This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Miracle on Manchester article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is a good read, but it is written in language that would be found in a book about the game or maybe even a detailed piece you might find in a newspaper or magazine. It is not encyclopedic, lacks verifiable references/sources that should be cited throughout the article (see WP:CITE), and there are issues with it not being written from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). I hope someone can go over this article with the proverbial fine-tooth comb and clean it up. These are major problems. Also see the Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOS for more details. Gmatsuda 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This is better than the three sentence article Gann Matsuda wrote. C'mon, Gann, you know it, you're just whining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.108.63.6 ( talk) 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
His comment was about YOU. Whether he reveals his identity or not is immaterial and a specious argument. You like this little war, but you're not contributing to knowledge in doing so. In point of fact, you didn't do anything more than throw something nasty at someone who spent a lot of time writing an article - instead of support, you attack. Then you attack someone who criticized your comment (three times!). Why not add instead? Isn't that more enlightened behavior? You harm your own credibility when you behave this way. Do you realize this, and does it bother you if you do? Are you just angry that he replaced your article with his? Have you even contacted that writer? I happen to know you haven't.
You really spend too much time attacking people and not enough on the article itself - whose importance dropped by the wayside. Learn from hockey - get a thicker skin and do the job and ignore anything that could possibly be construed as an attack.
If you attack me, it's just more of the same. I don't care whether or not you do - I've learned from hockey and my skin is thicker than yours. I'm more interested in the ARTICLE. Get it yet? This is what starts these flame wars. Avoid them and just deal with the article! Isn't that more of the true spirit of the internet? You have something to contribute - so contribute! What's stopping you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.108.63.6 ( talk) 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
... Look, this is JT Dutch, the author of almost all of the article in question. I did this for myself and other Kings/Hockey fans, who are obviously going to be the only ones who will take time to search for and read it. I wanted something more than a short generic description of a game that younger fans might want to know about, or older fans might want to re-live. I don't expect a college student or professor to depend on whether my article on a first round Hockey playoff game would be written to exacting standards, nor do I see very many sports pages on this site meeting those same standards. If you or anyone else wants to pull this article and put up the three sentences that made up the original article (which by the way were also not referenced or sourced), this is up to you or them. I have saved what I have written here, and I am proud of it; I have listed my sources, which mainly are videotapes of the game and as such, preclude any use of footnotes. I will not make any changes to this page. In addition, I find it very curious that this article was not tagged until about six months after it was written, and that the history logs on this article are now gone. I didn't write this article to start a war or a pissing contest as to who has authority on Wikipedia and who does not. -- User: JT Dutch 13:49, 15 November 2007
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted. Jjdon ( talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Are there no public access images of Gretzky as an Oiler, or Dionne as a King? This is an odd choice. Johnhwynne ( talk) 00:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I note that 63.166.226.83 has taken a stab at editing out a good deal of the stuff in the article that violated Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Glad to see it. Now...can anyone provide references and citations for the claims made and "facts" presented in the article? -- Gmatsuda 13:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I should also mention that not all of the stuff in the article that violated Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view has been removed/edited/fixed. But we're getting there. :-) -- Gmatsuda 13:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have done some copy edits and clean-up of the article, and have removed all tags:
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Miracle on Manchester article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is a good read, but it is written in language that would be found in a book about the game or maybe even a detailed piece you might find in a newspaper or magazine. It is not encyclopedic, lacks verifiable references/sources that should be cited throughout the article (see WP:CITE), and there are issues with it not being written from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). I hope someone can go over this article with the proverbial fine-tooth comb and clean it up. These are major problems. Also see the Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOS for more details. Gmatsuda 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This is better than the three sentence article Gann Matsuda wrote. C'mon, Gann, you know it, you're just whining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.108.63.6 ( talk) 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
His comment was about YOU. Whether he reveals his identity or not is immaterial and a specious argument. You like this little war, but you're not contributing to knowledge in doing so. In point of fact, you didn't do anything more than throw something nasty at someone who spent a lot of time writing an article - instead of support, you attack. Then you attack someone who criticized your comment (three times!). Why not add instead? Isn't that more enlightened behavior? You harm your own credibility when you behave this way. Do you realize this, and does it bother you if you do? Are you just angry that he replaced your article with his? Have you even contacted that writer? I happen to know you haven't.
You really spend too much time attacking people and not enough on the article itself - whose importance dropped by the wayside. Learn from hockey - get a thicker skin and do the job and ignore anything that could possibly be construed as an attack.
If you attack me, it's just more of the same. I don't care whether or not you do - I've learned from hockey and my skin is thicker than yours. I'm more interested in the ARTICLE. Get it yet? This is what starts these flame wars. Avoid them and just deal with the article! Isn't that more of the true spirit of the internet? You have something to contribute - so contribute! What's stopping you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.108.63.6 ( talk) 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
... Look, this is JT Dutch, the author of almost all of the article in question. I did this for myself and other Kings/Hockey fans, who are obviously going to be the only ones who will take time to search for and read it. I wanted something more than a short generic description of a game that younger fans might want to know about, or older fans might want to re-live. I don't expect a college student or professor to depend on whether my article on a first round Hockey playoff game would be written to exacting standards, nor do I see very many sports pages on this site meeting those same standards. If you or anyone else wants to pull this article and put up the three sentences that made up the original article (which by the way were also not referenced or sourced), this is up to you or them. I have saved what I have written here, and I am proud of it; I have listed my sources, which mainly are videotapes of the game and as such, preclude any use of footnotes. I will not make any changes to this page. In addition, I find it very curious that this article was not tagged until about six months after it was written, and that the history logs on this article are now gone. I didn't write this article to start a war or a pissing contest as to who has authority on Wikipedia and who does not. -- User: JT Dutch 13:49, 15 November 2007
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted. Jjdon ( talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Are there no public access images of Gretzky as an Oiler, or Dionne as a King? This is an odd choice. Johnhwynne ( talk) 00:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I note that 63.166.226.83 has taken a stab at editing out a good deal of the stuff in the article that violated Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Glad to see it. Now...can anyone provide references and citations for the claims made and "facts" presented in the article? -- Gmatsuda 13:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I should also mention that not all of the stuff in the article that violated Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view has been removed/edited/fixed. But we're getting there. :-) -- Gmatsuda 13:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I have done some copy edits and clean-up of the article, and have removed all tags: