awarded the points to Russia when the Olympics considered the CIS as the winners so its is completely possible for them to award points to an entity other than the one the Olympics consider to have won the gold. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether or not the Russian Men's Ice Hockey Team earned the Olympic Gold Medal. It is irrelevant which NOC placed them into the tournament. For example, the entity that earned the Olympic Gold Medal and the Olympic Silver Medal is Alina Zagitova, who earned the Gold Medal through an individual event and the Silver Medal through the team event. Both medals are credited to Zagitova by the IOC. Zagitova, as well as the Russian Figure Skating Team, performed under the Russian National Flag in most other competitions. The question facing us isn't which NOC placed the Russian Men's Ice Hockey Team into the tournament; the question is - did the Russian Men's Ice Hockey Team earn the Gold Medal? The answer - yes, yes they did. The article is about the Russians Men's Ice Hockey Team, not the Russian Olympic Committee, and not the CIS Olympic Team. Furthermore, the IIHF cannot award points to teams that did not participate, because athletes cannot earn points without participating in events, which is contrary to your assertions; those are just wrong. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in response to your claim: "To be honest, I am not to sure anybody won't be punished yet, they have stripped medals for political statements on winning in the past, so they could very well be building a case to do just that. However, that is just conjecture at this point" erm, about that: http://www.theolympian.com/sports/article202121934.html "Russia's imminent return from a doping suspension won't be derailed because its hockey players sang their national anthem, the International Olympic Committee said Monday. The Russian men's team defied IOC rules by belting out the anthem at their medal ceremony following Sunday's 4-3 overtime win against Germany in the gold-medal game. Russian fans at the match also sang along. "We understand that this was over excitement by the athletes who had just won a gold medal in extraordinary circumstances," the IOC said in an e-mailed statement to The Associated Press." Winning any hockey final in overtime is considered a victory in extraordinary circumstances. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, conjecture. In other words I could see it happening, not that it would/will happen. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They just said it's not going to happen. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
People say a lot of things until they actually happen. -DJSasso (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just "people", it's the goddamn IOC. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the IOC saying that it won't affect the Russians, cited a World recognized reason that the IOC gave, and his response was "people talk" - so I'm just not sure what else I can say. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The answer wasn't directed towards you. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dude it wasn't even regarding putting anything in the page. It was just an off handed comment you originally took way too seriously (ie going as far as citing a source). It is not like I was suggesting putting in the article that they are going to strip the medal. You got a little ridiculous. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was a faulty supposition, that I discredited, that you reiterated after it was discredited. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually didn't reiterate it, I just said a lot of things get said by officials that aren't always true. Opinions change all the time. -DJSasso (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is pure speculation. We are not interested in what might (or might not) happen, we are interested in what has happened as of right now (statements by the IOC saying it won't do anything about it????, the IIHF scoring this result as being from the Russian team), and that clearly discredits the arguments that the IOC might strip it and that it wasn't earned by this very team, therefore rendering both arguments invalid. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course its speculation, I specifically said I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. I didn't even say I thought it would happen. It wasn't even an argument, it was merely stating I wouldn't be surprised. (but to be fair they didn't say they wouldn't do anything, they only said it wouldn't derail Russia's return) -DJSasso (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly ad ignorantiam ("they didn't say they wouldn't ..."). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it was claimed they said they wouldn't, but they didn't actually say they wouldn't. Its a factual statement. -DJSasso (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. The message of the IOC is being interpreted by reliable (secondary) sources as saying they wouldn't do anything about it. The fact they didn't actually say using the exact words is irrelevant, and interpreting it based on that is where the ad ignorantiam lies. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another break

[edit]

If the IOC doesn't recognize the 17 medals as belonging to Russia? then we'll remove them from this article & other related articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IOC gave 25 medals to individual hockey players not 17. We are discussing whether the hockey team is representing the National Olympic Committee, or whether the Russian Ice Hockey Federation is the participant who won the gold.18abruce (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying: 2 gold, 6 silver & 9 bronze for 17 total medals across all sports, not only hockey. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't care about the other sports, only hockey (in this instance). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Already know that. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And synthesizing previous arguments: the IOC not attributing the medal to the Russian NOC is not relevant. This team is, technically, a participant. Participants get recognized for receiving medals, and that, whichever NOC they happen to be competing for. Furthermore, the ultimate authority for ice hockey (even at the Olympics) is the IIHF - an example of this is that the IIHF (not the IOC) was responsible for determining which of the teams qualified for the tournament. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What ever the IOC decides, I'll go with. This concerns the Winter Olympics, not the World Ice Hockey Championships. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's exactly what I'm saying we don't care about. The IOC awarded the medal to a participant (this, the Russian men's national ice hockey team) which was representing, in this case, the OAR (which is pretty much like an NOC for the purposes of this discussion). When, say, Andy Murray won gold in tennis at the 2016 Olympics, nobody said the medal was given to "Great Britain" - the medal was given to Murray, and yes, it was part of the medals won by athletes from Great Britain, but it still was won by the participant (in this case, Murray) and not by the British NOC. Same thing for team sports - if team X from country X wins a medal, the medal is won by the team, no matter which country it is representing. The IIHF is the final authority regarding ice hockey (even at the Olympics, see my previous statement), and if it determines the team which participated and won gold at the Olympics is this team (and hence attributes points to it), then we must take it as fact and properly attribute the medal to this team (whether it was representing OAR, or Russia, or some other place). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except the participant wasn't the Russian men's national ice hockey team. It was the Olympic Athletes from Russia men's hockey team. And yes we do say the medal won by Andy Murray was won by the British NOC, though obviously we also indicate the individual. Hence the medal counts that tabulate the medals won by NOC. It is not the final authority when it comes to hockey at the Olympics. The IOC is. The IIHF deals with the World Championships. Now they also take care of rankings, but how they decide rankings is up to them. The IOC and the IIHF has officially in the past declared medals belonging to two different groups for the same games. The IOC considers the 92 medal to belong to the CIS while the IIHF gave it to Russia. It is very likely the same thing has/will happen here which is why most people have said we need to wait to see how the dust settles. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the Olympics, the IIHF official website and the Olympics ice hockey official website (note the .iihf in the URL) say otherwise - the IIHF is responsible for those events. And the IIHF considers the "OAR ice hockey team" and the "Russian ice hockey team" to be one and the same (whether it's for qualifying or ranking purposes). Therefore Q.E.D. We can of course slip a note to the fact that they participated under the "OAR" label (which is what is already in the article), but there is no other change necessary. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone heard of the IOC decision, yet? GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are the only decisions the IOC has made so far about this. Nothing about the medals whatsoever, so we are stuck (well, IMHO, not a negative) the current situation. I don't think there's any other decision upcoming, so we will probably be stuck (again, not a negative) with the current situation for a while. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Seasons

[edit]

The Russian hockey team had perfect IIHF Championships, 10/10 wins in a row, in 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2014. The team also had a 29 game winning streak from 2008 to 2010 in the IIHF World Championships. Should this be noted in the article? 47.144.144.50 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reported by a reliable source (i.e. it's notable) or it's just the conclusion one can make from looking at statistics and match results? If it is the former, fine, but otherwise there's no point in including it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to look at the sources year by year. The 2014 source was easy to find - http://www.iihfworlds2014.com/en/news/land-of-winners/ - but 2008 and 2009 would be a bit tougher. Would that source work for 2014? "The head of state had already congratulated the players in the Minsk Arena locker room moments after Sunday’s 5-2 victory over Finland put the trophy back in Russia’s hands and completed a perfect record in the tournament." 47.144.144.50 (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yeah, the source for 2014 works on a factual, WP:NOR basis but it's a primary source and it's not necessarily sufficient to prove the importance of the information - i.e. is it just some sports fan trivia or is it really remarkable and a crucial part of the topic (i.e. meets encyclopedic standards), in which case it would also be reported in secondary sources like newspapers). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article from Russia's President's Website, confirming the importance of the flawless 2014 Victory: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/21103 as well as the Moscow Times: https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russia-beats-finland-to-win-ice-hockey-world-championship-35792 one of the leading opposition newspapers, both cheering on the Russians, and signaling the importance of the flawless 2014 Victory for Russia. Would this be enough to add it to the article? 47.144.144.50 (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most certainly, yes. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality of coaches

[edit]

Rather than get into an edit war regarding what nationality Znarok is, perhaps it would be simpler to just remove the flag from the coaches, as it really isn't that relevant to the article, and will solve a lot of problems. Thoughts? Kaiser matias (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good yes, especially in the case of Znarok. And then, for consistency, for the other coaches too.  Done 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion. My only question is this: should we discuss Znarok's nationality at all in this article, or should it be reserved for the article focusing solely on Znarok? I think that nationality is irrelevant for this article. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be unanimous - Znarok's nationality is not relevant enough to warrant a flag - much less to have something written about it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, Kaiser and I just edited Znarok's page to state "Oleg Valerievich Znarok (Russian: Олег Валерьевич Знарок, born 2 January 1963) is a Soviet-Latvian-German professional ice hockey player and coach who represented the USSR and Latvia, internationally, and currently represents Russia." in the opening paragraph, so if someone is truly desperate to find out his information, it's a click and a second away. I never saw the point for flags in the article, especially since most of the names are clickable, and have good articles, where the information belongs.47.144.144.50 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to User 174.114.236.142

[edit]

"OAR does not count as Olympic gold for Russia. That was the whole point of the ban. Russia has ZERO gold medals in Olympic men’s hockey."

We've already determined, as a Wikipedia Community, that the entity known as the Russian Men's National Hockey Team, has the Olympic Gold Medal from the 2018 PyongChang Olympics. A different entity, known as the ROC, does not. This article is about the former, not the latter. User:174.114.236.142 please refrain from further destructive edits, otherwise you may be reported for WP:VANDAL. Tomcat7, thank you for keeping watch over the article. In this article, we patiently discuss all major changes that we plan to make to the article, and once the community has spoken, we make said changes. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes

[edit]

User 62.141.116.58 changed the following text:

"the Russian team was allowed to participate" to "the majority of Russian players were allowed to participate" - which is factually incorrect. Perhaps said user can explain to me how the majority of Russian players could've played, if the team wasn't allowed to participate? The article is about the team, not the players. It's titled Russia Men's National Ice Hockey Team. Second, Pavel Datsyuk is mentioned in the article four times - is there really another reason to add him yet again, twice? He's arguably the World's best player, but still, it's not an article about Datsyuk. I should also note that SKA, which has Datsyuk, and Kovalchuk, and Voynov, is losing to CSKA in the KHL semi-finals, and is one loss away from elimination, so I'm unsure why we should have the trio mentioned here above their fellow teammates. On a minor note, the accepted English spelling of his last name is Datsyuk, not Datsuyk, as per NHL rules: https://www.nhl.com/player/pavel-datsyuk-8467514 Third, the NHL has enough quality Russian players, as well as Swedes, Finns, and Czechs - to form a team: http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/nationality-totals/nhl-players-2017-18-stats.html The clear majority of players are Americans and Canadians, but that didn't stop the Swedes and Czechs from winning in 2006 and 1998. The Americans, despite the NHL, haven't won since 1980. The Canadians, despite the NHL not being as active as the KHL in the World Championship, won in 2015 and 2016, and were in the finals in 2017. The user even admits his bias: "some clarifications, let's balance the article. you mention that 1992 was comprised of 26 Russian players implying that it was mostly Russian victory. now we need to state that Russia won mostly because of NHL decision" The claim that Russia won mostly because of an NHL decision, is an unproven, biased, assertion. The implications are your own. I stated a fact. Most of the 26 players were indeed Russians. Whatever implications that one made, were his or her own implications. However, you are trying to pass off an implication as a fact, which violates WP:NPOV. Please discuss further edits here before making them. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EHT Table

[edit]

This section:

Tournament Summary

[edit]

Looks really messy. Is there a way that we can somehow make it into a table and save the links to the competitions? 47.144.144.50 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while - any objections if I remove this section from the article? The data's already located in a table that I made. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TomCat for fixing the issue! 47.144.144.50 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once Again, This is Not Your Editorial Page

[edit]

Look, I get that some are upset that despite the odds, Russia still won at the Olympics, but this is not your page to editorialize or belittle. This time it was Skaterzen. First, the "base club" concept was only used by Znarok at the Olympics, whereas this article is about Russia's Hockey Team since inception. We cannot go into each Olympics or World Championship in such detail, otherwise the article will become too bloated. Second, inserting personalized adjectives into the article, such as "ultimately", is pointless. In any Gold Medal Game, it is irrelevant whether the team won the game in regulation or overtime. Russia's greatest 21st Century Victory thus far, came in the 2008 World Championship, in overtime. Yet no one, between 2008 and today, said that they "ultimately" won that game. Third, the tournament did not become the contest of the base club model, because only Znarok and a few others employed it. There's also no evidence to show that Russia would've lost if the base club model wasn't used. On top of that, the 21st century concept of the base club model wasn't even applied. Fifth, Znarok's criticism was that he favored certain clubs over others, not that he used the base club model. Sixth, the base club model was used by the Soviet National Team, and was most certainly not developed by Znarok. Seventh, pointless speculation as to whether or not Russia would've won if the NHLers played, is pointless. NHLers participating in the World Championship didn't prevent Russian Victories in 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2014. In 2006, the Americans had more NHLers, than the Swedes, but the Swedes won the Gold Medal, whereas the Americans and Canadians finished in the bottom half. Please stop it with the rampant speculation. Russia won. As OAR. We're just here to write the facts. Not adjectives. 47.144.144.50 (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Yosemiter's Revision

[edit]

First: the revision failed to use proper English. You can say that the "Russian team was cleared to participate" before the event occurred. After the event occurred, the correct language is "the Russian National Hockey Team participated" because "to participate" falsely implies that the event is yet to occur.

Second: the IIHF awarded the point to the Russian National Hockey Team. It was not a consideration; it was an award.

Third: the Top Six implies top placement of the teams; for instance, Belarus can finish in the Top Six. The proper reference is Big Six, as used throughout the hockey community. It's even been mentioned by the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/11/sports/olympics-hockey-nhl-and-its-teams-send-players-to-bench.html the CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl-announces-world-cup-of-hockey-for-2016-1.2930670 the NHL: https://www.nhl.com/news/world-cup-of-hockey-set-to-return-in-2016/c-750156 (which acknowledged the Big Four) and so on.

Fourth: the European Big Four are not the only teams that play in the European Hockey Tour: http://www.eurohockey.com/stats/league/2018/1141-euro-hockey-tour.html 47.144.143.169 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@47.144.143.169: I'll go point by point.
  1. The team was, in fact, cleared to participate prior to the tournament by the IOC. As in, each and every Russian athlete submitted to an IOC review before they could join any Olympic event. The Russian National Team players were cleared to participate. I have no particular problem with your intent, but you seem to have missed the point of statement or do not understand its meaning.
  2. The word "consider" is defined by Merriam-Webster as to take into account; or to come to judge or classify. Again, this was to show that one ranking body does consider OAR to be the Russian team, even if the IOC does not.
  3. Big Six is fine.
  4. Big Four is a bit more vague. The Euro Hockey Tour is exclusive to those four teams though, regardless or how good other teams may be at the time, so it might be better to just say "in the Euro Hockey Tour" for example, instead.
I will also say, you should NOT have fully reverted because many of my edits that you are not objecting to were cleanup edits so that did nor sound WP:EDITORIAL (in particular: "which contrasted sharply with..." is implying an non-neutral POV as opposed to my "below...", which implies nothing, it simply states that it is). Also removing the note about the "through the first half of the 18-19 Euro Tour" again takes away from the POV of the article. Not to mention removing my MOS:DASH fixes, adding wikilinks, and taking out other probelamtic words. This why we are supposed to collaborate on editing, not simply say "mine was better, yours was bad" like your revert implied. Yosemiter (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it's not bias, it's basic English. "To participate" implies that the event has yet to occur. "Participated" means that the event already occurred. Since the event already occurred, "participated" is the proper way to address it. It's not about what the IOC says. It's about using past tense to describe past events, and using present tense to describe present events. This is how basic English works, something we learned in elementary school. It was reinforced in middle school, high school, and college. Last time I checked, the IOC was not responsible for mastery of the English language, and this article is about Russia's hockey team, not the IOC. From the perspective of Russia's hockey team, the event already occurred. Furthermore, the European Hockey Tour is not exclusive to those four teams. Last year, Canada, Switzerland, and South Korea participated. I linked to a source clearly showing that, and yet you continue to insist on exclusivity, in spite of the facts presented. Regarding the sharp contrast, I am beginning to think that English is not your first language, as stating that a 1-6 record contrasts sharply with a 6-1 record is a mere statement of fact, rather than an opinion. You are welcome to link numerous WP policies, but this is an English Wikipedia, meaning that we have to follow the rules of the English language. 47.144.143.169 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Also, just to clarify I was using 2017-2018 team to make the contrast, since Russia had different players in 2013-2014 than in 2017-2018, so it wouldn't be an accurate comparison for EHT purposes. 47.144.143.169 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is what needed to be stated, not some vague "Znarok had a better record". Perhaps, a Znarok's record with the 2017–18 team was 5-1 or something, but the record had no source to back it up. I would actually advocate for removing the comparison entirely because in sounds like an WP:EDITORIAL comment to begin with. Yosemiter (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Znarok has a better record. That's not vague at all, it's a fact. A seasoned Olympic Champion is going to have a better record than a rookie, that's nothing to be ashamed of. The original edit made sense. Vorobiev is new as a head coach, so comparing his record to a more seasoned head coach makes sense in his section of the article. Prior to your edits, the article was better. You degraded it. When I tried to explain to you that saying "cleared to participate" is different than saying "participated" you accused me of edit warring. Also, there was a source for Znarok's 5-1 record, it just needed to be updated, so here you go: http://www.eurohockey.com/league/1141-euro-hockey-tour.html?season=2018 47.144.143.169 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it now for your intent, but next time, actually state a direct comparison. There was no time frame or series specified for the initial comparison, hence, it simply said that Znarok was better without any parameters. Stating explicitly how and when was critical to that sentence. But simply reverting every to say "I'm right, you're wrong" without fixing it is entirely inappropriate behavior here. Try collaborating next time instead being combative. Yosemiter (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intent. It already existed in the article, before your edit, and Good Day's not good revert. The intent was obvious to people who understand hockey. Let me use a scenario that everyone's familiar with - school. You compare student A's score on X test, to student B's score on X test. You don't compare student A's score on Y test, to student B's score on X test. That's the equivalent situation here. The source needed updating, and that's all I did, which to Good Day was equivalent of taking ownership of the article. If this is how Wikipedia treats new editors, I can see why it's viewed so poorly in the research community, and editors such as yourself and Good Day are certainly contributing to said stereotype. Have a good day. 47.144.143.169 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I quote the previous version: "Ilya Vorobiev was hired as the interim head coach of the Russian national hockey team, and been given the tasks to win the Euro Hockey Tour and the 2018 IIHF World Championship. Under Vorobiev, the Russian Team had a 1–5 record at the European Hockey Tour, which contrasted sharply with Znarok's 5–1 record"

Nowhere in the above statement said anything about a 5–1 record in the 2017–18 season. There was no time frame reference, so yes it could be misinterpreted. Per your example, the above was "compare student A's score, to student B's score" with no given context (or specific test at all). It only mentioned the EHT and Znarok clearly coached more than six games in all the EHT. I was trying to add context as it appeared that it was implying that under Vorobiev, the team started poorly compared to how it started under Znarok. But instead of helping or clarifying, you kept reverting. There was not a single mention of comparing Voboviev's 2017–18 EHT record to Znarok's 2017–18 EHT record. In fact, the 2017–18 EHT comparison was never mentioned by any one until a few comments above. So remember next time, context in a sentence is key.

Now it is: "Ilya Vorobiev was hired as the interim head coach of the Russian national hockey team in April 2018 for the 2018 IIHF World Championship and the second half of 2017–18 Euro Hockey Tour. Under Vorobiev, the Russian team had a 1–5 record at the 2018 Carlson Hockey Games and 2018 Sweden Hockey Games in the Euro Hockey Tour, after Znarok had led the team to a 5–1 record in the first half of 2017–18 Euro Hockey Tour."

Once your stated what was meant by the comparison, I fixed the context. Done and done. Now try collaborating with others instead of fighting. Yosemiter (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I expected that editors would be honest enough to edit articles in their areas of expertise. For those of us who follow the NFL, we know that the 2018 season precedes the 2019 playoffs. It's basic knowledge. For those who follow European hockey, we know that the 2017-2018 EHT season precedes the 2018 IIHF championship. It's basic knowledge. I can understand inserting the dates so that people who are new to hockey have that information, but I expect someone editing an article about a European hockey team to grasp the basics of European hockey. Clearly, I was wrong to have such lofty expectations. Furthermore, you accuse me of fighting, but you were the one who made the initial degrading edits; when Good Day falsely accused me of taking ownership, you knew he was wrong, but you took advantage of it; when you asked me to avoid reverting your MOS:DASH, the sole reason that I had to make more than two edits, you were quick to accuse me of violating 3RR. After I patiently explained to you that saying the equivalent of "student A successfully registered for X test" implies that X test has yet to occur, and the correct language was "student A took X test" - you ignored it, and accused me of fighting. And now here you are once again, accusing me of fighting. You even refused to compare Znarok's record with Vorobiev's record, merely mentioning them instead. You even mentioned specific games with Vorobiev, while mentioning the EHT season with Znarok, heroically dubbing that an improvement. And I'm somehow supposed to thank you for that? I guess that is the expectation here. 47.144.143.169 (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Break

[edit]
@47.144.143.169: Last I checked "cleared" is past tense verb, as in "cleared to do something at that point in time by subject/noun (IOC)" or "cleared to be a participant". (As that was actually a speculated at that time about whether they would be allowed to participate as used in this article: Olympics: IOC confirms 169 Russians cleared to compete in Pyeongchang.) Also, my grasp on English is just fine, thank you very much, so please stop making assumptions/condescending. As to to Znarok's 5-1 vs 4-2 record, where is you source? Here is mine for the 2014–15 EHT (shows first six games were 4-0-1-1). Znarok was hired in March 2014. I could not find sources for his first games as Russian National Team coach, but it appeared the 2014 IIHF was the first, and the team started 7-0 (so still does not match the 5-1). If you want to count the first games by the Russian team after he was hired, it appears to be the 2014 Oddset Hockey Games (which as I stated in my edit summary, it does not appear he was there) and that team went 1-0-0-2, so again already cannot be 5-1. So please, explain why you continue to revert me without a good reason? (Yes I was wrong about the 2017–18 EHT, my bad as I do not watch it. I simply checked Euro Hockey Tour and they were not listed. However, does not change that I never added that into the actual article itself, so it was not like I damaged anything there. I was checking the other "facts" for WP:V.)

But I am done with this. I made it more neutral and you continue show ownership tendencies by making straight reverts without collaboration even to well established Wikipedia:Manual of Style edits. (By the way, you have now reverted edits to this article three times, putting you subject to WP:3RR as well, and another reason I am just done with this article.) Yosemiter (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared to participate implies that the team will participate. It does not imply that the event where the team participated already took place. In fact, it implies that the event is yet to occur. When people said that Presidential Candidate cleared the primary and is headed for the general election, they are saying that the general election has yet to occur. Wikipedia articles are supposed to improve over time, rather than degrade over time. Once we get more information, we add that information into the article. As for Znarok's 5-1 record, I presumed that whomever wrote that into the article, was comparing one coach's performance in the 2017-2018 season, to another coach's performance in the 2017-2018 season. I have never heard of a sports analyst, radio host, anyone with an iota of knowledge in sports, compare different seasons for different coaches when they had the option to compare different coaches' performance in the same season. Thea actual comparison had merit; your comparison is just flat out made up. In the 2013-2014 season Znarok didn't have Voynov or Kovalchuk, so of course different coaches are going to perform differently with different players - that's kind of a duh! It's a completely bogus and meritless comparison, which now graces the article due to your faulty edits. Speaking of things that are meritless, your WP:3RR claim is up there, as the 3RR rule clearly states that the edits should be done within 24 hours: The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. I split a single revert into three edits, since you asked me to not revert your MOS:DASH. If I didn't adhere to your request, it would've just been a single revert. 47.144.143.169 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more interested in who the out of nowhere IP is & why it's exhibiting ownership behavior at this article. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in why basic English, or comparing one coach's performance in the 2017-2018 year to another coach's performance in the 2017-2018 year are issues that are tough to grasp. Also, I didn't come out of nowhere, I've been editing this article since December 21st, as my history clearly shows. Regarding the ownership charge: the article was fine until Yosemiter showed up and made three changes. The first change stated that the Russian Hockey Team was cleared to participate in an event, but the event already took place. Thus the original article, before Yosemiter's edit, used proper English. The second was to claimed that the IIHF "considered the considered the OAR games for the Russian team in its rankings" - whereas the IIHF actually awarded these points. Once again, the original article, prior to Yosemiter's edit, was correct. Yosermiter's third edit made me suspicious of his hockey knowledge, as the Big Six is a well known hockey reference, that he knew nothing about, attempting to pretend that it's the top six. All of these edits were made by Yosemiter, without any discussion.
I'm just trying to return the article to its original form, which was correct, rather than taking ownership of it. Yosemiter's edits degraded the article. He further decided that it would make more sense to compare different coaches' performance during different seasons, rather than comparing said coaches' performance during the same season, an edit, that you, "GoodDay" backed. Do you also believe that it's more valuable to compare different coaches' performance during different seasons, rather than to compare their performance during the same season? And when you cannot attack the argument, you attack me under a faulty claim, as if trying to undo bad edits equates to taking ownership of the article. Not good indeed. 47.144.143.169 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points. 1. 'was cleared' (the past perfect tense) is the correct english verb structure for that sentence. 2. Yosemiter is correct that the IIHF considered the OAR games for the Russian team in its rankings, in fact they maintained that the russian team qualified and participated as the official IOC pages indicated, and their representative was a dignitary at the games. Argumentative perhaps. I have no opinion on the coaching records, appears rather trivial to me.18abruce (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"was cleared to participate" implies that the event is yet to occur; you have to read the whole sentence. "Participated" implies that the event already occurred, which is the case here. The IIHF awarded the points to the Russian Men's National Hockey Team, since the RMNHT received the points at the award ceremony; it was not a mere consideration. 47.144.143.169 (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "was" here makes it past tense, and is quite evident in the wording. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the changes

[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry if my edits came across as brash, as I did not think that an update had to be explained and my goal was solely to updated the article. So let me address the concerns raised by a more seasoned editor: revert unexplained deletion of material and incorrect capitalization of headers

I only deleted two parts, and here is the first one:
Vorobiev became the first Russian head coach to hold a 6–8 overall record after the Euro Hockey Tour and the World Championship and the first to hold a 1–8 record against the other Big Six hockey teams.[citation needed]
The reason for it was the citation needed tag that is over a year old. We can keep it if someone cites it, but having an alleged factoid that wasn't cited for over a year, in fact over a year and a half, seems a bit careless when talking about a Big Six hockey team. Here is the second one:
The Russians started 5–1 in the first half of 2018–19 Euro Hockey Tour, improving Vorobiev's overall record to 11–9 and 6–9 against the other Big Six hockey teams
The citation here is to the Euro Hockey Tour, not to Vorobiev's record against the other Big Six teams, which is still uncited. Hence the removal. To reiterate: it was solely removed for lack of citation and nothing else. If anyone can find a citation, we can keep it. If not, let us delete it.


Also, I am not sure why this part:

The Russians finished 8-4 in the 2018-2019 Euro Hockey Tour,[1] and earned the silver medal in the 2019 World Ice Hockey Championship. However, after going 3-6 in the following 2019–20 Euro Hockey Tour Vorobiev was replaced with Bragin. That year's World Championship was cancelled due to COVID-19.

was deleted. It's simply an update. I am going to wait until we decide on the issue of the citation and I am also going to update the article with an update, as I do not see what Wikipedia rules updating the article would be breaking, but I am always willing to learn! 47.144.148.147 (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Elite Prospect 2018-2019 EHT".

Infobox: medals listed

[edit]

The medals won by the Soviet men's nationa team, should be deleted from this page's infobox. The Soviet & Russian teams, should be treated as separate entities. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russia_men%27s_national_ice_hockey_team&oldid=1200875893"