Talk:Lacrosse/Archive 3

Vandalism and Advertisements
Let's watch the ads, folks. I'm seeing mention of best players and sponsorship deals. They don't belong.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 17:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried getting this article semi-protected, but we haven't had enough vandalism to justify it yet according to the deciders. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC) :i think it may be time to try again. the vandalism is now pretty much daily.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant Information
There is a lot of repeated stuff in this article. The different positions are explained at least three times. 134.84.96.142 (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop Lacrosse
Can someone please add some info about pop lacrosse, the version for kids, as this is becoming popular in schools and clubs but everyone seems to have their own version of the rules. I believe it is supposed to be non-contact, but you try telling that to a bunch of ten-year-olds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.176.164 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lacrosse jargon
There should be a section of this article, or maybe a new article, about lacrosse jargon. There's a lot of terms that are unique to lacrosse and it might be valuable to list them here.Stanthejeep (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea, but I say its probably not a good idea for the following reasons: #1) WP:NOT #2) I think  much/some of the jargon is based on region.  Not only does the kid from Long Island have an accent, but he also has odd lax terms.  Then, as Brian Langtry wrote on NLLInsider: Canadians are Weird (No offense intended). #3) Also, much of the "lax jargon" would be unverifiable (not very wiki friendly . . .read: non-encyclopedic); plus I think a good intentioned attempt at this would then lead into vandals adding things made up one day (again, not wiki friendly, imo).  --Mitico (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Biases (Finland and the Irish)
I've been working on the article and have noticed some obvious biases in the way parts of the article have been written or more probably the way bits have been added to the article. Of minor note there was an over emphasis on lacrosse in Finland in the International Lacrosse section. The top picture of the article captioned "lacrosse being played in Finland" seems to be sufficient considering how little and for how short a period of time lacrosse has been played in Finland. On a slightly more significant note it seems that someone was trying to imply that Irish hurling was somehow lacrosse's predecessor. There is no such evidence for such a claim. One could conjecture that the sports, hurling and lacrosse, might be related based on structural similarities and relative geography but even if this was the case it could just as easily be that hurling is a derivative of lacrosse. Either way as I said before there is no evidence to support the claim and further there are no published sources that discuss the possibility.

I understand that people love lacrosse, are proud of their country and thus anxious to have a historical connection to the sport but distorting this article is not the way to go about establishing this. These things take time and need to be established elsewhere before becoming part of an encyclopedia. TR166ER (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed Unsupported Conjecture
I removed the following from the "History" section because it is tangential and because it is unsupported conjecture:

"Lacrosse is quite similar to the ancient Irish sport of Hurling except in Hurling players use a stick made of ash and no padding is worn. Since a significant number of Irish immigrants arrived in America in the 19th century it is likely they played a role in the evolution of the sport to its current form."


 * Note that the author has capitalized "hurling" twice.

helmets are now being worn in hurling.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I also rewrote part of the history section dealing with the origins of the word "lacrosse" to accurately reflect the information provided by the source that was cited. Previously this had also contained conjecture on the part of the wikipedian. TR166ER (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Water lacrosse
Someone started a paragraph on this version of the sport, but it was deleted. I have not found any quantity of historical information about this sport, but there is a brief mention of it in "Indian Scout Craft and Lore" by Charles Alexander Eastman. Apparently there was a version of lacrosse that Indians played in birch-bark canoes that is a forebearer of "water lacrosse" or "canoe ball". It may also be related to "canoe polo" or "kayak polo". Anyway, there is one site that discusses a history of canoe polo where paddles are used to throw a floating ball. The content sounds plausible but unfortunately has no references. Maybe some other people would be interested in digging around a bit on this. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 16:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted that paragraph because it sounded like vandalism to me. It mentioned a number of "notable" lacrosse players who have played, none of which I have ever heard of. One of the names was simply initials, and another had the last name of "Cardildo" or something similar. If someone feels like researching this feel free, but it certainly sounded like a joke to me. Maybe that's not assuming good faith, but with the number of times this page has been vandalized recently, it's hard not to be sceptical. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * for what it's worth, john cardillo was an all-american defenseman at jhu in the late '60's. a son? nephew?Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cost of Crosse
a claim is made that the introduction of plastic heads reduced the cost of the stick. can that be substantiated. if so, boy, the price reduction didn't last! Toyokuni3 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

Nomenclature: Field Lacrosse, Box Lacrosse, Indoor Lacrosse and Outdoor Lacrosse
One aspect about this article that would be confusing to readers unfamiliar with lacrosse is the use of the terms; field lacrosse, box lacrosse, indoor lacrosse and outdoor lacrosse. The scattered use of these terms often makes references to the simple word "lacrosse" ambiguous. While I haven't come to a conclusion as to how to best handle this my initial thoughts are:


 * The terms "field lacrosse" and "outdoor lacrosse" are synonymous. Perhaps this could be defined in one sentence. The term "field lacrosse" could be used in the remainder of the article as it is the more general term (field lacrosse can be played indoors i.e. Syracuse's Carrier Dome).


 * The terms "Box Lacrosse" and "Indoor Lacrosse" are quite nearly synonomous. The only differences between box lacrosse and indoor lacrosse are that in indoor lacrosse:


 * there are four fifteen-minute quarters rather than three periods, and


 * solid wooden lacrosse sticks are not allowed.

Box lacrosse is the more general term and I suggest that it be used in all cases.


 * Finally, with regards to the field/box lacrosse confusion there are a few ways to go;


 * 1) . We could always specify explicitly "field lacrosse" or "box lacrosse" and never use the simple term "lacrosse".
 * 2) . We could move all references to "box lacrosse" to it's own specialized article.
 * 3) . We could define the use of the simple term "lacrosse" in this article to mean field lacrosse specifically.
 * 4) . We could rearrange the references to "box lacrosse" such as to make the use of the term "lacrosse" less ambiguous.

After running through these options I am inclined to think that we should use a combination of all four. TR166ER (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

15th Century?
the 15th century is the 1400's. since the eastern woodlands peoples had no written language, how can you substantiate this? the earliest european reference you give is 1636, which is the 17th century.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a very good question. How do we find out the exact time period when the game was invented.  Is there an Indian oral history that could support it?-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 11:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * even if an oral history of lacrosse exists(ed) (actually, i'm sure it does),it is unlikely to contain the sort of chronology needed in this context.we may be damned for eurocentricity, but i think it's best to stick with 17th century. it's really a pretty minor point anyway. but your comment showed up immediately after i made the change in the article. coincidence?Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * now someone has chaanged it to 14th century. that's the 1300's. i have added a cn tag.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Defensive vs. Offensive Middies
this section badly overstates the differentiation. first of all this is actually quite a recent innovation. secondly, you make it sound absolute, when the truth is, with the possible exception of the LSM, all middies are expected to be able to contribute both functions in varying degrees.e.g. 2005 jhu vs. uva-winning goal scored in overtime by benson erwin, a 'defensive' middie.Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't leave out CAPS in your articles. ;) -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 11:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * no worries, mate. :-)Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional Information for novices
As a complete ignoramus as far as lacrosse goes, I would have found information about (1) the length of time of a standard game; and (b) the level of physical contact allowed; to be useful. 121.210.116.77 (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Skut


 * You could add a section and write about it. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 11:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Men's Lacrosse
Calling men's lacrosse "lacrosse" and women's lacrosse "women's lacrosse" seems a little sexist.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.170.3.33 (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Separate article for Men's Field Lacrosse
I'd like to propose/discuss moving Men's Field Lacrosse to a separate article. Essentially take the entire "RULES" section as it sits now and move it to a separate page. My POV is that lacrosse is one sport with three divisions: field, women's, and box. Though I believe Men's Field Lacrosse is the most prevalent, I think the main article presenting the rules, dimensions, and equipment of this game reduces the importance of the others. This article, based on Splitting, does not require a split so it it really a matter of content for the discussion. This conversation ties to the above Nomenclature section above. Ideas? Comments? Mitico (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * almost total agreement. my only concern is whether or not the 'other ' 2 versions of the game will continue to receive much editorial attention. although i grew up in the great white north, i don't really have a lot of interest in, or knowledge of the box game, and almost none in the distaff version.(sorry, if that makes me sexist, that's just how it is.)in the context of this decision, i think the contrasts between games far outweigh the similarities. it wouldn't make sense to have 1 article discussing rugby union and rugby league (the latter a completely inferior game ;)), or american and canadian football.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Kudos to T3 for the "word of the day." I had to look up distaff at dictionary.com. Well, I significantly expanded the box lacrosse article. The women's lacrosse article isn't that bad, but needs position descriptions (cover point, 1-3 home, etc) & the rules need to be prosed. I actually like the women's version of the sport. If played at a high level, without too many stoppages, it can be enjoyable. I am working on a Field lacrosse article that will mirror the structure of the box lacrosse article to cover the men's outdoor version. On the side, I stumbled across the Lacrosse in Australia page today for the first time and was really impressed.  Mitico (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have completed the split and created an article called Field lacrosse. There is another article called Men's Field Lacrosse which I am proposing to merge into the Field lacrosse article. Mitico (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge History of Lacrosse
I have also been thinking about merging History of Lacrosse. . .which is nicely written and thoroughly sourced into the main article. I think a structure of Main article with the three major variants being sub-articles is a nice flow. Mitico (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the History of Lacrosse article is better than the summary here, but per WP:summary style we should keep it as a separate article. Maybe we should rewrite the summary though.  MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the proposed merge. Mitico (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Snort. Merging is for poor articles which cannot be improved but are related to a broader topic, not to plunder a decent article because the parent page is lacking. That's like stealing money from your kids, in a way. — CharlotteWebb 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * CW -- No intent to merely plunder, but attempting to be thoughtful about the overall structure of the lacrosse articles. My original thought was a main lacrosse article (including full history), then with subpages for the major variants of the sport.  This was a not the best of ideas, and I removed the proposal (which was really just a solicitation of comments from others). Then more than two weeks later, you leave the above "thoughtful" remark.  Thanks! . Mitico (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)