Talk:David Dziurzynski

Fight, knockout, and concussion
This fight was notable and the event is still getting redidual coverage, most notably creating a discussion on the safety of fighting in hockey 1 2 3 4. It's clearly notable and should be included now while allowing for constructive edits, it may be pared down or away over time. Frankly, a player who only recently joined an NHL team has no other real reason for having a page than this notoriety. Multiple independent users have put this in, I was also 198.101.67.66 and 68.5.176.101 but that leaves at least two others. User ChakaKong keeps reverting the content. User ChakaKong reveals himself on his account page to be an Ottawa Senators fan, and perhaps should thus recuse himself from the argument or at least refrain from multiple reverts of the same content in a short period.

At any rate the simple solution is to have a quick vote. Please sound off on whether this information should be included in the article. 75.103.11.162 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it goes without saying that any serious injury suffered in a game warrants inclusion, regardless of the circumstances. One of the IPs added junk like "his career is probably over three weeks in" that obviously should be removed, but a simple mention that he was knocked out in a fight, suffered a concussion and that the incident renewed debate about fighting in ice hockey is appropriate.  Though frankly, not more than a couple sentences, imnsho.  (And please, do it without using proseline!) Resolute 23:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not notable per Recentism. If this incident ends up ending his career, that's different. That has not happened. As of today this is not historically significant. BTW, Wikipedia is not a democracy and a vote isn't how we get things done. That's not consensus. ChakaKongtalk  23:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Recentism describes two aspects, not one. The second aspect is a support for inclusion of recent events "in many cases, such content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information. Any encyclopedia goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are immediately published in what might be considered draft form: They can be—and are—improved in real time; these rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts, but later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be—and often is—eliminated."  Further it notes that recent events are useful in recruitment to the project.  Someone coming to the Dzuirzynski page - if they can spell the dang name - will find it odd not to see the content.  For example, at least three have done so and added the content, possibly more. 75.103.11.162 (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Recentism also advises: "up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer.". Multiple positive aspects to recent information being included, and citing Recentism is extremely far from making a case for non-inclusion, given the multiple positive aspects that are pro-inclusion that the policy lays out. 75.103.11.162 (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't buy that. Under that definition, any recent activity doesn't qualify. In this case, Dziurzynski's entire career would be out the window as recentism, and that pretty much eliminates his notability. It doesn't matter whether this incident ends his career or not. It is still a serious injury, and that has as much merit as his first game and first goal do.  I am not saying we need to glorify it, nor should we be placing undue weight on it, but a simple line like "Dziurzynski suffered a concussion in a fight against Toronto on March 6, resulting in renewed debate over the role of fighting in ice hockey" is appropriate.  Sentence two would become "He returned to the lineup after missing x days/games".  Resolute 23:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time. This is not an ongoing event; it's over with. Will it remain notable over time? Very unlikely. And for the record, no one has attempted to put it in perspective by stating that it's resulted in "renewed debate over the role of fighting in ice hockey". All that 75.103.11.162 or anyone else has tried to add is basically "he got knocked out cold". Is that encyclopedic? ChakaKongtalk 23:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Frankly, a player who only recently joined an NHL team has no other real reason for having a page than this notoriety." Not true at all. Reread the notability guidelines. ChakaKongtalk 23:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Plenty of precedent for including the fight in a player bio Claude Lemieux Ted Green 75.103.11.162 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting precedence trumps Wikipedia policies? Just because something makes it into one article doesn't mean it should be there. Besides, these aren't good examples; The Maki/Green incident can't really be compared to this because guys don't get their heads bashed in with hockey sticks on a nightly basis in the NHL, and the Lemieux/McCarty incident was something that was premeditated as a response to an earlier incident. ChakaKongtalk 00:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that guys get knocked out on a nightly basis in the NHL, resulting in a daily re-ignition of the debate over the role of fighting? 75.103.11.162 (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Guys do get knocked out in NHL fights with some regularity. You know that as well as I do. ChakaKongtalk 00:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel they get knocked out by punches with exceptional irregularity, but if you have references to the contrary I'm happy to learn the true frequency. And if you find third party references to the contrary that mention the players involved, it would of course support putting the info into the affected players' bios.  Hitting one's head on the ice, or another inanimate object, during a fight is a different thing.75.103.11.162 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This is another stupid Wikipedia argument of which I have seen too many. Why can't you all simply work it out without stupid reverts, discussions of Wiki policy or precedence. The incident occurred and it is, at this point, a major incident in the person's (who is the topic of this article) career. If anyone is interested in this person, they would probably expect to read about it. So it seems to me to be more a debate about control of the content of this article. Just stupid stupid stupid. Alaney2k (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Alaney2k here. The question isn't whether it is notable to hockey in general but is it notable to the subject specifically. In terms of his career at this point it is one of the most notable things about it and defining of it. As such a simple mention as Resolute mentions above is warranted. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)