Talk:Guy Lafleur
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ice Hockey, an attempt at building a useful ice hockey resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
Contents |
[edit] Name
Just in case people wonder, I moved the page from "Guy LaFleur" to "Guy Lafleur" because, in the French language, in Quebec or France, names like "Lafleur" do not take a second capital letter. Despite the fact that it seems widespread (probably based on the celtic Mc and Mac), the American custom of putting a second majuscule on the name of Franco-Americans, people with Quebecois descent, is not correct, at least not in the original French speaking context. --Liberlogos 00:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Article seems to have partiality problems
Hey there, sorry to do this anonymously but this is the first time I've ever made one of these comments. I was reading this article was troubled by some comments and lack of professionalism. For example, from the introduction "one of the greatest and most popular players ever to play professional ice hockey"; I just read the Gretzky article and the contributor there (eventually) admirably refrained from making hyperbolic comment like this.
- Well then maybe you should add that "hyperbolic" comment to the Gretzky page too. That fact is... A fact, at the opposite side of whatever mathematical slope you'd like it to take. Guy Lafleur was the best player of the 70's, the first one to score 50+ goals during many years in a row. He broke numerous NHL records, until Gretzky The Great One came in town... ;-). No offence, but this should be an encyclopedia, it is neither some stats magazine nor an editorial article trying to revision history towards the taste of the day... HawkFest
This also sets the tone for the rest of the article, with "he played with a thrilling style that marked him out as the most exciting professional hockey player of his era and, arguably, of all time". I think you guys call this a POV problem, implying that the author's Point Of View is interfering with imparting a neutral tone. Even if it's not, the subjectiveness of the statement makes it nearly impossible to prove one way or another. I would suggest either mediating the enthusiasm of these lines or simply removing them entirely.
- Well imho you're right : though I know for them to be true to reality, the article should illustrate its statements, or at least give some reference. On the other hand, the wording is quite clear : one of the best is a truth, and the most exciting professional hockey player of his era is also perfectly true, this is not some POV : stats are there to illustrate these facts with numbers, and myriads of different sources of articles, books, etc., can undeniably support these attributes. The same goes for Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard. Note : correct me if I am wrong, but I guess you didn't have the chance to witness Lafleur's play during the 70's, else you would've not write what you wrote. HawkFest
-
- The problem is the word "exciting". Unless "exciting" has some technical definition in hockey that I'm not aware of that's fairly objective, this is CLEARLY POV. If you can get people at the time who were calling him that, then you can make the statement "Observers at the time called him the most exciting player [citation]". 21:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The statistical and historical breakdown is fine, I have no problem with that, and for the most part it's a good, descriptive article.
In terms of lack of professionalism I think the line "he borrowed it for the weekend without telling anyone to show his friends back home in Thurso where he set it out on his front lawn for all his neighbors to see!" is at fault. I'm trying to think of any cases in an encyclopedia that would require an exclamation mark (outside of a quote) and can't think of a single one. Would remove the bang and potentially reword the sentence so it's a bit less admiring.
- I understand what you mean now : admiring does the job :). You're right, it looks like a newspaper article the day after a victory, or like a tabloïd biography... I think that modifying some details here and there would do the job (like exclamation marks, or the fact of not writing as an objective outsider who would simply depict how people adulated one individual, and why)...HawkFest
One last thing that someone might consider adding is Guy's attempts to re-enter the public consciousness with endorsements (some kind of juice) and maybe mention the "flower power" phenomenon.
- That would be interesting, though much more subjective than just writing that one of the most exciting players ever to play hockey was one of the most exciting players ever to play hockey... HawkFest
-
- How'd that be subjective? If it simply was a phenomenon, even a phenomenon people disagree on, then it's fine. 65.98.205.92 (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the punctuation issue is correct. Exclamation marks experience very little use in academic or objective writing. It is, however, difficult to discuss an athlete bearing such accomplishment without being a bit subjective. Perhaps a reasonable solution is to change "one of the best" to "considered by many to be one of the best" or "the most exciting professional hockey player of his era" to "many fans praised Lafleur as the most exciting player of his era," or whatnot. As much as I love Guy Lafleur, I retain enough rationality to realize that statements like "one of the best" or "the most exciting" are not facts. They are arguments. I certainly believe those statements to be true, but I'm sure many people would argue that Bobby Orr was the most exciting player of that era, or, in Lafleur's later years, Wayne Gretzky. Again, I would agree with those arguments supporting Lafleur, but I would never call them facts. It is a fact, on the other hand, that many people consider him one of the best players ever, so simply altering the statements in question in that nature will solve this problem.MikeFlynn 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Uh try reading the source already cited on the page: "Known as one of the greatest right wingers ever to play the game and one of the most exciting offensive players of all time" -- Legends of Hockey This article's tone could be improved but it's not a POV battleground so I'll remove the tag. Canuckle (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:GuyLafleur-bookcover.jpg
Image:GuyLafleur-bookcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citations & References
See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
