Talk:Todd Bertuzzi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
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).

Ice hockey Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] More Playing Career Information

There's only a tiny blurb on his playing career and since it's quite long and successful, a lot more time should be given to it. The way it stands, the article's just about Steve Moore and there's a lot more to Todd Bertuzzi than that. -RomeW 08:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Steve Moore incident - The Martin St. Louis hit et al

The legality of the original hit on Naslund is debatable at best. Also added background information about Moores hit from behind on St. Louis. The background information is important - the prevailing view among the US Media and non hockey fans is of the "goon" Bertuzzi attacking a rookie. Moore was developing a reputation as an unskilled headhunter all by himself prior to the neck breaking incident.

CanadianPhaedrus 20:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Canadian Phaedrus

Please cite a source that shows that the Naslund hit was 'debatable at best'.
Moore's hit on St. Louis has no bearing on Todd Bertuzzi whatsoever, it doesn't belong. I would tell you to add it to the Steve Moore page, but you already have done. Regardless of what you or I feel the prevailing view in the media is, we can only present the facts pertinent to the incident. It might sound to an observer as though you were trying to justify Bertuzzi's thuggery. Oh, and incidentally, please don't remove anything from this page. The 'Show Preview' button is your friend!  ;) --DarrenBaker 09:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Any video of the original hit on Naslund would be fine - but I have yet to find it hosted on the internet aside from an old Rapidshare account that is no longer active. This article really needs a link to that video so that a reader can come to their own conclusions. The fact that there were formal complaints made to the league and the statements by the Vancouver management and coaching staff indicate the hit is of questionable legality. I had the ESPN source linked - I will add it as a reference to the original statement.
The St. Louis hit has bearing - it helps to establish the context of his hit on Steve Moore. Your opinion is that the hit is of no bearing - clearly there are differing opinions. The fact that he made a second head hunting hit is pertinent to the incident - it explains why Bertuzzi desired the fight. Your view is of Bertuzzi's "thuggery". While its a shame he broke his neck, reviewing the actions of Moore that led to the incident frame Bertuzzi's response. His actions had cause: It was not an unprovoked attack. In short - the circumstances leading to the hit need to be presented.
Incidentally - please do not remove any of my additions to the article. If they were falsehoods it would be one thing - but removing factual information that gives context to the incident is ridiculous and undermines Wikipedia as a resource. So long as the information posted is fact - it is not your choice which information readers are allowed to see. The aim is to have a majority of views presented - not just the ones you agree with. With your self proclaimed lack of interest in hockey and this incident you should not be removing information regarding it.
CanadianPhaedrus 04:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)User: CanadianPhaedrus
The fact that someone complains about a referree's ruling in a hockey game does not make questionable in any way. I would think that the league's ruling bears this out. If it were in fact questionable, it isn't now, since the league found it unquestionably legal, and as such, you cannot use the word 'questionable' in the context of the hit. But this is completely moot, because it simply does not belong in the article. Using the framing argument, we should include every bit of drama that ever occurred in Moore's hockey career to offset the facts, making the article POV.
Various mainstream news outlets had called for the NHL to suspend Moore for the (in the MSN's view) illegal hit, nothing is online of course but it is in TV archive tapes. I think that information is critical to the background of the article, removing it makes Bertuzzi look like even more of a villan and presents POV issues. Tawker 01:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
This article presents facts on the incident, and direct motivation. By inserting an unrelated fact, however truthful it is, you skew the balance of the article. Keep the fact in the Steve Moore page, which this page links to. If people want to read about Moore as a player, they can click on the link. Hell, you could also put it on the Martin St. Louis page!
My self-proclaimed lack of interest in hockey notwithstanding, I would like to keep this article unbiased. People who edit this article fall generally into two camps: Those who think Bertuzzi is a devil, and those who feel Moore deserved it. I won't let either camp ruin what is at the moment quite an unbiased article. As such, I will exercise my ability to revert any biased info anyone places on this page. If you doubt my objectivity, I suggest you look at the article before I first edited it. It was atrociously biased. I'm attempting to keep the peace here. --DarrenBaker 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


When there is a formal complaint to the league made, and public statements the hit is debatable.
Clearly we are debating the legality of the hit on this talk page - hence the phrase "of debatable legality".
Not every bit of drama would be warranted - I agree with that statement. But a second headhunting hit 5 days before the 'incident' against a player Bertuzzi routinely plays and practices with is relevant - your opinon notwithstanding.
The information present is fact - and relevant to the article.
Facts are to be presented and conclusions drawn by the readers based upon all the information available - not just the information you feel deserves a place.
The circumstances leading to the incident are as important as the incident itself.
Adding the comment to St. Louis' page would not be relevant - the headhunting hit is of minor importance in his career, but when ::Moore had his neck broken in retaliation for a hit it instantly becomes relevant.
I am confused by how you feel it is not relevant? Circumstances are important - especially when talking about an retalitory 'attack'.
It would be like having an article about a car crash but someone choosing to omit the fact that the driver was intoxicated and that there was ice on the road.
My position is that though you may disagree with the information I have added - unless the information is a fabrication it deserves to stay in the article because it establishes the context of Bertuzzi's retalitory actions.
As a side note - if you are truly concerned about the information in the article - perhaps a Neutrality Disputed banner would solve the problem. It would indicate at least that the information is subject to debate.
If nothing else it might get a few differing opinions represented rather than just the two of us.
CanadianPhaedrus 18:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus
True enough. I see your argument, but I simply cannot agree. The way in which you add the info, and the inevitable conclusion the wording intentionally leads the readers to is disreputable. Everything in the history of the human race is debatable, that much is certain. The problem here is that you are making a statement of opinion by calling the legality 'questionable'. It is, because of the ruling, no longer questionable by the league. They made their decision, and so it is written as fact that it was a legal hit. Just as we have to refer to a murder suspect as a 'suspect', and an exonnerated suspect as 'not guilty', since the law has proved their innocence, we cannot use words that indicate an opinion. You also can't cite a quote by the GM as a source, you can only quote the quote, since it is in fact opinion, and therefore not a reliable source.
Furthermore, I just don't see the relavence of the hit on St. Louis to the Moore hit. Does it prove that Moore is a headhunter? Probably... I'd believe it. However, we don't have any statements in the article showing that Bertuzzi is either a goon or a thug, or indicating that he has a history of violence (which he in fact does). It simply outlines the major incidents leading up to and involving the hit on Moore. Our duty as Wikipedia editors is to present the incident simply, without a bunch of circuitous circumstances thrown in under the paper-thin pretense that they lend to 'context'. Moore hit Naslund, the Canucks took umbrage and, according to the NHL, allowed an atmosphere of vengeance to settle into the Canuck bench. Bertuzzi overdid it (I don't believe on purpose), and Moore got grievously injured. The NHL fined him and the team, and the police investigated. Whether or not Moore was a headhunter has no direct bearing on why Bertuzzi did what he did. The St. Louis hit is a minor character in this play, and really has nothing to say.
My opinion is this: people get hit and get hurt all the time in this stupid game, since a culture of brutality and vengeance thuggery pervades every club. Revenge hits and escalated violence are cheered on by otherwise intelligent people who don't quite understand that it's feeding their more basic instincts, and getting them more in touch with their reptilian emotions, which is a bad thing. But, like I said, that's my opinion, and it doesn't belong in the article.
I will work on the wording a bit and see how you like it. --DarrenBaker 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I have worked on the wording, and just could not justify adding anything regarding the St. Louis hit to the Steve Moore incident. If you can find a source that ties the two together, then I think it will be justified, but making the connection yourself would constitute original research, something not allowed here. I've gone ahead and put this debate on the mediation page, and hope we'll get some second and third opinions here soon. --DarrenBaker 06:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello DarrenBaker and CanadianPhaedrus. I watch the Third Opinions page, where I saw a call for comment on the Bertuzzi/Moore issue as it relates to this page. I will weigh in and say that I do not believe the information on Moore's previous hit against St-Louis belongs here. Almost every hockey player has "questionable hits" in their history. This seems more an attempt to portray Moore as a goon.
I would not be adverse to this if it were true, but according to the source Hockey Database Moore had but 47 penalty minutes in his 69 NHL games. Bertuzzi, meanwhile, has had 987 penalty minutes in 674 games according to the same source. That gives Moore an average of 0.7 minutes in the box per game, and Bertuzzi 1.5 minutes, or more than double. RomaC 05:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, RomaC. --DarrenBaker 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I want to echo RomaC's comment that commenting on Moore more than simply to describe what happened, in a Bertuzzi article dilutes the article itself . The Bertuzzi hit on Moore reflects on Bertuzzi's character (passion for the game, excitability, poor judgment etc). For Vancouver fans, the loss of Bertuzzi was huge. Moore was the victim both legally and according to the NHL. Any additional comments about Moore’s character should be put into his article. If there is further comment to be made on the hit itself, it would be to assess if Bertuzzi’s punishment has deterred others from making similar hits within the NHL, or the impact it had on the team’s success or their morale. Best to you all. LinuxDude 06:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello. A request was made on WP:3O for a third opinion on this page. The opinion is regarding the issue: Whether an section about Moore should be added to counterbalance a section about Bertuzzi. My 3rd opinion is that "Yes, only if it is relevent, kept short, and NPOV, AND it adds something to the article. If only to illustrate a point, then it doesn't belong" Thank you for flying delta. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


I think that there should be mention of the following pile-up that occurred after the hit. It sounds like Bertuzzi hit the guy once, pushed him down, and he suffered 3 broken vertebrae, etc. Unlikely. This should mention that they both lost balance, and that players from both teams contributed to the pile-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.132.120 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Opinion

Do not delete my comments here again Darren. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Your comments were not deleted, they were moved to the archived discussion pages, of which this 3rd party request and resolution were a part. I will move the discussion back to this page to keep it in context. --DarrenBaker 18:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


This talk article isn't long enough yet to warrant an archive, neither was moving my less than 1 day old comments. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for trying to keep it organised. --DarrenBaker 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Rather than copying-and-pasting the contents of the talk page into an archive page, you should do a page move from Talk:Todd Bertuzzi to the archive page.
The rationale here is that we want to keep the edit history for the original discussion along with the archive. As it stands, the only person in the edit history for Talk:Todd Bertuzzi/Archive 1 is you. --Saforrest 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] vandalism?

Why is this in there? I'm assuming it was a vandal. "In mid June 2006, Bertuzzi was pulled over and charged with a DUI by one of Kitchener-Waterloos finest. Unconfirmed reports describe him as sucking at hockey." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.144.162 (talk • contribs)

Weird vandalism removed. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update?

Has there been any word on Moore's lawsuit since it was filed in February? Cfrydj 22:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joke?

Is this slipped in by a prankster? "He enjoys fishing in the offseason, his favorite fishes to catch are salmon, narwhal, bass, and chinook." --Shyland 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

...Never mind, the line about fishing was added by a known vandal(142.179.6.71 on 31 January 2007.) Removing it. --Shyland 03:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)