text:
Talk:Anarchism and society

NPOV
I think this may be a NPOV violation, as it takes almost a propoganda view. I don't think that propoganda from *ANY* group belongs in Wikipedia, however I do not know if there id mutual consensus on this. To me this article sounds reasonable, however I'm an anarchist so I can't be neutral in discussing the propoganda of my beliefs. Anyhow, the point is I thing this might not be NPOV, but I don't know for sure and... I'm blabbering... Fatalserpent 19:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Completely agree - this is unsourced opinion and should be removed - it's unencyclopedic. Addhoc 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another Split From An Already Gigantic Article
Hey, this article needs a lot of work. I put the NPOV warning template on it. This article could be very long indeed with all the theoretical hoopla that anarchism contains. I would also suggest that it could make for a very good point-counterpoint structure. --albamuth 21:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is right. Where are the Anarcho - capitalists? Anarchy is simply the uniform application of some sort of ethics at the expense of all forms of hypocrisy, primary among those forms of hypocrisy being the government. Anarchists all have their own ethics to apply uniformly, often define anarchy to be the "true" form of those ethics, and when they disagree about what to apply uniformly, they call each other not-anarchists. This is generally true of every branch of Anarchism. Capitalism, with all its privilege and inequality, is just another kind of ethics that can be applied uniformly. Everyone is perfectly welcome to get rich, if they can. They define expropriation as traumatic and wrongful, so they define government, with all its hypocrisy, to be socialism and exproperty. They are the Anarcho - capitalists.

Most Anarchists consider themselves Anticapitalist, so they define anarchy to be liberation against all forms of domination, hierarchy, subjugation, property, and institutionalization. Anticapitalist Anarchists do the same thing with Anticapitalism that they do with Anarchism.

Notice that I capitalized the word whenever it places an importance on forming internal schools of opinion.71.141.110.236 08:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with concerns about a lack of neutrality. Addhoc 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist opposition to sexuality
can someone please reference one self-described anarchist who is opposed to sexuality? ive never ever heard of anyone like that

 * Completely agree - the entire section should be removed. Addhoc 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist Community Colleges?
"Community college also demonstrates a contrast between anarchy and the state. It is a government institution, but is so much more orderly than high school not because of government/teacher intervention, but instead the near complete consensus of the students to consent to college. It is orderly, so it gives free reign to both the students in classes with permissive teachers, but the order also gives authoritarian teachers little resistance to their campaign of institutionalization and subjugation of the class-state to the selfsame teacher's domination."

I don't know if college students really give their full & unproblematic consent. For many, college is either an obligation to parents or a form of professional development. Not to mention the fact that the students have to pay the school, etc, etc. If this is anarchy, then so is any other civil association. Anyway, can we get some sources and less POV? Jordansc 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Completely agree with concerns about unsourced opinion. Addhoc 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research
Without any citations to indicate where this info was gathered, it reads like one long bit of original research. 24.4.253.249 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Completely agree. Addhoc 22:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Search for references
- 63 google hits, virtually all mirrors of this article. Given there isn't any sourced content, I would suggest a redirect towards Anarchism.--Addhoc 20:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I would support redirect. Jeepday (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

 * On second look at Anarchism which is a well referenced article, I found that everything here that could be referenced was all ready merged into Anarchism so I went ahead and did the redirect. Jeepday (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anarchism and society


text:
Talk:Adam Oates

2002-2003 Season
The stats given in this section are very different from the ones in the table below. Anyone know which are correct? (unfortunately I do not know where to procure hockey stats) 68.161.220.16 09:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right, they're off, the ones posted below are the correct ones. I'll clean it up a bit.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination
This article's nomination for GA, shouldn't be passed. Adam Oates hasn't been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame, yet. The Hall of Fame, 2012 addition to the bottom of the infobox, gives the impression that he has been. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only a moron would think that, given the article says both in the lead and his playing section that he has been elected and will be inducted in November. I realize you are upset that consensus is against you, but that does not justify your WP:POINT actions and, frankly, trolling. Resolute 20:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's best to wait until November (after the induction ceremony), before nominationg this article for GA, IMHO. But since it has been nominated now, the reviewers will decide on its status. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mm, I'm with Resolute. The notion that a GA nomination shouldn't pass because you don't like the consensus on a particular element of the article is nothing short of sour grapes.  You've been around quite long enough to understand how GA works (or you ought to, in any event) and the provisions of WP:POINT.  The only grounds for objection in this particular case would be on WP:CRYSTAL, but since only one electee in the Hockey Hall of Fame's 67 year history has failed to be inducted, the notion that Oates' election is solely speculative is farcical.   Ravenswing   07:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Inaccurate information in the infobox, makes not a GA, IMHO. Anyways, it's up to the reviewers, now. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, see now, let's examine that. Upon what basis do you assert that Oates is not a member of the Hall of Fame?  That the public ceremony has not yet been held?  That there isn't a hunk of metal on the wall yet?  The point that the webmaster updates the website?  Do you in fact know when this is official, and can you quote the HHOF rule governing this?  (In fact, according to By-Law 21, paragragh 32, it is when the Chairman of the Board of Directors certifies the member, and not upon the induction ceremony.)    Ravenswing   18:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oates hasn't been inducted, yet. Therefore, I haven't changed my stance. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So stipulated. I'm quite happy to let reviewers decide whether or not your personal preference about what ought to constitute an Honoured Member overrules the Hockey Hall of Fame's bylaw on the subject, and the degree to which WP:IDHT comes into play.   Ravenswing   01:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Should the reviewers decide to give this article a GA status, then the article will get its GA status. GoodDay (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What a ridiculous case of a WP:POINT argument. Just because consensus hasn't gone your way doesn't mean you need to continue spouting off about it all over the place and in this case trying to block a GA. The infobox does not say inducted, it does not indicate in any way that he has been inducted. It just says he is a member of the 2012 class, which is what he is. That is already a fact. It has already happened. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He has the highest amount of games played and points scored among undrafted NHL players, with 1,337 and 1,420, respectively.
this is not true. He does not have the most points for undrafted player. Gretzky was also undrafted.. 71.176.216.104 (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Adam Oates


text:
Carl Mannich

Carl Ulrich Franz Mannich (8 March 1877 in Breslau – 5 March 1947 in Karlsruhe) was a German chemist. From 1927 to 1943 he was professor for pharmaceutical chemistry at the University of Berlin. His areas of expertise were keto bases, alcohol bases, derivatives of piperidine, papaverine, lactones and also Digitalis-glycosides.

The Mannich reaction was named after his discovery of the mechanism in 1912.

Life
Mannich attended high school in Weimar and later on in Berlin where he left before graduating, taking an internship at a pharmacy instead. From 1898, he studied in Marburg and Berlin and received his doctorate in 1903 in Basel. In 1905, he completed the matriculation examination for the University of Berlin and passed the state examination for food chemistry. He completed his studies at the University of Berlin in 1910 after which he was appointed as an extraordinary professor. Mannich became an extraordinary professor for Pharmaceutical Chemistry in Göttingen from 1911 to 1917, and went to Frankfurt in 1920. Between 1927 and 1943 Mannich was Professor of Pharmaceutical Chemistry at the University of Berlin. In the years between 1932 and 1934 he was President of the “Deutsche Pharmazeutische Gesellschaft (DPhG)”. In the winter semester 1946/1947, he took over the Chair of Pharmaceutical Chemistry at TH Karlsruhe.

Scientific life
Mannich is well known for his discovery of a special form of amino alkylation which was named after him: the Mannich reaction. In 1912 Mannich was able to describe the first synthetical morphine glucoside. He also completed a series of works in 1917 about the opium alkaloids and gave a method for the production of pure opium extracts. Mannich also developed a method for the determination of morphine content in opium, which allowed for effective dosing without having to use complex physiological individual tests. With his synthesis, he contributed to the determination of the structure of morphine. Mannich advanced the field of applied pharmacy with his development of various testing and detection methods. These include polarimetry of starch in order to detect boric acid in food or the amount of ethanol in alcoholic beverages.

Scientific works

 * Über die Bildung von Benzolderivaten aus Dimethylamino-butanon und Malon-ester bzw. Acetessigester. Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft (1938, A and B Series), vol. 71 (10), p. 2090-2092.
 * Eine Synthese des Arecaidinaldehyds und des Arecolins Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft (1942, A and B Series), vol. 75 (12) p. 1480-1483.
 * Über g‐Strophanthin (Ouabain) und g‐Strophanthidin Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft (1942, A and B Series), vol. 75 (12), p. 737-750.
 * Synthese und Umsetzungen von 1.3‐Ketobasen mit sekundärem Stickstoff Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft (1942, A and B Series), vol. 75 (1), p. 49-64.

title: Carl Mannich


text:
Talk:Antivenom

Application / treatment
"Antivenoms typically need to be administered as soon as possible after the venom has been injected to be effective (up to 4-5 hours)."

I think this is not always true. It may depend on the kind of venom (ie, the kind of animal the venom came from). In the case of Australian snakes of family Elapidae, antivenin has been used apparently effectively with longer delays, in some cases over 24 hours. In those cases the main toxic agents are neurotoxins and proper first aid can sometimes delay the onset of symptoms for hours or days. At one stage (warning: this was the 1980s and i was never any kind of expert) the typical procedure was apparently to wait for symptoms before using antivenin for Australian snake bite. I think quick treatment might be more important for other kinds of venom, especially those that cause tissue necrosis. Ideally it would be nice if experts from several parts of the world check this out before rewriting. I definitely don't feel qualified to hack the main page myself.

Antivenom or Antivenin?
Is there a difference between antivenom and antivenin?
 * Regardless, usagse should be consistent within the article Bdoserror 21:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the primary difference is that "antivenin" is in the dictionary whereas "antivenom" is not. 24.245.45.98 03:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Which dictionary? The MedTerms Dictionary at MedicineNet.Com lists 'antivenom' as a synonym for 'antivenin'. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  12:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Three examples: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. If you go to Encyclopedia.com  and search for "antivenin," the article returned talks about it in the context of being an immune serum for venom.  If you do the same for "antivenom," you will find no results.  It seesm that "antivenin" is the correct term, but "antivenom" is gaining currency in the language thanks to its widespread (albeit erroneous) use.  I acknowledge that people use the word "antivenom" to mean "antivenin," but as "antivenin" appears to be the more official term, it seems that the article should be titled "Antivenin" instead of "Antivenom." -Jeff 24.245.45.98 12:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue of under which name are users more likely to look for it. I would suspect that would be 'antivenom'. 'Antivenin' redirects to 'Antivenom'. It's a question of giving emphasis to the technically correct term, or to the term that is more 'intuitive'. Switching the current setup would require an admin to delete the current 'Antivenin' redirect that that 'Antivenom' could be moved to 'Antivenin.' --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't require an admin to do that. Just edit the Antivenin page, and turn this one into a redirect. PenguiN42 23:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cut-and-paste moves mess up the history. In order to properly preserve the page history, it is always better to move the page. If an existing redirect has no history other than as a redirect, it is better to delete the redirect and then move the article. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  23:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There seemed no reason not to, so I've made the move. Now it reflects the correct term, and users who search for "antivenom" will still find the information that they want. And as you can see, the history has not been affected.
 * Sjc196 08:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Antivenom is definitely the preferred medical term, the article name shouldn't have been changed, antivenin is an old and outdated term which is rarely used anymore. What definitely shouldn't have been changed is the trade name of the antivenoms listed in the article, go to Australia and ask for box jellyfish antivenin and they all think you're crazy (the trade name is box jellyfish antivenom). Also shouldn't have changed the name of the Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Anti-Venin Bank, (follow the link the name of the place is Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Antivenom Bank) or the name of a article in the references, the title of the paper is: Failure of intramuscular antivenom in Red-back spider envenoming. I would recommend changing it all back.Mr Bungle 12:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Antivenin appears in a whole lot more dictionaries than antivenom...  I'll add the OED online to that list: It lists antivenin, antivenine, and antivenene, but no antivenom.  As for trade names, go ahead and make them right.  Dfeuer 09:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowadays the most common term is antivenom. Medical authorities use antivenom, almost all journal articles use antivenom as the preferred term, i.e. Clinical Toxicology, the official journal of the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology and the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists use antivenom, as the following review papers show, , . Toxicon another leading toxinology journal also uses antivenom , , , The world health organization also prefer antivenom in their literature . The American Zoo and Aquarium Association and the American Association of Poison Control Centers also run ‘The Antivenom Index’ which shows where antivenoms are stored around America. All these authorities in clinical toxicology use the term antivenom, Wikipedia should too. I also just finished watching Snakes on a plane and they use the word antivenom (although I know a cheesy film is poor evidence), seems its common in pop culture also.Mr Bungle 05:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have demonstrated that the term "antivenom" is used. That's a first step.  You have not demonstrated that it is "the most common term" or "the preferred term".  You also have demonstrated that WHO has used the term, but did not demonstrate that they prefer it, or that they use it more often than "antivenin". Dfeuer 10:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know I haven't proved it 100% but I think its going to be difficult to find a resource that states 'Antivenom is the preferred term to antivenin', what I have tried to achieve is show that most authorities use it almost exclusively. Remember nobody proved that antivenin is preferred either, just that antivenom doesn’t appear in a few non medical online dictionaries and steadmans online which is missing numerous entries in its online version. Likely it was a slow process over time where antivenin faded away and antivenom became preferred, I will keep going through some of the journals and see if I can come up with something more definitive.Mr Bungle 20:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not shown that authorities use it almost exclusively, whatever you may have tried to do. A search of Entrez PubMed limited to the last five years turns up 415 articles using "antivenin", 55 of them review articles.  It turns up 494 articles using "antivenom", 58 of them review articles.  I don't think you would call that an overwhelming difference.  I want to note that antivenom fails to show up in several of the best-known English dictionaries, not just a few unknowns.  What I think we need to determine is whether
 * The two words indeed have different meanings, as the dictionary I cited suggests, in which case the most appropriate word, whichever that is, should probably be chosen.
 * The difference in word choice is regional, in which case the word first used in this article's history should be chosen. Dfeuer 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm less interested in how it is spelled in dictionaries, and more interested in how it is spelled in the references used here and in other articles. I've seen other cases in which spelling 'corrections' were made that included incorrectly changing direct quotes and proper names. 'Antivenom' is in common use, and was used in the major source I consulted (and cited) for Bill Haast. There is such a thing as 'hypercorrection'. -- Donald Albury 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I found the reference which states the preferred term is antivenom. In 1979 at a meeting of the WHO held in Zurich, Switzerland it was decided that antivenom should be the preferred term.

For use in english "venom " and "antivenom" are considered to be the preferred names rather than "venin/antivenin" or "venene/antivenene"

Page 5 in: Progress in the characterization of venoms and standardizatiob of antivenoms. WHO Offset publication No. 58, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1981.

Can we change it all back now?Mr Bungle 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

 * That certainly does give good information about the views authorities had 27 years ago. It says nothing whatsoever about the situation today.

 * Another issue is that even if you uncover incontrovertible evidence that every major authority prefers that word, that still doesn't mean that Wikipedia should necessarily do so. I think it probably should, but there is no clear consensus on the matter, as far as I know, and official policy seems to suggest otherwise.  See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Archive_4 and WikiProject_Clinical_medicine.  Note:  my recent edit to the latter was only to correct an outdated link to the former. Dfeuer 05:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

 * There's no pleasing you is there; It wouldn't matter if the World Health Organization mandate was 127 years old it would need to be overturned for it to be any different and it hasn't been. Antivenom should be in used English language wikipedia for the following reasons:
 * It is common terminology that most people would understand or use if talking about treatment for envenoming
 * The World Health Organization has deemed it the most appropriate for the English language
 * Worldwide (English speaking) in the fields of toxicology and medicine it is almost exclusively used
 * Mr Bungle 09:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Venin is the French word for venom. Calling it antivenin is antiquated. The word in English Wikipedia should be antivenom. It should be changed back. Vert 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Just an outsiders view. I was suprised to see the redirect, and wondered if I'd been using an incorrect word for many years. This is such a silly turfwar. FWIW, I personally view this as redicting 'blood' to 'humour'

 * Right, I did it. I couldn't stand it anymore. Every book I have on the subject, every dictionary I have (including the Oxford English Dictionary (1991), Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (2001), and even the Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]) calls it antivenin and doesn't even mention antivenom. The word antivenom is simply an error that should not be perpetuated. --Jwinius 18:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Argh not this again, move it back as per above, i.e. the World Health Organization states: For use in english "venom " and "antivenom" are considered to be the preferred names rather than "venin/antivenin" or "venene/antivenene", plus you managed to change trade names of products and titles of journal articles and organisations to incorrect versions. - Mr Bungle | talk  22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The medical industry doesn't always get things right; they're the same ones who usually say dRVVT stands for dilute Russell Viper Venom Time instead of dilute Russell's Viper Venom Time. As far as I can tell, antivenom is in the same category as nucular -- misspellings -- only the former looks better when it's written out. If I managed to change any trade names etc., that would be a mistake on my part. --Jwinius 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I know this is old, but I'm curious about your objection to dilute Russell Viper Venom Time. As far as I can tell, it's the possessive, but the trend is to not use the possessive on eponymous terms. The AMA Manual of Style has been recommending this practice for at least two decades now. Also, many nontechnical organizations have begun to drop the possessive as well (e.g., National Down Syndrome Society). Cyraxote (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

How is "antivenom" incorrect? As far as I know, it is something that counters the effects of venom. 142.26.133.248 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The WHO, which can be considered an authority on such matters, prefers "antivenom", so we had better have a compelling reason to contradict them. Those wishing to retain "antivenin" need to find an authoritative source that indicates that "antivenom" is undesirable. Jwinius's implication that a word's absence from a dictionary is more authoritative than its widespread adoption by the medical industry is absurd. --Doradus (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the WHO is the primary authority on this but it's been a over a year since it was moved to antivenin and I sort of lost interest in debating this as it was going nowhere, plus it needs an admin to move it because of edits in the antivenom page. I guess we could request a move and then discuss it/vote or something. M r Bungle |  talk  21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The article says antivenom is the preferred term, and its title is antivenin? And it was originally titled antivenom too? Why on earth was the article's name changed to an antiquated term? Dwr12 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I can only concur. I'm especially confused by the OED claim above, when it states: "More fully antivenom serum. An antiserum produced against the venom of a snake, spider, etc., used esp. in the treatment of bites from such animals." and cites an usage in 1897. I've never requested a move, but this might be the time. shellac (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 * What is the purpose of an encyclopedia article? Is it to inform ignorance, educate, and provide -- so far as possible -- correct information?  Or is it to abet ignorance, eschew education, and provide a popular conception of what the ignorant believe to be "correct", rather than what actually is correct?

 * Should most of the content of the Wikipedia article on Begging the question be deleted and replaced with "another way to say raises the question", since that's what most modern users of the phrase erroneously believe it to mean?

 * The correct term is "antivenin". Ignorant erroneous usage has rendered that as "antivenom" is some quarters; should Wikipedia perpetuate that error?  (Amusing to note that even as I type this, the Internet Explorer spell-checker recognizes "antivenin", but not "antivenom".)

 * https://www.mgbiologics.com/products/canine/rattler-antivenin/
 * http://www.wideopenspaces.com/florida-officials-have-antivenin-on-standby-as-cobra-search-continues/
 * http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1081/CLT-100103827?journalCode=ictx19
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200105/
 * http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563659709001209
 * http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563657808988249
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=tdiPdtpyBFcC&pg=PP8&lpg=PP8&dq=journal+of+toxicology+antivenin+-antivenom&source=bl&ots=SXk9xRPyZu&sig=s80VN-lOrK_rxcbkoaGwkLoTmq4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqktarrrTTAhVJhlQKHW6XCbEQ6AEIMDAD
 * http://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(03)70557-2/abstract
 * http://www.jcma-online.com/article/S1726-4901(10)70117-9/abstract
 * http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/114/1/e128.full.pdf?download=true
 * http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000456327100800134
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3550189/
 * https://www.jscimedcentral.com/Pharmacology/vol2issue3.php
 * http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1211/jpp.62.02.0014/abstract
 * http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v7/n1/fig_tab/nrd2399_T7.html
 * http://www.jbc.org/content/277/19/17072.abstract
 * http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1148153
 * http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(13)00852-4/abstract
 * https://www.hindawi.com/journals/crinm/2017/1835796/
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/4591198?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 * What's wrong with titling the article -- correctly -- "antivenin", and including a small section on "etymology", as appears in many similar articles?

 * Or, perhaps that should be "entomology", since many modern users get that one wrong, too. :)
 * 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Seeing how the article is still incorrectly titled after almost three years, I suppose that tells us something about the real function of Wikipedia: to perpetuate ignorance.
 * Oh well . ..
 * 70.89.176.249 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Apology
Back in June 2007, I unilaterally moved this page from "Antivenom" to "Antivenin," after which I deliberately edited the "Antivenom" redirect so that the move could not be reverted without the help of an administrator. I want to apologize unreservedly for this action. It was not long before I not only realized that those in favor of "Antivenom" have a point, but that all of the newer herpetological publications also seem to be using the term "Antivenom." I've felt bad about my behavior ever since, but was too embarrassed to admit it. The fact is, spellings change and it's obvious to me now that this one is here to stay. When it reaches a point when it is advocated by the WHO and is used consistently in the literature, it's only a matter of time before the journalists and lexicographers will take notice. I will therefore support any measures necessary to have this page moved back to its previous title "Antivenom." Again, my apologies. Sincerely, --Jwinius (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Here is a discussion that gives some historical perspective, with an analysis of more recent trends: https://scorpiondoc.silvrback.com/antivenom-antivenene-antivenin-and-anti-venom ˜˜˜˜ LeggyLettuce (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

- FWIW we took our dog to the emergency vet this morning and the term the doctor used, both in speaking and writing, was most definitely "antivenin." So at least for this one teaching hospital, they are most definitely teaching new vets "antivenin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.140.164 (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

- This is a case of ignorance winning out. Of course, it was natural for most people to misunderstand when someone said the unfamiliar term "antivenin" and think they were saying "antivenom," which wasn't even a word. On the other hand, language should change to be easier and not stay the same just for those of us who know the correct term. It is much better for the WHO to use antivenom as there are many who use their information who are not native English speakers.Thoralor (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I concur that ignorance is winning out. Until recently, it's always been "antivenin."  The movie Snakes on a Plane got it right.  In fact, they specifically make reference to the fact that it's "antivenin," not "antivenom."  In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the entry for "antivenom" simply states, "antivenin."  The definition of antivenin is, of course, "an antitoxin to a venom; also : an antiserum containing such antitoxin."  Therefore, do we allow the world's best online encyclopedia to fall to some common denominator?  Or do we merely change the title of this article to what it should be, "Antivenin," with a redirect from "Antivenom" to "Antivenin," along with a clear statement at the top explaining, "Despite common misuse of the term, "antivenom," the correct term is actually "antivenin."  Aim higher, people.  If you don't, those who don't know what they don't know will most certainly pull you down.Clepsydrae (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I support that. It would make the article more professional-sounding.
 * 70.89.176.249 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

 * 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 move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose moving this article to Antivenom, As per discussion above including the WHO recommending antivenom be used for the English language. M r Bungle | talk  21:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Support. See above. --Jwinius (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I haven't seen any convincing reason for us to contradict the WHO. --Doradus (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Plus could User:Jwinius who made the original page move explain the edit he made after the page move? Was that to stop it being undone? Tigeron (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Once a redirect has an edit history, only an administrator can move another article to it. --Jwinius (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Comment The OED has antivenom as short for antivenom serum. And antivenom wins slightly at Googlefight.  But what about antitoxin and antidote?  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Antivenom may be short for antivenom serum, but in my estimation that term is certainly not used as frequently, nor was antivenin serum used as often. The terms antitoxin and antidote are not as specific, as they also apply to other poisons (not just venoms). --Jwinius (talk) 23:55, 29 December 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.

It this true?
The article says "Although individuals can vary in their physiopathological response and sensitivity to animal venoms, there is no natural immunity to them in humans" I think this is false, I think that there are plenty of animals with venoms that are used for hunting and defense that do not affect humans, one example is Cephalotoxin, which kills crustaceans in a matter of seconds but causes only minor irritation and allergic reactions in a small minority of people, most of us are completely naturally immune. --20:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opcnup (talk • contribs)

 * That sounds plausible. The passage is not referenced and may be an assumption. If you have a reference, then by all means rewrite it. --Jwinius (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Archaic?
"...historically the word antivenin was predominant around the world; however, this usage is archaic in English." You're quite correct that antivenom is now the preferred term and that's what the page should be called, but antivenin is still in widespread use, hardly archaic. Rubiscous (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Forsooth, thou hast not made thine case a convincing one! Nay! Tuxedobob (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 * This happens, I think, because of the divide between people doing active research (who are more likely to be aware of changes in terminology) and people doing only clinical work. Also happens because people who learned the old term will insist that people they teach or supervise use the old term, often without knowing which is currently considered correct. For example, the "correct" or "official" name for Down syndrome is Trisomy 21, but you'll only see that in research. Cyraxote (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment
This article could be re-classified as B-class with only a small level of improvement in sourcing. B-class usually requires at least one source per section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

antivenom reserves
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/snakebites-about-to-get-more-deadly

 * Did you mean antivenin reserves?

 * https://thehightechsociety.com/are-spiders-that-dangerous-a-scientific-look-at-spider-venom/
 * https://www.snake-antivenin.com/product/snake-antivenom-for-king-cobra-venom-red-cross-antivenin-treatment-for-ophiophagus-hannah-snake/
 * https://tucson.com/news/science/health-med-fit/year-scorpion-antivenin-trials-successful-fda-scrutiny-next/article_6d28174e-9b6d-54d8-af63-0e982908ab64.html
 * https://tuesdayshorse.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/antivenin-that-saves-life-of-florida-snake-handler-made-from-horses/
 * https://www.mgbiologics.com/products/canine/rattler-antivenin/

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Antivenom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151018201018/https://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9277&feedId=online-news_rss20 to http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9277&feedId=online-news_rss20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Production method
I wrote a line about the Venomyx Therapeutics. This was reverted as being spammy. However, I wanted to put the focus on the production method, rather than the company. Their production method uses microbial fermentation rather than animals (horses, sheep, ...). That is a significant improvement in itself. This neither mentions this old production method (using animals) nor does it mention the alternative production method (using microbes). See also single-domain antibody and this WIRED-article: Bacteria are brewing up the next generation of antivenoms (and yes I know that this isn't a suitable source for medical articles, but it gives an idea, suitable references could be found simply by searching on the terms mentioned in that article -i.e. "microbioal fermentation", ...). Look into it and add the missing info into the article. Genetics4good (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Table
In the table, what does "Country" represent? Is it where the antivenom is manufactured, or available, or where the specific venomous animals are found? --Son of Grobx (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Different production method
I mentioned a different method of production involving production from bacteria (i.e. genetically modified E. coli)

Should be worked out much better though,focusing on both the Venomyx and the VenomAB method. I thinkin it generates monoclonal antibodies, which are also superior in quality to the antibodies produced from domestic animals.

I haven't found any scientific paper as of yet on the Venomyx method, so that needs to be found and added. I did found this: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/04/22/synthetic-biologists-fight-snake-venom-engineered-dna/ which also seems to use a genetically modified strain of E.coli, like Venomyx, so perhaps useful to examine all publications from Paulo Lee Ho (Butantan Institute), along with publications of Daniel Dempsey, Deepankar Roy, Alex Capovilla and also Technical University of Denmark (for the VenomAB method). --Genetics4good (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Expensive to make, or not
"Snake antivenom is complicated and expensive for manufacturers to produce. " This statement links to a news article whose subtitle contradicts the interpretation:

= "Why A Single Vial Of Antivenom Can Cost $14,000 = It’s not because all antivenom is expensive to make."

I propose to rephrase the sentence here, to read "Antivenom undergoes successive markups after manufacturing, by licencees, wholesalers and hospitals." LeggyLettuce (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Antivenom


text:
Talk:Chris Osgood

Tone
Regarding the tone tag: "While his 1992-1993 season was spent with Adirondack, he broke through as a Detroit Red Wing in the 1993-1994 season, backstopping alongside a carousel of goaltenders for that season, including Tim Cheveldae, Vincent Riendeau, and Peter Ing. The glut of goaltenders forced the Wings to make a move at the trading deadline. Cheveldae, the team's primary starter and former all-star, was traded to the Winnipeg Jets along with Dallas Drake in exchange for veteran goaltender Bob Essensa and Sergei Bautin. Essensa did not have a strong showing in a 13-game stint at the end of the regular season, and Osgood was named the primary netminder for the playoffs."

I made a few changes already, but it's still prevalent throughout the article, and this paragraph serves as an example. "glut of goaltenders", "backstopping alongside a carousel..." Also, things like "Thus far, the 2007–08 season has been a return to form for Osgood.", a heading called "Back in Hockeytown".
 * So basically you would rather slap tags on the article than fix them.Asher196 (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. As I said, I did make a few changes, but I am not willing to comb the entire article at this time. While someone obviously put a lot of work into it, there is serious abuse of weasel words, peacock words, and non-encyclopedic tone. Additionally, not a thing is sourced, with the exception of the change that you just made. That is why the tags exist, and is the proper usage of a tag. It's not as good as a complete overhaul, but it is a step above leaving the issues unnoted and uncorrected.68.147.134.6 (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Change in style.
. Osgood mentioned how he changed from standup to a hybird-butterfly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardII (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ozzie as a nickname
I have now listed 4 sources, three of which specifically say "Ozzie" is a nickname. I'm not sure what criteria some people are using to define nickname, but since I can find many, many sources to back up my edits, I think I'm on pretty solid ground. Asher196 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if "Ozzie" keeps getting removed, I'll be happy to take this to Rfc. Asher196 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it to Rfc. Will it help? who knows; will it hurt? nay. GoodDay (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I think this is no longer an issue, since the nickname parameter has been removed from the template itself. Include it within the article if it is noteworthy, and I think it probably is. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why was the nickname parameter removed? All Most all hockey players have a nickname and they are well documented, It's not simply calling everyone by last name like we did in high school (I grew up in Québec where you liked hockey or got beat up!) but each player has a unique nickname that follows them, some are truly un-inventive like "Gretz" for 99, others much more creative like "The Mule" (Johan Franzen). --That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Nickname
"Wizard of Oz " Saving nickname for future use in article prose. -Djsasso (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Other nickname
Ozzie   Asher196 (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nickname
 * 1 : a usually descriptive name given instead of or in addition to the one belonging to a person, place, or thing
 * 2 : a familiar form of a proper name (as of a person or a city)
 * Whatever you want, you are just looking to be disruptive now. -Djsasso (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered [Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable|bad practice], even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
 * Actually I put in a heading, you edited MY contribution. -Djsasso (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because it was under your heading doesn't make all comments under it fair game for you to refactor. Asher196 (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No but anyone is able to add headings to make the information more clear. You are just trying to make a WP:POINT at this point. -Djsasso (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I could just as easily say you are being disruptive. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make my comments disruptive. Asher196 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When you revert without discussion on the talk page its hard to assume good faith. If I wasn't assuming good faith I wouldn't have tried to compromise with you. You however just blindly reverted and reverted and reverted a third time. And that's not even the reverts of various users on the article itself. -Djsasso (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted YOUR refactoring of MY edits. Asher196 (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again I didn't touch your edits. Your words were still your own. Anyone can add headings to anyones comments. I did not change your words. You changed my edits. Anyways I will leave it as is. It's not worth the trouble arguing with someone who won't accept any way but their way. I'm done here. -Djsasso (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a phrase for you. Its Psychological projection.  You are the one who won't have it any other way.  You've taken your crusade against a nickname all over Wikipedia, to the point where ALL nicknames have been removed from infoboxes.  And you have the nerve to say I have a problem. Asher196 (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it was someone else that suggested removing them. I just have access to the program to make it easier to do and happened to agree with them. And for the most part where possible if they aren't already in the prose they are being added there so they aren't exactly being wiped out. It wasn't even me who reverted you the first couple times. I only did it the last time. Anyways neither of us are going to change our minds so we might as well let it drop. -Djsasso (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to fight; we can easily add something to the article that says, "The fans at home Red Wings games like to chant 'Ozzie' when Osgood is playing particularly well, especially later in the season." However, to keep everything balanced, you would also have to add that road fans chant the same term derisively to try to get the goaltender off of his game. I'm just not sure where to put this information right now. -- bmitchelf•T•F 15:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup I agree, basically mentioned that on his talk page. -Djsasso (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Both Ozzie and the Wizard of Oz are currently used in the Visual, Audio and Print Medias in Detroit. Current Article on Ozzie.Current article on Wizard of Oz. I don't know how to put audio files or video files here to show the two nicknames used. During his first stint it was only Ozzie, and when he would make a stop the display at the joe would show "Another one for the Osgood files" (Charles OSgood the reporter reference). What is the problem exactly with showing a players nickname? There aee all sorts for players and groups of players: The Mule, The professor, The "Great" one, The Rocket, The Pocket-Rocket, The Grind Line, The Production Line.............................--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point. Ozzie is not a nickname, it is what is known as a short name. This is the issue that people were having. -Djsasso (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Helmet
Osgood is the only Goaltender in the NHL to wear the "Helmet/Cage" Combo which is a helmet like the other players and a cage that covers their whole face. The remaining goaltenders use a "One piece" molded helmet, that has a small piece in the back that is attached by "elastic"-type strips to the rest of the helmet. Even Tim Tomas uses this helmet, see. His helmet is different in that it does not have the chin portion also moldedinto the helmet like most, but it is still a new style one piece. --That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chris Osgood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421150319/http://msn.foxsports.com:80/nhl/story/9467692/Seasoned-goalies-get-better-of-young-counterparts to http://msn.foxsports.com/nhl/story/9467692/Seasoned-goalies-get-better-of-young-counterparts
 * Added tag to http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130909/SPORTS0103/309090070/Ex-Wings-goalie-Chris-Osgood-joins-Fox-Sports-Detroit

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Number of goalie goals
Its actually 15 credited and 8 who have shot one in. 206.130.179.245 (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chris Osgood


text: Talk:Brad Park

title: Talk:Brad Park


text:
Talk:Gilbert Perreault

Untitled
Shouldn't there be some meantion of his weird, icey realationship with the Sabres since his retirement? --69.255.193.247 16:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If any such mention is properly sourced so as to avoid overt POV, sure. Ravenswing 16:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a biased article.MikeFlynn52 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold
The information in the article seems to be ok. The issues are
 * Style. I think that slang like "Team Canada" should definitely not be used. "French Connection" should be italics I think and should be either capped or uncapped in a consistent manner.
 * POV/hyperbole. Words like superstar etc, definitely need to be culled. "spectacular offensive unit", "Cinderella run " "team loaded with future NHL talents " ✅--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing. The records, retirement and later parts of the article need sources at the end of the pargraph.
 * This is a problem because I am taking over an undersourced page. I have to either delete things or leave them unsourced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weasel. "won the Calder Trophy as rookie of the year by a wide margin over Jude Drouin." - better to cite point gaps
 * Source uses this kind of verbiage so I just removed reference to the margin.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 06:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Prose - Many short sentences which do not seem to flow and relate to adjacent sentences. The first para of "amateur career" is a key example.

There are other sentencees which can be imporved along similar techniques and motifs. Regards,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with some of the points. For example, "Team Canada" is the name by which the squad is near-universally known, and it is no more slang than referring to "Rhode Island" or "Los Angeles" by those names, neither of which is the actual legal name of those entities.    Ravenswing  05:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Indian cricket team is not called "Team India" in articles although it is quite ocmmon among the Indian press.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work. Well done.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Copied from talk page ...
I appreciate your interest in Gilbert Perreault. I spent a lot of time last month returning to Buffalo to research his article as well as The French Connection (hockey) to get them both cited well enough to be WP:GAs. I am glad someone else cares about these articles. However, removing sources that support facts that are not commonly known to wikipedia readers is not appropriate in my mind. I have reverted many of your changes and this ist the net result of our joint efforts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not be appropriate in your mind, but it's appropriate per policy. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V).  Items of readily provable fact, such as that Perreault is a Hall of Famer or the years during which he was named an All-Star, are already cited in the general references and the external link and do not require a cloud of jarring inline citations.  Furthermore, the extensive references to the Fog Game are inappropriate, given that the game is not itself about Perreault and he had no particularly overwhelming impact in it.  Finally, I worry that you might be crossing the WP:OWN line.  I likewise appreciate the interest of other editors in this article, am glad other editors care about it and have spent time researching the edits I myself have made in it.  I hope other editors are similarly invested in the articles about which they themselves care.  Nonetheless, no single one of us has any more authority or influence over an article than another ... which is just as well, since my first edits to this article happened a year and a half before yours.    Ravenswing  03:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I find your style of I am so sure I am right I am going to revert in whole instead of going item by item and analyzing deeply each thing that I replaced. Your haphazard total revert even delete an incredibly useful template. Taking the I'm right and I am going to threaten you with an WP:OWN challenge is the completely wrong approach to take. Please reconsider each single item you removed especially valuable templates you carelessly removed.  I took a lot of time with a thoughtful compromise edit and your approach is not thought of very highly.  Since this was a newly minted WP:GA you should seriously reconsider your reversion.  It is common to cite a source for unlikely to be challenged statistics because it is helpful to the reader.  You should keep in mind that at one point the article said he was a six time All-star.  Some sources have it wrong.  Even though you should not challenge that he is a 9-time All-star you should not remove such a citation. Please respond at my talk page. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unable to complete my thoughts because the library closed at 9PM central (2AM UTC) last night. It also appears that I was in a huffy mood at the end of the day yesterday.  Citations are not reserved for things likely to be challenged by experts.  Basically, they are used to provide references for most interesting facts in an article.  If I told you someone scored over 500 goals you might find that to be an incredible claim if you are not a sports fan.  An article should be written with main page exposure in mind.  Suppose this becomes a FA some day.  If you look at most sports FACs they are chock full of citations for things that we all know are true.  An article will have a citation for the fact that a team won the Stanley cup in a given year and one for the fact that it moved to another arena in a given year.  This is the way proper citation works.  The challenge rule you are cited does not mean that you only cite something if you think it might belong in Ripley's Believe it or Not.  Please respond since I know you are online.  I will begin reverting this after noon if there is no response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand by my statements. Your argument relies on vague speculation such as whether someone might challenge that Perreault scored 500 goals or that he was a nine-time All-Star.  Quite aside from the obvious fact that no one here has ever done either, such speculation doesn't override the policy governing the use of inline citations.  Beyond that, of course I believe that I'm right -- it would be quite incorrect for me to make changes I felt were wrong -- and that believing you're crossing the line into WP:OWN is a very long way from "threatening" a "challenge" on those grounds, for which I'd be interested in you pointing out where I said anything of the sort.    Ravenswing  18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I gotta agree with RG on this: his career stats are included in the article. They're backed up by a link to hockeydb and others stats websites could easily be added as well (I've always preferred hockeydb because it includes minor, junior and college stats). Data like that is mundane, qualitative and easily accessible. I'd be more worried about citing statements such as he also plays on occasion with the Buffalo Sabres Alumni Hockey Team for charity events. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it is true, yet I don't see anything that would prove it. ccwaters 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unlike his stats, that's a fact that is not to be found in a hundred hockey books or fifty websites, each and every time invariably.    Ravenswing  19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to revert item by item with comment. Give me about a half hour.  The point is that facts at WP are highly suspect by the general populous and thus notable fact citations are being reverted.  I will attempt to do so minimally.  Hopefully places that had redundant citations will have fewer, but facts that are worth boasting about must be cited, for the sake of the reader who should not just trust us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. in case you think I lie about the 6 time AS source, see http://www.sabresalumni.com/2001/perreault.php3 .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to need more than a half hour.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Take your time; any inline citations of non-controversial statistical fact will just be reverted right back. Uncontroversial items of readily-provable statistical fact don't uniquely become needful of inline citations just because they're "boast" worthy.  I'll be happy to raise this to the Wikiproject for a consensus.    Ravenswing  20:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ravenswing & I often disagree but lately we seem to be agreeing more and more. I do believe he is right in this case. Having inline citations for the sake of having them is not productive and undesireable when they can easily be covered by the general references at the bottom of the page. Only if something is controversial or possibly unbelieveable/challengable should it have inline citation with a few exceptions for other reasons such as direct quotes. --Djsasso 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with TonyTheTiger simply because articles should be written assuming the reader knows nothing and therefore citations will help the reader know that what they are reading is true/verified. Facts with numbers that are not cited are possibly likely to be challenged but are also easy targets for sneaky vandalism.  T Rex  | talk  22:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, inline citations don't prevent sneaky vandalism. Editors who pay attention prevent sneaky vandalism.  I could not, off the top of my head, quote the precise number of goals and assists Perreault scored in his career (500-someodd and 800-someodd), and inline citations don't jog anyone's memory any further.  Secondly, of course the statistical facts should have citations ... the general references and external links at the bottom of the page, which already exist.    Ravenswing  01:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It makes it easier to find out where exactly which facts come from where without the reader having to go through each source checking to see where the fact came from. Sneaky vandalism often does slip through articles even if the article does have many people watching it.  T Rex  | talk  01:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If his goal is to eventually be featured it is a very fine line between having enough and having to many. Alot of FAs get shot down because of over use of inline citations. As pointed out by Ravenswing only ones that can't be covered by general references at the bottom, ie challengable facts, need inline citations. --Djsasso 14:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, T Rex, if someone has to have an inline citation because he can't figure out how to look up a routine statistical fact from the general reference links, he shouldn't be editing an article for errors. That being said, this is slightly moot.  The policy on the use of inline citations is unambiguous, and this article's violated that.    Ravenswing  15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about editors, I was talking about the average reader who comes to Wikipedia who wants to find information and inline citations help this reader find information quickly.  T Rex  | talk  23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Err, no. Inline citations do not help the reader find information quickly.  Putting the information in the article in the first place helps the reader find information quickly.    Ravenswing  12:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion offer
I would be happy to try and help resolve the outstanding issue if someone wants to summarize the dispute. Please note: I am not looking for reports of editor behavior - i simply want to know what the dispute was/is over. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jmfangio. Is the dispute over whether each sentence in a GA article should be footnoted? Please just summarize the dispute. Thanks. -- Jreferee   T / C  06:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. My position is that Tony has flooded the article with unnecessary inline citations; to quote myself from above, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V). Items of readily provable, uncontroversial, statistical fact, such as that Perreault is a Hall of Famer or the years during which he was named an All-Star, are already cited in the general references and the external link and do not require a cloud of jarring inline citations.  That being said, the other comments in from WP:HOCKEY regulars support that viewpoint.    Ravenswing  16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The style use of inline citations is an issue often dealt with by those at Featured articles. If you can't find your answer at Featured article criteria, perhaps ask at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. -- Jreferee   T / C  17:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given feedback we got at Peer review/Gilbert Perreault/archive1, which says that the citations are helpful to international wikipedians (which was my point in the debate), edits like this seem destructive given the debate we are having about whether citation should be removed. I had reduced the citation level to what I thought was the bare minimum for a this GA.  The citations that were taken out reduce this article below the WP:GA level, IMO.  This article would not pass at WP:GAR given this edit.  It should be reverted, IMO. The edit was contrary to the feedback we have received and my experience as the lead author of 2 WP:FAs, 3 WP:FLs, 29 WP:GAs and 3 WP:GACs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If I were to summarize the debate, I would say the debate is over whether what I see as the minimal citation level or what User:Ravenswing sees as the minimal citation level is more appropriate. His most recent edit is pretty much the crux of the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For my part, I wouldn't be comfortable implying that the single reviewer who addressed the subject at Peer review/Gilbert Perreault/archive1 represented any degree of consensus. Beyond that, gosh, I've several thousand edits myself, I've been an active member of the WP:HOCKEY Wikiproject for several years and the author of the project's player notability criteria, and my first edits on this article predate yours by a year and a half.  Now might we stick to the merits of the argument, rather than claim "Mine is bigger than yours" as any sort of justification?  If there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline granting more of a say to those brandishing massive edit counts, I'm ignorant of it.     Ravenswing  08:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If don't get any resolution here, which I hope will come from another 3rd party (User:Jreferee), we can either go to WP:GAR or WP:DR from here. But the merits in my opinion are adequately summarized as an argument over your edit from yesterday and I am willing to argue the merits in either forum if necessary.  At GAR, we run the risk of losing WP:GA status on the article, but unlike either of the talk pages or WP:PR we are guaranteed to get much feedback.  I hope a second outside opinion will help us come to some resolution however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well ... as to that, if insufficient feedback here is generated, either forum will do. If GA status could be lost over a dispute as to how many inline citations this article should have, then its status was a lot shakier than that.    Ravenswing  18:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would concede the article was not one of my better GAs because so much information existed before I got involved. I do much better with articles from scratch. I think GAR may be the better course in terms of what is best for the article.  DR would be the better course in terms of what the best policy issues are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

GAR closed
The GAR observed no variation from the criteria which only stipulate minimum requirements for inline citation. GAR is not the place to resolve editorial disputes, so I have closed the discussion. The article retains its GA status. Please consider using requests for comment instead. Geometry guy 17:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC
I claim that after I did a lot of work in late July and early August to get this article promoted to WP:GA, User:Ravenswing started removing a lot of the details in the article. Most of the disagreement relates to how heavily an article should be cited. If I cited multiple points from the same source separately he removed many of the multiple citations. I did not totally disagree and relented to many of the changes. However, as he continued this, I began to feel he was taking destructive action. We have gone back and forth on our talk pages. The debate provide great fodder to derail my WP:RFA on WP:OWN issues. We agreed to accept outside opinions but neither WP:WPBIO nor WP:HOCKEY gave any feedback on their talk pages. We then posted at WP:PR and got one response that supported my opinion that greater citation detail was a positive for our international audience. I brought the article to WP:GAR, where there was strong support to readd citations, but they sent us to WP:RFC to get some consensus regarding edits like this September 24th edit made after the September 21st feedback at PR. In its current state (which I consider vandalized by User:Ravenswing) it is not the greatest GA. If I was using a scale where 95 is a WP:TFA, 90 is new WP:FA promotion, 75 is a new WP:GA listing or a WP:FAR keep, and 65 is a WP:GA/R keep, I would rate this article as about a 70. Basically, I am calling for support to revert the removals in the edit documented here and make some sort of clear statement that removing these kinds of details degrades the quality of the encyclopedia. I am calling for consensus on the debate about the direction of this article and have exhausted many avenues.

Traynor claims as follows: I removed no citations; I simply trimmed back an overwhelming number of inline citations that were as thick as every sentence in spots, each and every one an item of uncontroversial statistical fact already referenced below in a list of citations that I very properly did not touch. Tony's overeager inline citations flout official policy: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V). (By contrast, When to cite is an essay with no force as policy or guideline, and in any event does not focus on inline citations.) That he characterizes this as vandalism verges on personal attack -- given that I was editing this article a year and a half before he ever noticed it, should I claim that he vandalized my work? -- and if he feels that this issue impacted his RFA, his ambitions would be better served by correcting those actions of his which caused a raft of Oppose votes than by forum shopping. A GAR nomination on an article for which he pushed for GA status in the first place smacks of WP:POINT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Tony cut and pasted my comments from GAR, so I don't have much to add beyond this: his claim that there was "strong support for readding citations" rests on two users other than himself and T Rex, who has been extensively heard on the issue here, and whose comments were made before my response to Tony's argument.  Ravenswing  23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would just like to call your attention to the exchange above where it seemed it was agreed that GAR was the next step, but after responses started coming in supporting readding citations, Ravenswing for some reason started complaining that GAR was not a good place ("smacks of WP:POINT") to go causing to be booted to RFC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 03:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Simple. I was under the impression that GAR was for review and comment on good articles.  I did not anticipate that you were going to challenge the status that you yourself proposed for the article, and that's where WP:POINT comes in.  I apologize for my misimpression of GAR, and for my failure to predict your intent.    Ravenswing  05:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Your explanation explains nothing:
 * I was under the impression that GAR was for review and comment on good articles.-It is. In fact, is is for review and comment on articles whose good status is under fire.  I feel the edits that are at issue here have detracted from the quality of the article such that a reconsideration of its status was appropriate.
 * I did not anticipate that you were going to challenge the status that you yourself proposed for the article-This statement means little or nothing. I did not propose a status.  I had nominated the article for good article successfully.  I place my own or articles from my project under review at GAR when I feel their quality is questionably good.  I feel the edits you have made to the article make this an issue.
 * You're weasel wording, and rather clumsily to boot. I can think of no circumstance where nominating an article for GA status is not "proposing a status."   Ravenswing  23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you refer to policy that is not relevant. If you look at my user page you will see I have been involve in numerous GA nomination discussions and I have never before heard the term "proposing a status" used in association with nominating or listing a candidate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * that's where WP:POINT comes in-The policy you are pointing to actually points out your own bad faith. We have been having extreme difficulty in getting opinions on our debate. We have been at various fora where no response a common outcome.  We entered the GAR forum where there is always a clear outcome and you made a complaint which stopped proceedings from rendering a clear outcome and sent us back to a forum where it seems no response may be likely.  This is an example of WP:POINT gaming the system violation #8.  I do not see any particular violation in this policy applicable to my actions.  If you have any particular point you think is relevant please note it.
 * Perhaps you should review the commonly held definitions of "bad faith." The one applicable here is gaming the system to achieve your goal.  The closing admin on that discussion intimated that GAR is not the proper forum for content disputes.  One would think that you would be extremely familiar with that premise, since you are very active in the GA process, and yet you determined that GAR was an appropriate venue nonetheless.  That is bad faith.    Ravenswing  23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would counter that it is bad faith to agree to a discussion in particular forum and then cry bad faith when the debate goes against you.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my . . . failure to predict your intent - Are you under the impression that my intent is to do anything other than to get you to agree to stop removing more inline citations than is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would phrase it more along the lines of forcing your own POV, but yes, that's your ultimate goal, however you can achieve it.   Ravenswing  23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you are using a policy incorrectly. POV would be I say Gilbert Perreault is the greatest hockey player ever, and you say no and we go back and forth about content related to this fact/non-fact.  We have no debate about facts, just citations thereof.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Previous comments prior to this RFC for those who have not seen all the other places this debate has taken place without ending the debate:
 * Pro citation readdition:
 * I need verifiable sources, convincing me that everything you state and assume is accurate.--User:Yannismarou 11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bring back the removed citations because most if not all of them fall under Wikipedia:When to cite. T Rex | talk 03:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * as long as the details you want in this article are, indeed, well-referenced and useful for mentioning in the article about this subject, I don't understand why they should be excluded.... Homestarmy 01:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The only time I could imagine an article with too many citations would be when one fact is cited with 5 different sources, or when every single sentence is cited. Removing a fact's only reliable citation borders on vandalism. Jeff Dahl 04:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Against citation readdition:
 * Only if something is controversial or possibly unbelieveable/challengable should it have inline citation with a few exceptions for other reasons such as direct quotes. --Djsasso 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Comment If you are hoping there are more inline citations than are already there, all i can say is oh my god. The article is already way to hard to read because of the little citations everywhere. You absolutely do not need an inline citation for something that there is a general citation for down below. And to be honest Tony it does look an awful lot like WP:OWN and WP:POINT that you keep taking this matter to every forum you possibly can. Taking it to WP:GAR for something you yourself put up for GA pretty much proves the other two. --Djsasso 23:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Comment Well, my position is the same as above but Tony was not in violation of WP:POINT by taking this to GAR because there is an ongoing content dispute which may warrant its removal as a GA under Criteria 5 (article must be stable, no edit wars or daily significant changes) of the GA criteria. Also I have found a few things that require citations that aren't cited.
 * In 1976, Canada hosted the first Canada Cup series and boasted what many believe is the greatest Canadian team ever assembled. Who is this many that believe it was the greatest team ever.
 * Career achievements section is unreferenced, how do I know its not all made up?
 * There are a lot of statistics that have no citations, once again how do I know they are not inaccurate, or just plain lies?

 T Rex  | talk  00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not saying citations aren't necessary. But the argument is between inline citations and general references. All the statistics and most of the achievements are covered by citation #1 and #2. If you changed those to general references instead of inline citations it would cover off all the citations necessary for the statistics and the achievements. The 1972 one does need a reference, but again this isn't an argument about references or no references. Its about inline vs general references. --Djsasso 00:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Too many citations; it make the article difficult to read. GoodDay 14:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why the only two supporting comments are from your wikifriends (see user talk here)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your point? GoodDay 17:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call me and Ravenswing wikifriends. In fact we argue alot more with each other than agree with each other. But based on this comment and a number of comments of yours that I have read in other areas I definitely see why you keep failing RFAs. Heck my arguments with Goodday are legendary so you could hardly call us all wikifriends. We just happen to all work on the hockey project. Not that either of them aren't decent fellows. I would urge you to read and understand WP:CIVIL. --Djsasso 23:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly it's just that you're unfamiliar with the Wikiproject, Tony, but unlike in your case with T Rex following you around (shall we draw a similar parallel?), Djsasso, GoodDay and Ccwaters have not been following me around the various fora tossing in MeToos. As even the most cursory search of the Wikiproject would reveal, they and I have failed to see eye to eye on a number of issues, and I quite agree with Dj that a review of WP:CIVIL would be in your best interest ... it is disruptive, uncivil and self-righteous to assume that no one could agree with my position save out of self-interest, and nonsensical to assume that no other Wikiproject regulars follow this article about an expansion era Hall of Famer.    Ravenswing  00:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider everybody at Wikipedia 'my friend', since I consider nobody 'my enemy'. I've never met a fellow Wikipedian personally, never been to any conventions. - So, again Tony, what's your point? GoodDay 14:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting annoying. You have gone from WP:OWN, to WP:POINT, to WP:CIVIL without making a sensible point.  Is there a reason why you say T Rex follows me around.  He has followed this debate around as it has been ongoing in several locations.  He is genuinely concerned about the editorial quality of the project.  It seems odd that these are persons concerned with WP:HOCKEY when we could not get any responses to the debate over there.  It seems more like they are people called on to support your claim that citing Gilbert Perreault inline like my other 40+ WP:GAs, WP:FAs and WP:FLs is wrong for him but right for the rest.  If you guys all in fact work on the same articles you are wikifriends of some sort so where does WP:CIVIL come in?  Show me a Hockey article you believe is good that does not have abundant inline citations and I will show you a good WP:GAR candidate.  I can not prove any sort of WP:CANVASS, but it seems curious that they all suddenly show up when they didn't at the Hockey talk.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well considering you didn't post this request at the Hockey Talk and that I had to do it, you might want to consider how it looks that you were trying to slide this in without people in the Hockey project noticing. Secondly we are not saying it is good for one and not good for the other. It was YOU who insinuated WP:CANVASS when you have someone who is actually following you around. So don't try and turn this on us, when really its more suspiscious that you have someone following you. So you are friends with every single person in the chicago wikiproject you claim to run? I hardly think that just because you have the same interests that that makes you friends. Or I would be friends with every hockey fan in the world. WP:OWN is you not letting go of things when its clear that you are not in the right. WP:POINT is you going to every forum you can to cry that you aren't getting your way and trying to make a point. WP:CIVIL is you making veiled accusations of WP:CANVASS without any proof. I can actually find you FA's with a less than "abundant" amount of inline citations. In fact I have seen a number fail for having too many inline citations when chunks of the article could have been covered by general references. --Djsasso 16:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No one there commented on this when I placed it there the first time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This gang tackling approach is not very likely confusing anyone. Djasso seems quite confused here since there are no diffs of anyone following me around and there are diffs of most supporters of Ravenswing being connected enough to show up on the top user talk contributors of the same person.  There is no one here who I have been involved in significant other debates with or co-editted with on other articles.  Please feel free to point out any follows with actual diffs as opposed to libelous unsubstantiated untruths.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should stay on topic and stop trying to make this personal? --Djsasso 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From your response it sounds like when asked to back up your statement you have no facts to point to so you tried to switch the subject.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No actually I am tired of arguing with someone who themself keeps switching the subject each time they are shown how they are wrong. The point is about this article. You can't argue the topic at hand so you are trying to attack the people who disagree with you. Shows alot of maturity. --Djsasso 21:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it, do you, Tony? First off, if you really want me to go through all the FA and GA articles you've worked on and strip the excess inline citations from them, I can, but that would (accurately) be seen as a case of Wikistalking.  I comment on the articles upon which I comment, and don't on articles upon which I take no notice; my interest in, and knowledge of, Chicago-area landmarks, for instance, is limited.  Secondly, your entire basis for insinuating WP:CANVASS is that several people agree with my position, and I don't think I need to belabor how outrageous that is or that you could be tarred with your own brush.  Finally, I would have thought you had learned from your several failed RFAs, but the fact that the most recent one failed resoundingly (not only with forty editors Opposing but with many changing to "Strong Oppose" upon hearing more evidence) would suggest that there are things upon which you need to work.  WP:OWN issues are among them.  Hauling out your oft-repeated GA/FA count as if that means others should kowtow to you is among them.  Perhaps you've set your ambitions aside, though.    Ravenswing  21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay lets see if we calm things down a couple hundred notches here. First things first I am an admin, not to throw that in your faces but I hope it keeps people from jumping to the conclusion that I am in any way slanted. Okay, things are getting way to personal in these discussions, with the many accusations that have been flying around here. Whatever your opinion is regarding this article, state it, defend it, and if necessary, fight for it, but do not start arguing points about credibility. You two have both been in Wikipedia along time, and this kind of mudslinging is beneath you both (I'm speaking of Tiger and Traynor). Good faith and civility were thrown out the window a while ago here. Both of you have a fair good number of users who have some sort of issue with how you conduct activities, which is probably more of a reflection of passionate editing than any sort of corruption. So having said that, onto the issue at hand. This really is not, like many of the edit wars I've experienced, a big issue. I am more inclined to agree with that the citations are a little excessive, mostly on the statistical facts, but at the same time he may have gone a little overboard on just how many citations he did take out. And since Tony was the first person to add the citations and improve this article to good article status, I would think that even though the citations may seem a little excessive, that's not really a bad thing. To give an appropriate hockey reference, "Shooting the puck is never a bad play", meaning that there sometimes are better options than shooting, but that doesn't make it a mistake. Its the same thing here except with the citations, we are not aiming to make every article on Wikipedia a perfect article, but I'm sure everybody would be happy if they were all good. So I think that leaving the citations the way they are is the best option, and to go off and work on more productive things than these little squabbles. Just my thoughts.  Croat Canuck     Say hello   or just talk    21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I would be happy to just have them where they are now and everyone go off and do some great work on other articles. I am just concerned that a million more will be added in. As long as that doesn't happen I am happy. In otherwords lets let things stay where they are and go off and be merry. --Djsasso 21:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Request
Would it be possible to get a dif from when this article was argued to have too many citations? I'd like to see what this article looked like when it needed to be "fixed" before I could offer a greater comment. Resolute 00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay this seems to be the gist of it....

 * 1) TonyTheTiger fixes up the article to good article status ....
 * 2) Ravenswing takes out a number of citations ....
 * 3) They then reverted each other once each....
 * 4) TonyTheTiger does quite a few more edits ...
 * 5) Then Traynor removes other citations . That's all the editing that has been done from the looks of things from the actual article. Other than that its been a lot of stone-throwing and mud-slinging from one camp to the other.  Croat Canuck     Say hello   or just talk    01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Based on a quick look, I am going to have to side mostly with Ravenswing here.  The article was overlinked.  There were cases of four line paragraphs using the same cite three or four times on consecutive sentences.  I really do not see that as necessary.  There might be room to add more back in, but imo, it was definitely a case of overkill. Resolute 05:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Agne
First and foremost, general references listed at the bottom of an article are utterly and completely useless. At best they can function as a Further Reading (sort of an offwiki See Also) but for the sake of WP:V they offer absolutely no benefit to the reader or editor wishing to verify a particular fact. You can't compose a litany of facts and claims (which is what every article essentially is) and hand the reader a thick book and tell them to "go fish" for the one shred of information they want to verify. It's not practical. Additionally no one can claim, with any sort of credibility, that they know exactly what any given reader will want to "challenge" or simply follow up on. What may be "absurdly obvious" to a die hard fan may be somewhat curious or interesting for the novice fan or casual reader. Now of course this doesn't mean that every single sentence needs to be cited but in general there should be a relevant cite at least within the paragraph to back up all the claims put forth in that section. That said... if I was the GA reviewer on the version #1 posted above, I probably would not have passed the article without some improvement. Not because it was "overly cited" or even "under cited" but because it was not well cited-meaning that things that need to be cited are not while something are redundantly cited. In looking at that first version there are three sources for the line Perreault was a standout Junior hockey player who went on to become a nine time NHL ALL-Star, two time Official NHL All-Star Team (second team center) selection, a Calder Trophy winner, a Lady Byng Trophy winner and a Hockey Hall of Famer. Yet no sources for the more opinion oriented claims that He is well known as the centerman for the prolific trio of Sabres forwards known as The French Connection. and Because the Sabres were an expansion team in 1970, the broadcast crew was also inexperienced, and famously the television broadcast cut away one night as Perreault picked up the puck behind the net. Part of having an article "well cited" is picking out good sources that can support multiple claims and facts in the article. It also requires a degree of editorial skill in order to fashion paragraphs and string together facts that can all be cited by one source at the end of the paragraph which is a far cry from piece mealing together isolated facts with each their own source. It not easy (and I certainly struggle with as does many wikipedians) but is one of the skills that we must strive to be better at in order to produce better articles. Just my $0.02. AgneCheese/Wine 11:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Two comments. First, I agree with Agne's first point, that a "general reference" at the end of the article is largely useless. Even if the original author can be sure that every sentence in the article can be verified to one of (say) three listed sources, a reader doesn't know which source verifies any particular sentence. When the article gets edited later, new content may or may not be based on the listed general references, and if it's not caught immediately, there's no way for a later reader or editor to distinguish that sentence from the other "verified" sentences. If multiple paragraphs have no inline cites, for the most part only the original author can judge whether changes to those paragraphs are good, but with inline cites, other editors can judge and revert too.
 * Second, if you want to see what's changed in this article, the ArticleHistory template has a link to state of the article as it originally passed GA. On that historical version, there is a link to this diff with the current version. Gimmetrow 00:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Ling.Nut
"Minimum threshold; does not sanction."

This is a truly scary precedent. Choose your evils well!

I have to take both arguments to their extreme and ask: which is more evil, underlinked or overlinked? Underlinked is by far more evil:
 * No, citations don't prevent sneaky vandalism but without them the source of the info  and thus the vandalism cannot be verified.
 * Do we want to set the scary precedent of letting folks remove citations because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? No. Verifiability trumps style.
 * The "challenged or likely to be challenged" bar in WP:V is a minimum threshold; it does not repeat does not sanction the removal of cites. It does not. Read the text again, please!
 * --Ling.Nut 03:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor forbids it, nor requires the alternative. The genuine scary precedent is the suggestion that anything not specifically sanctioned is forbidden.    Ravenswing  06:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I hate it when people don't read what I've written. :-) I never mentioned the word "forbid." i was talking about the relative merits of arguments pro/con removing citations... I know you have a nontrivial personal stake in this issue, Ravenswing. I have a strong and healthy aversion to arguing with anyone on Wikipedia who has a personal stake in the outcome. It always and everywhere leads to interminable tit-for-tat I know-you-are-but-what-am-I threads. So, I won't. I'm.. willing to answer a couple more comments, if they contain salient points, but I'm not gonna tit-for-tat. later! --Ling.Nut 06:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And I hate it when people presume that failure to agree with their POV equates to a failure to understand. No, you did not actually use the word "forbid."  But you do harp on the fact that the text I quoted did not "sanction" the removal of cites.  What's your point?    Ravenswing  04:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sample edit showing what happens when citation removal gets endorsed.
this is what happens when people who don't understand the meaning of tertiary source take over a page. A tertiary source such as WP only summarizes what other secondary sources say. Every fact in a article is suppose to be something a secondary source says. When someone adds a fact tag, it is not proper for someone to say this is a fact because I say so and remove it without properly citing the fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I did not notice that the source I was replacing it with was not pasted into the article. I very much appreciate you letting me know this or replacing the fact tag so that it may be corrected. Oh wait actually you didn't you used it as another excuse to attack someone who disagrees with you. And I would appreciate it if you again read WP:CIVIL and don't accuse me of not knowing what a tertiary source is. You still seem to not understand what the disagreement on this page is about. It's not about no citing vs. citing. Its about the types of citation you are using. --Djsasso 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You removed the fact as if it was malplaced. It was not.  I would readd the claim if I could source it, but I spent a week at the Buffalo public library looking for such sources.  Unless I am going to be in Montreal someday soon, I am not going to be able to find it.  It should be tagged if included (as it was).  I think it is premature tor remove the fact tag, but fighting with you is not worth the effort.  I apologize if you view my editorial propriety correction as a personal attack.  However, your statement that "You still seem to not understand what the disagreement on this page is about. It's not about no citing vs. citing. Its about the types of citation you are using." is clearly incorrect.  If you believed that misstatement you would remove all references to the citations.  If a certain article is refernced 5 times and you say it should only be referenced twice that is an argument about citing vs. not citing.  If you believe it is about the types of citations then you would say all five should be removed because it is not the right type of reference.  Get your story straight.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant fix it as in replace the fact tag. As far as not understanding the arguement you just proved it in this statement. This has always been about using general references in place of multiple inline uncontroversial citations. Those are two types of reference. There are times when you should use inline and times when you should use a general reference. Removing all inline citations is being rediculous. But removing 3 of the 5 because they would be better suited with general references is an arguement about type, not an arguement about having them or not having them. An arguement about not having them would be trying to remove them without having a general reference to back the facts up. --Djsasso (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal life
Hi, this is a warning that the personal life information in this article is much too short. Any biography that is of GA standard must have at least one well organised paragraph describing the persons life outside of their field for which they are famous or otherwise incorporate that information elsewhere in the text. This article does not provide enough information on the person in question and does not give enough context for the incidents and information that is mentioned. For an example of how such a section might look, see Brian Urlacher and for pointers on how to expand and improve the section, see this guide. If this information is not improved then this article would be unlikely to survive a Good Article Reassessment and may well be delisted in the future. Thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gilbert Perreault


text: Talk:Éric Perrin

title: Talk:Éric Perrin


text:
Talk:Dion Phaneuf

Hockey's Future predictions
To clarify my recent edit to the article: I accessed Hockey's Future's top 50 prospects list, from which I got their prediction that he will be a Norris Trophy winner, today. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

??
does anyone know how to get this picture/file up on here?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v238/-heather-/doubled.gif

"Dion Phaneuf will wear the ‘C’ on his Maple Leafs sweater"
Someone should edit the article to show that Phaneuf would be captain next season.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/mapleleafs/article/794633--dion-phaneuf-will-wear-the-c-on-his-maple-leafs-sweater —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winged fate (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dion Phaneuf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151107074252/http://www.whl.ca/phaneuf-named-team-whl-captain-p123437 to http://www.whl.ca/phaneuf-named-team-whl-captain-p123437

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Dion Phaneuf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107125418/http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/sports/story.html?id=3976c638-3e7a-4321-8de0-7b213b8d0545 to http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/sports/story.html?id=3976c638-3e7a-4321-8de0-7b213b8d0545
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415122355/http://www.faceoff.com:80/story.html?id=91e71c85-5582-4b2c-b4b8-0632cbb98736 to http://www.faceoff.com/story.html?id=91e71c85-5582-4b2c-b4b8-0632cbb98736
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calgaryherald.com/sports/Phaneuf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013034040/http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=384215 to http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=384215

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dion Phaneuf