Talk:Aleš Hemský

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I don't know how this article received a rating of GA-class. Although there is a whole lot of information, I would say this article is not very good at all, and should probably be marked with the cleanup, NPOV, and unreferenced tags. There are entire paragraphs that need to be removed. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to override another user's assessment, especially when the assessment is just two days old, and also when it was done by such a prestigious user (User:Plange), so I will leave the rating alone and start editing the article to improve it. I encourage all editors to help me with this article. --Muéro 03:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous statements in this article that need sources, so I added the unsourced tag. Once again, although I am planning on working on it myself, any help would be appreciated. --Muéro 17:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The Strokes made a good point on his talk page about the video hosted at TSN, but it is moot, since the whole section about one incident in a hockey game is unimportant; my real problem is with videos ripped from copyrighted television broadcasts, uploaded to YouTube, and then posted on Wikipedia. I would bet that 99% of videos on YouTube are not appropriate for Wikipedia. He has demanded that I list a reason for every word I edit on this page, so here goes:
  • Edmonton declared their intent in the summer of 2006 by signing the potential franchise player [1][2] to a six-year contract [3] . Barring unforeseen circumstances, it will see him earn US $24.6 million, sacrifice three years of UFA status, and enter the 2011-12 NHL season as an Oiler. What does "declared their intent" mean? Declared their intent to what? Who says he is a potential franchise player? A source is needed. The sources here have nothing to do with the text, and should be removed. As for the part about sacrificing UFA status, it's really not needed. He signed a deal. It was his choice. It was a business deal, not a gesture to the organization or anything else. Also, anyone can figure out that barring unforseen circumstances, a 6-year deal will last through the 2011-12 season.
Before I get into this, I am going to note that I am a third-year university student. One of my essays was even published by the U , so I don't think I'll be conceding any points based on writing skill. "Declared their intent" means just that - they stated to the world their intent of keeping Hemsky around as their cornerstone by locking him up for six years. His teammates, Spector from spectorshockey, and even recently acquired Petr Sykora have stated that with a little work, there's no reason why Hemsky can't be one of the best players in the league. That's where franchise player comes in. Sacrificing UFA status IS really all that important. It is a huge gesture in the new NHL. A similar player - Martin Havlat - absolutely killed the Senators by refusing to sign more than a 1-year deal, so he wouldn't lose his UFA year. For a team who just lost their franchise player in Chris Pronger, and had all the rental players from the cup run leave at the first chance they got (sans Roloson), this is a huge gesture to the team, and to the city. Believe me, when Hemsky does hit UFA status, he's going to get the cap max. You can delete the last part about "barring unforeseen circumstances", in retrospect that's not essential.
  • The talented playmaker was spotted by North American scouts by year's end, and subsequently became the first selection of the Hull Olympiques in the 2000 CHL Import Draft. "The talented playmaker" is bias/POV and should be removed.
Lol, are you kidding me? Have you even seen the guy play? If Hemsky isn't a talented playmaker, then who is? Sometimes, it is ok to use common sense. He's been called a talented playmaker since the day he was drafted. If that does not describe Hemsky, then nothing does.
  • Canadian Major Junior Hockey is the primary pool from which the NHL drafts, and young players who perform well in that hockey fishbowl are rarely overlooked. This is extreme speculation and should be removed . . . unless a source is provided.
Use NHL_Entry_Draft#Player_Numbers_By_League_Summary as a souce. No other league gets more players drafted each year than the CHL.
  • The Edmonton Oilers had suffered from poor draft choices through the mid-90s, primarily due to chief scout Barry Fraser's refusal to properly utilize his scouting staff [4]. Fans successfully pressured the team to release Fraser when it was discovered in 2000 that he spent most of his time scouting players on videotape in Mexico [5]. Kevin Prendergast was subseqently promoted to fill the vacant role of head scout. This is biased, speculatory, and has almost no relation to Ales Hemsky's life.
I'm going to have to give this comment a giant question mark. I gave a source verifying that Fraser didn't listen to his staff from one of the web's main prospect magazines. I gave a source from a news station thta Fraser spent most of his time in Mexico scouting players on tape, and that fans pressured the team to get rid of him. What more do you want for this to not be "biased and speculatory"? This is very related to the Hemsky article. The Hemsky pick was the first success after a series of first round busts under Fraser (unless Mikhnov actually comes over - something else Fraser failed to consider when drafting).
  • Prendergast also revealed that the draft in 2001 changed to more of a group effort under his guide. "I think every scout has his own favorite players. Our staff works as a team and whomever the player is that we take, we’re taking him as a team. There might be three or four scouts who don’t like that player but the other nine guys on staff do like him." [6] This is biased, speculatory, and has absolutely no relation to Ales Hemsky's life.
Excuse me? How is a referenced quote from a person a biased, speculatory statement? I am at a total loss at this point. So far, only one of your points have been valid. Again, it is very relevant to the Hemsky article, because he was the first player picked under this new scheme, and it proved to be a success.
  • as it seems likely that young Hemsky will successfully fill Guerin's role as the Oilers' first-line right winger for many more years than Guerin conceivably could have. Wow . . . this is extremely biased and speculatory.
Guerin is a 36 year old with dropping production and a history of leg injuries while in Dallas. He was not re-signed by Dallas. Hemsky is 22 with no sports-related injuries. He led his team in scoring in his third year in the league. Does 1+1 no longer equal 2? Can we use some common sense please? The statement is not biased as even Flames fans would rather the Oilers have Guerin back instead of Hemsky.
  • The aim was to give Hemsky every chance to prove himself in the NHL before being relegated to the AHL; hopefully resulting in the maturation of his potential into a star-calibre player. [7] The source provided is barely related to the text here. Also, incorrect use of the word "hopefully."
Although "hopefully" is not used incorrectly (please explain), I do agree that the article can do without this paragraph.
  • However, there were still many games where he would do very little, then would come from the abyss to make the highlight-reel play. Once again, this has very biased wording, and is not verifiable.
I am beginning to wonder how much Oilers hockey you really have watched. This is Hemsky. That is what he did, like it or lump it. He screwed around for the whole game, then would pick up the puck, undress three guys and take it end to end, then pass it off at the last second and kill the play. This is what everyone refers to when they say that he is "frustrating to watch". For his rookie and sophomore season, that's all anyone saw from Hemsky, whether it sounds "biased" (not sure how the truth is biased though) or not. It is verifiable. Google Hemsky and frustrating, and you'll see millions of accounts of him doing what I described above on message boards, and news stations.
Delete it
  • He seemed to have increased his top speed (or possibly was more willing to use it now), while carrying the puck. This is speculatory and would definitely need a source to be included.
Go nuts and delete it then. You haven't watched the two versions of Hemsky, and there's no way to prove it (except by uploading and editing game tape to youtube, which you have some problem with anyways).
  • However, his improvement during the lockout had many believeing that he made the difficult steps in becoming an elite player while in the Czech Republic, and that it was only a matter of time before he worked the kinks out of his game.Again, this is speculatory (as well as biased) and would definitely need a source to be included. Most improved player on the team - Hemsky
  • Opposing teams have also picked up on Hemsky's gamebreaking ability. Several times during the course of the season, players have looked to hit with the intent of hurting him. Mactavish has stated that to his credit, Hemsky is much stronger than he appears [8]. The Oilers as a team had their eyes opened by a blatant attempt to injure Hemsky in Buffalo on January 16, 2006. After Hemsky opened the scoring with a fake on a 2-on-1, Jay McKee would make a play which angered many Oiler players and fans. Hemsky was gaining speed through the neutral zone, looking to break across the Sabres' blue line for another odd-man rush when McKee, realizing he would not be able to catch Hemsky should he pass, stuck his knee out and made contact with Hemsky's. This is a very dangerous play in hockey, and has been the cause of many serious injuries. Oilers captain Jason Smith immediately saw McKee's intent, and charged up the ice after him, prompting the outburst of a full-line brawl. (see TSN's video of the incident) This is extremely biased, speculatory, and almost entirely sourceless. It is also unimportant. It may have gotten the fans riled up for a few days on discussion boards, but it does not make it encyclopedic.
Again, how is recalling past events biased and speculatory? Perhaps you need a dictionary. Go to google and type define:speculatory then define:biased. Did Hemsky open the scoring with a fake on a two on one? Yes. Did he get kneed by Mckee in a way many players have been injured before? Yes. Did Jason Smith see this and react accordingly? Yes. Did everyone get angry? Yes. What is unencyclopedic about it? That you don't remember it? Check out the video in that case. Mckee lines Hemsky up and nearly ends his career. If I take a run at you, and make a violent attack so viscious that your friends come after me, wouldn't that be an important part of your life?
  • After the Oilers lost game 4 of the Finals to the Hurricanes, Mactavish was again asked if he becomes frustrated when Hemsky opts to pass instead of taking the obvious shot. He was visibly upset when he responded; "Well, you know what I get frustrated with? I get frustrated with the question. And, I mean, you haven't been here all year, and I get frustrated with the question. The guy has led our team in scoring, he's a playmaker, he wins lots of games for us, yet every Tom, Dick and Harry is telling him how to play the game. The guy is a good player, he's a good passer ... he makes plays."[9] As is his wont, Hemsky responded in game 5, ending Edmonton's 4-game powerplay drought by scoring on an uncharacteristic one-timed slapshot from the right faceoff circle. None of this is encyclopedic in any way. This may be the most unimportant quotation on all of Wikipedia. If you want, add a sentence that says "Hemsky sometimes opts to pass instead of taking the obvious shot." --but only if a good source is provided.
Lol, talk about ego. "most unimportant quotation on all of wikipedia". And you're criticizing my english? "least important". I think I'll leave it the way it is. Go to and listen to the audio of Mactavish. Everything is fine and dandy in the post-game interview, he seems a little down. Then this no-name guy rips Hemsky, and Mactavish just loses it. That kind of support from a coach is very important to a young player. Look at what Mike Keenan did to the majority of his young players. He ripped them up and down every practise, and killed their self-confidence. Espescially for a player like Hemsky who is just starting to get his confidence about him, to have that kind of support from your coach is worth its weight in gold.
  • As for my deletion of links to YouTube, it is because the television broadcasts were copyrighted.
So too were the broadcasts on Zinedine Zidane's page. I'm going to go with the assumption that the gang of guys slaving over, and resolving endless disputes on that page since the world cup incident are a little more in the loop than you alone. The strokes 21:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the above passages for the reasons listed. Once again, I welcome discussion about the article. --Muéro 19:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments requested[edit]

Based on events so far, I have doubts that User:The strokes and I are going to come to a consensus in the near future. So, I put this page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies and bio=yes#Articles to improve, in hopes that many Wikipedians will come, read about the disputed content, and comment, so a consensus can be reached. Muéro 22:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you refuse to work with me? I've conceded some points, but you're giving the impression that it's your way or the highway. I get a very arrogant vibe from you, and I don't appreciate it The strokes 01:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
After I read your responses, I realized there were two options: 1. Continue to argue on the talk page while having an edit war on the main page or 2. Request many Wikipedians to come and comment, so it is not just two editor's opinions, but many. I think that the second option would result in less stress on everybody. Note that I never said that I was right, you were wrong, or even suggested either. I merely suggested that more comments from more users would be beneficial. Even if a consensus with which I do not agree is reached, I do not mind. I would rather "lose" democratically than to keep arguing forever. In my opinion, the two of us should stop editing this article for a while, and instead let others work on it. I would rather stop a dispute before it gets too heated than wait for things to get out of control. Please, just wait a few days before working on this article again, so others can have a chance to comment. --Muéro 01:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
...he said after reverting to his preferred version. Incredible The strokes 02:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, there is a lot more editing I would be doing if I weren't trying to be civil by waiting for others to (I hope) help us improve this article. To me, the way it is now is already a compromise. If I were given a few days to edit it exactly the way I wanted, it would hardly be recognizable as the same article. Just chill out, assume good faith, and especially, be civil. --Muéro 02:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Who is who in that thread above? No one signed anything. ccwaters 03:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
If you go back and look at my post (here), and then read when User:The strokes edited it (here), it will make more sense. User:The strokes inserted his comments within my post, so now everything is hard to read. It's so messed up now that I don't even know how to fix it . . . ––Muéro 03:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


I come to this page with absolute ignorance of Ales Hemsky and little knowledge of ice hockey, but with considerable experience as a Wikipedian. Muéro has acted well by requesting comments: the tone of the dialogue here had started to get contentious. Before things degenerated into real hostility this editor sought fresh perspectives. That's exactly what a good editor should do. The aim is not to prove anybody right or wrong, but to make the article better.

The article shows considerable effort and a good detailed knowledge of its subject. Although I cannot comment on its accuracy, I follow other sports enough to have a general understanding of what this sort of piece should convey. The information is well organized and some elements, such as the statistics table, reflect real care and devotion.

That said, I would not have rated this a good article. It is desperately short on citations and offers many opinions editorially that ought to be substantiated with references to professional sports writers. The following is one example:

"Often in his first two years with the Oilers, Hemsky would lose the puck trying to do too much, and was thoroughally criticized by the Edmonton media. His instincts seemed to be fine, but his execution of plays looked to be lacking because of limited confidence."

If the Edmonton press criticized Hemsky so thoroughly then it ought to be easy to cite at least one actual example of this criticism. The unsupported assertions "trying to do too much," "instincts seemed to be fine," and "limited confidence" are crystal-ball-gazing speculations that require supernatural powers. If some journalists in Canada claim such abilities then by all means quote their insights into Mr. Hemsky's psyche (and afterward ask them to tell me what my boyfriend is thinking because I can't make it out) - but seriously this goes far beyond what a Wikipedia article can assert editorially. Back it up with references.

Several talk page comments raised my eyebrow. Here's one:

"Before I get into this, I am going to note that I am a third-year university student. One of my essays was even published by the U (, so I don't think I'll be conceding any points based on writing skill."

I recommend reconsidering that opinion unless "thoroughally" observes a special Canadian spelling rule: humility is a virtue. My own writing at Wikipedia has also been criticized, sometimes quite justly - even though I take credit for three featured Wikipedia pages, have an Ivy League education, studied writing in graduate school, and have published more than some of the living writers whose biographies are already in Wikipedia. No one writes perfectly and one of the few ways to improve is to accept constructive feedback.

If the editor who wrote the above is content with a medicre article that gets a little more recognition than it deserves, then by all means reject further input with the same haughty manner. Continued mediocrity and probably a "former good article" template will be the result. To the extent that I understand the subject, the criticisms and suggestions raised on this talk page seem quite valid, and the article would benefit if they were taken seriously. Whoever brought the article to its current level has worked hard, probably as hard as he or she thought possible, and now a new challenge for improvements could raise the article to the next level. Treat this challenge as an opportunity. Regards, Durova 08:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a multiply-published author, but that doesn't insulate me from the need to write NPOV, the same as any other editor. I agree with Durova and Muero that even by the standards of a sports article it is as written rampant with POV violations, speculation and editorializing. He had a single season in which he led his team in scoring, and was in the top ten in the league in only a single category (10th in assists). Perhaps we can wait a bit before conceding him superstar status, and I'm minded to go revert some of the more raw editorializing right now. Ravenswing 03:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
And done; it looks a bit better now. And ... like Durova, I'd advise a degree of a humility about any "writing skill" that produced as many spelling errors as all of that. Ravenswing 03:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As a reader second and a die-hard Oilers fan first, I have to agree with the comments made regarding the neutrality of this article. It reads more like a message board thread than it does an encyclopedia article. As an example, how can one state that McKee hit Hemsky "with intent to injure" as fact? We don't know his intent. We can look at the hit and the circumstances and say that with 80% certainty he hit with intent to injure. But 80% does not make fact. As an Oiler fan, I too was fired up - but that does not allow me the luxury of assuming I know what people are thinking. The fact is that players on the ice react to hits of any kind when placed on a top player - whether clean or dirty. This is only one example, but it's representative of many of the 'facts' the author has chosen to use. Anyways, it's looking better. Apedrape83 11:29, 11 September 2006

Based on the breathless, fan version of the entry discussed above versus the current "just the facts" Hemsky article now on display, the on-display version is much more factual and scholarly. A tad dry, but we're not trying to replace Robert Ludlum on the best seller lists. There could be room for some "added colour" in discussing the length and value of the Hemsky contract -- both uncharacteristic long and generous compared to recent signings by Oilers management -- and reflects the view that Oilers management regards Hemsky as a special talent and anticipate the impact this player is expected to have in coming seasons. I'm certain a suitable attribution to that effect can be found. Matthew McCallum 12:21, 16 September 2006

Good article review[edit]

I've submitted this article for impartial review of GA status. Durova 16:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I came here as a result of the RFC, but it appears that work is progressing. Is the RFC listing still necessary? If so, can someone fill me in on the thumbnail argument? If not, it perhaps should be removed from the RFC list. Thanks E. Ripley 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Today's edit[edit]

Here's why I reverted what was added to the article today:

  • According to,, and Google, "opitimize" is not a word.
  • Two tags were removed from the article without proper discussion on the talk page.
  • Off-topic information was added (the difference between Prendergast's and Fraser's drafting style, which is just Prendergast's opinion anyway)
  • A source was given for a quotation, but the formatting was not correct.
  • In a encyclopedic biography, the persons name should be used throughout the article, not an epithet, especially when the epithet is non-verifiable.
  • There are more formatting errors that would have easily been seen if the edit was previewed.
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
    • How can we verify that Pardubice is obscure?
    • How can we verify that playing in the QMJHL gave Hemsky the best chance of being drafted?
    • How can we verify that "Hemksy was key to the Oilers run"?
    • How can we verify that Hemsky's goals "allowed" the Oilers to reach the Finals? Would they not have reached the finals without him?

--Muéro 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to give links, and if you want to include them, and format them the way that you like, go ahead. Why does information need to be removed if the formatting of the source is not the way you like it? I'm going to keep reverting, but now I know that a Red Wing fan is watching the page and making sure that nothing positive is said about the guy who eliminated them from the playoffs without all the proper verification, I'm going to cite it instead of assuming common knowledge to anyone with a brain.

  • Then change the spelling. Don't revert the edit
  • Then add the tags again. Don't rever the edit
  • It's off-topic only in your opinion, and as I've told you several times, your opinion is not rule. It was this change of philosophy which is why Hemsky is an Oiler, and not a Red Wing.
  • Then change the formatting for the quoation. Don't rever the edit.
  • Then change the article so that his name is used throughout it. Don't revert the edit.
    • Verify that Pardubice is obscure, and that the Q gave Hemsky the best chance of being drafted by this quote: "In the summer of 2000 Ales and his brother had to face a tough decision. After lots of talking to other people and their father, they finally decided to come over to North America. Ales had the situation tougher than Petr because he could have been provided with a chance to play in the Extraleague, but he thought that toiling on the fourth line or playing with juniors wouldn't help his development and that it is better when the NHL scouts can see him every game. Besides, he is willing to play hard. So he went through the CHL Import Draft. ". [10] Also verify that Pardubice is obscure in relation to the NHL by fact that the NHL is in North America, and Pardubice is in the Czech Republic.
    • Verify that Hemsky was key to the Oilers' run by the fact that he was 11th in overall playoff points, 9th overall in assists, and 5th overall in playoff Game Winning Goals.
    • Nowhere does it say that his goals 'allowed' the Oilers to reach the cup finals. If you're referring to the statement that says that his game winning goals down the stretch allowed the oilers to capture the 8th seed, you can change the word allowed to helped.

I don't have an issue with the page as I've reverted it. It is your issue, and so you should be the one doing the grunt work. I've provided the information you requested, so if you just revert the page again instead of revising it to reflect my sources, ignoring the fact that I've (again) given you all the answers to your endless questions, I will be forced to do likewise.

Peace out, and don't let the stress of living such an antagonistic lifestyle kill you young The strokes 22:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Muéro, revert warring is not the way to solve an editorial dispute. The strokes, much of your edit was couched in a conversational and subjective rather than an encyclopaedic tone, and there were some assertions of at least quesitonable merit. The solution is to discuss the changes here and come up with a form of words whichj gets across what you are trying to say in a way which other editors are happy with. It should not be hard; you just need to focus on the core facts you are trying to convey, with their sources, and then work on the best way of including them. Sometimes a quote with attribution is a good way of achieving this: according to foo the move placed him better to be noticed by scouts or some such. Guy 13:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"The solution is to discuss the changes here and come up with a form of words whichj gets across what you are trying to say in a way which other editors are happy with." I could not agree with this more. I literally begged Muero to discuss possible deletions before making changes, but in the end all that occured was him going "POV, POV, POV", instead of actually thinking about the subject matter as it relates to the article, and what can be assumed based on common knowledge. That's what riled me up, and made me take such a defensive stand in the first place. If all of you guys just go to the Ice Hockey Player template, you will see that one of the FIRST things I did, before even finishing it, was to create a "Suggestion for Change" heading in the talk page. It was Muero's arrogance, and consistant unwillingness to compromise in ways which I so often have done, that really got me going. As I've already said, looking back, lots of the stuff I originally wrote was POV, and should have been removed. But lots wasn't, and still hasn't been restored, even though I've provided links. This article is only about 1/2 the length it should be, but I'm not going to go scrounging for links to back up every statement I will eventually replace because I'm in school now. Later I'll look for the links and add them as I restore deletions, even though every sentace will have a citation (which I still don't think is appropriate, because no Wikipedia articles have every sentance cited), but according to the "rules", that's what has to be done, so eventually I'll get around to doing it. The strokes 00:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, firstly could I say that I also fully agree with Guy. However, describing other editors as arrogant in the middle of a content dispute isn't very productive. Could I suggest you attempt to resolve the situation without any further name calling. Regarding every sentence having a citation, have a look at some featured articles, in these you should find the references fully support the text. That doesn't always imply that every sentence has a citation. It does however mean there isn't any unsupported personal commentary. If you add material that isn't supported, I would suggest that other editors should in the first instance mark this material using {{fact}} tags and then later remove the material until you find the references. Lasly could I suggest you keep calm, there isn't any need to get "riled up". Thanks, Addhoc 10:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(1) Referring to someone as arrogant isn't "name-calling". If I called him a jackass, that would be name-calling; arrogance is well defined as a personality trait.

(2) As for using featured articles as reference, I'm all for that. Because featured articles don't cite every sentance in the way Muera would like. Random examples from the Wayne Gretzky article:

"On August 9, 1988, in a move that drastically changed the dynamics of the NHL, Gretzky was traded with Marty McSorley and Mike Krushelnyski by the Oilers to the Los Angeles Kings..."

"Gretzky's dominance throughout his career was attributed to the amount of time he practiced (by his own account, at least 4-5 hours a day) and also that he was a natural prodigy"

"During the 1981-82 season, he surpassed one of the game's most cherished records: 50 goals in 50 games."

"After "The Trade", Gretzky's personal popularity sank across Canada, but only temporarily."

"Gretzky's first season in Los Angeles saw a marked increase in attendance and fan interest in a city not previously known for following ice hockey."

POV, POV, POV, POV, POV. But it's all true though, right? Some common sense needs to be used once in a while, and I'm saying that that common sense is not being allowed in this article. I can't even call Hemsky a "talented playmaker"!! I have found a source for that though, as well as a quote that refers to his "increasing confidence as the last season went on", but the irony with that article (from the Edmonton Sun), is that the writer preambles with "Any fan sitting in the cheapest seats in the house can see...". lol. The strokes 17:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, calling someone arrogant contravenes WP:CIVIL. Also, while I agree common sense is vital, WP:V stipulates the criteria for inclusion is verifiability not truth. Addhoc 17:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, so we're not going to go with the "follow featured articles' citing style"? Because I for one can't verify that Gretzky's a prodigy. There's no prodigy scale to rate him on, or prodigy test for him to take. There's also no way to verify that the general population of LA's interest in hockey was any greater after Gretzky's trade than before. Perhaps they were always interested in hockey, but only after the trade did they see reason to get up off their sofas and go watch Gretzky live. I cherish the assists record more than the 50 in 50 record. How does one go about verifying that the Gretzky trade drastically changed the dynamics of the NHL, or that popularity of hockey dropped across Canada after the trade? While I (and most other people) agree with these statements, there's absolutely no way to verify them as correct or incorrect. As such, the general consensus of the population is used as an appropriate substitute. The strokes 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt the WP:V policy isn't negiotable. Addhoc 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
And therein lies the rub. Are the wikipedia rules written in stone, or are they open to interpretation? You say they are not open to interpretation, but direct me to articles which are supposedly of the highest class on Wikipedia, yet break the rules. Now I think we're making progress The strokes 21:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Addhoc 21:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure what you're getting at by directing me to all these Wikipedia help pages. I can find those on my own. My case has been stated pretty clearly above; that the rules you're directing me to are contradictory in that what they say should be done is not representative of what is actually happening on Wikipedia as shown by a featured article breaking the POV rule several times The strokes 22:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

*crickets chirp....tumbleweed blows by*

Was that the knockout punch, or does someone out there have an explanation? The strokes 22:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Very amusing. Clearly, if Wikipedia allows anyone to edit articles, then some articles are not going to be in accord with policy. That doesn't create an excuse for sloppy editing. Addhoc 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Featured articles usually have a group of people dedicated to consistantly removing vandalism, bad edits, irrelivant/incorrect info, etc. Obviously, these POV edits were allowed because they were assumed to be withing the rules of Wikipedia. The universality of Wikipedia does not explain this phenomenon The strokes 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't agree that feautured articles have a dedicated group any more than other articles. I've worked on various articles, including some featured and there isn't a difference. Article content is agreed by consensus of editors and then following this whether the article should be featured or not is agreed by other editors. Possibly what's confusing you is that some featured articles contain viewpoints from notable persons that have been reported by secondary sources, which is allowed according to WP:NPOV and WP:V. What isn't allowed is personal commentary from Wikipedia editors. Addhoc 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There were no sources (primary, secondary, tertiary, or even quaternary) given for the above POV The strokes 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, I've already said that I'm going to cite everthing I add in this article from here on. What I don't get is this unparalleled enthusiasm to follow every Wikipeida rule to its fullest extent in this article, even though it's obvious that those same arbitrary rules are flawed, and have been ignored in some cases (as I've pointed out above). If Wikipeida changes the rules tomorrow to allow for such POV as I've pointed out exists in the Gretzky article, will you all hand over your firstborns if it meant preserving the sanctity of that new rule as well? In my view, based on my experience, rules are more like guidelines. Heck, there's a rule in the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission's handbook that states that no liquor store is allowed to keep hidden weapons behind the counter. The police, however, encourage us to register a gun, and keep it hidden for self-defense in the event of an armed robbery. The AGLC inspectors aren't revoking our liquor license for our disobediance. They look the other way on that issue when they do spot checks, just because it's so obvious that while this rule is probably appropriate in most cases, in some instances in high-risk neighborhoods, there needs to be discretion applied. The strokes 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm pleased that you have confirmed you are going to provide references for any new information. Addhoc 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Medal Box[edit]

The olympic medal box is not needed. The brnoze is already noted in the awards section in a similar box. Redundant 16:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The medal box is a nice graphical way to show all the Olympic medals a person has won. Are you suggesting that the medal box in the Carl Lewis article should be removed, because it mentions the medals in the article? Are you suggesting that we remove Hemsky's position, NHL team, nationality, birthplace, draft position, and draft team from the infobox because it is also covered in the article? The whole point of the medal boxes and infoboxes is to quickly show important information without having to read the whole article. --Muéro(talk/c) 18:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I only see one box on Carl Lewis' page showing medals. This article has two, and since one of them encompasses all kinds of awards, his bronze at the olympics should be there. There is only one infobox as well. If there was a little box saying "his position is right wing" next to the text that says "his position is right wing", when the infobox says that, I'd say sure, get rid of it. 01:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess I would rather have the medal box instead of the "team awards" table that's there now. If you look at Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Dominik Hasek, Mats Sundin, Nicklas Lidstrom, Peter Forsberg, Rob Blake, Igor Larionov, Joe Sakic, Mats Naslund, Scott Niedermayer, or any Olympic medalist or World Championship medalist in any sport, they have medal boxes, not a "team awards" table. I think the "team awards" table is a little confusing because it switches teams and tournaments constantly. Plus, I do not consider the NHL playoffs to be a tournament at all (Does anyone actually refer to it as the 'NHL tournament'?). --Muéro(talk/c) 05:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The playoffs are a tournament. That's in the first sentance in their entry in Wikipedia. NHL_Playoffs#Stanley_Cup_playoffs. All tournaments the player played in and won an award in are listed in the box at the bottom of the page. Rather than arguing (which I see you have a penchant for based on your edit history) for this box, why not apply the generic one that includes space for a wider range of information to the other player pages. 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that the medal box needs to be returned and the Team Awards sections needs to be removed. First of all, it looks sloppy and is pretty much a mess and the Olympic Medal/World Championship box is pretty standard. I know i am a little over two years late on this issue, but i really think it should get changed ShipHockey22 (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hemsky is getting too much praise in this article!![edit]

Now the question is ... who's going to add the comment from Wayne Gretzky, where he says that Ales Hemsky is the best player in the league? Lord knows I can't, because even though I would cite Canoe, FoxSports, the Edmonton Journal, and the National Post, I would still be accused of writing POV because the Wings fan doesn't like it when nice things are said about the player who took out his team in last year's playoffs. PS, I have almost collected all my links - expect a whole lotta cited material to be added by three months The strokes 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Patrik Stefan Jan 4 2007[edit]

Should this article mention the incident with Dallas Stars v Edmonton Oilers where the Stars Patrik Stefan misses from 2ft on an empty net and falling over, turning over the puck and creating the rush that gave Ales Hemsky his scoring opportunity? 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Source - Interviews[edit]

Here's an article that has interviews with Hemsky and with coach Craig MacTavish about Hemsky, just in case anyone wants to add a source for MacTavish praising Hemsky (progress, maturity, etc) or Hemsky talking about his own play. Just remember to keep it NPOV! --Muéro(talk/c) 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

International Inline Hockey[edit]

I don't know where it would fit in this article but Hemsky is currently participating in the IIHF Inline Hockey World Championships for the Czech Republic and i think it should be included in the article. ShipHockey22 (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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: page moved. WP:HOCKEY is not policy, and for names it is not supported by actual facts in many cases when they are provided. As to the de facto policy, that is a list that one might reasonably expect to have names spelled using what is common in their home country. That does not mean that this is the spelling that we should use everywhere ignoring WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. Then we have the discussed moved years ago that created this problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Aleš HemskýAles Hemsky

  • Support – Per WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. Ales Hemsky is a veteran NHL player of over 500 games. He has been playing in North American for almost 12 years, and his name is commonly used in its anglicized form. The established Wikipedia policy regarding diacritics is to follow the majority of the English-language reliable sources. All English language sources spell his name without diacritics. A Google search confirms that Ales Hemsky is the COMMON NAME that is most frequently used to refer to the subject:
    Ales Hemsky = about 748,000 total hits,[11] whereas
    Aleš Hemský = has only about 34,200 total hits.[12]
His Official NHL profile uses name without diacritics [13] and even the name on his sweater is “Hemsky”[14][15]. Dolovis (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, as we should go by the english sources. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support WP:UE, WP:UCN, WP:COMMONSENSE -- player in North America, in the NHL, with press coverage in English. (talk) 07:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The Edmunton Sun, CBC News, Reuters Canada and the The National Hockey League official guide & record book all give this name without diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per our de facto policy, WP:NOT (the likes of sources presented here are known to disagree with encyclopedias and dictionaries), the BLP principle that we must get the article right, the practices of other English-language encyclopedias and the recommendations of authoritative style manuals. The common name here is Aleš Hemský. The common spelling is "Ales Hemsky", but this is a grammatical error ("Common errors of grammar are: comma splices, mixing tenses, using “however” as a conjunction, confusing “its” and “it’s,“ confusing “that” and “which,” and not putting in diacritical marks in foreign words or names. [emphasis mine]") The idea that we should deliberately propagate common errors and misconceptions is contrary to the goal of building a high-quality encyclopedia. No amount of wikilawyering, alphabet soup or policy interpretations that ignore the spirit or the letter of core policies, or both, can justify such silliness. Prolog (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment that is not a WP:POLICY that is a list article. (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Which is probably why he said defacto, he is showing that even if the written word says one thing that actual actions on the wiki show otherwise. And since our written policies are supposed to reflect what actually happens we have a defacto policy of using them. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
On the subject of this "de facto policy", of the first dozen sports personality articles on that list (all I’ve looked at so far), ten have names with diacritics in; all of them were originally written at titles without diacritics, and all of them were moved, without discussion, sometime later. In two cases when someone queried it, they were met with an interminable discussion, and/or a move war to keep the page where it was. So this de facto policy looks a lot like smashing a door down, then claiming it’s OK to take the contents of the place because it was open. Swanny18 (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Prolog. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; there is no point in using diacritics that no reliable English-language sources use. Powers T 00:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per our practice and consensus to use diacritics, and per common sense. Diacritics are used throughout our Wikipedia, even for people who worked/work abroad. - Darwinek (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Everybody has a different view on what's 'common sense'. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: An issue that will never die. Some Wikipedians interpret policy to make their argument that dios do belong on the Wiki. Other Wikipedians interpret policy to make their argument that dios do not belong on the Wiki. Problem is just that; interpretation. No policy says that they do belong, and no policy says that they do not belong. All of these move debates are simply endless arguments that will be won by whichever side has more of their supporters notice this RM. It's so sad that this will forever keep going on, wasting everyone's time and energy to contribute to Wikipedia. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    Comment/Reply: You wrote: All of these move debates are simply endless arguments that will be won by whichever side has more of their supporters notice this RM. That would be sad if it were true, but thankfully Wikipedia's policy is that this move will not be decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented. Wikipedia administrators understand and accept that it is their role to enforce established policy. Specifically on point is the policy of WP:UCN which says that we are to use, for the article title, the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources, and there is no policy that is more fundamental to the principles of Wikipedia than Reliable Sources. Dolovis (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You know what else is says in UCN? "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". Once diacritics are removed from a name, it becomes inaccurate. Even though this inaccurate variation of the name is most commonly used in reliable sources, it does not need to be used at Wikipedia. You always argue your point and back it with policy, but than call-out those arguing against you for not producing policy to back their argument. Well, here it is. How do you respond to this very clear line of policy? – Nurmsook! talk... 02:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Google News has 2,940 examples of the subject's name without a diacritic, 5 with, all non-English. Dropping off the diacritics is the convention of English-language sports writing, not an "inaccurate version." Kauffner (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
But that's the thing. It is a convention with most English media to omit diacritics, but the convention results in the inaccurate spelling of names. As I previously stated, WP:COMMONNAME argues that even though, as you have pointed out, more sources may exist using an inaccurate version of someone's name, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should be following that inaccurate trend. Rather, the accurate name should be used despite there be existing more instances of the inaccurate name being used, per WP:COMMONNAME. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I respond by saying "Show me the Reliable Source", because you know that it is against WP:OR for us to just take your vastly superior word for it. Dolovis (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
See, you never just answer the question. You also avoid it with another question. I know for a fact, based on every other previous RM, that upon the addition of an RS that includes diacritics, you will simply argue that this is not enough, or if it is not in English that is does not count (despite policy to the contrary). So I respond, answer the original question. – Nurmsook! talk... 16:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Another comment: As for these discussion being a waste of everybody’s time and effort, I couldn’t agree more; as for your implied remedy, that those who want to thumb their nose at the guidelines should be left to get on with it, I couldn’t agree less. Swanny18 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:HOCKEY and common sense. Accuracy should be before simplicity. --Sporti (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:HOCKEY isn't policy & common sense is an open interpratation. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Diacritics are part of his name, it's as simple as that. Accuracy AND simplicity in one for the win :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    Comment: You, like all the Oppose opinions before you, fail to provide established policy to support your POV; and BTW WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Dolovis (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    Gaddhafi's name is written in Arabic, we don't have our article at that title; further, there's a multitude of ways to write it in English. There's no reason why Hemsky should be different from some other non English name like Gaddhafi. Why should this lack of simplicity for Ales Hemsky (it is not simple, it has diacritics) and lack of accuracy (those diacritics do NOT represent the same sounds they do in Czech as they do in English) trump WP:RS in WP:EN ? (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: this is a disruptive RM in violation of WP:HOCKEY and WP:COMMONSENSE. WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME do not support what the requestor claims. In addition, the RM seems to be pointy, given the discussion at Talk:Ľubomír Višňovský. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
So what is this WP:Hockey guideline that keeps getting mentioned? All I can see there are interminable arguments about the use, or not, of diacritics, with one side saying they should be used, because it’s correct, and the other side saying they shouldn’t, because the English WP should be written in English. Which is pretty much being repeated here.
And how is asking that the English WP be written in English a failure of common sense? Swanny18 (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, per WP:UE which says (lest we forget) that entries "should follow English-language usage", WP:COMMONNAME which says we shoulld prefer "to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language" above the "official name", and that "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms", and WP:DIACRITICS which says "use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language sources", and allows for diacritics in names only if "if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources". We have yet to see any evidence the format of the curenttitle is supported in that way.
Also because "Ales Hemsky" (in English form) was the original title for this article, was moved here without any discussion and should not have happened. Swanny18 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2011 (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.

The closure[edit]

The debates on diacritics in tennis and ice hockey biographies are heated enough already. We don't need controversial closures from admins who have a strong opinion ([16], "this problem") that puts them firmly on one side of the dispute (WP:INVOLVED). Vegaswikian, your views on what constitutes an anglicized spelling, and your stretching of WP:COMMONNAME to cover common spellings, were clearly not supported by consensus here. You also ignored the part about inaccurate names (along with WP:NOT and WP:BLP). Prolog (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


I've changed the lead sentence, to conform to WP:UE. If the title is in English format, the native spelling should be included, in parentheses and italicized. So that's what I've done. I'm guessing the spelling will need changing throughout the article, too; anything else? Swanny18 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the native name should be put in parenthesis only if it is not immediately recognizable as the same name. The opening can certainly include diacritics and does not have to be in the same form as the article title. See WP:MOSBIO#First_mention. As far as the running text goes, that should use the common (diacritic-free) version of the name. Kauffner (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
It is definitely standard to leave the bolded name as the official name. The rest of the article can be the name without them....the only issue I have ever had is the article titles should have them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The standard is to leave the official name bolded? Isn't that the point we've been discussing up above? And I thought the format I’d used conformed to WP:TITLE. But I suppose if MOSBIO says your format is OK, then OK.
Are you saying, though, you aren’t objecting to changing the spelling in the text? It’d be pretty silly to keep it if the title says different. Swanny18 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
First off, the reference to "native spelling" in parenthesis is in WP:EN, not WP:UE/WP:TITLE, which is just about the article title. The previous paragraph refers to "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian". So I do not think that the phrase native spelling should be interpreted as referring to diacritics. Kauffner (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment as C class[edit]

I have reassessed this article C class as I believe it fails one or more B-Class criteria (B1, B3). Cloudz679 09:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: An English-language hockey website that uses Czech name for Hemsky[edit]

As a recent entrant to this topic I thought I would paste this as I've taken it for granted that English language sports listings websites can't use Czech names. But guess what? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Mention of playing for national team in lead?[edit]

Given Hemsky's individual performance at Sochi I suggest it is time to add "who plays for the Czech national team, and" to the article lead. Or similar wording. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

He also won a gold medal with the team at the 2005 world championships, this is definitely a career-defining moment and deserves a mention in the lead. WP:LEAD says it should "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points" – there is no reasonable argument that representing a national team is not among the "most important points" for any sportsman. C679 05:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Playing on a national team is possibly one of the most defining aspects of a players career. So yes it most definitely belongs in the lead and follows WP:LEAD in that it summarizes the most important points and explains why the player is notable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Cloudz679 DJSasso thanks. Based on the above 2 comments and also User:Resolute's earlier comment I have added "in two Winter Olympics" to the lead. This may not be the most salient point, or best wording. Please wordsmith. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ales HemskyAleš Hemský – Don't really understand how this one lone player got missed in the big WP:HOCKEY name restores of 2 years ago at Talk:Dominik Halmoši, but anyway WP:HOCKEY is clear "All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question)" and following Aleš Hemský's performance for the Czech Republic at the Sochi Winter Olympics the timing seems apposite. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Never should have been moved in the first place. And since the time of that move request a large number of move requests to versions with diacritics have passed showing that the standard is to use diacritics if the names contain them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as well. I grow more and more in favour of accuracy before convenience in this regard. Resolute 19:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – the title without diacritics is really an external technical limitation which does not apply on Wikipedia. C679 21:38, 18 March 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.