Talk:Gilbert Perreault

message: Shouldn't there be some meantion of his weird, icey realationship with the Sabres since his retirement?  --69.255.193.247 16:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If any such mention is properly sourced so as to avoid overt POV, sure.  Ravenswing 16:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The information in the article seems to be ok. The issues are
*Style. I think that slang like "Team Canada" should definitely not be used. "French Connection" should be italics I think and should be either capped or uncapped in a consistent manner.
*POV/hyperbole. Words like superstar etc, definitely need to be culled. "spectacular offensive unit", "Cinderella run " "team loaded with future NHL talents " --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  06:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with some of the points.  For example, "Team Canada" is the name by which the squad is near-universally known, and it is no more slang than referring to "Rhode Island" or "Los Angeles" by those names, neither of which is the actual legal name of those entities.    Ravenswing  05:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Indian cricket team is not called "Team India" in articles although it is quite ocmmon among the Indian press. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 07:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Well done. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: I appreciate your interest in Gilbert Perreault.  I spent a lot of time last month returning to Buffalo to research his article as well as The French Connection  (hockey) to get them both cited well enough to be WP:GAs.  I am glad someone else cares about these articles.  However, removing sources that support facts that are not commonly known to wikipedia readers is not appropriate in my mind.  I have reverted many of your changes and this ist the net result of our joint efforts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be appropriate in your mind, but it's appropriate per policy.  "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V).  Items of readily provable fact, such as that Perreault is a Hall of Famer or the years during which he was named an All-Star, are already cited in the general references and the external link and do not require a cloud of jarring inline citations.  Furthermore, the extensive references to the Fog Game are inappropriate, given that the game is not itself about Perreault and he had no particularly overwhelming impact in it.  Finally, I worry that you might be crossing the WP:OWN line.  I likewise appreciate the interest of other editors in this article, am glad other editors care about it and have spent time researching the edits I myself have made in it.  I hope other editors are similarly invested in the articles about which they themselves care.  Nonetheless, no single one of us has any more authority or influence over an article than another ... which is just as well, since my first edits to this article happened a year and a half before yours.    Ravenswing  03:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your style of I am so sure I am right I am going to revert in whole instead of going item by item and analyzing deeply each thing that I replaced.  Your haphazard total revert even delete an incredibly useful template. Taking the I'm right and I am going to threaten you with an WP:OWN challenge is the completely wrong approach to take. Please reconsider each single item you removed especially valuable templates you carelessly removed.  I took a lot of time with a thoughtful compromise edit and your approach is not thought of very highly.  Since this was a newly minted WP:GA you should seriously reconsider your reversion.  It is common to cite a source for unlikely to be challenged statistics because it is helpful to the reader.  You should keep in mind that at one point the article said he was a six time All-star.  Some sources have it wrong.  Even though you should not challenge that he is a 9-time All-star you should not remove such a citation. Please respond at my talk page. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unable to complete my thoughts because the library closed at 9PM central (2AM UTC) last night.  It also appears that I was in a huffy mood at the end of the day yesterday.  Citations are not reserved for things likely to be challenged by experts.  Basically, they are used to provide references for most interesting facts in an article.  If I told you someone scored over 500 goals you might find that to be an incredible claim if you are not a sports fan.  An article should be written with main page exposure in mind.  Suppose this becomes a FA some day.  If you look at most sports FACs they are chock full of citations for things that we all know are true.  An article will have a citation for the fact that a team won the Stanley cup in a given year and one for the fact that it moved to another arena in a given year.  This is the way proper citation works.  The challenge rule you are cited does not mean that you only cite something if you think it might belong in Ripley's Believe it or Not.  Please respond since I know you are online.  I will begin reverting this after noon if there is no response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand by my statements.  Your argument relies on vague speculation such as whether someone might challenge that Perreault scored 500 goals or that he was a nine-time All-Star.  Quite aside from the obvious fact that no one here has ever done either, such speculation doesn't override the policy governing the use of inline citations.  Beyond that, of course I believe that I'm right -- it would be quite incorrect for me to make changes I felt were wrong -- and that believing you're crossing the line into WP:OWN is a very long way from "threatening" a "challenge" on those grounds, for which I'd be interested in you pointing out where I said anything of the sort.    Ravenswing  18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gotta agree with RG on this: his career stats are included in the article. They're backed up by a link to hockeydb and others stats websites could easily be added as well (I've always preferred hockeydb because it includes minor, junior and college stats). Data like that is mundane, qualitative and easily accessible. I'd be more worried about citing statements such as he also plays on occasion with the Buffalo Sabres Alumni Hockey Team for charity events. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it is true, yet I don't see anything that would prove it. ccwaters 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  Unlike his stats, that's a fact that is not to be found in a hundred hockey books or fifty websites, each and every time invariably.    Ravenswing  19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am going to revert item by item with comment.  Give me about a half hour.  The point is that facts at WP are highly suspect by the general populous and thus notable fact citations are being reverted.  I will attempt to do so minimally.  Hopefully places that had redundant citations will have fewer, but facts that are worth boasting about must be cited, for the sake of the reader who should not just trust us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. in case you think I lie about the 6 time AS source, see http://www.sabresalumni.com/2001/perreault.php3 .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am going to need more than a half hour.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Take your time; any inline citations of non-controversial statistical fact will just be reverted right back.  Uncontroversial items of readily-provable statistical fact don't uniquely become needful of inline citations just because they're "boast" worthy.  I'll be happy to raise this to the Wikiproject for a consensus.    Ravenswing  20:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ravenswing & I often disagree but lately we seem to be agreeing more and more. I do believe he is right in this case. Having inline citations for the sake of having them is not productive and undesireable when they can easily be covered by the general references at the bottom of the page. Only if something is controversial or possibly unbelieveable/challengable should it have inline citation with a few exceptions for other reasons such as direct quotes. --Djsasso 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with TonyTheTiger simply because articles should be written assuming the reader knows nothing and therefore citations will help the reader know that what they are reading is true/verified. Facts with numbers that are not cited are possibly likely to be challenged but are also easy targets for sneaky vandalism. T Rex | talk 22:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First off, inline citations don't prevent sneaky vandalism.  Editors who pay attention prevent sneaky vandalism.  I could not, off the top of my head, quote the precise number of goals and assists Perreault scored in his career (500-someodd and 800-someodd), and inline citations don't jog anyone's memory any further.  Secondly, of course the statistical facts should have citations ... the general references and external links at the bottom of the page, which already exist.    Ravenswing  01:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes it easier to find out where exactly which facts come from where without the reader having to go through each source checking to see where the fact came from. Sneaky vandalism often does slip through articles even if the article does have many people watching it. T Rex | talk 01:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If his goal is to eventually be featured it is a very fine line between having enough and having to many. Alot of FAs get shot down because of over use of inline citations. As pointed out by Ravenswing only ones that can't be covered by general references at the bottom, ie challengable facts, need inline citations. --Djsasso 14:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  With all due respect, T Rex, if someone has to have an inline citation because he can't figure out how to look up a routine statistical fact from the general reference links, he shouldn't be editing an article for errors.  That being said, this is slightly moot.  The policy on the use of inline citations is unambiguous, and this article's violated that.    Ravenswing  15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't talking about editors, I was talking about the average reader who comes to Wikipedia who wants to find information and inline citations help this reader find information quickly. T Rex | talk 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err, no.  Inline citations do not help the reader find information quickly.  Putting the information in the article in the first place helps the reader find information quickly.    Ravenswing  12:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jmfangio. Is the dispute over whether each sentence in a GA article should be footnoted? Please just summarize the dispute. Thanks. -- Jreferee  T/C 06:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not quite.  My position is that Tony has flooded the article with unnecessary inline citations; to quote myself from above, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V). Items of readily provable, uncontroversial, statistical fact, such as that Perreault is a Hall of Famer or the years during which he was named an All-Star, are already cited in the general references and the external link and do not require a cloud of jarring inline citations.  That being said, the other comments in from WP:HOCKEY regulars support that viewpoint.    Ravenswing  16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The style use of inline citations is an issue often dealt with by those at Featured articles. If you can't find your answer at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. -- Jreferee  T/C 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given feedback we got at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gilbert Perreault/archive1, which says that the citations are helpful to international wikipedians (which was my point in the debate), edits like this seem destructive given the debate we are having about whether citation should be removed.  I had reduced the citation level to what I thought was the bare minimum for a this GA.  The citations that were taken out reduce this article below the WP:GA level, IMO.  This article would not pass at WP:GAR given this edit.  It should be reverted, IMO. The edit was contrary to the feedback we have received and my experience as the lead author of 2 WP:FAs, 3 WP:FLs, 29 WP:GAs and 3 WP:GACs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If I were to summarize the debate, I would say the debate is over whether what I see as the minimal citation level or what User:Ravenswing sees as the minimal citation level is more appropriate.  His most recent edit is pretty much the crux of the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For my part, I wouldn't be comfortable implying that the single reviewer who addressed the subject at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gilbert Perreault/archive1 represented any degree of consensus.  Beyond that, gosh, I've several thousand edits myself, I've been an active member of the WP:HOCKEY Wikiproject for several years and the author of the project's player notability criteria, and my first edits on this article predate yours by a year and a half.  Now might we stick to the merits of the argument, rather than claim "Mine is bigger than yours" as any sort of justification?  If there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline granting more of a say to those brandishing massive edit counts, I'm ignorant of it.     Ravenswing  08:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If don't get any resolution here, which I hope will come from another 3rd party (User:Jreferee), we can either go to WP:GAR or WP:DR from here.  But the merits in my opinion are adequately summarized as an argument over your edit from yesterday and I am willing to argue the merits in either forum if necessary.  At GAR, we run the risk of losing WP:GA status on the article, but unlike either of the talk pages or WP:PR we are guaranteed to get much feedback.  I hope a second outside opinion will help us come to some resolution however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well ... as to that, if insufficient feedback here is generated, either forum will do.  If GA status could be lost over a dispute as to how many inline citations this article should have, then its status was a lot shakier than that.    Ravenswing  18:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would concede the article was not one of my better GAs because so much information existed before I got involved. I do much better with articles from scratch.  I think GAR may be the better course in terms of what is best for the article.  DR would be the better course in terms of what the best policy issues are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from talk page ... 

message: I would be happy to try and help resolve the outstanding issue if someone wants to summarize the dispute.  Please note: I am not looking for reports of editor behavior - i simply want to know what the dispute was/is over. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jmfangio. Is the dispute over whether each sentence in a GA article should be footnoted? Please just summarize the dispute. Thanks. -- Jreferee  T/C 06:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not quite.  My position is that Tony has flooded the article with unnecessary inline citations; to quote myself from above, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V). Items of readily provable, uncontroversial, statistical fact, such as that Perreault is a Hall of Famer or the years during which he was named an All-Star, are already cited in the general references and the external link and do not require a cloud of jarring inline citations.  That being said, the other comments in from WP:HOCKEY regulars support that viewpoint.    Ravenswing  16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The style use of inline citations is an issue often dealt with by those at Featured articles. If you can't find your answer at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. -- Jreferee  T/C 17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given feedback we got at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gilbert Perreault/archive1, which says that the citations are helpful to international wikipedians (which was my point in the debate), edits like this seem destructive given the debate we are having about whether citation should be removed.  I had reduced the citation level to what I thought was the bare minimum for a this GA.  The citations that were taken out reduce this article below the WP:GA level, IMO.  This article would not pass at WP:GAR given this edit.  It should be reverted, IMO. The edit was contrary to the feedback we have received and my experience as the lead author of 2 WP:FAs, 3 WP:FLs, 29 WP:GAs and 3 WP:GACs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If I were to summarize the debate, I would say the debate is over whether what I see as the minimal citation level or what User:Ravenswing sees as the minimal citation level is more appropriate.  His most recent edit is pretty much the crux of the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For my part, I wouldn't be comfortable implying that the single reviewer who addressed the subject at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gilbert Perreault/archive1 represented any degree of consensus.  Beyond that, gosh, I've several thousand edits myself, I've been an active member of the WP:HOCKEY Wikiproject for several years and the author of the project's player notability criteria, and my first edits on this article predate yours by a year and a half.  Now might we stick to the merits of the argument, rather than claim "Mine is bigger than yours" as any sort of justification?  If there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline granting more of a say to those brandishing massive edit counts, I'm ignorant of it.     Ravenswing  08:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If don't get any resolution here, which I hope will come from another 3rd party (User:Jreferee), we can either go to WP:GAR or WP:DR from here.  But the merits in my opinion are adequately summarized as an argument over your edit from yesterday and I am willing to argue the merits in either forum if necessary.  At GAR, we run the risk of losing WP:GA status on the article, but unlike either of the talk pages or WP:PR we are guaranteed to get much feedback.  I hope a second outside opinion will help us come to some resolution however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well ... as to that, if insufficient feedback here is generated, either forum will do.  If GA status could be lost over a dispute as to how many inline citations this article should have, then its status was a lot shakier than that.    Ravenswing  18:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would concede the article was not one of my better GAs because so much information existed before I got involved. I do much better with articles from scratch.  I think GAR may be the better course in terms of what is best for the article.  DR would be the better course in terms of what the best policy issues are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion offer

message: The GAR observed no variation from the criteria which only stipulate minimum requirements for inline citation. GAR is not the place to resolve editorial disputes, so I have closed the discussion. The article retains its GA status. Please consider using requests for comment instead. Geometry guy 17:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAR closed 

message: Would it be possible to get a dif from when this article was argued to have too many citations?  I'd like to see what this article looked like when it needed to be "fixed" before I could offer a greater comment.  Resolute 00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay this seems to be the gist of it.... 
# TonyTheTiger fixes up the article to good article status ....
# Ravenswing takes out a number of citations .... 
# They then reverted each other once each.... 
# TonyTheTiger does quite a few more edits ... 
# Then Traynor removes other citations . That's all the editing that has been done from the looks of things from the actual article. Other than that its been a lot of stone-throwing and mud-slinging from one camp to the other. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Based on a quick look, I am going to have to side mostly with Ravenswing here.  The article was overlinked.  There were cases of four line paragraphs using the same cite three or four times on consecutive sentences.  I really do not see that as necessary.  There might be room to add more back in, but imo, it was definitely a case of overkill. Resolute 05:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: "Minimum threshold;  does not sanction."
This is a truly scary precedent. Choose your evils well!
I have to take both arguments to their extreme and ask: which is more evil, underlinked or overlinked? Underlinked is by far more evil:
* No, citations don't prevent sneaky vandalism  but without them the source of the info  and thus the vandalism cannot be verified.
* Do we want to set the scary precedent of letting folks remove citations because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? No. Verifiability trumps style.
* The "challenged or likely to be challenged" bar in WP:V is a minimum threshold; it does not repeat does not sanction the removal of cites. It does not. Read the text again, please!
* --Ling.Nut 03:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor forbids it, nor requires the alternative.  The genuine scary precedent is the suggestion that anything not specifically sanctioned is forbidden.    Ravenswing  06:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. I hate it when people don't read what I've written. :-) I never mentioned the word "forbid." i was talking about the relative merits of arguments pro/con removing citations... I know you have a nontrivial personal stake in this issue, Ravenswing. I have a strong and healthy aversion to arguing with anyone on Wikipedia who has a personal stake in the outcome. It always and everywhere leads to interminable tit-for-tat I know-you-are-but-what-am-I threads. So, I won't. I'm.. willing to answer a couple more comments, if they contain salient points, but I'm not gonna tit-for-tat. later! --Ling.Nut 06:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I hate it when people presume that failure to agree with their POV equates to a failure to understand.  No, you did not actually use the word "forbid."  But you do harp on the fact that the text I quoted did not "sanction" the removal of cites.  What's your point?    Ravenswing  04:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by uninvolved user Ling.Nut

message: this is what happens when people who don't understand the meaning of tertiary source take over a page.  A tertiary source such as WP only summarizes what other secondary sources say.  Every fact in a article is suppose to be something a secondary source says.  When someone adds a  tag, it is not proper for someone to say this is a fact because I say so and remove it without properly citing the fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD)  22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I did not notice that the source I was replacing it with was not pasted into the article. I very much appreciate you letting me know this or replacing the  tag so that it may be corrected. Oh wait actually you didn't you used it as another excuse to attack someone who disagrees with you. And I would appreciate it if you again read WP:CIVIL and don't accuse me of not knowing what a tertiary source is. You still seem to not understand what the disagreement on this page is about. It's not about no citing vs. citing. Its about the types of citation you are using. --Djsasso 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed the  as if it was malplaced.  It was not.  I would readd the claim if I could source it, but I spent a week at the Buffalo public library looking for such sources.  Unless I am going to be in Montreal someday soon, I am not going to be able to find it.  It should be tagged if included (as it was).  I think it is premature tor remove the fact tag, but fighting with you is not worth the effort.  I apologize if you view my editorial propriety correction as a personal attack.  However, your statement that "You still seem to not understand what the disagreement on this page is about. It's not about no citing vs. citing. Its about the types of citation you are using." is clearly incorrect.  If you believed that misstatement you would remove all references to the citations.  If a certain article is refernced 5 times and you say it should only be referenced twice that is an argument about citing vs. not citing.  If you believe it is about the types of citations then you would say all five should be removed because it is not the right type of reference.  Get your story straight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD)  18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant fix it as in replace the fact tag. As far as not understanding the arguement you just proved it in this statement. This has always been about using general references in place of multiple inline uncontroversial citations. Those are two types of reference. There are times when you should use inline and times when you should use a general reference. Removing all inline citations is being rediculous. But removing 3 of the 5 because they would be better suited with general references is an arguement about type, not an arguement about having them or not having them. An arguement about not having them would be trying to remove them without having a general reference to back the facts up. --Djsasso (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sample edit showing what happens when citation removal gets endorsed. 

message: Hi, this is a warning that the personal life information in this article is much too short. Any biography that is of GA standard must have at least one well organised paragraph describing the persons life outside of their field for which they are famous or otherwise incorporate that information elsewhere in the text. This article does not provide enough information on the person in question and does not give enough context for the incidents and information that is mentioned. For an example of how such a section might look, see Brian Urlacher and for pointers on how to expand and improve the section, see this guide. If this information is not improved then this article  would be unlikely to survive a Good Article Reassessment and may well be delisted in the future. Thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life