Talk:1966–67 NHL season

Recent additions

If the recent additions to this article sound like the season recap out of a book, they do. Each and every one of them (a few word-for-word) come from the 67 season recap from Trail Of The Stanley Cup, even down to the season-ending injury to Matt Ravlich, a journeyman defenseman who logged only 400 games over ten seasons and whose travails wouldn't normally be remotely notable. Certain events such as Bobby Orr's debut, Hull setting the goal record, Toronto's last Cup and Chicago's first first-place finish are worthy of inclusion if shorn of sportswriterese. Ravenswing 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

Lookit, you're both in danger of a 3RR violation here, as well as this getting rather childish. Ravenswing, why not leave the information for a while and open discussion here regarding whether it's notable, let other editors offer their two cents and keep it or remove it per consensus? That's what Wikipedia's all about.

Now come on, stop flooding the RC feed =P --Moralis 21:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if the information is kept, it's going to need to be edited for tone, and overspecific detail removed (here's looking at you, Rangers-Toronto paragraph). --Moralis 21:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly my point. The tireless Mr. Bryant started copying the incident list word-for-word from well-known published works, and while (after MUCH back and forth and the aforementioned open discussion) he's finally taken it out of copyvio, he's kept the article flooded with non-notable, trivial incidents presented in the same jocular, sportswriter recap tone as prevails in the works from which he takes the material. As it happens, this issue was opened up to comment from Wikiproject regulars two weeks ago, and none of us have any objection to milestones and significant events -- nor have, in fact, ripped up Mr. Bryant's numerous other edits to NHL season articles, but here he insists on including non-encyclopedic incidents and game summaries. Every editor who has yet commented has rejected Mr. Bryant's version; none have yet supported it. That is consensus. Ravenswing 21:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bryant's version contains far too much POV and improper tone. Flibirigit 22:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I was not aware of the WikiProject discussion, only the lack of discussion here. If this persists I would advise placing vandalism warnings, and if necessary, reporting Mr. Bryant to WP:AIV. Alternatively consider placing the article on WP:RfP though if the problem is a single user, this seems unnecessary. --Moralis 22:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think vandalism warnings to be appropriate; whatever my opinion of Mr. Bryant, there is no doubt but that he is contributing according to his lights. Inducing him to accept consensus and wrap his head around WP:OWN is as far as we'd prefer, I daresay. Ravenswing 15:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And ... he's still not listening, and restored his edits. I've just filed an RfC on it. Ravenswing 20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Bryant's edits have blatant POV, and if he continues to be a hassle he should get blocked for a short period. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does User:Corey Bryant not participate in this discussion? It would nice if everyone was involed. Flibirigit 01:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just touched up his talk page and urged him to do so; he's reverted his edits yet again. Ravenswing 21:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bryant argues on User talk:Ravenswing that the content he added is not copyrighted because he wrote things in his own words. But even in his own words, its excessive wordiness and POV. Flibirigit 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If information is revised so that it does not copy word for word an author's words,

it is not copyrighted material. As such every single solitary taking down of my contribution to 1966-67 is vandalism. And every person on this board is guilty of harassment against me as well. I notice on NO OTHER SEASON has anything been taken down. That's proof that it is harassment and threats against me.Corey Bryant 20:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel that Eddie Giacomin blowing a 3-1 lead against Boston in a regular season game is noteworthy and encyclopedic? Lots of goalies, including ones better than Fast Eddie, have blown 3-1 leads. This sort of edit isn't even noteworthy enough to be included on Eddie's page here. Some of your edits wouldn't be noteworthy on the season pages, but could be on the player pages. And please, calm down. Patken4 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it important to mention that Eddie Giacomin blew a 3-1 lead November 9th, 1966?

Because the fans---HIS OWN!!--- were BRUTAL! They threw garbage at him and cursed him. Can you HONESTLY think that a goaltender subjected to such horrible abuse could turn things around and become a winner and record 9 shutouts? Not under normal conditions. That's why it is important for it to be mentioned for the 1966-67 season. And about this business of wordiness: I quote a line from the TV series Perry Mason, episode "The Case of the Witless Witness" in which Perry quotes Judge Daniel Redmond: "If we do not fight for the dignity of truth, we have substituted expediency for justice." Flibirigit, then, is a jerk because his complaint of "wordiness" because the season by season account is FOR events of THAT particular season. It is made, then, to inform the public what happened that particular year. If it is not of quality, it is not worthy to have a season by season account , which I have tried to make every season I have uploaded. Flibirigit only operates on the principle of expedience, not of quality. Corey Bryant 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you're not all that familiar with hockey in particular or sports in general, but incidents of stars overcoming a single mediocre game are uncountable ... never mind from a mere 3-3 tie. Such edits are not remotely encyclopedic, and you've admitted yourself that you're parroting the accounts of other authors, which isn't likely to produce a genuine assessment of the notability of events. It's as if you did a recap of the year 2006 based on the half-dozen daily headlines Comcast produces, which today includes such timeless news flashes like "Family Leaves Baby at Toys-R-Us" and "Online Vote Reveals Spears Is Worst Dog Owner," surely classic events over which historians will be thrilled centuries from now. In any event, we don't merely disagree with your assessment, so far we are doing so unanimously. Finally, you are aware, I hope and trust, that Wikipedia forbids personal attacks. Ravenswing 22:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the NHL for 30 years from 1967-68 to 1997-98. I'm an expert. Now what can you say to me that can say otherwise? Hockey history is my specialty. I ought to be the National Hockey League's official historian.Corey Bryant 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on what Ravenswing wrote, there have been many instances of fans of a particular team booing a player on their team, even star athletes. Patrick Roy was booed in Montreal. Jaromir Jagr was booed in Pittsburgh. Rare is the player that hasn't been booed a time or two by the home fans. It's simply the fickle nature of fans. We shouldn't document every instance of a player getting poor treatment by fans, unless it is truely noteworthy (such as a fan attacking them) or if it happened throughout the players career there. This Eddie Giacomin incident doesn't really seem all that notable. Looking at Eddie's page, it appears you have added a reference to this game. Forgiving the notibility question of it, it's definately POV:

"Giacomin was impressive in his first month as Rangers goaltender, but soon his inexperience caught up with him and the fans he'd won over turned on him and he was booed by the fans. In his sophomore year, in a game against the Boston Bruins in November, he blew a 3-1 lead in the game's final two minutes and the fans really turned abusive. The fans threw garbage at Eddie and booed him viciously. Eddie was badly shaken, but from there he won games and won back the fans who had turned on him.

If a reference to this incident were to stay on the Giacomin page, you would have to make it less POV and cut it down. I would also suggest you finding other incidents if they occurred. Look at the Mike Schmidt page, a player who is rather famous for not always getting along with the Philly fans, for a guide as to how to incorporate this into Giacomin's page. Regardless, I don't see it deserving of any mention on the 66-67 page. As for your other comments, I'll just repeat Ravenswing's comments above; no personal attacks. Patken4 23:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ranger fans were VERY abusive to Eddie Giacomin on

November 9th, 1966. One beer bottle exploded only ten feet from him.

Now about this business of personal attacks: you wanted me on this board, so accept the bullshit. After all, you wanted to block me, made threats to do so. Should I be any other way but abusive? Corey Bryant 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I have to say at www.hockeyforums.com in the trash talk section

Well, I got hand it to hockeyforums.com: they certainly don't like an argument to spread to their site. They took down my trash talk post, saying that it doesn't do to carry an argument from one site to another. They said it doesn't do either site any good. Still, they might see my point the kind of abuse I'm taking here. Corey Bryant 21:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Corey Bryant 21:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been mention of blocking you for exactly that syndrome - that you are not only both making unencyclopedic entries and edit warring over the same, but contemptuous of Wikipedia policies and practices as well, a premise bolstered by a casual glance at your Talk page. You were asked to participate in this discussion in the hope that you would contribute to a consensus as to what changes to this article would be encyclopedic and notable. You've chosen instead to demand that your edits be free from the peer-review and editing to which every other editor on Wikipedia is subject, and make personal attacks against others. We do not, in fact, have to "accept the bullshit," and I urge you both to cease personal attacks before stronger measures are necessary and engage in some constructive discussion on this article. Ravenswing 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing the discussion about Giacomin at his talk page. Patken4 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... first off, if you're implying you've made similar edits to other NHL season pages, thanks for the tipoff; I'll start going over them tonight and making corrections as needed. Secondly, the sentence that is on every edit page is "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." There is nothing about your edits that make them immune to the standard Wikipedia peer-review process for encyclopedic merit. I strongly urge you to review WP:OWN and ask yourself why you feel you don't have to work within consensus. Ravenswing 04:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that on the 1965-66 season board that my post of Eddie Giacomin was taken

down which was not copyrighted, but copyrighted material on the Detroit Red Wings sweaters being stolen was added. Now really!! You acuse me of using copyrighted material, then replace something I contributed that is not copyrighted and add copyrighted material! What hypocrisy!Corey Bryant 21:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia." You, by contrast, have submitted numerous word-for-word copies of published works, and strenuously denied it until citations of the same were given. That 65-66 season page was chockful of word-for-word copyvios from Trail of the Stanley Cup (and quite possibly from other works), as well as full of unencyclopedic and non-notable events, and no doubt there are a number more such articles requiring urgent attention. Perhaps you could do everyone a favor and remedy the copyvios and more egregious trivial events before we get it them ourselves.

Oh, and as far as the www.hockeyforums.com crew? Before your attack topic was pulled for violating that site's no personal attacks rules, the unanimous reaction of those who commented were that you should either quit or give it up. I admit that the user who posted a "Care-O-Meter" set for zero was amusing. Ravenswing 22:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't name names when I posted it at hockeyforums. I just attacked wikipedia in general, saying the editors--no names--were pulling down my posts at wikipedia.

And remember that I was using my own words after the copyrighted stuff on 1966-67 was pulled down here. I decided that since, yes, it was copyrighted, to instead put it in my own words---yet it was pulled down anyway. That's not fair and you know it.Corey Bryant 20:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were not subsquenly removed for Copyright violation. They were removed/altered for lack of notability and poor writing style. Flibirigit 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair?" This isn't a kindergarten playground, it's an encyclopedia. I'll reiterate: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." That is Wikipedia policy. We can't help it if that bothers you too much. Ravenswing 07:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croat Canuck is a jerk. He doesn't know vandalism from true information. As long as I get accused falsely of everything from "POV" to vandalism, that's proof that all this shithead gang of jerks are only trying to attack my contributions, not to create a useful site.

Reply: "There's been mention of blocking you for exactly that syndrome - that you are not only both making unencyclopedic entries and edit warring over the same, but contemptuous of Wikipedia policies and practices as well, a premise bolstered by a casual glance at your Talk page. You were asked to participate in this discussion in the hope that you would contribute to a consensus as to what changes to this article would be encyclopedic and notable. You've chosen instead to demand that your edits be free from the peer-review and editing to which every other editor on Wikipedia is subject, and make personal attacks against others. We do not, in fact, have to "accept the bullshit," and I urge you both to cease personal attacks before stronger measures are necessary and engage in some constructive discussion on this article." I wrote the preceding bit eight months ago. Plainly you've learned nothing, and there's no reason to presume you're capable of learning now. It isn't just on Wikipedia; you took your rants to another board, and you were told there to stop whining. I doubt a temporary block will get your attention, but at least while you're blocked you won't make more work for us to undo. There's something, at least. Ravenswing 12:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orr: Arguably the Greatest Defenceman

I removed calling Orr arguably the greatest because its very subjective. While I know this is a weak argument, remember that not everyone considers him the best. Personally, I think there are others who are also deserving of the title as well, but that doesn't matter. Look at some of the others to compete for the title. Eddie Shore had everything in his body broken several times, yet still managed to help the Bruins to their last Cup until Orr arrived. Doug Harvey allowed for the Canadiens to never worry about defence. Orr was fortunate to play in an era of hyper-expansion. The talent was diluted considerably. Also he never played a full season. Thats why I removed that phrase. Kaiser matias 07:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of debate over Orr on Wikipedia, but I was comfortable with the phrase myself; it is plain that the merits of Shore/Harvey/Bourque aside, the great preponderance of public and expert opinion is that he was the greatest defenseman of all time. Arguably he is; certainly many sources make exactly that argument. Ravenswing 12:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went and added the Orr part about him being "arguably" the best defenseman ever. THN did a "Top 50 players ever" poll in 1996. Orr was #2, behind Gretzky. Only other defensemen in top 10 were Harvey at #6 and Shore at #10 (Bourque was #14). Patken4 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]