Talk:International Ice Hockey Federation

Someone help me out with this?

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)

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iihflogo.gif

Fair use rationale completed. Flibirigit (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive Copyright Violation

Sorry guys, but I had to cut out most of the big additions, as they were blatant copyright violations from [1] 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)

Controversy

User Flibirigit has removed a section on Controversy citing it as a "relatively minor event in the history of the IIHF and gave it undue weight." But I maintain that, being an international organisation it is responsible for political decisions (like it or not) that have serious consequences. This is one of them and is not a minor event. This is not the only time IIHF has been criticised for hosting a major tournament in Belarus and therefore the section should not be removed. See also [2] --Jabbi (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel that the amount of coverage given here is a bit much. Sure it can be mentioned, as it is notable that the IIHF continues to work with a character like Lukashenko. But giving it a full paragraph like this on this specific article is undue, especially when there is a lot of other controversies that can be mentioned in the IIHFs history. I'd favour shortening the attention here, while leaving the larger text at the 2021 World Championship article, and see if some earlier issues can be added (which shouldn't be hard; see the Soviet and Russian national team articles for something that should probably be added here). Kaiser matias (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Kaiser matias and Flibirigit, and see little connection between that the IIHF is an international organization responsible for its own decisions and the inclusion of this piece in this article. It's properly mentioned in the 2021 WC article, and I've reverted the text here. Ravenswing 21:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This topic belongs on the 2021 page unless they decide to actually change the hosting situation. That would then be significant in the history of the IIHF.18abruce (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't belong on this page as it would be completely undue weight to be included here. The appropriate location for this would be on the 2021 WC article. And as 18abruce mentions, if they ended up choosing to move the tournament because of this situation, then that would most likely belong on this page. But the controversy itself belongs on the individual tournament page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have added a bit of context. You can't expect readers to understand the situation without that. Secondly, there really should be a 'Criticism' section about the IIHF. They sanctioned the Russian team at the last Olympics, dragging their feet on professional players, international rules vs North American rules, etc. There is plenty there. Alaney2k (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I will agree that a controversy (or whatever title) section is warranted. The IIHF has a long history of issues, and that should be made clear here. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the sentence that was added or the context then added by Alaney2k should be on this page as it is undue weight on an article about the organization itself, I think it all belongs on the specific tournament page. -DJSasso (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why Flibirigit, Ravenswing and 18abruce are opposed to a section on Controversy. In your explanation for the revert Ravenswing you say: "this is just a blip in the century-old history of the IIHF." But this is certainly not a view shared by the German foreign minister, Heiko Maas, he says "anyone who is serious about solidarity with Belarus cannot seriously want to hold an Ice Hockey World Championship in this situation. It would be the greatest PR gift for Lukashenko and a devastating signal to the demonstators. I hope the organizers realize that." As you may be aware of, the same thing happened when Belarus hosted the World Championship in 2014, was that also a blip then? Are we having successively larger blips? So in the eyes of the German foreign minister this is not a blip. Seeing as you are a "sixty-something paralegal living in western Massachusetts" Ravenswing and Flibirigit is a Canadian, is it possible we have an Anglo-Saxon systemic bias here?

I therefore make the following case to move the content about hosting Championships in 2014 and 2021 to a Controversy section:

1. It is a matter of grave importance to Belarus, a country of ten million where there is a serious political situation
2. There is a Controversy section on the IOC there are seven subsections on it. Like the IIHF, the IOC is an international organisation with the purpose of organizing sports events. One of the subsections is about the 1976 Winter Olympics (Denver, Colorado) recounting the fascinating story of how it the 1976 came not to be hosted by Denver but rather in Innsbruck. Is that then not a blip in the history of the IOC? By the way, the IOC has banned Lukashenka.
3. Frasel himself not only openly acknowledges that this is controversial but actually admits to having a political agenda!!! Speaking of his recent meeting with Lukashenka he says "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." [3]
4. There are 65 words in the preceding history section dedicated to Namibia's affiliate membership. That's a proper blip in the history of the IIHF. My edit was 191 words. It is about a controversy and therefore necessary to include context to explain the opposing issues at stake.
5. It is also acknowledged that there are further issues that could merit a more prominent place under a Controversy section. That then only puts further weight behind the argument to have a Controversy section, however I am not interested in contributing to that.

Jabbi (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has an issue with a controversy section, I think they have issue with this specific issue being given undue weight. No one denies that there is controversy, the question is does it have enduring notability which we can't know right now. This could very much be an issue of recentism. You ask about when it happened in 2014....yes the reason I would suggest this is likely a blip this time is because history has proven out when it happened last time it was almost immediately forgotten in the long history of the IIHF which would indicate it was a blip. Your example of the 1976 Olympics on the other hand wouldn't be a blip because it repeatedly gets talked about even today which shows it not to be a blip. As for the Namiba bit, I would remove it as well as it is not all that notable, it is another perfect example of recentism. -DJSasso (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah if I only had a penny for all the times I've sat in dinner parties and people recount the time Denver almost hosted the Winter Olympics. But seriously. It is very clear that it is a controversial contemporary issue whether the 2021 Championships are cohosted by Belarus or not. This can easily be supported by reliable sources. Your charge of recentism is immaterial, it can be made for any contemporary issue.The actual article about the Denver 1976 bid, were it to be called an article, is Bids for the 1976 Winter Olympics 174 words which is less than I wrote originally in the controversy chapter for this article. Are you sure people in Belarus and neighboring countries do not speak of the 2014 Championships and their political significance? Perhaps you did not realize but the area shares a common past as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Have you considered that the reason this article does not cite the controversy about the 2014 bid is that there is an Anglon systemic bias in English Wikipedia? Jabbi (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Accusing others of bias is not going to support your argument here. And as someone who is well familiar with the region (and was in Minsk in the lead-up to the 2014 tournament), I'll call it immaterial for this particular article, which is what others are saying. Put it in the 2021 article, where you can go in depth. But this page should only have a summary. That it is a recent event does not mean we need more words, and I will also note that there is not a lot of information on the Denver Olympics in other articles has no relevance here, either. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Do not show me the embarrassing discourtesy of presuming to tell me what to do Kaiser. My accusations of bias are theories that might explain the bizarre lack of support for what seems to me to be a very simple issue. I have not said otherwise than a summary here under Controversy was in order. The analogy with the Denver "controversy" is a fair point, no reason to discredit that. If that is a good enough issue to warrant a subsection under the IOC, which in all fairness to IIHF, is a more noteworthy organisation, then why would IIHF's repated and pronounced collaboration with Lukashenka not do so? Jabbi (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because the only reason anyone could possibly disagree with you is if they had some biased agenda. [/SARCASM] That, and statements like implying that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania -- a polity that vanished well over two hundred years ago -- or suggesting that with all of its problems and political turmoil the hosting of this one sports tournament is a matter of "grave" importance to Belarus have any relevance whatsoever to the discussion is not helping your crusade. But let me ask: what is your agenda? Why are you so insistent that this information has to be both in the main IIHF and Rene Fasel articles? Why are you so ready to assert that there is an "Anglo bias" at work here, and what do you fancy that bias involves? What is the real reason behind this all? Ravenswing 02:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

In this case, disagreeing with my suggestion to include a summary section which briefly summaries the controversies surrounding IIHF and Belarus either indicates a systemic bias or an agenda. Mentioning the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is relevant because Belarusians have a relatively weak national identity (notice the Lithuania in that name), in other words, people from neighboring Lithuania, Poland and Russia especially share an interest in the matters of Belarus (Lithuania has been very vocal in its criticism of Lukashenko) and this is a matter of grave importance because ice hockey is one of Lukashenka's well known pet hobbies (he built a bunch of stadiums around the 2014 tournament and has used many photo ops to show his interest), therefore this is a spotlight issue regarding his international standing. To me, these are all facts, I do not have an ulterior motive, let alone a crusade. I am insistent that factual information that sheds lights on the political aspects of the work (and expressed agenda of the president of the IIHF) be accessible to the public. This is the real reason (I frankly have not a single idea of what you were expecting). Jabbi (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

In which case you are indulging in a crusade in violation of WP:SOAPBOX. These are ice hockey articles. They are not historical discussions of eastern European politics, nor are they the proper place for summaries of the current political turmoil in Belarus (which is explored in significant detail in Belarusian articles pertinent to those disputes). Nor is this information inaccessible to the public -- I expect they have access to the same sources you are using. Ravenswing 11:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jabbi: I mention that because being confrontational is not going to get you anywhere here, and only ensure that any view you try to express is going to be dismissed. And there is no reason for the incivility, which is just one of the several guidelines you are violating with statements like that, and you have been around here long enough to know that. Quite frankly, I find discussions like this a complete waste of time, as it's not doing anything constructive, and the sooner we can agree on a solution here the better. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kaiser matias: I agree that being confrontational isn't good, this is not my intention. At the same time, one has to argue with conviction in order to be heard. Do not take my suggestion of systemic bias personally, but I honestly believe it to be a factor. I will note that I started this discussion after content which has now been restored was removed. Jabbi (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

(outdent) Understandable. I would disagree on a systematic bias, at least in this matter (I certainly do not speak for Wikipedia as a whole). While quite a few of us hockey editors are North American-based, I do think we are able to have a more rounded view, though I could also be idealistic there. I just don't like seeing actual discussions getting bogged down in unconstructive matters, which this was heading to. I think we can find a solution here, though I will again re-iterate that it is more appropriate for the 2021 World Championship article, and not the overarching IIHF article here. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• F-everyone's-I, I just reverted some of the same bloviated and undue material from Rene Fasel's article. The stuff going into the 2021 tournament article's getting increasingly lurid and irrelevant, and I just trimmed that back as well. This is starting to be a concentrated POV-laden effort, however much Lukashenko is a dictatorial thug. Ravenswing 02:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would make the same argument against you Ravenswing. The proposed location for the 2021 Championship is a highly politicized issue which you seem to be willfully oblivious to. Jabbi (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Then you would be wrong. I am not pursuing an agenda, as you are; I'm trimming back excess and irrelevant detail in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOX. That the issue is "highly politicized" I don't dispute, but it does not therefore follow that the article's content needs to be overwhelmed by your advocacy. Ravenswing 11:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversy - take two

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Controversy - context

Assuming there is consensus for having a section called 'Controversy, is it not appropriate and normal to include a short sentence or two to introduce and frame why the issue is controversial?

Currently it reads: "The International Ice Hockey Federation received international criticism for holding the 2014 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships in Belarus and again for planning to hold the 2021 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships in Belarus." This is a simple, accurate description. The reason it is controversial is because Lukashenka is not seen to be the legitimate president of Belarus and rule by force and coercion, this was the same in 2014 and again now. Should this not be briefly explained? Jabbi (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• There is no consensus to include a header titled "Controversy". Flibirigit (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you want to call it? There is consensus for a chapter dedicated to controversial or otherwise problematic issues. Jabbi (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus whatsoever to have any sort of dedicated section or chapter on this subject. There is only a consensus for it to be appropriately mentioned within the overall history. Flibirigit (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

In the above discussion there seems to be consensus. If you are not happy with that then you could request a formal vote. There is currently a Controversy chapter. Jabbi (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody else has argued in favour of such a header which violates WP:CSECTION. Furthermore, it is a repeated attempt to give undue weight to the event according to WP:PROPORTION. Nobody has argued that the event is unimportant to Belarus, but multiple editors have stated that the amount of information being added is too much. It is a relatively minor event in the context of the history of the IIHF, in which multiple countries have had perceived "controversy" with the IIHF and none of those are given their own header. Flibirigit (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Kaiser matias agrees that a controversy section is warranted. User:Djsasso states impartiality. User:Ravenswing supports it. Under WP:CSECTION there is a specific subsection devoted to Organizations and Corporations, I quote: "Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism – however within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS."

The controversies surrounding the decisions by IIHF to hold the Championships in Belarus in 2014 and in 2021 meet this criteria easily in my opinion. There are very reliable sources, statements from parliament bodies, both EU and US and other European legislatures, various sports organisations (including the Olympic committee), politicians, members of parliaments, respected news articles, sponsors of the event, human rights organizations, and indeed IIHF itself detailing the controversial nature of the issue. The article is 50k in it's entirety, a couple of paragraphs summarizing this controversy should not detract unduly from the organisations 112 year history.

As others have mentioned, there are further issues that, depending on one's viewpoint, merit inclusion under controversy: "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". Personally, I am unfamiliar with these issues but would be very open to them having their respective subsections under controversy. (In my opinion the History section should be moved to an independent History of the International Ice Hockey Federation page and more briefly summarized as it is, in my honest opinion, at times a bit tedious reading) -- Jabbi (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking support for controversy section, with support for a controversy section with only this controversy in it. The two things are not the same. At this point it would be undue to create the sections with only this in it. It is better suited among the other information until such a time as a more fully fledged section is written. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

(outdent) To clarify my stance: while I do support noting controversial issues from the IIHF, I am quite open to the way that information is included. As mentioned above literally using a section titled "Controversy" is frowned upon, so I have no issue going a different path, but do think that controversial topics (Belarus, professionals vs amateurs, etc) should be noted. And the idea of a separate page for the history of the IIHF may be worth exploring. While it may considerably cut down the size of this page, it could also allow for a more in depth look at the history of the organization. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

---

(continuation) It is my understanding that there is not an objection to a section under titled Controversy containing a brief summary of the controversies surrounding the 2014 and (cancelled) 2021 Championships.

1. The argument hitherto put forward against there being a Controversy section are

1) an accusation of it being a violation of WP:CSECTION. But I have countered that there are "reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms,". Therefore this is not a valid argument against it.

2) The argument of WP:PROPORTION has also been raised. We have just established that a Controversy section is warranted as per WP:COC therefore it can not create an unbalance if said controversy is briefly explained. Controversies by their very nature mean contesting viewpoints, in order for the controversy to be understandable, a brief introduction into the competing viewpoints is necessary.

With relatively little effort I have recently restructured the article to be more appealing. There is plenty of material (too much for this specific article IMO) about the history of IIHF, for example:

In its early years, LIHG had also administrated bandy, but since Britain and the continental European countries eventually had ceased playing this sport, it virtually only lived on in the Nordic countries and the Soviet Union. Bandy had been played as a demonstration sport at the Oslo Winter Olympics in 1952, then only played by Finland, Norway and Sweden, and in 1955 these three countries and the Soviet Union founded the International Bandy Federation.

These are 74 words about IIHF mid 20th century brief flirtation with bandy chosen randomly, IIHF's grand 112 year history is littered with stuff like this. Can anyone seriously say that the fact that the IIHF not only once, but twice planned to hold Championships in Belarus despite public condemnation by US, EU, and national parliaments, various organisations, event sponsors and it receiving proportionally high coverage in respected news media means that if there is a Controversy section detailing this it is undue?

2. On the other hand, it has been conceded that a Controversy section might be justified but however, if it only contains content about Belarus (assumingly, as far as I can understand) then it gives a biased view because there are other (more?) controversial issues? To me, this sounds a bit like rejecting a section on 20th century history because earlier history is missing. Things are done incrementally. Moreover, if one were to pick a part the massive 3k+ history I am positive there is plenty of stuff, like the preceding bit about Namibia's affiliate membership, that isn't really relevant, but you've not had reason or motivation to scrutinize before now for some reason. Jabbi (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes a section that only contained the Belarus controversy would be undue even with everything you are saying in your comment. The mere breaking it out to its own section would give it an implied significance that placed it as high or higher than everything else that has happened in its history which no matter how many times you repeat that it was covered in the news that does not make it one of the most important things that has ever happened in its existence. If it was contained in a section with other controversies, ideally a number of them then it wouldn't be undue because it would be just one of many. And even in a section like that, it wouldn't likely end up with much more than what is there now. It would just be putting it in another location. Yes things are done incrementally, and the first incremental step is having it in amongst the other history of the organization. Then once there are other controversies in amongst the history of the organization, you would split them out into their own section. That way you don't give it undue weight. Doing it in the opposite order as you are suggesting very much implies that it is one of the most important things that has ever happened to the IIHF. And it doesn't even remotely reach that level. To be honest at this point its severely smacks of recentism. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That's great DJSasso, here I was laboring under the mistaken assumption that this was the only thing that mattered in the history of IIHF. Could you then just very briefly mention what other Controversies merit inclusion? Jabbi (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Your actions so far on this topic does seem to indicate that you are acting from that point of view. -DJSasso (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I see. Are you going to find sources to support other content under Controversy? You seem absolutely convinced that exists. Jabbi (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

As an Admin DJSasso, you should not hide away from debates, especially since you maintain your position so stubbornly. If there are other issues you are aware of that need to be included in order to justify a Controversy section, can you name them and explain why it is controversial, and perhaps a source or two? Jabbi (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If you don't have a clue I'll just put up a section with the header Controversy explaining the Belarus issue. The onus is on you to find "reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms,", as Flibirigit has stressed, that support the inclusion of other content under Controversy. --Jabbi (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

List of presidents as first section

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)

Furthermore, I think the section should be merged under Staff, along with Chief Medical Officers. --Jabbi (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Structure

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)

New section, Controversy - imminent

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)

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)

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)

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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)

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)

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)

Controversy

Again, in light of the well documented controversies regarding the IIHF's pronounced, repeated collaboration with Lukashenko and his regime, there is reason to include a section on Controversy. Most recently, Latvia, the host of the 2021 men's championship, has replaced the official flag of Belarus, associated with Lukashenko's regime, with a historical flag, associated with the opposition. Prompting a protestation from the IIHF saying that it is "an apolitical sports organization, and are demanding that the IIHF is removed from any association with the political statements the Mayor and Foreign Minister have made by changing the flag of our Member." [4]. However, back in January, when it was still a possibility that the tournament would be hosted by Belarus, the president of IIHF gave public statements indicating that the association was prepared to act in the political sphere in order to enable Belarus to be able to co-host the tournament:

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. [5]

Quite clearly, these are unprecedented events in the history of the IIHF, where the IIHF itself has played an active role.

--Jabbi (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• You made these arguments several months ago. You failed to gain a consensus then. Yes, yes, anyone who reads the news is aware that Lukashenko is a thug, but Wikipedia is not a valid venue for your crusade. It's long past time to respect consensus and walk away. Ravenswing 21:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• From the several edits made to content then. It became very apparent that the contributions, of yourself, and most other participating users, or lack there of, indicated a political slant and a lack of engagement with the actual content under discission. I note no actual contributions from yourself to the articles under discussion. The history of the IIHF, you proclaim to be so important to safeguard from my soapboxing, has had a Neutrality disputed tag for months and weeks. Where is your engagement? Why do you find it so easy to reply here but not actually contribute? Anyway, there are further developments, the hosting country has replaced a flag during a tournament and IIHF seen reason to respond. The hosting country has chosen to remove IIHF rather than replace the flag. You don't see anything controversial here? Please, make an effort. --Jabbi (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• From earlier discussions there was tentative agreement to include a Controversy section, provided it would give a balanced overview of various controversial aspects of the IIHF throughout it's history. I will start a Controversy section in the sandbox of my user page where everyone is welcome to contribute. Note that I am very actively trying to establish a consensus here. Again, this is not a rehash of the same arguments as in an earlier discussion. I note there has been a new controversial development with regards to the IIHF and Belarus. This is clearly a controversial issue that merits a place in the article about IIHF. --Jabbi (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Pinging following users who were involved in earlier discussions, please indicate if, despite recent events, you are opposed to there being a section on controversy:
  • Flibirigit
  • Djsasso
  • Kaiser matias

--Jabbi (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

My opinion hasn't changed: put this on the 2021 page, as it's specific to that, not on this main page. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I also see no consensus to include a controversy section, nor is the flag incidient significant enough to mention within the broader 100-plus year history of the IIHF. This flag incident seems like an isolated event which could be mentioned on the 2021 Ice Hockey World Championships page instead, only if it is properly cited to verifiable sources and written neutrally. Flibirigit (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both of them. Nothing has changed in the time since the last discussion that warrants changing my opinion. -DJSasso (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not good at keeping responses in-line so apologies for this being indented incorrectly. Quoting from above discussion regarding a controversy section:

• "I don't think anyone has an issue with a controversy section, I think they have issue with this specific issue being given undue weight." Djsasso
• "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." Kaiser matias It is unclear to me what your position is Kaiser.
• To which Ravenswing responds: "Sure, giving due weight to them."
• Additionally, 18abruce says "This topic belongs on the 2021 page unless they decide to actually change the hosting situation. That would then be significant in the history of the IIHF."

Those are four users, mostly active in the above discussions rather clearly approving of a well rounded section detailing controversial issues. With Flibirigit the lone dissenter. I am proposing such a section that could detail "the controversy surrounding Russia's use of professionals when the rest of the world did not ... and led specifically to the 72 Summit Series.", the issues Ravenswing mentions about a war between IIHF and NHL, the establishment of a Hall of Fame and collaboration with Lukashenko's regime.

Let me be clear. Twice in a decade the IIHF has under well documented controversial circumstances proceeded to hold tournaments in Belarus. The second time it attempted to nonetheless hold the tournament despite clear opposition to doing so from numerous parties, political, sponsors, public and various international organisations, including sporting organisations. In a well publicised attempt to reconcile things the president of IIHF, who has a personal relationship with Lukashenko, admitted going outside it's sporting mandate and out into the political sphere. If this wasn't enough, Belarus was consequently stripped of hosting the tournament (which was clearly a politically motivated decision) and then, Latvia, replaced the official Belarusian flag with the flag of the opposition of Belarus. And when rebuked by the IIHF, refused to put the Belarusian flag up again, but rather removed the flag of the IIHF from the tournament exterior!

This does not merit mention on the page of said organisation? It is of course already on the page of the tournament itself. --Jabbi (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not in favor of this political discussion being a big part of this article. The actual changing of a venue is historically significant, and I think bears a mention. I think it should be brief, and should contrast with other times in history this has happened so that there is some context that does not unduly magnify a current issue; we are not a news source. The Denver championship (1962) was very politically controversial, how does this current event compare to the world championship missing many teams because of the erection of the Berlin Wall? The 1930 championship had to use three different countries to complete all the games. The 1969 championships were supposed to be in Czechoslovakia but had to be moved because of the Soviet invasion, how does that compare? The 1970 championships were supposed to be Canada, but because of the ongoing debate of the definition of 'amateur' and 'professional' the championships were moved, and Canada did not compete at all until 1977. The current situation pales, but with context, could be mentioned.18abruce (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@18abruce: Thanks for your input here. Your response makes a lot of sense, most importantly it is based on objective facts (as far as I can tell), for the most part I agree with your points. If I might reply to your questions one at a time.

I think it should be brief, and should contrast with other times in history this has happened so that there is some context that does not unduly magnify a current issue; we are not a news source. |||| Indeed, this is a valid argument. It is a delicate art to explain a complex situation and yet maintain the overall balance of the article. However, information here needs to be up to date, current. Let's not forget that.

The Denver championship (1962) was very politically controversial, how does this current event compare to the world championship missing many teams because of the erection of the Berlin Wall? |||| At the time, when international cooperation was limited, and very apprehensive because of the Cold War, was this reported in secondary sources to be controversial? This is the main question, I can't answer that. I can however tell you about responses to current events.

The 1930 championship had to use three different countries to complete all the games. - |||| Was this considered controversial? In the almost colloquial article on the history of the IIHF there is nothing to indicate controversy.

The 1969 championships were supposed to be in Czechoslovakia but had to be moved because of the Soviet invasion, how does that compare? - |||| This is a really good question, and actually there is an interesting resemblance between that and what his currently happening. There is however no mention of the 1969 championships in the article on the history of the IIHF. I would imagine that it caused some controversy, but this statement needs to be qualified (see at the end of my post).

The 1970 championships were supposed to be Canada, but because of the ongoing debate of the definition of 'amateur' and 'professional' the championships were moved, and Canada did not compete at all until 1977. - |||| I would be curious myself to know how that compares as I have stated elsewhere.

The current situation pales, but with context, could be mentioned' - |||| Your analysis seems to me to be skewed by presentism, the tendency to view the past through a lens of present values and biases. I am aware of the fallacy of recentism, and am not aiming to skew the historical balance. So the key question for many of the points you raise is twofold: 1) Was it considered controversial at that time? 2) Are there reliable sources that prove that?. There are enough secondary sources, and separate events, spanning several years in fact, to justify a contextual description of the controversial nature of cooperation between IIHF and Lukashenko. "could be mentioned", is incorrect in my view, "needs to be documented as part of the history of IIHF" would be more like it. --Jabbi (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I would also add that if you want political controversy, look at what happened during cold war politics in 1950 or 1961. Politics actually spilled over onto the ice, has that happened here? I don't think so. To opine that the current event is similar to a major event in the cold war is ludicrous. I think I am done with this, if you want to sway consensus then do the work, there are many books written (not just quick easy clickables) on some of the events I have brought up.18abruce (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. It is a well known fact that Belarus is firmly within Russian hegemony and that the current events are pushing Belarus further into Putin's wide open arms. I was not comparing the 1967 invasion of Czechoslovakia to the 2020-21 protests in Belarus in any literal sense. I find it interesting that you insinuate that I am not historically informed without knowing anything about me or what I have read. Thanks again for your contributions here. --Jabbi (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Another important point to consider is the following. We are debating the content of the article about the organisation itself. There are several very interesting events that have happened with regards to ice hockey tournaments during the Cold war like you rightly point out. When it comes to deciding whether those events merit inclusion on this article you have to evaluate if the event impacts the IIHF itself as an organisation. The defections during early Cold war, which I assume you are referring to when you mention the year 1950 had nothing to do with the IIHF itself. The tournament was just an opportunity for defections. When it comes to IIHF as an active agent as is clearly the case when it comes to cooperation with Lukashenko, it is a different matter. --Jabbi (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section - summary

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," [6], here, he is referring to the International Olympic Committee's decision to ban Lukashenko from all IOC events [7]. 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." [8]

During a highly publicised official visit to Belarus, Rene Frasel, who is personally acquainted with Lukashenko, met with him and was hugged by him. [9] During that same trip, Fasel also met with the Belarusian Ice Hockey Association President Dmitry Baskov, who was under investigation for murdering a protester [10].

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. [11]

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 [12] 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. [13]

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 Flibirigit has put forward arguments that clearly don't hold (see above).

User's Djsasso and Kaiser matias 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)

RfC about Controversy section

Should the there be a section on Controversy detailing recent events regarding Belarus and tournament hosting Jabbi (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• It's already mentioned at 2021 IIHF World Championship, so I've no objections to it being added to this article. I don't believe it's mentioned at the 2021 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships or the Ice Hockey World Championships articles. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Actually, I welcome talking about this a bit further. Having done some digging in the wake of Jabbi's abortive attempt to drag ArbCom into this, I find that Jabbi's just come under a one year complete ban from editing any BLP article [14], under discretionary sanctions regarding his persistent crusade against Viktor Lukashenko and related topics. His tendentious crusade -- which he's admitted more than once is driven by his (otherwise understandable) loathing for the Belarusian regime -- got far out of hand quite a long time ago, spread across as many articles as he can manage and shopping in multiple forums. I am opposed to it going any further than the seasonal article it's already in, believe that Jabbi's continued filibustering on the subject runs in the face of consensus and falls under the remit of the Eastern European discretionary sanctions, and welcome the input of those editors involved in Jabbi's ban: @Praxidicae and Nick: Wikipedia is just not the proper venue for Jabbi's persistent political advocacy. Ravenswing 07:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ravenswing, I don't know what it is you think you are protecting but it is truly misguided. I hope you understand that, at the end of the day, what you are trying to achieve, is to prevent critical information about Lukashenko et. al. to be included. I'm happy for my edits to be scrutinised. I made a mistake with the BLP of an associate of Lukashenko named Zaytsev. Happy to sit out my BLP ban. I do my work here with good intentions. Please make note of the content of the Controversy section removed from this article, it is well balanced and also make note that there is no mention in the article of Belarus. --Jabbi (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ravenswing, could you please move this discussion from this section which is about an RfC and to a more appropriate location such as for a committee page or the users' you tagged talk page? (although you might consider that forumshopping) --Jabbi (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
    • You asked the question here, I answered the question here. And as a signpost of just how far you've crossed into soapboxing obsession here, that I'm trying to "prevent critical information about Lukashenko et. al. to be included" is a hallmark of it. Utter nonsense. Lukashenko has his own article, and is mentioned at great length in numerous other articles. I am active in none of them, and have edited none of them. (In fact, the only Eastern European article I have on watch is of the Lithuanian town where my great-grandfather was born.) What I'm trying to prevent are undue comments into barely tangential articles: you can't possibly imagine that those risking their lives for regime change in Belarus would react other than with derisive laughter at such information in the article of the current IIHF president (as you tried to do, and for instance) being "critical" to their struggle. You've admitted outright that your goal is not to improve these articles, but to vent your anti-Lukashenko spleen, and your record in so doing is relevant to the conversation.

      In any event, I'm just putting my thoughts on record. I know you've got a massive case of WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE, so no one's going to convince you of anything short of yet another topic ban. Ravenswing 04:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

      • Ravenswing, I was going to take a break from this but, alas, I feel I need to respond to your gibberish, so low is your standard of rhetoric, you cannot even support your collection of varied accusations with diffs.

Re: "prevent critical information about Lukashenko et. al. to be included", the issue at stake, in case you did not understand or somehow failed to miss the point, it the IIHF's repeated and pronounced collaboration with the Lukashenko regime, why do you think Reuters publishes a headline saying Angering critics, Belarus' Lukashenko hugs world ice hockey boss. Do you think a lot of dictators hug heads of international world sports organisations? Why do you think Lukashenko set up such a publicity stunt? The reason this is relevant here as to just on the pages of the two tournaments is because Fasel/IIHF stance was clearly to try and go ahead. Sponsors pulling out and widespread bad publicity prevented the second tournament being held there. There is already consensus to have a Controversy section, there is consensus to include the information about Belarus there. It's the precious 1970s amateur/professional that needs a "properly researched" place that is preventing it. Truly pathetic. Please, give me your thoughts on that (and I hope your Lithuanian ancestor won't be turning in his grave).

Re: you can't possibly imagine that those risking their lives for regime change in Belarus would react other than with derisive laughter at such information in the article of the current IIHF president (as you tried to do, and for instance) being "critical" to their struggle., of course this isn't critical in any sense^{Ahh, where I say "prevent critical information about Lukashenko et. al. to be included" I mean critical in the sense criticism, not of vital importance", I'm surprised that you, as a native English speaker understood it the other way} , I have not said that, but I have a strong conviction as to what is appropriate, I'll repeat myself again This is a controversial aspect of IIHF, where IIHF played an active role, it should be presented that way. Unfortunately I cannot edit the article on Lukashenko anymore because I have a year's ban on BLP but before that I managed to improve his bio significantly, I have only gotten to his first term in office, and contributed to his GA being rescinded. Now, when you refer to something you claim I or someone have done on WP, it is good practice to include a diff, you have been around long enough to know that. My only edit for Rene Fasel, was this, I had read the online interview with him and found what he said relevant, he is talking about his own ambition towards holding the tournament in Belarus. Shocking right?

You've admitted outright that your goal is not to improve these articles, but to vent your anti-Lukashenko spleen, and your record in so doing is relevant to the conversation. I have admitted to no such thing. Again, a diff or a source of some kind can in general be of good use when making statements here on Wikipedia.

You've bullshitted a lot Ravenswing, the true measure of anything here is to support statements with sources. If you can point to where I POV edit please do so with a diff. Conversely, I have actual proof of POV edits made by yourself, on Jan 20, after the tournament has been moved, here you remove relevant information about WHY holding the tournament in Belarus was controversial and the fact that Dzmitry Baskau, the president of the Belarus Ice Hockey Federation, was linked to the death of protestor Raman Bandarenka. Is this not relevant? The IOC banned Baskau because he is thought to have played an active role in suppressing protests. [15]. Two days later you still persist to remove information about who were opposed to holding the tournament in Belarus (European Parliament and Krišjānis Kariņš prime minister of Latvia which was set to co-host the championship).

I am happy to defend my edits in general. Please stop making unsupported claims against me. If you have proof then you should go through the correct channels to have me topic banned. --Jabbi (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• It is already on the 2021 page, and in some sort of context, on the more detailed History of the International Ice Hockey Federation, it does not need to be here as well. It should be noted though, that page does not even mention other significant controversies. Being discussed on relevant pages is one thing, having a vastly WP:UNDUE amount of attention is another. Having a 'controversy' section is okay, if it is historically balanced and shows some perspective.18abruce (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• 18abruce pretty much sums it up perfectly at this point. This information is already completely included on the 2021 tournament page which is where it is most applicable. It is also included in the History page. It doesn't also need to be included on this page. This is very much starting to feel like a very big POV crusade. Ravenswing is probably correct that at this point it is coming close to being an issue with his previous AE sanction, if it hasn't already. Having well balanced information is fine, but what you are proposing is going really far into UNDUE territory. -DJSasso (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@18abruce:, @Djsasso:, what you are not responding to is that this is documented to span several years, reaching back to the 2014 tournament. As such this clearly merits content under a heading of Controversy. The edit I made to include a Controversy section included references to other supposed controversial aspects. Please review the Controversies section under the International Olympic Committee for comparison. I make the same claim of pov against you and the parties listed, you all have a record of contributing to ice hockey related content and are in my view not neutral for that reason. What I have done is exhausted attempts for consensus, I revisited this only when there was a new development and went through the processes I believed to be appropriate to appeal outside your well-meaning yet myopic consensus. If you wish to report me for anything you believe to be in violation of standards, please do so through appropriate mechanisms and leave this space for debate about the content of the article. --Jabbi (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This is about the content, the content is very POV ladden. It is undue weight and seems to be a part of a campaign to spread this information to as many places as possible to get as many eyes on the actions of Lukashenko etc as possible. Not really sure how editing hockey articles would make someone POV on this subject, you might have a point if we were trying to put good information about the IIHF on articles about Lukasenko or something stupid like that but your attempt to obscure the fact that you are acting in bad faith is pretty thinly veiled. As for the information reaching back to the 2014 tournament, then its a good thing its already included on the History of the International Ice Hockey Federation article which covers more than one year. -DJSasso (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I am interested in the situation in Belarus, I edit articles related to the politics of Belarus. Why you choose to insinuate that I am acting as a part of campaign is baseless. I have argued strongly, and explained reasoning in detail here above. If a group of North American ice hockey enthusiasts are all opposed to having this included, might it be because it is a controversial political aspect of the organisation's work? I've explained this already and your attempts here to act like you don't understand that are frankly surprising. Are you then part of a campaign to spread information about ice hockey? Feel free to point to any POV edit I've made apart from the BLP mistake I've admitted to. Including the information of the history page is certainly not thanks to you. In my view people that want to read about IIHF should get a good overview on the page of that article, the history page will see less clicks. I'm quite clear here, accusing me of acting in bad faith is inappropriate and you should either back it with evidence or retract the statement. --Jabbi (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Your BLP issue is very relevant to this situation. It goes to show that this isn't the first time you have had an issue with this very problem regarding the very person tied up in these edits. You have a history of POV editing, and have been actively sanctioned for it. That is a very big difference than people happening to edit hockey articles. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes. Please try to stay on course here. --Jabbi (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

When you continue to do it, it stops being a mistake. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to an POVed edit and explain why it is POV please. --Jabbi (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

You have had UNDUE explained to you repeatedly and how your edits violate it. UNDUE editing is POV. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this. Where I devote 1/3 of the content to explaining that several controversial things have happened throughout the history of the IIHF. I am sure you are familiar with the debate above about how much proportionality should be expended. I only explain the Belarus part as is necessary given the circumstances. Your view that this is UNDUE is biased in my view, especially as neither you nor anyone else have not suggested clearly what other material should be there. There is a consensus for Controversy above. So your accusations sound very empty to me. --Jabbi (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It beggars belief frankly that at the time of holding a major tournament, the IIHF flag has been removed from the display of flags in a political gesture and not only does a group of ice hockey enthusiasts reject it's buildup and the event itself as belonging under the heading Controversial but they do nothing to include it anywhere. --Jabbi (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It's literally included on two different pages. It isn't like it can't be found anywhere. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

First they came ... Apologies, that's not really called for. You are right. I am getting too worked up. I'll take a few days pause from Wiki. --Jabbi (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Read over the IIHF's history article & it's tagged as being questionably NPOV. But yup, the 2014 & 2021 incidents are mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support I can see a lot of to and thro debate here, but I welcome the addition of a *controversy* section to this article, and the inclusion of this particular issue, as well as any others, with the text for each controvery meeting WP:Due(and not dominated by Lushenko issues). I'm uneasy about controversies not being shown here on the main page, but shuttled off to a history page, which arguably could be perceived at them being hidden from the main reader traffic. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose not yet, at least - it's a current event which can be covered in more detail on different parts of the wiki, and doesn't define the organisation. Please don't respond to this, this RfC is a mess as it is and I'm not changing my opinion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: obviously, for reasons I give repeatedly and exhaustively above. I'm also grimly amused at Jabbi's sudden silence and apparent disinterest in carrying the process to conclusion ... which I expect will change the instant his anti-Lukashenko crusade is trimmed from any of the several articles it now occupies. Ravenswing 13:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

You talk a lot Ravenswing with little to support what you say. Am I expected to bring this process to conclusion you say? How so? --Jabbi (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose if it wasn't clear above. -DJSasso (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this discussion is dead. It did not clarify much. In addition to the usual suspects, those who have participated in the discussion before it was RFCed there are only 3 additional responses. Two positive and one negative, although the negative input is based on the clearly incorrect assumption that this is a current event being discussed.

Regardless, the current situation is that there is a well supported consensus for a Controversy section provided it is well balanced. Perhaps I will read up on the pro vs. amateur debate etc., if I do I will post a draft in my sandbox so that there may be no undue tarring of the good reputation of the IIHF. --Jabbi (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Chile

In the members section is this: "(Chile would be 22nd but is still listed as 'affiliate' despite having ice hockey now)"
What does "having ice hockey now" mean? Is that really an actual saying? 109.240.97.114 (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)