# Talk:Punch-up in Piestany

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.--SRX 22:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)