Talk:1976 Philadelphia Flyers–Red Army game

Philadelphia Start‑class Low‑importance

	Philadelphia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhiladelphiaWikipedia:WikiProject PhiladelphiaTemplate:WikiProject PhiladelphiaPhiladelphia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ice Hockey Start‑class

	Ice hockey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

"Russian" vs "Soviet"

One unfortunate recent trend is for Russians to try to take credit for things that were done under the soviet union. we hear such nonsense as the "russians" sending the first human into space and so forth. True, Russia was the largest republic in the soviet union, but CSKA moscow didn't play under a "Russian" flag. It was a SOVIET RED ARMY team which could theoretically draw from ALL of the soviet republics (even if in practice in this particular case most of the players happened to be russian). To refer to the team as a "Russian" team negates the contributions of people from other republics and feeds into the worst tendencies of Putinism. I have duly replaced the incorrect references to the "Russian" team with the much more correct "Soviet" team. Anybody who complains that "soviet" and "russian" are in effect interchangable is simply ignorant - it was a wrong colloquialism during the cold war, and it's wrong now - at least, it's factually wrong and should not be used in an online encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.16.244 (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tag

A neutrality tag has been placed without specifying what is POV about the article. I'll remove the tag if complaints cannot be made specific. A problem with the article is that there are no inline citations, but that's not the same as POV. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know who placed the POV tag, but i agree with it at this point and dont think it should be removed. My observation is the way the prose is written 'delay of game tactic' was it a tactic? The text seems written from the point of view of the americans and does not repreasent nuetrality. thats just a small insight i saw which probably could be re written. I do not know what the original poster felt about the article. But i imagine its just prose. Personally id be inclined to say it could be merged into the main series article. But that is just an outside thought of mine. These games make great holiday watching though. happy editingOttawa4ever (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is there still any reason for this POV tag? The "game tactic" issue is adequately addressed below. Also the American POV "bias" is also adequately addressed below. Most if not all references are from American sources, so that is all one can draw on. As to merging, the Philadelphia Flyer (Wiki) Task Force has cited this article, so that would indicate it stands on its own. If there are no more objections, I plan on getting rid of the POV cite. User:10stone5|10stone5]] (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guy are unbelievable... Of course this article is not neutral at all since it represents the American/Canadian point of view. There is a video on youtube of those "clean hits". Watch it and see for yourselves. I don't know if it is the same clip as the one in the references. How many clean hits do you see? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGOxVBG4bfk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.212.34 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the person above doesn't watch much hockey, yes they were clean checks, some border line. As far as the 'delay of game tactic'; it probably was a tactic as the Flyer coach at the time, Fred Shero, studied the Soviet style and had visited the Soviet Union several times. He mentioned after the game that he has seen the Soviets use that tactic before and was sure they would return to the ice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.214.1.54 (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ed Van Impe hit on Kharlamov was in no way a "clean hit". It was charging, cross-checking and an attempt to injure. Van Impe admitted as much in a recent documentary. Even in the 70's that should have been a major penalty. A hit like that had no place in the game, let alone in what was ostensibly an exhibition match. That was why the Soviets skated off: Loktev was understandably concerned for his players' safety given what was a clear cheap shot in full view of the officials. The way the article reads now pays little heed to the rules of hockey and what actually took place on the ice. Trac63 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]