Talk:Professional ice hockey

Discussion

Is it allowed to use logos of sports leagues in articles not actually specific about the sport league that the logo/logos depict? I don't think that using these logos qualify for frair use. --Krm500 08:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they're copyrighted, no. Are they? Ravenswing 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, they are all logos of corporations so why wouldn't they be? --Krm500 08:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took the logos out of Wikipedia articles, and it was said it was fair use. I changed nothing. The Evil Clown 15:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they aren't necessarily corporate logos, and because copyright law in other countries is not necessarily the same as in the United States. As far as them being fair use, it is fair use to use a logo in an article about that organization/team. It is not fair use to use it anywhere else. So, for instance, the Boston Bruins' logo is fair use in an article specifically about the Boston Bruins, but not in an article about Wayne Cashman, however much he played his entire NHL career for the Bruins. Ravenswing 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First pro league

Canada did not have the first pro league. The International Professional Hockey League was based out of Michigan, and it was the first to pay its players. Surpising to see that there isn't even a category for the US in this article. Kaiser matias 04:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace of professional hockey discussion

Professional ice hockey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protection: ResIpsaMan has been editing the page to include multiple porely sourced and multiple unsourced claims and is deleting multiple sourced claims by Oddpittsburgh. ResIpsaMan seems to be unfairly fixated on removing any mention of Pittsburgh & newly souced information regarding the history of professional hockey. OddPittsburgh (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except your information is making assumptions that are not supported by the sources. The fact some players were caught being paid in 1901 does not make them the first players. Portage Lakes had an openly professional travelling team in 1900. And there were many players in the amateur leagues in Canada that had admitted to being paid after their careers were done who played even before the Portage Lakes team. Your sources don't back up what you are trying to claim. -DJSasso (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portage Lake did not have a directly open, professional, traveling team prior to their formation in the IHL. They were purely an amateur team and this is verified by the multitude of research that has been written about this over the last 100 years. Being paid "under-the-table" does not count as official being that players were paid this way since the creation of the game (as mentioned clearly in the article) The information you are stating is now considered false being that it cannot be sourced with modern-day sources and only opinion pieces written nearly 40 years after their 1904 season (1948 Hockey Magazine). New information and proof that Pittsburgh was indeed openly paying their players (through official bans from the OHA, continuous mentions throughout era newspapers and a direct list of players & their payments) backs up this claim. Similar to the first openly paid Football player Pudge Heffelfinger (also in Pittsburgh), records also now openly state the direct payment of the entire hockey league. This alters Houghton's prior claims to a 1904 date. All of the sources included in my revisions back this exact claim. OddPittsburgh (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ResIpsaMan Thank you for cleaning up the article and accepting these new claims. Further evidence (including handwritten receipts of payments) are forthcoming. This is all exciting news. OddPittsburgh (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OddPittsburgh Thank you for your awesome work on this. I believe you misinterpreted my intentions in prior revision (no surprise, as it's hard to interact and provide full reasons, given the editing format - so for that, I apologize). You've done a nice job uncovering some cool history that will make the sport and its history better. I look forward to what you will find and contribute to the collective history! On the topic at hand, the issue isn't going to be whether players were paid prior to 1904, at least in terms of the delineation of the start of professional hockey, as that line is (and always has been) about the start of the first fully professional league (which is the IPHL), not when players were first paid. If it were about pay, everything up to this point (including the State of Michigan historical marker on US-41 in downtown Houghton) would have recognized 1903, not 1904, since it says on the same exact sign that the team the year before was fully paid. Instead, it says both, because they are completely separate points. The start date of professional hockey is not a point that is going to (likely) ever change. The start of when players were openly paid, though, as a separate and distinct point, is worth investigating further. One minor point: Portage Lake did have a directly open and paid team prior to 1904 (they were for certain in 1903, which is why the Soo teams were banished from the OHL that season). ResIpsaMan (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ResIpsaMan Thanks again & I agree with you on my misinterpretation of your edits. However one wants to look at it, this is all for the 'greater good' for the Hockey gods anyways. Don't forget that the 1903 Portage Lake season is 1903/1904 just like we are currently in the 2018/2019 hockey season. Portage Lake's last game of their 1902/1903 season was played in Pittsburgh for the US Championship (of which they refused to play a third game for & left the City under the cover of darkness before it could be taken from them - as per the March 21 & 22, 1903 newspapers report). As for the Soo & Portage Lakes being banned for professionalism - according to the newspaper sources, it was solely because they filled their teams with already banished "professionalized" players from Pittsburgh, which is an interesting footnote. I completely agree that the start of when players were openly paid would be a separate & distinct point like you mentioned. Thanks again OddPittsburgh (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OddPittsburgh Glad we got that cleared up and are on the same page! We are all on the same team here, of curating hockey history, after all! Agreed on the 1903-04 and 1904, with 1904 actually reflecting the 1904-05 season (for the IPHL). I think there is conflicting data points on the reason for the Soo teams and that will be an interesting thread to follow, as everything I had seen on that related to the fact that they played the Houghton team, which used paid players. Sort of three nuanced aspects that seem to have could to (abstractly) lead to banishment by the OHL: (1) OHL banning of players playing in MI and PA for pay, (2) OHL banning its own teams who played against teams that paid its players, and (3) OHL banning its own teams who played players who had previously been paid. I truly appreciate that you understood the point about about professional versus pay, as that's a nuanced point and not easy to articulate (which is I think what caused our discord in the revisions - I was trying to tease that out and delineate the two points, while preserving your awesome sourcing). You have done a truly awesome job (and service to history) with the archival work you've done on the pay point! ResIpsaMan (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]