Talk:Maurice Richard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Richard and violence

To 199.212.150.16 and anyone else, this is a dance we've been going through for a while, and it shows a marked ignorance of history, revisionist history movies aside. That Richard was one of the great players of hockey history is unquestioned, but that he was one of the most violent and uncontrolled is also unquestioned, and he was fortunate to have played in the era he did, because he was the perp in repeated stick incidents and assaults on officials. The Bertuzzis and McSorleys of the world aren't even the same category. Ravenswing 18:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Richard Riot

Please check your facts before posting conjecture. As it happens, Bruins' home uniforms at the time of the Richard-Laycoe incident were principally gold; Boston didn't use black home uniforms until 1968. Ravenswing 18:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That aside ... the Riot section -- which astonishingly enough occupies twice as much column space as discussion of the playing career of one of the league's most renowed skaters -- has been increasingly loaded with POV on how much Richard was screwed and how this was just another sign of Quebec's oppression by Anglos. Given the extreme and repeated nature of Richard's actions (quick, can anyone name a single player in NHL history who had more stick fights and assaulted more officials?), this was anything but, however aggrieved Montrealers were at the time. Perhaps the recent editors would trim the polemic back down to something consistent with the space accorded to recording Richard's non-thuggish gameplay and with NPOV guidelines. Ravenswing 06:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Or ... I'll do it myself. (grins) Ravenswing 15:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Richard and violence

To Ravenswing:

Richard had 2 incidents involving stick swinging! You make it seem like this was a common occurence in every single game! Do you even know the circumstances of how the 2 incidents even occured?

Maurice Richard was a hockey player and a skilled one at that. He was NOT a THUG as you make him out to be! As a matter of cold hard fact, has was trailed, sticked, speared, slashed, cross-checked every single night of his playing career.

Great hockey historians like former NHL referee Red Storey have repeatedly said that they (the refs of the day) were surprised that Richard showed as much restraint as he actually did! Richard was the one being bullied throughout his entire career and the 2 incidents that he felt went overboard is when he snapped, and no other.

Don't try to revise history!

Watch this entire clip of Dickie Moore and Red Storey talking about Richard...

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-74-85-567/sports/rocket_richard/

Don't try to revise history yourself. Almost unique to his era, Richard had several stick incidents and was penalized numerous times for going over the top. After the previous time that given season he'd assaulted an official, Clarence Campbell made a public statement (which I can post in its entirety tonight) saying that Richard had been given chance after chance, after egregious incident after egregious incident, and that he would have no more chances. Other stars of the day (I'm thinking of Syl Apps and Teeder Kennedy, off the top of my head) were heavily fouled and abused without breaking sticks over people or repeatedly assaulting officials, regardless of what Red Storey's -- and this is the first time I ever heard him characterized as a "great hockey historian" -- hazy fifty year old war stories maintained. I'd much sooner go with the very detailed contemporary accounts reported by Charles Coleman, who was a universally recognized giant as a hockey historian.

That being said, I'm quite aware (being, actually, a hockey historian, which I gather you are not) about the circumstances of the various incidents, and consider them no more pertinent than whatever Donald Brashear did to "make" Marty McSorley club him upside the head, or what Steve Moore did to provoke Todd Bertuzzi. Ravenswing 16:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So, to the allegation that he was singled out for rough treatment, you point out that he was singled out for rough treatment? Gleemonex 14:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. "Singled out" implied he was unique amongst stars in receiving rough treatment, which of course he wasn't. If there's an era in hockey where stars haven't been targetted, it's yet to be recorded. Ravenswing 16:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"First legitimate hockey superstar?"

This shows a profound ignorance of hockey history (quite aside from being POV). Richard wasn't even the first "hockey superstar" playing for Montreal -- certainly few reputable historians would deny the title to Newsy Lalonde, Joe Malone or Howie Morenz, and Georges Vezina or Aurel Joliat would get a number of votes as well. How about Eddie Shore, who won four Hart Trophies to Richard's one? Russell Bowie? Clint Benedict? You couldn't even claim without serious dispute that Richard was the greatest right wing of his era, not with Gordie Howe (who won five of his Hart trophies during Richard's career) as his contemporary. Ravenswing 16:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Nor could you claim without serious dispute that Gordie Howe (who has 68 playoff goals to Richard's 82, or scored 0 playoff overtime goals to Richard's 6) was the greatest right wing of his era. Methinks the Ravenswing doth protest too much. --Gleemonex 09:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There'd certainly be serious dispute, yes, but few legitimate hockey historians would give Richard the nod over Howe, when Howe had six scoring titles to Richard's zero, when he had six MVPs to Richard's one, when he had over half again as many goals, more than twice as many assists, named twelve times as First Team All-Star right wing to Richard's eight (and seven to five head-to-head), nine times as Second Team All-Star to Richard's six ... and when nearly half Richard's playoff goals and his two biggest scoring seasons came in the wartime years where the first five years of his career came during a period where the average number of goals scored a game was two GPG higher than at any point during Howe's career and at a level not seen in the NHL until the early 1980s.

Richard's greatness is unshakeable, and if I was putting together a hockey team to play a single game against the Alien Invaders for the right of Earth to still exist, him, Howe, Charlie Conacher and Cam Neely are the men I want on the right wing. I just stop short of a hagiography, is all. Ravenswing 21:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But my point is that you could have just said "viz Cyclone Taylor, Q.E.D." instead of going on a passionate rant about how much of a star he wasn't. I mean, are you against POV or aren't you?

When Richard visited Czechoslovakia as a private citizen a few years after his retirement, he was given a state reception and an automobile. Even if it's untrue that he was the "first legitimate hockey superstar" (my admittedly-subjective position is that he was, but mostly because of new media technologies of the time and the subsequent exposure), it's not a stretch of the imagination for anyone with half a brain. Gleemonex 14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Color me confused. Are you (or anyone else) just going to swallow a counterargument without evidence? That being said -- and leaving aside utter irrelevancies such as which countries gave him state receptions -- the point of an encyclopedia isn't to reflect hazy childhood memories. It's to reflect fact. The fact is that Richard wasn't the first hockey superstar by a long shot. The irony is that his days as a preeminent star came only a dozen years after Howie Morenz's, a superstar so glittering his funeral was held at center ice in the Montreal Forum; it would be like calling Guy Lafleur the Habs' great star of the last forty years and ignoring Jean Beliveau. Ravenswing 16:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Playing Career

I removed the following text as it refers to the story ("The Hockey Sweater") and not directly to the subject of this article. The reference is otherwise left intact, and a link to the article on the story added. Spoxox 22:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"It also helped transcend his legend through several generations. In this story, the main character purchases a must-have Richard hockey sweater with a mail-in order form from Toronto-based "Mr. Eaton". But when he receives a sweater from the Canadiens' historical adversary the Toronto Maple Leafs, he is ridiculed, and even ostracised, by his schoolmates for attempting to impose his "way of things" because of his jersey. The story was made into a short animated film by the National Film Board of Canada. An excerpt of this short story is reprinted on the new Canadian $5 bill."

"St. Catherines' St. Riot"

I find 12,400 G-hits for "Richard Riot", ZERO for any permutation of St Catherines' Riot. While I agree about the inherent unfairness of naming the riot after a man who neither caused nor provoked it, history's spoken decades ago. It's our job to be accurate and verifiable, not to invent neologisms to push our own POV. Ravenswing 03:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Last name is actually pronounced ree-SHAR, not ree-SHARD. Although I wouldn't want to start an argument with any hockey historians on this page :-). --206.47.141.21 20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)JP

Wow. That's wrong. 67.71.141.162 23:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, being a francophone, I'm absolutely certain of how the name should be pronounced. Changed it back JP

For pity's sake, can we have a consensus over which pronunciation is correct and stick with it? I'm minded to RfC over this. Alternatively, we could just strike it altogether ... hmm, now that sounds like a good idea. It isn't as if pronunciation guides are common for Quebecois names; heck, Henri Richard's entry doesn't have one. Ravenswing 03:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I never understood this as being a work of consensus. And RfCing this would have brought ree-SHARD, as this is the way that anglophones pronounce it. That being said, removing it is better than having it wrong. -- JP

Any entry on Wikipedia's a work of consensus, be it a copper-bottomed fact, and I'm not nearly as sanguine as you that RfCing it would produce the result you prefer. Given the edit warring over that fact in recent months, it's plainly a contended issue. I'm not thinking so much that removing it is better than having it wrong as removing it is better than continually fighting over a minor fact unnecessary to the article. Ravenswing 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to make one thing clear: I know the name is pronounced ree-shar. I think opening it up would bring the wrong result for the simple reason that anglophones have heard ree-shard most of their lives, and think its the right way to pronounce it. This minor thing is just an annoyance, but it's completely turned me off fixing articles. -- JP

I'm sorry to hear that, but after all, WP:OWN does apply. I agree that a willingness to accept that other editors believe as strongly in the rightness of their positions as we do ourselves is an essential element to peace of mind on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 08:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It would also benefit wikipedia if people know their limits. To have an (obviously) non french speaker argue with anybody about pronounciation of a french name shows an obvious lack of humility. And having been a contributor Ward's wiki, I understand full well the laws that define a wiki. For example, after reading your initial edits on Richard vis-a-vis First Legitimate Hockey star status, it struck me as a bit out of context. My dad played hockey with some of these guys (Geoffrion, notably) and Richard was actually, to him and many others, the first superstar. But I must admit that my view of this was biaised, and your points were honestly brought up (you didn't call him overrated :-)). So I shut up. Arguments of that type are better suited to beer than an encyclopedia. Anyways, all this to say that humility is also an important value here. But this discussion around a simple matter makes me wonder about more contentious issues like the middle east, Islam, Clinton's Presidency, Reagan's Legacy. At least our discussion is civilized :-) --JP.

Those contentious issues suck up the attention of many admins, as well as time and energy that could be going on to make the encyclopedia more complete and accurate, but hell, we've had a couple nightmares of our own - the Wayne Gretzky article for one. The problem that specifically afflicts sports articles is that except for a handful of legendary stories, people have the unshakeable notion that sports started when they themselves were eight years old. People my age know that Wayne Gretzky was the greatest player ever, know that Ken Dryden was the greatest goalie ever, know that the mid-1970s Habs were the greatest team ever, and to the extent there's any argument, it only revolves around competing contemporaries: the Islanders or the Oilers, Roy or Hasek, Lemieux or Orr. Ravenswing 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I came to this article and I noticed that the quick facts for Maurice are damaged. Somebody fix this please. MakeDamnSure 21:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for article improvement

In response to a request from Flibirigit, I've taken a look at this article with an eye to how it can be improved. The following are some suggestions:

• There are insufficient quality references used; much of the article is unreferenced. Richard himself is the subject of several books, and his role with the Canadiens is discussed in dozens of others (e.g., The Habs by Dick Irvin Jr., and just about any biography of one of his contemporaries, particularly goaltenders). Many of these books are available in moderate-sized Canadian public libraries.
• The "popular culture" section needs to be reworked significantly; list format is not suitable if the goal is to bring this to at least GA level (and if one is going to do that, one might just as well aim for FA).
• Perhaps the most important weakness is that it fails to capture Richard's place in the history of his time or of his sport. Not only was he the Gretzky of his day, he was also a living cultural icon in Quebec; that doesn't seem to come through in this article. There are some useful suggestions on what kinds of information to look for in this essay on writing featured articles.
• More information is needed on what Richard did after his retirement from professional hockey. What caused the rift between him and Les Canadiens? What reasoning was used to appoint him to the Privy Council? Did he teach hockey? Did he broadcast or write about hockey?
• The profile picture for the English page should be updated with the one in color featured on the Swedish page (Svenska).

I won't be able to do a lot of work toward these goals for several weeks, but will try to do some research in the area as time permits. Thanks for inviting me to review and participate. Risker (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions. I will have another look at the article shortly. Flibirigit (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

line

Obviously any hockey fan will understand the reference in the second paragraph of the lead section to Richard being a member of a high-scoring line in the 1940s, and of course the link provides an explanation of the term. However, given the likely prominence of the subject to readers who are not hockey fans, I suggest that the term should be expanded slightly, perhaps to "line of hockey forwards". What do you think? isaacl (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That reads rather awkwardly. Perhaps "forward line"? Resolute 19:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought of that, but am not sure that is any more enlightening to the non-hockey fan. I am open to other ideas. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I dunno. Many team sports involve the concept of forwards and defence, so the only people unlikely to have a clue would be those with no concept of team sports at all, and I really don't think we need to accommodate to that level of extreme. Especially with a relevant wikilink. Even "forward line" is a bit of a concession, as I have had little trouble simply linking to line for other articles, such as Bobby Bauer and Busher Jackson. Resolute 19:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Soccer and basketball, to draw examples from two popular sports, have the concept of forwards, but hockey is one of the few sports with the idea of shifts, and I'm not aware of the term "line" being used in other sports. As I mentioned, I think this article in particular would be more likely to garner attention from people completely unaware of hockey (or team sports, for that matter), so I think a bit more description than the bare word "line" may be warranted in this case. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No, but for people aware of team sports, "forward line" becomes unamibiguous - it denotes a grouping of players with a certain role or responsibility. The technicalities of what a "line" is in hockey are allowed for via the wikilink. I think this change would sufficiently convey the meaning you intend with "line of hockey forwards" (or, more accurately, "line of forwards" since 'hockey' is redundant in context) without degrading the prose quality. Resolute 19:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maurice Richard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Secret (talk · contribs) 15:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I will review this sometime this week Secret ^account 15:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I been extremely busy lately to the point that I'm thinking of withdrawing from the WikiCup. I did two quick glances of the article, one when I first agreed to take it, and one today. I saw nothing that needed to be clarified or fixed, and rather strong prose for a dominating figure of hockey. No close paraphrasing concerns, sources are reliable, AGF on the book sources. I see nothing at all preventing it from GA status. I might find the time next week to give it a more proper review either on peer review or on the talk page if you are thinking about taking this article to WP:FAC. Thanks Secret ^account 20:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Rapprochement

The rift between the Canadiens organization and Richard was resolved at some point (I think in the 80s) and he once again would make appearances for the team, most famously at the final game in the Montreal Forum. If I have the chance, I will look for sources, but if someone else has them available, I think information on their rapprochement would be good to include in the article. isaacl (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-free image

Regarding the addition of this image: I'm not clear if the use of this non-free material is sufficiently illuminating to the topic to warrant inclusion. What do you think? isaacl (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I don't think it sufficiently adds much that the prose, and the text box, don't. Also, not a fan of squeezing text into chicanes like that. Resolute 19:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)