Talk:Hockey Hall of Fame/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

redundant pages??

Is the International Hockey Hall of Fame different than the Hockey Hall of Fame? Kevin Rector 22:05, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the International Hockey Hall of Fame is different. It is in Kingston, and is much smaller. There are two completely different and unaffiliated places.

Mention of the Future

I was wondering if I should add some sort of mention of the future of the Hall of Fame, because there are dozens of legends who will be inducted in the next few years. I'd only mention the ones who are guaranteed, so it really wouldn't be speculation. These players are: Patrick Roy, Doug Gilmour, Pavel Bure, Mark Messier, Ron Francis, Scott Stevens, Al MacInnis, Igor Larianov, Brett Hull and Steve Yzerman (He'll likely retire at the end of the season). I just I'd see what others thought first. ~Scorpion0422

I think it would be worth including, but it still is speculation. If one of those people does something stupid such as with Pete Rose, they may not get into the HHOF. I would phrase it along the lines of "leading canditates to be inducted in <a given year> include". However, I would stop short of suggesting when people will retire if they have not yet made that declaration. -- JamesTeterenko 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Pure speculation; given the limits on how many players get inducted a year, it's by no means certain that Larionov or Bure will get in, for instance, and Gilmour isn't a certain lock. It's certainly fodder for blogs and discussion sites (heck, six years ago I did a couple articles on the subject myself for LCS and Trolleytracks), but not for an encyclopedia. RGTraynor 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Gilmour is a lock, Bure has a SMALL chance of not making it, and Igor Larionov will make it because of his success in Russia, and internationally. Most hockey experts agree that they will make it. It's not like I'm saying that someone will little to no chance will make it, like Rick Tocchet or Ziggy Palffy. ~Scorpion0422
Sorry, but if you take a genuine survey of the players who will become eligible in the next twenty years and the number of players who are actually inducted, there are far fewer certainties than you'd think. In any event, this is all extremely speculative; Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. I've reverted the section, although perhaps the debate about Paul Henderson's merit as an honouree should be retained as noteworthy. RGTraynor 07:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Numbers game: consider that the league inducts no more than three players a year, and not always that many.

Now consider the following list of players who've recently retired and those who will within the next handful of years: Andreychuk, Yzerman, Francis, Messier, Gilmour, Robitaille, Damphousse, Shanahan, Oates, Hull, Recchi, Sakic, Modano, Roenick, Jagr, Selanne, Bondra, Larionov, Mogilny, Tkachuk, Fleury, Roberts, LeClair, Verbeek, Lindros, Fedorov, Bure, Forsberg, Turgeon, Tocchet, Nieuwendyk, Brind'Amour, Suter, Chelios, Stevens, Housley, MacInnis, Leetch, Desjardins, Numminen, Roy, Belfour, Joseph, Brodeur, Richter, VBK ... That's nearly fifty names, and I haven't even mentioned genuine dark horses like Dale Hunter, players that should have already been put in like Bernie Nicholls or Mark Howe, or guys like Claude Lemieux whom the HHOF traditionally likes to induct every ten years. Cases can and have been made for all of these fellows. Heck, people get passionate over Paul Henderson, who if he hadn't scored the winning goal in the Summit Series would have been long forgotten and whose only other particular claim to fame was that he led the Leafs in goals one season. Before you declare any one player a certainty to make the HHOF, ask yourself this: how many of the players listed above would you exclude to put him in? RGTraynor 17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's four per year. And, this is not about debating. I'm only mentioning that there are a lot of players to induct within the next few years, and rather than listing EVERY player with a small chance, I just listed the guarantees out of the players who are already retired. ~Scorpion0422
The HHOF has inducted four modern-day players only once in the last generation; in the last dozen years, they've inducted 28 in all, out of which five were oldtimers picked by the Veterans' Committee. Of course it's debatable -- we are disagreeing on your picks, aren't we? -- as well as speculative, and on both grounds ineligible for inclusion in the article. Try this based on recent voting patterns: out of the list I give above, about twenty-five will go in over the next dozen years. Are there twenty names there you would exclude to put Bure in? RGTraynor 19:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well get used to seeing four, because it's gonna happen a couple times in the next few years. And, Pavel Bure will get in, thanks to the Bobby Orr question: What could he have done if not injured, and his contributions in Russia. I think we should make some mention of what will LIKELY happen in the future. ~Scorpion0422
Wikipedia still isn't a crystal ball, and POV-based surmises that (for instance) the HHOF will suddenly start admitting four players a year because you think they ought to do it aren't allowed. It's far more likely that, following the highest scoring era in the game's history, 400-goal and 1000-point scorers will fail to make the Hall in droves. But that's likewise just opinion, and equally ineligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. RGTraynor 15:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sick of this argument. Speculation isn't always bad. It listed the possibilities for 2006 induction and all the favourites. Parick Roy WILL be inducted. Doug Gilmour will PROBABLY be inducted, and Bure, Richter, Ciccarelli and Anderson all have an outside shot. I don't see what's wrong with that. Sure, it's speculation, but it's educated speculation. As a student who has had to research such things, I can tell you that a lot of people appreciate insight into future inductees. Besides, if speculation is so evil, I'd better go delete all those Olympics pages that ponder where future Olympics will go. By the way, the article you keep on citing supports me. It's not like I'm speculating for 2045. The inductions will happen in 2 months. ~Scorpion0422

Allow me to quote, then: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not ... It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis, because of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research." I'll be reverting some of the more POV bits of that Future Inductees' section. Anything other than first-ballot unanimous players (Roy, Yzerman, MacInnis), let's see some sources in place of personal opinion. RGTraynor 06:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Alright, if the neutrality of that section is being disputed, what are the grounds? RGTraynor 22:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Statements such as If Henderson were inducted, it would only be because of this goal, because although his NHL numbers were solid (236 goals and 477 points in 707 career NHL games), they are not close to a caliber normally associated with HHOF inductees. It has led to many debates among hockey fans, because although his performance in the Summit Series has made him one of the most well known names in hockey, fans feel that it is not right to honour a player's entire career because of one highlight.

While the numbers may say quite alot, it seems to myself at least, that that entire paragraph is a personal idea(l). The fans are quoted as debating, yet the writer may not be unbiased in that aspect...what is your opinion? Jmlk17 00:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It would only be because of that goal; there are any number of other players from that era with comparable numbers and careers to Henderson's who don't have fan bases pushing HHOF candidacies. No forward in NHL history who never led the league in anything, never was higher than third on his own team in scoring, never was named to a season-ending All-Star squad and never won a Stanley Cup ring has been elected to the HHOF. For that section to earn a NPOV tag, it needs to have disputed content, and no Henderson-backer I've ever seen has claimed that his career numbers are stand-alone enough for HHOF membership. RGTraynor 14:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Henderson should be mentioned because there HAVE been many debates over him. There are a lot of columns about him too, search Slam! Sports and you'll find some. Besides, I wrote the statement and I do think he should make it. But, I kept in line with the general feeling of fans. I think this is as neutral as it can be while still presenting general opinion. It's not like it says "Paul Henderson should never make the hall of fame" or something. ~Scorpion0422
I quite agree, and I'm obviously very firmly in the anti-Henderson camp. Nevertheless, his candidacy is a prominent HHOF controversy and ought to be included in the section. RGTraynor 15:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
So if there are no further comments or debates, can I remove the NPOV tag? ~Scorpion0422
Works for me. RGTraynor 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"NHL Hockey Hall of Fame"

To quote from my talk page: "I reverted your edtis that reverted my edits, the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto is the NHL Hockey Hall of Fame. It was established by the NHL in 1961 not 1943, it has been to this day operated by the NHL. I see you are a member of the Society for International Hockey Research. You can check with them." --JohnnyCanuck 15:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't need to do so. By whom the HHOF was founded and operated is irrelevant; the name of the institution has, and always has been, the "Hockey Hall of Fame". Any other name someone might claim for it is inaccurate on the face of it. As far as Johnny's other claims, I'd surely love to see some sources for them, other than POV-ridden defense of the International Hockey Hall of Fame, in which article Johnny seems heavily invested, given the length edit and counteredit histories and summaries. I'll be reverting pending those sources. RGTraynor 15:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is called Hockey Hall of Fame.... it says it in the emblem and it even says it in the NHL Official Guide & Record Book and in the many times I've heard it referred to anywhere, it is always Hockey Hall of Fame. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 16:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

just to clarify, I know people have referred to it as just the "Hockey Hall of Fame" but that does not make it correct. People referred to the International Hockey Hall of Fame as just the Hockey Hall of Fame like Don Cherry many times on Hockey Night in Canada, others have referred to the United States Hockey Hall of Fame as just the Hockey Hall of Fame like Sports Illustrated The NHL Official Guide and Record Book itself is POV and incorrect in many ways.--JohnnyCanuck 18:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

And ... those sources are supposed to solve anything? The IHHOF description plainly goes over what happened; the original building was in Kingston, the NHL establishment wanted to move it to Toronto, the locals didn't want to play ball, so the NHL up and did it anyway. What is still behind in Kingston is an interesting museum, nothing more, and it's notable that with the sole exception of Busher Jackson (must have been some stone Leafs fans amongst the locals), not a single new player has been admitted to the IHHOF since 1952. Based on that rationale, Springfield College should claim to have the "real" Basketball Hall of Fame, because it was originally housed on its campus, and the powers-that-be brutally and unilaterally moved it to downtown Springfield. Charles Coleman's account doesn't even mention this purported split-up. Nothing in these sources support this POV-ridden minority position, and these changes should be reverted until and unless Johnny (a) comes up with factual evidence of the corporate name of the HHOF contradicting known fact, and (b) gets some consensus around his POV. RGTraynor 17:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all it is called the NHL Hockey Hall of Fame although they dropped the NHL part from any logos and PR material in the 1970’s when the WHA was challenging the NHL and wanted to appear that the (NHL) Hockey Hall of Fame was not endorsing the WHA. Let me ask you, what year was the (NHL) Hockey Hall of Fame located in Toronto founded? Definitely was not 1943, could be 1958 or 1961, some might even say 1983 when they incorporated as an independent entity from the NHL and even some others might even go as far as saying 1993 when they first moved in to the location that was not sharing the building with the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame. Another question when was their first inductions? --JohnnyCanuck 18:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

You first; we've been asking for your factual evidence, and have received squat so far. That being said, I've a stack of 1960s NHL Guides that say "Hockey Hall of Fame" and nothing else. Where's your proof? (And given that you're systematically changing a raft of players against known fact, this is getting into RfC country at the very least.) RGTraynor 03:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Canuck, please cite some sources for your edits. You are reverting a lot of different people, but you are not giving any references for your edits. -- JamesTeterenko 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Below are some sources. RGTraynor, Most NHL guides after 1958 are factual incorrect and/or give misleading information. Look for guides prior to 1958 as this is the year that the NHL seized support for the IHHOF to establish their own HHOF You mention in your user page you have some involvment with the Society for International Hockey Research, please check with them, they will confirm this. Right now you could check the International Hockey Hall of Fame’s website http://www.ihhof.com http://www.ihhof.com/about.htm there is also some info. confirming this on the Ontario Hockey Association website (near the bottom of the page) http://www.ohahockey.org/playoffs/b/jrb.htm Here’s another link to the NHL sponsored Hockey Hall of Fame page saying that they were incorporated in 1983 http://www.hhof.com/html/gi200.shtml --JohnnyCanuck 05:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, some NHL guides and books prior to the early 1970's refer to the Toronto based hall of fame as the NHL Hockey Hall of Fame. --JohnnyCanuck 05:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link to the official New York Rangers website that refers it as the NHL Hockey Hall of Fame http://www.newyorkrangers.com/tradition/halloffame.asp (look right at the bottom of the page in small writing)--JohnnyCanuck 05:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's anothe link to the offical NHL website that refers ot as the NHL Hockey Hall of Fame http://www.nhl.com/news/2005/08/233794.html (about half way into the article)--JohnnyCanuck 05:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Note the policy on article naming states that, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Even if historically they did call it the NHL HHOF, that is not how the majority of English speakers would know it. -- JamesTeterenko 17:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Among other things. First off, I will cheerfully concede that yes, an entity by the name of "Hockey Hall of Fame and Museum" was incorporated in 1983, however much that factoid is completely irrelevant. But beyond that, I've a passage to quote from hockey's pioneering historian, Charles Coleman, in Trail of the Stanley Cup (Vol II, p. 1947): "The original site proposed for a Hockey Hall of Fame was at Kingston, Ont., and considerable work was done in this direction by the late James T. Sutherland. Eventually, it was decided that a more desirable arrangement would be to combine the Hockey Hall of Fame and a proposed Sports Hall of Fame in one building to be constructed on the Canadian National Exhibition Grounds in Toronto."
"Accordingly, representatives of the CNE Board, the City of Toronto, the National Hockey League and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association met, and agreement was reached to construct a building on a site provided by Toronto." No mention of an "International Hockey Hall of Fame" was made. Now I can understand a crusade for revisionist history, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and trying to claim that every Honoured Member before 1962 is not a member of the "Hockey Hall of Fame" but of the "International HHOF" verges right on the cusp of WP:POINT -- and frankly, his creation of a raft of HHOF pages to link to the NHL pages crosses it, IMHO. That Johnny can find three "NHL Hockey Hall of Fame" webviews in the over one million G-hits for "Hockey Hall of Fame" is to be expected, but it doesn't change that a bunch of fringe fanatics in Kingston do not remotely come close to hockey-wide consensus for their revisionist stance, and should not prevail here. RGTraynor 22:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: There are 450,000 Google hits for "Hockey Hall of Fame" excluding NHL as a search term. There are exactly 169 unique hits for "NHL Hockey Hall of Fame", and the second one is Johnny's revision of the IHHOF Wikipedia article. "International Hockey Hall of Fame" has 208 unique hits, and most of the lead ones are of the Wikipedia article and mirrors. RGTraynor 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

With all do respect to everyone, I think it should be identified as either the NHL Hockey Hall of Fame or NHL sponsored Hockey Hall of Fame or even “NHL Hall of Fame” when you google NHL Hall of Fame there is over 29,000 hits. Comparing this to the Baseball Hall of Fame you will notice it is identified by there correct name The National Baseball Hall of Fame in the wiki article even though almost everyone refers to it as just the baseball hall of fame, it should be no different with the Hockey Hall of Fame. When you google the "Baseball Hall of Fame" there is over 3,200,000 hits, when you google "National Baseball Hall of Fame" there is just over 360,000 hits. Infact it makes more sense to make sure the Hockey Hall of fame is identified correctly (with NHL) because of the controversy with the different Hockey hall of fame’s than the baseball hall of fame where there is no controversy. --69.156.148.239 09:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

To have a "controversy," you should have generally acknowledged POVs held by wide slices of the public. This is not one; not one hockey fan in a thousand realizes there even is an "International Hockey Hall of Fame" separate and distinct from the one about which they all know. For one, in contrast to the Baseball HOF, Johnny himself admits that the legal, corporate name of the HHOF is, in fact, the Hockey Hall of Fame, and calling it something else on Wikipedia merely because he wants it to be called that is in violation of WP:NOT. For another, this isn't a case of the Kingston building predating the Toronto one; it wasn't built until four years after the CNE one.
For a third, we are still waiting for sources. I'm disinterested in exhortations to have SIHR tell me the scoop, or in reading wording from the IHHOF website that isn't actually there; I would like to know what evidence you have to back this tale up. Newspaper articles? Books? Any genuine citation, web or otherwise? Right now all I see is that there was an original plan to raise the building in Kingston, and the NHL changed its mind and raised the building in Toronto instead, but that's no more of a "controversy" than when the Hall moved from its old CNE grounds to the new building or when the Basketball Hall of Fame moved from the Springfield College grounds four miles west. RGTraynor 13:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm with RGTraynor and James Tetarenko on this one. It is most definitely the Hockey Hall of Fame. And JohnnyCanuck, don't throw your opinion into editing in the mainspace as you did with the Eddie Shore and Nels Stewart articles and many more. That is certainly disappointing to see and all those edits have now been reverted. Until you can prove against the consensus, stay out of the mainspace with those kind of edits. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe just have a redirect from "NHL Hockey Hall of Fame", but it's dumb to change the name because although the majority of inductees are from the NHL, there are several non-NHLers, as well as players from before the NHL was formed. Besides, the advertised name is "Hockey Hall of Fame" anyway, so just leave it. ~Scorpion0422
A redirect can't hurt; after all, part of the point of redirects is to steer people who don't get the name quite right. RGTraynor 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hockey Canada / Women candidates

First off, the links should end any dispute about Hockey Canada's relationship with the HHOF; I'd just hope that any editors who have a contrary assertion to make on the issue might come with evidence next time out.

Secondly, any putative candidacies of particular women players (or whether female players are worthy of induction at all) are of course POV -- although I note that HockeyHistorian had no objection when including his own candidates to the mix. That the induction of female stars is a controversial issue is, however, not POV, when mentioned in the Controversies section, one would think. RGTraynor 02:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hockey Canada was a sponsor in 1961 (known then as CAHA) but they are no longer a sponsor and has not been from many many years. Please let me know how you justify that the thre recent women hockey players are the "first wave " of women hockey players. Heaney as the far and away best female hockey player of all time being compared to Orr or Gretzky has been the topic of dicussion for years.--HockeyHistorian 11:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, plainly Hockey Canada disagrees with you, as per their own website. Evidence to the contrary, please? As far as your "frontrunner" assertions go, you must provide some basis for the assertion other than your personal claim for it. RGTraynor 17:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Geraldine Heaney will unquestionably be the first female player inducted, its just a matter of time before they do induct a female player. I don't know about Susan Fenell though, I would say she is a long shot at best anytime in the next few years. Maybe if the NWHL becomes more recognizable as a top pro league, it may improve her chances in the builders catagory although she is a long shot. However, I would agree that she would be the frontrunner in the builders catagory only because there isn't many women that even come to mind for this catagory.--JohnnyCanuck 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but we probably won't see women inducted into the Players Category for a LONG time. MAYBE we'll see one or two inducted as builders but that's also not likely. But we should mention about womens hockey because that WILL be a big issue, especially when Wickenheiser retires. Not because she's the first deserving female hockey player, but because she's the one of the most famous and there will be a lot of support for her. ~Scorpion0422

Pretty much. Considering that the Basketball Hall of Fame -- in a sport with decades of lineage of top-flight women's collegiate teams and a hall far ahead of the HHOF in inducting college and international players -- has inducted all of eight women, it's outrageously premature to cite anyone in particular as being a "frontrunner." There might not be a woman inducted for another couple decades, at which time who knows what future stars might have emerged? Besides which, Scorpion's quite right: given the HHOF's record (Clark Gillies??) there's no assurance that a supposed #1 woman's going to be the first pick. RGTraynor 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 Inductees

With the 2006 class being announced soon (next week I think), I was wondering who the various people here think will make it. I'm thinking Patrick Roy, Doug Gilmour and Pavel Bure. But I REALLY want Dino Cicerelli inducted. On the builders side I'm thinking Herb Brooks will make it. I realize this has little to do with the article, but I was curious. ~Scorpion0422

Who should be inducted, or who will be inducted? Other than Roy, I doubt anyone would make both of everyone's lists. I agree on Brooks, but picking Builders is always a crapshoot; he could get in now or twenty years from now. My own "should" list includes Mark Howe, for instance, but it's safe to say he's not getting support in the foreseeable future. Gilmour's a good bet -- being a popular, scrappy player whose best days were in Toronto -- but he wouldn't get in (yet) if he'd played out his career in Calgary or St. Louis. RGTraynor 01:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
What do you think Dino Cicerelli and Glenn Anderson's chances are? I think they should make it, especially considering that players like Joe Mullin and Clark Gillis are in. This will probably be their last chance because after this year there will be a lot of "automatic" inductees and we'll definitely see four next year (Messier, Stevens, Francis and MacInnis). I also think Dale Hunter should make it... Mostly because I'm a London Knights fan (which is also why I want to see Cicerelli in). Sure, he ranks second in terms of all-time penalty minutes (which IS impressive) but he also has 1000+ points. The reason I think Pavel Bure will make it is because he's Russian. The Hall of Fame has said it will induct more foreign and international players and Bure certainly has the fame and numbers. And probably either Richter or Housley will make it because they're American and the Hall probably wants more Americans in to spark American interest. Of the two, I'd say Housley because he's the highest scoring American BORN player. Gilmour's a toss up. He probably will make it but he could just as easily not make it. Roy is guaranteed. What a year for him: The Mem Cup AND Membership in the Hall of Fame. As for the real dark horses like Claude Lemieux, Mike Vernon and Mats Naslund: Not this year. Although I would like to see Lemieux inducted. Do you think any true international players have a shot this year? ~Scorpion0422

I agree with RGTraynor that who does get elected and who should are two different things. I would say Roy and Gilmour are a lock,, Bure maybe, Hunter not this year, Anderson no, Ciccereli should get in this time. Mark Howe should be inducted but won’t. Richter and Barrasso will either both be inducted or neither of them, I say there is a good chance that they will both get in. Housley and Graves are a long shot. Either Bill Friday, Ron Wicks or Bruce Hood will be inducted in the Referee/Linesman category. Herb Brooks may get in as a Builder, Walter Gretzky’s name has also been mentioned as a possible Builder as well.--JohnnyCanuck 23:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

They only induct four players each year. I think Roy, Bure and Gilmour will make it. But Anderson SHOULD make, same with Howe and definitely Cicerelli (600+ goals. If Clark Gillies can make it with less than 800 points, then Cicerelli should make it). Barrasso really isn't that deserving, same with Richter. Housley does have a legitimate shot and is deserving. He has over 1,000 points which is amazing for a defenseman. ~Scorpion0422
The main issue is this; there'll be an avalanche of candidates over the next decade, and the Hall never inducts more than three players a year (that fourth player is an oldtimer) and not always that many. Given that, no more than half the people I listed in the debate above will get in; among other things, 10-15 years down the road today's stars will be knocking at the door. A lot of 1000-pt scorers won't get in now, and players without reputations as preeminent superstars during their career are SOL. The odds for the Ciccarellis, Andersons and Housleys of the world aren't great. RGTraynor 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that answers the questions for another year. I'd say my prediction about Ciccarelli's, Anderson's and Housley's odds sucking is spot on. It may well be that despite the HHOF's continued fawning over Original Six players (Dick Duff???) they may be starting to apply some of the Bill James questions to candidates: was X ever considered the best in the league at his position? Was X ever considered a preeminent superstar? For Anderson and Housley at least, the answer is No. If Doug Gilmour couldn't get in first-ballot in a relatively open year, these guys don't stand a chance. RGTraynor 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to wonder whats going on. Cicerelli is 12th all-time in Goals scored. That means he has more goals than many of the legends in the hall of fame. That means it's probably non-play related issues keeping him out, such as his ten game suspension. It could also be because of bias in the selection process. I can't help but think that maybe the fans or media should be allowed to have a say because Dick Duff? He hasn't played in a LONG time (30+ years). There has to be some kind of bias, because if Joe Mullen, Clark Gillis, Cam Neely and some of the recent inductees can make it, why not Gilmour or Cicarelli or Anderson or Housley? They all have 1000+ points and were considered the best in their position at some point in their career. ~Scorpion0422
Not really, actually. Anderson was named to play in the All-Star Game four times, and was never selected a season-ending All-Star. Ciccarelli the same, and his final All-Star Game was at the end of his career as one of those "senior" picks they do now. Housley was named a Second Team All-Star once, but the flipping back and forth between center and defense probably hurts his credentials. Even Gilmour in his two monster seasons didn't earn any award more prominent than a single Selke. What's going on is that these guys played in the era with the most inflated scoring and the longest average career length in league history. I agree that Duff and Gillies are shockingly bad picks, while Neely at least was a four-time Second Team All-Star, but with seventy players now over 1000 and more to come, that's a mark that's no guarantee. RGTraynor 17:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not here to debate who or who shouldn't be in the HHOF, but rather because its noteworthy that the media frequently questioned why Anderson and Ciccarelli are being passed over, given that they have been eligible for quite a while and because of comparisons to Cam Neely. I don't see any reason why this controversy can't be included. Indeed, 2005 perhaps best exemplifies the leeway in HHOF criterea.[1][2][3][4]

GoldDragon 02:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

inductions based on entertainment value

Just interested in getting some opinions, in 2003 the Basketball Hall of Fame inducted former Harlem Globetrotter Meadowlark Lemon in to there hall in the “contributors” category (similar to the Hockey Halls builders category). Lemon never actually played pro basketball but was inducted more as an entertainer for the sport. What do you guys think about the Hockey Hall of Fame making a few inductions based on entertainment value rather than skills, players like Eddie “Clear the Track” Shack, “Tiger” Williams or even inducting the cartoon Peter Puck --JohnnyCanuck 09:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No way! The Hall of Fame has already been watered down enough by some of the more recent inductions. A Cartoon? Is this a walk of fame or a Hockey hall of fame? Tiger Williams, never will be inducted because he has the most penalty minutes in history and no other really great stats. As for Eddie Shack, I wouldn't mind if he ever got inducted, but it aint gonna happen (But, if Dick Duff can get inducted 40 years after his career ended, I guess anythings possible). But, to answer your question: no. I would not like to see players inducted into the hockey hall of fame based on entertainment value alone. Besides, the Globetrotters may never have been great in the NBA, but they have been highly influential (how many kids wanted to play basketball after seeing them?) and are quite famous. The same can not be said about Eddie Shack, Tiger Williams or Peter Puck. ~Scorpion0422
I don't think that the likes of Eddie Shack have had quite the impact on hockey as the Harlem Globetrotters have had in the basketball world. RGTraynor 19:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well do you guys think Lemon's induction in the basketball hall was a good choice? What about Slapshot's the Hanson Brothers being inducted, they had a lot of influence on Hockey. Come to think of it the creater of Puck Puck Brian McFarlane was inducted as a broadcaster. In terms of entertainment value, Tie Domi is just as entertaining to watch as Mats Sundin or Ed Belfour and there is just as many kids buying Domi jerseys as they are Sundin or Belfour jerseys. Please don't get wrong here I just looking for some oppinions, I was just very surprised that Globetrotter was inducted in the Basketball Hall, I really think it should be based on skills, I think Lemon's induction wasn't the best idea. --JohnnyCanuck 14:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The Basketball Hall of Fame doesn't only induct NBA players, and Lemon was a famous Globetrotter and thus had a profound impact on Basketball. The Harlem Globetrotters are one of the most famous basketball teams and have been highly influential in the Basketball world. Lemon wasn't inducted because of his ENTERTAINMENT, he was inducted because of his INFLUENCE. Tie Domi can not claim the same. Sure, he is entertaining to watch and has a huge fan base, but he has no stats whatsoever to back it up. And, Lemon actually PLAYED basketball. The Hanson Brothers and Peter Puck did not (in real life anyway). Brian McFarlane was a famous broadcaster anyways and did not get inducted because of Peter Puck. ~Scorpion0422

Name (again)

I see there was already a big dustup here about the name. But I'm quite sure the full name is Hockey Hall of Fame and Museum, anyone think otherwise? Kevlar67 12:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to dispute that it's the corporate name, in the same fashion that the legal name of the state is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." It's still not the name by which people think of the institution. RGTraynor 21:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Schriner and Future Inductees

First off, Sweeney Schriner's parents emigrated to Canada when he was only a month old; calling him a "Russian" is exactly as accurate as describing Rod Langway as "Taiwanese" or Willi Plett as "Paraguayan."

Secondly, after this year's damp squib as far as predictions of new inductees go - and how of course the HHOF would induct at least four new members - can we put the crystal ball away? That list was four a month ago, five yesterday, and now it's six? At this rate, list creep will have it be a dozen "notables" three months from now. RGTraynor 22:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

list creep? I didn't put Adam Oates in there, someone else did! I did add Igor Larionov though. I admit that. I don't see what the big deal is anyway. It's not like I'm listing far out choices.And Schriner is merely listed under Russian because thats what the HHOF official website lists him under. And for the record, the list only shows players BORN in other countries. If you don't like the fact that Schriner is listed under Russian or Langway is Taiwanese, take that up with the HHOF website. -- Scorpion0422 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The big deal is that it's predictive, and Wikipedia is not allowed to be predictive. Larionov is an excellent choice if you want more Russians in, and if this was a discussion forum I'd be happy to make predictions, but Sinden, Sather et al might not agree with me. I know we've been around this block before, but until Wikipedia drops the "no crystal ball" policy, this is where it stands.
As far as the HHOF website goes, it declines to cite players by nationality. Instead, it cites players by "place of birth." RGTraynor 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Purported "dynasties"

First off, there is nothing on that section stating "Here is a listing of HHOF members from Approved (tm) Hockey Hall of Fame Dynasties." Secondly, we are under no compunction to push the HHOF's POV as to what collections of Honoured Members are worthy of mention or not. Thirdly, why, sure, why not the 30s Habs or the 70s Flyers? Last I saw, there's never been a definition of "Great Teams" with no other criteria than winning three Cups or more in a row, and if so, why are the Montreal Vics, the Silver Seven and the Montreal Wanderers excluded? Why are the Red Wings or the Oilers, who never won more than back-to-back Cups, included? This is smacking of pure POV. RGTraynor 03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there has never been a definition of greatest teams and which is why we have to follow sources. When I first made the section, I only added teams and players listed on the HHOF website Dynasty section. Seeing as this is the page for the Hall of Fame, it makes sense to follow that source. Adding teams without following a source is POV. I mainly added the section to illustrate the point that LARGE portions of Original 6 era teams are inducted, not to list the "greatest teams ever" or anything. -- Scorpion 04:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

2008?

According to The Hockey News, because of the lockout, there are no eligible players for 2008, just a messload for 2009. Yet, the article has a list of players eligible in 2008. This should be removed. Briememory 16:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing what the Hall of Fame has to say, not what THN editorializes. According to the HHOF website, the criteria is three years after retirement, not three seasons.  RGTraynor  18:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


original inductions

Why was the info about the first inductions removed? The note about International Hockey Hall of Fame inductions prior to 1958 is correct. This should be corrected on here. --BondFast 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Because you are the most transparent sockpuppet we've seen in almost a year. You've been indef banned for a reason. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Are you accusing me to be a sockpuppet? --BondFast 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As per the banning policy, any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. -- JamesTeterenko 17:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, after reading the cited page from the HHOF website, the claim that was made using that reference turns out to be a distortion of the facts. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 18:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

"Paul Henderson" + "Hockey Hall of Fame" = 36,000 hits.

"Dino Ciccarelli" + "Hockey Hall of Fame" = 1,800 hits.

Heck, there are websites devoted to Henderson's soi-disant candidacy and nothing but. Now I'm solidly in the anti-camp -- there is no reason to think this guy a HHOFer than for two weeks in 1972, and the only reason he made the team at all was having his career year the season before -- but the buzz on his candidacy has been very well sourced throughout the years.  RGTraynor  21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, in response: They've been doing exactly that for fifty years. There were controversies about Neely, and about Gillies, and Pulford, and Olmstead, and Cheevers, and a whole mass of folks. Bob Gainey in the HHOF? A third of the players in 1963 in the HHOF? And they've been comparing and contrasting who got in versus the sportswriters' favorites for decades, or mulling over controversies such as why Busher Jackson was snubbed for so many years. (IMHO, Gillies and Pulford in, while J.C. Tremblay and Mark Howe are out, is mindboggling.) To suggest, unique to history, that Ciccarelli and Anderson represent unusual controversies is recentism at its worst. Nothing of the sort; it's just that no one's pushing Tod Sloan or Charlie Simmer or Ken Wharram any longer.  RGTraynor  05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, a third of players from 1963 is still only 30 something players. Look at the NHL right now. Scott Niedermayer, Chris Pronger, Ilya Kovalchuk, Marian Hossa, Zdeno Chara, Mats Sundin, Joe Sakic, Brendan Shanahan, Jaromir Jagr, Alex Ovechkin, Sidney Crosby, Mike Modano, Nik Lidstrom, Sergei Fedorov, Paul Kariya, Martin Brodeur, Ed Jovanovski, Roberto Luongo, Dominik Hasek, Marty Turco, Rod Brind'Amour, Evgeni Malkin, Jeremy Roenick, Mark Recchi, Gary Roberts, Sergei Zubov, Rob Blake, Vincent Lecavalier, Dany Heatley and Jason Spezza. That's 30 players right now that I think could conceivably make it to the Hockey Hall of Fame, and there are others more borderline, like Simon Gagne, Marty St. Louis, Olaf Kolzig, and a lot more. I'm probably forgetting some guys. I just thought of Henrik Zetterberg and Pavel Datsyuk. Olli Jokinen has been well over a point per game the last few years. As Mr Hockey Canada, Ryan Smyth could garner a decent argument, Paul Stastny is sure looking like a Hall of Fame type player.

And I always hate to here people debate Hall of Famers. It's one thing to debate before they're in, but once they are, let it alone. Just let them enjoy their time as Hall of Famers. Some guys (Dick Duff) are inducted so late, they barely get any time to enjoy the accomplishment.

And Paul Henderson made a major contribution to hockey. That's what it's for. He deserves in.99.245.89.152 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly -- what Henderson did, in fact, was score three particular goals in a single tournament, and if that's your criteria, let Mel Hill in -- but in any event (a) the comment's several months old, (b) this isn't the place to debate it, but (c) there's no question that Henderson's been the most prominent HHOF controversy for a couple decades now.  RGTraynor  04:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversies, women

Last section on Controversies reads: "As the careers of some recent prominent female hockey players wind down, many have debated about whether or not they should be inducted.[20] All four are considered to be among the best women's hockey players ever, partly because their statistics in international play are similar to male counterparts who are already in the Hall of Fame as well as their play in various women's hockey leagues. Wickenheiser was also the first woman to score a goal in a men's professional league." "All four"? I have no idea who/what the text is talking about, could use a look over. Lejman 00:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Haunted"—— by a bank teller

The bit about the building being "haunted" was contributed by User:Aude in April 2007. User:Aude is being contacted to see whether this "haunting" appears anywhere in print. Otherwise... --Wetman (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Stuff that could use online sources

These statements:

  • Many feel that too many players are inducted
  • that the Original Six era is overrepresented (in some years in the 1960s, as many as a third of the players in the league went on to HHOF membership)
  • WHA and international players have been ignored.
  • The bit about women. I am considering taking it out, because it doesn't appear to be a criticism

Because I would love to expand those statements, so it would be helpful to have more sources. -- Scorpion0422 04:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Some food for thought

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • are considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), defence (B) (American: defense), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation).
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
    • Small copyedit, yes, but not a super-thorough needed one for FA status, but wholly acceptable for GA

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things

This article is looking good. Though, two things that I think can be improved. (1) The "Exhibits" section could use more detail. The Great Hall could be a paragraph. In addition to displaying the trophies, the names of all inductees are also there. Then something about the original six, international hockey exhibits, and then the interactive exhibits. (2) Pictures. The Stanley Cup picture is mine, but it's not the best picture and I no longer like it. If I come again to the HHOF, I will try retaking the picture to get something better. For now, I like this picture better. Aside from that picture, I do have good quality pictures of the rest of the HHOF that can be uploaded this weekend. --Aude (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll work on expanding the exhibits section. As for images, there are two that I would specifically love to have: one of the entire Great Hall (as that is where the inductions take place) and an image of one of the rooms with as many exhibits as possible. Do you have images along those lines? -- Scorpion0422 19:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It was two years ago, so I don't 100% remember. But, pretty sure I have such photos stored on one of my hard disks. --Aude (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I expanded the section substantially and added info about the two media awards, which I had forgotten to add previously. -- Scorpion0422 21:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures are now posted at Commons:Hockey Hall of Fame. Most there are mine, but some are from others. The trophies and the Great Hall were most challenging to photograph, due to difficult lighting. Those should be replaced with better ones, next time I'm at the Hockey Hall of Fame or if someone else goes. Pictures of the other sections of the HHOF turned out better. --Aude (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful GA nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

After thoroughly checking over this article and its references, I can see nothing which holds it back from becoming a GA. There are only positive things to say about this article (i.e. five references to one sentence on one part). Congratualtions to the main contributors and keep up the good work :) Qst 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Scorpion0422 asked me/I volunteered to copyedit this article. My general problem with the prose is that it's not flowing, not compelling, and overall not brilliant (but good). I'm quite busy in Real Life right now, but I'll try to do a decent job on it. I've taken a few looks at this, and I'm working on this (but not pasting it into the article just yet), and I found some citation issues

  • In the lead, there is "In 1993, there was controversy over the induction of Gil Stein and the NHL claimed that he had engineered his election. There was an investigation of these allegations and Stein would decline his induction" Who said there was controversy, or is it purely your opinionated analysis of the situation. This is also sort of a sensitive subject, so I think a citation or two would be appropriate?
  • In the history section, "(Sutherland) had wanted to establish it in Kingston, Ontario because of his beliefs that the city was the birthplace of hockey." Needs a citation.
  • Operations and organization section: "Hewitson's and Reid's combined vision and commitment to acquiring, documenting and preserving everything related to hockey gave the Hall of Fame a foundation to build upon in the future." Sound kinda promotional and like a quote, I believe a citation is in order.

This is not all, this is simply a sample glance at the article. Expect more in the coming days. Maxim(talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In the middle case, there is a citation later on in the paragraph (generally I don't add two citations in a row) and the first one is in the lead, so it doesn't need a cite because there are citations later on. I removed your third point because it DOES sound a lot like a promotional quote (it was there when I started working on the article and I never removed it for some reason). -- Scorpion0422 23:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Some notes on the history section

  • The Brookfield paragraph is a little trivialish and quite big compared to the other paragraphs. Is it necessary, or is it necessary for it to be itself such a big paragraph? I was thinking of a mention in the part that deals with the new building itself, but I removed some detail there, as I think it was too much info in an article about the Hall of Fame.
  • What is a 'stag affair'?
    • That's what it says in the book, so I put it in quotes. I assume it means that it's not a family friendly atmosphere.
  • 'Admission to the Hockey Hall of Fame was free to the public until 1980, when the Hockey Hall of Fame facilities underwent expansion.' - Can you make this part any bigger? It seems to abruptly end and I was expecting to find something more on this.
    • It was in the article when I started working on it. I couldn't find anything else about it, so I left it at that.
  • I removed 'It was the Toronto headquarters of the Bank of Montreal from 1885 until new head branch was opened at King and Bay.' in the paragraph that talked about the move from the CNE place to the old BMO one. I feel it is unnecessary in context of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Usually, this isn't the responsibility of the copyeditor, but since my speciality is hockey, I think that was a good idea. Feel free to reinsert this part if you disagree.
  • Also removed 'The beaux-arts building was then scheduled to become a museum of photography, but plans fell through. The bank building was restored at a cost of $23 million, under direction of designer Ken Young.' Same reasons as above.
  • I fixed up the authors in the reference, for now in this section alone. I think it's better to be consistent on this, as you had both 'John Smith' and "Smith, John". I've changed to "Smith, John" all over using parameters last= and first=.

Maxim(talk) 01:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The section looks good, thanks for the help. -- Scorpion0422 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. :-) You've probably noticed that I'm very busy; I try to do as much as I can, but I'm involved here and the Commons as well, and RL is really calling right now, and I'm trying to get this done ASAP. I spent a couple days on this, and the next few sections should arrive quite soon. Maxim(talk) 01:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Operations & organization and exhibits

  • As happened last time, the ref's authors are formatted using last= and first=. I'll keep this consistent, but there is no need to change anything now, as I have version stored from which I'm copyediting, so I'll still fix the refs again.
  • The second paragraph in the "operations and organization" section sounds a bit promotional. I am not sure how to rework it yet keep the good content in it. Would you be able to take a look at it?

Maxim(talk) 15:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

    • It's actually just one paragraph now, do you mean the last few sentences? -- Scorpion0422 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah. I have an old printout I look at when I'm working on it, but my source text is different, I accidentally put second para in. Maxim(talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

  • I've done the first two paragraphs, and I have a quick questions about the second paragraph; can you avoid using the long quotation somehow: "generally, but not necessarily exclusively, composed of former hockey players, former coaches of hockey teams, former referees or linesman for hockey leagues or associations, current or former senior executives of hockey teams or hockey leagues or associations and present or former members of the media who cover or covered the game of hockey." I'm not sure of how the MoS works here, but I think over 4 lines, the quotation should be separated from the rest of the text with <blockquote></blockquote> and that looks awkward. I think this is more of a content issue, and I'm leaving this to you to rework it. Maxim(talk) 14:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and removed the quote because a summation of it is in the sentence before, which renders the quote unnecessary. -- Scorpion0422 15:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Even better, as it's much more concise now (and as a result, more readable). Maxim(talk) 15:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just before the good ol' "it sucks" and "it's a mess" sections (ie criticism&controversy), the last paragraph of the HAll of Fame section before the criticism header just stops. It doesn't flow, and I was expecting to find more in the same paragraph, same topic. This first a content then a copyediting issue, so can you address this, please? Maxim(talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sending to FAC

I've done most of my work, the MoS looks good, the text looks great. I inquired in IRC today and I've had some suggestions, which include incorporating "Operations and organization" into history, and the Criticism and Controversy sections into the Hall of Fame section. Personally, I feel the O&O is different from the history, and the C&C stand alone by themselves, but merging them is more feasible, IMO, into the HoF section than the O&O into the history. Maxim(talk) 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the controversy and criticism sections should have their own sections as they are relatively different from the rest of the info given in the Hall of Fame section. As for the O&O section, I would be open to merging, but I think that since the Hall of Fame considers itself to be its own company, that might be worth having its own section.
Thanks for all your help, and if I have your approval, I'll submit it for an FAC. -- Scorpion0422 14:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
My approval is at the top. ;-) Maxim(talk) 14:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghost

Something about the banks ghost would have been nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.218.216.8 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There was something about that up until recently, but it was decided that it was more suited for an article about the Brookfield Place building, whereas this is about the Hall of Fame, so a few ghost sightings in the building really doesn't fit very well. -- Scorpion0422 01:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)