Talk:HC CSKA Moscow

Super Series, '75 vs. Montreal

Someone started an article on the Super Series between the Soviet and NHL teams, but they didn't get far. Please help, especially with 1975-76 USSR Red Army ice hockey tour of North America, which involved the famous Red Army - Canadiens match-up. Thanks. Kevlar67 05:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

presumably then, at the outset of a player's career with cska, he was active duty military. but, as a career went on, did a player's military career progress apace, with promotions, etc? were they enlisted or commissioned? did they have other duties? i think these are issues the article should address.Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cska Moscow Logo.gif

Image:Cska Moscow Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars again?

79.181.157.44 (who was blocked yesterday for similiar behaviour) & 132.66.161.47; please discuss your changes here first before making them. You must get a consensus. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest doing something similar to what's on the Rangers F.C. or Maccabi Tel Aviv B.C. articles:

They have won 32 league titles, which is the most of any hockey club in the world, and 20 European championships, which is also a record. Patken4 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Amature"? Dispute

Moving Discussion from Djassos talk page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concensus proposal

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

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

In disagreement; and yes I'm a Habs fan (saving you the trouble of pointing that out). GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Red Army was considered amateur at the time, and competed as amateurs. Later judgments of the true nature of the team does not change historical fact. Resolute 19:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

An exatirated question. Did the Jewish doctors really want to kill Stalin? What?! No? But then they decided that they had! So what if later is was changed? "Later judgments of the true nature of the team does not change historical fact." Thats the whole point that CSKA trained professionaly, and havent worked anywere but in that. So today it's widely agreed that they were professional, and that is the historical fact. Look, it's disputed, and i dont try tp push a point, thats why i proposed, for the NPOV, to look at titles and results, thats it. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

New proposal

What is wrong with my proposal? As the statements reads now, it has many weasel words... They have won 32 league titles, which is the most of any hockey club in the world, and 20 European championships, which is also a record. Patken4 (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the professional/amateur thingy, that keeps getting in the way. Howabout, ...one of the most successful teams...; now that's an undisputed statement. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much difference. Rangers F.C. technically won one title as an amateur club in 1891, but there is no differentiation between professional and amateur in the number of league titles the club won. If you want to add in "top level" between any and hockey in my proposal, it would still work. Patken4 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that ALL of CKSAs championships came while they were amateur, they have won non since becoming professional so I don't really see why you can't say montreal has won the most professional and cksa has won the most amateur. To me that seems the least pov way to say it and show that both are the best in the world at their perspective levels. -Djsasso (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You were already explained so many times, but you chose to ignore it. Instead of searching for a concensus, you try to make a piont. Let me ask you a question. Did the Jewish doctors really want to kill Stalin? What?! No? But then they decided that they had! So what if later is was changed? "Later judgments of the true nature of the team does not change historical fact." Thats the whole point that CSKA trained professionaly, and havent worked anywere but in that. So today it's widely agreed that they were professional, and that is the historical fact. Look, it's disputed, and i dont try tp push a point, thats why i proposed, for the NPOV, to look at titles and results, thats it. In the Dream-Team of the IIHF 4 players were from CSKA. You want to tell me they were amatures? They admited, the club admited they were all professional. While you try to make a point people here try to get a concensus. You were already asked, avoid weasel words. Look, both at the Montreal article and here it's decided will say where they won how much, and thats it. All those stupid phrases "best amature/professional club in the world", whatever, out. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what weasel words are. Because it was your version that was using weasel words. My version was stripping them out. The sentence itself shouldn't even be there is was some of the others were saying, no matter what version you use. And that I have no problem with. -Djsasso (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I havent used weasel words. Do you know what it is? What i said, and it was supported in both articles, lets delete all those stupid sentences of best, not best, professional, bot professional... whatever. Let the throphies of the club speak for themselves. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You used the words. "One of the best, if not the best" Those are weasel words. That's what I objected to using. -Djsasso (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actualy that was an attemp to answer what you did in Montreal. What i did here was NPOV because i left in that sentence the option for the person to decide if they were the best or one of the best, that was nutral, unlike what you did in Montreal, and that was done to show you the coin has to sides. Once it was agreed in the Montreal article to get rid of the sentence i opposed to, i came here and did what was decided in the Montreal article here. Everything ended fair. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I proposed to ignore the professional/amature thing. It's so diputed. The amature thing was a propoganda. In real life they were professional, and after the collapse of the USSR both the club and it's old players admited it. In Russia as i know they still joke about it. I think we should see what is decided in a similar dispute in the Montreal Canadiens article. It looks, yet early to talk, it will be pointed in what league they won how much, and where it places them reletively to others. If that eventualy will be decided there, we could do the same here and then we will have something like: "CSKA won the Soviet championship more then any other team, and won the European Cup more then any other team". Mabe the Series with NHL clubs could be mentioned, but i dont see how it enters the formulation. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A little playing: HC CSKA is one of the most, if not the most, successful clubs in history, having won more local championship and European cups then any other team in history. The part on italic is the part we could delete, the bold part to keep. Again, it all depends if Montreal delete s similar part we puted in the italic script from their article, but if the do, i think it's an option. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that in the "History" section, under the "A Russian hockey powerhouse" section, the first sentence states "CSKA is one of the most successful teams in the history of sport." To be consistent, perhaps this sentence should be removed as well? Isaac Lin (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Did it. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronounciation of 'CSKA'

I'm just looking for help from a Russian speaker. Is 'CSKA' pronounced like (as similar as I can write it) "Tseska" or "Cheska?" It is more a question of how the 'C' is pronounced than any thing else. Thanks for the help, it could be a useful add since I think most North Americans just pronounce it by saying the English letters (see-ess-kay-Ay) rather than how it should be pronounced. Thanks again. Ezc 195 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The letter Ц. It's like, tse. The e in the end of the tse is like the e in the end of the Englsih word the. Say it fast as a one word. Tse S (like the English S) KA (like the name Karlo). Hope I've helped. Kostan1 (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)