Talk:International Ice Hockey Federation

message: Canada (Hockey Canada) and the United States (USA Hockey) are the only members who have their own rulebook.
What does that mean? That Hockey Canada and USA hockey don't have to follow the IIHF's rules? Someone please explain this to me. How would that work? If you don't mind, can you tell me on my talk page that you replied so I don't miss it on my watch page? I'm watching a lot of pages, so it might slip through the cracks. Thank you. Bsroiaadn 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, North America follows different rules than Europe. Hockey was invented in Canada, and Canada has greatly influenced the development of American hockey. The rules the rest of the world follows depends greatly on where the ex-pats who play it are from. In Israel, North American rules seem to prevail. The NHL also has a different rulebook than Hockey Canada, or USA Hockey, because as a pro-league, it makes its own rules. 70.51.9.170 (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It means they have their own rulebooks for hockey played within their own countries. When they play in international events hosted by the IIHF, of course, they have to play by IIHF rules in these situations.Djob (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone help me out with this?

message: Fair use rationale completed. Flibirigit (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Iihflogo.gif

message: Sorry guys, but I had to cut out most of the big additions, as they were blatant copyright violations from  and subsequent pages. It was a little sloppy, so if I cut out something useful and not copyright violating, please let me know on my talk page and I'll fix it. Cheers, CP 06:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Copyright Violation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on International Ice Hockey Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807130920/http://www.hhof.com/html/GamesSummarySUM1972.shtml to http://www.hhof.com/html/GamesSummarySUM1972.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207200955/http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/silver_splashspenglercup.htm to http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/silver_splashspenglercup.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on International Ice Hockey Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106132926/http://bandynet.ru/node/22115 to http://bandynet.ru/node/22115
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206193234/http://www.worldbandy.com/template1.asp?pageID=1 to http://www.worldbandy.com/template1.asp?pageID=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'll drop the Systemic bias discussion as I think it is drawing attention from the objective facts. Can I first establish if there is a consensus for having a Controversy section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabbi (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus to include a header titled "Controversy". Having such a header is pushing a POV. What is controversial to one reader is not controversial to another reader, and this article should not be telling the reader what to think. Ideas must be presented neutrally. Flibirigit (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that WP:CSECTION highlights why a section dedicated to negative criticism is discouraged. There needs to be overwhelming reason to go against this. Flibirigit (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a section detailing the issues the IIHF has faced (including the pro vs amateur debate, the Belarus situation now, and so on) should be noted here. Whether it will go in a section explicitly titled "Controversy", I have no opinion on. Based on what Flibirigit says it probably shouldn't have a heading like that, so I'm open to other things, but do think there is a place for a summary of issues the IIHF has faced. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, giving due weight to them.  This Belarus flap is downright trivial (and ephemeral) in comparison to the pro-amateur debate, the IIHF's century-old quest to bring the NHL to heel, and the slanging over the establishment of a Hall of Fame distinct from Toronto's.   Ravenswing      18:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Insertion of a section header to highlight any one year's championship over any other year is a bad idea. There have been close to 90 Ice Hockey World Championships and all of them have had disagreements. Highlighting any single event is giving undue weight to it, compared to a brief mention within the long history of the IIHF. The best solution is a short summary, with details mentioned at the event's article. Flibirigit (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I am not sure if we are any closer to agreement? Jabbi (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy - take two 

message: I find it bizarre that a simple list of presidents in ascending chronological order is the first section. This should be at the end of the article in my opinion. --Jabbi (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of presidents as first section 

message: The section Other national team tournaments should become a subsection of Tournaments. Registered players should be a subsection of Members. --Jabbi (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: As has been debated above, a section on Controversy is justified. This section should at the very least include a summary of IIHF Championships in 2014 and the proposed 2021. If there are any objections to such a section, please post your arguments below here. DJSasso, along with Ravenswing, Kaiser matias have referred to various other issues from IIHF that are in some way controversial. It can not be a reasonable demand on my part that I thoroughly investigate the entirety of IIHF's history so as to assuage DJSasso's concern about undue weight.
The criteria for for having a Controversial section for corporations and organisations is clear and in this case justifiable. DJSasso's further arguments about recentism are not correct, unless he sees a repetition of something happening twice in a seven year period as recent. It is baffling how much bias has gone unnoticed on this page for instance, this quote which I have taken from content now moved to history:
 Sabetzki's greatest achievement was ending the Canadian boycott of the World Championships and Olympic Games.
This was not found to be in any way biased by those same Wikipedia users that now object to there being a section about IIHF and Belarus, out of fear that it gives undue proportion to it. 
If anyone still objects to the section, please explain why, if there is further material that should be under Controversy, please explain what material that is. --Jabbi (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well to be honest, now that the history has all been moved to another page, I believe this belongs on that page now. And yes, it can reasonably be said that controversies should not be split out to their own section until such a time as there are more there to flesh out a controversy section. Why not having it in with the rest of a history is such a issue to you is beyond me. You seem hellbent on making POV edits to try and draw as much notice to this one event as possible. No one has said that the information can't be on the page and no one has said there can't be section discussing the controversies as long as they don't put undue weight on them.  If you are desperate to get the information into its own section, yes you will have to do the leg work. Otherwise there is no issue with having it in amongst the other history. And yes, trying to get a whole section for a controversy that only just made headlines a couple weeks ago is recentism. It is the very definition of trying to make recent events seem more important than the past events just because they happened recently. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Agree with DJ, and it's not as if you've been anything but clear on your motive to publicize this as a political event across as many articles as you can, which is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy.  Wikipedia is not for mobilizing opposition to Lukachenko.  Drop the damn stick already.   Ravenswing      01:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I disagree. On a personal level, I have a strong opinion on Lukashenko. This is not reflected in my edits in my opinion.  I have made the mistake of being curt and even a bit childish in my rhetoric in this debate, which I apologize for, nonetheless I believe I am right and you are wrong. There is a lot of guidelines I can point to, to support my argument.
# Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. The goal is to establish objectively whether or not IIHF's repeated cooperation with Lukashenka is controversial or not. I am very surprised at how dismissive editors here have been of that proposition. This is not a fringe theory, this is backed by reliable primary and secondary sources.
# I have not committed any edits that has content that is biased. I am not "mobilizing opposition to Lukachenko". I am providing objective facts about how IIHF works. My edits here have been conservative in my opinion and I have sought to establish consensus despite what I see as biased viewpoints on your behalf.
# If you read the 2014 tournament article, individual US and EU parliament senators are specified. Yet the section could be more concise and explicit. Make a note that there is plenty about the public protest movement back in 2014 which is still nowhere near as remarkable as what has happened recently in this regard.
# I had a minor edit war with User:Ravenswing on the page for the 2021 tournament about whether to name the parties involved in the then active controversy: "However, in the wake of the ongoing 2020–2021 Belarusian protests, several political groups, politicians and international entities, including the European Parliament and Krišjānis Kariņš prime minister of Latvia which was set to co-host the championship, protested tournament matches being held in Belarus, and called for Belarus to be stripped of co-hosting duties." He repeatedly removed that bit which made the severity of the situation ambiguous. Anonymous "several political groups, politicians and international entities" carry no significance, they're constantly up to something. The EU Parliament and the prime minister of one of the two hosting countries on the other hand are very relevant.
# In addition to point 2, I have made changes to the article which have, in my opinion, improved it considerably. I have structured it properly, added a column with proportional national membership to the statistics and found images and photographs to make reading more appealing. It has also become evident to me, that the history of the International Ice Hockey Federation needs context and is clearly biased (the quote above being a very obvious case in point). This tells me of course, that your enthusiasm for the quality of this article only goes so far.
# In particular with regards to your arguments DJSasso, your original reply with regards to my argument about the Controversy section of the IOC is simply not convincing. Nobody speaks about that controversy, it should be removed in my opinion. The only sources specific for that section are local news paper sources, nobody cares about this, let alone sees it as controversial. Please don't pretend otherwise.
I will state my position clearly: IIHF's repeated collaboration with Lukashenko's regime is a controversial issue that deserves a section as being Controversial in it's own right. Introducing a far fetched argument about disproportionality without providing clear arguments is simply not good enough. --Jabbi (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I think what you are failing to realize is being undue weight is in and of itself a biased POV edit. Your edits where all you changed for example was a heading to split out the small blurb about this incident to its own section was a POV edit. POV editing doesn't just come from the words you use but from how you present the information. I am not sure what controversy you are speaking of in your last bullet point. If it is the one above about Canada's boycott then I think you are mistaken. The controversy surrounding Russia's use of professionals when the rest of the world did not is something that is talked about regularly and led specifically to the 72 Summit Series. So the ending of that boycott was a very large matter. It is by far the biggest controversy the sport has ever seen. Again no one is contending that this issue is fringe theory. They are contending that you are trying to draw undue attention to this specific event which would be considered POV editing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I understand that viewpoint DJSasso but I disagree with it. I think this is a controversial issue, being a controversial issue justifies a section. I think it is a subjective opinion whether or not it would indicate that it is the only controversial issue in the history of the IIHF if it is not supplanted with other controversial issues. And anyway, as I have already stated, I believe in the incremental progress of these things, in my opinion it is not reasonable to expect that an enlightened political ice-hockey history buff comes along here and rewrites the article to include a perfectly balanced controversy section. In the meantime, this is a controversial issue which should be flagged as such. I have tried to reach a consensus and met considerable resistance in edits around this as is also reflected in the discussion above. I feel like we've reached an impasse and therefore I will cease. (FYI, my last bullet point was about the 1976 Winter Olympics (Denver, Colorado) "controversy") --Jabbi (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section, Controversy - imminent 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians
I intend this section to be a summary of the previous debate, reaching 5 months back to the beginning of 2021, surrounding both the content and presentation of that content in this article. I intend to include a more general summary, roughly similar to this section, in a section under the heading Controversy, compatible with the controversies section about the International Olympic Committee. I have offered the users involved to contribute to a draft in my sandbox. If the final edited version is removed, I will request impartial arbitration. And would recommend the following reading:
The IIHF has repeatedly collaborated with Lukashenko's regime in Belarus by holding the 2014 IIHF World Championship in Minsk which was considered controversial at the time (supported by several secondary sources). The planned 2021 IIHF World Championship which was to be co-hosted by Belarus and neighbours Latvia was similarly controversial in its own right but following the disputed 2020 Belarusian presidential elections and the subsequent nationwide protests it became even more politically charged.
At this point, the official position of IIHF is of paramount importance, it is what makes it controversial. Rene Fasel, the president of IIHF, is quoted in a official capacity as saying "I think, [IOC President] Thomas Bach always made it clear that it will be the only decision of the IIHF and not the IOC regarding the organization of the [IIHF] World Championships," , here, he is referring to the International Olympic Committee's decision to ban Lukashenko from all IOC events . Fasel reiterates IIHF wants to hold the tournament in Belarus: "Our [IIHF] goal is to go to Belarus. We wish to go there for the fans, because they deserve to go there and not be under a political pressure," Fasel stated. "We do not want to be a hostage of some political games." 
During a highly publicised official visit to Belarus, Rene Frasel, who is personally acquainted with Lukashenko, met with him and was hugged by him.  During that same trip, Fasel also met with the Belarusian Ice Hockey Association President Dmitry Baskov, who was under investigation for murdering a protester .
The situation was in fact so controversial, that IIHF saw reason to publish a long Q&A with Fasel, to clarify the situation:
Following an IIHF delegation meeting with members of the Belarus government concerning the status of the 2021 IIHF Ice Hockey World championship, IIHF.com sat down with President René Fasel to get the latest updates on the situation in Minsk. 
In this interview, Fasel says highly controversial things, he admits for instance to having a political agenda by asking Lukashenko to open a dialogue with the opposition!!! He says:
We came in with specific requirements that the government should fulfill in order that the World Championship can take place in Minsk. Among these was a pledge to find peaceful solutions towards improving the socio-political situation within the country, and to allow all Belarusian athletes the opportunity to return to and compete in their respective sports.
Most importantly, the Belarusian government agreed to an open and constructive dialogue with the opposition to take the 2021 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship out of the political focus and to use sports as a mean to bring people together. We acknowledge that our requests are outside sport and going into the direction of politics, but we feel the end results of our requests were necessary to ensure a safe championship.
After several big sponsors refused to sponsor the event, including Nivea, Skoda and Liqui Moly  IIHF stated it would not hold the tournament in Belarus but rather only in Latvia.
As can be seen from the above debates, at this point I relented at trying to include content about this in a specific section. I had instead improved the article considerably and migrated the history section to a dedicated article (I put a Neutrality disputed tag because it's rather POVed).
Last week there was further development when Lukashenko diverted a civil passenger aircraft and arrested a passenger. In response the Latvian authorities replaced the Belarusian flag with an older version of the flag which is associated with the Belarusian opposition, predictably enraging Lukashenko. This was very publicised because the Latvian foreign minister Tweeted a photocopy of Fasel's letter to him, in which Fasel asks him to either replace the Belarusian flag with the official one or remove IIHF flags, the Latvian foreign minister's public reply was: 
The President of the IIHF has requested to replace (the white-red-and-white) ⬜🟥⬜ Belorussian freedom flags with the ones of the regime - or to remove flags of IIHF. We have to pick sides - a people striving for freedom or a  dictator. We will proceed with removing IIHF flags. 
In other words, the current ice hockey world championship is being held, organised by the IIHF, but with no IIHF flags on display. And this is not a controversial aspect of IIHF's history?
User  has put forward arguments that clearly don't hold (see above).
User's  and  have stressed the importance of maintaining proportionality, making vague references to other supposedly controversial aspects in the history of IIHF. I can not easily find sources to support their claims. About the amateur vs. professional debate in the 1970s there is considerable sources available, see for instance here, but there is nothing in the history about this.
--Jabbi (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section - summary