A history of racist incidents (and false alarms) in hockey...

[Iain Fyffe]

"Erm, yes"... Not getting it in BC Iain. Deleted...

I don't think its offensive or derogatory, but apparently there
are those among us who "think it might be".

What does it say in that section as you see it?

Historical fact should not be deleted because it's now deemed offensive. I would never use the term towards someone of German descent myself, but that doesn't change the fact that the term was used for that line at the time.

 

[Killion]

What does it say in that section as you see it?

Historical fact should not be deleted because it's now deemed offensive. I would never use the term towards someone of German descent myself, but that doesn't change the fact that the term was used for that line at the time.

Well, I specifically did some research when I saw the thread title, recollecting a number of what could be termed "racist" nicknames, such as "Chief" for George Armstrong, the "K_ _ _t" line in Boston, worse yet for Mikita and players of French Canadian extraction (Cokes major competitor); virtually all of them (at least here in BC) wiped from the record on Wiki & elsewhere.

Needless to say I was somewhat shocked and dont quite understand why, if they & others were simply being moralistic in complying with modern day standards just do a "blanket" deletion including NB & wherever else; a bit odd no?. Ive noted similar removals with respect to everything from the rise of National Socialism in Germany & the 'K' word; to the removal of references to the Black Panthers raised fist salute at the Olympic Games. All gone. The terms applied, and certainly the actions of many individuals were of the time & spoke volumes. Who in their right mind goes about "cleansing history" of things that by todays standards are considered offensive?. I really dont get it. It happened. Life & history is not some fiction that anyone has the right to arbitrarily alter just because they dont like the facts.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Well, I specifically did some research when I saw the thread title, recollecting a number of what could be termed "racist" nicknames, such as "Chief" for George Armstrong, the "K_ _ _t" line in Boston, worse yet for Mikita and players of French Canadian extraction (Cokes major competitor); virtually all of them (at least here in BC) wiped from the record on Wiki & elsewhere.

Colour me skeptical that wikipedia has different versions of pages for different provinces. Is that even technically possible?

Can you access the page for the Kraut Line? Or Armstrong's page with his nickname prominent?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes

Colour me skeptical that wikipedia has different versions of pages for different provinces. Is that even technically possible?

Can you access the page for the Kraut Line? Or Armstrong's page with his nickname prominent?

Yes it is technically possible. The various ads that appear on various sites could be region specific. If it is possible for ads it is possible for other content.

If I access certain sites from a Montreal IP the ads are Montreal appropriate, when traveling from an Ottawa or Toronto IP, the ads are Ottawa or Toronto appropriate, etc.

Internationally, depending on the country of origin, country or region specific versions of Google, ebay etc would appear by default:

http://www.google.ru/

and so forth.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Yes it is technically possible. The various ads that appear on various sites could be region specific. If it is possible for ads it is possible for other content.

It's possible, sure, but I meant for wikiepedia specifically. I can edit any page on wikipedia myself. Anyone can. How do they filter by region if anyone can edit any page? When someones edits a page, who decides what content can be seen by whom?

They have different versions for different languages, en.wikipedia.org for English, fr.wikipedia.org for French, etc. But within each of these the content can be edited by anyone.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Wikipedia

It's possible, sure, but I meant for wikiepedia specifically. I can edit any page on wikipedia myself. Anyone can. How do they filter by region if anyone can edit any page? When someones edits a page, who decides what content can be seen by whom?

They have different versions for different languages, en.wikipedia.org for English, fr.wikipedia.org for French, etc. But within each of these the content can be edited by anyone.

Trust you are referring to Wikipedia. The issues you raise may fall under proprietary information so you best contact the source, Wikipedia.org.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Trust you are referring to Wikipedia. The issues you raise may fall under proprietary information so you best contact the source, Wikipedia.org.

Ironically, you can get the information most quickly by going to Wikipedia and searching for "Wikipedia". [sidebar: I am becoming increasingly convinced that Wikipedia is Western culture's single greatest gift to humanity. No, seriously.]

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Since anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed.

However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations.

It would appear that the State of Florida is the final arbiter of Wikipedia policy. The best-known case of a government attempt to censor the site was when China ended up blocking them altogether. I don't think it's possible for a government to selectively edit the content (other than going in as a user and making reversible changes, which would be silly) and it doesn't appear that Wikipedia is willing to bow to local censors.

It's very strange that you're not seeing the "K-word", Killion. Looking through the page history it appears to have been there since 2005, more or less untouched save for capitalizing the "L", adding and removing quotes, etc. Check the second paragraph in the "Playing Career" section.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

It would appear that the State of Florida is the final arbiter of Wikipedia policy.

Indeed. I don't question that information does get removed from the site, however the issue here is whether information can be removed for some locales but not others. That doesn't seem likely. If it's on the page, it's on the page.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Trust you are referring to Wikipedia.

I trust you mean "I trust".

There, that was helpful.

 

[Killion]

Colour me skeptical that wikipedia has different versions of pages for different provinces. Is that even technically possible? Can you access the page...

There we go, that was helpful Iain, thanks, and yes, I successfully linked to those pages. I went back & checked the Schmidt page yet again & I cannot see "Kraut Line" appearing on the page. Technically, Im its possible to alter content by region as C58 points out in referencing advertising, as per search engines determining location through URL's for customized & targeted messaging. We even see it here on hf, the banner ad bar on the tops of the pages featuring local advertisers at various times on a rotational basis.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that Wikipedia is Western culture's single greatest gift to humanity. No, seriously.

Yes, its is odd, a conundrum that I still see no 'K' word... I agree with with your assertion that Wikipedia is an incredible source for information and sure, quite possibly Western societies greatest contribution to mankind in a single & extremely expansive repository of knowledge. Very much akin to the tomes scribed on solid gold tablets brought by emissaries from Atlantis and presented to the Egyptians; placed in chambers deep beneath the Sphynx & Pyramids of Giza, containing the answers to all of mankinds deepest questions. But I digress...

Apparently anyone can contribute & edit pages with Wikipedia as there isnt any system of Peer Review, though I would assume they employ Moderators & Fact Checkers who would control content; possibly using those CIA Black Highlighters in the removal of derogatory ethnic or racial terms, and yes, regionally, world-wide. Now, because there isnt any "peer review", and considering the incredible volume of information the site contains, you'd think it might be the Devils Playground if someone was perhaps inclined to create pages or wander through the existing library, inserting/deleting information in a diabolical journey of Ergodic Contributions. Making it look totally legit in providing copious footnotes & links referencing people, events, scientific discoveries, films, movies, hockey games & players, books & so forth that never existed...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hockey vs the Community

Interesting article in The Montreal Gazette today about racism in Canada:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Racism+alive+well+Canada/5467094/story.html

The incidents described were not mediatized to the same extent as the London "Banana Throwing" but are equally if not more disturbing.

Progress in regards to eliminating racism in hockey and Canadian society is disappointing to say the least.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Yes, its is odd, a conundrum that I still see no 'K' word...

Could you post a screen cap so we could compare what you see to what we see?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Apparently anyone can contribute & edit pages with Wikipedia as there isnt any system of Peer Review, though I would assume they employ Moderators & Fact Checkers who would control content; possibly using those CIA Black Highlighters in the removal of derogatory ethnic or racial terms, and yes, regionally, world-wide. Now, because there isnt any "peer review", and considering the incredible volume of information the site contains, you'd think it might be the Devils Playground if someone was perhaps inclined to create pages or wander through the existing library, inserting/deleting information in a diabolical journey of Ergodic Contributions. Making it look totally legit in providing copious footnotes & links referencing people, events, scientific discoveries, films, movies, hockey games & players, books & so forth that never existed...

What makes it work is transparency. If someone diabolically tries to sabotage a subject, the change is on permanent record. The instant a misstatement is identified, the offender's other activities are only a click away and easily reversed. Somehow, against all odds, nobody has managed to successfully manipulate its content in any serious fashion.

So the idea that it's being edited somehow in your location is pretty troubling. I have never heard of that happening before.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Progress in regards to eliminating racism in hockey and Canadian society is disappointing to say the least.

Indeed. It's ironic that the students used ignorance as an excuse, saying they didn't know it would be construed as racist. Of course, ignorance is ultimately the source of bigotry of all kinds.

 

[Big Phil]

Didn't want to quote the whole thing, but good post. This "it's in our blood" nonsense is beyond ridiculous.

Also big phil, about that thread about Russians not being good playoff performers from long time ago - wouldn't you agree that Malkin and Ovechkin ***** that thread? Both are just wonderful and special playoff performers. I guess they have something in their blood too

If you read all of my posts, you would see that I do claim there are some good ones out there. But from a percentage standpoint, Canadians step up their game much better when the chips are down over Russians. Malkin had that great run in 2009 and Ovechkin has been..............good but not legendary, however I don't really blame him for the Caps woes. I blame another Russian - Semin.

Call it a perception that people have, but there have been a lot of Alexei Yashin's out there in Russia. Not to mention the last time the Russians won at the top level internationally was 1981. How many times have we heard how talented a Russian team is only to see them falter?

Again, this isn't to downgrade Russians or Europeans at all. I have seen a lot of hockey in my lifetime and can check some Euro names who had/have heart and cared about winning. Unfortunatel when you look at percentages a Canadian historically has given his team better results

 

[jekoh]

Saying Europeans and French guys wear shields more than Canadians and Americans is only the truth.

Except he did not say that.

He argued players with shields were dirtier than others, or were cowards or whatever, and offered the Europeans and "French guys" as proof of that claim, as if it was a fact that Europeans played dirty.

Whether or not Europeans are more likely to wear a shield is completely irrelevant, this is obviously not what people took issue with.

Well, given that in European sports coverage ethnic stereotypes are basically accepted and used all the time, they should be used to it.

I've never heard anything even remotely as bad as Cherry in Europe.

 

[jekoh]

How many times have we heard how talented a Russian team is only to see them falter?

The Canadians are the worst in this category.

Remember when Canada's C-team would allegedly win gold because of their depth? Turned out the A-team could only finish 7th, but wait that was because they were missing one player

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Except he did not say that.

He argued players with shields were dirtier than others, or were cowards or whatever, and offered the Europeans and "French guys" as proof of that claim, as if it was a fact that Europeans played dirty.Whether or not Europeans are more likely to wear a shield is completely irrelevant, this is obviously not what people took issue with.



I've never heard anything even remotely as bad as Cherry in Europe.

He did in fact say about visors on Coach's Corner:
"most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French guys."

Cherry's contention has always been (long before this 2004 qoute) that players that wear visors are more reckless with their sticks because they don't have to have the same concern as those that don't wear them. Reckless. Not dirty. And it makes sense.

From the Don Cherry Lexicon (CBC Sports):

Visors: Visor usage in the NHL is a topic Cherry has discussed many times on Coach's Corner. He's not a big fan of face shields and has argued that players are more likely to be reckless with their sticks due to the sense of security visors provide. The issue sparked a controversy in early 2004 when Grapes said on Coach's Corner "most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French guys." Cherry has since said he supports an all-or-nothing approach to visors. Either the NHL should mandate the face protectors for everyone or ban their use outright. He also thinks the league will make visors mandatory in the next three or four years.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The Canadians are the worst in this category.

Remember when Canada's C-team would allegedly win gold because of their depth? Turned out the A-team could only finish 7th, but wait that was because they were missing one player

Oh, everything looks bad if you remember it...

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Cherry's contention has always been (long before this 2004 qoute) that players that wear visors are more reckless with their sticks because they don't have to have the same concern as those that don't wear them. Reckless. Not dirty. And it makes sense.

It might make sense, but that doesn't mean it's true. Often common sense is just wrong. Has anyone ever studied the issue to find out if it's true? Or do we just rely on anecdote and confirmation bias?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It might make sense, but that doesn't mean it's true. Often common sense is just wrong. Has anyone ever studied the issue to find out if it's true? Or do we just rely on anecdote and confirmation bias?

The discussion is about Cherry being bias, not about his correctness.

The poster claimed Cherry was implying shield wearers are dirty. He was implying (and has said) they are more reckless.

I concede, he gets it wrong a lot of the time. Hell, he comments on everything, he's bound to be wrong many times, like anyone else would be.

 

[Killion]

Here are some Don Cherry quotes I pulled from a slightly dated (published in 1992) copy from Brown Publishings Little Red Book series. You decide...

"Its just a job with Europeans. They lack intensity. Our Playoffs dont excite them. They just want to get home".

On the appointment of Alpo Suhonen as Asst Coach with the Jets; "Alpos' a dog food isnt it?".

"The cultural mosaic stuff is a bunch of baloney...Im Scotch, and I've got a kilt, but I dont demand that anybody puts up with it. The only reason a lot of these people left their countries was because they couldnt make a go of it. Then, the first thing they try to do is change Canada into the country they left".

"Im not racist. I just believe in Canadians first. Some European players should be playing here, like if you said Mats Naslund shouldnt be playing here you have rocks in your head. But a lot of the time you have people coming over from European when Canadians would do just fine".

On watching a CFL Grey Cup Game; "Best thing about it, theres no Swedes or Russians playing".

On Drafting Europeans; "It became a trendy thing in the Draft this year when the first two expansion teams grabbed Europeans... It was a sad thing to see that players who got over a 100 points in the CHL got passed over when they were taking Cossacks in Siberia for a lot of Canadian & American kids... Sorta sad to see it".

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Here are some Don Cherry quotes I pulled from a slightly dated (published in 1992) copy from Brown Publishings Little Red Book series. You decide...

"Its just a job with Europeans. They lack intensity. Our Playoffs dont excite them. They just want to get home".

On the appointment of Alpo Suhonen as Asst Coach with the Jets; "Alpos' a dog food isnt it?".

"The cultural mosaic stuff is a bunch of baloney...Im Scotch, and I've got a kilt, but I dont demand that anybody puts up with it. The only reason a lot of these people left their countries was because they couldnt make a go of it. Then, the first thing they try to do is change Canada into the country they left".

"Im not racist. I just believe in Canadians first. Some European players should be playing here, like if you said Mats Naslund shouldnt be playing here you have rocks in your head. But a lot of the time you have people coming over from European when Canadians would do just fine".

On watching a CFL Grey Cup Game; "Best thing about it, theres no Swedes or Russians playing".

On Drafting Europeans; "It became a trendy thing in the Draft this year when the first two expansion teams grabbed Europeans... It was a sad thing to see that players who got over a 100 points in the CHL got passed over when they were taking Cossacks in Siberia for a lot of Canadian & American kids... Sorta sad to see it".

A little dated?

Those quotes are over 20 years old.

 

[Killion]

A little dated? Those quotes are over 20 years old.

Well sure, and I think youd' have to agree that his
xenophobia has abated with the passing of time,
hopefully gaining wisdom with age.

 

[jekoh]

He did in fact say about visors on Coach's Corner:
"most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French guys."

The point is that it's selective quoting and a misrepresentation of the controversy, which was never about who actually wears what.

It might make sense, but that doesn't mean it's true. Often common sense is just wrong. Has anyone ever studied the issue to find out if it's true? Or do we just rely on anecdote and confirmation bias?

It has been studied and proved wrong : http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2004/02/12/cherry040212.html