Talk:Richard Riot

message: *I've never known about this. This is a great story for all hockey fans to read, If only other teams fans cared half as much about their teams.....
___
Well fans are better off not caring so much about their teams if they're going to do what those people did. $500,000 damage to the neighbourhood? Looting stores within a 15 block radius? Whether or not the ruling was unfair, the residents in that community were NOT responsible for what the NHL officials decided. 24.65.136.162 (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: ... don't edit at all.  The following is the verbatim summary of the official inquiry into the incident, submitted at the March 16, 1955, hearing:
"Around the 14:00 of the third period when Boston was a man short, the Canadien goalkeeper was removed in favour of a sixth forward.  Richard skated past Laycoe who high-sticked him on the head.  Referee Udvari signalled a penalty to Laycoe but permitted play to continue as Canadiens were still in possession of the puck.  Richard skated around the Boston goal and almost to the blueline when the whistle blew.  Richard rubbed his hand on his head and indicated to the referee that he had been injured.  Suddenly he skated towards Laycoe, who had dropped his stick and gloves, and swinging his stick up with both hands he struck Laycoe a blow on shoulder and face.  The linesmen grabbed the two players and Richard's stick was taken away from him.  Richard broke away from linesman Thompson and picking up a loose stick again attacked Laycoe, striking him over the back ahd breaking the stick.  The linesman seized Richard but he gort away and seizing another stick, attacked Laycoe for the third time hitting him on the back.  Linesman Thompson seized Richard once more and forcing him to the ice held him there until a Canadien player pushed Thompson away and Richard regained his feet.  Richard then struck Thompson two hard blows in the face which raised a swelling.  Richard was finally brought under control and taken to the first aid room where several stitches were required to close a cut on the side of his head.  Referee Udvari gave Richard a match penalty for deliberately injuring Laycoe and Laycoe was given a major penalty.  Laycoe was ordered to take his place on the penalty bench and when he failed to do so, the referee gave him a ten-minute misconduct penalty.  Laycoe claimed that he had been hit first on the glasses that he wore and that he retaliated with the high stick.  Richard said he thought linesman Thompson was one of the Boston players."
- Trail of the Stanley Cup, Vol III., Charles Coleman, p. 252-253 
There's revisionist history, and there are downright lies, and that's what was put in the article.  Ravenswing 05:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you don't care enough to get the story right ... 

message: I tried reading this article and it used a lot of hockey terms I dont know the meaning to.  It also uses nicknames of which i have no idea who it is reffering to.  Someone needs to fix this article so that when someone reads it, if they have no experience with hockey knows what it is talking about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.1.247 (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a great many articles on Wikipedia requiring some technical knowledge to understand.    Ravenswing  02:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't know what your talking about! 

message: I do not believe that this edit implies that Richard provoked the riot. The current caption is somewhat circular and not very illuminating; it is more useful to give an indication of why the riot is known as the Richard riot. I prefer an alternate wording that helps shed some light on the situation. Any suggestions? Isaac Lin (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "The suspension of Maurice Richard eventually led to the riot."? Or something in that general direction? "Maurice Richard's suspension eventually led to the riot."? Maxim(talk) 02:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Truth be told, there's a straightforward way to learn why the riot is known as the "Richard riot" - read the article. Compelling the caption to do it makes very little sense.  Suggesting that Richard provoked the riot or that his suspension "led" to it has an air of inevitability that is speculative.  Many players - even other Quebecois players in that time period - have been suspended without a riot ensuing.   Ravenswing  04:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose this is a situation where the KISS principle takes over, instead of trying to be overly specific.--Mo Rock...Monstrous  (leech44) 04:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I disagree that it makes little sense. I am sympathetic to calls for people to read articles (I have seen an argument on adding more description to a hatnote, even though the result was essentially a repetition of the first sentence of the article), but I think a concise note summarizing Richard's relationship to the riot is reasonable, to identify the importance of having the photo present in the article. I also disagree that an air of inevitability is being given; it is just a matter of the chronological timeline. Richard's action is the starting point of events. The 1993 Stanley Cup Riot was not an inevitable result of the 1993 Stanley Cup victory, but nonetheless the outcome of the 1993 finals triggered the riot. isaacl (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo caption 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Clarence Campbell Stanley Cup 1957.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Richard Riot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080514002345/http://www.civilization.ca:80/media/docs/fsrck01e.html to http://www.civilization.ca/media/docs/fsrck01e.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding this edit: Can someone with access to the sources for the sentence in question examine if the terms majority and minority were being used in context of Quebec or Canada? isaacl (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  majority vs minority 

message: Another issue to ponder: the terms "French Canadian" and "English Canadian" seem a little grotty today. In one sense they're inaccurate; for example, one might be led to assume that "English" Canadians are from England, or at least of English descent, whereas in fact that's a laughable assumption. (Clarence Campbell, to name one, was a Scottish Canadian, but somehow also an "English Canadian" in the article.) The same contradictions plague the term "French" Canadian. They also just sound like something my grandparents would say. Current style is "francophone" and "anglophone" - terms that cut to the chase and avoid irrelevant assumptions. Perhaps we should update those terms in the article. Laodah 19:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Pursuant to the above