Talk:Punch-up in Piestany

Medvedev

Somehow I doubt that the current Russian president ever played hockey at international level. --Bicycle repairman (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, heh. I've removed the link. Resolute 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The link is still there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.117.10.229 (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

GA status

This is a pretty good looking article, has anyone ever considered pursuing GA status? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a goal of mine when I created it. I did want to add a section regarding the legacy of the incident first, but never got around to it for some reason. That missing section is alluded to in the lead in discussing how Don Cherry's popularity grew. I should get back to that. Resolute 03:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reading a book on it right now. I'd like to help plug away at this one.  :) leafschik1967 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Gold medals for the team

As I haven't finished the book yet, I don't know if Joyce mentions it, but I read in a 'History of Hockey' article that Harold Ballard had gold medals made up and issued to the team members. I figured this should be in there, and I'll look for the article. And I apologize if I just missed it. leafschik1967 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not in there now. I really should go back and finish this article, heh. But you are right, that is an important aspect of the aftermath. Resolute 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Legacy: Mogilny

The paragraph about Mogilny has only a tenuous connection to Piestany and probably needs to be dropped. Bulbous (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably true. I'm trying to find more of the aftermath that focusses on the Soviets, so as not to make this article too focussed on Canada's side of things. Resolute 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Punch-up in Piestany/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA Review by S_RX

Lead

• The brawl resulted in the disqualification of both nations, costing the Canadians a chance at the gold medal. - the word "cost" is NPOV, also, another NPOV, the Canadians weren't the only ones who lost their chance to win, the USSR also lost their chance.

• The USSR had already been eliminated from medal contention, so they did not lose a chance at a medal. Clarified this point, though I have to say I don't see "cost" in this context as POV. I'm not entirely sure what other word I could replace with. Any suggestions?

• Rønning never officiated another international game. - if this was after this brawl, it should be stated After this incident( or something along those lines), Ronning never officiated another international game.

• Removed that statement from the lead altogether.

• The players' suspensions were later reduced to six months on appeal, allowing several players from both teams to return for the 1988 tournament in Moscow. - 1988 Tournament leads to a redlinked article.

• The article has not been created yet. I don't believe that it is required all links exist for a GA, but I'll look to create a stub article at some point today.

• Both nations would earn a measure of redemption in 1988, as Canada won the gold medal with the Soviets taking home silver. - more NPOV violations, "measure of redemption" is poor word choice that leads to POV. Reword that, also reword "Soviets taking home silver" to something along the lines of "Soviets winning the silver medal."

• Reworded

• There is an extra space in the lead causing the TOC to be an extra space lower.

• Fixed

Hockey's "Cold War"

• Canada and the Soviet Union had engaged in an increasingly intense rivalry since the Soviets first emerged as a hockey power by winning the 1954 World Ice Hockey Championships. - is there a better way to restate the Soviets first emerged as a hockey power?

• Reworded

• Canada won four titles, and the Soviets the fifth. - If Canada won the first four, then it should be stated that they won the "first" four.

• They didn't, they lost a tournament in the middle. Clarified.

• 1982 was the first time Canada sent a true national junior team, under the auspices of Hockey Canada's Program of Excellence. - "true" is POV, remove.

• Removed, though I'm not completely convinced it is POV given the context created by the previous statement.

• The 1987 Canada Cup followed, and was won by Canada two-games-to-one, with the third game being described as the greatest in hockey history.[11] - "as the greatest in hockey history." Is that a quote, if so it needs to be in quotations.

• Not a direct quote, but a common description of the game.

• The winning goal was scored by Mario Lemieux on a pass from Wayne Gretzky. The year started, however, with the final game of the 1987 World Junior Championship, and Canada going for gold. - this should be removed it isn't relevant to the section's header title.

• Removed

Game summary

• Canada entered the game with a 4–1–1 record, and had already been assured the bronze medal. - by who?

• By the tournament format of the time. The context for this is established by the first paragraph.

• A victory against the Soviets would have guaranteed Canada the silver, and a victory by more than five goals would have won gold. - silver what? gold what? rw the last part of the sentence to and a victory by more than five goals would have them win the gold medal.

• Reworded

• The Soviet Union, entering the game with a 2–3–1 record, had already been eliminated from medal contention. - by who?

• As above, by the tournament rules. I've added a slight clarification at the beginning of the paragraph.

• Unable to convince IIHF officials to change the assignment, McDonald was left with a sense that something bad was about to happen. - needs to be reworded per WP:NPOV, it sounds as if you "the reader" are saying it not McDonald.

• Reworded

• The game began as McDonald feared. Off the opening faceoff, Sergei Shesterikov elbowed Canadian Dave McLlwain, who responded by cross-checking the Soviet player. Neither player was assessed a penalty. - another NPOV violation. Dont put words in the person's mouth, just say what you mean. Also merge these three sentences, they can be placed into 1 or 2 sentences.

• Removed the first sentence.

• The first period ended as it began, with both teams playing over the edge, and Canada leading 3–1. - bad wording, so the first period ended as it began? How can that be? "over the edge" is POV, reword or remove.

• Reworded

• The five minutes following featured far less pushing, shoving and stick work.[21] - Reword. The following five minutes featured... Also "far less pushing, shoving, and stick work." is POV, reword.

• Reworded

• However, just after the six-minute mark, following a minor scuffle that sent two players from each team to the penalty box, the teams resumed trading cheap shots. - is a penalty box a regulation of a hockey game? what is meant by resumed trading cheap shots? Sounds like POV and bad word choice. Reword.

• Yes, a penalty box is where a player serving a penalty goes. Reworded "cheap shots"

"A real skirmish"

• Many of the sections are in quotations or are made up statements, they should be made into serious titles, such as "The Brawl or the beginning of the brawl.

• Reworded

• The brawl began off a face-off as Shesterikov collided with Everett Sanipass, leading to a fight between the two. - How about The Brawl began after a face-off between Shesterikov and Everett Sanipass, which led to a fight between the two.

• Agreed, reworded.

• The battle quickly escalated into a line brawl involving all skaters on the ice for both teams. - I'm pretty sure they are "hockey players" and not skaters.

• In hockey lingo, "skaters" are the position players. The statement was meant to exclude the goaltenders, who were not fighting at that time. Reworded.

• Evgeny Davydov was the first player from either team to leave his bench to join the melee, prompting all players from both teams to pour onto the ice.[12] - poor word choice. Replace "pour" with another word or statement, like " which prompted all the players to leave their respective benches to join the brawl" or something along those lines.

• Reworded

• The brawl was especially violent at times. Mike Keane paired off against Valeri Zelepukin, with the Canadian "fighting like it was for the world title" according to Fleury.[25] In another fight, Vladimir Konstantinov leveled a head-butt that broke Greg Hawgood's nose. Brendan Shanahan later described it as "the greatest head-butt I've ever seen."[26] Stephane Roy was pummeled by two Soviet players.[27] - The first sentence is NPOV violation, replace the word "especially" with something else. Also, I feel this paragraph can be elaborated to describe the brawl more thoroughly.

• Reworded, and added a couple more sentences.

In a desperate attempt at ending the brawl, tournament officials had the arena lights turned off, leaving the players to fight in the dark as the fans whistled loudly in disapproval of the entire situation. - whistled? Did they literally whistle? or did they boo?

• They literally whistled. Booing is more of a North American trait in showing displeasure.

Aftermath

• McDonald made it plain the Canadians were not interested. - made it plain? do you mean aware?

• Yeah. I borrowed the wording from the source, reworded.

Legacy

• Both the Canadians and the Soviets earned a measure of redemption at the 1988 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships in Moscow. - "measure of redemption", wording makes it a POV, reword.

• Reworded

• Hans Rønning's assignment to officiate the game was viewed by other on-ice officials as a nod to organizers from Lillehammer, Norway who had just won the right to host the 1994 Winter Olympics and were observing the game. - a comma is needed after "who."

• Fixed

• Canadian hockey officials were not so forgiving as Ballard. In 2005, the suggestion of a reunion for the 1987 team was met with uncomfortable silence and "I don't think so." - reword "were not so forgiving", it is a POV. Also, who stated "I dont think so."?

• Reworded

• The Soviet media agency, TASS, was highly critical of the coaching staff's inability to control the players. - the acronym of TASS needs to be spelled out.

• Fixed

• Head coach Vladimir Vasiliev was dismissed as the coach of the Soviet national junior team as a result of Piestany. - does Piestany necessarily have to be capitalized?

• Yes. Piestany is a proper place name

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Relatively a well written article, but many prose issues and MOS violations. I would quick-fail this article, though I feel it could be improved, which is why it will be on hold. I suggest having this article copyedited. Once that is complete, notify me on my talk page.S_RX 03:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Yeah, I realized late in the game that this wasn't quite my best work yet. Thanks for placing it on hold rather than failing it. I will look to make improvements and clarifications tomorrow. Resolute 03:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

   I've gone through and (hopefully) addressed your concerns. Resolute 16:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. I did a quick fix and the article Pass.--S_RX 22:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The link

Someone keeps reverting my removal of a link to a YouTube video of the incident, citing that WP:NFCC actually applies in this case, when it doesn't (since it is not directly inside the article, which is when it must comply). WP:YOUTUBE and WP:LINKVIO contradict this, since this video was uploaded by a random uploader that I assume does not own it. He also told me not to remove it again without consensus, but I disagree per a combination of my cited statements and WP:IAR. Anyway, does it need to be removed? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I am not arguing WP:NFCC, but rather fair use in general, even knowing Wikipedia's policies are stricter. My argument is that being of low quality, and and containing only the relevant aspect of the incident (i.e.: specifically the brawl, and not the entire game), and that the you tube video is of significant value to the article, especially as words alone cannot hope to convey the scope of the incident, that it's inclusion can be justified as under fair use. WP:YOUTUBE does not apply in my view, as it specifically says to treat such links case by case, and I think there is sufficient argument to justify. WP:LINKVIO is a relevant argument, but I suppose the question is whether it is truly copyright infringing if a fair use claim is supportable. Resolute 15:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to police YouTube. It doesn't matter who the video was uploaded by, we presume that it was uploaded in good faith and can link to it. You can't "assume" that some "random uploader" doesn't own a video, that's not your problem and not your jurisdiction. That's YouTube's concern. How in the world can any of us be expected to know or to accurately verify who any given poster or why anything is being posted? Maybe it's like that recent AP problem, where one department formed a YouTube channel and set the videos for reposting on websites and then another department threatened legal action against a radio station that linked the videos on its site and didn't believe that an official channel had been created. Maybe they're trying to surreptitiously release something and get it going viral. The point is that we don't know and we shouldn't be expected to care. If it is demonstrated that something is illegal, such as if a group contacts the wikimedia foundation, shows that they are who they purport to be (and not some crank yankers) and requests that the link be removed, or if YouTube takes the video then, then of course we remove the link. But in the absence of actual verified information that the video is actually violating someone's copyright, it's neither our place nor our responsibility to police the web. Although, we do not repost any videos on Wikipedia and we try to keep our eyes open when we place actual information here (instead of just a link to where someone purports to own the site). 98.119.207.176 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I too would have to agree that this falls into the valid link category. As WP:YOUTUBE specifically states to take it on a case by case basis. In this case being that video describes the situation in a way that words cannot, it is a valid link. -Djsasso (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Authors of some statements

Hello. I have translated this article for Czech Wikipedia, but there were raised some questions, which I am not able to answer, because the book "When the Lights Went Out", used as a source of information, is not available in my country. Therefore I would like to ask for help.

• There is a sentence: "Waite felt he could not risk being ejected for fighting under the belief that the game would resume, and that the Canadian backup goaltender, Shawn Simpson, was injured." Who exactly said this? Was it Waite himself, the coach or some of the other players?
• Another sentence says: "Many of their teammates never forgave Waite and Turgeon for failing to defend their teammates," but only Sanipass is mentioned by name. Who were the others of the many?

I think that answering these questions would help the English article as well. Thank you very much. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't use the direct quotes in this article on the first pass, but to help with yours:

• "I didn't want to get thrown out of the game," Waite says. "I thought that we were going to finish the game and that we were going to win the gold. We had been all over the Soviets. I was sure that we were going to win by five goals—no doubt in my mind. I didn't want to get thrown out because I kenw that Shawn [Simpson] was injured and he wasn't ready to go." (Joyce, p.172)
• Adding other quotes for Turgeon is tough, as Sanipass is definitely used as the spokesman for that line. This quote is Sanipasses recollection of the locker room after: "When we came into the dressing room, everyone knew who fought and who didn't. Stephane Roy was crazy mad. 'Where were you when I was getting kicked in the head? How the fuck could you just watch?' he said. He said it to either Nemeth or Turgeon, maybe both. He was just saying what all of us who fought out there were thinking." (Joyce, p.175) [I avoided this in this article as it is a paraphrased quote 20 years after the fact]
• Another player who asked to remain unnamed called Nemeth "a knob" and Turgeon "a coward". "It's all about the code," he says. "If the other team goes, you have to go. No questions asked. There's a way that you're supposed to handle yourself. These guys didn't have a clue. When you get in that situation, if you don't step up, you better step out." (Joyce, pp. 175-176)
• But Everett Sanipas spoke for most of the Canadian juniors. Their rule of thumb: you don't fight, you don't belong. (Joyce's words, p. 176).

Hope this helps! Resolute 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding with the quotation marks, I added them because I quoted the sentences from the article, not because they were direct quotes of the players.

I think you have answered my first question, thanks very much for that.

However, the second issue is still quite unclear. I am not sure, when the unnamed player called Nemeth "a knob" and Turgeon "a coward", but the rest of the quotes show that the players were angry about Turgeon in that time, but not that many players never forgave him, which seems too strong. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. Joyce, p. 174: "...that one player, Nemeth, stayed on the periphery of the brawl, and another, Turgeon, remained on the bench when all others jumped over the boards. It didn't escape the notice of the eighteen other Canadian juniors, however. It sent a chill over the team. By the time the Canadians boarded the bus behind Zimny Stadion, the total freeze-out of Nemeth and Turgeon was half an hour old. A lot of their teammates will never let go of their hard feelings toward Nemeth and Turgeon, and they were deeply felt before the players took their skates off. Nemeth and Turgeon didn't do what their teammates thought they had to do. They didn't stand up for the other guys. That's what most believe."

While Nemeth and Turgeon are quoted together, Mike Keane, Stephane Roy and Jimmy Waite all are quoted in Nemeth's defence. An unnamed player says the hard feelings toward Nemeth stem from his decision to seek reinstatement independent of his teammates rather than the fact he tried to act as a peacemaker during the brawl rather than fight. There isn't a single comment made in defence of Turgeon, however. Not one player, either named or unnamed. Resolute 23:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the answers. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good luck with the Czech article! Resolute 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Circumstances for Canada to win gold

I wonder if there is a good way to combat the plethora of misinformation regarding the tie-breaking scenario for Gold. Canada needed to win by four, unless it was a 4-0 score. I know that practically all media at the time reported the "5 or more" notion, but that is simply not true. Chomsky would have a lot to say about simply passing on incorrect information, I don't think that is an acceptable practise here. Since Finland and Canada tied their game, goal differential would break the tie. If Canada won by four, goal differential would be equal at +22. The next tie breaker would be goals scored, Finland had 45 goals, Canada came into the game with 41, so a four goal win where the Soviets scored at least one goal would give Canada the Gold. Because a 4-0 score would still give Finland the gold (they fared better against the next best team Czechoslovakia--the next tie breaker), I believe they simplified the reporting to help viewers understand what would ASSURE Canada of the Gold, in a concise statement.18abruce (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Punch-up in Piestany → Punch-up in Piešťany – Rename to match the main article name of the city of Piešťany. Darwinek (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the term is "Punch-up in Piestany" (it is not a descriptive title, it is the common name) using "Piešťany" without references saying "Punch-up in Piešťany" would be original research, and not the common name either. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 14, 2012; 16:17 (UTC)
  • Comment if you do that you are trying to turn it into a descriptive title, which means it is no longer "Punch-up", since that is idiomatic to this instance, so the generic term is "hockey brawl", which is an entirely different proposition, being 1987 international hockey brawl in Piešťany. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, that's what happens when you try to second-guess others' motives :) Turning this title into a descriptive one is not what I'm trying to do at all (and neither, I trust, does the nominator). My support is rooted more in philosophical grounds—I do not believe that "common English usage" is of any relevance when it comes to use/non-use of diacritics. Diacritics are frequently omitted for convenience reasons by many sources; I don't believe Wikipedia should use that as an excuse. In other words, the title, to me, is exactly the same whether the diacritics are used or not, and since we have plenty of means to place articles under correctly spelled titles without causing any inconvenience to our readers, that's what we should do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 17, 2012; 14:54 (UTC)
      • None the less, even if you consider the spelling a bastardization of the proper spelling of the town, it is immaterial. The city itself is spelled as "Piešťany" in the article, in correct usage of its name. "Punch-up in Piestany" is the exclusive way in which this event has been described in English language sources. I am growing more and more sympathetic to the usage of diacritics overall, where appropriate. But this is not a case where it is appropriate. Resolute 15:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, that's why we are having these discussions—to determine whether something is appropriate or not (and in which context). I stand by my !vote, incidentally. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 17, 2012; 15:47 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term has never used diacritics. The title, as it is now, is correct. Resolute 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Bastian (talk ★ contribs) 19:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. While WP:UE doesn't specifically prohibit the use of diacritics in titles, it does indicate that the choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage. In other words, if a particular spelling clearly predominates over other alternatives in English language sources, we use the predominant spelling whether it's strictly correct in the original Slovak or not. "Piestany" does predominate over "Piešťany" in English sources; accordingly, it's the title we should use here. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

True tiebreaking criteria

The article currently states

The teams with the top three records won the gold, silver and bronze medals, with ties broken by goal differential.

A book by Andrew Podnieks, which I have not seen, is cited. But I think this may be a confusion.

As a Toronto Public Library cardholder I have access online to back issues of the Toronto Star, and I'm looking at a Canadian Press wire service article about the state of the tournament, that the Star printed on January 3, 1987, on page D3. At that time Czechoslovakia was leading the tournament with a 5–1 record, and Canada and Finland were tied for second with 4–1–1. On the final day Czechoslovakia would play Finland; and Canada, of course, would play the USSR.

The article specifically says that "If both Canada and Finland win their games tomorrow, the gold will be decided on goals for and against since the two teams tied, 6–6, earlier in the tournament"; whereas if "Canada and Czechoslovakia should tie" for first place, then "the Czechoslovaks would take the gold by virtue of a 5–1 win over Canada.

In other words, the first tiebreaking criterion was the result of the game between the two teams; goal differential was the second criterion in case the teams tied when they played.

So I'm thinking that either the Podnieks book misstated the criteria or the person who cited it misunderstood it. If Finland beat Czechoslovakia (which they did, 5–3) and if Canada had beaten the USSR, then the goal differential would have been the relevant criterion in that situation, and my guess is that that's what Podnieks really said in the book, or meant to say. But I don't have access to a copy of the book to check it.

Also please note a few items back, where someone states that there was also another criterion after the goal differential.

--69.158.92.109 (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

While we don't need to go in depth on the tiebreaking procedures since this article isn't about the tournament, we can update to reflect that goal differential was the second tie breaker. I can do this easily, if you provide the full cite for the article you are referencing. Given you already give the publication, date and page number, I need only the author (if there is a byline for the story) and the article title. Thanks! Resolute 17:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No byline. The headline (title) is: Canada still has shot at gold after narrow win over Sweden.

However, although I would certainly expect this source to be correct, I'd be reluctant to change it without seeing what the other one actually says. --69.158.92.109 (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have that book handy, unfortunately. As a rule, however, I tend to take coverage at the time as the superior source, as writing about things a decade in the past (as in the case of this book) often results in oversimplification. Resolute 02:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)