Talk:Aleš Hemský

message: I come to this page with absolute ignorance of Ales Hemsky and little knowledge of ice hockey, but with considerable experience as a Wikipedian.  Muéro has acted well by requesting comments: the tone of the dialogue here had started to get contentious.  Before things degenerated into real hostility this editor sought fresh perspectives.  That's exactly what a good editor should do.  The aim is not to prove anybody right or wrong, but to make the article better.
The article shows considerable effort and a good detailed knowledge of its subject.  Although I cannot comment on its accuracy, I follow other sports enough to have a general understanding of what this sort of piece should convey.  The information is well organized and some elements, such as the statistics table, reflect real care and devotion.
That said, I would not have rated this a good article.  It is desperately short on citations and offers many opinions editorially that ought to be substantiated with references to professional sports writers.  The following is one example:
:"Often in his first two years with the Oilers, Hemsky would lose the puck trying to do too much, and was thoroughally criticized by the Edmonton media. His instincts seemed to be fine, but his execution of plays looked to be lacking because of limited confidence."
If the Edmonton press criticized Hemsky so thoroughly then it ought to be easy to cite at least one actual example of this criticism.  The unsupported assertions "trying to do too much," "instincts seemed to be fine," and "limited confidence" are crystal-ball-gazing speculations that require supernatural powers.  If some journalists in Canada claim such abilities then by all means quote their insights into Mr. Hemsky's psyche (and afterward ask them to tell me what my boyfriend is thinking because I can't make it out) - but seriously this goes far beyond what a Wikipedia article can assert editorially. Back it up with references.
Several talk page comments raised my eyebrow.  Here's one:
:"Before I get into this, I am going to note that I am a third-year university student. One of my essays was even published by the U (http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/mmorris/101D2/Strange%20Meeting%20essa%20Jas.htm), so I don't think I'll be conceding any points based on writing skill."
I recommend reconsidering that opinion unless "thoroughally" observes a special Canadian spelling rule: humility is a virtue.  My own writing at Wikipedia has also been criticized, sometimes quite justly - even though I take credit for three featured Wikipedia pages, have an Ivy League education, studied writing in graduate school, and have published more than some of the living writers whose biographies are already in Wikipedia.  No one writes perfectly and one of the few ways to improve is to accept constructive feedback.  
If the editor who wrote the above is content with a medicre article that gets a little more recognition than it deserves, then by all means reject further input with the same haughty manner.  Continued mediocrity and probably a "former good article" template will be the result.  To the extent that I understand the subject, the criticisms and suggestions raised on this talk page seem quite valid, and the article would benefit if they were taken seriously.  Whoever brought the article to its current level has worked hard, probably as hard as he or she thought possible, and now a new challenge for improvements could raise the article to the next level.  Treat this challenge as an opportunity.  Regards, Durova 08:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a multiply-published author, but that doesn't insulate me from the need to write NPOV, the same as any other editor.  I agree with Durova and Muero that even by the standards of a sports article it is as written rampant with POV violations, speculation and editorializing.  He had a single season in which he led his team in scoring, and was in the top ten in the league in only a single category (10th in assists).  Perhaps we can wait a bit before conceding him superstar status, and I'm minded to go revert some of the more raw editorializing right now.  Ravenswing 03:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And done; it looks a bit better now.  And ... like Durova, I'd advise a degree of a humility about any "writing skill" that produced as many spelling errors as all of that.  Ravenswing 03:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: I've submitted this article for impartial review of GA status. Durova 16:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here as a result of the RFC, but it appears that work is progressing.  Is the RFC listing still necessary?  If so, can someone fill me in on the thumbnail argument?  If not, it perhaps should be removed from the RFC list. Thanks E. Ripley 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article review 

message: Here's why I reverted what was added to the article today:
*According to Dictionary.com, en.wiktionary.org, and Google, "opitimize" is not a word.
*Two tags were removed from the article without proper discussion on the talk page.
*Off-topic information was added (the difference between Prendergast's and Fraser's drafting style, which is just Prendergast's opinion anyway)
*A source was given for a quotation, but the formatting was not correct.
*In a encyclopedic biography, the persons name should be used throughout the article, not an epithet, especially when the epithet is non-verifiable.
*There are more formatting errors that would have easily been seen if the edit was previewed.
*The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
**How can we verify that Pardubice is obscure?
**How can we verify that playing in the QMJHL gave Hemsky the best chance of being drafted?
**How can we verify that "Hemksy was key to the Oilers run"?
**How can we verify that Hemsky's goals "allowed" the Oilers to reach the Finals? Would they not have reached the finals without him?
--Muéro 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muéro, revert warring is not the way to solve an editorial dispute.  The strokes, much of your edit was couched in a conversational and subjective rather than an encyclopaedic tone, and there were some assertions of at least quesitonable merit.  The solution is to discuss the changes here and come up with a form of words whichj gets across what you are trying to say in a way which other editors are happy with.  It should not be hard; you just need to focus on the core facts you are trying to convey, with their sources, and then work on the best way of including them. Sometimes a quote with attribution is a good way of achieving this: according to foo the move placed him better to be noticed by scouts or some such.  Guy 13:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The solution is to discuss the changes here and come up with a form of words whichj gets across what you are trying to say in a way which other editors are happy with." I could not agree with this more.  I literally begged Muero to discuss possible deletions before making changes, but in the end all that occured was him going "POV, POV, POV", instead of actually thinking about the subject matter as it relates to the article, and what can be assumed based on common knowledge.  That's what riled me up, and made me take such a defensive stand in the first place.  If all of you guys just go to the Ice Hockey Player template, you will see that one of the FIRST things I did, before even finishing it, was to create a "Suggestion for Change" heading in the talk page.  It was Muero's arrogance, and consistant unwillingness to compromise in ways which I so often have done, that really got me going.  As I've already said, looking back, lots of the stuff I originally wrote was POV, and should have been removed.  But lots wasn't, and still hasn't been restored, even though I've provided links.  This article is only about 1/2 the length it should be, but I'm not going to go scrounging for links to back up every statement I will eventually replace because I'm in school now.  Later I'll look for the links and add them as I restore deletions, even though every sentace will have a citation (which I still don't think is appropriate, because no Wikipedia articles have every sentance cited), but according to the "rules", that's what has to be done, so eventually I'll get around to doing it.  The strokes 00:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, firstly could I say that I also fully agree with Guy. However, describing other editors as arrogant in the middle of a content dispute isn't very productive. Could I suggest you attempt to resolve the situation without any further name calling. Regarding every sentence having a citation, have a look at some featured articles, in these you should find the references fully support the text. That doesn't always imply that every sentence has a citation. It does however mean there isn't any unsupported personal commentary. If you add material that isn't supported, I would suggest that other editors should in the first instance mark this material using  tags and then later remove the material until you find the references. Lasly could I suggest you keep calm, there isn't any need to get "riled up". Thanks, Addhoc 10:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, calling someone arrogant contravenes WP:CIVIL. Also, while I agree common sense is vital, WP:V stipulates the criteria for inclusion is verifiability not truth. Addhoc 17:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so we're not going to go with the "follow featured articles' citing style"?  Because I for one can't verify that Gretzky's a prodigy.  There's no prodigy scale to rate him on, or prodigy test for him to take.  There's also no way to verify that the general population of LA's interest in hockey was any greater after Gretzky's trade than before.  Perhaps they were always interested in hockey, but only after the trade did they see reason to get up off their sofas and go watch Gretzky live.  I cherish the assists record more than the 50 in 50 record.  How does one go about verifying that the Gretzky trade drastically changed the dynamics of the NHL, or that popularity of hockey dropped across Canada after the trade?  While I (and most other people) agree with these statements, there's absolutely no way to verify them as correct or incorrect.  As such, the general consensus of the population is used as an appropriate substitute. The strokes 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: For the avoidance of doubt the WP:V policy isn't negiotable. Addhoc 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And therein lies the rub.  Are the wikipedia rules written in stone, or are they open to interpretation?  You say they are not open to interpretation, but direct me to articles which are supposedly of the highest class on Wikipedia, yet break the rules.  Now I think we're making progress The strokes 21:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Addhoc 21:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure what you're getting at by directing me to all these Wikipedia help pages.  I can find those on my own.  My case has been  stated pretty clearly above; that the rules you're directing me to are contradictory in that what they say should be done is not representative of what is actually happening on Wikipedia as shown by a featured article breaking the POV rule several times The strokes 22:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Very amusing. Clearly, if Wikipedia allows anyone to edit articles, then some articles are not going to be in accord with policy. That doesn't create an excuse for sloppy editing. Addhoc 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured articles usually have a group of people dedicated to consistantly removing vandalism, bad edits, irrelivant/incorrect info, etc.  Obviously, these POV edits were allowed because they were assumed to be withing the rules of Wikipedia.  The universality of Wikipedia does not explain this phenomenon The strokes 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't agree that feautured articles have a dedicated group any more than other articles. I've worked on various articles, including some featured and there isn't a difference. Article content is agreed by consensus of editors and then following this whether the article should be featured or not is agreed by other editors. Possibly what's confusing you is that some featured articles contain viewpoints from notable persons that have been reported by secondary sources, which is allowed according to WP:NPOV and WP:V. What isn't allowed is personal commentary from Wikipedia editors. Addhoc 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were no sources (primary, secondary, tertiary, or even quaternary) given for the above POV The strokes 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'm pleased that you have confirmed you are going to provide references for any new information. Addhoc 23:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Today's edit

message: The olympic medal box is not needed.  The brnoze is already noted in the awards section in a similar box.  Redundant 68.149.157.248 16:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The medal box is a nice graphical way to show all the Olympic medals a person has won. Are you suggesting that the medal box in the Carl Lewis article should be removed, because it mentions the medals in the article? Are you suggesting that we remove Hemsky's position, NHL team, nationality, birthplace, draft position, and draft team from the infobox because it is also covered in the article? The whole point of the medal boxes and infoboxes is to quickly show important information without having to read the whole article. --Muéro(talk/c) 18:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only see one box on Carl Lewis' page showing medals.  This article has two, and since one of them encompasses all kinds of awards, his bronze at the olympics should be there.  There is only one infobox as well.  If there was a little box saying "his position is right wing" next to the text that says "his position is right wing", when the infobox says that, I'd say sure, get rid of it.  68.149.157.248 01:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I would rather have the medal box instead of the "team awards" table that's there now. If you look at Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Dominik Hasek, Mats Sundin, Nicklas Lidstrom, Peter Forsberg, Rob Blake, Igor Larionov, Joe Sakic, Mats Naslund, Scott Niedermayer, or any Olympic medalist or World Championship medalist in any sport, they have medal boxes, not a "team awards" table. I think the "team awards" table is a little confusing because it switches teams and tournaments constantly. Plus, I do not consider the NHL playoffs to be a tournament at all (Does anyone actually refer to it as the 'NHL tournament'?). --Muéro(talk/c) 05:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The playoffs are a tournament.  That's in the first sentance in their entry in Wikipedia.  NHL_Playoffs#Stanley_Cup_playoffs.  All tournaments the player played in and won an award in are listed in the box at the bottom of the page.  Rather than arguing (which I see you have a penchant for based on your edit history) for this box, why not apply the generic one that includes space for a wider range of information to the other player pages. 68.149.157.248 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the medal box needs to be returned and the Team Awards sections needs to be removed. First of all, it looks sloppy and is pretty much a mess and the Olympic Medal/World Championship box is pretty standard. I know i am a little over two years late on this issue, but i really think it should get changed ShipHockey22 (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Medal Box 

message: Now the question is ... who's going to add the comment from Wayne Gretzky, where he says that Ales Hemsky is the best player in the league?  Lord knows I can't, because even though I would cite Canoe, FoxSports, the Edmonton Journal, and the National Post, I would still be accused of writing POV because the Wings fan doesn't like it when nice things are said about the player who took out his team in last year's playoffs.  PS, I have almost collected all my links - expect a whole lotta cited material to be added by three months The strokes 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hemsky is getting too much praise in this article!!

message: Should this article mention the incident with Dallas Stars v Edmonton Oilers where the Stars Patrik Stefan misses from 2ft on an empty net and falling over, turning over the puck and creating the rush that gave Ales Hemsky his scoring opportunity? 132.205.93.89 04:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patrik Stefan Jan 4 2007 

message: Here's an article that has interviews with Hemsky and with coach Craig MacTavish about Hemsky, just in case anyone wants to add a source for MacTavish praising Hemsky (progress, maturity, etc) or Hemsky talking about his own play. Just remember to keep it NPOV! --Muéro(talk/c) 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Source - Interviews

message: I don't know where it would fit in this article but Hemsky is currently participating in the IIHF Inline Hockey World Championships for the Czech Republic and i think it should be included in the article. ShipHockey22 (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: International Inline Hockey

message: The debates on diacritics in tennis and ice hockey biographies are heated enough already. We don't need controversial closures from admins who have a strong opinion (, "this problem") that puts them firmly on one side of the dispute (WP:INVOLVED). Vegaswikian, your views on what constitutes an anglicized spelling, and your stretching of WP:COMMONNAME to cover common spellings, were clearly not supported by consensus here. You also ignored the part about inaccurate names (along with WP:NOT and WP:BLP). Prolog (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The closure

message: I have reassessed this article C class as I believe it fails one or more B-Class criteria (B1, B3). Cloudz679 09:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment as C class

message: As a recent entrant to this topic I thought I would paste this as I've taken it for granted that English language sports listings websites can't use Czech names. But guess what?
http://www.quanthockey.com/hockey-stats/en/profile.php?player=2394
In ictu oculi (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Note: An English-language hockey website that uses Czech name for Hemsky

message: Given Hemsky's individual performance at Sochi I suggest it is time to add  "who plays for the Czech national team, and" to the article lead. Or similar wording. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: He also won a gold medal with the team at the 2005 world championships, this is definitely a career-defining moment and deserves a mention in the lead. WP:LEAD says it should "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points" – there is no reasonable argument that representing a national team is not among the "most important points" for any sportsman. C679 05:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Playing on a national team is possibly one of the most defining aspects of a players career. So yes it most definitely belongs in the lead and follows WP:LEAD in that it summarizes the most important points and explains why the player is notable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Cloudz679 DJSasso thanks. Based on the above 2 comments and also User:Resolute's earlier comment I have added "in two Winter Olympics" to the lead. This may not be the most salient point, or best wording. Please wordsmith. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of playing for national team in lead?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aleš Hemský. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903222758/http://www.edmontonoilers.com/roster/hemsky_ales/ to http://www.edmontonoilers.com/roster/hemsky_ales/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622072933/http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=startribune&page=nhl%2Fscores%2Ffinal%2FW7005.htm to http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=startribune&page=nhl%2Fscores%2Ffinal%2FW7005.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141020064833/http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Ales%20Hemsky%20lands%20potentially%20great%20Dallas%20Stars%20situation/9991396/story.html to http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Ales%2BHemsky%2Blands%2Bpotentially%2Bgreat%2BDallas%2BStars%2Bsituation/9991396/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aleš Hemský. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041030231425/http://www.hockeysfuture.com/article.php?sid=2299 to http://hockeysfuture.com/article.php?sid=2299
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304214929/http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=73eb9dd8-0309-42ad-8de7-efef93613c59&sponsor= to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=73eb9dd8-0309-42ad-8de7-efef93613c59&sponsor=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified