Talk:Ice hockey at the Olympic Games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Sports Olympics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Olympic Games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.

Contents 1 1980 mistake 2 Combined USSR/Russia results? 3 Introduction section 4 Combined NOC results, yet again

[edit] 1980 mistake

The match between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. was not the gold-silver game, but the one before it. Did not the U.S. then defeat Finland for the gold, and the Soviets winning the Bronze? --Chr.K. 00:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

They didn't do a tournament style back then, there was a "medal round", and the medals were awarded based on standing. Therefore, the US-Finland game wasn't a "gold medal game" in the sense that we know it today, but rather the game to see if the US would finish atop the standings. When we beat Finland, we clinched the top spot. Had we lost, we would've ended up with the silver. Anthony Hit me up... 17:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combined USSR/Russia results?

what is with the medal table??? 37 medals for teh ussr/russia?

Fixed Jizz 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit - This medals table is fucked up more than that. USSR+unified+russia is wrong and the unified team are missing. It's really confusing with multiple entries for the USSR and Czechoslovakia and Germany. I'm going to tidy this up and remove combined entries.Jizz 19:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit2: It's wrong, you have to put USSR+unified+russia together. (see official tables at olympic.org)

I seriously doubt, if such tables are available there. Rankings of nations by medals won aren't officially recognized by the IOC. Generally, I believe, that UT, USSR and Russia should be distinguished, at least because they had separate IOC country codes: EUN, URS and RUS respectively. Cmapm 22:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There are NO tables at olympic.org [1] that combine these NOCs together. Search the database for medal winners in ice hockey (by team) and you get specific medal winners for URS, EUN and RUS. Look at the medal tables for each games, and you'll see the appropriate NOC for each games (URS: 1956-88, EUN: 1992, and RUS: 1994-2006). The anonymous editor above clearly has an agenda and is pretending some "official tables" exist and prove this point. They don't. Andrwsc 21:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest adding number of country's participations at the Olympics into the medal table. Because,although Canada is higher in the rankings now, it participated more times than, say the USSR. Cmapm 22:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions, I have removed the combined USSR/Russia row in the medal table and added years to the countries that have changed. I used Winter Olympics medal count as a model of how to present this. Andrwsc 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Noticed another error. Germany's first medal was won before WW2 and so should be counted as "Germany" and not "West Germany" Jizz 20:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, good catch. This is consistent with Winter Olympics medal count, Andrwsc 21:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have had to add the dispute tag to get admin attention. We're past the 3 revert rule. This topic was debated to death on Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions, and the consensus was clear. Revisionist medal standings are fairly obvious NPOV violations. Since medal tables are always contentious, I might suggest that we delete the medal table altogether, and simply use just the by-Olympic results table. It's short enough that a reader can add up the totals as they choose. Andrwsc 21:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only. IOC & other organizations haven't official standart for such kind of tables. All such tables in Wikipedia aren't official & are presented only for the information. More information in table it is better. Therefore I have added the combined account for some countries in this table and have left as the account for UT, USSR, Russia, Germany, GDR, FRG, Czechoslovakia and Czech separately. Russia is a officially recognized by UN and by IOC as successor of the USSR for all things, including sport too. Unified team of Germany 1952-1968 is successor of Germany 1896-1936. GDR and FRG now one uniform country and their medals now the general. My variant of the table is more detailed and has more information. 88.152.202.122 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a POV issue, as has been debated in great amounts on Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions. Have you read that page? I realize that Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but you can't decide for yourself that you don't like a particular standard or guideline and blatantly ignore it. I will add some footnotes to the table to try to help this situation, but your solution is clearly confusing. I have requested administrator intervention; please stop reverting or you will be blocked and/or this page protected. Andrwsc 20:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Russia is the successor of the USSR, but it's not the same state. See e.g. the IOC website (results database) - Russia, Unified Team and the Soviet Union are clearly distinguished. Cmapm 01:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes in general are irrelevant and confusing IMHO - what about addition of similar ones to all articles with Olympic medal count tables for overall confusion, heh? :) Besides, for the USSR the footnote contains mostly irrelevant inf. Should we add tons of other footnotes - for all qualifiers for all Olympics? It would be the total nonsense. Cmapm 01:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote those footnotes, but I agree with you - they are irrelevant and confusing. I only wrote them as an attempt to placate User:88.152.202.122 who persists in changing the medal table to suit her/his whims, in opposition to the agreement reached at Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions with respect to medal tables. Since she/he has reverted yet again, with no explanation, I presume the effort was wasted. Andrwsc 19:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

When he/she reverts without any explanations we are free to revert back as did Jizz. Cmapm 19:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to get administrator attention. The same user is vandalizing a handful of other pages too, also using various sockpuppet user names (e.g. User:Alexr23. For example, she/he is changing the 2002 medal counts to subtract from Canada and add to Russia so that Russia is "ahead" in the table, and has also vandalized a figure skating result to put a Russian ahead of an American (1996 World Championships). That tells me that it's not just a point of view issue here (i.e. should we tabulate URS/EUN/RUS together or not?) but outright vandalism based on some hatred of Canada and the US. Andrwsc 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

He/she also introduced the same "multiple-confusing-entries-table" to the Ice Hockey World Championships some time ago. I'll also check whether he/she "added some medals" to Russia/USSR. I leaved a notice on the talk page, but hockey tournaments are over and nobody seems to take care of the article :) Knowing that he/she is just a vandal, I'll go and change the article back myself in a while. Cmapm 01:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, he/she "adjusted" medal count there. For 1976 he/she moved Czechoslovakia on the 2nd place and the USSR - to the first and changed tables "properly". Now I agree, this is a vandal! Cmapm 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am non a vandal! OK I wrong about Russian and American figurist(1996 World Championships), but about this table and the 2002 olympic medal counts I am not wrong! Russia is a officially recognized by UN and by IOC as successor USSR. OK Russia is not the 100% same state, but Russian Olympic Committee сontinues to consider and add her medals to USSR and Unified Team of CIS medals. Unified Team of CIS was 100% team of former USSR! Many countries have changed the names, however it does not mean that their medals have disappeared and do not pass to their successor! Wikipedia it is free for eddit and this information only have more data. IOC & other organizations haven't official standart for such kind of tables. Therefore it can be changed. It is not a false information. It is simple more details for data. I do not delete, and opposite I leave the personal information for these countries, only I add the generalized information. IOC & other organizations haven't official standart for such kind of tables. If them haven't official standart, Wikipedia haven't official standart too and its form should be free! Therefore it can be changed. I am not based on some hatred of Canada and the US. I have not some against them! According to Russian Olympic Committee, Russian Ministry of Sports, all officials Russian sites, Sports Almanac and many other sources it is correct for Russia. Russia win 6 gold, 6 silver, 4 bronze and total 16 medals! For Russia these sites are the most exact!User:88.152.202.122 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

May be you are not a vandal, but you introduce factual errors by almost each of your edits. For example, check your sources first and see, who was the World Champion in 1976 - all known to me say it was Czechoslovakia, not the USSR (USSR was 1976 Olympic Champion, but not World Champion).

And once again: 1.USSR consisted of 15 republics, not only of one - Russia 2. USSR and Russia have separate IOC country codes URS and RUS, even USSR NOC and Russian NOC are not the same - USSR NOC ceased to exist in 1992 and Russian NOC was formed on 1991. 3. Your inf. is confusing and is not simple and clear - e.g. one can think, that USSR jointly with Russia won x medals, plus USSR alone won y medals.

And after all, please, provide exact links to sources, where Russian and Soviet medals are summed up in one table - e.g. I explored Russian NOC website (http://www.roc.ru/) and didn't find anything similar to that. Cmapm 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are not adding "more details"; they are adding misleading and confusing information. When you include totals for different NOCs twice, the totals don't add up. It is fairly obvious that you are adding a non-neutral point of view to these tables. Our job on Wikipedia is to present information with a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In this case, it means that we tabulate counts for each NOC code individually. It is clear and unambiguous. URS, EUN and RUS are different NOCs (as are TCH, CZE and SVK, and as were GER, EUA, FRG, and GDR). By combining them, you are interpreting the data instead of presenting it as it is. Your interpretation is different from that of other editors. The only way to satisfy everyone is to leave the interpretation to the reader. That is why a neutral point of view is so important to Wikipedia, and that is why these table must be clearly, logically, organized by NOC code only. Again, our job is to report historical events, not to provide opinion on them. Andrwsc 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK you are right the World Champion in 1976. USSR NOC ceased to exist in 1991, not in 1992. USSR and Russian Olympic Committees not different National Olympic Committees. It is formally change (replace) one to other. It have different NOC code codes, because the organization has replaced a name. For an example: Burma had a NOC code-BIR, now when Burma has replaced the name to Myanmar-the code was replaced also to MYA, but it does not mean that their medals have disappeared and do not pass to their successor! We have many such examples. It concerns also the USSR and Russia. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only. Russian National Olympic Committee does not recognise global ranking,therefore you can not see such table in site http://www.olympic.ru/ , but you can see history and results of Russian Olympic Teem in this site http://www.olympic.ru/ru/olympics_5.asp and you will understand all, that Russian Olympic Committee сontinues to consider and add her medals to USSR and Unified Team of CIS medals. Such tables with combined USSR, CIS and Russian medals you can see in many sources: Sports Almanac, in the book of records of Ginness and many encyclopedias. Other National Olympic Committees of former 14 republics of USSR do not do it. It all concerns also to Germany. It is logical and should be clear that after reunification of Germany and unification National Olympic Committees of Germany of a medal the won by FRG and by GDR-summarize, instead of have disappeared or are not count. About my inf. is confusing and is not simple and clear - e.g. one can think, that USSR jointly with Russia won x medals, plus USSR alone won y medals- you are wrong - In brackets dates are written and any little bit competent person will understand it! I was right too about 2002 Winter Olympics Games According to Russian Olympic Committee, Russian Ministry of Sports sites and many other sources it is correct for Russia. Russia win 6 gold, 6 silver, 4 bronze and total 16 medals! For Russia these sites are the most exact! User:88.152.202.122 18:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to respond to your vandalism of the 2002 games results first. I have shown you the discrepancy between the IOC results and the www.olympic.ru web page. Two Russian cross-country skiiers were disqualified for doping offences and stripped of their medals. You continue to state that this source is "most exact" "for Russia". Does that mean that Russia does not recognize the IOC's punishment of those athletes? Or does it mean that you blindly follow their web page without realizing that it may be out of date? Either way, your stubborn refusal to consider any other information tells me that you do NOT have a neutral point of view, which is essential for Wikipedia editing. That is also my point with respect to your continuous vandalism of the table on this page. By presenting different combinations of medal totals, you are introducing a non-neutral point of view. You are trying to interpret the raw data. These combinations introduce political bias. They are disrespectful to the citizens/supporters of the other nations involved (e.g. TCH+CZE is extremely disrespectful to SVK, which has a very good hockey team, and combining URS+RUS is similarly disrespectful to the national teams of BLR, KAZ, LAT, UKR, etc.) At Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions, the (long) debate concluded that we will show unambiguous counts only, so as to avoid these complications. You continue to disregard this agreement by stating that Wikipedia is free for editing. That argument doesn't work here: Wikipedia is not a free place to express a non-neutral point of view. Andrwsc 19:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw that article, but there isn't any table. Besides, this your statement:"you can see history and results of Russian Olympic Teem in..." doesn't imply this one: "Committee сontinues to consider and add her medals to USSR and Unified Team". For example, see a similar article on history of Belarus at the Olympics at the NOC of Belarus site (http://www.noc.by/html/games/1952-1994.html). On both websites is written "Russia/Belarus won..." for Olympics after 1992, "CIS won..." for 1992 and "USSR won..." prior to the 1992. So, all three teams are clearly distinguished there. Nobody claims, that Russia/Belarus didn't won any medals being a republic of the USSR, but medals were won by the USSR team, there was no separate "Russia" or "Belarus".

And once again, please, check your sources, according to all known to me, Russian NOC was created on November 21, 1991 and NOC of the USSR was disbanded on March 12, 1992. Cmapm 19:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In http://www.noc.by/html/games/1952-1994.html not write "Russia/Belarus won...", in this article write " in United Teem won". In http://www.olympic.ru/ru/olympics_2.asp , http://www.cosokr.ru/default.php?s=okr&did=22 ("12 марта 1992 года Олимпийский ко­митет СССР объявил о своем саморос­пуске, а его правопреемником стал Всероссийский олимпийский комитет") http://www.olimp2006.ru/encyclopedia/20051222/50006496.html , http://www.moscow2001.olympic.ru/rom/noc/okr1989/index.html?l=r write Russian NOC was created 1.12. 1989 and 9.03.1992 as the independent organization replaced NOC of the USSR! User:88.152.202.122 19:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you admit, that you were wrong to say, that NOC of the USSR ceased to exist in 1991. I meant on the page of Russian NOC is written "Russia won..." and on that of NOC of Belarus is written "Belarus won...". I meant "created as a country's OC". In 1989-1991 Russian NOC was the republican NOC of the Russian SFSR, besides, it was "juridically registered" on November 21 1991, therefore, it seems, that it was established rather in 1991 than in 1989. And were is written, that "правопреемник" means, that all USSR medals, including won by Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Moldavian etc. athletes, are since then counted for Russia? Cmapm 20:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The medal table was deleted altogether to resolved our dispute, are you satisfied now? I am not, but I agree with Andrwsc, that this was the only right way to resolve the dispute without going into a long process of various "mediations". Cmapm 20:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should interesting content be deleted for the sake of one person? This is an encyclopaedia and information should not be removed to satisfy nationalistic users. I think the table should be restored to the version not containing the combined results. Jizz 21:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed back. Yes, it's too interesting to be deleted. But this discussion is very time consuming for me. I wanted to scan some coins to upload into other articles but instead spent half a day in this pointless discussion. And although I think, I've beaten most of person's arguments, he/she continues the constant revert war :( Cmapm 22:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that it was added back again. I don't think it should have been deleted, but I did it in a (wasted) attempt to resolve this dispute. I will keep trying to appeal to this user's logic, but I'm not hopeful. Andrwsc 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Cmapm "правопреемник", if you do not know mean "правовой наследник" и логически это означает да на твой вопрос о медалях! Как и во всём приемнику или наследнику переходит всё, что принадлежало предшественику! Почему ты выступаешь против давно известного всем Россиянам, что Россия правопреемница СССР во всём, включительно и спорт! Я живу заграницой и не умераю любовью о России, но её заслуги не уменьшаю, а ты Россиянин и выступаешь против достижений своей страны! Я могу понять не российских участников этой дисскусии которые могут заблуждатся, так как не умеют читать русские источники информации, но тебя понять я не могу! Посмотри любые репортажи РосТв и почитай любую обобщающию книгу о спорте, книгу рекордов Гиннесса и даже Оксфордскую Энциклопедию. Во всех их медали России прибавлены к медалям СССР. Даже канал Евроспорт, когда вёл трансляцию фигурного катания и перечислял российских чемпионов, то начинал с чемпионов которые стали ими в СССР. В белорусском сайте написанно 1956-1994 достижения единой команды, а с 1994 только белорусской! Российский НОК был создан 1 декабря 1989 года и зарегистрирован 21 ноября 1991 пода в Министерстве юстиции РСФСР, как НОК республики СССР, а не как самостоятельный. После распада СССР и обретения Россией статуса суверенного государства Олимпийское собрание России 6 марта 1992 г. избрало первого президента Всероссийского олимпийского комитета. 9 марта в Лозанне МОК объявил о временном, условном признании национальных комитетов всех бывших республик СССР, в том числе и России. 12 марта 1992 года Олимпийский ко­митет СССР объявил о своем саморос­пуске, а его правопреемником стал Всероссийский олимпийский комитет. 13 августа 1992 года Всероссийский олимпийский комитет был переиме­нован в Олимпийский комитет России (ОКР). В сентябре 1992 г. 101 сессия МОК объявила о полном признании Олимпийского комитета России, как самостоятельного члена МОК и наследника СССР.User:88.152.202.122 22:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

First, please, speak in English to be understood by all users. I don't want to reply to you personally. Second, polite Russian people say Вы to unknown person, not ты. Third, it seems, that you violated 3RR, I'll read more on this now. Cmapm 22:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Я не хотел обижать вас лично говоря "ты", так принято общаться в русскоязычной версии! Если я обидел Вас этим то простите, а на русском я написал чтобы Вы меня поняли на все 100%. Вы тоже нарушили 3RR, но я не обвинял вас в этом. Я не пишу ложную информацию. Да у меня были ошибки и я их проверил и устранил, но по поводу СССР И России я уверен что пишу на все 100%. Я вас не понял, что вы имели ввиду, когда написали что не будете мне отвечать. Я что бандит какой-то или хуже других юзеров- им вы отвечали. Они также утверждают что в Солт-Лейк-Сити у России отобрали две медали в лыжах, но это не так. Да две спортсменки были дисквалифицированы за применения допинга и отстранены от дальнейших выступлений на определённый срок. Было подчеркнуто что уже заработанные медали у них останутся! Они много раз обжаловали, что они не употребляли допинг во многих спортивных судах и протестовали против решения об их дисквалификации. Решение этих судов досих пор не оправдало их, но официального решения лишить их медалей не было.User:88.152.202.122 23:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to speak "behind backs" of users, who don't understand Russian. I've just underlined that on my userpage. That's all. Cmapm 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to reply to Alexr23/Roitr/User:88.152.251.104/

User:88.152.202.122 (and any other sockpuppets you are using) in English, because this page is in the English Wikipedia namespace. You are free to speak in Russian on ru.wikipedia.org pages, but it is incredibly rude to do so here. The irony is that in your "private" comments to Cmapm, you reveal your true motivations to everybody! You appeal to Cmapm as a Russian to not speak out against Russian achievements. That implies that you believe that the simple medal table is biased, and against Russian/Soviet achievements. The rest of us disagree; we believe the simple medal table is the least biased way of presenting this data.

That is the whole point of this dispute, yet you fail to address it. One of the cornerstones of Wikipedia is that it maintains a neutral point of view. I have highlighted this page for you several times already; I implore you to read it and understand what it means. Our jobs, as editors of Wikipedia, are to present verifiable facts, without interpretation or bias. That is why the widely agreed-upon consensus for Olympic medal tables is to simply to tabulate them as they were awarded, by the NOC represented by each team at that time. That's it. Any interpretation is left to the reader to make for him/herself. That's what a good, valuable encyclopedia does.

The next point I wish to reply to is in your second message, with respect to the medals originally awarded to Larissa Lazutina and Olga Danilova of Russia. You agree with me that they were disqualified from the games, but you also claim they were allowed to retain their medals. This is not true. It took about two years, but they were required to return their medals. Please read the press releases from the IOC here and here (bottom left of page 2) Please pay attention to where it says all medals are hereby withdrawn (in the first press release) and ... request the Russian Olympic Committee obtain the medals and diplomas from Lazutina and return them to the IOC.' (in the second article). These facts are clear - do you still deny them?

The last point I wish to make here is your vandalism of the 2004 Summer Olympics medal count page. You keep changing the gold medal count for Russia from 27 to 28. What is your justification for doing so? With respect to the 2002 games, you persist in placing the Russian Olympic Committee as the highest source. However, if you look at [http:/www.olympic.ru their web page] and click on the Athens 2004 button, you see a page that shows 27 medals. Your inconsistency here speaks volumes. It tells me you are a mischievious vandal, and not a well-intentioned editor who researches his/her data before placing it on Wikipedia. How can you point to the ROC as the best source in one case, and disregard it in another.

Please consider what I have written here. I have spent a lot of time to make my case to you, and I hope it is not in vain. I hope you read the pages I have asked you to, and reply to my questions & comments with this information in mind. Andrwsc 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrwsc First of all thanks for your attention and the information. Well, you can be right about 2002 games, but in a site ROC is written, that these decisions are protested and till now are in proceeding. I not knowing why IOC have changed the table when action of proceeding still is not ended, as under all laws while action of proceeding is not finished - decisions of the previous instance are frozen. Therefore in that clause I shall write two tables:

1. Results right after the end of games

2. Results with correction (updating) after disqualification, doping scandals and annulled won medals

The next point Olga Danilova win in Cross country skiing at the 2002 Winter Olympics:

1.Gold in 10 km (5 km + 5 km) free pursuit

2.Silver in 10 km classical

Total one Gold and one Silver medals

Larissa Lazutina win in Cross country skiing at the 2002 Winter Olympics:

1.Silver in 10 km (5 km + 5 km) free pursuit

2.Silver in 15 km freestyle mass start

Total two Silver medals

Total for two Russian women one Gold and three Silver medals.

After all combined from first table - 6 gold, 6 silver, 4 Bronze with minus one Gold and three Silver medals (total 4 medals) and add two silver and one bronze won by Julija Tchepalova after after disqualification and doping scandals (total 2 medals) - this mean 16 total medals minus 4 take away medals plus 2 added medals equal 14 total medals - 5 gold, 5 silver and 4 bronze, but on a site of IOC it is written erroneous data and the sum of medals for Russian Teem - 13 total medals - 5 gold, 4 silver and 4 bronze.

The last point. About combined total medals for USSR and Russia. It is not my personal point of view. It is point of view of ROC, Russian Ministry of Sports, Russia TV and all Russian official organizations. This point of view write too in english Sports Almanac, in the international book of records of Ginness (written on english) and many encyclopedias, including Oxford. Also there the information is written about Germany. For a consensus I also shall write in this clause two tables:

1.Medal table by name of the NOC represented by each team at that time. 2.Combined Medal table by team and by name of countries in past time, in present and their successors. Any interpretation is left to the reader to make for him/herself. Thanks for attention and also I hope for the consent.User:88.152.202.122 13:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Information on Germany is still wrong, when did they win any silvers? I'm not sure whether two tables is the best way to go but is preferable to the constant revert war you keep instigating. Also, please don't blanketly say that all of these sources (Guinness, Sports Almanac etc) follow your favoured convention because it is dubious without any links/citations to back your claims up. It also doesn't help when you include fictional encyclopaedias such as "Oxford". Perhaps you mean Britannica but you would surely know the title if you had bothered to research your claim. As has been said before, the combined entries were suggested on the Olympic conventions page and was voted down, why should you be allowed to ignore this decision because you want your country to be top of the table?

If you want to take this to its logical conclusion then Canada was nominally part of the UK (or at least subject to UK laws) until 1931 or indeed 1982, should pre-1931 (or 1982) medals for Canada be combined with the UK's? And what will happen when/if another former Soviet state wins a medal (eg. Latvia) will they be allowed to have a combined tally with the USSR's medals? And surely the other members of the CIS should have a place on the table as they helped win the gold in 1992. Having a combined table introduces a whole host of complications and it seems obvious that your want for a combined table stems from your wish for Russia to be #1 rather than to have a "fairer" table. Jizz 15:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't want my country to be top of the table. It is not logical for Canada. Canada always had independent NОC. It was not accepted in not one decision of IOC or UN where is spoken, that Canada successor of the UK. USSR and Russian Olympic Committees not different National Olympic Committees. It is formally change (replace) one to other. It have different NOC code codes, because the organization has replaced a name. For an example: Burma had a NOC code-BIR, now when Burma has replaced the name to Myanmar-the code was replaced also to MYA, but it does not mean that their medals have disappeared and do not pass to their successor! In ROC site write: "Российский НОК был создан 1 декабря 1989 года и зарегистрирован 21 ноября 1991 пода в Министерстве юстиции РСФСР, как НОК республики СССР, а не как самостоятельный. После распада СССР и обретения Россией статуса суверенного государства Олимпийское собрание России 6 марта 1992 г. избрало первого президента Всероссийского олимпийского комитета. 9 марта в Лозанне МОК объявил о временном, условном признании национальных комитетов всех бывших республик СССР, в том числе и России. 12 марта 1992 года Олимпийский ко­митет СССР объявил о своем саморос­пуске, а его правопреемником стал Всероссийский олимпийский комитет. 13 августа 1992 года Всероссийский олимпийский комитет был переиме­нован в Олимпийский комитет России (ОКР). В сентябре 1992 г. 101 сессия МОК объявила о полном признании Олимпийского комитета России, как самостоятельного члена МОК и наследника СССР." Russia is a officially recognized by UN and by IOC as successor USSR. In 09.1992 101 session IOC has declared a full recognition of Olympic committee of Russia, as independent member IOC and the successor of the USSR. About, that Russian Ice hockey Team successor of Soviet Ice hockey Team you can see on official site of Federation of Ice hockey of Russian Federation http://www.fhr.ru/Article.aspx?id=34 on article "History of domestic hockey".

2. About Information on Germany is still wrong - you right. I shall correct it.

3. "Oxford" - is not fictional encyclopaedias. The Big Oxford Encyclopaedic Directory 2000. Copyright@Helicon Publishing Ltd. Crown copyright information is reproduced under licence from the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 42 Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford, OX1 2EP.

4,About book of Guinness, buy it and look itself. I cannot show you the book on this site. About Sports Almanac see http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0105242.htm, in this site write Multiple winners: Soviet Union/Russia and Canada (23); Sweden (7); Czechoslovakia (6) Czech Republic (4), USA (2) - for Ice Hockey World Championship. See also http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0115207.html - for All-Time Winter Olympics Medal Standings. It have 1924-2002 two tables: one in a top and second in a bottom of page. In second table write Combined totals by USSR/UT/Russia and by Germany/ UT of Germany/E. Ger/W. Ger

This and many other sites similar to this clause I did not write. Now you can see, that it is not my personal point of view or my whim! I hope for the consent.User:88.152.202.122 16:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

How about a comprimise to have the same format as that almanac you link to, that is to have the table without combined totlas and then just below it a table where combined totals are shown only. It seems a bit redundant to have two tables with most of the information the same. Jizz 21:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish Tt1/Alexr23/Roitr/etc. would see that the second table is NOT aesthetically pleasing! I think she/he has missed this point all along -- it is extremely awkward, confusing, and possibly misleading to show the counts for URS, RUS and EUN individually, and the counts for URS+EUN+RUS in the same table. Those totals are double counted. Even when she/he added the second table, it still had those rows listed twice. Arrrgh. I took a look at that almanac page, and I think it is basically just the same idea as the footnotes I added in a previous edit, but in table form. Although I still think it is a terrible idea to start creating combined medal totals, I have restructured the table to look like that almanac format, in an attempt to resolve the dispute. I can accept this version; I will not accept multiple complete tables nor multiple redundant entries entwined in the same table. Andrwsc 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't follow the discussion for few days, but I'm against the second table at least in the current format. It doesn't look too bad for now, when other former republics didn't earn any medals. But it surely can change "dramatically" in the future, furthermore, even now it may encourage users to add similar tables into other articles, where medals were won by other former republics. Have you thought, what would such tables look like there? Cmapm 13:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In an earlier draft of that part of the table (which I didn't save), I had the following:

USSR + Unified Team + Russia + Belarus + Kazakhstan + Latvia + Ukraine

Czechoslovakia + Czech Republic + Slovakia

Germany + West Germany + East Germany

The point I wanted to make was exactly that - it could get extremely ugly when all the successor nations are listed. In the interest of keeping this aesthetically acceptable, I reduced it to the nations that actually won Olympic medals. And, realistically, the only other nation that has a chance to win a future Olympic medal is probably Slovakia, and adding SVK to that second line won't make the table any worse than it is now.

I still think this is the wrong thing to do with a medal table, but it is preferable to any of the other options I've seen, and certainly preferable to an ongoing edit war. Do you think we can remote the {{disputed-section}} tag now? Andrwsc 16:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cmapm How many time I can for you be spoken, that other former republics USSR do not pretend to be successors of the USSR and also they are not recognized by any international organization as the successors of the USSR. Russia has been on the contrary recognized by all international organizations as the successor of the USSR and I specified one million sources. Therefore you are not right when speak that it not well in relation to other former republics USSR and to do the combined tables - correctly! For Germany this question is even easier, as GDR And FRG were anew united in one uniform country and other countries cannot pretend for medals won by two Germanies and modern Germany will simply generalize them! User:88.152.202.122 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you miss one key point of our argument. When these nations were separate, they had more athletes & teams collectively in the Olympics than when they were united. Although unlikely, imagine if RUS, LAT and KAZ won the hockey medals in 2006. No other "nation" could have fielded three teams! Although not in hockey, this is exactly the situation with other sports. In bobsleigh, for example, each nation could have 2 teams. In the 1968-88 years, Germany therefore had 2x FRG and 2x GDR teams competing, and combining their results would be an inappropriate comparison with the results from SUI, ITA, AUT, etc. That is (at least) one reason why the Wikipedia Olympic community decided on Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions to not combine medals. Andrwsc 16:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In some things you are right, but now Germany the uniform country and former Olympic committees of two Germany now too are incorporated in one committee and their medals are combined. Therefore inappropriate comparison with the results from SUI, ITA, AUT or others here does not matter. The fact remains the fact and we cannot disagree with it and only to accept as existing.User:88.152.202.122 17:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? (incorporated in one committee and their medals are combined) Where? Not on Wikipedia. There have been arguments for GER-EUA-FRG-GER as one continuous total, but I have never seen an agreement to add FRG and GDR together. Andrwsc 17:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction section

I'm just wondering why the intro section to the article was deleted. I thought it was appropriate and the deleter did not state why it was cut out. --claes 14:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combined NOC results, yet again

I see that another anonymous editor (or perhaps another sockpuppet) has re-instated the confusing multi-NOC totals at the end of the medal table. These totals make no sense here, and are very inconsistent with all the other Olympic sport pages, which do not have this treatment. My question for the editor is why he/she feels it necessary to single out ice hockey this way? Alternatively, I would suggest that the editor make a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics to make a similar change for all ALL appropriate pages. This presentation of medal results on Wikipedia needs to be made everywhere, or nowhere. Otherwise, it stinks of POV. Andrwsc 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• I аbsolutely agree with you. This presentation of medal results on Wikipedia needs to be made everywhere, or nowhere. I think that my variant with NOC totals should be on all Olympic pages. It does not do the information confusing.It's only adds more extensive data.--88.152.54.147 18:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so the correct thing to do would be to make a proposal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics and/or start making the changes to all the other "Sport at the Olympics" pages. If no action takes place within the next few days (i.e. the ice hockey page remains the only one to have this treatment), then I will revert again. In the meantime, I will leave this page alone. I hope you agree that consistency must be one of the cornerstones of an encyclopedia. Andrwsc 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

One other comment -- although the footnotes are wordy, I prefer this version than the previous version that combined totals from multiple NOCs with no written explanation. I think this revision of the table is the least confusing of all the different attempts we've tried here. Andrwsc 18:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)