Talk:Ice hockey/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Split

On a less controversial subject: should the article be split in twain or more? - if so, exclude me out, for I know not how to accomplish such a task. One natural division would be to separate History of ice hockey into it's own article. But how does one move just a part of an article? Cimon avaro 05:24 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split in two. The format used for the sports articles now is much like that used in the Oxford Companion to Sports and Games -- rules followed by history. Keeping them together is the easiest way for people to find them. Jfitzg

Neutral zone

Could someone in the history of ice hockey section talk about neutral zone defense or whatever it was called? Im talking about the tactic I believe introduced in the US in like the mid nineties by the Boston Bruins, which did something where it made the games extremely low scoring and boring but was extremely powerful. This is very interesting insofar as its one of the few times I have seen in sports where a sports team has broken a sort of unspoken honor system which wants to maintain the game at a minimum level of entertainment value for the spectators.

The neutral zone trap was common in my childhood in the 50s, so I don't think any honour system was broken (scores were as low in the 50s as they are now, too). NHL games were high scoring in the 80s because expansion watered down the talent. The NHL had to change the offside rule, for example, because so many players had trouble staying onside. After the communist countries collapsed and their players migrated to the NHL the quality of play improved, the offside rule was restored to its original form, and scores declined. The improvement in goaltending technique in the 90s also has to account for a large part of the decline in scores. It would also be POV to claim that the trap is not entertaining. What I have always liked about hockey is how hard you have to work to score. The trap makes the players work. Canadians, at least, like hardworking hockey -- the worst thing they can say about a player is that he's a floater. Trontonian

I disgree with your view that the high scoring seen in the 80's was due to watered down talent, while the neutral zone trap was implemented due to a higher number of quality NHL players. Rather the neutral zone trap was perfected in the 90's by coaches who usually were in charge of low-budget teams and wanted to keep the game 'within reach' by ensuring low scores. The trap is based on the premise that if your team does not have skilled players, they can at least slow the better opposition players down by grabbing their jerseys, or hooking the players with their sticks to slow them up(much like fouling Michael Jordan every time he touches the ball). Even worse for the fans the system required all of its players to adhere to strict defensive formations without acting upon scoring opportunites for fear of missing a defensive assignment. The NHL has acknowledged the boring style of the trap and has attempted to win back fans during this 05-06 season; through implementing rule changes restricting the trap, and more importantly adhering to existing rule enforement during the games. Stephen

Last paragraph

Uh. What did I do? Something funny happened to the last paragraph of the article; but what?... I don't know how to fix it. Help? Cimon avaro 05:37 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

You added an extra space at the start of the last paragraph. If it's indented like that it showed up in monospace. Kirjtc2 05:39 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Unsourced

Could someone provide me with the evidence on which the claim that the SM-liiga is indisputably the next highest rated league after the NHL was based? I'm willing to believe that the assertion may be true, but it sounds like POV to me. Finland has produced a lot of excellent hockey players (one of my favourite hockey memories is of the Finnish juniors standing up to a much larger Canadian team in the World Junior championships in 1986; it took a highly questionable call to beat them), but I seriously doubt that most hockey fans have ever heard of the SM-liiga. If you asked most Canadians to name a hockey team in Scandinavia, they would probably, if they could think of one, say Jokerit, but if you asked them what the next best league was, they'd say the AHL. Jfitzg

I removed the line from the article pending some confirmation:

After NHL the Finnish SM-liiga is the indisputed runner-up; followed by the Swedish Elitserien and the Czech and Russian national competitions.

Rmhermen 21:23 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I put a non-POV version back in the article. It may well be true that the SM-liiga provides the highest quality of play outside the NHL, but since hockey fans never agree about anything I doubt that fact would be undisputed. Jfitzg

Diagram

I was trying to construct a rink diagram for ice hockey, similar to my work on field hockey, basketball and several other sports. Unfortunately, I am having a great deal of trouble deciphering the diagrams on the IHF and NHL web sites (they are either tiny, poor bitmaps or malformed PDFs that may look great when printed on a high-resolution colour printer but are borked on gnome-gv). It's all too hard for a non-hockey person. Does somebody who understands the sport want to step up to the job? --Robert Merkel 13:08 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Incorrect statement

The statement about the IIHF World Championships being open to all the world's best players was incorrect, so I reverted to the previous version. Trontonian

The IIHF worlds seemed to have been confused with the World Cup, so I tried to straighten that out and add a mention of the IIHF worlds, which should be in the article. I also took some of the description of the World Cup of Hockey and Canada Cup and used it to create a stub for each. Trontonian

Canada Cup is also played for in other sports such as cycling and women's fastpitch. I have created a disambiguation page for Canada Cup and moved the ice hockey info to Canada Cup (hockey). RedWolf 23:20, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

How come there's a difference in rink size between international and American hockey? BL 18:57, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

USSR still plays ?

According to these sentences "Featuring the very best players from the six competing countries (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Finland, the USSR, Sweden and the USA) the Canada Cup was played for in 1976, 1981, 1984, 1987 and 1991. The 1987 event is referred to as one of the most spectacular in hockey history. In 1996, the Canada Cup was replaced by the World Cup of Hockey, which featured all six nations above and Germany (though Czechoslovakia had by then split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia)." USSR played the World Cup of Hockey from 1996 on. Remember that USSR and Russia are different countries, just as Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic...

Has been reworded. I hope the new version is acceptable. Andris 18:11, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Spelling

The entry is in Canadian spelling, which favors "defence" and "centre." According to Wikipedia policy, this is acceptable, so long as it is consistent within the article. There is no need, therefore, to change "defence" to "defense," especially if you are going to leave the rest (e.g. "centre") in Canadian spelling. AverageGuy 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was not aware of the Canadian spelling difference and thought "defence" a small spelling error. Sorry about the change.

--Philologus8 05:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Relevant?

I don't understand this phrase: "Some note that the violence question is certainly relevant ..." Can anyone clarify what it means? Relevant to what? AverageGuy 01:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it does not make sense, in fact the entire last sentence seems to contradict itself. To make it grammatically correct, one might change "...the violence question..." to "...the violence in question..." or "...the question of violence...". Take out the stinger "...and violence in sports", as the article is about ice hockey, not sports in general. The writer might have been trying to say something like "the question/controversy of violence in Ice Hockey is important because the league has always tried to preserve the qualities of sportsmanship and gentlemanly play" and then relate to the Byng trophie and whatnot.

The paragraph was constructed with the purpose of coming to a conclusion about violence in ice hockey. The writer used logical structure, comparing/contrasting two differing views (Gretzky and Cherry), and then coming to a conclusion, which is that the problem of violence is still undecided.

Note: Taking more current events into account, one might relate to the Moore/Bertuzzi incident in the paragraph, to give evidence to the argument against fighting. --Philologus8 06:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Increase in Women's Hockey

Here's another passage that I do not understand: "Women's hockey is one of the fastest growing women's sports in the world, with an increase of 400 percent, in just the last 10 years." Increased in what sense? The number of participants? The number of teams? The number of spectators? The revenues of professional teams? Can someone clarify? AverageGuy 01:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I can shed some light on the vague statement. In an article posted by the Canadian Adult Recreational Hockey Association (CARHA) it is stated that there has been a 400% increase in the number of participants. The paragraph in which this is stated I have pasted below.

Since 1992, women's teams have been springing up across the country and more teams and leagues have joined CARHA and are attending their tournaments. It's a trend that is expected to continue. Even though women were playing hockey as early as 1890, interest in the sport has really taken off in the past ten years. Women's hockey has seen a 400 percent increase in 'participation in that time, making it one of the fastest growing sports in the world.

The above passage can be found at [1]

NOTE: The article contains a wealth of information about Women's Hockey that could be used in the expansion of the Women's Hockey section.

Hat Trick?

I don't know much about ice hockey but I do know cricket. In 19th century England when a player took wickets in 3 consecutive deliveries he was awarded a top hat for the feat. This is where the term hat trick came from and from there it spread to other sports. The article claims that spectators throw their hats on the ice. Could someone who knows more about hockey confirm this?

- It is true. At hockey games, if a player gets a hat-trick most fans will throw their hats onto the ice.

I found an article about it and updated this article accordingly. – flamurai (t) 01:01, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

20th century history?

It would be nice to expand the "History" section beyond the 19th century. It seems grossly incomplete right now. If nothing else, the rise of the NHL and the spread of the game to Europe should be mentioned. Funnyhat 23:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Origins

Traces and ruins show pictures of our bandy palying ancestors in Iran (Persia), Egypt and Greece. On the walls of Grave no. 16 in Beni Hassan in the Nile Valley, near Minia, a tableau shows two players with bandy or hockey sticks "facing off" with an appliance that might be a ball. A more recent fresco from ab. 480 A.D. in Greece shows six players in roughly the same pose, facing off. Since then the sport has taken many variations and names in many parts of the world. Historians talk of french «hocquet», irish «hurling», scottish «shinty», english «hawkey» or «hockey», welsh «bandy», georgisk «lelo» og icelandic «knattleikr». Bandy, hockey, knattleikr and shinty has been played on grounds and marshes in summer time and on ice in winter. The welsh word «bandy» is probably inherites from the teutonic «bandja» (a hooked stick). In the book «Sports and Pastimes» from 1801 Joseph Strutt describes the stick as "the bandy", (pl. bandies) and describes a game called «bandy-ball» from ab. 1300. Bury Fen in East Anglia, England is the cradle for bandy on ice, it can be dated back to ab. 1750. Bury Fen Bandy Club is no doubt the most famous one. Some famous English football clubs (Sheffield United (originally Sheffield Southerand and Bandy Club, 1855) and Nottingham Forest (1865) had «bandy» in their names. The first bandy match between two London based clubs was staged in i 1875. Earlier matches were played between Bury Fen BC, Virgina Water BC, Wenchester BC, and Northampton BC amongst others.

The rules

were written in 1891 when «National Bandy Association» was formed in England. Previously the teams had agreed rules before every bout. Two long branches were frozen into the ice, twigged together to make a "crossbar". The goals were placed as far apart as the pond or lake would allow. The stick was made from elm or ash, curved or angled at the end. The bandy sport, or "hockey on ice" was introduced in Sweden in February of 1894 by a Bury Fen player, C. G. Tebbutt, who also orchestrated the first international match in 1891 between Bury Fen and Dutch club Haarlem.

Netcam

I started the FoxTrax article a few months ago, and it looks to be in good shape now. Just realized that there wasn't any article on the Netcam on Wikipedia. It was one of the first such camera to be used in televised sports, introduced in the 1992 Winter Olympics I believe. Other sports didn't include such features (like the backboard camera in basketball, or the ones for football/soccer]] until much later. --Madchester 22:00, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Canada's official winter sport?

I was under the impression that Canada's official sport was curling, not hockey. Can we have some substantiation for this one?

Nope, Canada has 2 official sports: -Summer: Lacrosse -Winter: Ice Hockey

--Stepside 13:44, 2005 Nov 26

Hockey was only made a national sport within the last 10 years, before that it was just lacrosse.

Incorrect history

In the history section of the article it says Britain conquered Canada from France.

Britain didn't conquer Canada from France. Britain conquered New France, much of which later became the British colony of Upper Canada, then after a long process of increasing self-determination, this colony, along with many other colonies and territories, became the country we know as Canada today.

I've made the change in the article. This can be correlated in any history book.

Drdestiny7 13:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Records

I added the article on the record for most people at a hockey game. I thought it was relavant to the history of the game. Please contact me with any questions. (I was there!)

AStudent 4:37EDT 16 April 2006

Terminology

I just organized some of the terminology so it fit into categories better. I also just wrote the wrist shot page, so be sure to check that out for errors and typos. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As I've seen this bounce around a couple of times. The correct term is Alternate Captain. Not assistant or associate. Not sure if it'd be worth referencing in the main article, but for those of us, you can read it in NHL Rule 14. -- Discordanian 20:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Poland amongst most prominent hockey nations?!

?

Yeah, there's a stumper; I can think of one or two Polish NHLers, but according to the world rankings, Poland is #21st, behind such notable international hockey powers as Japan, Denmark, Kazakhstan and Austria. It isn't in the Olympic pool, and hasn't been in the "A" pool at the Worlds for three years. Sounds like someone wanted to go for Polish boosterism there. I'll go make that change now. RGTraynor 06:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are the rankings you refer to to be found? —Bromskloss 15:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Right here: [2]. Poland was 20th going into the Worlds, and finished third in their bracket in Div 1; they'll probably be around 20th-21st when the new rankings come out. RGTraynor 15:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. At a nearby page, I found what I believe is even more up-to-date rankings (which takes into account the result of the 2006 world championships). Yay, Sweden wins again! Oups, sorry, POV. —Bromskloss 20:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Took the liberty to add Slovakia to the top nations. It's been 'the big 7' since the velvet divorce. Slovakia as the smaller (in hockey sense) had to work their way up the system but has since then stayed at in the top division. In every international playoff you have the same 7, plus one other (like Switzerland, Latvia, Germany and others). Hdw 11:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hockey Countries

Looking at the 'big 7' and a globe at the same time leads to two questions.

How on earth did Czechoslovakia/Czechia/Slovakia end up there? And where are Norway/Iceland/Greenland? Sweden, Finland, Soviet/Russia, Canada and (Northern) US makes sense, but check a map, Czechia and Slovakia isn't exactly known for harsh winters and lots of ice. Anyone who can find the roots of Czech/Slovak hockey?

Yes; I recommend Total Hockey, which has small blurbs on the history of hockey in every hockey-playing country from Andorra on up. Hockey was played in Bohemia from 1905 on, the first league being founded in 1908, and Bohemia was even one of the founders of the predecessor to the IIHF before Czechoslovakia was created. The reason many of the continental European countries developed ice hockey before Scandinavia did was that the sport of bandy (basically, field hockey on ice) was well-known there, and the playing style ported over relatively well. That being said, they play hockey in a lot of places; heck, Brazil, Taiwan, Greece, Hong Kong, Israel and North Korea all have leagues. RGTraynor 06:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Long Harsh Canadian Winters

Again, is this necessary: "As Canadian winters are long and harsh, winter sports were always welcomed". Isn't this POV? Sure, winters can be long but alot of Canada (Nova Scotia, PEI, BC) stays warmer and gets less snow than the States.

Look at the context in which it's used. (New France in 1763). Describing winters at the time before electrical heating and indoor rinks as long and harsh is certainly not a stretch. Yankees76 20:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. Maybe it should have 'were' instead of 'are'? the whole line reads: As Canadian winters are long and harsh, new winter sports were always welcomed." One part is present tense and one part is past tense. But then again I live there what would I know? "As Canadian winters are long and harsh" Maybe I should just stay away from wiki when I'm grumpy. :) 24.222.25.186 20:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I also wouldn't assume that you're the only person from Canada editing Wikipedia. I agree that the tense should be the same, however. Yankees76 21:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't - the sentence is worded properly. Sorry. Yankees76 21:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So Canadian winters are long and harsh? What part of Canada, and compared to what? 24.222.25.186 18:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The large majority of the country. In fact other than the southwestern coast of BC average daytime temperatures fall below freezing for three months a year. It's a verifiable fact. There's plenty of research from Environment Canada that shows this. In the context of the sentence it could be compared to the settler's countries of origin. I think you're just nitpicking over one sentence of the article, without actually offering anything in the way of improvements. Yankees76 21:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, don't agree. I think you are generalising Canada as one big cold place. It sounds like Canada is nothing but cold. Where at Environment Canada does it say Canada has long and harsh Winters? Does 3 months a year below freezing mean long and harsh? Sure, I may be nitpicking but I wouldn't bother to keep responding if someone wasn't nitpicking my question. I live on the opposite end of Canada as BC and we have had 1 month of below freezing temps. I don't care anymore anyways, I will not be checking back here anymore.24.222.25.186 15:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Again - you're nitpicking without offering any improvements. You have yet to even offer up an alternate wording for the rest of us to review. I also think you'll be able to find many verifiable sources that back up the claim that Canadian winters are long and harsh. (by the way, I seriously doubt the East Coast has only 1 month for below freezing temperatures - please back up that statement with a reference. If Vancouver has 51 days of below freezing tempatures [3] and it's the city with the fewest days below freezing, how would it be possible for the east coast to have only 30 days? Try again. Yankees76 16:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Fine you win 51 days below freezing is a long harsh winter. Whatever. Your POV is that Canada has long harsh winters, mine is that they are not long and harsh. In the context of the sentance, people want to go outside because the winters are long and harsh. Would you want to go out and play if the weather was harsh? People would want to find warmer things than going outside into the long harsh winter that is in Canada. Is it a fact that winter sports were always welcomed because the winters were long and harsh? My problem isn't just with long (funny, everyone's winter last from Dec 21 to Mar 21 does it not)and harsh (fine, but I think this is POV) but also that people wanted to go out and play because it was cold. Also, your source is from 1990, December, January and half of February were on average above freezing here this winter. No, I do not have something to replace thesentance.24.222.25.186 17:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm with Yankees76; this is petty nitpicking that obscures the simple and obvious fact that in comparison with most of the rest of Earth, Canada does indeed have relatively cold and harsh winters. How 21st century Westerners, with their centrally heated homes and electronic entertainments, choose to deal with winter boredom is significantly different than what rural agrarians did in the early 19th century. So you didn't feel very cold this winter, but how that extremely POV premise (after all, you haven't posted the opinions of your neighbors) factors into this we've yet to learn. RGTraynor 17:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

When Great Britain conquered New France from France in 1763 (much of which would later become part of Canada), soldiers used their knowledge of field hockey and the physically aggressive aspects of what the Mi'kmaq Aboriginal First Nation in Nova Scotia called dehuntshigwa'es (lacrosse). As Canadian winters are long and harsh, new winter sports were always welcomed. Using cheese cutters strapped to their boots, both English- and French-speaking Canadians played the game on frozen rivers, lakes, and ponds.

It's 1763. Do you think they're staying indoors watching TV? Do some reading. [4], and when you're done that, [5]. Yankees76 17:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Man, I love nitpicking. Thanks for the research about the long and harsh Canadian winters. That changes everything. Canada's winters are cold and harsh, relative to the rest of Earth. My neighbors have opined that it has been mild this winter as well. I don't really care, but I do like to argue. Crazy how such a little thing has brought such criticism, but thanks for showing me the error of my ways.24.222.25.186 18:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that I live in Florida. Based on this, I will argue with anyone who states that the United States has variable weather patterns. Here, where I live, the weather is always warm, it rarely drops below 60 during the day. Anyone who says the US has 4 seasons with considerably different weather is therefore wrong. 72.209.72.177 03:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I liked the idea of an example of a non-penalty that gets a whistle, but felt it needed to be clarified. It was such as shooting above the shoulders, and I changed it to such as using one's hands to pass the puck in the offensive end. My reasoning is that the first example is slightly ambiguous and furthermore, a rule that isn't universal. Sometimes it's high-sticking if you shoot above the shoulder, sometimes it's shooting with the stick above the crossbar. However, both NHL and International rules forbid a hand pass in the offensive end. Discordanian 13:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering where the proof is in Vancouver having 51 days of below freezing temperature? Certainly not 51 full days! I live on Vancouver Island and there are only a handful of days where the temperature is below zero for a full day. In fact it is fairly rare for it to get around -4 or -5. I have never played hockey on a pond, just like 98% of the people who grow up in this region. EZC195

History

I've made substantial edits to the history section. Most are copy edits and restructuring to improve the flow and to try and separate out the various claimants and clearly (but briefly!)state their cases. I've added a bit of information and a couple of references. I am by no means an expert on the history of hockey, however, so I welcome any contributions. The section on the 20th century in particular needs fleshing out. Eron 23:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Varsity Match

Is there a citation for this 1885 university match in England? RGTraynor 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Looked into this, made the necessary changes and included a reference. MAG1 22:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In North America, two professional leagues emerged: the National Hockey Association in 1910 and the Pacific Coast League shortly after. In 1914 these two leagues competed for the Stanley Cup before World War I forced a suspension in league activities. The National Hockey League was formed in November of 1917, when members of the former National Hockey Association were engaged in a dispute with one of their fellow owners over insurance proceeds. The NHA disbanded, and the new league began play in December of that year with five Canadian teams. It remained amateur until 1924 when the Boston Bruins went professional[5]. The Pacific Coast League folded and in 1926, now with ten teams, took control of the Stanley Cup and formed a Canadian and an American division.

Professionalism

I realized this has been sourced but is it possible that source could be wrong. The top of the para states two pro leagues emerge NHA/PCL. than NHL comes along with 5 Canadian teams then it states it was amatuer until the Briuns came. So they start out pro go to ametuer but allow a pro US team in ? that does not make sesense to me. Smith03 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, though the Oxford book is authoritative (even if that does not make it infallible). I should think there is some difficulty over what exactly 'professional' means: were the teams clubs or franchises? Associations or money-making entities? Were they paying players or not? Was the league was run for love or money? The answer to any of these questions might determine what professional means for diffierent people. It may take a proper academic history book or article to sort out out properly. Made an unsatisfactory fix for now. MAG1 21:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If the Oxford book genuinely stated that the NHA or NHL at any point was amateur, I don't consider it authoritative in the least degree. Major hockey in North America was fully professional from 1908 on (when the ECAHA dropped "Amateur" from its title, as all of its remaining clubs were professional) and openly professional some years before that. I've changed the article to suit. RGTraynor 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, though you seem to be a bit arbitrary about disregarding one source (which is authoritative), without providing any others. As I stated above, the question of professionalism is a difficult one. The first fully professioanlo league was founded in Ontario in 1908, which probably led to the change you mention. It does not explain whether the NHL was professional on founding- do you have any verifiable facts on this particular question? There was a war on in 1917- was the cash available to support a fully professional league? MAG1 08:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking or are you kidding? Every reputable history, from Trail of the Stanley Cup to Checking Back to Total Hockey to Fifty Years of Hockey to the Hockey Encyclopedia to the NHL's own charter and records holds to that, and no so-called reference book making such a blatant error should be considered authoritative; you might as well be asking me to prove that the NHL used pucks instead of golf balls in 1917. As to that, the change I mentioned had nothing to do with the Ontario Professional Hockey League; the ECAHA's clubs by 1906 had the option to declare themselves fully professional or fully amateur, and by 1908 the last all-amateur clubs had dropped out of the league. This was before the founding of the OPHL, but that was the first known explicitly and intentionally pro league. Obviously the cash was available to support a professional league in 1917, the same way the cash was available to do so in 1940. RGTraynor 17:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm seriously asking. If you have a cast-iron series of references that say that the NHL was founded as a fully professional league, then that is great. Stick the references in the article (it badly needs them), and that's that. As you say, there were professional clubs (and players) before professional leagues, and professional leagues (such as OPHL) before the NHL, but that does not mean that the NHL was founded as a professional league in the way that is understood now. I am quite happy to be completely wrong on this point, as I am fishing in the dark, but 1917 was not the same as 1940: in 1940 there was the substantial involvement of the (neutral) USA, while in 1917 it was all-Canadian. Apart from the cash, I imagine that in the conscription crisis there will also have been a strong sentiment that fit young men should be somewhere other than a ice rink. Again, qute happy to be wrong, but I can see that the idea that the NHL may have been founded as an amateur league as not totally lunatic. Even if it is, there will have been some very interesting ideas circulating after 1900 about the nature of professionalism. MAG1 22:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

First hockey game in US

The first ice hockey game played in the US was played at St. Paul's School in Concord, NH in at least 1884. Could someone offer attribution for the current "first hockey game" statement (1893 at Yale University)? St. Paul's School's 150-year anniversary celebration page makes note of the first-game-in-the-US stat, but if anyone is looking for something more reliable, I can look around. MJL0509

Come to that, I'd like to see independent verification of St. Paul's assertion. It also might be useful to apply the centenarians' 100-year-rule to anything of the sort: is there verification that there was a 100th anniversary notice in the mid-1980s? There are no records that ice hockey was played in the United States prior to 1895 ... what was played before that time was something called "ice polo" which was substantially field hockey on ice, sans skates. RGTraynor 21:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the ridiculous sentence: "It is one of the world's fastest sports, with players on skates capable of going high speeds on natural or artificial ice surfaces." Smokie81

I'll back you up on that. While it's a fast-paced team sport, it pales in comparison to luge, bobsledding, speed-skating and skiing for "fastest sports". Yankees76 03:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that it is a relevant point. It may not be the fastest sport, but compared to other team sports it is. And also, if I remember correctly, a recent (within the last few years) NHL slogan made reference to it being a fast sport (correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps a change to "one of the world's fastest team sports." --Random89 00:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

General Comments on this and related articles

I'm new to this article and don't want to make massive changes, but why aren't a lot of the articles combined? Most of them are small and closely related to other articles.

For example: -Rink - Some of the things listed to rink are already part of the Rink article, which is good. Do we really need seperate articles for the slot and the point? -Shot (Ice Hockey) links to four articles on shot types that are each only a few lines. The One Timer article which is referenced under the Shot section of Ice Hockey isn't mentioned in the shot article. Why not have one article for all the shot types?

I think you could make an argument for nearly every subsection under the Terminology heading to be merged into one article.142.59.153.99 07:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, particularly for the penalties section... propose a merge of all the articles into a single "Penalties in Hockey" article and move the Penalties section and all related articles in there, placing a summary on the main page. This is good especially because things like slashing, kneeing, misconduct, fight are all redirecting to the wrong things. You might as well be bold and start the process. --ColourBurst 03:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole terminology section can probably be eliminated by moving things elsewhere. Its current form isn't particularly good anyway. Maybe this weekend I'll start moving some of the links to better places and proposing merges. Flip314 07:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Does the Wounded duck exist?

A new page called wounded duck has been created and I suspect that it is either a hoax or non noteworthy. Could you Ice Hockey experts have a look at it? --GringoInChile 23:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's noteworthy, and certainly has nothing to do with hockey; the term's occasionally used for a weak pass in football. RGTraynor 05:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have since nominated the Wounded duck article for deletion. Anyone wanting to vote on the issue is welcome to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wounded duck --GringoInChile 21:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

In reviewing the article according to the Good Article Criteria, I have decided to decline the article's GA status for concerns noted below. Overall the article was an enjoyable read and the article is not far off from GA status. I encourage the editors to continue improving the article and considering resubmitting it once the concerns noted have been addressed.
1. It is well written. - Pass

Excellent job of wiki-linking, especially in the History section with some of early forms of hockey. I would work on the red links though.
I'm curious about the italics used for essentially vocabulary words in the section Game. I'm hesitate to put a "Needs Improvement" in this area because I could not see an area of the WP:MOS where this would directly violate. But it does look curious and out of place. I would recommend that the article's editor take a new look at this.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs Improvement

There is quite a bit of info in the article that can use in-line cites, including sections without any citations. For brevity, I have tagged one or two items in sections that I feel particularly need more references. However, I encourage the editors to do a thorough vetting of the article for other areas that could need use some in-line cites.
In the lead is the statement that Hockey is Minnesota's "most popular spectator sport as well" with the clarification "at all levels" and noting the Wild's 3rd place ratings. In addition to not having cites, that sentence structure is a little confusing and should be rewritten.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Weak Pass

Overall the article does a good of covering all major details in understanding Hockey. I was particularly impressed with the article's ability to not dwell too much on the NHL or IHL but stay broad in it's coverage of the worldwide aspect of hockey.
Excellent job in including details of Sledge Hockey and Women's Hockey.
An area in need of expansion is Ice hockey in popular culture which is written from a complete US-centric focus with Canada getting only a brief mention. At the very least there should be some examples named of these "...homegrown television and movies."

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Needs Improvement

What criteria is used to define "notable" in the lines"The sport's popularity in the U.S. is concentrated in certain regions, notably the Northeast, the Upper Midwest, and Alaska." and "Nonetheless, in certain major U.S. cities (notably Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Chicago, Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, and Denver) it is still a major competitor to basketball for winter sports fans."? The second statement is also a little odd since cities like Pittsburgh and Buffalo do not have professional basketball teams. Even more complex (though this would fall under verifiability) is how hockey is determined to be a major competitor to basketball-ticket revenue, television ratings, merchandise sales?
POVish statement "This historical development is described masterfully in Ken Dryden's book 'The Game.' " and while I'm assuming it is being used as a source for this section, it should be converted into an in-line cite of some sort in accordance to WP:CITE.

5. It is stable - Pass

The article is sufficiently stable.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Needs Improvement

Image:Ice hockey 1922.jpg with Lester Person has an obsolete tag that needs to be fixed.

I want to thank the article's editors for their time and hard work put into getting this article to this point. As I said above, I don't think the article is far off. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 10:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added citations to the Sledge Hockey section, and cleaned up the lead a bit. There's still stuff in there about ice hockey's relative popularity as a spectator sport in the US, but I don't have the background to fix it.

I've also removed the Dryden POV content and converted that to a reference. For other cites requested on the rules, I've rearranged the Game section to bring the discussion of different codes to the top, and added references to the IIHF and NHL rules. I think these can then apply to all the rules detailed below.Eron 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The image tag issue has been fixed. I also found what I think is a better picture of early hockey at McGill (in this one, you can actually see the players). Eron 01:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Germany and Switzerland not dominators

Germany and Switzerland may have elite hockey leagues, but they do not dominate at the international level, especially in the context of the Olympics. The two countries, Yankees76, share 4 olympic medals; all of which are bronze. By claiming that they dominate hockey at the international level, you are not doing justice to the other countries; all of which have at least 8 olympic medals with the exception being Finland (5 medals, which is still more than Germany and Switzerland combined).

That being said, I took the liberty of reverting the paragraph back to how it was. Unless you can show that these two countries dominate at the international level with sources (perhaps in the World Cup of Hockey or the juniors), or unless the wikipedia community feels otherwise, please do not present Germany and Switzerland as dominators. — Dorvaq (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The list shows "The most prominent ice hockey nations". (see the second line the article). Note that it says prominent and not dominant. Finland has hardly been "dominant" at the international level especially when compared to Canada, Russia, Sweden and the Czech/Slovak nations. Slovakia as a nation has no Olympic medals, while Germany has two bronzes. Switzerland has won 4 European Championship gold medals, 7 bronze medals, 1 world championship silver, a World Junior bronze in 1998, World Championship (Junior U18) silver in 2000-2001, World Championship (Junior U18) Division I gold in 2003-04, not to mention they shut out Canada at the 2006 Olympics and also defeated the Czech Republic. That's not including lesser international tournaments like the Spengler Cup, where Swiss club teams have won quite often. IIHF World Rankings also have Switzerland ranked 8th (Germany's women are ranked 5th, ahead of Russia). I feel there is enough of gap in both hockey history and in Switzerlands case, current success between Germany and Switzerland and lesser hockey nations like Belarus, Norway, Austria, Japan, Italy, Kazakhstan and France to be included as a "prominant" ice hockey nation - especially if you add in the high level of play found in both countries domestic leagues. It's the phrase "those seven nations have dominated ice hockey" that should be up for debate. I'm going to revert back along with some concessions. Yankees76 03:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you still feel stongly that neither team belongs, I won't mind a revert back after all I haven't posted a verifiable source that says either country is a prominant hockey nation. I would expect though a source that lists the other countries in the context you've placed them. It should be easy, and it will help the article meet Good Article Criteria (see list of things that need improvement above - note how POV the reviewer says article is). Cheers. Yankees76 04:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See how I've worded the first paragraph and comment. I added a link to the PDF of the IIHF World Championships to further show dominance by the 9 teams (not just the 7) over the last 80+ years. I've also tweaked the opening line to read "Historically, the most prominent ice hockey nations have been", because Finland has only been a hockey power since the 1980's, and in the earlier part of the century teams like Austria and Belgium had better placings than Finland I also ended it with "those nine nations have captured the majority of medals and titles in international competition.". This is also easily verifiable via both the Olympic medeal totals and the IIHF World Championships finishes. Try not to just do a straight revert if you don't agree with adding Switzerland and Germany - there is some good new information and source in there that should be preserved. Thanks. Yankees76 04:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, I did not do a straight revert; I only reverted your paragraph. Secondly, I did not word the paragraph myself, I only reverted it. Thirdly, I do notice that the second sentence says "prominent", but you had initially kept the word "dominant" in the proceeding sentence.

That being said, I don't believe that neither the European championship nor the Spengler cup are fair enough championships to gauge international dominance (or even "prominence" for that matter). The European championships only include European teams while the Spengler Cup is a Swiss tournament, being played in Switzerland, organized by Switzerland and where other team entries are done by invitation — making the tournament heavily biased in favour of Switzerland. Also, using the very PDF you supplied, the first table shows all World Championships; Germany and Switzerland may appear more times, but every medal won was before 1953. Finland, despite being a hockey power since the 1980s by the way, and using your table again, has 8 medals (one less than Switzerland), but all won more recently with 1 medal being gold and 5 medals being silver. Germany has only 2 silvers, no gold, and only four medals won at the international level, while Switzerland has 1 silver, no gold and 9 medals internationally. Finland has been by far more dominant (or prominent) than Germany and Switzerland have ever been, despite your creative use of the word "historically".

Lastly, Slovakia should stay despite only having 3 medals internationally (one of them being gold) simply because they are a former entity of Czechoslovakia. By your logic, if we should remove that country, then we should also remove Russia as they also only won 3 medals as a stand alone country. And for the record, the fact that Switzerland defeated Canada and the Czech Republic in 2006, does not represent international Swiss prominence — I mean — Belarus did defeat Sweden in 2002, should we not add them as well? — Dorvaq (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Relax, when I asked that you "Try not to just do a straight revert if you don't agree with adding Switzerland and Germany - there is some good new information and source in there that should be preserved.", I meant for any editors to be careful about future reverts over that issue because while I was adding in some material about the two countries being discussed I posted a sentance and source at the end about the IIHF World Championships that a revert would have blanked. It had nothing to do with any past edits you might have made.

As I wrote above - I havn't presented a verifiable source other than something that can be viewed subjectively to support my claim, so I'm not going to start and an edit war over it. I respect your opinion while I search for verifiable evidence that supports either country is a prominant hockey country. Yankees76 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about my "opinion", or your source being viewed "subjectively"? This is neither my opinion nor my sujectivity. I'm pointing out the very facts that you presented from the IIHF's website. How is that being subjective? How is that being my opinion? If you figuratively consider 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places in world championships as gold, silver, and bronze medals respectively, it comes down to this:

Germany - 0 gold, 2 silvers, 2 bronzes, total: 4 medals
Switzerland - 0 gold, 1 silver, 8 bronzes, total: 9 medals
Finland - 1 gold, 5 silvers, 2 bronzes, total: 8 medals

Finland's 1 gold medal alone is worth more than Germany and Switzerland's combined 13 medals by olympic standards. Again, I'm speaking figuratively here. Hell, even their 5 silvers are worth more. This is not my opinion; this is not me being subjective; these are standards — standards established by the Olympic Committee, which is the committee that oversees the greatest international sporting event on earth. So I ask you again, how is that being subjective? How is that being my opinion?

Now I'll ask you, how is winning the European Championship or the Spengler Cup a display of international prominence? Mind you, the European Championship is a better gauge, but; is a tournament that effectively removes three of the world's biggest hockey powers — namely, the USA, Canada, and Russia — really a good standard to go by? And, the fact that you would bring up the Spengler Cup is a complete joke. How is winning a tournament; that is always hosted by your team, where the invitees are always picked by your team, where all of the world's greatest hockey powers don't always compete, and where your country's elite players play against other countries' amateurs; a display of international prominence? Who's holding an opinion or being subjective now? — Dorvaq (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For starters, you can drop the hostile tone. I'm unsure as to what part of me writing two days ago "If you still feel stongly that neither team belongs, I won't mind a revert back after all I haven't posted a verifiable source that says either country is a prominant hockey nation." you've failed to comprehend. I understand that you might have the need to get the last word in, or maybe you just really have some personal issues with Germany or the Swiss, but you can revert it. I don't care - without verifiable third party sources I don't have a case under Wikipedia rules. You've wasted time debating a relatively minor edit long after I've conceded the point when there is a list right above this discussion that you could tackle. It's done - make the edits arleady and move on. I have. Yankees76 03:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For starters, it's not about having the last word. Secondly, I understand clearly what you've been telling me, Yankees. This is what you wrote 2 days ago:

If you still feel stongly that neither team belongs, I won't mind a revert back after all I haven't posted a verifiable source that says either country is a prominant hockey nation. I would expect though a source that lists the other countries in the context you've placed them.

Notice the part that I bolded, which you forgot to mention in your last reply. It's hardly concession if you expect me to provide a verifiable source that was already there in the first place, and listed the countries in the context that, NOT I, but the original author had placed them.

That's the reason why I have a hostile tone, Yankees. You've kept making such pointless remarks throughout the debate; trying to make it look like I'm the antagonist here, and then you accuse *me* of wanting the last word.

I've tried to present my rationale behind why Germany and Switzerland shouldn't be considered amongst the other previously mentioned countries using the facts that were provided, while all you've been busy with is accusing me of various things such as having comprehension issues, being subjective with straightforward facts, holding an opinion when all I did was present straightforward facts, and you even went as far as to hypothesize that I may have personal issues with the two countries... and then you accuse *me* of being hostile. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to add that the reason I am not changing it back to how it was before is that I have already done so twice. If I am the only one who disagrees with the addition of Germany and Switzerland in the context that they have been added in, then, by all means, the article should be kept in its current state. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where I said you were subjective. I'm not going to get into a pissing match about who started being hostile, but generally the use of bolded words and lines like the fact that you would bring up the Spengler Cup is a complete joke, is probably not a good idea if you're looking to come off as cool-headed. And in fact nearly all your posts from 17:07, 23 October 2006 onwards have adopted this hostile tone. We're not debating hockey over a few beers in a bar in Sudbury. I said my source (the IIHF pdf) could be viewed subjectively. That meant by any Wikipedia editor or viewer. A list of medal winners is a primary source - raw data - which is always open for interpretation (and can be viewed subjectively). An article or section of an article that relies on primary sources should only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge. For example if you're saying that the Soviet Union has won the most medals - someone who's never heard of hockey can look at the primary source, count up the medals and verify your claim. It should also avoid making analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Saying there are 7 prominant hockey nations and then posting a list of Men's Olympic medal winners as your source doesn't cut it. All that's saying is that in Men's Hockey at the Olympics 7 countries have won the majority of medals. I tried to add to the source with yet another list - but Wikipedia prefers that articles cite secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. You can list medal tallies, and waste space speculating on the value of a gold medal vs. a bronze medal like you've been doing, when it would be much simpler for you to have found this [6] article where NHL correspondant Bill Meltzer lists the hockey powers; posted it as a verifiable source, and ended this useless debate. That's what I was asking for, and that's what I was looking for to support my claims(not "figuratively considering" 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places in world championships) The burden of proof lies with the editor looking to add the material, not the one looking to remove it. I couldn't find such a source and as such offered to withdraw my additions. If this article is to become a GA, things like properly citing reliable sources becomes important. It couldn't hurt for you to become a litle more intimate with some of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Yankees76 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where I said you were subjective. — Ok, so I took it personal by assuming that you were insinuating that I was being subjective given that I was the only one debating. But, you're right; I shouldn't take it personal regardless of whether or not you were being coy.

...but generally the use of bolded words and lines like the fact that you would bring up the Spengler Cup is a complete joke, is probably not a good idea if you're looking to come off as cool-headed. — I wasn't trying to pass off as cool-headed for the reasons I elaborated in my last reply.

Saying there are 7 prominant hockey nations and then posting a list of Men's Olympic medal winners as your source doesn't cut it. All that's saying is that in Men's Hockey at the Olympics 7 countries have won the majority of medals. — That's NOT what it said in the first place. It said those 7 countries dominated ice hockey, as they won the most Olympic medals since the 1920s; here's the direct quote:

While there are 64 total members of the International Ice Hockey Federation, those seven nations have dominated ice hockey. Of the sixty medals awarded in men's competition at the Olympic level from 1920 on, only six did not go to one of those countries, or a former entity thereof, such as Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union.

That makes a huge difference. You're possibly right; the whole issue about prominence associated with the number of medals should be removed, but I'd like to point out, Yankees, that you're the one who made that connection. What was originally there, as I have shown above, was a question of dominance; those 7 nations dominate because they have the largest medal count in the well-known Olympics — big difference — and again, perhaps it's best that we let the reader arrive at that conclusion. But, you're forcing the reader to arrive at the conclusion that Switzerland and Germany are just as dominant in the Olympics as the other seven are by making it look like they've contributed relatively equally to the 64 medal count. I'm speaking strickly in the Olympic sense seeing as that's how the sentence is worded. That has been my issue all along.

You can list medal tallies, and waste space speculating on the value of a gold medal vs. a bronze medal like you've been doing, when it would be much simpler for you to have found this article — I am not speculating on the value of gold medals vs. bronze medals, I am pointing out how the Olympic Committee appraises them. There you go again with your straw man arguments. Oh, and your link doesn't work, by the way.

It couldn't hurt for you to become a litle more intimate with some of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. — And there you go again with your low blow shots at me.

That's what I was asking for, and that's what I was looking for to support my claims (not "figuratively considering" 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places in world championships). — Man you're a work of art for taking what I've said out of context. I wasn't figuratively considering 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places in world championships, I was figuratively considering 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places as gold, silver, and bronze medals to illustrate a point. That makes a huge difference. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Low-blow shots? For suggesting you read a guideline? Not likely - it's a serious suggestion. I'm done with this discussion with you (I should have been three days ago), as it seems you're offended by pretty much anything that is posted regardless of it's intentions or not, and really this is not serving a purpose. Nothing constructive is being acheived by continuing. I'll let another editor make any applicable NPOV changes to the section in question. Yankees76 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

...as it seems you're offended by pretty much anything that is posted regardless of it's intentions or not — Oh give me a break! You should have become a politician as you are a master at diverting attention away from the main point with such slick arguments. I could care less what you think or say about me, Yankees. I am merely pointing out how you digress from the debate at hand by patronizing me. It wouldn't hurt me to read the guidelines you say? You say this as though it's blatantly obvious that I haven't read the guidelines and yet you present no supportive argument to show that I haven't — I'm sure that was an honest mistake on your part not meant to be insulting, right?. The only two reasons why there wasn't anything constructive out of this is that you've taken most of the arguments I put forward out of context, and that you've failed to reply to some legimate claims I've been making since the beginning. My problem, since the onset of this debate, has been that Switzerland and Germany should not be listed with the other countries in the context of the Olympics. It forces the careless reader to arrive at the erroneous conclusion that both countries are dominant players in the Olympics. But, they aren't. — Dorvaq (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Yankees. Why did you take out the point you wrote about IIHF world championships? — Dorvaq (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It didn't make sense as it was, I have to recount the medals and rewrite it removing Germany and Switzerlands medals. Yankees76 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A possible compromise?

Here are two possible versions (or something near) of what I think should replace part of the first paragraph starting at, "The most prominent ice hockey nations are..."

Version 1:

While there are 64 total members of the International Ice Hockey Federation, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden and the United States have dominated men's ice hockey at IIHF World Championships by finishing within most of the coveted 1st, 2nd and 3rd places. Of the sixty medals awarded in men's competition at the Olympic level from 1920 on, only six did not go to the one of those countries, or a former entity thereof, such as Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union. Only one of those six medals was above bronze. Those seven nations have also captured (captured # of spots) places of the (total # of spots) prestigious spots at other world championship events. Also deserving a notable mention is Switzerland, which has won 2 bronze medals at the Olympics and finished in third place 7 times at other IIHF World Championships.

Version 2:

While there are 64 total members of the International Ice Hockey Federation, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden and the United States have finished within most of the coveted 1st, 2nd and 3rd places at IIHF World Championships. Of the sixty medals awarded in men's competition at the Olympic level from 1920 on, only six did not go to the one of those countries, or a former entity thereof, such as Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union. Only one of those six medals was above bronze. Those seven nations have also captured (captured # of spots) places of the (total # of spots) prestigious spots at other world championship events. Also deserving a notable mention is Switzerland, which has won 2 bronze medals at the Olympics and finished in third place 7 times at other IIHF World Championships.

Of course, this would include proper links to respective Wikipedia articles and the correct number of spots won vs. the total number of spots available (represented by the text in brackets) at other world championship events. Personally, I prefer Version 2 as it eliminates subjective terms such as prominent and dominated, but I would appreciate others' input as well. — Dorvaq (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Both are good compromises, you could also mention "and maintains one of the oldest and top-rated ice hockey leagues outside of the NHL."(The Swiss Nationalliga was founded in 1915 and has crowned a champion every hockey season since the 1915-16, with the exception of 1939-1940.) [7]. I do like #2 better as well. Yankees76 23:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that would work well and is nicely worded. Yankees, would you be able to compile the correct number of spots won vs. the total number of spots available from the PDF you had originally provided. If you do, make sure to eliminate the IIHF competitions that represent the Olympics, otherwise we'll be double-counting them in the paragraph. I'll go ahead and make the edit tomorrow if no one has any objections. — Dorvaq (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I can get to it later on tonight. Yankees76 17:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay it will be today or tomorrow - I'm in the midst of an RFC on another article that is (wasting) all my time. I'll try to do this tonight. Sorry! Yankees76 13:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Early history of the sport

This passage:

The Society for International Hockey Research contends, based on a Boston Evening Gazette article from 1859, that an early game of hockey on ice occurred in Halifax in that year.

seems to need an edit. Having read the Society's report on the origins of hockey, which can be found here:

http://www.sihrhockey.org/origins_report.cfm

this is what it has to say about the Boston Evening Gazette article:

The earliest description we are aware of that does contain all the defining characteristics is a Boston Evening Gazette article entitled “Winter Sports in Nova Scotia” (November 5, 1859). The writer describes the game of ricket. It is played on ice; teams are chosen; the players wear skates; each ricketer is provided with a hurley (or hockey); the hurley is used to manipulate a ball; the object is to put the ball through the opponent’s ricket; the ricket consists of two stones placed three or four feet apart. The article explains how the game is set in motion, says something about technique, refers to the player whose job is to prevent the ball from being put through, and indicates the concept of a winning team — the one scoring the most “games,” or goals. It says that ricket is the favourite winter pastime of Nova Scotia. The article does not mention any one specific instance of an actual match.

Since the report doesn't say that the article describes an actual game, it might be more accurate to say here that the Boston article describes an early version of ice hockey played in Halifax in 1859. SIHR's report concludes that the first known organized game of hockey was the one at Montreal's Victoria Rink in 1875.--Munson66 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

College hockey

Has anyone ever considered creating a college hockey article (like how there are already articles for college football and college basketball)? I personally don't know enough to create one but someone out there has to. College hockey teams are mentioned in several articles out there (including this one) so it'd be nice to have one master college hockey article to tie them all together.

Hm. Sounds like a good idea; also an immense amount of work. RGTraynor 03:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Tripping

I took the liberty to change the tripping link. It linked to a disambiguation page that does not link to a description of the hockey penalty. I changed it to link to Tripping (Ice hockey), which doesn't exist, so maybe someone can create it. Fleagle11 03:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

proposition to add link puck.ch

I propose to add a link to http://puck.ch/ to the page. It includes almost all the results of Swiss Ice Hockey for LNA-LNB-1st league-2nd league since season 1995-1996. What must I do to be able to add it to the page ?

Puck.ch 19:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

For starters it's in French. Secondly, the link appears to not be official - how can the information be verified as being accurate? Why link to this amatuerish page and not an official entity of hockey in Switzerland at at the very least the Swiss equivalent of an ESPN for this info? To me it looks like you're adding your own website link to increase traffic. Generally it's not acceptable to link to your own website, unless it's an offcial site. Please read WP:EL. Lastly it's rather out of context - notice how there are no links to TSN or ESPN which also have North American hockey scores, standings etc. Thanks. Yankees76 20:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I understand now better the reason, and I agree with the decision. Sorry for the trouble. Also thanks to have not removed the official swiss ice hockey web site (even if it is only in geman and french...). And just one remark: puck.ch is not only in french. It's also in english (http://puck.ch/e/), german (http://puck.ch/g/) and italian (http://puck.ch/i/). ;)

So, for me we can remove this chapter from the discution. (I don't know if this is the right way to do this, so I let you Puck.ch 00:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of Players

The text states:

Only six of the thirty NHL franchises are based in Canada, but Canadians outnumber Americans in the league by a ratio of almost four to one.

But elsewhere in the article it states: Canada 574,125 1.76% United States 485,017 0.16% With Canada only having aroudn 90,000 more players.

What is up with this?

Bearingbreaker92 | Talk 03:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Those figures are for two different things. The first (4:1 Canadians to Americans) is the ratio of players in the professional NHL. The second figures are for the total number of people in the country who play the sport - at all levels, not just professional. (And I'd point out that while Canada has only 90,000 more players, based on the percentage of the population who play the sport, there is over ten times the level of participation.) - Eron ^Talk 03:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Accuses of nonsense - Needing consensus

Very politely, User:Yankees76 abruptly reverted my attempt to counter US/CAN bias in the history article, saying it was nonsense. In what did consist that alleged "nonsense"? Simply trying to mention other countries in which the sport is popular outside North America, moving later details about NHL (so, which are intrinsecally local) which were put in the abstract (which instead should be the more general as possible), and specifying that the "Professional Era" regarded only North America situation. I seem that for him hockey abroad is something with the same importance of aborigens regarding satellite technology. My version can be found here. I'm waiting for opinions. I seem that what I tried was nothing offensive or reductive, and no material had been deleted. In the meantime, this article has gained a good US/globalize mark. --Attilios 21':41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you removed sourced information to add an unsourced, incomplete list of countries where "hockey enjoys great popularity" [8], which was redundant as many of the same countries appear just a paragraph down (minus your "mountain regions of the Alpine"). I fail to see how this edit solves the problem of North American bias contained in the The Professional Era section - a section which you're more than welcome to edit to provide information on professional leagues from other countries. Additonally, I also removed the "Other Countries" addition to the Professional Era section because it was selectively POV on information that is discussed elsewhere in the article (and not including Germany, Belarus and Switzerland - while including Austria is puzzling), and contained incorrect information/POV such as "North American national teams were gradually replaced by European nations in their commanding role." - which unless you're talking about Mexico, is not factual. I also felt that your inclusion went over material that is well-covered in other sections of the article (see International competition). The Professional Era section should discuss professional hockey ( the history of Elite Leagues in Europe would be a good start), as opposed to discussing amateur international teams of the Soviets in the 60's. Thanks. Yankees76 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're both right. Attilios, if you want to add sourced info on the Elite Leagues, please do so, we need more of that. But Yankees76 is right that making blanket statements like "X is better than Y" is POV. Kevlar67 04:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous information regarding puck speed

Hello

As an Australian I am not well placed to know too much about Ice Hockey, but I came across this whilst perusing the article (in the 'Equipment' section) :

"...The hard surfaces of the ice and boards, pucks flying at high speed (over 90,000 kilometers per hour (5000 mph) at times)...".

Sort of got my attention ! 90,000 kph equates to greater than Mach 72 if my calculations are correct !

I did not edit this because I have no idea what the correct figures are. This is my first time in a 'discussion' section so please bear with me if I have not approached this correctly. I wasn't sure how else to bring it to someone else's attention.

Peregrin Took 11:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.Yankees76 13:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Yankees76, for your response. I have done a fair bit of minor editing in the past, the point I was trying to make here was that I could see that this issue was incorrect, but as I had no decent way of knowing the correct information, I posted here in the hope that someone else would know and correct it. I was looking for feedback as to whether, under the circumstances, the approach I had taken was the most appropriate one. Peregrin Took 21:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The text in question looks like a case of sneaky vandalism, where at one point the information posted was most likely correct, but was then altered subtly so as to escape immediate detection. You best bet would be to either find the correct info online, or dig back through past versions of the page until you find the correct version and simply undo the vandalism. Yankees76 22:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

In the United States eight to ten football players die each year.

Do you have a source backing this statement up? I'm curious about this. I follow the sport closely and I am not familiar with this statistic. Funnyhat 23:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could be a fact, if you include 40+ people in poor shape (like myself) suffering a heart failure while playing whatever with the kids or office mates. Hdw 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While not a source, sports insurance is significantly higher for hockey and football players than any other sports, which shows at least that they are more likely to be seriously injured.

Haha If you think about it the fact says nothing about FORMER football players. I'm sure a bunch of old football player die every year. My grandpa was a football player he died last year. Change this "fact" Gavinthesavage 19:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, you're chiming in on a year-old discussion. Secondly, yes, you're right; the fact says nothing about former football players. It also doesn't say anything about tea leaves, paper clips, the Wilmot Proviso or other such irrelevancies. RGTraynor 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that "FACTS" are subjective. I found it humorous, no need to be a dick...Gavinthesavage 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I am a member of the Ice Hockey WikiProject, but I'll try to review this article imparitally.

"This concentration helps to make ice hockey the least watched major sport in the United States, though it is by far the most watched sport in Canada. Nonetheless, in certain major U.S. cities (notably Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Chicago, Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Tampa and Denver) it commands popularity levels similar to and occasionally exceeding basketball for winter sports fans." Even though it is in the lead, this needs a cite because it can easily be taken as POV.
"It should also be mentioned that Ice Hockey can be credited to black slaves from America. The underground railroad ran into Nova Scotia and in the early 1800s a black church started a few hockey teams. They used the bible as their rule book." Sloppy, unsourced and in my mind, unneeded.
"In North America, the premier league is the NHL. For a more detailed account of Professional Hockey in North America, please see the main article, Professional Ice Hockey in North America" is sentence should be taken out and replaced with {{main|Professional Ice Hockey in North America}}
The entire professional era section has no sources.
A lot of sections have no sources whatsoever.

After reviewing the article, a lot of the prose needs clean up, and there are a lot of unsourced statements that need sources. So, I am going to have to fail this article for the time being. Thanks for your work on the article and with more clean up, it can some day be a GA. -- Scorpion 15:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One of my goals is to bring this article to FA, or at least GA, so I'll iron out the article. I already rewrote and expanded the "The Professional Era" Section. This article is the most improtant of the WikiProject, so it needs to be much better than a B. The Evil Clown 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Popularity

You left out a U.S. city very important to the sport of ice hockey's popularity in the United States. St. Louis is a city that has long been one of the top hockey towns in the country. This is a total non-bias view even though I'm from St. Louis. The recent slide of the Blues has hampered ticket sales and TV ratings but, that shouldn't describe the sports popularity. Any team that has a couple of losing season is going to suffer the same. St. Louis's youth and amature hockey leauges participation rivals that of other U.S. hockey towns. When the Blues first started out in 1967, they sold out every game. For the first 5 or 6 years, the Blues season ticket waiting list was comparible to the Green Bay Packers. I would just like mention of the popularity of the sport in St. Louis. (Joshmc1181 18:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshmc1181 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

It's certainly worth mentioning in the Blues' own article. In terms of hockey history, though, St. Louis lags well behind other towns. RGTraynor 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And you 'll want to provide sources for those claims. ccwaters 19:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I kept removing the St. Louis entries I suspect you've been adding. We need sources for what's already there. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

To be honest, most of the images in this article is of poor quality. If the goal is to bring this article to FA someday I think we need some better photos. I have a little archive of images that I have taken during the swedish junior playoffs (U20 and U18). But before I make an large change in the article I wanted to see if anyone had any objections. And I was also thinking of if anyone have a request of an image that would fit this article since I'll be shoting (with a camera ;) ) again at a game tomorrow. --Krm500 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, do so. Could you attempt to capture a goaltender performing the typical butterfly-style save for the butterfly style article? Adding such an image to that article could improve it by a large factor. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I might have some images of goalies in butterfly position, but they are taken from the other side of the rink so the quality is not that good if I remember correctly. I'll see if I can get a closer shot at todays game. --Krm500 14:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you guys, images could be better, especially in the introduction. There would be few pictures that could be better for introduction, I think, like:

1
2
3
4

So if the image should be replaced, which one of these would ya folks prefer? --TPG 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I only have 2 concerns with your picks. First, we currently have 2 Atlanta vs. Florida images in the article. Secondly, your picks are all NHL ones. If any pictures are to be replaced, I believe they should be NHL ones for other professional league pictures from around the world. This would give the article less of an NHL (or North American) penchant. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that I also agree with Dorvaq. The article is about ice hockey in general as a sport and not just about the NHL. Therefore the images need to reflect this rather than simply adding yet more NHL images. There are already enough images from NHL games in the article in my opinion.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to ask if these images are being used in other articles. Are they? — Dorvaq (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh right. At least image #3 is used in article Goal (ice hockey). Gameplay image of a match between Latvia and Sweden seems nice (1), but it's used in another section of this article. By the way here's one image of a player taking a shot in Swedish Elitserien: 1. And then this one from Finnish Mestis, but I think it's too wide and I'd prefer the Elitserien one: 1 --TPG 15:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The image is not from Elitserien, I took the image during game 1 of the 2007 Swedish U18 Finals between Färjestad and Frölunda. --Krm500 22:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. By the way category Deutsche Eishockey-Liga in Commons contains a lot of great pictures to use. 1 --TPG 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We can definitely add some of these pictures to various Ice Hockey related articles including this one. — Dorvaq (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Separate "History of ice hockey" article

There's a separate article on this specific sub-subject -- should we move the content from the main article (which is getting a bit long) to the History of ice hockey page? --Skillymagee 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Periods in international play

I took out "In international play, the teams change ends for the second period, again for the third period, and again after ten minutes of the third period" - I can't recall such changes is the Olympic or IIHF games I've watched in the last 12 years. I hope it's not just early dementia from my part. evktalo 19:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not dementia from your part – nor was it complete mythomania from the original editor's. As I recall it, the rule was in effect back when ice hockey games were often played outdoors. That is, quite a number of decades ago, so it doesn't really belong in the main article. Good catch. -- Jao 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

More spelling

Going to correct the spelling of sieve. Camcurwood 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of popularity?

The attendance numbers don't add up to the NHL not being as popular as the NBA in the US. There are as many US NHL teams with 100% attendence as the NBA. Even in b-ball crazy NC, the Hurricanes draw 92% while the Charlotte Bobcats only draw 70%. [9] [10]Angry Aspie 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The attendance numbers aren't all of it, there are TV ratings to consider, and the NHL doesn't seem to have a clue when it comes to TV. --67.165.6.76 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fastest shot

An anon just changed 100km/h to 100mph for the speeds at which puck is shot. It appears 100mph can be reached but quite rarely. NHL All-Star game page records fastest times in All-Star "Hardest Shot" competitions [11]. About half of the years, the average of the best player in this competition is below 100mp/h. The absolute maximum, since 1990 is 105.2 mph by Al Iafrate in 1993 All-Star competition. Just for information, I am not changing anything in the article. Andris 08:35, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC) (comment edited 08:37, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC))

Contrary to popular belief, Iafrate does not own the hardest shot of all time. Shawn Heins of the Atlanta Thrashers holds the record for fastest/hardest recorded shot when he reached 106 mph at the 1999 UHL All-Star contest. Hockey Digest, Feb, 2003 confirms this. Just a bit of trivia. Yankees76 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Chad Kilger of the Toronto Maple Leafs beat Heins' and Iafrates' record-setting shots this year at the Leafs skills competition at the Air Canada Centre at over 106 mph. 130.15.194.231 21:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not extremely uncommon for a puck to travel at speeds approaching 100 mph and occasionally exceeding 100mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.178.241 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

inapropriate

external link on article at the bottom end--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Which one? If you are talking about any of the links in the external links section, all of those are fine. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening section

The opening paragraphs of this article are awful. Numbers are bolded for no apparent reason, and we have a comprehensive list of hockey leagues, which should be left out of the lead. There are way too many redlinks as well- every league is linked twice.-Wafulz (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I had been debating a revert cause it went from a really good article to a really bad one pretty fast. --Djsasso (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Split

Neutral zone

Last paragraph

Unsourced

Other topics not included

Diagram

Incorrect statement

USSR still plays ?

Spelling

Relevant?

Increase in Women's Hockey

Hat Trick?

20th century history?

Origins

The rules

Netcam

Canada's official winter sport?

Incorrect history

Records

Terminology

Poland amongst most prominent hockey nations?!

Comments

Hockey Countries

Long Harsh Canadian Winters

History

Varsity Match

Professionalism

First hockey game in US

General Comments on this and related articles

Does the Wounded duck exist?

GA Review

Germany and Switzerland not dominators

A possible compromise?

Early history of the sport

College hockey

Tripping

proposition to add link puck.ch

Number of Players

Accuses of nonsense - Needing consensus

Erroneous information regarding puck speed

Unsourced statement

GA Review

U.S. Popularity

Images

Separate "History of ice hockey" article

Periods in international play

More spelling

Lack of popularity?

Fastest shot

inapropriate

Opening section