Talk:Bobby Orr

Newspaper ad for Trump

The article should mention the newspaper ad he placed endorsing President Trump.--Killashaw (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

What viewpoint are you worried may get undue weight?--Killashaw (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The existence of the incident at all, in the broad sweep of Orr's history. Quite a few athletes and entertainers support various politicians. Were Orr directly working for the campaign -- a bit awkward that, him being a Canadian citizen -- that would probably pass the bar. Ravenswing 06:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The existence of the ad isn't a viewpoint so your comments aren't relevant to WP:UNDUE.

When notable athletes and entertainers do something as significant as buying a full page ad in a newspaper to support a politician, I think it is usually in their articles. What do you mean by "directly working for the campaign"? How could his endorsement have been more direct? I don't understand what his being Canadian has to do with it "passing the bar".--Killashaw (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, among other things, Canadian citizens don't get a vote in this country. Ummm ... I'd think it was fairly obvious what "directly working" for a political campaign is: working for it. Is Orr a paid political consultant? On the campaign staff? "I think it is usually in their articles" -- do you have some examples to proffer? Ravenswing 00:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Canadians who become American citizens get a vote. I assume Orr has. Isn't there a law against foreigners interfering in our elections?

That's a heck of a "bar" you invented. Has any wealthy athlete or entertainer ever become a paid political consultant?

Some examples: Brett Favre, Mike Tyson, Eminem--Killashaw (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Other than this instance, Orr has not been cited as being in political activism. Therefore, this instance is an isolated case and will mean nothing in a very short amount of time, thereby giving undue weight to this viewpoint if we include it in the article. Contrast this with Jennifer Lopez#Political activism where she is known for being a political activist for several different events. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Or with Tom Brady, who's had extensive coverage over the years questioning whether him being a personal friend of Trump's translates into a political endorsement. (More than once, Brady and/or his wife has stated that it doesn't.) Ravenswing 00:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee, I thought I was following your argument until you mentioned "viewpoint". What viewpoint are you worried may get undue weight?--Killashaw (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee: Are you able to answer? Killashaw (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Political viewpoint in this BLP is undue given the limited and isolated scope of coverage. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

What political viewpoint?--Killashaw (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

When you wrote "giving undue weight to this viewpoint" are you using "viewpoint" differently than than what WP:NPOV is? The existence of the newspaper ad is not what WP:NPOV is talking about as a viewpoint. It's a fact.--Killashaw (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Killashaw, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point, and increasingly impenetrably and disingenuously. "What political viewpoint?" Seriously? That's right up there with your unfounded assumption that Orr is an American citizen, which he is not and never has been. In any event, as was quite predictable, this business came and went from the 24-hour newscycle like the ephemeral flash it was, and you've attracted no support to your premise that it is a significant and memorable event in Orr's history. Time to drop the stick, the horse is dead. Ravenswing 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I know it's not popular to criticize #4 for anything, but agree with Killashaw on this one. It seems that many here are more interested in doing public relations for Bobby Orr than in conveying the truth in his biographical article. There is no disputing the fact that he took out a full page add in the New Hampshire Union Leader endorsing the former president and everything I wrote in my edit (which resulted in my being temporarily blocked and criticized for not making more contributions here) is verifiably true. As to whether it is newsworthy, I would argue it is based solely on the fact that it was so seemingly out-of-character for Mr. Orr to endorse such a divisive political figure. He took a risk of damaging his carefully-honed reputation when he took out that advertisement and many of his supporters voiced their shock and surprise in his support for Trump, some going so far as to write editorials and to discard their valued memorabilia. Regardless of how it is portrayed here and whether the gatekeepers will allow an honest assessment of Orr's personal life to appear here on Wikipedia, the event was certainly a "significant and memorable" event in Orr's personal history.

I was also attacked as having an anti-Orr agenda. My only agenda is honesty and in presenting Mr. Orr as he is rather than as he and his fans may wish him to be portrayed. Bobby has been my hero for the past 48 years. I have a great deal of admiration for him as a hockey player, for all his good works in the community, and for his strong character. This is why I found the incident so upsetting and noteworthy. His support for such a polarizing (and yes, sexist and racist) figure as Donald Trump was so shocking to my conscious and why I believe it should not be swept under the rug. But if gatekeepers such as Vaselineeeeeeee and Ravenswing are so intent on presenting only the sanitized version of Mr. Orr to the world, there is little I can do to change it. Their actions do, however, erode my faith in Wikipedia as an "open sourced" platform where one can turn to learn the truth, warts and all. Danny B MT (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'll reiterate a few of the things I said on your talk page. First off, the objection remains, as was stated before, that both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP place strict constraints on isolated and ephemeral incidents in a public figure's career. Orr is not a political activist, nor is commonly known for the same (and as much to the point, the degree to which a Canadian citizen can be a credible activist in American elections is limited). This was not an enduring news story -- the overwhelming number of news articles about the endorsement [1] petered out by November 3rd. That Orr did make that endorsement (something no one, of course, refutes) is beside the point. Those policies, and those objections, debar this incident from mention here.

  But that being said, you are very ready to ascribe sinister motives to anyone who opposes you. You describe the other editors here as biased, and you described both the administrator who blocked you for BLP and edit warring violations and the one who refused your unblock request as censors. Yet these editors have made hundreds and even thousands of edits for every one they've made here, and neither of those two admins have edited this article at all, ever. You, by contrast, have made no other edits for twelve years save to this article and your talk page, related to this dispute. Pushing THIS agenda is your sole purpose here, and you cannot credibly deny it. You have attempted to link no other athletes to their political endorsements, even to slap on the spurious Enablers of Donald Trump tag you tried to do here. Further, whatever you may think of Trump -- and trust me, you cannot think worse of him than I do -- endorsing an incumbent politician for reelection, something that millions of people do, is not a prima facie infamous or egregious act. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Ravenswing 21:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Appropriate weight is a matter of judgment. 2 people think it is undue and 2 think it isn't. How do we break the tie?--Killashaw (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The blowback Orr got for his endorsement was broad in both Canada and US, and grew in intensity over time as Trump refused to concede his loss and provoked a Jan. 6 coup attempt. It included pro hockey players. Derek Sanderson sprang to his defense, while admitting that neither he nor Orr could vote in US elections. It is simply untrue to pretend that referencing the highest profile thing Orr has done since his retirement is to give it "undue" weight. I saw this old and unconvincing discussion after I had already added a couple of sentences on the matter to his page. 72.86.135.155 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that one of the page's "gatekeepers", Vasileneeeeeeee, is edit warring against my contribution without explanation. This appears to be a pattern. Same person opined here that including the bare facts of Orr's endorsement controversy was inherently giving undue weight to marginal/minority viewpoints. No explanation offered for that extraordinary claim. Same person also refused to be drawn when asked what "viewpoint" was being promoted by describing the facts - simply stopped responding to the query that obviously could not be answered. I think there can be no reasonable doubt that the Trump-endorsement episode and its long, controversial aftermath gained more public attention than pretty much anything Orr has done since retirement. So any way you look at it, the appeal to WP:UNDUE fails. This appears to be not at all about suppressing minority viewpoints, and everything about suppressing information that some editors don't much like. 72.86.132.254 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: It seems like an IP and a user want to restart this conversation without taking to talk. Can you keep an eye here. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's still not a consensus behind the changes, and UNDUE still applies, whether or not the anon IP likes it. As far as "failure to respond" to the latest screed goes, one does dislike repeating oneself, over and over and over again. Ravenswing 06:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither of you has even attempted to justify your UNDUE claim; Vasiline flatly refused to do so when asked. There are no minority opinions being promoted by the addition of factual information. Neither is the information itself obscure or trivial by any reasonable measure, if that is what you actually meant. As a point of reference for trivia, the paragraph that precedes my edit is wall to wall trivia that virtually nobody could care about (jigsaw puzzles, really?!), and yet instead you are aggressively seeking to shield WP readers from seeing any information regarding a high profile controversy specific to Orr. It is plain that what you both are doing is insisting on imposing your personal preferences. As regards consensus, the majority of people who weighed in here have advocated for inclusion of this material. So it is only you 2 who are both against it and not coincidentally who both declare that there is no consensus against your own preferences. You are wrong and inconsistent on every single point you've raised to try to keep this info off of Orr's page. 72.86.136.83 (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we can see where your sympathies are at, edit warring to expand this further into a colossal deal. Enjoy your block. Ravenswing 21:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

One of two to win four major awards?

In 85 Gretzky won the Hart, the Art Ross, the Lester B Pearson award and the Conn Smythe. Lafleur has also won these same awards in one year. 104.219.133.109 (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence says "major NHL awards" which shouldn't include the Pearson since it was awarded by the NHLPA. What qualifies as major? Let's avoid that issue and just say that he is the first to win four NHL awards in a season.--Killashaw (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Mm, there's no issue to avoid. As you say, the Pearson is not an NHL award, nor is recognized as one. Neither Gretzky nor Lafleur count here. Ravenswing 00:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

So we should remove the sentence about Ovechkin since his four include the Pearson.--Killashaw (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Done--Killashaw (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Double usage.

The same picture of Orr’s skates on display at the HHOF is used twice in the article, with slightly different descriptions. While it may not necessarily be a violation of MOS guidelines or anything like that, it is unusual. KirkCliff2 (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)