Talk:Pest (ice hockey)

Anonymous user: I think Kaleta does not classify as a "pest" because being a pest involves having the "Avery-attitude" of going out of your way to irritate opposing players, whereas Kaleta simply finishes his checks and plays his game. In my opinion, Patrick Kaleta, as well as all other players on the list for whom a reliable source has not been provided, should be removed from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.198.18.237 (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I entered in a NPOV tag due to the fact that the list of pests is the opinion of the editor who created the list, and not a set list that is fact. Jmlk17 05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, there should be sources cited, and maybe there should be an introduction to the section that discusses that the list is of people who have been identified by hockey writers/experts as pests, but I don't think that having such a list really poses an NPOV problem. Croctotheface 13:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jmlk17, this sounds a lot like original research. If we can't cite reliable sources here, the list should be removed. --Whackbagger 15:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references to get things started. Tonyle 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple more references. Some of these guys seem to be universally regarded as pests. Maybe the list could be shortened?TheKuLeR 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to get "factual evidence" that someone is a Pest. I mean, there's no Pest Encyclopedia you can look up with a list of pests. It's all subjective, essentially. But I think we need to come to a general consensus that the people on the list have either been called pests in the sports media, or their playing style is so universally pest-like that there's no disupte! --Mezaco 22:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page even necessary? It could be merged with another page, if necessary, or removed entirely. --Battlemonk 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a notable concept. What article would you propose merging it with? Croctotheface 00:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "pest" player is worthy of its own article ... there are players who are on the cusp of being 'good enough' to play in the NHL that end up on teams because they bring this other, valuable skill to the team. As for the list, I think media sources can be found for the truly 'pesty' players. ColtsScore 11:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hinote

Why would Hinote be on this list? Pests don't drop the gloves, or fight people who don't fight, i.e. Tootoo vs Foote, Hinote is willing to drop them with anybody, and usually does. [`.Thirty Thr33] ^(Talk) 03:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the idea that pests never fight. To give an example, there's no doubting that Avery is a pest, but he drops the gloves from time to time. (As an aside, in my mind, "pest" is not itself a pejorative term. If a player you like has been listed as a pest, that should not be taken as a slight against him.) Croctotheface 05:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree that some pests fight and some don't. But the fact that someone fights is not what should make them a pest, it's irrelevant. The fascinating thing about pests is that they can be SH*T disturbers and still get away WITHOUT fighting. It's a distinction that made them worthy of their own article here in the first place! Let's just make sure that we make a clear distinction between goons and pests in this article and let's make sure we reference with a news reference, anyone we list as a pest. --Mezaco 21:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the "note" in the Examples section

It might be accurate, but in general, I don't think encyclopedia articles should have "notes" that reflect the experience on the talk page or the like. If there's a source that talks about the "pest" designator as controversial and we can attribute the opinion, then OK. Without a source, though, I think it fails WP:NPOV. Croctotheface 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pest "list"

I don't really like the idea of a "list of notable pests" in this article that much, but at the same time, I'd agree that examples of pests should be given, so maybe a list can stay for the time being. I guess my bigger complaint is that listing players as "pests" without supporting sources will turn the whole list into a mess. That's why I deleted all the unsourced "pests" from the list yesterday. I agree, though, that Ken Linseman may have been a pest, and could be in the list - but can someone find a source? Cos from my experience, he was only referred to as a "dirty player", and I think there should be a difference. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this decision. I do think it's beneficial to have a list of the NHL's most prominent pests, but to prevent it becoming too long and constantly debated, let's only list players who are referred to as Pests in the mainstream media (as opposed to personal blogs). Also let's not list unknown AHL players or callups either, let's keep it to established and well-known NHL-ers. As the mainstream hockey and news media do refer to some players as pests, it's worth putting in the news reference. --Mezaco 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page Title

The title of this page should be "Pest (ice hockey)" while it is currently "Pest (hockey)". This should be changed immediately to conform with all other ice hockey related articles. Outback the koala (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pest list is dubious

I removed Gretzky from the list. His inclusion was preposterous. Moreover, I found neither of the references provide actually said he was pest. This makes me dubious of the ENTIRE list. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a list of pests is a bad idea. I think it's one thing for magazines or newspapers to publish one, but for wikipedia to publish it's own feels to much like OR. I've just included the two main published lists. My other issues with a list are: 1. At some time or another a huge number of players would be called "pests" by someone. Potentially the list could be gigantic. 2. It's subjective. Essentially, it's someone's opinion about who is a pest. 3. The list would have to be maintained. A lot of work. There will be numerous editors adding to it, but few maintaining it. 4. There is mimimal value to this type of list. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is OR

This article is apparently original research. Reading it, it appears to be OK as far as accuracy, but it clearly doesn't come from any source. This is completely in violation of wikipedia policy. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all the material I found that was unreferenced. I also added that pest of often not considered a positive term. The way the article was written before it did not reflect this and it was too POV pro-pest! BashBrannigan (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]