Talk:Lionel Hitchman

message: ... up to a solid B, anyway.   Ravenswing   10:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup I would concur. -DJSasso (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: There ...

message: Lead states he was the first to be retired, but body says second to Bailey. First source is off line. What's the story here? Echoedmyron (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot to change that.  Bailey's number was retired on February 14, 1934.  Hitchman's was retired 8 days later on February 22.  I just fixed that.  108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

text: And for that matter, not sure why Phoenix was brought up here by the IP, no one was talking about Phoenix or Bobby Hull. Just Bailey and Hitchman. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just comparing the Ace Bailey case with the Bobby Hull one.  Both were temporarily unretired.  I think it is valid.  Would you say Thomas Steen's #25 was the first to be permanently retired by the original Jets/Coyotes, or would you say Bobby Hull's #9 was?  108.0.244.168 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter when the number was retired. If someone's number was retired in 1930, years before Bailey or Hitchman, and later the number was un-retired, the number would no longer be considered permanently retired. Because retired numbers are known for being permanently retired, not just simply retired, I do not consider Bailey's number to be the first valid permanently retired number. His number was the first to undergo a retirement, but it was not the first permanent retirement that we consider retired numbers to be today. It did hold that distinction up until 1968, when it became un-retired. By your example, Steen's number 25 is the first permanently retired number by the Jets/Coyotes, as Bobby Hull's number was un-retired later on. Hull's number was the first to be retired by the Jets/Coyotes, but not permanently retired. Do you understand my meaning? Like I said, Hitchman's has long been considered the first number to be permanently retired, not Bailey. I think you are confusing a retired number with a retired jersey. There is a difference. Bailey may have been the first to have his jersey retired (along with his number) but because his number was not permanently retired, it only considered a retired jersey. Hitchman's number has never been used, thus his is considered a permanently retired number. Mushh94 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I find the argument about "permanently retired" to be pedantic.  It is a citable fact that Bailey was the first retired number in NHL history.  That he gave someone else permission to use his number later does not change this fact. Please show me reliable sources that make the "permanently retired" statement.  As it stands, 108.0's argument is factually correct, while your statement is not sourced.  Regardless of the status of the statements on this particular article, I have serious problems with your edits to articles such as List of NHL retired numbers, where Bailey's retirement is far more historically significant and important than splitting hairs over "permanently".  Resolute 01:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though Bailey and Hull's numbers were not "permanently retired", they were only temporarily unretired because the ones who had their numbers retired gave other players permission just for them to wear their numbers, which were still considered to be retired by the respective teams.  It is hard to tell whether one with a retired number may give someone permission to wear it in the future.  The term "permanently retired number" is hard to predict and doesn't mean much if the retired player gives an active player permission.  I suspect Mussh94's statements are not from a neutral point of view, as he says he is an avid Bruins fan.  His edits have also had several misspellings.  I don't even follow the Bruins or Maple Leafs.  108.0.244.168 (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, there is a distinct difference between a retired number and a retired jersey. Once a number is used after it has been retired, it doesn't matter if there are special permissions or a "temporary" un-retirment, it is no longer permanently retired. The permanent aspect of a retired number is the whole point behind it. Once is not permanent, it no longer is a retired number, it becomes a retired jersey. Because more than one person has worn the number, there needs to be disambiguation of the multiple users. Say, Toronto decided to retire Ron Ellis' 6. The number 6 would not be a retired number, because there are two 6's. There would be two retired jerseys, one 6 for Bailey, and one for Ellis. Think of it this way, once someone has taken bite on apple, it is done, you cannot put the piece back. Once someone, anyone, permission or not, has worn a retired number, it ceases to be a retired number. It can be re-retired later on, but it not limited to the one player. That is the definition of a retired number, one number, one player. I'm sorry, but I don't have sources that explicitly state this. This is common knowledge. Yes, I am Bruins fan, so I am not impartial, but I can tell you, I really don't care about who was first retired. All I know is that it has been a long standing fact that Lionel Hitchman was the first player to have his number permanently retired, and I am trying to prove to you why. If it was so cut and dry and clear, why was Bailey not originally listed as the first to be retired for such a long time? Mushh94 (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please show reliable sources to support your position.  Until we have those in hand, this argument really cannot move forward from your perspective.  Again, we can state, objectively and with sources, that Bailey was the first player to have his number retired.  Right now, the only claims we can make regarding Hitchman require subjectivity (semantically adding "permanently" so as to disqualify Bailey) and lack RS support. Resolute 18:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Have to agree with Resolute here. We can objectively see that his number was retired first. All sources I have ever seen refer to him as having his retired first. Whether or not it was later used by someone doesn't change the fact that his was retired first. It just means it was un-retired for a bit at a later time, but it was still the first to be retired. This isn't even bringing in the fact that a retired jersey is the exact same thing as a retired number as the terms are used interchangeably. Again without significant sources that reference your position, then there isn't really much to discuss here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Here is a source for Bailey's being the first and here is another one.  I found 2 more reliable sources to support my argument.  How can I resolve this dispute without edit warring?   108.0.244.168 (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just leave it as-is for now.  We can give it a short bit of time to resolve the issue.  If Mushh94 can provide some sources for their position, we can then look to form a consensus on what is proper, how it should be worded, etc., and then update. If not, consensus so far suggests what the end result will be.  Thanks, Resolute 19:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright fine. I don't see any way to convince you so I will not argue any longer after this. I will say this though. I acknowledge the fact that Bailey was retired first. However, my problem with this is that because his number was later used, it renders the number's retirement inert. You would agree that Bailey's number was retired from 1934-1968, and then 1981-present, correct? Now, say a player in 1920 retired and his number was not used in respect of the performance of the player. In 1930, 10 years later, someone else uses the former number. You would not consider the number retired, correct? It is no longer prevented from being in use. This is same argument for Bailey. 10 years or 34 years, the difference is none. Bailey's number was later used. The "retirement" of the number ended. It was later re-retired in 1981, but 1981 should be considered the begging of a new retirement, not a continuation of the old one. Would you say Brett Farve began his retirement in 2008? No, because he came back and played in 2009. His retirement officially began in 2011. The same with Bailey's number. Its retirement did not start in 1934, because it came back and was used in 1968. The retirement of the number 6 began in 1981. This is why I am trying to stress the permanent nature of retired numbers. Once a number is no longer a permanently retired number, it loses its value as a retired number. I hope I am making sense... In any case, if you still don't like what I've said, tell me this. Why, for so long, was Hitchman known as the first retired player? When the Bruins page was written, why was Hitchman listed, and not Bailey? The page is reputable and has been reviewed many times, I would imagine. The events happened long before Wikipedia ever existed. So why has no one come forward with this before? Bailey's retirement is not new information just discovered, it is as old as Hitchman's. So again, why was Hitchman listed here for so long? Just explain to me that, and I will be happy.Mushh94 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: When teams temporarily unretire a number when a player gets permission from the one the number it was retired for, they just decide to recognize the original retirement as the only retirement.  When the player who later wears it leaves the team and the number goes back into retirement, teams decide not to officially recognize this as a separate number retirement; they only officially recognize the original retirement date when a number goes back into retirement.  Hitchman's was listed for this long and because nobody has noticed it until recently.  It is because a few lines in the article have been overlooked.  Because of oversight, it took a long time for someone to come forward and fix this. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  Because often times, we simply write down things we know, even if they aren't necessarily accurate.  The main NHL article noted for several years that Montreal had the most NHL championships with 24.  Someone eventually challenged that, claiming that it was actually 23.  I then realized that both arguments were wrong, and it is 25.  The Canadiens have 24 Stanley Cups, so everyone just assumed that they therefore had 24 NHL titles.  The first person argued that they won only 23 Stanley Cups in the NHL, therefore that was the correct answer. But Montreal also won two NHL championships in years they failed to win the Stanley Cup.  So the existence of something for years does not make it correct.    However, that is not to say that your argument about Hitchman is necessarily incorrect, and this does not have to be a false dichotomy.  There may be room to mention both in some articles.  But we need reliable sources to go down that route. In my admittedly brief Google search, I really only saw Wikipedia mirrors and Hockeybuzz saying this.  Neither come close to being RSes. Resolute 02:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. I can see where I am error. Just be sure to mention that Hitchman's is the longest standing retired number, whereas Bailey's was the earliest. Also, I realize that people can make mistakes and that is why something might have been overlooked on Wikipedia, but from experience outside of the Internet, I know that Hitchman has been considered by many to be the first for one reason or another. Like I said, if it was clear, there wouldn't be a dispute. Mushh94 (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired number