Talk:Summit Series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Summit Series as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Russian language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] CBC Movie

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.

[edit] Office tittle

Just thought I would add that the office title of the series was the friendship series--Mrebus 16:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean official title? Do you have a Source? Kevlar67 22:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goal Heard Around The World

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)

[edit] Recent changes for "The Games"

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)

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! RGTraynor 00:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, many of "The Games" sections are still stilted and incorporate unprofessional language. Example: "The game also featured one of the most disgraceful plays in hockey history." in Game 7. There's no need for superlatives like that in this article. Chris 18:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

I think this part doesn't have a place in the wiki:

"Some observers felt that this series would serve to contrast two very different ways of life. It pitted the centrally planned society of the Soviets against the free society of Canada and the West. Victory in this series would thus be interpreted by some as a validation of the victor's society as a whole."

First: the soviet society was not centrally planed, it is impossible to do that with a society, it was centrally planed economy. If some US people think the cold war was "freedom" against "opression" doesn't mean it was like that. Then, what kind of observer does think that the victor would validate his society above the other?. Maybe the national honor, or the sport management were in the game... but the "better society" title? doubt it. At least cite the crazy source that believes it.--Bauta 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whole heartedly agreed. "Canada and the West"? As if to assume that Team Canada had interest in being the hockey representative for the West. Furthermore, as Bauta mentioned, if some Americans felt that the cold war was "freedom" against "opression", why didn't the US engage in a similar sports summit against the Soviets? Since no one else has disputed this, I'll edit it. --Bentonia School 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the "cold war" is usually regarded as NATO vs. the USSR. Not "partly as a result of the Cold War that was ongoing between Canada's close ally the United States and the Soviet Union". Canada did contribute on the "allied" side during the Cold War. In fact, most of the military institutions in Canada are geared for it. Canada provided a lot of intelligence service during the "war". Keenada 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I see a bias -- Clarke deliberately slashes and breaks Kharlamov's ankle, that is termed "the most controversial play of the entire series"; Mikhailov kicks Bergman with his skate, that is termed "one of the most disgraceful plays in hockey history." Or is it just me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.192.42.215 (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement. There is a bias and i think it should be removed. I personally have come across very little evidence in my life growing up with hockey that backs up the quote "one of the most disgraceful plays in hockey history." referring to using the skate as a weapon, it is not a cardinal sin of hockey and in saying so is a bias I feel. I have found violent stick work has been punished far more severly and is sadly far more common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.21.128 (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually any kind of violence with a skate is considered the worst kind of action you can do on the ice. Which is why the NHL has a zero tollerance policy on skate related violence. -Djsasso (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Are any of you guys canadian? No? Then you don't understand how we felt - yes, it was the cold war, in all it's meaning. Cocky, independant individuals against robotic soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.148.24 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am Canadian, and certainly anyone of my age (11 years old when it was played) and above in Canada that I know doesn't call it the "Summit Series", it's just plain old "'72 Series" and everyone knows what that means. In response to the originator of this thread, yes, it was widely seen as a match between ideologies, lifestyles and cold warriors in this country. There were underhanded things done on both sides, it was war (you might need to have played or watched Canadian hockey in the 1970's to understand that, think people inflicting and suffering grievous bodily harm on a daily basis, blood and broken bones - then the Philly Flyers came along and it got worse).
And responding to the IP and comentators above, we need to eventually achieve a neutral narrative here, and much of the POV as currently written needs to be moved to a new section called "Canadian response to the series" or something. In addition to the politico-confrontational aspects, there really should be more about the intense negative reaction when the Canadian players actually lost games and it became apparent just how really good the Soviet players actually were. That's why we "had to" break Kharlamov's ankle, whereas kicking someone with your skate, that's just wrong :)
More seriously, there was a genuine clash of hockey cultures, on the one hand there were subtle hooks'n'slashes and (perceived, but really just watch it) faking of infractions from the Soviet side, on the other hand, naked and brutal aggression from the Canadian side, and confusion and/or bias from the referees on how to deal with it all. Unfortunately, there seems to be a paucity of good sources online, which makes it hard to rewrite this in a reliable format. Anyone who can contribute any references, feel free, and we can keep poking this closer to reality. Anyone with Soviet-side resources or neutral-country additions is welcome! Franamax (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Game 7

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)

[edit] Assessment

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)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page from "Summit Series" to "1972 Summit Series", per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've requested to move it to 1972 Summit Series. Because it should be distinguished from 1974 Summit Series and 2007 Summit Series, the article doesn't cover any of them. Cmapm (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose the common name for the 72 series is Summit Series the 2007 one is called Super Series, and the 74 one is usually cited with its year. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The common and better known one is the Summit Series. The 2007 one was not actually called the Summit Series as mentioned above it was called the Super Series. -Djsasso (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1972 Summit Series is incorrect. The event was simply known as Summit series. Flibirigit (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose From what I can tell, it's never been referred as the Summit Series. Everything else is distinguished from this event. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I see a consensus to not move. How's this a no consensus conclusion? 70.55.84.89 (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
He meant it in, no concensus to move it I am sure. -Djsasso (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Location

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)

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