Talk:Ice hockey at the Olympic Games

Often referred to as simply hockey

This should be included in the opener for several reasons:

• 1) We don't pay by the word
• 2) it IS often referred to as simply hockey (never heard a single reference to "ice hockey" in the any of the coverage so far)
• 3) the olympic field hockey article says the same thing

Just to name a few. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Points one and three are irrelevent in my view, while the second doesn't hold much weight either. We don't pay by the word, but the quality of articles are compromised by using a bunch of unnecessary words where they are not needed. Resolute 02:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• In response to number 2, that's rather specious reasoning... It's because you live in North America, where mainstream field hockey is non-existant. Using your logic, I've never seen cricket played casually either, so that must make it a very non-notable sport. It seems more like you're just upset that we have to refer to it as "ice hockey" and you're trying to make some kind of point. This article isn't the main ice hockey page, so why should go out of our way to point out things stated there? If we did, it would make the page a lot longer and more complex. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I support Truthiness. We should include the clarification because for North Americans field hockey is non-existent. If it is a commonly used expression, then we should incorporate it. Outback the koala (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Goalie" is a commonly used expression too, but it's not used in the article (using goaltender instead), so should add a note to that to avoid any confusion? And I'm curious, should we add a note that it's commonly called hockey to every article that uses the term "ice hockey", just to make sure there is no confusion? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We are supposed to avoid colloquialisms when writting, the mention of it as often called hockey is done on the ice hockey page itself. Anyone in North America is going to know hockey and ice hockey are the same thing, so there is no need to make the connection on every page about hockey. It only needs to be mentioned on the main ice hockey page. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Scorp, this isn't some article that mentions "ice hockey", THIS IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT A MAJOR HOCKEY EVENT. Technically, this is the biggest hockey event on PLANET EARTH. --TheTruthiness (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So? Resolute 00:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That is why we have multiple articles, if people want more information they go to the apropriate article for it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

how tournament works

i'm told that canada played the U.S. earlier, and can't explain why they're playing each other in the final, just won by Canada in OT. What is the structure in the 2010 winter olympics -- some number of groups in which countries played each other, then top ones advanced, or how? It could not have been a complete single round-robin tournament, too many teams. --wants to know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.40.86 (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviet use of professional players

This article had only lightly touched on Soviet use of professional players in the 70s, et al. I added in mention of this which is already indicated in referenced sources. Removing this presents biased coverage of hockey in the olympics as its widely acknowledged within the hockey community that the Soviets gamed the system by fully supporting their athletes, and effectively cheated during these tournaments until professional limitations were gradually phased out starting in the 1970s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianrusso (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you. First, you were incorrect, the United States did not withdraw from the tournament in 72 or 76 (In fact, they won a silver medal in 72). Also, the Canadian withdrawal was just as much about their own inability to use professional players as it was about the Soviet's were using professionals. So it would be oversimplification to say it was because of one or the other. Finally, the Soviet Union/professional player controversy is touched upon in greater detail in the "Use of professional players" section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

1980: The "Miracle on Ice"

I would put forth the argument that this topic is a singular reference to one teams participation and belongs in (as I see that there is one) a separate entry and a theistic argument. Balance is the aim in this case —Preceding comment added by Twhanna (talk • contribs) 03:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it covers the entire 1980 Winter Olympics, not just the American team. I thought it would be easier to give it it's own section so it would split up the text. Even though there is a seperate article, the Miracle on Ice needs to be summarized here, and like it or not, it is one of the most famous games in Olympic and hockey history, so it does deserve to be properly summarized. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1980 "Miracle on Ice" really isn't that famous at all, it is perhaps famous in American hockey history but for everybody else it wasn't that big of a deal, the Soviets would win back to back olympic golds right after that loss in 1984 and 1988. If it was given its own section would a new section have to be made about Belarus and their miracle on ice in 2006 against Sweden? its a slippery slope.

Do you know how the Soviets won gold in hockey? They drafted their best hockey players into the army and claimed their profession was "soldier" not "hockey player". The Red Army had a team in their league - CSKA Moscow and they won their championship every year. The Soviet Union had a state sponsored hockey team, that was almost always on par with the talent coming out of Canada (see the Summit Series, World/Canada Cup tournaments). They weren't amateurs. Americans were. Amateurs defeated professionals. Still doubt that this story should have its own section?

P. S. Belarus defeated Sweden in 2002 in the quarter-finals.

Max_Arosev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2:45, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Amateur rules in lead

The phrase "originally intended for amateur athletes, and until 1998, the players of the (NHL) ... were not allowed" (from the first paragraph) implies that the rules on amateurs changed for the 1998 Olympics. This is not correct. Any suggestions on the best way to fix this?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't imply anything, it says exactly what happened: until 1998, active NHL players weren't allowed. The rest of the history is given later in the lead, but that bit needs to be established near the beginning. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It does imply that the Olympics did not allow NHL players until 1998. That is not correct.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is. From 1920 to 1988, all professional players were barred from the Olympics. When thye rules were changed, the NHL did not immediately allow its players to compete because doing so would mean that the season would be shut down for several weeks. However, after a lot of negotiations, the league went on break for the first time in 1998. Yes, professional players were allowed to play before that. Yes, retired, minor league or non-active NHLers did play before that. But 1998 was the first time the league itself participated. And that is very important to note in the first paragraph because of the history of the medal winners mentioned in the lead. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Olympics allowed NHL players before 1998, the NHL didn't participate until then. The sentence is misleading. Adding a paraphrase of what you wrote above would fix that. I don't disagree that it is important to mention NHL participation in the lead.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The NHL did not allow its players to participate, this is what is meant by were not allowed until 98. Its a completely accurate statement. -DJSasso (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the NHL allowed its players to participate before 98.

Linking "The Olympic Games were originally intended for amateur athletes" with "until 1998, the players of the National Hockey League (NHL) were not allowed to compete" implies that the reason NHL players didn't compete was the Olympic rules. That implication is wrong (from 1988). Each of the statements are fine on their own, but they shouldn't be linked in one sentence.

If you want to keep it very close to what it is now how about: "The Olympic Games were originally intended for amateur athletes. The National Hockey League (NHL) did not allow its players to compete until 1998."?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it doesn't imply anything, and you seem to be the only one making that link. I would rather keep it concise, and having short sentences like that disrupts the flow. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that at all. It says pros were allowed as of 1988 and then until 98 the nhl players were not allowed to play. I don't see any implications at all. -DJSasso (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"It says pros were allowed as of 1988 and then until 98 the nhl players were not allowed to play." That's not in the first paragraph. If it was, it would be fine. There is no mention of the change to the rule excluding pros until much later. Can you propose something along the lines of your summary that could be used in the article?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there any problems with this wording?

Professionals were not allowed to compete until 1988 because of the International Olympic Committee's (IOC) rules on amateurism. Starting in 1998 the National Hockey League (NHL) allowed its players to participate.

--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the current wording, quit trying to change things just because you don't understand it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Point record

This article contains virtually the same information - "Harry also set the record for career points with 36 (assists were not counted at the time), which was later matched by Vlastimil Bubník of Czechoslovakia, and Valeri Kharlamov of the Soviet Union. In 2010, Teemu Selänne of Finland broke the record" in two subsections. I am not sure how to fix this problem properly. Should we keep all info in one subsection and subsequently deleting other or should we spread it out all over the article? Utinsh (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Statistics of qualification

It would be helpful for the statistics table to distinguish between "did not enter" and "did not qualify", rather than using "—" for both. jnestorius^(talk) 18:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

NPOV in the lead?

>Canada is the most dominant team in Olympic Ice Hockey history. Canada continues to have the most perseverance, skill, and strength in Olympic Ice Hockey. As a result, they have the most medals in Olympic history for Ice Hockey.

Well as a Canadian I can hardly contest that, but even from my perspective (HAHAHA SUCK IT AMERICA, 2-3 OVERTIME, PREPARE YOUR ANGUS FOR DOUBLE GOLD AGAIN) the lead seems slightly NPOV. 96.54.86.78 (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. It was recently added in a single edit, and I've undone that. You can undo changes like that yourself, no need to ask. DJ Clayworth (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Dominant", "temporarily", etc

Dominant is a good description for what Canada and the USSR's records were like in certain periods of Olympic history. But I'd object to calling the period of Soviet dominance, with 9 medals (7 gold) in 9 tournaments over a period of over 30 years, "temporary". — Swedishpenguin | Talk 20:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

My only point (in what is really turning out to be something a lot more contentious than I wanted) was to correct for definitive statements about a certain time period that have implied general conclusions. In the particular issue at hand, the article states that the Soviet Union "overtook Canada as the dominant international team". Fine and true (especially in the 50s-70s), but if you leave it at that it implies that this dominance continues to be true to the present day. While we mention the later medal results, the previous statement about dominance is still left to stand. Part of this is just the fact that the paragraph is written with a chronological approach which doesn't lend itself to these kinds of generic statements.

Again - I don't mean for this to become an issue, and its certainly not a question of bias or promoting one country over another, but I would suggest that the casual statements about dominance need to be clearly qualified as applying to a specific time period. Perhaps, if you have no objection, we could say "...overtook Canada as the dominant international team during this period..." ?159.18.26.14 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Within the context of the paragraph, I do not believe there is an open-ended implication to the statement, and so I do not feel an additional qualifier is required. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The end of the era of Soviet dominance is not clear. We can't assume that every reader will know about the breakup of the Soviet Union. The sentence about Canada that follows could be interpreted as a change from that era, but Soviet dominance ended before 2002. The first two attempts to clarify didn't improve the paragraph much, but the current wording isn't perfect.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Olympic champions in the following years are listed in the subsequent sentences, so readers are able to see for themselves (writing is generally stronger when you show rather than tell). isaacl (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

That's true to a point - in this case I think we're making an assumption that in the absence of clarity readers will reach the proper conclusion (we also lack symmetry in approach by pointing out when the era of dominance starts, but not noting when it ends). Again - while I didn't mean for this to become such a big issue I still think a minor insert (as suggest above) would be helpful, but I'll leave it to the forum to decide.159.18.26.14 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Participating Nations

In the participating nations section in the article, would it not be better to have the links go to the articles for the national teams rather than to the general page of that nations participation in the olympics? Curious to hear your opinions. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Medal Table Divided Between Men and Women?

Why was the medal table divided out between men and women? This isn't the case for other events (e.g. Figure Skating, Short Track, etc) and I'm not sure why it would be the case for here either. MightyMarc (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To be honest it probably should be split for all sports. It could have to do with the governing sports bodies, the IIHF splits them in their tables so we do as well because we follow the sources. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

But why though? The division, at least for the IIHF, is for historical reasons (i.e. the Olympic result also maps to the World Championship for some years). But that doesn't make sense for the an Olympic-specific medal tally (for for the purposes of reporting it here). With progressively more mixed-gender medals (figure skating, curling, luge, etc.), it makes more sense to have a consistent report on total medals earned for the Olympic event rather than dividing out some by gender and others not. That seemed to be the case here, for some time, until it was changed recently. MightyMarc (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention that the Olympics combine the medal tally for all genders into a single table. Given that this page shows a table based on the Olympics, shouldn't it follow the Olympics model? That certainly seems to be the case elsewhere as well. MightyMarc (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure, but personally I am always for more information not less. Combining the totals would make it harder to figure out how each nation did in the various gender events. -DJSasso (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Medal table note

I was attempting to write a note to stop edit warring over this topic. See WT:Hockey. I give up. :-( Alaney2k (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

you wrote a note that implies only keeping your version, not one that has been established by consensus. The discussion at WT:Hockey was far from resolved. I am intrigued by the argument that the IIHF listing Russia as a member since 1952 might mean something, but does not agree with their encyclopedia explicitly. I do not agree with the content of the note you posted, but a note is probably valuable.18abruce (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)