Talk:Summit Series

message: 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)
thread_title: Recurring vandalism by 47.55.11.184 (talk)

message: 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)
thread_title:  CBC Movie 

message: Just thought I would add that the office title of the series was the friendship series--Mrebus 16:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean official title? Do you have a Source? Kevlar67 22:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office tittle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Goal Heard Around The World 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes for "The Games" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Game 7 

message: 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)
thread_title: Assessment

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Game 8 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Referring to Sweden and Czech games as "exhibition" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Legacy Quote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  slash/controversy etc. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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 (). There's an official website, but it's difficult to make sense of the schedule of games and who's exactly involved (). 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Legends 

message: 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)
thread_title:   "Height" of the Cold War?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gordie Howe was retired 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Game 8: Exactly when did the third period start? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Soviet TV coverage