Talk:List of IIHF World Championship medalists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former FLC List of IIHF World Championship medalists is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 17, 2008.
May 21, 2008 Featured list candidate Not promoted
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Ice hockey Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
Featured list candidate star This list is a current featured list candidate. A featured list should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
After the list has been promoted or archived, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page.
Do not manually update the {{ArticleHistory}} template when the FLC closes.

Contents

[edit] Ice Times (May 2008) Medal List

I hate to do this, especially in light of what I wrote above, because it might protract this debate. But has anyone mentioned or seen the following source?

http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/The_IIHF/08-1263_IceTimes_May08_V12_N2.pdf

The link is to the IIHF's newsletter, Ice Times, the main page of which can be found at:

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/ice-times.html

According the description there, Ice Times is the official newsletter of the International Ice Hockey Federation. On page 8, there is a medal table which rather clearly combines the medal totals of the USSR/Russia and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic. As evidenced by my last post, I think all we can do here is go off of official documents where available, and use consensus otherwise. But if this isn't an official IIHF medal table, then what is? --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly an official source. I am surprised, and although I would prefer to list the countries separately (as it is done with other sports on Wikipedia), this document is indeed a strong argument to combine RUS/USSR and CZE/TCH. I admit I was wrong, and I believe we should change the medal table. Good work finding that newsletter, DDD! --Kildor (talk) 10:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough - we certainly wanted to know the IIHF's position, and that seems to be it - but only as long as we replicate that table exactly as the IIHF gives it, ranking not by championships, but by total medal count, which places Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic at the top of the table, Canada second, Sweden third and Soviet Union/Russia fourth. (By the bye, seeing as this is apparently an issue, I'm American, as is clearly indicated on my user page.)  RGTraynor  14:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, look again at the table. It is sorted by points, not by total medals (see even the subtitle at the top of the page). I think it's all right to sort the table the way the IIHF does, but I don't really see why you wouldn't want to just make it sortable (by any category you wish). Presumably the IIHF wrote that the table was "sorted by points" because they had to pick one sorting for the printing of their newsletter, and not because they don't regard any other sorting as possible. What would that even mean, to say that another sorting is not valid? But we could make the points sorting the default one, in accordance with the IIHF's preference. The table is nice in that it gives much more information than merely medal counts, and I think our table should include as much of this additional information as possible. --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It would mean we were sorting it in the official fashion. My ironclad belief is that this whole debate was driven by nothing more than nationalism -- the initial rejection of applying the same rules to the Czech team and the shrill countercharge of nationalism, presuming inaccurately that everyone who opposed this change must be Canadians, being major factors -- and if there was such an insistence that this must be done the IIHF's way and no other, well, so be it!  RGTraynor  20:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. I think especially Lenev rather soured the debate, by, as you mention, initially advocating the entirely inconsistent combination of USSR/Russian medals and not Czecoslovak/Czech medals, and then lunging out at everyone who opposed him. I was especially disgusted by him assuming that everyone who (rightly at that point) could find no official reasons for combining the medals was a Canadian or a Swede. Anyway, hopefully he can learn from this experience by seeing that even those who disagreed with him (myself among them) changed their mind once official information came to light, thereby supporting what we've been advocating all along, that information on Wikipedia needs to be based either on officail information or else consensus, and not nationalistic or personal beliefs. So what is the procedure now for unlocking the page and changing the table? --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"Disgusted"? That's very nice of you. I was just trying to set things right. If I read anywhere that my information was incorrect I would have voted Opposed as well. Anyways, no hard feelings, I hope everyone understands this wasn't personal, I just saw an inconsistency and tried to fix it. It is quite proposterous to think that nationalism was the issue in the first place, I never said it was, I merely pointed out that the voters weren't diversified enough.
P.S. The reason I assumed most people were from certain countries is because their own userpages had things like "This user comes from *insert country*" or "This user is a proud *insert nationality*".
Irregardless, I never tried to offend or insult anyone.--Lenev (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I only mentioned the sorting as an option. I'm happy with your reasons for wanting to sort it by points, though this may require a bit more work to figure out now following the 2008 IHWC. --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is too difficult maintaining an up-to-date list with points. And I don't think that the choice of sorting key in the newsletter is significant, so I think it is ok to sort by number of gold medals. According to the newsletter, Germany and West Germany should also be combined. But there are some discrepancies between the Wikipedia and IIHF lists, and I believe the Wikipedia list is the more accurate (!):

  • IIHF list says Sweden has 9 gold medals, Wikipedia says 8. The total no. of medals for Sweden is 40, but is not equal to the sum of medals 9+18+14=41 in the IIHF list.
  • IIHF list says Germany and West Germany combined have 1 silver and 2 bronze medals. Obviously, the West Germany silver medal in 1953 has not been counted for.
  • IIHF list says Austria has no bronze medals, Wikipedia says 2. But the IIHF total column says 2 medals.

All these differencies seem to be typos in the IIHF list, and there are similar errors in the newsletters for previous years. This newsletter is perhaps not as a reliable source as I first thought. --Kildor (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think in a newsletter, typos are to be expected. There are errors in the sorting, too; for example, look at Poland versus Slovakia versus Austria. I think it is OK for us to find these errors and correct them. I don't think it matters how we sort it, or that we shouldn't even let it be sortable by anything you want, but some people care, and I'm fine with that. I think the newsletter's main import isn't in the actual data, which may be in error due to the printing schedule, shortness of personnel etc., but in the way it is presented, which gives official IIHF support for combining the golds of some former and current clubs. Isn't that the only reason we all got excited by this newsletter? All the actual data we already had. --DDD 99.140.176.116 (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorting by points is "too difficult?" I can't imagine for the life of me how. Exactly six numerals change, once per year: the tallies for one gold, one silver and one bronze, and the subsequent changes to those nations' totals. Elapsed time, ninety seconds, about, just once a year.  RGTraynor  00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The only difficulty may be in verifying that the points are accurate on the IIHF medal table (i.e., that no typos have made their way into the May 2008 edition). This might take a bit of work, since the point scoring may have changed between different tournaments (in some years a win may have been 2 points, and in others 3). Maybe I'm wrong and this has been has always been the same in IIHF tournaments. Regardless, once this initial body of work is over, subsequent updates would be trivial, as RGTraynor suggests (all the information needed to be added, points, wins, losses, medals, etc., would be available right on the IIHF website following the tournament). --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe RGTraynor misunderstood. The IIHF table is sorted by game points. Not medal count. Updating the number of wins, losses, goals, etc. is much more of an effort than simply updating the medal count. I think a medal table is sufficient for this article. DDD: you are right about that the newsletter serves the purpose of showing the principle for combining the countries. Although the newsletter contains some errors, I think we should provide a link to it, but with note describing the typos. --Kildor (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't misunderstand at all, and I still don't see the difficulty. This is the sort of routine task done regularly and annually by Wikihockey project members for numerous hockey leagues (2007–08 NHL season, 2007–08 AHL season, 2007–08 ECHL season, 2007–08 OHL season, 2007–08 WHL season, 2007–08 QMJHL season ...) and numerous playoff championships and tournaments (2008 Calder Cup Playoffs, 2008 Memorial Cup, 2008 Stanley Cup Playoffs, 2008 Allan Cup, Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics ...). This is trivial by contrast.  RGTraynor  12:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article unprotected

At my request the article has been unprotected. I have made a few changes to the article and added a "for purposes of" statement to the medal table. Feel free to make any changes to those edits. -- Scorpion0422 16:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just spent quite a bite of time copying the table from the Ice Times newsletter we found and making our table look like it, complete with all the details. Then, Scorpion reverted my edit as unsourced. I was in the process of also adding the link to the Ice Times newsletter. I'm not an experienced Wiki user, but did we not agree to use the IIHF newsletter as a basis for our table? It seems to be the only official source to settle this dispute. Are we now just to ignoring official documents or did I misunderstand? I wish Scorpion hadn't just deleted the table immediately, since some work went into it; could you at least explain what I did wrong? Thanks. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I reverted you because the statistics were unsourced. If they are based on the ice times newsletter then they are out of date because it does not include the 2008 tournament. I'm also unsure about how accurate it is, because it contains several glaring errors (for example, it says Germany and West Germany won a combined 3 medals. Several sources, including the IIHF website say they've won four) -- Scorpion0422 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The Ice Times article is from the IIHF. Is that not good enough? Myself, along with others was surprised to see the medal table that way, yet, there it is. You probably should not revert, you should let the edits stand and we can get consensus on this new info over the next day or so. Alaney2k (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the edits for the lead look good. Alaney2k (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. I actually corrected the medal totals in the table. The other statistics (points, wins, losses, and ties) I was going to look up and add to the table in a minute. Sorry to have changed the table without doing that first. But I think the issue of errors in the Ice Times newsletter was addressed above and it was agreed that these are likely due to the non-editable nature of printed media. Do you suggest we ignore the Ice Times newsletter altogether because its editor incorrectly copied certain statistics? Several users were of the opinion that we should simply adopt the format of the table and correct any of the mistakes we are aware of. If nothing else, surely we ought to combine the countries, since this was the central issue of this debate and we now have some official word on it. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I reverted is because out of date statistics were added (and at the time there was no source) and if you are going to add full statistics, then you should do it for every single nation, not just medal winners. The section is clearly "medal table", not "full statistics" and the article is called "List of IIHF World Championships Tournaments", not "List of ___ statistics". As for the article, I don't think the discovery of the article makes much of a difference. Our practices are not fully defined by what official sources do. Wikipedia standards are still to list everything seperately, and the table clearly says it is for purposes of this article. -- Scorpion0422 01:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I was sort of thinking that that's what we ought to do, to list of all the statistics of all the nations who ever participated, as in the Ice Times article. After all, this would give a beautiful summary of all participations at the IHWC, which the table of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places above doesn't. I actually think that it's precisely because the article is called "List of IIHF World Championship Tournaments", as Scorpion points out, that we should include all the different nations, their points, wins, losses, etc. And, yes, adding all the different nations would make "Medal Table" a less than optimal title; we could go with "All-Time IIHF World Championship Standings", as per the Ice Times article. What do you think? --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that, no other list of champions lists statistics of every single participant (which is why it was originally called "list of ... medalists" before it was moved). And the list would be based on a source with several errors (I've already picked out 2 major errors just with the medal count). -- Scorpion0422 01:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine, that was just a suggestion about including all countries. I think it would make the article very complete and definitive, but I can also completely understand that in some cases too much information can be overwhelming and undesirable. On the issue of using the Ice Times article, however, I am still unclear by your argument. Did you read the discussion in the "Ice Times" section? Did you read the comments Alaney2k and I made above in this section, addressing the mistakes? Will you just continue to repeat over and over that you found two mistakes in the Ice Times newsletter? If you have other reasons for rejecting, please expand on them, but please don't continue to hold up the resolution of this debate by repeating the same thing over and over, even if that very thing has been addressed and explained by several people (btw, if you disagree with our explanation, please focus on that instead). No one is advocating cutting and pasting the table as it is. Everyone understands that we should update the information to make it more accurate. There are separate questions here, namely should we: combine the countries? list more statistics than just the medals? include the statistics of more countries than just the medalists? Can you find evidence that the IIHF combining TCH/CZE, URS/RUS, and FRG/GER is a mistake? --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I'd let everyone know I support DDD's proposal based on the Ice Times article (as well as additional supporting evidence provided by me). I believe that although it is true that there are errors in the article, the main question of the discussion (whether to list Russia/USSR, Czech/Czechoslovakia, etc. together) has been answered in full. I suggest correction of the specific errors based on more up to date information but keeping the structure of the medal table consistent with the one in the article from the official newspaper of the IIHF.--Lenev (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Lenev's position on all of this hasn't changed from even before we found any official information. My own, from the very beginning, was that we should be consistent, and either merge URS/RUS, TCH/CZE, and FRG/GER or keep them all separate, but not pick and choose. I was against merging without official information (see "A Summary of Arguments" above), but changed my mind once the Ice Times article came to light. I think a number of others took the same path as I did. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to have a vote of some sort, to see who thinks what, now that the Ice Times article is around. Scorpion's view, that we should keep the countries separated and make no changes to the medal table from the way it was a week ago whatsoever, regardless of any and all developments as a result of this debate, seems to be clear. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's an unfair accusation because I've tried several compromises. It seems that all you do is accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being closeminded. I would be open to including full statistics if we had a better source and not one riddled with errors (and those are just the ones that we can verify). -- Scorpion0422 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Scorpion, I am not accusing you of anything, I am simply trying to understand your reasons. You seem to be wholly fixated on the fact that the Ice Times newsletter contains errors. Everyone has noticed these, everyone has pointed these out, and everyone has agreed that we simply correct them. I repeat that no one is advocating preserving those mistakes. All anyone is saying is that we merge the countries because that is how it is done in the newsletter, and hence represents an official IIHF view of the matter (or at least, more official than anything we can find to the contrary). I would understand if there was a smudge next to the FGR/GER, or if URS was misspelled, or something indicating that the merging of the nations was in error, or that it wasn't clear that that is what the IIHF intended. But there is no way anyone can interpret that table in any other way other than as saying that the medals of URS merge with those of RUS, those of TCH with those of CZE, and those of FRG with those of GER, according to the IIHF. So please stop opposing this component of the debate (i.e., merging the medals because we have an official IIHF source supporting doing so) based on mistakes in statistics. Additionally, your claim that you support including more statistics "if we had a better source and not one riddled with errors" directly contradicts what you wrote earlier, where you opposed doing so on the grounds that "no other list of champions lists statistics of every single participant (which is why it was originally called "list of ... medalists" before it was moved)". Please adopt a coherent, noncontradictory position, and offer reasons for that position which do not consist of rehashing claims which have already been addressed by others (otherwise, your arguments become as meaningless and unproductive as Lenev's, if for the other side). --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You clearly are relying on attacking others as your main argument. Your claims are almost as bad as Lenev's belief that it's a huge conspiracy to make Russia look like an inferior hockey nation. I have stated my arguments, so I am finished with you. -- Scorpion0422 03:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't give xxxx about Russia, I'm not Russian, I don't care; I care about facts.--Lenev (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To DDD, why would my position change? If you read the whole discussion, you'd see that 1st, I didn't start it, and 2nd, that I was the only one who provided multiple facts supporting the merge (including a clear statement from the FHR).

As some may have noticed, after several requests for facts from the other side not one fact proving that my opinion is wrong has been provided. Please, pleease!! give me ONE fact, all I ask for is ONE official fact, that clearly proves the opposing view, that those countries should not be shown together. P.S. the word "consensus" is not a fact. Also notice how I'm the civil one, considering about half of the opposing people are admins, the fact that they resorted to claims of nationalism and insults is absolutely inexcusable. I even apologized for any misunderstandings and that I would follow any position if it was officially supported. I was expecting an apology from the people calling me a POV'ed Russian nationalist (I found it really funny considering I'm a Torontonian who merely engaged a discussion that was already started.) But I guess some people have yet to grow to that level. --Lenev (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lenev: your "arguments" were all addressed above. There was no official statement from the Russian hockey federation (please read my, and others', responses to all of these claims of yours above), not to mention that a statement by one national hockey federation does not constitute an official policy of the IIHF. If the Czech Republic hockey federation should tomorrow declare itself "the greatest hockey nation of all time", will I be justified in writing "The Czech Republic is the greatest hockey nation of all time" into the article? Also, your numerous appeals to the UN for justification of your position really made your credibility fall (you do realize, don't you, that just because it's called "Team Russia" it actually has nothing at all to do with the Russian state or its government, much as the Colorado Avalanche has nothing at all to do with the State of Colorado?). Finally, you showed very little forethought in quickly advocating the blatantly inconsistent position of merging URS/RUS medals but not TCH/CZE medals. So, no, Lenev, I don't think anyone in this debate owes you an apology. I still think you didn't offer a single credible source of evidence in support of your position, and had I not found the Ice Times article, I would still oppose your viewpoint. Just because the view that most people ended up supporting turned out to be the one you started with, doesn't mean you were "right all along" (if someone in 12th century Europe had shouted "The world is round because my head is bald", he would still have been wrong). --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I asked for an apology for calling me a Russian nationalist, etc. etc. I don't care what you think or what anyone else thinks, I'm sure you feel the same way about me. I care about the facts. Your article would've been found eventually.
Just because you now live in Toronto, doesn't mean you can't be a Russian nationalist. -Djsasso (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Your comments/opinions/statements/votes/etc. will now be ignored by me, have a nice day.--76.68.68.61 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Russian CBR publishes yearly inflation forecasts. They're the ones used for Wiki. According to your super amazing logic it is a biased source. If it states inflation is 2% (although in reality it is around 12%), no one would argue with it because it is official. Same as the FHR, I think the difference between a successor team and saying it's the world's greatest team is pretty obvious.--Lenev (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a break

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

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

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

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

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

I am new to Wikipedia and to this discussion. If I was doing the medal table I would combine USSR/Russia and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic and Germany/West Germany. In 2007 the IIHF published a book titled World of Hockey: Celebrating a Century of the IIHF. The book contains a section which gives a brief history of each of its member nations. It makes the following statements about the above teams: Czech Republic: from page 180: "admitted in 1908 (as Bohemia)....When Bohemia became Czechoslovakia after World War I, it was re-admitted to the IIHF under its new name on April 26, 1920....After the fall of Communism, the Czech Republic and Slovakia split, and the Czech republic replaced Czechoslovakia in the IIHF program." Russia: from page 187/188: "admitted in 1952 (as Soviet Union)....The famous CCCP was replaced by Russia in 1992" Germany: from page 181/182: "admitted in 1909....was reinstated as the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) on March 10, 1951....(continued as Germany)following the re-unification of the country" WCan (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. I will look up this book and try to double check. Scorpion, will this work for you, or not? You write "all I want to do is try to get this page to FL status"...does that mean at a bare minimum of quality? We are trying to improve it, after all. Sorry to have to put your plans on hold. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me make one additional attempt at very clearly spelling out my reasons for supporting the merge. My reasons for rejecting arguments based on which country succeeded which, or what the UN says and so on, is that national hockey clubs have nothing whatsoever to do with the nations they are named for, except for the name of course. Since the Czechoslovak and Czech federations have different names, I initially had no reason to believe that they are one and the same federation (albeit renamed), since we could find no official confirmation of this. But now we have two sources, the Ice Times newsletter, and the book mentioned above (which I have found easily on Amazon). What we have now are two sources which clearly state that while the Slovak, Latvian, Ukrainian, etc. federations are new, the Czech, Russian and German federations are simply the Czechoslovak, Soviet, and FRG federations renamed. This is akin to the Anaheim Ducks being called the Anaheim Mighty Ducks prior to 2005, even though they are still one and the same team and all of their team statistics are combined, not separated due to the name change. It takes a certain cognitive leap, I think, to look beyond the country names at the actual clubs, since most people (quite naturally though erroneously) associate Team Canada with the country of Canada, Team Russia with the country of Russia, etc. This is why I see very little basis for separating the medals. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it so painfully difficult for some people to realize that the following two statements are both true, yet not contradictory with each other:

  1. The Ice Hockey Federation of Russia is the successor organization to the Soviet organization that the IIHF recognized in 1952.
  2. The Russia national ice hockey team represents a different nation in international competition than the Soviet Union national ice hockey team used to represent.

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

That is what I have been saying all long. -Djsasso (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This is completely indisputable, and indeed it is one of the reasons why I initially objected to all of Lenev's arguments involving the UN and the definition of "successor state". My point all along has been that we need to be consistent, and rely on official documents where available in order to avoid questionable decisions of what constitutes a "nation being represented". To this end, I think we either need to set out some very specific guidelines for what makes one nation different from another, or else base our medal and history sections entirely off of the federations. Was Canada the same country as today prior to the entry of Newfoundland in 1949? Territorially it obviously wasn't. Was Canada the same country as today before the Canada Act? Politically it wasn't, as prior to 1982 Canada still had some legislative dependence on the UK. Colloquially, the name "Canada" gradually replaced "Dominion of Canada" in common usage throughout the 20th century. So what exactly dictates that the medals won by Canada in the 1940s, or the 1960s, or the 1990s, were all won by by the same nation? And what of Germany? FRG and GER were both officially the "Federal Republic of Germany", so at least in name they were the same. My point is not to suggest that we change Canada's medal standings. It is simply that there are many elements which go into determining what constitutes a country or nation; the name, the political system, the territory. Why do some of these have greater bearing than others? It is precisely because I find this slightly arguable at best, and hence slightly POV, that I suggest we go off of the federations exclusively. I also repeat for the millionth time that just because a hockey club is called "Team Canada" it does not actually represent Canada in any real sense; this is an entirely colloquial notion used by the fans. The only thing which is actually happening is that a club is playing a game, not that a nation is playing a game. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Not that it really matters but Canada has been the same Country since 1867. The only thing that has changed is its form of government which does not affect what constitutes the country. I would also disagree that the teams don't represent the country, they do represent the country in the same way any ambassador or military officer or anyone who is the face of a nation does. The nation is playing the game as the players are "elected" to represent us by being the best the country has to offer. Just like the head of state is a representative of the nation as a whole. We would not say that the head of state doesn't actually represent the nation. Its not a club in the sense the Montreal Canadiens are a club, when we have athletes on a team representing the country they are essentially a branch of the government. -Djsasso (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're mixing up a few things here. The PM of Canada does actually represent the country of Canada, in an official capacity as dictated by the laws and constitution, as does any ambassador, minister, etc. The hockey team does not, as it is not a governmental or political organization. You can talk about representing a nation instead, where you use "nation" in a colloquial non-political sense, and then may have a point. But such a debate can rapidly degenerate into one of who considers which word to mean what, and so on, and will thus be inherently POV. Now I gave some reasons (for the sole purpose of making a point) for why it might be conceivable to regard Canada as a different country now than in the 70s or 40s. If you disagree, please tell me which if my criteria for "same or different country" you find fault with and why, or, if you wish to be NPOV, cite a source which states that the "name of a country is irrelevant to whether it is the same country", or "the political system of a country is irrelevant to whether is it the same country", or something like this. Simply stating "It has been the same country, its political system may have changed, but that doesn't matter" as divine fact makes for a very useless debate. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If they are funded by the government to represent Canada at an international competition then they are representing the government in an official capacity. Team Canada is most definately funded by the government. The issue isn't that big a deal to me but I think nit picking because the wording of a document (ie the Canada Act) has changed is stretching pretty far to say there is a case to split Canadian medals. It's quite simple really, Canada's official birth date is 1867. Russia officially consideres itself a seperate country from the USSR, while acknowledging (rightfully so) that the USSR was its predecessor. That is the difference between the two. -Djsasso (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Follow the IIHF or not?

Is it time for another not-vote? Consensus-building session?

To me the issue, from an encyclopedia point of view, is to follow the Wiki standard as is done on other articles, or to follow the IIHF. It is an IIHF tournament, so I think that both points of view are valid. The IIHF lists the medal table differently from the one in this article. So, we have to defend the choice of using the Wiki standard instead of the tournament organizer's standard. And, the references to Russian nationalism are doing no one any good. It's only a table. It's only hockey. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to the official IIHF list? I didn't know they had one. Krawndawg (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's within the PDF of the "Ice Times" newsletter. The link is: Ice Times May 2008 Issue Alaney2k (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. After seeing that, I really don't see how or why anyone would argue against combining them. Krawndawg (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that the table has a very large number of mistakes, so it becomes hard to believe that the table is the official position of the IIHF and not some hurried news letter creaters mistake just like the other mistakes. -Djsasso (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Accuracy aside, it is an (interesting,ambitious?) attempt at a stats table. It would be great if they published that on their site, accurate and up to date. I think I will write them and request that. Alaney2k (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup if their site had an acurate and up to date table I would go with that list in a heart beat. Or would do it like some of the other languages do it. Have a line with the total of the two countries and then two indented lines with the individual totals. But until an accurate table is found I think they should still remain seperated. -Djsasso (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you really honestly think that the TCH/CZE and URS/RUS combination could be a mistake? Another source has been found and quoted on here, which reaffirms combining the medals. If that second source has a lot of misspelled words, will you also discount it? What exactly will it take to convince you that this is the IIHF's official position? Will you at least stop reverting changes to the medal table if there is a consensus that this is the IIHF's policy, and that we should follow it? --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, so will we have a vote? Not having one doesn't seem fair, since the table stands as it was, and Scorpion and others revert all attempts at changing it even though the debate remains unresolved. --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for others, but I would suggest making a specific proposal section on this page, and put a note at WT:HOCKEY. And finally accept whatever consensus emerges. I think that would be the best way to go. Alaney2k (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I find some of the comments like Djsasso's "it becomes hard to believe that the table is the official position of the IIHF and not some hurried news letter creaters mistake" fairly ridiculous. Past issues of Ice Times going back to 2002 are available at

http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/ice-times.html

  • Ice Times, April 2002, p. 10, below table: "Gold medals: Soviet Union/Russia 23,Canada 21,Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic 10,Sweden 7,USA 2,Great Britain 1,Finland 1"
  • Ice Times, April 2003, p. 8, below table: " Gold medals: Soviet/Union/Russia 23,Canada 21,Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic 10,Sweden 7,USA 2,Great Britain 1,Finland 1, Slovakia 1."
  • Ice Times, April 2004, p. 8, medal table combining TCH/CZE and URS/RUS
  • Ice Times, May 2005, p. 8, medal table combing TCH/CZE and URS/RUS
  • Ice Times, May 2006, p. 8, medal table combining TCH/CZE and URS/RUS
  • Ice Times, May 2007, p. 8, medal table combining TCH/CZE and URS/RUS
  • Ice Times, May 2008, p. 8, medal table combining TCH/CZE and URS/RUS

Book "World of Hockey: Celebrating a Century of the IIHF", published by the IIHF..

  • p. 180: "admitted in 1908 (as Bohemia)....When Bohemia became Czechoslovakia after World War I, it was re-admitted to the IIHF under its new name on April 26, 1920....After the fall of Communism, the Czech Republic and Slovakia split, and the Czech republic replaced Czechoslovakia in the IIHF program."
  • p. 187: "admitted in 1952 (as Soviet Union)....The famous CCCP was replaced by Russia in 1992"

What more evidence do you nedd that the IIHF officially regards the Czech Republic as a successor to Czechoslovakia and Russia as the successor of the USSR? Yes, mistakes can creep into things like statistics and tables of them. But if the IIHF did not combine these countries, don't you think someone would have noticed over the course of six years?--DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't agree with the language you used, but I do support the idea that the IIHF considers the hockey federations to be the same, etc. etc. However, the World Cup wiki articles differ from FIFA, which considers the federation similarly to the IIHF. So there is a precedent for the Medal Table as is. I would rather follow the IIHF unless we are breaking some Wiki rule. But I don't believe that is the case. But I am also not an admin and have not been on Wiki that long. I think this debate has really blown way out of proportion to the content in question. However, if we don't float a proposal, I think that could be grounds for reversion, whatever your opinion is. I know that the intent is to make the article an FL. We could go through this debate all over again in the FL review process if we do not get the Hockey project on-side. Alaney2k (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall repeat a comment I made above, as it seems to have been overlooked:

The following two statements are both true, yet not contradictory with each other:
  1. The Ice Hockey Federation of Russia is the successor organization to the Soviet organization that the IIHF recognized in 1952.
  2. The Russia national ice hockey team represents a different nation in international competition than the Soviet Union national ice hockey team used to represent.

It is possible to fairly represent these two points properly, but not by combining results together in the medal count. With respect to this article, I think it is important to remind ourselves of one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. I think a strong case can be made that the point of view expressed in the IIHF's newsletter may not be the most neutral point of view. I think it is offensive to Slovakians, for example, to attribute all of Czechoslovakia's results to the Czech Republic successor. There are very good reasons why there is strong consensus on so many Wikipedia articles for not combining results in this way. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read and addressed this remark of yours above. Quite simply, I find the status of a country's political system, name, flag absolutely irrelevant to the ice hockey team representing it, since the words "representing it" are not in any sense real. Do the Colorado Avalanche "represent" Colorado in any sense? No, they are simply named for it because that is where they are based, where the owners of the teams live, etc. It is for some reason much harder for people to accept this about national teams, even though the situation is really no different. Thus, dividing national teams' accomplishments by the countries they represent is artificial, and should instead be based on the teams themselves. Please do try to think about this. Essentially, we are arguing over whether the Quebec Nordiques and Colorado Avalanche deserve to have their victories and stats counted separately or together. The NHL does not do so for its teams, the IIHF does for its, that is all.
But let me turn to a different point now.
When I first started reading this discussion, all I advocated was a consistency in the medal table. At one point, Russian and Soviet medals were combined, as were West German and German medals, but not Czechoslovak and Czech medals. This prompted my "Are we just trying to make the Czechs look worse?" comment, which was taken out of context on the main IHWC discussion board. I didn't mean that seriously, of course, but rather intended it simply to highlight that something was dreadfully wrong in the way the medals were tabulated. So long as we are consistent in the way we proceed, and
  • either base the medals entirely off of current countries
  • or base the medals off of the official way the IIHF counts medals
I don't see a problem either way. However, we should not ignore the other view, whichever we decide to go with. If we decide to combine the medals, I think this means italicizing the names of defunct countries, or writing "of which x many were won by Czechoslovakia", or something to this effect. If we decide to keep the medals separate, I think we ought to write "The IIHF regards the Czech, Russian, and German ice hockey federations as successors of those of Czechoslovakia, the USSR, and FRG, and thus inheriting the medals of the latter defunct countries", or something to that effect, with the appropriate sourcing to the Ice Times articles and the IIHF book. I grant that adopting the latter requires us to trust that the IIHF does officially regard these federations as the successors, which some people seem to have a hard time with despite all the blatantly obvious facts. --DDD 98.206.161.239 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to clear something up, the only reason Germany and West Germany used to be combined is that is how the table was when I started work on the article. It had completely slipped my mind and that's why I hadn't fixed it (but did the second it was pointed out). -- Scorpion0422 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's this latter approach you suggest that I advocate, per my comments that it is possible to fairly represent these two points properly. It is, in my opinion, the most neutral point of view. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of the previously mentioned facts there is nothing else to discuss. But here's another article that may help this discussion move along. "Russia and Canada are now the most successful teams in the history of international ice hockey. After Russia's latest win they now have 24 world titles each." http://www.russiatoday.ru/sports/news/24910

Oh wait, it's a Russia-related source, that means it has to be POV'ed. How dare they make a claim that agrees with the IIHF's official stance on medals?!


In any case, I think the statement "we have three Russian ubernationalist carpetbaggers " (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#List_of_IIHF_World_Championship_tournaments.E2.80.8E)

sheds light on the blatant racism/and POV of some of the editors.--Lenev (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that was a response to you and another calling us biased because we were Canadian (when a number of the people commenting were not). I hardly think you can cry foul too much as they were complaining about your POV/racism on the subject. -Djsasso (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Medal Table

I wish to see this article become Featured too. However, I think that 1st we need to come up with clear consensus on what to do with the medal table. I realize that there may be few compromises available, but I think it would be beneficial to discuss them in order to make this article completely valid.

As of now, it does not meet not only FLC criteria, but also general Wiki article criteria as the medal table contains Original Research. This is because no sources have been provided for that particular structure while several official sources clearly show a different counting method.

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

These are just a few of the sources available that support an alternative arrangement for the table:

The official newsletter of the IIHF May 2008(See medal chart): http://www.iihf.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/The_IIHF/08-1263_IceTimes_May08_V12_N2.pdf

As well as any other Ice Times editions: http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/ice-times.html

I think that if official sources clearly showing the table as it is right now are provided, a change in the overall opinion may occur. --Lenev (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • "As of now, it does not meet not only FLC criteria", Okay, which criteria does it not meet?
  • Its not Original research because the medal table is based on the main medalists section, which is fully sourced. -- Scorpion0422 17:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Your 1st point: "A featured list exemplifies our very best work. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content—in particular, naming conventions, neutrality, no original research,..." It cannot be considered to be Featured if it's not even a good regular article.

Your 2nd point: It is original research. The table should be based on a list when no better source is available. The question was about the way the table counts/arranges the medals not the actual medalists. Many have acknowledged that there is a good source of the official IIHF position, so why keep ignoring it? --Lenev (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The medal table (which is the least important part of the article and can easily be removed if you can insist) is based on these two sources: [1] and [2]. Those two sources say that the Soviet Union won the tournament 22 times and Russia won twice, so that is what the medal table says. It is hardly original research if it is based on sources. -- Scorpion0422 18:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Those are excellent sources, but like I said they do not contradict with the IIHF table found in Ice Times, because although they are good sources for the list of medallists year by year, the tally has a more direct source, which is why this is a bit confusing for some people.
For the sake of objectivity and creating full consensus, I again suggest putting two tables, or one "double" table that could show both versions, which would not conflict with any official sources provided by you, me, or any other editor involved in this discussion.
If anyone wants to make it more neutral, the medal table could have a 3rd version besides the 1st two, based on the one found on http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/feature-menshockeyworlds.html
It lists the teams by total medals won including CZE and RUS with their predecessor teams. Showing CZE & CAN tied for 43 total medals and SWE with 40, and RUS/URS with 37.
Although CBC is not an official source it is no less legitimate than TSN.
Anyways I just want to make sure that the table is arranged in such a way so that discussions such as this one would not arise in the future. --Lenev (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think concensus was long ago acheived. What you want is to change concensus. -Djsasso (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually think no consensus was officially reached. There was a vote on changing the medal table before the IIHF book and Ice Times newsletter were found. No vote has subsequently been undertaken. Several people have subsequently expressed wanting to follow these sources, while others, including Djsasso, have objected. Unfortunately, because the article was originally written with incomplete information (i.e., without knowing the IIHF's official stance on medal tables, as set forth in the book and newsletter), the burden of proof is on those of us wanting the change. Thus, it is tremendously easy for Djsasso and Scorpion0422 to object to any change, since they can always oppose a vote, and can revert any changes made by others to follow the more official (and hence more neutral) point of view. This has led to several of us, including me, to simply loose patience with them and abandon this debate. I would welcome a vote, and I would welcome further discussion. But only if the discussion can be restored to a reasonable one; as it stands, Djsasso and Scorpion simply continue to insist that all the sources put forth as official IIHF documents are flawed because of typos and misprints. Why this indicates that the combinations of countries themselves are misprints, I don't know. But that's where we stand, so please don't say that any consensus has been reached. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Take this to the next step of dispute resolution, but please don't look for more "voting" until you get what you want. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm here to merely offer my opinion, as someone who has followed hockey for years. I'm not aware of the specific Wikipedia procedures. I saw a poll earlier, which is why I thought this is what is done. My point was simply that either we should continue to discuss this ("take this to the next step of dispute resolution", as you so professionally put it), or else abandon it, but let's not claim that consensus was reached, when none has been. Or is these some other discussion somewhere where people are not as split on this as we are here? --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is an illustration of why I think the current table is POV and undesirable. Instead of breaking up medals based on countries, why not do it based on flags? Flags, as objects, have as much bearing on the IIHF clubs as countries, as objects, do: that is, none. Clubs may be named for countries, and team jerseys may have images of flags on them, but clubs are rather like businesses in that they are non-governmental, non-political entities. So, if we're going to follow the artificial standard of basing the medals off of political units, why not base the medals off of vexillological units instead? Have a separate entry for Canada 1912, Canada current, Soviet union 1912, Soviet Union latter, Russia, USA with 49 stars, USA with 50 stars, etc., etc. This would fit with the proposal floated by Andrwsc to "fairly" represent both viewpoints. Then let's represent not just two, but all viewpoints, if we're taking into account considerations which do not have anything to do with the IIHF or ice hockey. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. Or are you making a point? Either eay, this does not fit with anything I've proposed, so please don't attach my name to this nonsense. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course I am joking. I am arguing for why breaking up the medal table based on countries is irrelevant to the IIHF. And let's not forget: IIHF is a non-governmental, non-political organization, which simply hosts a championship; I can create the "DDD World Championship" and the difference between these two "world competitions" would be only in which one is more popular, not in which one is more "official". I am a little baffled by why you would think I am making a point: I haven't edited or disrupted any pages. Is it forbidden to make a verbal point in a discussion? The reason I ascribed this to your viewpoint is that you advocated (please see the discussion above) for representing both sides of the argument; my point is that when artificial considerations (like national entities somehow affecting sports teams) become part of what we put into an article, there might be no objective barrier to what constitutes a "legitimate viewpoint". --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was one to leave things as they are, a concensus has to change in order for a change to happen. A no-concensus result for the sake of wikipedia defaults to concensus to leave as is. Other than you and lenev, no one else has argued to change it. As has been mentioned that table is just a product of the information laid out above in the article, and as such doesn't have to follow the IIHF's format because its not necessarily the same table. I can't help but mention the fact that the only edits you make to wiki are to this discussion makes it look like you are probably Lenev or someone he knows that was asked to come here and help him. -Djsasso (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Before saying silly things like "you are probably Lenev", please take the time to read the history of this discussion. I opposed Lenev's viewpoint at the beginning, until I found the Ice Times article. I've disapproved of his nationalistic reasons for his position (appealing to the UN, etc.) and his (and yours) inconsistent treatment of USSR/Russia, FRG/Germany, and Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic. My position all along was that this article should be NPOV and consistent. With no information at the beginning, I advocated leaving the table alone, although I pointed out some mistakes the table had in it (including some of yours, Djsasso) which have subsequently been corrected. My viewpoint only changed once I, after a lot of research, found the Ice Times article. I thought that this was in the best spirit of Wikipedia editing: you advocate as neutral a point of view as possible until you can locate a reliable and official source. The source I found was the IIHF, which apparently isn't good enough for some. I also resent your comment of "Other than you and lenev, no one else has argued to change it". This is blatantly false: if you actually look at the archive of this discussion, you will see quite a few users who agreed with my position that we should follow the Ice Times article. Just because most people didn't have the patience to continue this debate, doesn't mean they didn't share my viewpoint. For that matter, none of the people save Scorpion who sided with you have stuck around either. If you wish to make an intelligent debate, please do read what others have said before you (you might learn something), and don't confuse the issue with petty personal attacks and omissions of facts to strengthen your position. Otherwise you drop to Lenev's level in terms of the maturity of your debate. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually your first edit was providing the links to the ice hockey times article so I couldn't assume any of the previous IPs were you because there is no proof of that. So I can't see that you at first opposed lenev because all your edits under this IP have been supporting him. While I am willing to believe the other IPs earlier were you, I just can't assume it. (See the benefit of logging in?). Secondly others agreed with using the IIHF table until it was discovered to have many errors in it. Since then its only been you and lenev who have been consistantly pushing the subject. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Compare the IPs and signatures of the first post of the current discussion, and the last post of the archived discussion. You will notice they are the same. In the former comment I advocated a position contrary to Lenev's due to the lack of sources (and I criticized him for his weak arguments) and in the latter I advocated merging the medals due to the discovered Ice Times article. This is precisely as I stated it above. That you don't so much as bother to check the facts before posting on here raises the question of whether you are interested in facts at all, or whether you simply have an agenda which you will defend despite any new information which may become available. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If you read what I said, that I can't assume. I do believe it is you. But when I go back and read your comments I actually see you agreeing with him, your only complaint seemed to be that he wasn't also suggesting combining Czech etc. While if you would look waaaay back you would see that people didn't have a problem with a line that has the combined total of the various countries as well as a seperated line. Even scorpian was cool with this idea. Not sure why this isn't acceptable. -Djsasso (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I've never opposed a dual system like that. What I opposed was 1) not being systematic in the combination and 2) combining medal totals when there is no official information of this from the IIHF. After the Ice Times article was discovered, I haven't "opposed" anything, I've simply advocated following the IIHF. And saying I agreed with Lenev means you again did not read the posts. "Agreeing" can only mean that I either supported his reasons or I supported his conclusion. If you read the post I made at the conclusion of the archived discussion, you will see that I supported neither. I changed my position to agreeing with his conclusion once the Ice Times article was found (as did many others), even though we still did not support his reasons (which I still do not). I think that being open to new information, being open to changing your mind when facts become available, and not defending your original position no matter what is the definition of open mindedness, and ultimately leads to a more progressive and better article. Your philosophy is different, not to mention that you continually ignore and misrepresent what I wrote simply to suit your agenda. So I'll follow what others had the good sense to do earlier, and that is to drop out of this debate. Logic and facts can't prevail in a debate when not being used by both sides. --DDD 98.223.87.76 (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I object to that, if it is inside the same table. It is double-counting, and confusing (yes, we've tried that before in articles like ice hockey at the Olympic Games). What is appropriate (and acceptable to me) is a fully referenced footnote (or line(s) of prose text) that describe how other sources combine the totals. But not a convoluted table with multiple combinations of totals. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I am fine with that way of doing it as well. To be honest I am pretty open to how we do it as long as its not only a combined total. Because having only a combined total will mean that valuable information is lost. -Djsasso (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then why are you opposed to doing it like the Germans did it? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eishockey-Weltmeisterschaft Scroll down to the table to see what I mean. Or a 2nd table showing the list version, or something like that. They show all versions, combined, separate, etc.--Lenev (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the german version as long as there are seperate lines for each country that make up the total. They only have a Russia line and a Total line. I don't like the two table method as I think that would lead to more confusion. -Djsasso (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)