Jump to content

Talk:Bobby Orr/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Career Statistics

It is not apparent to me what the bolded items signify. Can someone add a note or remove the bolding? 199.126.245.202 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bolding = led the league in the statistic in question. It's common throughout the hockey articles. Ravenswing 09:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
remove not necessary. 150.210.226.5 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Greatest player argument

Bobby Orr is considered one of the greatest to ever play the game of hockey, after Wayne Gretzky of course.

It is my personal opinion that Bobby Orr could put Wayne Gretzky in his back pocket and skate away with him! Bobby Orr scored his points in a time when points were harder to come by and also it must be noted that when he(and the Bruins) began to run up the score on an opponent in a game he(or the Bruins) wouldn't rub it in by scoring as many points as he(and the Bruins) could have in order not to embarrass the opponent and also due to Bobby's personal modesty......according to Don Cherry on Hockey Night in Canada. Gretzky on the other hand was unembarrassable in his pursuit of points, going all out like a madman to the very end of each game trying with all his might to squeeze out that last point no matter what the score, often and mostly into an empty net! Mr Cherry also noted that the highest plus/minus rating Gretzky ever achieved was 89 while Bobby Orr regularly maintained a plus/minus in the 120's, the highest I believe -- according to Mr Cherry-- was a plus of 129 one year, and this in a time when they played about 10 fewer games in the regular season than what Gretzky would play! Add on about another 15% in extra games played and the equally resultant points, Orr would have had an astronomical 148 plus rating in his best season besting Gretzky by a truly incredible and astounding 59 more plus points rating. WE'RE TALKING A 66% DIFFERENCE HERE FOLKS!!!! THAT'S HOW MUCH BETTER ORR REALLY WAS FOLKS. NO JOKING AT ALL!!!! Orr played most of his career on one leg too and the great left winger Bobby Hull said that even on one leg Orr was way better than everybody else on two! Gordie Howe himself, one of the greatest 3 or 4 players to have ever laced up skates, said Orr was the best he'd ever seen. Orr incidentally said the same thing about Howe! Jean Beliveau said that Bobby Orr, when and if he made a mistake, recovered quicker and faster than any other player that he ever knew! It was not unusual for Bobby Orr to kill off a penalty all by himself either due to the fact that nobody could get the puck off of him when he got it, at least not very easily. It was said that Orr had 18 different speeds of fast leaving all the other skaters in the dust and could make impossibly tight turns. Bobby Orr was so great that he revolutioned the game and the defensemans position, something that can not be said about Mr Gretzky. Bobby Orr was the best bar none. 24.66.40.89 10:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Okay, I personally agree with that statement. I used to stay up way too late at night, watching the Bruins play hockey (those west coast games went on until midnight, Boston time), when I should have been getting a good night's sleep before my paper route.

And I'll never forget watching live as Bobby Orr scored the winning goal in May 1970, clinching the Stanley Cup 40 seconds into sudden-death overtime!!

But it's still just opinion. Let's leave it out *sigh*

-- User:Ed Poor

The statement "Bobby Orr is one of the greatest...." is opinion. The above statement is fact -- there are plenty of published opinions showing that he is considered by many to be one of the greatest, Gretzky being the greatest. Maybe adding "by many" after "considered" would clarify that. My favourite memory of Bobby Orr is those slow-motion rushes in which he'd skate the length of the ice at about five miles an hour and no one would come near him because they were afraid he'd make them look like fools. -- Anon 209.29.169.124

That image is public domain? - user:zanimum

Record

I don't see it anywhere here, but I've read Orr had the best average for assists/game, at 1.31. (Of course, the '77 Guinness I saw it in also says Phil Espo had 7x100point seasons...) Confirm? Trekphiler 04:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. Wayne Gretzky is the career leader with 1.320 assists per game, followed by Mario Lemieux (going into this season) with 1.145. Orr is third with .982, Peter Forsberg fourth with .905. Just a handful of other players (Coffey, Oates, Peter Stastny) broke .800. Ravenswing 06:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

TrulyTory's post moved from the top of page

Let's see:

Bobby Orr is NOT arguably the greatest Hockey Player of All-time;

yet;

Wayne Gretzky is considered by MOST to be the greatest Hockey Player of All-Time.

I find this highly inconsistent (and disingenious) on your part.

What is your proof that WG is considered by MOST (an highly inaccurate sum I might add ...) to be the Greatest ?

I will delete this POV until you provide proof TrulyTory 18:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I did. Where's yours? Ravenswing 21:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't need to, because I did not claim opinion as fact and post as an absolute statement. THAT is the difference between you and me TrulyTory 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
"widely regarded as the greatest defenseman of all time - and arguably, the greatest hockey player of all time." is your quote. Now if in fact you're just an edit warrior (or a sockpuppet of Pyles or vice versa; it seems likely), fair enough. I just figured it would be the gentlemanly thing to do for a Wikipedia newbie to give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you were conducting an honest discussion. Ravenswing 04:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You are hardly presenting yourself as a paragaon of "gentlemanly" virtue here; you have engaged in sheer advocacy in the WG article, whereas my BO edits were defensible, fair, & neutral. Therein lay the difference betwixt Ye and Thee. The fact that adherents of your cause such as Croat Canuck continue to vandalise both articles in the same redundant and biased manner speaks volumes about the agenda you have pursued thus far. It stops now in the interests of fairness and objectivity. WG was one of the greatest players of All Time, but he is not a god, or a religion. TrulyTory 14:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ravenswing and suggest Mediation before this gets any more venomous. "Croat Canuck continue to vandalise both articles in the same redundant and biased manner speaks volumes about the agenda you have pursued thus far." Whatever. I am far from an adherent from Ravenswing, as we've had our own arguments recently mostly about manner of international spelling between Canadian and American and had a few mini-edit wars. However, I can admit when he is right, and he is right in this instance. Croat Canuck 20:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed; this guy isn't just editing like crazy over my head, he's doing it over all the regulars. I'll file a mediation request now.
Then you do not understand the semantical difference between "most" and "many." I find it shocking that you cannot discern a difference between the two, and that you suggest that you can quantifyingly validate the term - "most." TrulyTory 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It appears this TrulyTory's sole purpose on Wikipedia is to take part in advocacy on behalf of Bobby Orr as the greatest hockey player of all-time. He's currently attempting to censor the relatively mild statement on the Wayne Gretzky page that Gretzky is considered by "many" (with appropriate and abundant citations) to be the greatest hockey player ever in a desperate attempt to advance the cause of Orr. Shamefully lame. If you are going to include "arguably the greatest of them all" (which is an opinion firmly in the minority) on Orr's page, then you have no right to object to Gretzky's page saying he is considered by many to be the greatest player ever (which is a view, coincidentally, held by...MANY...and supported with citations!) The short of it is that TrulyTory is a POV-pusher in every sense.-R Esche 01:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • strong words from a sockpuppet??
Hm. If you object to being called one, why are you doing so yourself?

There. If that's the language that's good enough for Wayne Gretzky, it surely is good enough -- and not one whit more or less POV, according to Tory and Pyles -- for Bobby Orr. I don't expect any objections. Ravenswing 07:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

it's not any better or worse than it was before, Traynor. My arguement the whole time has been that "greatest of all time" can never be determined...in any sport...so why bother. To include those words in 1 bio is just going to create edit wars for or against specific players over the title. And if it is going to be included in 1 bio then there's 15-20 other bios where the same words apply. As, I've posted before, the words "greatest of all time" do not appear in any bio in the Hockey Hall Of Fame...as it should be. Unless you can suddenly produce a 'way-back machine' and send some of today's modern stars back in time to go 1 on 1 against Eddie Shore...or try to score on a break-away against Bill Durnan. My own personal opinion on 'greatest of all time' is neither Orr nor Gretzky or Lemieux or Howe or Messier. But I have not injected those words into my favorite player's bio. You're always spouting about not using this place as a sandbox. But everytime you try to argue your case, you're just continuing to hand out pales and shovels. You'll figure it out someday...after this webpage eventually fades away. ~Mr Pyles
I can live with it - as it seems eminently fair and neutral, just like my Gretzky edits. I am glad you folks have come over to the side of logic. Good For You Son! TrulyTory 12:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr Pyles: Thanks for lying about the biography for Gretzky in the HHOF. It most certainly DOES include a statement that he is "consistently ranked as the greatest hockey player of all time." [1] Thanks for playing, though.-66.254.232.219 05:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

While I decline to directly answer those who indulge in meatpuppetry, I agree that consistent spelling is a virtue. Here we have a player born and raised in Canada, but who as a teenager moved to the Boston area, gained his greatest fame there, has lived in it for nearly forty years, and is a naturalized American citizen. Following Wikipedia national spelling policy, when an article cannot be unambiguously ascribed to one particular national variant, the intent of the first editor holds: [2]. Ravenswing 14:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Doug Harvey

RGT knows very little about the game. see >>> http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/LegendsMember.jsp?mem=P197301&type=Player&page=bio&list=ByName#photo TrulyTory 19:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug Harvey as alleged "offensive defenseman"

Was Harvey a fine point-gathering defenseman? Sure was, no question about it. Was he an all-time notable at it? Not remotely. Just counting Hall of Fame defenseman playing in the NHL contemporaneously with and before Harvey, he stands twenty-fourth in goals per game. No one would ever have described fellows like Lionel Conacher, Tim Horton, Red Horner, Allan Stanley or Ching Johnson as offensive defensemen, but they all scored more goals per game than did Harvey. Heck, Harvey just barely pipped Marcel Pronovost. Many contemporaries who aren't in the HHOF, such as Ott Heller, Glen Harmon, Doug Mohns and Flash Hollett, scored more goals a game than he did. Hell, even Al Dewsbury and Pat Egan managed that. Harvey didn't even lead his own team in points a full third of his career.

Red Kelly was a high scoring defenseman. Eddie Shore was a high scoring defenseman. But before I'd add Doug Harvey to the list, I'd add King Clancy and Hollett (who each had over half again as many goals as Harvey in half as many games played), Babe Pratt, Buck Boucher or Earl Siebert. The fact of the matter -- fact, mind you, not wishful thinking -- is that despite Harvey's legitimate claim to being the greatest defenseman of all time, he was not notable as an offensive force, either historically or during his own career. Ravenswing 01:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


Wrong you are - again. Harvey controlled the pace of the game much like Orr, and when you consider the low-scoring of the 1950's, a Defenceman who tallied between 30 and 50 points a season is very good. Take 1955 as an example; Geoffrion led the league with 75 points. Harvey totalled 49 points. 65% of the leader's total. In '57 Howe led with 89 points, and Harvey totalled 50 points. In many ways, his seasons are not different than Red Kelly's - except Red scored more goals. Yet Harvey was judged superior to Kelly in terms of the Norris Trophy voting. Why is this? Because, he was judged to the a more "total" player than Kelly - as a defenceman. And Kelly was a great one. There is a triumvirate of great two-way defenders in NHL history, and they commonly go like this: 'Shore, Harvey, and Orr.' This has been the case among hockey men for decades. It is surprising that you find this so novel. Orr was NOT only a great scorer, but a great playmaker, a great defender, and a great fighter. Shore & Harvey were the standard before Orr. Orr has been the standard ever since - and he didn't need Semenko to do his dirty work for him. Yeah, I threw that in for added measure... TrulyTory 20:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, Harvey's assist totals were "very good" by the standards of defensemen of his day ... although some might not consider having the likes of the Richards, Lach, Geoffrion, Moore and Beliveau finishing off your passes much of a hardship. Absolutely, Harvey was deemed superior to Kelly when it came to Norris voting. Yet how could that be, when Kelly outscored Harvey ten out of the thirteen seasons they played defense head-to-head? Because Harvey was a superior defensive defenseman. Which is not what the section in question discusses. What is surprising is not that I find the concept novel that Harvey was a great defenseman; that much is blindingly obvious. What is surprising is your insistence, wrapped in irrelevancies and straw man arguments, that he was one of the great offensive defensemen of all time. Which the evidence does not support, so failing WP:V. No doubt there are forums where your advocacy would be welcome and eagerly debated, but WP:SOAPBOX applies here. Ravenswing 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
There you go again. Specious .... Orr was NOT just an Offensive Defenceman. He was a Two-Way Defenceman, as was Harvey. Harvey was a master with the puck in the transition zone, which allowed the Canadiens' forwards to move into the attack earlier in the sequence. It takes skill with the puck in order to do this. You keep falling back into Orr as "merely an offensive player" when he was not. He was a two-way Defenceman, who could and did control the TEMPO of the game and frame the attack - JUST LIKE HARVEY. I love King Clancy. I grew-up in Toronto where he was a living legend. But he is not talked about as the total transitionally dominant player that Shore, Harvey, and Orr were. Orr was about MORE than goals ! Can you not understand that? TrulyTory 13:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Traynor takes it upon himself as the greatest authority of all things hockey to ignore the fact that Orr is not just considered the greatest offensive defencman in history, but the greatest all-around player/defenceman in history. Similar to Doug Harvey - who played in a lower-scoring league. The comparison is apt and supported by many who know the game. TrulyTory 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If we went by Pts totals, Ray Bourque would be the greatest offensive defenceman of all-time. But, more importantly who cares? why not just say Harvey & Orr are among the greatest defenceman of all-time (they've got good +/- career ratings). Forget the offensive stuff. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the examples entirely. An edit war over the inclusion of Doug Harvey on Bobby Orr's article is beyond WP:LAME, and the examples are not useful in the first place. The section describes defencemen with goal scoring ability as being rare. Examples of defencemen with goal scoring ability adds nothing to that section. Resolute 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Greatest Player Ever, take II

The turn of phrase "arguably the greatest player ever" - especially in the lead paragraph - should only be used when a preponderance of expert and media opinion supports it. Here, it doesn't. The Orr-Gretzky-Howe debate's been an extremely contentious one on Wikipedia, ending through exhaustion as much as any other reason, and ultimately sourced to an insane degree. "Considered one of the greatest players ever" was deemed a reasonable (and accurate) consensus compromise.  Ravenswing  20:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would arguably the greatest not be reasonable or accurate as well?
From wiktionary "arguably: that is a plausible proposition; defensible because of solid reasons"
Many fellow players and analysts would agree that Orr is the gretest, search some videos on youtube and I am sure you will find many hockey experts who would say so, to say that he is "arguably the greatest" is perfectly reasonable and accurate.
Also the citation does support it as the hockey hall of fame bio says Orr is frequently brought up when discussing who the all time greatest is.--E tac 07:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
And it is not how it is presented here; we've had a few too many edit wars over the subject, and the consensus compromise was reached for that reason ... quite aside from which there are only about several dozen players of whom it could (and has) "arguably" be said he was the greatest ever. The fact is that most observers don't think Orr was the greatest ever; it's plain that Gretzky is viewed in that light, with minority support as well for the Howes, Richards and Lemieuxs of the world, and oldtime observers for Bowie, Malone and Lalonde. All in all, it's a can of worms we decided to close.  Ravenswing  13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Your wrong, Gretzky had more offensive skills then Orr, but put 5 of Bobby Orr against 5 of Gretzky. The team of Orrs would win 9 out of 10 times.--E tac 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Howabout, Orr is considered one of the greatest players of all time. I thought an agreement was reached about a year ago, to use the phrase one of the greatest... in order to avoid these boring overwhelmingly PoV disputes. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
PS- I noticed that agreement hasn't been respected at Wayne Gretzky however. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The Goal

I'm a little shocked that there isn't a whole arcticle about The Goal. 24.83.3.54 03:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More of the same

Once again, as per WP:ENGVAR, the article's been reverted to the national language variant used by the original creators, consonant with a subject who has spent his entire adult life in the United States, working exclusively for United States companies, and who has been a United States citizen for many years. Beyond that, the anachronistic usage for "Black Hawks" has been reverted. Finally, I've Xed out the Doug Harvey reference again, which has been solely pushed by an editor for whom changing that reference to say "Doug Harvey" has been his sole Wikipedia activity for almost all of this year; his persistent, solitary POV has been catered to long enough.  Ravenswing  21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I am not going to revert it cause I don't desire to get in an arguement about it. But WP:ENGVAR says that the spelling must be consistant throughout the article, and since he is in a category spelled with the Canadian variation, all other spellings throughout the page should be in the Canadian variation reguardless if he worked in the US his entire life etc etc. because we cannot make the spelling of a cat show up differently like we can with a normal link. --Djsasso (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd be very surprised if many people felt that the spelling of a category listing or an external link needed to be consistent with that of the article; there must be many cases where it is not.  Ravenswing  11:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Orr was never drafted!

Can someone please change that!! It is grossly inaccurate to state that Orr was drafted number 1 overall in the 1966 draft. The number one draft pick that year was Barry Gibbs, a Defenceman by the Boston Bruins. Orr was signed to a C-Form prior to 1963. As a result, players on a C-Form are ineligible for the draft, and the players are assigned to an amateur club sponsored by the big club. In Orr's case, it was the Oshawa Generals (Bostons farm club) of the OHA. As a result, Orr was brought to training camp in 1966 and stayed. Furthermore, Bobby Orr wore #27 that year.

Someone please correct this as it is grossly inaccurate. Thanks, Andrew

So it would seem. I've removed the line altogether. Not sure how that came about. Resolute 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Alan Eagleson

Why did you undo the change? If you put in one side of the argument, why not put in facts countering the argument about Eagleson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits make accusations as to why a person made a decision. Any such edits must be verifiable, cited with reliable sources. A claim of "conventional wisdom" is none of those. Flibirigit (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"conventional wisdom is that he never told Orr about the Bruins' offer of part-ownership. That conventional wisdom is belied by Eagleson's public disclosure of the Bruins' ownership offer. For example, the day before Orr signed with Chicago, Eagleson was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying "[Boston] offered a five-year deal at $295,000 or 18.6 percent ownership of the club in 1980." Then on June 9, 1976, after Orr signed with Chicago, Eagleson again disclosed the ownership offer, telling the Toronto Globe and Mail "Orr was to receive $925,000 in cash payable in June 1980. That was to be a cash payment or involve Orr's receiving 18.6 percent of the Bruins stock."

Actually, accusation "that he never told Orr" is how it now reads. My comment softened it by saying that while this accusation is "conventional wisdom", it appears to be inaccurate. My comments don't make any accusation, just quote facts from a newspaper that refute the accusation. So, using your logic, shouldn't my edit stay in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my previous comment, any such edits must be verifiable (you must provide the source), cited (you must include details of the source, if it's from a newspaper you must provide particulars) with reliable sources (please see that link for what is considered a reliable resource). Flibirigit (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Flibirigit: your statement seems to miss my point. The ONLY accusation is in the portion you kept. My response to that accusation includes the "attribution" that you want (the quotes from newspapers). As you've left it, there is an unattributed accusation that is not verifiable. I've added a verifiable counter. Please respond with specifics so we don't talk past each other and so I understand your issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Give us a date, and I'll be happy to check at the local library myself. It has long been known that the Bruins' offer to Orr came as a complete surprise to Orr, one about which he did not learn for years; I find it hard to believe that it could have been reported in the Globe and Mail and not be plastered all over the Boston papers the next day. (Which, in fact, it was not, nor the next week, nor thereafter.)  Ravenswing  21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've given you both dates and the papers!!!! Your comment about this being "well known" shows just why this needs to be added. Orr may not have known, but that's not because Eagleson hid it from him. The info in my passage comes directly from Steve Brunt's book "Searching for Bobby Orr." The info about the dates was in my post Check the June 7 Toronto Star, and the June 9 Toronto Globe and Mail:

The day before, 6/7/76, Frank Orr of the Toronto Star wrote that Eagleson had a deal with Boston in place Sept 15, 1975, but that the deal got changed after Orr's knee surgery. Quoting Eagleson "they offered a five-year deal at $295,000 or 18.6 percent ownership of the club in 1980. I didn't think it would be wise for him to be a player-owner."

Then on 6/9/76, after Bobby Orr signed with Chicago, the Toronto Globe and Mail quoted Eagleson "Orr was to receive 925,000 in cash payable in June 1980. That was to be a cash payment or involve Orr's receiving 18.6 percent of the Bruins stock."


PLEASE STOP THE CENSORSHIP OF TRUE STATEMENTS JUST BECAUSE THEY GO AGAINST WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD. MY INFORMATION IS VERIFIABLE AND CITED. CHECK THEM OUT YOURSELF BEFORE ASSUMING THEY'RE UNTRUE AND DELETING THEM. MY QUOTES CORRECT THE EARLIER FALSE ACCUSATION AGAINST EAGLESON. ORR MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE OFFER, BUT IT WASN'T THAT EAGLESON HID THE OFFER - HE TOLD THE PRESS BEFORE AND AFTER ORR SIGNED, AS NOTED IN THE TWO NEWS ARTICLES, AND QUOTED LATER IN STEVEN BRUNT'S BOOK. That you don't believe it until you see it yourself is not a basis for deleting information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Well now. I don't suppose you actually verified those newspaper links yourself. I just did (and a damn raw, drippy day to be outside, too). Frank Orr had no article in the Star on June 7, 1976, and there was no such quote in the Globe & Mail on the 9th. While you figure out just when any such quotes actually took place, I'm reverting the text.  Ravenswing  19:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Steve Brunt, who tells me he has the clippings at his house. I'll forward the info to you later today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted Steve Brunt, who responded:

June 7, 1976. Toronto Star. Page B1 (front of the sports section) Headline "$3 million deal for Bobby Orr" Byline Frank Orr quotes as they appear in the book The clip is sitting right in front of me other stories on the page - a milt dunnell column about horse racing, a Jim Kernaghan story about Olympic swimmers, and a wire story about the East German swim team

I'll be restoring me edits now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.48.158 (talk • contribs)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Senseless Paragraph

This paragraph makes no sense: "Orr also benefited from playing most of his career in Boston Garden, which was nine feet shorter and two feet narrower than the standard NHL rink. This suited his rushing style very well, as he was able to get from one end of the ice to the other faster than in a standard rink.[5]"

Great skaters like Orr benefit from large sheets, not small ones. Boston Garden was good for knocking guys over, not rushing by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.91.49 (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The guy who wrote that never played hockey. The fact that Orr skated rings around everyone in cramped Boston Garden shows what a great skater he was. If he had played on Olympic sized rinks, he'd have posted a points record that would still be unbroken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.236.12.181 (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Spelling change request

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was use Canadian spelling. Hopefully, someone can double check to ensure that I did not miss any of the spellings. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose a change in spelling from American to Canadian English. Though the article appears to have been started in American English and Orr played for NHL teams in the United States, I would argue that the article is primarily a biography of a Canadian person and of greatest interest to Canadian readers. The relevant guideline is WP:ENGVAR. Please comment here on your support or opposition to such a change and a rationale for your position. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Spelling makes no substantive difference. Either should be acceptable. PKT 00:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As against his birth place, he has lived in Massachusetts his entire adult life, worked exclusively for American hockey teams and business, is an American citizen, and heads his own firm here. The article is of no less interest to hockey-loving American readers than to hockey-loving Canadian readers. Since there is a dispute as to which version is most correct, WP:ENGVAR holds that the controlling variant should be the one in which the article was first written. That variant, and the one in which the article was written for the first two years it existed, is en-us.  Ravenswing  04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • He's an American citizen? I never knew this, do you have a source? I didn't see it in the article or in a quick search of Google. I ask because if he is, then I would say American English is the way to go. If he's not, I would side with Canadian English. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Do you have a source for his American citizenship? Even if true, he would still be a Canadian citizen but I agree makes the Canadian biography argument less strong. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll hold off chiming in to allow Ravenswing time to find a source respecting the American citizenship. If we locate the source, like Nurmsook, I am inclined to lean towards opposing the proposal, but otherwise would probably support. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It's long since been agreed at WP:HOCKEY to use the variant based on their place of birth. Even RG agreed to this in the past. -Djsasso (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Absent evidence of American citizenship, English variant should be based on objective criteria place of birth/citizenship. Any other discussion as to place of residence, etc. is just subjective WP:OR speculation as to what subject considers himself to be. Assessment of levels of interest to hockey-loving American readers and hockey-loving Canadian readers is not a relevant criteria. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Middle Name?

I had thought that it was Gresham. Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.64.164.35 (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Pinball

There is a pinball machine named "Bobby Orr - Powerplay". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.24.9 (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

American Citizen?

-Enough, guys. Resolute 19:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Youngest HHOF inductee

An anon IP (User talk:69.159.19.205) has repeatedly reverted the sourced fact that Bobby Orr was the youngest HHOF inductee at the time of his election; his most recent edit summary states "Prove that no younger players have since been inducted." That’s readily enough done with a casual glance of the inductees over the last thirty years. While a number of other HHOF inductees were under forty, the next youngest was Mario Lemieux at 32. If the anon IP wants to reverse this, I suggest he come up with a reliable source proving to the contrary.  Ravenswing  17:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with the editor adding the material, not with the editor removing it. If you have a recent, reliable source, why not cite it in the article, rather than asking me to provide evidence to prove a negative? 69.159.4.224 (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Dude, look at how its phrased: "the youngest player living at the time of his induction in history". It doesn't matter if there's been others who were younger since that time, because that's not what the sentence claims. And if you read the source, it states there: "... was voted Tuesday into the hockey Hall of Fame, the youngest player ever accorded the honor." That, to me, is airtight. If you want to remove it, it's your job to find evidence to the contrary. Tabercil (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I am asking you to provide evidence because you are flat out wrong, and challenging a readily apparent fact like this is ruleslawyering at best and bumping heads against WP:DICK at worst. You have repeatedly removed a valid source without providing another to replace it.  Ravenswing  02:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Tabercil, you are right. I didn't read the phrasing closely enough. My apologies. Ravenswing, I would not have challenged it if it was "readily apparent" to me. 69.159.4.224 (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bobby Orr/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
  • The LEAD does not summarize the article. Many sections lack a mention in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • added some, could you expand on what you think is important enough to be in the lead? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Review WP:LEAD. You can have up to 4 paragraphs in a properly structured LEAD. Often times GA reviewers let you get away without really summarizing all phases of a biographical subject. I am guilty myself at articles like Gilbert Perreault and Barry Bonds of not really summarizing the life in GAs I have written. However, a LEAD really should have a summary point from every section. In this case, we should describe Orr as a Junior hockey star and leader in a sentence to summarize section one, for example. Are 1976 Canada Cup, and the last two sections represented in the LEAD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Canada Cup is mentioned. I will work on this when all of the other minor points are crossed off. I'm sure I can revise this suitably. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I've expanded this. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Can you point out the content in the LEAD that summarizes the Early life section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
              • I've reworded, please review. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
                • The LEAD is now excessive. It is 3761 characters. It should be cut down to less than 3200 and preferably less than 3000. I have written 19 WP:FAs and only one (Tyrone Wheatley - 3240) has a lead longer than 2827 characters. That is the result of creep as the last two sentences have been added to keep it up to date without any text being removed to compensate. A sentence like "Orr won two Stanley Cup championships with the Bruins when Boston defeated the St. Louis Blues in the 1970 Stanley Cup Final in four games and the New York Rangers in the 1972 Stanley Cup Final in six games." could be cut down to "Orr won two Stanley Cup championships with the Bruins in 1970 and 1972." with the years piped so that the Word Stanley Cup does not appear in the sentence three times. Also "Orr also led Boston to the 1974 Stanley Cup Final where they were defeated by the Philadelphia Flyers in six games." could end at the word Final. Another sentence for chopping would be "However, after his retirement, Orr found that he was deeply in debt and he had to sell off almost everything he owned to pay his debts and taxes.", which could end after the word owned. "his final two seasons" could be cut to "two more". "record for most points and assists in a single season by a defenceman" could be "record for single-season points and assists by a defenceman" Look to chop words without removing content. See if you can bring it back under 3000 words.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The current issues with the lead are as follows:
    1. It continues to be over 3100 characters. Under 3000 is preferred.
      1. "Orr would later help in the investigations of Eagleson that led to Eagleson's fraud convictions and disbarment." could simply state "Orr aided in Eagleson's fraud convictions and disbarment."
      2. You probably don't need to mention his knee issues in both of the first two paragraphs.
      3. "Orr and his family left Chicago and returned to Boston to live where Orr rebuilt his finances through personal endorsements and public relations work." could end at the word finances.
    2. Ungrammatical at times:
      1. "Orr was married in 1972, is the father of two sons and is a grandfather." needs to be properly conjoined: Either "1972, and he is" or "1972 and is"
      2. "Orr played his entire professional career in the National Hockey League (NHL), the first ten seasons with the Boston Bruins before joining the Chicago Black Hawks for two more." The first ten seasons needs to modify career and not league. Thus, the sentence needs to be modified to move career next to first ten seasons. Something like this could work: "Orr played in the National Hockey League (NHL) for his entire professional career, the first ten seasons of which were with the Boston Bruins and the final two with the Chicago Black Hawks."
    3. Please link sports agent.
    4. Avoid would/would be. Either use past or present tense in the lead.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Early life
Orr and Eagleson
Bruins career
Free agency, and the move to Chicago
1976 Canada Cup
Retirement
Style of play
Post-hockey career
  1. terms like liability, asset and bankrupt should be linked.
    1. linked ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. remember conversion of $ amounts
    1. added ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  3. link NHLPA, unless you have already done so in the article.
    1. prior link -- added intro of acronym ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  4. link Baybank and Standard Brands if they are notable.
    1. linked ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  5. If you did not link Junior hockey above you should have.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    1. linked prior in Early life section ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Personal life
  1. link Multiple Sclerosis Society and Boston Children's Hospital
    1. linked ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Honours
  1. link TD Garden
    1. linked ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. The paragraphs here are a bit stubby. Either expand or merge.
    1. reduced to two paragraphs ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Career achievements
  1. I would put things that he was first or is the only ahead of things where he is 51st and such.
    1. re-ordered ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  2. Why isn't Orr pictured at NHL Plus-Minus Award if he has won it the most times?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    1. The article does not claim he won the award the most times, which was first awarded only after Orr's retirement. It states that he was "NHL Plus/Minus leader" the most times, which he was.  Ravenswing  18:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - First, thanks for taking time to do a review. I am working on the article and hope to have all of this addressed by the end of the weekend. I've not done current dollar calculations -- I looked at the Robinson article and its conversions and its now clear to me how it was done. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)

On hold for now with minor changes needed.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Stylistically, I would prefer that team season wikilinks be used when discussing a team of a particular season. The Bruins did not beat franchise X in any given year, they beat the 19XX team of that franchise. Linking to team season will better serve the reader with proper background on the team.
    Now, you have to link teams multiple times. E.G., "December 14 against Chicago" should link to the team 2 years after the first link of Chicago. Similarly, do this for "Orr developed a feud with Toronto rookie defenceman" and throughout.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Well don
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    As unique as File:Bobby Orr 1966.jpg is, I am not sure it passes WP:NFCC. Licensing of File:Orr Trip.jpg & File:HHOF1999-Orr.jpg should be confirmed. I will request a second opinion. Infobox could use a caption and the 3rd image is not captioned correctly. It ends in a period and is not a full sentence. Either make it a full sentence or remove the period.
  • Second opinion: Not sure about the 1970 stanley cup pic, but the 1966 rookie pic definitely doesn't pass NFCC and should be removed/deleted. We have a free image of him already, so having the second one isn't needed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I am thinking that due to its iconic nature, it might pass. There are few athletes that have one picture associated with them like this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
      • It's kind of sad, when pictures like this are deemed not okay for an -encyclopedia-. You cannot go back in time to take 'free' pictures. Orr was a historic player, considered one of the top three players -of all time-. If I delete these pictures from the article, then it basically should pass, right? Makes a GA status essentially worthless, no? Is this really the way we want Wikipedia to be? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I definitely understand. I have had many articles that I have had to remove many images for quality rating recognition. I was very discomforted to have to remove a ton of images from Crown Fountain to get an WP:FA. There are many other articles where I had to remove many images to get WP:GA. In terms of early career images of athletes, when I did Jack Kemp, I had images of him in a Buffalo Bills uniform that had to be removed. There is clearly value to knowing what an athlete looked like when he was younger, but it is against policy to include non-free images for this purpose. In truth, what the process is doing in this case is forcing you to remove images that do not belong on WP. I stand behind you on the goal. I hope we can get that kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Agreed with Wizardman on the first NFCC image. It is a nice image, but we already have a photo of Orr. It does not meet the criteria. The 1970 Cup image does, imo, as it is an iconic photograph that has been discussed in reliable sources and is discussed in the article. Resolute 16:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
            • I would have to agree with Resolute here, the first one would have to go, but the cup image is iconic and discussed alot, so believe it should stay. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
            • It's too bad. I really like the photo. To me, the rookie photo illustrates how young he was when he joined the NHL. This was pre-expansion, after all. And how clean-cut he was (this was the 60s, remember) when he arrived there. You can write that he was only 18 and clean cut in a time of hippies, but it's just not the same. It's 'a young man poised to begin a stellar career'. Is it just not worthy enough, or inappropriate? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk)

Would have left the 1970 image in, myself. Resolute 23:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would also reinsert the 1970 image. It is iconic in a way that may pass a fair use test. I have had several iconic fair use images pass although none in sports. See Demi's Birthday Suit and More Demi Moore as examples. In fact, you might have to remove the image of the museum display before removing "The goal".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I have commented out the hhof pic. Please complete the review on the article as it stands. I will probably not have any time over the xmas holiday to work on the article and because I am going out of town, the library books are going back. So that's a couple of weeks. If you feel like more thought or work is needed, then add those to your comments and fail it. In retrospect, peer review first before GA might have been a better idea. Anyway, I'd rather any further discussion on the images not hold up the review. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • In truth, I would hope a reviewer might favorably assess both the goal and the musuem. Is it possible to add both back and await comment. I don't think any review of the images would require research. I think it would be better for the article to have those two images if they pass. I don't think there is a rush for the article, but I will make a final assessment without the images immediately if you are adamant.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Will continue to reevaluate my concerns.
Image review per request
  1. File:Bobby Orr.jpg: Okay
  2. File:Orr.jpg: Copyrighted image (source and copyright holder identified); it seems to satisfy the tenets of WP:NFCC, most crucially that there is enough critical commentary to justify the illustration.
  3. File:HHOF1999-Orr.jpg: This could be problematic. The photograph is of a montage of copyrighted images, see commons:Commons:Derivative works. It would not be an issue if the images were small and quite indistinguishable (commons:Commons:De minimis), but they are readily identifiable at first glance.
  4. File:Bobby Orr Star on Canada's Walk of Fame.jpg: The star is an artistic work, which can be copyrighted. Canada has freedom of panorama, which permits "free" photography of works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently situated in the public. But this star might not be a work of artistic craftsmanship. It is more like an engraving or etching, which would make it a graphic work instead. See commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Canada and commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom.

The first two are okay. The last two might be issues. Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad to know #2 is O.K. Does "Might be issues" mean please remove or wait for another opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
In my opnion, the quickest way to resolve the issues is to remove the problematic images. Jappalang (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I know that would be the quickest. We almost did that with image #2 because we were unsure. Are there arguments to be made for 3 and 4. I.E., is there information that could be researched to preserve either? What would be necessary to preserve 3 or 4 in the article or is there nothing that can be done or is it just a borderline case that someone else might interpret otherwise. E.g., what would be necessary to show craftsmanship?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Among the FAs, Celine Dion has a star in her article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If these two images were nominated for deletion, I would argue for them to be deleted on the above basis. Jappalang (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding Celine Dion, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST and her article was promoted in 2006 (an FAC that I did not participate in). Jappalang (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks for your time. I know the nominator is willing to remove the museum photo, but await response regarding the star.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the pic of the star on the sidewalk adds anything to the understanding of the subject. I'm not sure of the discussion of the museum photo. It seems that it would be okay if the picture was blurry on the details or the details were too small to be discernible. In either case, what would be the point of the photo? I'm not sure if the exhibit on Orr is permanent. If it was, that might be useful for the article and justify a photo. But probably not the contents of the exhibit as displayed in the photo. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
At this point, you would have an uphill battle for the image of the museum. As far as the walk of fame picture, you have to find content showing that it was hand chiselled or something as opposed to etched, if I am understanding the reviewer correctly. Otherwise, both must go. It can pass if you remove them or find ways to get them past WP:NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Tony, both pictures are panoramas and both do not infringe on any original works within them. I don't believe for a second there is any possible way to use the HHOF image or sections of it in a way that diminishes any of the various copyrighted items in the picture. The images within the exhibit case are completely without detail. Take a close look at the image. And certainly a sidewalk block on a public walk of fame is a work of craftsmanship and not a graphic work. (Where would you ever get a quote on that topic?) The image is of the block and surrounding blocks, not simply of the 'maple star', the part that could be considered a graphic. But even then, there is no trademark indicated. And the walk of fame is a public project. There are no signs on the walk of fame saying no pictures of the stars are allowed. I am sure that they -expect- people to take pictures of them. There are no signs at the HHOF, for that matter. These are public exhibitions. Any objection to these would apply to the picture of Orr in his Bruin jersey, no? There he is wearing a Bruin jersey, which also appears in the exhibit. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to pass this without an image guy saying that both of the contested images are all right. I can wait as long as it takes. If you can find an image guy to say they are all right that is fine by me. We can also just let this sit and wait for other image guys to pass by.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not the images. It's the arguments that I disagree with. The images are not necessary for the subject to be understood, but they've been on the Commons since May 2009. Surely someone who edits on the Commons would have noticed if they were not okay? You are saying that the Commons is not a free repository we can use. Reasonably, they should be okay until someone posts a deletion request on the Commons, no? Unless it is blatantly obvious. I'll see what I can post on the Commons to clear this up. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You assume a little too much of Commons there. It is both understaffed, and under monitored. I've nominated clear copyvios that sat there for months, and I've had normal deletion discussions sit awaiting an admin's attention for weeks after the nominal closing date of the discussions. Now, all things considered, I hate copyright paranoia and see nothing wrong with either image. However, given the objections of others, the best thing to do for now is to simply comment out the images at this time, then seek someone with knowledge at Commons who can help us decide if the images are valid or not. If they are, restoring to this article is easily done. Resolute 20:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My personal preference is to try to resolve the validity of the images while we have a reason to call attention to it. The volunteer labor pool of image experst is already stretched thin. Getting people to pay attention to an image review of a very old WP:GAC is easier to do than getting them to assess a random set of images. I encourage the main editor to wait it out, but acknowledge that if the images are removed, there are no other outstanding issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

So.. what's the plan of action on those two images? Should I put them up for deletion on commons and you guys can go by that result? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

An official ruling is probably best. Just make sure you are putting up the right ones.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I put them up but no telling when they'll be decided on. Commons is extremely backlogged in most areas. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Both images were deleted on Commons. I removed the walk of fame one that a bot has not gotten to yet. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have passed the article. Thanks for your patience.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Bobby Orr statue.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bobby Orr statue.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New additions?

The following was removed due to a conflict in its placement. Looks sourced but I am not familiar with the page or subject and am not sure were to put it ..leaving it up to you guys ok (hockey people) ....(Was here by request for malformed edit) .Moxy (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

n George V. Higgins's The Friends of Eddie Coyle, written in 1971, Dillon takes Eddie to see a Bruins-Rangers game at the Boston Gardens before he kills him. Orr scores a goal in the first period, much to the delight of the 14,967 fans. Orr also assists on a goal by Johnny Bucyk in the second period, and the Bruins win 3-2. "Beautiful," says Coyle. "Beautiful. Can you imagine being that kid? What is he, about twenty-one? He's the best hockey player inna world. Christ, number four, Bobby Orr. What a future he's got."[1]

Just a point of interest.

Jimmie Skinner scouted and tried to sign Orr to a C-form when he was a bantam.But his parents thought he was too young and would become home sick.129.41.205.101 (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Early Life - last paragraph

It says, "Bruins' management demanded that Orr not play in the Final, not wanting to risk any further damage to their property, while Orr and his parents were adamant that he be allowed to play for the national championship. He was not yet signed professionally to the Bruins, and they threatened that he would never play for them if he was held out. Blair decided to defy the Bruins' ownership and let Orr play." Am I misreading that or does it need correction?

The Bruins did NOT want Orr to play (to keep him healthy). The parents and team DID want Orr to play (for the national championship).

Shouldn't this sentence have a "not" in it: "... and they [the Bruins] threatened that he would never play for them [the Bruins] if he was NOT held out [of the championship game]." Or some other change to reflect what I think is the correct meaning.

"... and they [the Bruins] threatened that he would never play for them [the Bruins] if he was played and risked further damage or injury in the championship game."

Bruins: "Keep him off the ice or else." Parents/team: "Butt out." 50.177.91.141 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"They" in this context, is Orr's family. They were the ones threatening that Orr would never play for Boston if he was held out of the game. I will reword to make this clearer. Thanks! Resolute 22:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh! I never considered it that way. Thanks for the clarification. It's those ambiguous pronouns (they, them). I read your re-write and I think it would benefit from one more pronoun replacement. Current: "As he was not yet signed professionally to the Bruins, they [the Bruins?] threatened that he would never play for Boston if he was held out." Change: "As he was not yet signed professionally to the Bruins, Orr's parents threatened that he would never play for Boston if he was held out." 50.177.91.141 (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I could make this change, but I also think the context is now clear, since we are already talking about the Orrs in the active voice. I'm not opposed to enacting your further suggestion if others agree, however. Thanks, Resolute 00:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bobby Orr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bobby Orr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bobby Orr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

1974-1975

A couple things that should be cleaned up here:

1. This heading is 1974-1975 but includes information about 75-76. Maybe everything after the first paragraph should be moved below and rename that section "1975-76, free agency and the move to Chicago"?

2. The last sentence says as of 2010, there is no authorized biography. Later in the "post hockey career" section, it mentions his 2013 autobiography. The first statement is relevant because it demonstrates his attitude, but maybe should say something like "Because of his desire to avoid attention, Orr declined all offers for his biography to be written until 2013, when he wrote his own autobiography almost 30 years after he retired" or whatever. Jaydub99 (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bobby Orr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bobby Orr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Coach Tennant

There was some text about a coach Tennant in the lead, but not in the body of this article. Is there some dispute about who moved Orr from forward to defense? Here is the text:

Orr started in organized hockey at age five. He first played as a forward, but was moved to defence by his coach, Royce Tennant. Going against the standard practice of the time, Tennant felt Orr's offensive skills were best suited for a rushing defenceman role and he gave Orr the freedom to play that role despite its inherent risks. With Orr on defence, the Parry Sound Shamrocks had many successes. After Tennant, Bucko MacDonald coached Orr, and Orr continued to excel against small town Ontario provincial competition on defence. At fourteen, Orr joined the Oshawa Generals, the Bruins' junior hockey affiliate, and he was an all-star for three of his four seasons.

Considering this is a GA, I took out the Tennant part as it is unsupported and not in the body of the article. Anyone able to help on this? Alaney2k (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Highest paid in what way?

This article faithfully and correctly follows its source when it says "highest-paid player in NHL history as a rookie". But that source is sloppily written, because it has at least four different meanings: it means "he was the highest-paid rookie ever at the time when he signed, but there were veteran players that year making more than he did, and since then other rookies have been paid more", AND it means "Bobby Orr's rookie pay is still, as of 2021, the highest salary paid to any NHL player ever", plus it has at least two other meanings in between those extremes. Please, someone who knows a different reliable source, fix up the sentence so that it can only mean what it's supposed to mean. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Orr Hockey Group

I suggest an edit to the following sentence: "Orr entered the player agent business in 1996 and today is president of the Orr Hockey Group agency. The agency represents over 20 active NHL players.[6]" While the first part of the quotation, concerning Orr's having entered the agent business in 1996 is only problematic for its lack of a source, the second part is no longer true. As far as I can tell, Orr Hockey group no longer exists, as it was acquired by Wasserman Hockey. The citation to orrhockey.com is no longer valid as that page does not exist and automatically redirects to the Wasserman page. Danny B MT (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Higgins, George V. (1971). The Friends of Eddie Coyle. New York: Picador. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-312-42969-0.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bobby_Orr/Archive_1&oldid=1136571620"