Talk:Montreal Canadiens/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Kovalev and the C

So, Kovalev had the C in one game where Koivu did not play. I wonder, should Kovalev then be listed as a captain? This happens now and then, where someone is given a C when the captain is out.Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, interim captains are not listed in that section. Especially when it is only one game. Resolute 17:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall Kovalev (or anybody else) wearing the C, during any of Koivu's absensces this season. The Habs simply go with three A's. Actually, nobody's worn the C during Koivu's captaincy tenure, since Shayne Corson. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Halak & Price

Would somebody set up the current roster's goaltender section, to make it easier to switch Halak & Price during their calls ups/send downs? GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking...this is how its set up on all pages. All you have to do is overwrite Halak's info with Price's info. -Djsasso (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But is there a way to 'hide' each of the goalies, when they're sent down to the AHL? Rather then going throw the trouble of editing-in/editing out. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Halak et al

When Halak was born his country of birth was called Czechoslovakia, as Kostitsyns were born in the USSR. SHould we not be consisten? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, standard is to list as the country was at time of birth. -Djsasso (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought so, thanks Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm Grabovski was born in East Germany, should his birthplace be stated that way as well? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By all means. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Kovalev and the 'C'

Is Kovalev wearing the 'C', now that Koivu is injured? I thought they were going with 3 'A's; If he's wearing the 'C'? so we'll have to add it to Kovy, at the current roster section. Sidenote = If he's not? Those people posting at the TSN official website, must be dreaming. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.habsinsideout.com/files/hio/imagecache/littleimage/files/hio/images/0kapnkovy.gif

He is only the interim Captain. -Djsasso (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Kovalev is wearing the 'C' (interim-bases), while Koivu is out of the lineup. Would it be alright to add an un-linked C, as we do with interim alternate captains? PS- I guess Carbo has decided to 'pass' the C around this season (the last Hab to wear it, in Koivu's absense was Corson; ironically another #27). GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Conference Champions?

Not yet; That title belongs to the Eastern Conference team that makes the 2008 Cup Finals. However, we're having a problem with editors, who think Conf Champs means top-Eastern team in regular season standings. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand now, but at first I thought the Conference Champions meant during the regular season, not the champions of their respective Conference in the playoffs. It is a little misleading. Is there anyway to clarify it a bit more so that there aren't so many unnecessary edits? 71.7.210.87 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, most people understand that you aren't the Conference Champion till you win the Prince of Wales Trophy or Clarence Campbell Trophy. But I do see how people can make the mistake. -Djsasso (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The key to it all is at the Prince of Wales Trophy & Clarence S. Campbell Bowl articles. There, the NHL's criteria for Conference Champions is explained. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1993 Adams Division champions?

No they weren't. The Boston Bruins finished in first place in the Division. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Only Major League Team in Montreal?

In the summary it says "The Canadiens are not only the sole major sports league team in Montreal." I don't know what definition of major league you're using, but what about the Montreal_Alouettes, the Montreal CFL team? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.18.145 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Alouettes are not one of the 4 major leagues. NFL, MLB, NHL & NBA. -Djsasso (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

One could make the argument that the Als are in the major league of Canadian Football though (which, frankly, is why I have always disliked that bit) Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

They would be in the top Canadian league. But the major leagues are the top leagues in their respective sports. The NFL is quite obviously a higher level of league than the CFL. Therefore the NFL would be the major league of football. Yes obviously canadian football has slight rule changes from the NFL but its still basically the same game. Just like hockey has considerably different rules in europe to the NHL. And most people out there understand the major leagues to be the 4 majors. -Djsasso (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably drop the entire statement anyway. "Major league" is a rather POV term these days, even if the traditional "big four" is well entrenched. Resolute 22:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well entrenched in the United States, at least, but this isn't the American Wikipedia.  RGTraynor  01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By popularity (TV ratings anyway) NASCAR is bigger than the NHL, hell the MLS gets better ratings often than the NHL, I understand niether of these things, alas, I do not live in the US... I also could argue about Canadian v American football being that similar, but that is for email I figure not for here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The opinion put forward by Djsasso is just that - an opinion. A valid one, obviously, but still an opinion. For a different view, I note that Major North American professional sports leagues describes the CFL as being a major league, albeit not one of the big four. Alternatively, it could be argued that since the NFL is not in Canada, the CFL is the major football league in this jurisidiction (there is no rule that we have to look at this from a North American perspective). And if we took a global view, there would be yet another analysis - even the NFL would come across as a regional league. In the end, what constitutes a "major league" is just WP:OR opinion, or at best an American-centric view that has no place in this article. I would remove the sentence entirely. Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup I agree, I was just stating why it was the way it was. I have no problem removing it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I left the reference to it being the only NHL team in Quebec, and will others refine the sentence if necessary.Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing "Men's"

The edit summary on the edit removing "men's" from the description states that nothing in the rules prevents women from playing. Is that claim sourceable? Have any women ever played in the NHL or on the Canadiens? Frank (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Manon Rhéaume played for the Tampa Bay Lightning. -Djsasso (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Exhibition games only (in Rheaume's case); but you're correct - woman are eligible, to play in the NHL. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Their name in french

Hi,

In french, it is Le Canadien de Montreal, NOT Les Canadiens de Montreal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakninja (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is Les Canadiens, because it is a group of Canadiens. The form you mention is singular. -Djsasso (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Both are used. The singular usage is explained by the traditional name, "Club de hockey canadien". Hence, the team is called "les Canadiens" and "le Canadien" with equal frequency here in Quebec, both by fans and by broadcasters. 74.59.88.201 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

English pronunciation of the name

I've contributed a few bits to the intro about the English pronunciation of the name. I'd like to submit this YouTube video as evidence of what I'm talking about. Within the first 20 seconds, the voice-over narrator uses the kuh-nay-dee-ENZ pronunciation, and then a commentator uses the "Canadians" pronunciation (which the broadcasters use throughout this video, and which is the only English pronunciation ever used here in Montreal). Emile (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of the commentators are using the exact same pronuncation as far as I hear in that video. So I don't think it goes to support your arguement. -Djsasso (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen again carefully, right at the beginning. He definitely puts emphasis on the final syllable that doesn't exist in the word "Canadians". But anyhow, I have no problem with this staying out of the article. Emile (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I assure you the different pronunciation does exist. You can here Jacqui Delaney from 106.9 The Bear fm radio in Ottawa and TSN sports commentators use it all the time. However, being a "misguided attempt" or even an "attempt to emulate the French", for that matter, is clearly POV unless properly sourced. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh I am not saying there aren't different ways of saying it. But I have a feeling that comes down to accent more than intended differences or a misguided attempt. -Djsasso (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's not due to accent either. Some English sports commentators, mainly the ones I named above, do purposely pronounce "Canadiens" and "Canadians" differently. My point was it's hard to prove why they do so. Now there are 2 questions we need to ask ourselves before we include the entry; first, is it notable enough to warrant an entry here at Wikipedia. I personally don't think so, but I could careless either way. Next, if the difference is notable enough, do we need to explain the intent of the difference, ie. "attempt to emulate French". Again, I don't think so and such a statement is clearly POV unless well-sourced. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I have ever heard it pronounced "anns" out west here in english canada. But reguardless I don't think it belongs in the article and already removed it a few days ago. -Djsasso (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Dorvaq; it doesn't matter whether something exists, it matters whether it can be sourced. It's better off out of the article.  RGTraynor  15:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Success rate

The statement that Montreal has the third-highest success rate of any pro sports franchise is misleading. The Celtics and Yankees may have a higher percentage of championships, but Montreal has the highest rate of championship victories during eligible years. If you only count the years that these three teams were actually eligible to win the championship (i.e., years the teams actually EXISTED), then Montreal has the highest rate of championship of any pro sports franchise in the history of the world.MikeFlynn52 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The highest rate during eligible years? As in, during the years all three teams have existed? If that is what you are getting at, that is an arbitrary distinction, which is strongly frowned upon. Rating it by percentage of championships won is the most NPOV version, but really, I question whether the comparisons to the Celtics and Yankees is even relevant. Resolute 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Having both statistics would be ideal. However, I am skeptic as to the accuracy of the suggested statistic. I recommend a solid source rather than first hand research. Cristo39 05:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

On a Related note, what is the consensus, have the Habs won 23 or 24 cups. I know they won 23 in the NHL and one before the NHL, so they have actually won 24 cups. Recently this has been changed back and forth a few times.Dbrodbeck 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To add to the silliness of the discussion, have you investigated pro soccer teams in North America, for example? DC United has won 33% of that league's championships - no criteria for longevity...I'll add that until strict criteria are added. AlbertHall (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

Don't you think it would be helpful to add a pronunciation? Most Americans have always called the Habs 'the Canadians', I doubt more then a few even know it's an e in the name. --MichiganCharms (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation is still the same, its just the spelling that is different. -Djsasso (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah agreed, in fact, I find it annoying when people pronounce it differently...Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard a Canadian announcer refer to the team as the "Canadi- ANNS", it's always the "Canadi- ENZ". -MichiganCharms (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadians is still pronounced enz, atleast up here in Canada. -Djsasso (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the same way "Canadians' is pronounced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard it pronounced any differently in New England. We know from "enz" here. (Then again, with a basketball team called the "Sehl-tiks," we might be more sensitive than most of the need to pay attention.)  RGTraynor  03:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so back to the pronunciation thing, so I mean, seriously, I rarely hear a Canadian call them the Candienz, we (and this is just in my experience) seem to pronounce it the same as 'Canadians'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I don't know why people seem to think otherwise, everywhere in English Canada the team name is pronounced "Ca·na·di·ans". When "Canadiens" is pronounced in French, it is "Ca·neh·dienne"(Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

No one in Canada pronouces Canadians as Canadi-ANNS. Even in reguards to actual people as opposed to the team. They pronounce it Canadi-ENS. And Canadiens is pronounced as Canadi-ENZ which is virtually the same pronounciation. Its due to the English-French relationship in this country that the english pronunciation has changed to end with a sound of ENS as opposed to ANNS as the spelling would indicate. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Flags

Jeepers, who deleted the flags from the Top Infobox? GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

They were removed awhile ago to stop an edit war. -Djsasso (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But now, it's out of sync with the other NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've chosen to be bold & re-added the flags. Perhaps the opposers have moved on. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The opposers was the fellow who has been pushing quebec pov changes for the last month or so. You know who it is. -Djsasso (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Block every IP he creates. PS- I'll revert my change (per your advice) - But, it sure feels like we're being bullied though. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't permanently block IPs or that would be what I would do, but because an IP could be recycled to someone else it could end up causing collateral damage. If he keeps it up after this current block expires I will take it to the ANI board and see if they have a way to deal with it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing bugs me more, then an editor choosing to hide behind IP addresses. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Split proposal

I suggest that we move the Franchise History to an appropriate 'History of the Montreal Canadiens' article. I am prepared to do the work. I think we should be working on the Canadiens as they will be getting lots of attention in the new year. Alaney2k (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. With 100 years of history, there certainly is cause to split the article. Resolute 18:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense, more so than for any other team.  RGTraynor  18:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup I have no problem with it. As long as the typical short summary is there etc. Makes a tonne of sense. -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have started work at User:Alaney2k/sandbox/History of the Montreal Canadiens and User:Alaney2k/sandbox/Summary History of the Montreal Canadiens. The Summary is what will go into the main article. Alaney2k (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The split is done. The Canadiens article does need some work. At one time it was FA status. It would be good to get it to good again, for a start. I have not really touched the current time period text much. Alaney2k (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are going to want to add a second NFCC template to each of the logo images in the history article before a bot comes along and blanks the images from it for not providing a fair use rationale. Resolute 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Some should come out of the main article, so I haven't done the furs. Alaney2k (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just edited the history section in the main article and now noticed the separate History of the Montreal Canadiens article. Shouldn't the history section in this article be removed to avoid duplication? Isaac Lin (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not removed altogether, but trimmed, certainly. This article should maintain an overview of team history. Resolute 01:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

French in the colors section in the infobox

I know that "bleu, blanc, et rouge" is something of a nickname or catchphrase for the team, but this is the English language version of WP. While I don't think it's exactly "harmful" to have the French in the infobox, I think that readers are done at least a small disservice by having to read a nickname first. Croctotheface 09:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason why the French should come before the English, since this is a description of colors, not catch-phrases. The French should still be included, but should come after the English. RavenStorm 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a seperate info box about the nicknames? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.172.28 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Anyone who thinks the French should not come first doesn't understand the Habs. Hab-talk constantly mixes the two languages, and it doesn't really matter which comes first. It's not like the article is in French, for crying out loud. The fact is that no one has ever referred to the Habs as "blue, white and red," but they are often referred to as "bleu, blanc et rouge."MikeFlynn52 22:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even amongst English speaking fans, the Canadiens are always nicknamed the "bleu, blanc et rouge".

Disagreed. English commentators and other media use "bleu blanc rouge" as a reference to a team nickname, not the actual colours of the team. This nickname, in turn, is a reference to the team colours. The distinction should be made between team colours, and nicknames. As proof, the previous poster used "bleu blanc rouge" as a noun, not three separate adjectives. In this context, we are strictly referring to the colours of the jersey and logo. Ideally, there should be a different category for team nicknames, amongst which the Habs and the "bleu blanc rouge" would find place. There should NOT be any French translation of the team colours AT ALL. Cristo39 05:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cristo39, le Bleu, Blanc et Rouge are the colours of the home/away shirts, but in Quebec, when they say "le bleu, blanc et rouge, it means The Canadians. It is the Canadians' nickname because of their shirt colour. Also the ice rink is white (ice), blue (blue line), and red (red circles and red line). Did anyone notice that? •USER•Androo123•TALK• —Preceding comment was added at 04:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The crowd chant/song

Does anybody know the chant/song the crowd at the Molson Centre sings when their team is leading? I've been wanting to know for decades. 68.147.67.250 (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's usually the "olé olé" song (http://youtube.com/watch?v=B43bII4XH_E). 67.68.88.155 (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The "olé olé" song is a relatively recent arrival, so it might not be the one you are thinking of. If you mean the song that is sung when victory is a near-certainty, it is the chorus to "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye." "Les Canadiens sont là" is another song played and sung, but it is not specific to the Habs having a lead. "Blue, Blanc, Rouge" is a theme song that arose in the 80s that used to be played when the Canadiens stepped on the ice at the start of periods; the chorus was used as a goal celebration song. Recently, the song is played at the end of games, before the three star selection. Isaac Lin (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect Montreal Canadiens Centennial Year to 2008–09 Montreal Canadiens season

Please see the discussion on the talk page for "Montreal Canadiens Centennial Year". Isaacl (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason for two articles was that the Centennial year page will be talking about the off ice activities, where the season article deals mostly with the actual teams play and business moves etc. -Djsasso (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In order to consolidate discussion, I will discuss this further on the the talk page for "Montreal Canadiens Centennial Year". Isaac Lin (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WRONG MEASURE!

The percentage that is used to judge about the most prolific team all sports considered, is a wrong measure, a bad perception. One example: imagine that the Habs existed since 10 years, have won 5 Stanley Cup, and there you go the same percentage calculation would put such a team on the top... It actually tells NOTHING, other than that some numerologist had a hard-on for those numbers to be used in judging (thus wrongfully). Another example: let's say that the habs were born the same year than the Celtics, and using the actual results that took place then after, the same statistical measure would put them first, above the Yankees...

In effect, basic statistical theory tells us that the more a draw is done from some sample over time, the more its result would tend to the calculated probability - without any consideration to human factors and talent... However, even though the Habs have existed since long before the Celtics were born, this flawed measure still shows a high percentage, which puts them well above the Celtics as the number of participations (the number of "draws") MUST have a weight into the balance, not only the percentage of wins since some team is playing its game - the perception of a gambler is not a correct perception when talking about sports, since a myriad of factors other than numbers have a decisive weight ;-)...

Conclusion: the second half of the second paragraph evoking success in terms of percentage is irrelevant and should disappear. IMHO, we should stick to the absolute number of championships, period. --HawkFest (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Percentage is a useful, universally recognized measure used throughout the statistical world, never mind the sporting world. While your arguments are a bit on the impenetrable side, it seems your objection is more that vis-a-vis the leading teams in other sports, percentage isn't giving the result you want. That's a poor reason to change methodology under any circumstances. I'm comfy with the current version.  RGTraynor  12:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, it seems that this measure was actually introduced in the article concerning the Montreal Canadiens, for the exact reason you are evoking! Like someone projecting himself onto others... And no, percentage is NOT a universal measure for judging everything... Just consider my examples, these are blatant contradictions that invalidate that measure. If it was such a "universal" truth as you are arguing, you should not get contradictory facts and/or logics, that's the way it is with scientific methodology... Please, science is not a religion, it should not carry dogmas as what your argument is evoking, to the point of pretending itself as some "Universal truth", especially when used in an encyclopedia for giving credibility to some perception! I've been at University in operational research, math and computer science, and I am sufficiently aware about those scientific facts to know that this measure is not valid in the current context --HawkFest (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the more you sample the closer you get to the expected value is certianly true. However, this is only true if you assume the population being sampled does not change. Thus, the premise of the argument against using percentages here is invalid..Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the sample does not change, exactly, which invalidates the measure! Not to mention that a myriad of other factors are not taken into account when looking at such a ill-perceptual measure... and it seems you did not understand my "premise" as you said - sorry if I was not clear enough: judging via this measure, the percentage, assumes that as such we consider the same sample/population, which is not the case, thus such a measure is irrelevant. Simple enough... As I said, just consider a team that exists since 5 years and have won the cup thrice, and there you go with the percentage, in the ditch, since suich a team should be considered as... As what, what would be the real goal behind the measure? It can say whatever you'd like it to say in the end, which makes it irrelevant... By using that kind of measure, it really looks like someone usurping a scientific method to make it reflect some personal preference!... --HawkFest (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not say sample, I said population. That is quite a difference, the sample is a subset of the population. It does not invalidate the measure, it invalidates your problem with the measure. This is also not usurping hte scientific method, the scientific method involves testing hypotheses, it does not involve simply calculating percentages. The percentage here says no matter what the population, the Canadiens have played well.Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Population or sample: it invalidates the measure in itself since it never stays the same. Again, consider my above-mentioned examples (e.g. a team that has a 5 years existence and has won the Cup thrice), they are straightforward and are easier to make you understand what I am saying, as they completely remove the scope/goal you want to use this measure for, which makes the measure irrelevant... Revisionism should have no room in an encyclopedia! --HawkFest (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you rather we had a yes or no column and do a chi squared test? You are the only person here who seems to have a problem with the use of the percentage. Do you not like oh, save percentage? Each game has a different population of shooters take shots on Price or Halak. So should we list each shot and each goal? On average, they stop pucks, and lots of them. These are descriptive statistics. As pointed out earlier, this is pretty much universally accepted. Your point about revisionism is hard to understand. I truly have no idea what you mean.Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

HawkFest - your continued rewording of your entries on this talk page makes it quite difficult to follow what you're trying to say, is not in keeping with general policy regarding talk pages, and is a form of revisionism that you mention (somewhat arbitrarily). Nevertheless, your overall point is quite clear: you are a rabid fan of the Canadiens, and you object to them being called "only" the third-most successful franchise in the history of all North American professional sports, which probably encompasses 125 (or more) current teams. However, as has been pointed out, the measure is reasonable, cited, and accepted by consensus.  Frank  |  talk  13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Great, HawkFest, you don't like it; we get it. If and when you can rally consensus to your point of view, then that is what will prevail.  RGTraynor  13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not reopening the debate, but simply asking for clarification on how the 36.3% of all NHL/NHA Stanley Cup championships is being calculated. The percentage seems a little high for me so I would like to know what the calculation comprises. The highest number I seem to get is from 24 Stanley Cups out of 87 championships, which doesn't include the past year and gives 27.6%. Adding the past year (2008) gives 27.3%. My calculation also makes no sense because I am starting at the year the NHL was created and using Montreal's 1916 Stanley Cup, which means if I were to use all of the appropriate assumptions before calculating, I would obtain an even lower figure. Hence you can imagine my confusion with a bizarre-looking 36.3%. What am I missing? — Dorvaq (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its a vandalism that went unnoticed. I went back 1000 edits and saw that we used to have it listed as 25% of the championships. So I would probably go with the 27.3% that you are figured. -Djsasso (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I had figured that much, but wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything. I see someone already went ahead and adjusted the figure and reworded the sentence making it even less ambiguous, which is good. Approximately 27% 26% is the appropriate percentage. Thanks. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

So the Habs have the second most compared to the Leafs. Let us look at the Leaf list on the wikipedia page, the list includes Ron Francis, Grant Fuhr, Gerry Cheevers, Syd Howe, Ken Dryden (as he was VP of the Leafs), Jacques Plante et al. I am not sure listing who has the most is useful, but I wonder, I mean, do people think of these guys as Leafs? Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is usefull, but that argument is a huge can of worms. Alot of people wanted to only list people with teams that they feel the person belongs with etc. But any criteria on how to justify who gets listed where was inheirently POV so concensus came down to listing them on every team they played with. So technically speaking, yes they were leafs. The only one I might object too is Dryden because he was inducted as a player not as a builder. -Djsasso (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(shrugs) We had rules of thumb in place to weed out the obvious absurdities like Billy Smith = Los Angeles Kings HHOFer and Gerry Cheevers = Toronto Maple Leafs HHOFer, and some people objected to them, so out they went. It's now the case that anyone ever associated with a team in any capacity, even if such association was after induction (someone explain to me how Jacques Lemaire is a Minnesota Wild HHOFer or Larry Robinson a New Jersey Devils HHOFer?), is mentioned in the team articles. By that standard, Ken Dryden is just as much a Toronto Maple Leaf HHOFer as Red Kelly or Borje Salming.  RGTraynor  16:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We should come up with a certain percentage (say 25%) of the Hall-of-Famer's games played for the team (or teams) with which he should be listed. For example, Grant Fuhr. He's played in 868 total NHL games; 423 with Edmonton; 95 with Toronto; 64 with Buffalo; 14 with Los Angeles; 249 with St. Louis; and 23 with Calgary. The percentages are 48.7% EDM, 28.6% STL, 10.9% TOR, 9.3% BUF, 2.6% CGY, and 1.6% LA. So Fuhr should be listed as a Hall-of-Famer for Edmonton and St. Louis in my scenario. Jc121383 (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that, is that its an arbitrary number that we would choose and thus POV. The NHL unlike MLB does not have a player pick which team he is going into the hall as a member of. If they did it would be much easier and definitive. -Djsasso (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mm, but that does nothing more than substitute one man's POV in place of a (presumably neutral) consensus. As it is, we already arbitrarily pick standards. WP:ATHLETE arbitrarily - and counterintuitively - presumes that anyone who's played a single professional match is prima facie notable, and that includes Miroslav von Dupuis, who got pulled out of the stands in 1948 to finish the game in net for the Kansas City Pla-Mors because the starting goalie got drunk on Screech between periods, and was never heard from again. The old standard was that a HHOFer would be listed for any team with which he'd played for a few seasons and that his play there had a material impact on his induction; no Denis Savard listed for Tampa Bay, for instance.  RGTraynor  19:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No doubt, I agree with you, but in the case of WP:ATHLETE its a clear line that is readily there at which to cut off at. When you start talking about the sort of impact a player made then that comes down to individual feelings on the sort of impact a player had with whatever team and is not so cut and dry. Picking a number like 25% or 50% again is just picking a number. A player may have only played with a team for one season, but it may have been his play that put them over the top for the cup that year for example. So one person may say well without him that team wouldn't have won the cup, others might say he wasn't there more than a year so what kind of impact did he really have on the team. I personally think if the person was inducted as a player then he should be listed with every team he played with as a player cause all the teams contributed to his hall of fame career. However, the ones like Lemaire where he is a coach on a team he never played for or Dryden who was a VP of a team he never played for. Those sort I think aren't appropriate as they weren't inducted into the hall of fame for being a builder. But that is probably POV on my part. -Djsasso (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Though this doesn't change anything regarding the Hockey Hall of Fame, since you mentioned the Baseball Hall of Fame: note MLB does not run it; though in the past the player did choose the team cap depicted on the plaque, now the Hall of Fame has the final say; and if you search on their site based on team (and in the actual Hall when I was there a few years ago), it seems to turn up everyone who had worked for the team. So for example, Frank Robinson turns up in a search on Montreal Expos, though he was inducted long before he managed the Expos. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically the NHL doesn't run the hockey one either. I mostly was just meaning it would be easier if they were forced to pick a team. -Djsasso (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple comment: Regardless of what we adopt, the Hockey Hall of Fame website does list the Toronto Maple Leafs as having the most player inductees with 55 being the magic number. See here. The number does include 5 Toronto Arenas players and 2 Toronto St. Pats. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, then well, that's fine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Hull a Rangers HHOF member? GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah he played a few games for them in a tournament they were in, in Europe. Anyways its a moot point, don't think this topic will change anytime soon because anything other than the current concensus will encourage drive by editors to add whomever they want to the pages anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been in the Hockey Hall of Fame, and, I have a Habs sweater, I think I will add myself..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Most succesful club"? Cmmon

Moving Discussion from Djassos talk page

My formulation is nutral, your is a POV. I think we should keep the amature-professional club left aside with CSKA because a team who beats montreal. at it's peak, 6-1, and whose players, most of them, were yearly world champions as part of the national team, are not amatures, even their players admit that. Today it is widely agreed in Russia that the CSKA of those times was professional.

So my formulation keeps the question who was bigger, CSKA or Montreal, open, and that way NPOV. Your formulation pushes a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.172.187 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You are engaged in the edit war just like me, i'm difending an NPOV. Administratorship doesnt give you the right to push POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.172.187 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually my version was an attempt at NPOV. By making it possible for both to be the best in the world. Formulating whether they were professional is a decent arguement and one that deserves a section in the CSKA page. However, when it comes to pure championships the Soviet Union right up until the break up claimed they were not paying the players to play and that they were just members of the armed forces. Obviously they were using loop holes but we need to go with what is official. The stance of the hockey project on wikipedia is that the Soviet League was a strictly amateur league up until the change. -Djsasso (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

First, please stop threatening, it's not honest. You are the one causing this edit war. I'm not regestered, but i'm familiar with the rules. My formulation is NPOV, your one pushes a POV. But you yourself admit the professional-amature case is disputed!!! That's why i keep it completely out. Thats the whole point. The fact the Soviet beated NHL temas in the series just proves we should ugnore the professional-amature thing, since it is disputed, and focus stricktly on achievments. I'm a Detroit fan, live in Israel. I'm c-o-m-p-l-e-t-l-e-y nutral here, so if you took me wrong i'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.172.187 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that one game does not mean throughout history its the best team. I am not threatening, I was warning. The fact you reverted it now a 4th time gives me ample reason to block you but I didn't. I was however trying to get you to discuss the issue without blindly reverting back and forth. However, since you keep insisting on having it your way maybe I should have you blocked. As for me disputing, its you who disputed what was there in the first place and changed it. -Djsasso (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh a lighter note, being a fan of Detroit probably would make you more biased as you are trying to knock down the might Canadiens so to speak. -Djsasso (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actualy i have symphaty to Montreal. I think their achievments bring pride to NHL and that the fact they are not strong today as then denounces the whole league. I think it's sad Canadian players who grew up in Montreal play for USA teams only because of money. If not the huge money of USA clubs, Montreal would still rule, and that would be fair. 79.180.172.187 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon you've breached 3RR at those articles; again - discuss you proposed changes first. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And thats what i'm doing. My formulation is nutral thats why it should say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.172.187 (talk • contribs)

This is very true. I have no ill will toward you or your opinion. I just think the best way to word it is to say one is professional and one is amateur so that arguements about validity can be avoided, because as is seen by their complete lack of championships since they turned pro, its fairly obvious they were stacking the teams that played the NHL teams etc and once they turned pro they could no longer benefit from that. To argue that the CSKA was on the level of the Canadiens as a normal league team is false. It was more a case of the Soviet Leagues all-star team playing an individual NHL team. -Djsasso (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Montreal to ended in 92. And? It was Soviet teams, regular teams, not only CSKA. Looks, you see it's disputed, thats why i did the NPOV fprmulation.

I recommend 79.180.172.187 be blocked for breaching 3RR on Montreal Canadiens and HC CSKA Moscow articles. He seems unwilling to discuss his idea's first. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I already beat you too it. I wanted to let him discuss the idea and let his first breach pass. But when he reverted a number of other people I had to do it. Ironically the last few he reveted were people switching it to the way he originally wrote it. -Djsasso (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a case of heavy revert thumb. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its just a case of someone newer to wikipedia not quite sure how things work and then getting a little heated when things don't go their way. Next time they will probably understand its better to talk. I actually meant for him to go to the team talk page and discuss it, should have been more clear I suppose. -Djsasso (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

IP rookie mistakes, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So you support that kind of concensus? I have seen the other users reverted me to my first version, but just for the record, i reverted them not just to revert, but because i was shure you hate it and would resist so i went to a softer version. If you like it, fine, i only tried to make it better. If the Montreal case is closed i dont mind, less head ache.

CSKA today are even officaly professional. They are a regular professional team. Morever, they agree or admitt, that then they were professional. Why i want to ignore the professional-amature thing? Beacause you yourself know it's disputed, so lets look on achievments only. Lets ignore the disputed thing. Dont get me wrong. I havent written they are the best but "one of the best, if not the best". So it's completely NPOV.

And it's sad that people started reverted me without even knowing that we have a discussion on your talk page. By blocking me how did it help to the discussion? I'm seriously thinking of signing up. Then i'll have a normal talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.161.47 (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's sad that certain IPs seem incapable of leaving the articles as they were, before their edits. AGAIN, discuss what you want changed at talk: HC CSKA Moscow first. You're not going to get anywhere by making your changes first, then discussiong it. Indeed you're being disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your the disruptive one here!!! Havent you noticed that there is a big discussion here?? Havent you read it?? Belive me, the discussion here goes nice without you. If you would learn the whole case you would see that the mission is not to do "my edits" but to create an NPOV opinion. And thats what's being done here!!! 79.181.157.144 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that reasoning with you, isn't going to be successful. Very well, continue with your disruptive ways. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Concensus proposal

His clame that Montreal is most succesful club in the world is a POV. they: 1. Dont have international titles to back that up. 2. They lost to CSKA in the series 6-1. 3. At the time the Soviet league existed the Soviet teams beat Canadian once in the series, which shows then NHL wasn't the best in the world. 3. On his user page he said he is their fan.

While Djasso tries to push a Point and a POV by claming that they are the most succesful, i, even thought i think CSKA was more succesful, try to reach a concensus. I propose to leave those promotional phrases out and keep a nutrral phrasing like:

• "Montreal is the most succesful club at the NHL, winning more Stanely cups then any other team" - The best option. Speak at numbers.

• "Montreal is considered to be one of the most, if not the most, succesful hockey team ever" - CSKA won international titles, unlike them, and beat Montreal 6-1 in the series, at a time when many players from CSKA also won world championships in a row, so it's kind of Americanocentric to decide Montreal was better. That is also a nice concensus proposal.

Djasso tries to push a POV statement that Montreal was the most succesful professional club ever. Thats also a POV, because he by that says CSKA was amature. During the Soviet era all cluns were considered amature as part of the idiology propoganda that "simple men" can beat the whole world. Today those clubs are considered professional, and even it's ex-players ednit they were professionals doing only sport as their job.

I propose to talk only about number of titles and leave the amature-proffesional side apart. For the NPOV lets keep the question who was greater CSKA or montreal open, or not touch it at all, without taking the fact Djasso is a Montreal fan as an argument.

In disagreement; CSKA wasn't consider 'professional' all those years. And yes, I'm a Habs fan (saving you the trouble of pointing that out). GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Without judging the merit of your proposal, your POV that CSKA Moscow is equally flawed. I especially like the part where you "prove" that Red Army was superior because they defeated the Canadiens 6-1 in "the series". While Red Army did indeed defeat Montreal 6-1 in 1986, Montreal beat Red Army 4-2 in 1980, while the two teams tied 3-3 in 1976. Though I suppose mentioning those games would defeat your argument, wouldn't it? Not that a single game in a random year is relevant to challenging a statement with a much larger historical context. I have no idea at all what your third point was intending to prove, while your first argument is meaningless as the NHL did not compete in international tournaments. So really, you need to drop your accusations of POV pushing and other failures to assume good faith, because in my view, you are pushing just as much. More to the point, based on your edit warring yesterday, you are pushing against consensus.

Now, to the argument. While the opinion that Red Army and other Soviet League clubs were amateur in name only is well established, the simple fact is they were considered an amateur team at the time. This is what we must present. It is not for us to change the status the team held at that time. (Besides, if you wish to change Red Army to professional, then you have to admit that they stacked the deck in those amateur competitions. All of those international titles and world championships lose value because they were pros playing against amateurs. Your position logically argues that Montreal was superior as the Canadiens played on a level playing field.)

Personally, I favour removing any mention of how successful each team is relative to the world from both articles. It is a useless statement that is impossible to prove, and therefore impossible to source. Red Army/CSKA Moscow and the Canadiens played in different worlds, to be quite frank. Different leagues, different rules. The only arguments regarding the best teams in the world should be between national teams, not club teams. Resolute 19:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the 6-1 score in 1986 is not germane to the discussion: The outcome of a single game at a single point in time cannot determine what team is the most successful team, as such a statement is a judgment over a period of time, and cannot be determined by one game. In any case, no one is attempting to claim that the 1986 Montreal Canadiens was the best team in the world, so the outcome of a game in 1986 is irrelevant. In addition, the outcome of a number of series between essentially an all-star team and a number of regular league teams cannot truly determine the relative quality between two leagues.

In both the HC CSKA Moscow and Montreal Canadiens articles, unless an objective, reputable reference can be cited, it is probably best to not make any unqualified statement about the "most successful team". It borders on original research, as the criteria for success is not clear cut (in terms of popularity? revenue? having the best players? or just the number of championships in the league they played? should the level of competition in the league be considered?). Isaac Lin (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the IP have forced his edit on this article again. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Forced"? I tried to get an NPOV formulation while some users tries to push a Point.. If you would read all that user wrote you would see in the end he proposed the same thing i proposed in my first proposal.

My first proposal is the same thing you proposed in the end. Talking about titles and thats it, without "most succesful/less siccesful in the world". It's the most nutral the can get. Montreal won more titles in the NHL then anyone else? Let it be, write it. CSKA more then anyone in the Soviet League and the European Cup? Write it. All the other things are useless and as we see disputed. If you have noticed i want nutrality and not my opinion. I gave my opinion to show there are different views we can give and thats why we should keep it nutral.

P.S. Just for the record, today both CSKA and the players who played then in CSKA admit they were professional. The fact the series were so tight just show how it's impossible beetwen them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.167.107 (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that with the Bold, revert, discuss approach, you are supposed to discuss your reverted changes on the talk page for the article (and not the user, since article discussion belongs on the article's talk page), and not restore your changes. This may result in what you feel to be an article of lesser quality being up for a bit longer, but Wikipedia will survive, and there is time enough for improvements to be added. Isaac Lin (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I copied a part of User talk:Andrwsc talk page to show more users who supported my first proposal:

Hello Andrwsc. Would you revert the IP's edits at those pages. I'm still within 24hrs of my last 3 reverts - and don't want to breach 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm ok with the latest edits of both articles. On the Canadiens article, he's put "...in the NHL" instead of "...in professional hockey". The referenced statement that follows that claim only mentions the NHL and no other professional leagues, so unless we add referenced comparisons to other leagues, I think his version is better. I don't really like the wording on either version of the CSKA page—the "one of the most, if not the most," phrase is a peacock word we ought to avoid—so I don't see any value in reverting it right now until we can get some better wording by consensus. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with what the IP wants; more concern with the way he/she is going about getting it. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion here, isn't it a good way? While you think about what way to do what i try to get an NPOV. I started an discussion long time ago on a users page, you knew about it and havent participated. When need "educationg" someone, your fast there. I want to improve the article, thats why i started the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.167.107 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, and in fact, encouraged. But fighting several editors in a revert-war on the article itself is not going to help. Also, please sign your talk page messages by adding four tilde's (~~~~) to the end. It will help us identify your comments. Thanks. Resolute 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I signed in to Wikipedia right now so now i'll have a nickname. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, now please - don't re-add your edit again to the article. Try and get a consensus for it here first? Then everything will go along much more smoothly. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Howabout, ...more success then any other ice hockey team in North American professional hockey... GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Shure, thats what i support to. I offered something close in "Montreal is the most succesful club at the NHL, winning more Stanely cups then any other team". I dont mind if your formulation will be here. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest eliminating the first sentence in the third paragraph, and changing the second sentence to "The Canadiens have won 24 Stanley Cups (including its first in 1916, prior to the formation of the NHL), more than any other team." On a somewhat related note, I suggest moving the last sentence to a footnote, and changing it to "In the NBA, the team with the highest percentage of championships is the Boston Celtics with 28%, and in MLB, the New York Yankees have the highest percentage with 25%." Isaac Lin (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see we all here agree with eliminating the first sentence in the third paragraph, thats good. But why to move the other part to the footnotes? As i understood (i'm a new user so i might understood it wrongly), the above part of the article should give a shure summery of what is this club, and that part shows it's succes in North America. The re-formulation is exelent, by the way. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For conciseness, I suggest moving the statements regarding the NBA and MLB to a footnote. I believe having the statements in the main text belabours the point. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. No objection. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The dude with the Red Wings, I'm not sure why you have jumped the gun with your change. Three different proposals have been made; only one of them suggested removing the sentence you removed. You have also given less than 24 hours for people to comment (at least a few days would be preferable). I don't see any consensus yet on what changes ought to be made. Isaac Lin (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You, me, and more people here agreed that the "most succesful club" thing is not needed. The other proposel is to write there "the most succesful club in the NHL". I will change that iif people will give suggestions. What people havent responsed to is your second suggestion, which i support but you done anything because we havent heard more people. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been discussed many times, in cases where the changes are disputed, it is important to get a consensus agreement on the changes before making them, and not continue to make test edits to the article. Failing to do so will cause friction with other editors. There is no need to rush to make changes; waiting at least a few days does no harm. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Offcaurse i will enter there whatever people choose. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In cases of dispute, the article should not be a working copy with continual drafts being updated on the page. The talk page should serve as a forum to work out an agreed-upon wording. As I said, not following this policy will make it more difficult for you to make changes in Wikipedia when there is some dispute about them. The Bold, revert, discuss page suggests that you allow someone else the opportunity to apply the agreed-upon changes, which shows they have signed off on them and demonstrates respect. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And how do i know where to do this change? Theu changes we see where is it going. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

For example, you can do it the same way I did: state the exact location of the text to be changed, and then provide an exact quote of the proposed modified text. Isaac Lin (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Me, you, Andrwsx. Resolute and GoodDay agreed that the "Most succusful/most succesful professionsal club" is a bad formulation, thats why i reverted it. There's only one person who supported it, and thats Djasso. So returning Something which a majority oposses to, i dont know, looks weird. The argument is to delete the sentence at all, like you proposed and i did, or what few others proposed to write that it's the most succesful clun in the NHL/North America. Fot now till we decide i deleted it. If you think it's a good idea, i can insert the formulation it's the most succesful club in north America, out of respect to those who proposed it, and their not a small group and it's an NPOV statement. I dont understand why to return it to something only one man supports and we all agree it's not a good statement. I thought it might stuck the whole process. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You know you really need to stop saying I am pushing a point, because it was me trying to bend to your point that had me put professional. I also never disagreed with NHL. I disagreed with your use of weasel words and with your constant argument that the CKSA was a professional team. It wasn't. The people above also agreed it wasn't a professional team at the time. What the above people said and I have no problem with was that the sentence shouldn't be there at all. They didn't say yours was the best way to say it. So stop assuming bad faith and try to get along already. -Djsasso (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

CSKA were an amateur team at the time. The IIHF decided they were, as at the time only amateurs could play in the IHWC. (This changed in 77). Were they a very good amateur team, hell yes. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Guys, i'm sorry but you are dancing on a canceled wedding. The CSKA team and it's players admited they were professional, thats why the amature/professional part will be simply ignored and we will looke only at titles. The sentence a concensus here agreed to delete was weasel words. Let the Montreal Thropies and statistics speak for themselves. The same thing was done in CSKA. It was agreed in the CSKA article to ignore the professional/amature thing, here it was agreed that the sentence you supported in Montreal is also not needed. Thats it. Dont try to mix. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the same discussion, what goes for one goes for both. The sentence isn't needed in either case. You are arguing when no one is disagreeing with you that the sentence shouldn't be there. So unless you are trying to say we should say one team is the best then I don't know why you are still arguing. -Djsasso (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, when i offered to get rid of that sentence here you started a revert war, same thing there. The case is closed so i dont propose anything anymore. Both articles wont have such sentences. We will talk in trophies, numbers. Thats it. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They (Red Army) were indeed de facto pros, but not de jure. If they were de jure professional the players would not have been allowed in the 1980 Olympics, for example. Are NCAA football and basketball teams (some of them) that have been caught in essence paying players, are they now to be considered professional teams?Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question. Did the Jewish doctors really want to kill Stalin? What?! No? But then they decided that they had! So what if later is was changed? "Later judgments of the true nature of the team does not change historical fact." Thats the whole point that CSKA trained professionaly, and havent worked anywere but in that. So today it's widely agreed that they were professional, and that is the historical fact. Look, it's disputed, and i dont try tp push a point, thats why i proposed, for the NPOV, to look at titles and results, thats it. And it's really a useless discussion. In the CSKA page, everything was decided, thats it. It's disputed so we dont touch it there. It was agreed there to talk about titles and thats it. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually not disputed, you were the only one disputing it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It was decided to ignore this thing in the CSKA article, and thats it. Infact, since everything is solved and i dont offer to do any more changes, i dont undersntand why you continue this argument. If you think i'm promoting the sentence of "one of the best, if not the best" you are wrong. Everything is closed as far as i care and i'm completely agreed with the current cuncensus. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ironically the guy who was so worked up about this was a confirmed sockpuppet and known for supporting himself in such arguments and despite his claims of having no bias is known for trying to ram soviet/russian nationalist opinions down peoples throats. -Djsasso (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Stalin and Jewish doctors thing.... Anyway, do we just leave the article the way it is now? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I never understood what he was referring to either with the doctors. I think we can leave it as is. It gets the point across. I thought about reverting it, but I think it still reads well enough. My only issue was really that he was trying to promote how good the CKSA was on the Canadiens page. -Djsasso (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

They actualy made a mistake with the Sockpupeting. I mean, if i'm such a nationalist, and a Russian one, how can my IP be from Israel? But thats possible, and i guess the guy they thought me for was also from Israel, i'm from that immigration to (1 Million out of 6 Million in Israel are from the USSR), there ain't another explanation for the blocking, but then comes a second question. Enter my user contribution's page. Could you find one edit there which is not related to sports? Where are the nationalist topics? The guy they thought me for most of his contribution page is ethnic topics. But nevermind, dont care about it so much. No account - i cant create articles. Less work for me - wikipedia looses. Thats one. Now the second point. If I would promote CSKA, why would I delete the phrase, which not I added, which states that "CSKA is one of the most succesful sport clubs ever" in the begining of the history section there? Which ironicaly, you returned when you reverted me there. P.S. What you reverted there was decided to be there not by me but in a discussion on the talk page. You wanted to get back at me and you reverted a community decision. Funny ah? All i eventualy achieved is that in both texts we will speak directly in numbers, how much the team won what, and thats it. If for you any time it's not told your the greatest then it's insulting you, you should chech your nutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.3.32 (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Its called a proxy server, you can easily make your IP be anywhere in the world if you know how. And just because you are in Israel doesn't mean you can't be a Soviet Nationalist. Just because you push your nationalist ideas in sports doesn't mean you aren't pushing them. All of your edits pretty much involve making russia/ussr look better vs the rest of the world. Its a pretty clear cut case. A community decision that was based on a sock puppet and only a couple people took place in, a number of which could also have been your sock puppets. So the consensus becomes invalid. As well I have no problem with a line that states it was one of the best sports teams in history on the CKSA page, just like i have no problem with a Montreal page saying the same thing. What I had a problem with was you trying to say that the CKSA was the best on the Montreal page. I also have no problem with it being pure numbers. -Djsasso (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

1. When did i change my comment? 2. All i did today was returning the article it's grade on the quality scale because i have seen down this page you guys dont like this law grade. So i figured i returne the good one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.157.72 (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean that thing?? It was an attempt to undo the quality scale mark of the article. When i have seen it deleted half of the talk page i reverted myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.157.72 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reason for C class?

Can anyone explain why this article was downgraded to C-class? Comparing it with the Boston Bruins article, a B-class one, the main differences I see is that the Boston article has a list of first round draft picks (the Canadien draft picks being available from the Montreal Canadiens navbox), and lists of the awards won by the team and its players, as well as its history section being inline instead of in a separate article. Is the reclassification due to the B-class criterion for references? It seems to me that the page's organization has only improved since its assessment in January 2007 as a B-class article. (Though a bit hard to read, here is the difference between the article then and now.) Isaac Lin (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

82.81.160.112, please refrain from making changes to the classification of articles while it is being discussed -- it may lead to confusion. There is no evidence that the previous change should be quickly reverted, as it was done by an editor who does a lot of editing of Montreal-related articles. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mostly because C-class is a brand new classification that didn't exist before, its meant to be for articles that are better than start articles but not quite B articles because they are missing something important. In this case there is a very huge lack of inline citations. The reason the Boston article is still a B is that no one has gone through all the hockey articles reclassifying them yet. This classification is literally less than a month old -Djsasso (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; I didn't realize the C-class was new (I've looked at the classifications before but I guess the details just didn't stick with me). I suspected the reason was due to the lack of inline citations but just wanted to cross check. (Though I realize the standard for a featured article has changed, it's quite the fall for this article to go from featured article to C-class!) Isaac Lin (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the standards got alot more strict since that time. But by all means if you are up for it, its on the list of the hockey project to get it back to FA so if you want to help I am sure it would be greatly appreciated. If you want an example of an FA team article, Calgary Flames is a good one and I believe the most recent FA for an NHL team so probably has the highest standards applied to it. -Djsasso (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)