# Talk:Summit Series

User keeps reverting opening score in intro table (7-3 as discussed in main article) to 7-399 (obviously fake)

Bomb319 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I asked for temporary protection but was turned down. Let's hope it does not start up again. Alaney2k (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

there's a movie on cbc right now called canada russia 72 in case anybody's interested. part 2 is on tomorrow. april 10, 2006 8:00 e.t.
66.135.96.152 (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC) 2 comments: That CBC movie re-hashes material from the eight DVD box set - "1972 Summit Series" (http://www.amazon.co/72-Complete-Ultimate-Collectors-Summit/dp/B000V5A4CS), and adds other material. It encapsulates the series, as opposed to the 8 box set, which has all the games, and then some. Second comment is offered as I do not feel qualified to edit this Wikipedia page: The verbatim, or close as can be, text rendering of some of Phil Esposito's interview with Johnny Esaw in this Wikipedia entry, while top hole, lacks a great deal of what the video footage of this interview would provide visitors. I suggest the Youtube link, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFKvB3Wnzgk be referred to/linked to, in addition to the book and Montreal Press references of it. As the video footage shows, you are observing (as were all watching it 1972) at one end of the arena while there are still a small number of game attendees milling about in the stands on the opposite end. The eyes of both Esaw and Esposito aren't idly looking off camera as they talk. They are looking at some of the very fans/Canadians Esposito is talking about, at their end of the rink. They are heckling him, and all his Team Canada teammates, coaches, trainers, etc. Its a bit perplexing why video is not included of this, while the skate-kicking incident does get footage.

Just thought I would add that the office title of the series was the friendship series--Mrebus 16:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean official title? Do you have a Source? Kevlar67 22:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In case anybody wants to debate this title of Paul Henderson's game winning goal, there are reliable sources at http://www.1972summitseries.com/goalheardaroundtheworld.html and http://www.hhof.com/html/t7gm02.shtml among other places. If somebody wants to add Foster Hewitt's play-by-play quote, I think that would be pretty cool. "Here's a shot. Henderson makes a wild stab for it and falls. Here's another shot. Right in front. They score! Henderson scores for Canada!" Millsy62 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The section "The Games" used to end with a Canadian-jingoist slant.  So I changed this, but as others pointed out, I went too far the other way.  The current version is a compromise.  I don't much like it (and I wrote it and I was trying). As Andrwsc says, it seems tough to do properly.
Michael Dorosh would like a citation for the statement "In the Soviet Union, many people thought that their country would have won if the Canadians had not fractured the ankle of their best player".  If a citation is needed for this, then there are several other statements in the section that should also require a citation!  The quoted statement is surely obvious: (i) the eight-game series was so close that it was decided in the final minute and (ii) Kharlamov was arguably the best player in the series--on either team (he could go up against two NHL linesmen and go through/around them to score: no one in the NHL could do that).  So it is pretty natural to speculate that if Kharlamov had not had his ankle fractured, the Soviets would have performed at least a little better, and so won the series.  Moreover, the slashing of Kharlamov's ankle by Clarke was captured clearly on TV, and so it could be (and was) shown repeatedly afterwards; naturally, people will then talk about it.
Daphne A 06:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia doesn't exist on uncited inferences or speculations, however much you can defend the logic.  You could certainly speculate that Kharlamov could have made the difference, and it's a defensible notion, but this isn't a discussion forum.  Wikipedia's rule is ironclad:  if you make a statement of fact, you must be prepared to back it up, and editors can and should ruthlessly pull statements that fail of support.  That's a statement that can and should be supported by primary sources.  If you find other statements in the article that should be as well, feel free to tag those too! Ravenswing 00:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact, many of "The Games" sections are still stilted and incorporate unprofessional language. Example: "The game also featured one of the most disgraceful plays in hockey history." in Game 7. There's no need for superlatives like that in this article. Chris 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this part doesn't have a place in the wiki:
"Some observers felt that this series would serve to contrast two very different ways of life. It pitted the centrally planned society of the Soviets against the free society of Canada and the West. Victory in this series would thus be interpreted by some as a validation of the victor's society as a whole."
First: the soviet society was not centrally planed, it is impossible to do that with a society, it was centrally planed economy. If some US people think the cold war was "freedom" against "opression" doesn't mean it was like that. Then, what kind of observer does think that the victor would validate his society above the other?. Maybe the national honor, or the sport management were in the game... but the "better society" title? doubt it. At least cite the crazy source that believes it.--Bauta 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whole heartedly agreed. "Canada and the West"? As if to assume that Team Canada had interest in being the hockey representative for the West. Furthermore, as Bauta mentioned, if some Americans felt that the cold war was "freedom" against "opression", why didn't the US engage in a similar sports summit against the Soviets? Since no one else has disputed this, I'll edit it. --Bentonia School 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the "cold war" is usually regarded as NATO vs. the USSR.  Not "partly as a result of the Cold War that was ongoing between Canada's close ally the United States and the Soviet Union".  Canada did contribute on the "allied" side during the Cold War.  In fact, most of the military institutions in Canada are geared for it.  Canada provided a lot of intelligence service during the "war".  Keenada 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I see a bias -- Clarke deliberately slashes and breaks Kharlamov's ankle, that is termed "the most controversial play of the entire series"; Mikhailov kicks Bergman with his skate, that is termed "one of the most disgraceful plays in hockey history." Or is it just me?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.192.42.215 (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC) 
I agree with the above statement. There is a bias and i think it should be removed. I personally have come across very little evidence in my life growing up with hockey that backs up the quote "one of the most disgraceful plays in hockey history." referring to using the skate as a weapon, it is not a cardinal sin of hockey and in saying so is a bias I feel. I have found violent stick work has been punished far more severly and is sadly far more common.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.21.128 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 

Actually any kind of violence with a skate is considered the worst kind of action you can do on the ice. Which is why the NHL has a zero tollerance policy on skate related violence. -Djsasso (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"I have found violent stick work has been punished far more severly and is sadly far more common."  More common?  Surely.  Punished more severely?  Only because skate violence is so rare that punishment is rarely needed.  But using one's skate as a weapon is an automatic match penalty and would result in a severe suspension in all levels of hockey, professional and amateur, everywhere in the world.  Cutting somebody open with a skate blade could be lethal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djob (talk • contribs) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 
Are any of you guys canadian? No? Then you don't understand how we felt - yes, it was the cold war, in all it's meaning. Cocky, independant individuals against robotic soldiers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.148.24 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 

I am Canadian, and certainly anyone of my age (11 years old when it was played) and above in Canada that I know doesn't call it the "Summit Series", it's just plain old "'72 Series" and everyone knows what that means. In response to the originator of this thread, yes, it was widely seen as a match between ideologies, lifestyles and cold warriors in this country. There were underhanded things done on both sides, it was war (you might need to have played or watched Canadian hockey in the 1970's to understand that, think people inflicting and suffering grievous bodily harm on a daily basis, blood and broken bones - then the Philly Flyers came along and it got worse).
And responding to the IP and comentators above, we need to eventually achieve a neutral narrative here, and much of the POV as currently written needs to be moved to a new section called "Canadian response to the series" or something. In addition to the politico-confrontational aspects, there really should be more about the intense negative reaction when the Canadian players actually lost games and it became apparent just how really good the Soviet players actually were. That's why we "had to" break Kharlamov's ankle, whereas kicking someone with your skate, that's just wrong :)
More seriously, there was a genuine clash of hockey cultures, on the one hand there were subtle hooks'n'slashes and (perceived, but really just watch it) faking of infractions from the Soviet side, on the other hand, naked and brutal aggression from the Canadian side, and confusion and/or bias from the referees on how to deal with it all. Unfortunately, there seems to be a paucity of good sources online, which makes it hard to rewrite this in a reliable format. Anyone who can contribute any references, feel free, and we can keep poking this closer to reality. Anyone with Soviet-side resources or neutral-country additions is welcome! Franamax (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no stats on it at the bottom ?

Because it was deleted by a vandal, I have gone back into the history, found it, and re-added it. Thanks for pointing it out. BsroiaadnTalk 01:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have assessed this article as B Class, given its level of detail and organization, but it requires more in-line citations and referencing. I have assessed this as low importance, as it is a highly specific event within Canada. Cheers, CP 16:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I see a consensus to not move. How's this a no consensus conclusion? 70.55.84.89 (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
He meant it in, no concensus to move it I am sure. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Moscow is given as the city for game 5, but the location is not given for any of the next three games.  I had a feeling facts would take a back seat when I saw the account of game six begin "Game Six was a Canadian 3-2 victory."  MaxEnt (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All the last four games were in Moscow, in the same arena. No facts were harmed. Franamax (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It says: "am Canada took a number of questionable early penalties (which wasn't surprising to Canadians, as they were the same referees who were accused of being biased in Game 6.)"
As far as I know, only one refee ws the same, see article Franz Baader (ice hockey):
"Alan Eagleson, a key organizer from Canada of the Series had threatened to depart from Moscow, where the game was being played. He had reached an agreement with the Canadian team about the possible departure. However, an agreement was reached, with Kompalla and Bata being the referees for Game 8."
The Article says "At that point, with the score tied 5-5 and the series tied 3-3-1, a member of the Soviet delegation unexpectedly informed Canada that, if the score and the series remained tied, the Soviets would claim victory on goal differential."
I didn't find any proof for that statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltirion (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 

A common mistake is to refer to the Sweden and Czech games of the series as "exhibition" games. The entire series was an exhibition series.  In fact, at the time of this series the Russians were not the World Champions... the Czechs were, which Canada played in the last game. It's true that they weren't as important as the Russian games and the Sweden games weren't even televised in Canada. However, "exhibition" infers that the games against Russia carried some official title. A better word than exhibition would be "supplementary".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BashBrannigan (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC) 

 I played in Detroit after the Olympics, and all the guys were talking about playing the Russians. After skating with Detroit, I thought, 'Wow, these guys aren't that good.' After playing against the Russians and international competition, I thought, 'Shit, these guys are just a bunch of arrogant Canadians.' The National Hockey League was a beer and pizza league at that time. I was thinking how arrogant the guys in the NHL are. They were so arrogant thinking, 'We'll kick their ass. They're just amateurs.' 
What relevance does this quote have with the article? The last line coincides with the view held by the players and country before the series, not after. Honestly seems out of place and acts as a commentary towards the talent pool of the NHL after the '68 expansion. 173.35.19.161 (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Two things. One. I can't find a reliable source cite for Clarke's slash stating that it was a fracture. I don't think that unsourced web sites are good enough. Two, it was not the only controversy, so it shouldn't have its own section. But I'm open to either approach. Time for some editor input. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This was by far the main Controversy of the Series - if you have a source saying it wasn't please show because there are hundreds of thousands of articles over the years discussing this as the main focal point and "low-point" of the series.
Adding tag because you re-wrote this as a comic book with odd style and biased perceptions and enforcements,.  Broken bone link added (ESPN).  HonestopL 16:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Here you go (I could add about 20-30 more that say the same thing)
"Why then was Bobby Clarke, not only the Flyers’ captain but the guy who broke Valery Kharlamov’s ankle with a, uh, let’s call it, a “violent, controversial, but ultimately successful” slash in Game 6 of the 1972 Summit Series against the USSR, enshrined in 1987?" 
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/islanders/enshrine_shero_already_ax7OstToM3NjEwummlpi5J
"This game also featured the most controversial play of the series. Philadelphia Flyers Bobby Clarke was instructed by Team Canada’s bench to stop the high-flying Soviet star and captain, Valeri Kharlamov. During his next shift Clarke deliberately slashed Kharlomov and broke his ankle."
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/12/28/cold-war-on-ice-summit-series-72-airs-on-nbc-sports-network-debut-day-on-january-2/114819/
"CNNSI.com:  What about the controversy surrounding your criticism of Bobby Clarke for his slash on Valery Kharlamov? "
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/news/2002/09/27/henderson_interview/
HonestopL 16:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I was looking for some confirmation of a fracture. I am concerned that the diagnosis is based on conjecture after the fact. Are any of your sources something like that? I am concerned about one thing. I can concerned that you think I have some motives. I just want to follow the rules. I don't doubt also that the slash was controversial. However I don't think it is encyclopedic to come out and say it was the most controversial. Something more like "considered by many to be the most controversial" I don't think I am putting a slant on the article by following these principles. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I see what you mean - I don't want to accuse you of anything, you look like a decent editor who loves hockey like me, we just got off the wrong foot I guess. 
A bone-fracture is technically "a brake/broken", just saying the sources do confirm is was severe and very controversial (perhaps the most).  I would like just something that gives more notability (like a subsection heading)? I just feel the admissions by Kharlamov making the accusations (as Sports Experts have), and Clarke & Ferguson (later Henderson) over the years since the the slash pretty much confirmed suspicions that part of Team Canada's coaches and its players had a part in purposefully injuring the Soviet's (and one of the World's) Best players.
"Kharlamov was killing us...somebody had to do it". I'm satisfied the way it is presently, but if possible, some type of section(ing) possible I would greatly appreciate to give it greater distinction. HonestopL 02:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what to suggest. I did the undo only because I thought it was not the only controversy, and putting it separate might be unfair -aka undue prominence- but I think I was probably wrong to do that. The incident has taken on a life of its own, as you've pointed out with your references. I think I might also suggest more prominence by adding to the lead another paragraph or sentence at least that states that the series was filled with controversy, including a deliberate attack on Kharlamov by Clarke that likely changed the course of the series. I do agree that the slash should be prominent. I don't know about a separate section of Controversy, but it's important enough that it should not be drowned with other details. Sorry about that. When I am trying to expand an article, I usually add text (too much), then subtract to get the right amount. But I opened the discussion hoping for other input, so I hope others have opinions. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank You for fixing it, very satisfied with the edits! HonestopL 05:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The section is a bit one-sided and has little reaction from Clarke other than the presented out of context "Flin Flon" quote. For one, it presents the slash as if the big bad Clarke targeted poor little Kharlamov out of nowhere. Clarke: "As for the episode you've mentioned, we were going for the puck together, he pushed me with the stick, then turned around and skated away. I caught up with him and hit him on the leg, not thinking at all where and how I hit." He further said:  ''"For us it was normal. The thing is that we, Canadians, are used to fighting as an integral part of hockey. When you have “misunderstandings” like this, they are often solved with the fists. Soviet hockey had no fights so the players used other methods to get the point accross. Like a little bit of “stick work” here and there, you know. And I personally don't mind this. I am a tough player and I respect toughness in others. But if I am poked with a stick I will do the same. We just had to adapt to the new ways of doing things, that’s all." [1] Thus the Flin Flon quote. In the same interview he denies knowing that Kharlamov's ankle was "already sore" (how is it known his ankle was "already sore", exactly? I doubt the Soviets would broadcast that fact) and he denies Ferguson telling him what is quoted in this article. --Phifly (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you explain Ferguson's comments? Should we use the word 'apparently at the instigation of Ferguson'? If there is more directly from Clarke it should be added, but it has to directly address the incident, I think. I don't think it is imperative that Clarke had to be aware of Kharlamov's ankle. I think that comes from Ferguson. The main point of the game report is that it occurred. There is plenty of other action reported, including Kharlamov's actions. I should add that I don't think we can 'clean up' or excuse Clarke's actions in wikipedia. Secondly, the slash has 'taken on a life of its own' since the series, and especially since the media took to the internet, so it is going to appear (arguably of course) in this article as more prominent than other incidents. I don't think that at the time it was as serious as has been made out, but it was important in the context of the series. Thanks for the cite, too. Good work. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I have added content from your cite. It may go too far the other way, but I think his comments are a good addition. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ferguson's comments? He said, she said, and 30 years after the fact. Neither Clarke nor any other Team Canada player or coach who may have been nearby when Ferguson supposedly told Clarke to target Kharlamov's ankle have verified Ferguson's claim. Therefore, I think, "Assistant coach John Ferguson claimed in 2002(?)..." or something like that would be the best way to present the quote. -- I'm not interested in cleaning up Clarke's actions. Since he was involved he should be quoted and part of that is he feels "a lot of crap" has been written about it. The people who think the slash was such a disgrace - the propaganda outlet known as the Soviet press in 1972 (I'm sure they "widely reported" and "condemned" Mikhailov's skate attack, right?) and in modern times those who think Montreal saved hockey from Clarke and the Broad Street Bullies in '76 (not surprisingly this viewpoint is largely centered in Montreal). That's really why the Slash took on a life of its own: more ammo against Clarke and the hated 1970s Flyers. Since they can't cite a similar incident during Clarke's NHL career to blow out of proportion, they instead reference the slash. -- I think the section at present is fine with the exception of how the Ferguson quote is presented. The other thing I wonder is how long was Kharlamov playing on this sore ankle (the whole series? since game 2 or 3? and so on) and the exact nature of the soreness. The first time in this article that we discover that Kharlamov had a sore ankle is when the slash is discussed. --Phifly (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
According to Bill Meltzer the ankle wasn't broken, rather it was a deep bone bruise. "The most infamous incident of Clarke's career happened in Game 6 of the Summit Series, when he injured Valeri Kharlamov -- a supremely skilled but also sometimes ruthless player in his own right. There has been so much mystique and misinformation put out over the years about that one play that is not always easy to separate fact from fiction. First of all, Clarke did not "shatter" Kharmalov's ankle with the slash. In reality, the winger suffered a deep bone bruise that kept him out of Game 7 and had him at far less than 100 percent in Game 8. But no hockey player, no matter how brave -- or shot full of pain-killers -- can support enough weight to skate on a shattered ankle. In fact, Kharlamov got up shortly after the slash and (to his credit, I might add) to confront Clarke and exchange cross words with the Canadian bench before limping to the Soviet bench. He later returned to the ice." Logically, if the ankle was broken, Kharlamov could not have continued playing in the game and certainly not in Game 8. --Phifly (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I am glad that you are continuing to look into this. Unfortunately that source is just a blog, and not enough for Wikipedia. This is the issue with getting a proper cite for the injury. I think it's been accepted that it was a fracture ( but maybe Meltzer has a source?). That's what I've read in most sources. I brought this up on the SIHR list, and they felt that Kharlamov could have played on a fracture, due to the structure of the ankle. The use of the word 'broken' might imply something more substantial than a fracture, but it is also used for a fracture, too. All that said, the slashing did occur and Kharlamov was out.  ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe switch the boxscores to the standard ones used in articles like 2012 Stanley Cup Finals or 2012 Stanley Cup playoffs? Jmj713 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I kind of like these ones better. At least for this page. They seem to fit the topic better and condense the information down into a smaller amount of space which is always nice. But I am not married to them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The ones in the final series are really large. In fact, I kind of dislike them. There was so much going on in the series, that if were to use those boxscores, I'd suggest using a separate page/article. The ones for the playoffs are ok, but I'm not sure about section headlines. Remove "Game six" e.g. and just use the templates? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add boxscores for the exhibition games too? Jmj713 (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've not seen summaries for those games anywhere. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've now found two sources, so I've added them. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Great! Thank you. Jmj713 (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, a team called Russian Legends has been playing commemorative games in Russia, Europe, and the US, for the 40th anniversary of the Summit Series, culminating with a game between Russian and Canadian Legends teams ([2]). There's an official website, but it's difficult to make sense of the schedule of games and who's exactly involved ([3]). I haven't researched this deeply enough, just stumbled upon it, but I think this definitely should be mentioned here, with a separate article to build later on. Jmj713 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really any different than any other oldtimers series. They are quite common, this one just happens to be in the theme of commemorating the 72 series. I wouldn't think it was notable enough to mention. -DJSasso (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I still think the Legacy section should be fleshed out more with information regarding these Legends games, at least a list could be added of games specifically played by Canadians and Russian legends and stars in commemoration of '72. Jmj713 (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As much as I would like to glorify the 1972 Summit series I don't think it is fair to say it was played during the "height" of the Cold War. If anything tensions were actually pretty relaxed during the 70s (see: Détante). The height would be in the early 50s, 1962 (see: Cuban missile crisis) or in the early 80s Second Cold War. Kndimov (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Summit Series/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: EuroCarGT (talk · contribs) 01:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article for Good Article status. Hopefully I am not busy this week, so this could go smoothly! I've also got this page watchlisted. ///EuroCarGT 01:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


### Overall first impressions
I have read the entire article. It is quite long! It is nicely written and a good candidate for GA criteria, especially with the current WikiProject page assessments at B-class. Their are a few things to point out which will be noted at the level below this. --///EuroCarGT 01:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


### GA checklist
### Comments on GA criteria
Their are some WP:PEACOCK terms on the article. An example would be: ...especially goaltender Vladislav Tretiak, who was outstanding in several of the series' games.--///EuroCarGT 01:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Overall, this article is great and the active contributor's should be proud of themselves for contributions to this article! --///EuroCarGT 01:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
All seems to be  Done. Rereading the article and will complete this review. ///EuroCarGT 21:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
After re-reading everything, looked over spelling & grammar and for issues. This article has  passed GA review. --///EuroCarGT 22:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Will also request article assessments for the unassessed WikiProject ratings. ///EuroCarGT 22:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


#### Pass
No maintenance tags for a long period of time. ///EuroCarGT 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
No edit wars in a long time, clean protection log. ///EuroCarGT 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Page is organized with the proper layout per MOS:LAYOUT. ///EuroCarGT 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Everything is properly sourced using reliable sources. No bare URLs are used as citations. ///EuroCarGT 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Spelling and grammar have been either fixed or already fixed. ///EuroCarGT 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


#### Neutral
Page isn't really illustrated well, however the criteria states, if possible. ///EuroCarGT 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
There are 4 dead links that need to be fixed. ///EuroCarGT 22:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Should we mention something about the missing injured and WHA players that were not allowed to play? 
The Missing

In 1997 The Hockey News compiled a list of hockey’s all-time greatest players. Three of the Hockey News top ten -- Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull -- were active at the time of the Summit Series. None played in it. Orr was listed on the roster but had just had knee surgery. Hull was named to the team by coach Harry Sinden but had committed the unpardonable sin of defecting to the upstart World Hockey Association. He was blackballed by tournament organizers, in spite of a direct plea from Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Hull and Howe, who had also gone to the new league, would get their chance two years later when the WHA staged its own version of the Summit Series. Lacking the same sort of supporting cast, the WHA all-stars were beaten soundly, 4-1-3 -- despite the presence of 1972 hero Paul Henderson, who had since joined the new league. Hull did prove himself against the Soviets, leading the series in scoring with seven goals. Howe scored three. Not bad, considering he was 46 years old at the time. [4]
Thanks ChanziP (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked ChanziP, if still there, please see correct information – added by Alaney2k – in Talk:Summit Series#Gordie Howe was retired. Jmg38 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@ChanziP: Gordie Howe retired in 1971 and signed with the Houston Aeros on September 30, 1973. AFTER the Summit Series. He was retired during the Series, despite what thetyee.ca says:

Retirement
Signing with Aeros
Please stop adding Gordie Howe to this article Alaney2k (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the paragraph beginning "Sinden told the players to try to get one back quickly..." refers to between periods, but nowhere is there a statement indicating when the third period started. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, Soviet television (first program, which was carried nationwide?) carried Games 5 through 8 using their own cameras.
How did Soviet television cover the four games in Canada?  With their own cameras?  Or did they pick up CBC/CTV cameras, convert to their broadcast signal type and add their own commentator? GBC (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, but I doubt that an editor will ever find a reliable source that answers it. I assume they didn't bring Soviet cameras over because of the difference in voltage and AC frequency. Indefatigable (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Good point, but I would say that using adapters to convert power would be far easier than converting the signal from System M (525-line, 6 MHz channel, 60 Hz frame rate, negative visual modulation, FM sound, NTSC colour) to System D (625-line, 8 MHz channel, 50 Hz frame rate, negative visual modulation, FM sound, SECAM colour). Contrarily, since the Soviets did not use geosynchronous orbit for their Molniya satellites, they could not beam the picture over those satellites as their perigee would take them quickly over Canadian longitudes, so would have to use an Intelsat bird. GBC (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)