Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-12 Colorado Avalanche

Before We Begin
Alright. First of all, I'd like to shorten your names a bit, realizing that I'm going to be typing them a lot in the near future. I'm thinking Knt and FFJ- if you'd prefer I call you something else, please let me know, here or on my talk page. You guys, if Moralis is a lot to type over and over, can call me Mora.

That said, I like to open this sort of a discussion by asking you each a few questions. This helps me get a better idea of the dispute, especially when my subject knowledge is limited. It also helps you get a clearer idea of each others' positions, if you haven't already got one. Finally, it allows me to put the dispute in the context of Wikipedia policy.

If some of these questions seem redundant, I apologize- I'm just trying to get the whole picture. If some of these questions seem like loaded questions, again I apologize, and I assure you, they aren't (they're just not as well worded as maybe they should have been). I am impartial and this is an informal discussion. That means that unless Wikipedia policy is very clear about your dispute, I can't produce a judgement- and I'm not interested in doing so. My job is to help the two of you come to an agreement. You two seem to be getting along rather well, but just in case, I'd like to remind everybody that WP:NPA and WP:AGF still apply here, and traffic fines are double in work zones. That said, here are the questions, with more to follow when you've responded. --Moralis (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Knt

 * 1) Why do you feel that the event in question is notable? What sets it apart from similar events that've occurred in the past?
 * This event is notable in the history of the Colorado Avalanche, as well as the history of the Vancouver Cankucks AND the National Hockey League because it brought the NHL into a negative light in the public eyes and in the media. The subject of fighting being banned has been brought up more often than usual ever since this incident occured.  Todd Bertuzzi also recieved a ban from the NHL for the rest of the season, and from most European hockey during the lockout that occured the next year.  This incident is pretty much the reason Bertuzzi was traded from Vancouver to Florida.  The resulting suspension was that 4th longest in NHL history.  Bertuzzi lost over a half a million dollars in salary, and $350,000.00 in endorsements.  There was an off-ice investigation and following legal suit against Bertuzzi in which Moore is trying to settle for $19.5 million dollars.  Kntrabssi 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Why does this event need to be on the Avalanche page, rather than remaining in the articles for the players involved?
 * I would cite WP:WINP for this one. There is no reason that we can't mention Steve Moore's injury under the 1995-Present header, and provide links to Moore's page and Bertuzzi's page.Kntrabssi 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Are you able to provide sources that will show that the event is significant to the team, and not only to the players concerned?
 * I can search around, but I should be able to provide a statement from the team, articles on ESPN.com, NHL.com and TSN.ca, if they are requested. Kntrabssi 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
 * African or European? Kntrabssi 13:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Much along the lines of what I told FFJ below, I will be playing devil's advocate for a while, in order to make this work. Please don't think I've turned on you =P

So far, I'm seeing a lot of mention of Bertuzzi's name, which points to the event's inclusion in the players' articles as a good choice- but that's it. While Wikipedia isn't paper, the inclusion of a lot of inormation in an article does tend to clutter it up and make for harder reading. The longer an article gets, the more confusing- and the more specific an event is, the less useful it's going to be to a reader.

I think it would be difficult to back up the assertion that this fight has resulted in more talk of banning fights than other fights have. Meanwhile, the incident seems to be covered extensively at Todd Bertuzzi and Steve Moore, so why not simply improve Steve Moore to include some of the missing details from Todd Bertuzzi? Then you could mention the fight briefly in Colorado Avalanche with a conventional, "See Steve Moore for the main article", or something to that effect? --Moralis (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be all for a minor inclusion in the Colorado Avalanche article, and maybe even perhaps a new article about the Moore-Bertuzzi incident itself (Much like the Richard Riot article). I feel that FFJ doesn't think it should be at all included in the Colorado Avalanche article.  It would be hard to show you the number of articles on ESPN concerning fighting before and after the incident, so I suppose that point can be dropped, however, this DID result in the 4th longest suspension in league history.  Kntrabssi 14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions for FFJ

 * 1) Why can't the event be mentioned in passing? Why must it be removed altogether?
 * 2) Why do you feel that the event isn't significant?
 * 3) If Knt can establish notability and relevance, would you feel more comfortable with its presence in the article?
 * 4) How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop?


 * 1) I feel it should be removed, because in time the incident will fade from people's memory.  It does not teach us anything new about hockey.  It did not contribute anything good for the Colorado Avalanche or Vancouver Canucks franchise.  The media turned into a big deal.  Twenty years from now this incident will be forgotten.
 * 2) Hockey is a violent sport, and this incident is just one of many examples of violent on-ice events.  If we mention one of them then we should mention ALL of them.  The Marty McSorley and Donald Brashear incident went before the courts and yet the Boston Bruins and Vancouver Canucks articles do not mention this highly public event.
 * I would like to interject here and say that I totaly agree. There is mention of the Richard Riot in Richard's article, as well as in the Montreal Canadiens article, so why not include these incidents in their respective articles?  Kntrabssi 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) What I want Kntrabssi to establish is how does the event contribute to the franchise's history?  The fact that it was very public is not enough.  Did it make the teams ticket sales go down for next season?  Did it make them miss the play-offs? Is the Colorado Avalanche a less attractive team to play for because of it?  If he can answer any of that then maybe I will say it is notable to mention it.  The truth is this incident is notable only to the players involved not the team jersey they were wearing.  Moore for being forced to retire early, and Bertuzzi for being suspended, losing salary, going to court for it, and being sued.  This belongs in the biographies of the players involved not their teams.  Fighting for Justice 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Before I continue, please understand that I have to play devil's advocate in order for this process to work- I'm not taking one side or the other, just leading discussion. That said, the event is obviously appropriate for the players' articles. However, if the media has made it a big deal, it is also, per WP:NOTE, notable and can be included in the team's article.
 * A good way to measure notability is to ask yourself this question: is it reasonable to expect that some readers will expect the incident to be mentioned? --Moralis (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But in what way is this incident as notable as say a major player transaction? The media mentions those too.  Fighting for Justice 06:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy is pretty specific on that: "non-trivial mentions." If the incident was the subject of several articles, it's notable. Transactions are -usually- only the subject of single lines in your sports section. There's an obvious difference when judging notability between something becoming a major scandal and something that's part of the routine. --Moralis (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But a major player transaction is not a non-trivial mention. But, regardless, the notability guideline states notability is not popularity.  Therefore, as popular as this incident was, at the time it occurred, it is not necessary to include it in article's about the team franchise.  Like I said before this is notable to the players involved, not their teams.  All the teams got was bad press.  This is not notable.  All teams will face it at some point. Fighting for Justice 07:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What the notability guideline says about popularity not being equal to notability means is: "Just because you have or have not heard of something/just because something is well liked does not make it notable." However, the main criteria for notability is: "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The incident is therefore notable, under our policies, because it recieved significant coverage from media independent of the players involved, the team, and the league. If sources can be provided that relate the article to the team in an appreciable way, whether that means good press, bad press, or just press, then the incident is appropriate for the article on the team. If not, then it's only appropriate for the articles on the players involved. If the incident is notable enough, perhaps an article on the incident could be written- although such an article, I suspect, would only last a little while before being merged into other, broader articles. I'm going to wait until we hear from the other party to comment again. --Moralis (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal
I'm just throwing this out off the top of my head. I would propose putting something like this at the top of the "Rivalry With Detroit Red Wings" section:


 * See also: Steve Moore, Todd Bertuzzi

Of course, it would be desirable to alter those articles so that a section could be linked to directly, or to link to an article on the dispute if one is created. Then, somewhere in that "Rivalry" section, you'd put something like:


 * During a 2004 game, a violent altercation between Detroit Right Wing Todd Bertuzzi and Colorado Centre Steve Moore garnered a major media response. Bertuzzi was suspended indefinitely, missing 20 games. Moore's career ended as a result of his injuries.

That's just a basic suggestion based on what I'm seeing here. This way, the event isn't given much attention in the Avalanche article, but it is mentioned enough that an interested user would know about it and likely research it further via the players' articles. Incidentally, it may be appropriate to work the incident into its chronological position in Detroit Red Wings, if that interests you. Please let me know what you both think. --Moralis (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Moralis, at the time of the incident Bertuzzi was with the Vancouver Canucks. He was ultimately traded to the Florida Panthers and about a month ago was moved to Detroit at the trade deadline.  The incident has nothing to do with the Red Wings rivalry.  I do like the proposed paragraph included under 1995-present, with the appropriate team changes, of course.  Kntrabssi 16:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I don't know much about the subject (in fact I try to avoid mediating disputes where I do, thereby avoiding a lot of potential NPOV issues). Regardless, I think you understand what I'm proposing- mention it in passing in the team article, with "See also:" linked to the players. We'll see what FFJ says. --Moralis (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is a fair compromise. Fighting for Justice 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Since you both seem to think we're looking at a fair compromise, I'll go ahead and let you go about editing the articles to reflect it. If there's nothing else, I think this case is closed. --Moralis (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)