Talk:Hartford Whalers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Big E

Did the Whalers really play games at the Big E before the official move to Hartford? My understanding was they only did before the Civic Center was completed and during the period of the roof collapse. Ravenswing 12:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• I believe they played in the Boston Garden, then the old mall, then it collapsed, then Springfeild, then back to Hartford, then Carolina (:-() DavidReject 12:46, April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, they played at the Big E for the first half of the 1974-75 season while The Hartford Civic Center was being built. The Whalers played at The Boston Garden for the 1972-73 season and the 1973-74 season.

What's the arena called again?

A recent edit and reversion has me wondering. The actual name of the arena in which the Whalers played is indeed the "Hartford Civic Center Veterans Memorial Coliseum." But no one ever calls it that; it's popularly called "Hartford Civic Center." Any thoughts on which version would be preferable here? Ravenswing 14:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The correct approach is to use the appropriate name for whatever you're talking about. The structure is the Hartford Civic Center and is comprised of several different large spaces, including an exhibition hall and a space for hockey/basketball/etc. The playing space within the Civic Center is the Veterans Memorial Coliseum. The Hartford Whalers played in the Veterans Memorial Coliseum at (or "of") the Hartford Civic Center. Beginning 20:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I redirected "Hartford Civic Center Vetrans Memorial Coliseum" to the "Hartford Civic Center" page. I assume that solves the problem for now, later. DavidReject

Logo

If there are post-1992 logos these should be included on the page. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead logo is post-1992. Ravenswing 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC).

Writing

This page has been chosen as an ideal article to be re-written under the guidelines of the ever too popular comma splice. For a definition of a comma splice and how destructive it is please see comma splicing tutorial at [1] -Rainman71 04:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a very prime example - With the exception of a period in the late 1970s when the Whalers played at the Springfield Civic Center while the Hartford Civic Center was being renovated (due to the collapse of a portion of its roof after a blizzard), the franchise was located in Hartford until it relocated to North Carolina in 1997. Print that off and show that to any English professor and they'll turn that into 10 complete sentences. "When while due was after before" If you have all those words in one sentence it'll definately require disecting. -Rainman71 04:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because altogether too many college professors these days - much like many other people in this society - can't handle sentences longer than six words. Happily the Simple English Wikipedia exists for their use. [2] Ravenswing 05:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

2004 discussion

This page should be merger with the Carolina Hurricanes as the Whalers relocatd to Carolina and are now the Hurricanes. It is the same team. Wikipedia does not have seperate pages for other teams that have relocated to other cities. The North Stars redirect to Dallas Stars, Brooklyn Dodgers redirect to Los Angeles Dodgers what is so special about the Whalers?

• I believe there is enough information about the Whalers period to merit a seperate page. It is common practice to fork information out to seperate articles rather than have one long article on a subject. See Soviet Union for example. Under numerous headings it says "Main article: such-and-such-page" with a link to another article, still about the Soviet Union but with information on a specific topic. This page has specific information about the Whalers period of the Hurricanes franchise. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you are just a big fan who still upset the team is no longer in Hartford. Actually at comparing the the two articles alot of the info or very similar information about the Hartford years is already included in the Hurricanes page. I think the two pages should be put together.

• A big fan? I was 11 when the team moved. I live in Florida. I never even heard about the team until last year. I just spent a lot of time putting this article together and I think it merits its own page. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be merged. Masterhatch 8 August 2005

Similarly, never mind that the various other shifted franchises -- Quebec Nordiques, Minnesota North Stars, Winnipeg Jets, etc -- have their own pages still. (Besides which what level of condescension does it take to claim that you have to be a Hartford Whalers' fan to take this stance?) Ravenswing 15:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• I concur - there is no way I would tie in a Whalers page to that of the Hurricanes. The Whalers were their own team - regardless of the legalities of franchises. --Brentmid 22:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well. Don't merge the two articles. The Whalers were, are, and forever shall be a DIFFERENT team than the Hurricanes. And oh BTW, does it seems strange to you that you're the only one saying the articles should be merged? -- FairBol 22 February 2007

Erm ... that's a two year old discussion, actually. Long since resolved. Ravenswing 05:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Penguins Staying In Pittsburgh

Just letting everyone know that the penguins arn't going anywhere and that this should be removed from the article, also the entire return to Hartford is total BS, there is no truth to that. Rpgman456 02:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Return To Hartford? section to reflect the conjecture and the moot point reality re: the Penguins moving to Hartford.24.117.250.51 06:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Pants

Does anyone know something about those pants, I have seen them only short time on Whalers players. http://www.whalershockey.com/images/D/Doug%20Sulliman_3.jpg http://www.whalershockey.com/images/D/Doug%20Sulliman%20and%20Risto%20Siltanen.jpg

They were called Cooperalls, and to the best of my knowledge, only the Whalers and Flyers ever wore them. Resolute 13:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The Flyers started using them, then the Whalers. It lasted for about two seasons in the early 1980s, and then the league shot them down and compelled them to use traditional hockey pants.  Ravenswing  14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Question on Editing

Well I did my first edit, it was adding Dineen's, Francis's, and Samuelsson's numbers to the retired section. I was there tonight when they hung the numbers up at the Civic center. Let me tell you it was otherworldly. It must be strange realizing that now you have a tiny bit of Immortality to your name. I just wanted to make sure that everything is all set.

Which I am now reverting; the Hartford Whalers, having ceased to exist years ago, did not retire any such numbers. Perhaps the Wolfpack did, in which case they should be listed in the Wolfpack section. Ravenswing 05:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

So should Wikipedia ignore the fact that the banners will hang in the Hartford Civic Center with the Whalers logo, in Whalers colors, carrying numbers 5, 10 and 11, between the 2, 9 and 19? Look in this photo; the old banners in the background are spaced out ready to accept the new ones on the same rack. Ignoring those numbers entirely is a mistake, especially since Connecticut retained the rights to the Whalers' name, logo and records from Karmanos in the move for purposes such as this. The Wolf Pack's inaction with the numbers is irrelevant; they don't honor 2, 9 or 19 either. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I can hang X players' number from Y defunct team from the tree next to my parents pond, but I really don't think anyone would care either. The Whale is dead Jim. ccwaters 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking "And Joe's Pizzeria can retire Torrie Robertson's and Ross McKay's numbers too, does that count?" The only entity that can retire Hartford Whalers' numbers is the Hartford Whalers. They don't exist any more, and even were Hartford to get a "new" Whalers NHL expansion team -- a huge, huge if -- following consensus format for Team Pages in the Wiki ice hockey section, that team would get its own page and its own retired numbers section. We haven't added Frank Finnigan's number to the original Ottawa Senators' retired number listings, nor taken John McKenzie's away from the Whalers just because the Hurricanes unretired #19. Ravenswing 20:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ron Francis, Kevin Dineen, and Ulf Samuelsson's numbers were NOT retired by the Wolf Pack on January 6, 2006 because numbers 5, 10, and 11 are still used by the Wolf Pack. These three numbers were retired at the Whalers Appreciation Night in honor of the Hartford Whalers. The purpose is to show that those numbers will remain in retirement if the NHL returns to Hartford along with the three numbers the Whalers retired when they were in Hartford. I think the apporiate solution to this problem is to add Francis, Dineen, and Samuelsson to the list of retired numbers while clearly stating they were retired on January 6, 2006 at Whalers Appreciation Night. Then state that those three retired numbers would only be applied to an NHL team that comes back to Hartford. The retiring of Francis, Dineen, and Samuelsson is part of Whalers history and should be on the Hartford Whalers Wikipedia web page for the Hartford Whalers. However, I do believe those numbers should be listed seperately from Rick Ley, Gordie Howe, and John McKenzie. I hope this solves the problem.

I just edited the retired numbers as a NOTE:, because I think to not mention this on the Whalers page is an omission. That the people of Hartford still care enough about the legacy of the Whalers to pressure the Wolfpack to do this is worthy of mention.--MAntos 15:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HartfordWhalers79.gif

Image:HartfordWhalers79.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Resolute 23:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting link spam

I've just reverted this video link [3]. While it does have good clips, it's a generic WHA site that doesn't particularly pertain to the Whalers. Furthermore, it's the editor's own website, and he's spamming several WHA-related articles, both in violation of WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:LINKS. I'll track down the rest of the edits and revert.  Ravenswing  16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whalers logo

Please see my old comments about this trademark claim here: Talk:Hartford_Whalers#.22Retired_numbers.22. Maybe I wasn't looking in the right place, could you provide more evidence? As is: I have to maintain that the US Patents and Trademark Office trumps statements on a nostalgic fan site. ccwaters 15:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a "nostalgic fan site" at all, but the State of Connecticut itself, which paid "$30,560,000 associated with the purchase of the assets of the Hartford Whalers." [4] What could that have been except for the trademarks? Then there's this report:

"Neither Baldwin nor state officials would speak to the specifics of Baldwin's most recent proposal. But in a document prepared by Baldwin and obtained by The Courant, the man who says he would bring the NHL back to Hartford proposes acquiring the authority's lease for the city-owned building and assuming responsibility for future capital improvements to the civic center. Among other things, Baldwin's company also would get the rights to the Whalers name, logo and other trademarks." [5]

CT thinks they own it, and the man who put in a bid to run the Civic Center thinks they own it. I can't explain your USPTO search, except to say that it sure appears that CT has mismanaged something it paid an awful lot of money for. --Chancemichaels

I couldn't tell you. Something is not right. ccwaters 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We searched both the US and the CT patent sites at the time, with no luck. That aside, WTF? The entire Forbes-rated value of the franchise wasn't $30 million; there is no way in creation CT would have been stupid enough to pay that much for the logo and the trademark. I don't think the Canadiens trademark is worth that much. Did the team own the arena?  Ravenswing  20:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but it doesn't seem to be the case. I haven't found anything indicating that the arena was ever privately-owned. What else could that $30M have included? Broadcasting rights? Some sort of NHL Franchise rights, should Hartford ever put an ownership group together? I don't know. Regardless, the fact that Hartford thinks the trademarks are theirs to sell would warrant a mention in the article, even if they have let them lapse. Chancemichaels 15:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)--Chancemichaels

Just as an aside, do you have those Forbes rankings handy? That valuation seems a little low, considering the expansion fee paid by the Mighty Ducks a few years earlier was $50M[6] and the fee paid by the Predators the year after the Whalers moved was $80M. --Chancemichaels 16:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

The current value of the franchise is $144 million, ten years down the road for a team that at the time the list was published was the defending Cup champions. Beyond that, Forbes reported that the value of the team had increased 44% in the preceding two years. [7]  Ravenswing  16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's amazing. As you say, the Cup is probably responsible for much of that 44% increase. But I'd still like to see some source for the value of the team in 1997. --Chancemichaels 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Whalerpedia?

I would like to know if there is any interest out there to create a separate web page using the Wiki technology based solely on the Hartford Whalers. This page can have in depth articles on related subjects just as the Carolina Hurricanes, Whaler players and Whaler draft picks, Whaler trades, the NHL, the WHA, the Binghamton Whalers, Springfield Indians, Howard Baldwin, and so on. Let me know if anyone else is interested in starting this web page. Thanks. Whalerguy1 20:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as the rights can be acquired to play the Brass Bonaza theme song...endlessly..(from a Whaler fan who still misses the crafty play calling of Bob Neumeyer (CT-Guilford)

And here we go again ...

Yet another bloke's trying to jam in the spurious "retired numbers." Going on over a year now and no let up, and at this rate I'm driving down to the Hartford Civic Center and setting those banners on fire. I'd violate 3RR if I reverted again; can anyone help me out? Ravenswing 03:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that what was said above, about adding "In addition, Ulf Samuelsson's #5, Ron Francis's #10 and Kevin Dineen's #11 have been honored by fans of the team. On January 7, 2006 at a Whalers appreciation night, the three numbers were hoisted to the rafters of the Hartford Civic Center during a Hartford Wolf Pack game", would be the best way to go. It does involve the Whalers, even if the team has not played in the last nine years. Either way, there should be some mention that the numbers were added, after the team left. Kaiser matias 04:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The easy solution, I think, is to convert that section from a list to prose. Paragraph one could detail the numbers that were actually retired by the team, and paragraph two could detail the three players honored well after the fact. It is patently false to suggest that the team retired those three numbers when the team no longer exists, but I think it should be mentioned if put in the proper context. Resolute 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, so long as there is mention that there is mention of them. While the Whalers obviously don't exist anymore, the city still is honouring the achievements of the players who were with thm, and that is something we need to have recorded in some form. It should explain that fact. Kaiser matias 05:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't often agree with Ravenswing when it comes to retired numbers however, I don't think these should be on the Hartford Whalers page at all as they were not recognized by the team nor the NHL which is what these sections are about. He is right that they belong in the Hartford Civic Center page as they were recognized by that entity not the Whalers. --Djsasso 13:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Which they have been, properly; there's a section in the Civic Center article saying exactly that. Anything more than that just opens a huge door, because frankly, as a fan of the Quebec Nordiques (at least I can claim that I am), I can hang up banners in my backyard "retiring" the numbers of, say, Robbie Ftorek and Anton Stastny, and demand recognition for this honoring in the Nords' article, because I have exactly as much right to speak for the Nordiques' organization as the Wolfpack does for the Whalers. Ravenswing 13:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup I completely agree with that. --Djsasso 15:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ravenswing completely. Furthermore the troublesome editor (who continues to go against consensus) should be 'blocked' for his/her uncompromising reverts & unwikipedian actions. GoodDay 20:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on his comments on his talk page and his not reverting it since my last revert I am willing to hold off on that course of action. But if he were to keep it up I would be more than willing to support anyone going that route. I think he mistakenly thought that he was in the majority and that Ravenswing and Me were the trouble makers. So I am going to assume good faith for now. --Djsasso 20:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the Civic Center article, so I now stand with the majority. Kaiser matias 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing about this is that utilizing the logic that those 3 additional player numbers would remain retired if a new franchise goes to Hartford is erroneous speculation. There is nothing that says that any franchise, whether new or relocated, that goes to Hartford would honor ANY of the retired numbers as they would be under no real obligation to do so. Perhaps they may do so to satisfy a fan base, but lets say Tampa Bay moves to Hartford one day. They would not be obligated to honor any of the retired numbers whatsoever. As of now, there are only 2 former Hartford Whaler's players that have numbers retired in Hartford -- Rick Ley and Gordie Howe. John McKenzie never actually played for Hartford but the team nonetheless retired the number officially so it is included. Until someone can demonstrate that the Hartford Whalers NHL Franchise officially retired Ron Francis, Ulf Samuelsson, and Kevin Dineen's jersey numbers in an official team ceremony, complete with Banners being raised to the roof and Brass Bonanza playing prior to the Hartford Whalers playing an NHL Game, then those 3 players should not be listed as officially retired numbers. This is not a fan base website. It is an encyclopedia, and listing that the Hartford Whalers retired those numbers is completely false thus should not be listed as such.Pparazorback 20:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Those numbers have as much right to be listed in this article as #46 Billy Joel as over at Philadelphia Flyers. ccwaters 12:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good point. Think about it ... how many celebs have received jerseys with "No. 1 Fan" or other such printed on the back, at center ice no less, from the team, just before an official game? Should we track down those instances and declare them to be "retired numbers?" What's the difference?  Ravenswing  12:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Billy Joel's banner refers to his 46 sellouts at the Spectrum and Wachovia Center. It is however orange and black just like Bobby Clarke's #16. ccwaters 13:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Arena Banners I've removed the image as it contradicted the retired numbers section. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing logo?

The logos here show 1972-1979, then 1979-1992, but I clearly remember another logo in the '70s that featured a cartoon whale with the letters "ers" in lower case... Was this not an official logo? 162.136.192.1 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Other logos do exist. You can see some HERE. Including every single logo however is excessive and pushes the envelope on fair use. It would be better to provide a link to see other logos. Flibirigit (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, "Pucky" was just a shoulder patch, similar to what a lot of teams use now; it was never the official emblem of the team.  Ravenswing  04:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Franchise scoring leaders

Wouldnt this information be better served merged with the carolina hurricanes article? Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Hurricanes article already lists the franchise scoring leaders, including the NHL Whalers. This article lists just the Whalers... maybe a section rename would be better. Resolute 20:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just didnt seem right with Eric Staal listed on a whalers page. The section rename idea sounds good to me Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Second thought, it still might be an idea to just make the list static with only players who played in Hartford, and not both locations. However, in most articles on teams that were moved the stats for both teams are included. Maybe im thinking too much on this and nothing really needs to be done lol. Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, yeah, I didn't notice that. This article should have only Whalers stats listed, not Hurricanes. The same as it is (or should be) for the other defunct teams. Resolute 04:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

If theres concensus for this, Ill fix the articles that im aware of to reflect this. Before i do so, Say Ron francis has statistics for both hartford and carolina, should this table only reflect his hartford stats? Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Depending on how each team does their media guides, and if they are online, you should be able to find the stats fairly easily. I know the Flames media guide has a separate listing for the Atlanta Flames top scorers. Resolute 14:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was how the table was meant to be. Looks like it got changed and no one noticed. -Djsasso (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alrighties, if no one beats me to it, ill double check the numbers on the teams to make sure they are accurate and have it updated on the weekend, happy editing thx. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The stats are updated for the Top 5 in each category. It should probably be expanded to be a top 10. But its a start. I belive the winnipeg jets are another defunct franchise that is listing both pheonix and winnipeg (This is the same for the Atlanta flames, quebec nordiques articles but not the Minnesota north stars page). There proabbly should be a link to the Carolina hurricanes franchise scoring leaders in the section though but i dont know how to write an appropriate link to the other articles sub section Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Retired numbers"

There is a simple fact at work here: the Hartford Whalers no longer exist. That the Wolfpack does, that the city of Hartford holds trademarks to the Whalers name and logo still doesn't mean that there is an active, legitimate NHL franchise called the "Hartford Whalers." It doesn't matter who else sticks banners up in the Hartford Civic Center, because it doesn't count any more than it would if some joe decided to trademark "Montreal Maroons" or "New York Americans" and declare Lorne Carr's number "retired." If - and only if - a NHL franchise named the Hartford Whalers is created again, then they can retire more numbers for the Hartford Whalers. Now if someone wants to claim in the Hartford city article that the locals have "retired" some numbers, sure, whatever, go for it. Just keep it out of this one, because it's flat out illegitimate, no matter how much you still love Ron Francis. Ravenswing 05:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The City of Hartford's ownership of the Whalers didn't come about because the Whalers' history fell into public domain. They aquired it through a legally binding contract between the city, the Carolina Hurricanes and the NHL therefore the city is the legal representative of the Hartford Whalers regardless of whether they put a team on the ice. The Wolfpack has nothing to do with the situation, as they don't recognise the retirements. The ceremony just took place at a Wolfpack game because there would already be a crowd there. Should an NHL team return to Hartford, no one will ever wear those numbers again. Do you really think three highly respected veterans of the NHL would take part in a phony ceremony?(69.177.215.199 20:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

A quick search of the US PTO shows that the 3 trademarks related to "Hartford Whalers" hockey are dead/abandoned. And none of them were owned by the city. (REF: [8]) ccwaters 21:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should get the money you paid that law school for your degree back, because you're flat out wrong. Hartford doesn't "own" the Whalers and never did; the Whalers were an NHL franchise currently owned by Peter Karmanos. What Karmanos ceded to Hartford (and pretty much out of the goodness of his heart, because he certainly didn't have to do so) was his trademarks to the team's name, colors and logo, and given CC's research, it looks like the city didn't bother to maintain that much. Where this information properly belongs is in the Hartford Civic Center article, which it currently is, and properly doesn't claim that the "Hartford Whalers" have anything to do with the latter nominations. Ravenswing 05:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Karamanos doesnt own anything that has to do with the Whalers, the name Whalers, Whalers jerseys, everything Whalers is owned by the state of Connecticut. Thats why you cant use Whalers jerseys in video games, thats why you never see brand new Whalers jerseys for sale like you see the North Stars, Nordiques, or Jets. DavidReject 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, as I pointed out previously, the NHL owned (and abandoned) the trademark for merchandising purposes. REF: search for "Hartford Whalers" at uspto.gov ccwaters 18:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The trademark isn't registered in the State of Connecticut either. [9] Ravenswing 18:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I just always hear this thing about Connecticut owning the rights to the Whalers name. [[User:DavidReject|DavidReject]

Which is the sort of thing that leads to Wikipedia requiring verification for assertions. Ravenswing 05:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ron Francis, Kevin Dineen, and Ulf Samuelsson's numbers were NOT retired by the Wolf Pack on January 6, 2006 because numbers 5, 10, and 11 are still used by the Wolf Pack. These three numbers were retired at the Whalers Appreciation Night in honor of the Hartford Whalers. The purpose is to show that those numbers will remain in retirement if the NHL returns to Hartford along with the three numbers the Whalers retired when they were in Hartford. I think the apporiate solution to this problem is to add Francis, Dineen, and Samuelsson to the list of retired numbers while clearly stating they were retired on January 6, 2006 at Whalers Appreciation Night. Then state that those three retired numbers would only be applied to an NHL team that comes back to Hartford. The retiring of Francis, Dineen, and Samuelsson is part of Whalers history and should be on the Hartford Whalers Wikipedia web page for the Hartford Whalers. However, I do believe those numbers should be listed seperately from Rick Ley, Gordie Howe, and John McKenzie. I hope this solves the problem.

Is it possible to block just this section on retired numbers to unregistered users? It seems like no matter how many times we say Samuelsson, Francis, and Dineen will not be included in this section, someone stil will come along and make that change.Whalerguy1 (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably not; in order to semi-protect an article, there needs to be serial and frequent vandalism. This is an ongoing content dispute, not vandalism, per se.  Ravenswing  20:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just block the retired numbers section from new and unregistered users. I understand that what is being put there is not vandalism but it just seems rediculous that every other day, someone puts Francis, Dineen, and Samuelsson as retired numbers when the Whalers did not actually retire those numbers. How many more times does this section need to be changed with false information before it is blocked? Whalerguy1 (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

11000 or 14000?

Here it reads: "...announced that if the Whalers were unable to sell at least 11,000 season tickets for the 1996–97 season, he would likely move the team." On the Peter Karamanous page the figure is 14000. COYW (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It was 11,000. (attacks redacted) 74.73.143.129 (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

11,000 per this. I'll update the Karmanos article and source both. Resolute 20:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Departure From Hartford

I was informed this web site was rejected as a valid source regarding the Whalers leaving Hartford [10]. Well, I am the guy who created that web site. I was an intern for the Hartford Whalers during the huge season ticket drive in 1996 so some of the infomation on that web site full of "rants against the ex-governor" is first hand knowledge of what was going on at that time. The other sources I used to create the web site are from The Hartford Courant and The Hartford Advocate in 1996 and 1997. Now, those sources are only available on microfilm at the local libraries.

There are many factors contributing to the Whalers leaving Hartford and it actually began when Richard Gordon bought the Whalers in 1988. The fact is John Rowland was a huge factor as the why the Whalers left Hartford and this should be mentioned along with the other factors. I read the sources now listed on the Departure From Hartford section and they are perfectly valid and definitely support the claim against Rowland. In fact, I am surprised those articles are still out on the internet. I am open to futher discussion of this subject. Unsigned comment by User:Whalerguy1 at 00:29, July 27, 2006.

Sorry, but any website that opens with "John Rowland is the dumbest politician in the history of the United States yet the voters in Connecticut were stupid enough to elect him three times" doesn't fly as a valid source. I know you're passionate, but it's just not appropriate for our purposes here. Beginning 00:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you have sources from the Courant and the Advocate, you can still cite the article name, the author and the date. If you can't, your information fails the WP:V requirement that all assertions, especially contentious or controversial ones, be properly sourced. Ravenswing 02:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, the corruption scandels that came to light in 2003 and 2004 surronding John Rowland only proves that this quote is in fact true. "John Rowland is the dumbest politician in the history of the United States yet the voters in Connecticut were stupid enough to elect him three times." Whether or not a web page beginning with that quote can be used as a valid source does not mean the quote itself or anything written on that web site is not factually accurate.

So you argue, but Wikipedia is not a debating forum. You're right that a quote like that doesn't make a website inaccurate by definition, but it sure highlights that the website doesn't pretend to be balanced or NPOV. Ravenswing 04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It is extremely debatable whether or not Rowland is the dumbest politician in the history of the United States. Are you familiar with Jim McGreevey?

• The section on the depature from Hartford should be protected from users who are not signed in. I just cleaned up all of the extreme bias that was placed in this section against Peter Karmanos, Gary Bettman, the NHL, Robert Kraft, and support for the Hurricanes in Raleigh. Who ever edited this section severely violated Wikipedia's policy for every article to be written from a neutral point of view and have citations for "hearsay". And some of this stuff was flat out false, especially the edits regarding the lack of support for the Hurricanes in NC. Can we protect this section? Thanks.Whalerguy1 (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Truth be told, I'd still like to see that section trimmed a good bit. First off, it's insane that the Departure section's nearly as large as all the rest of the space devoted to the team's history combined. Secondly, the paragraph concerning attempts to get a new team into Hartford might be pertinent to a general article on hockey in Connecticut or an article on the history of Hartford, but has nothing directly to do with the Whalers' franchise. (Heck, I'll go trim it now.)  Ravenswing  09:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agreem the section on trying to get a new NHL team nack to Hartford would be better suited in the article on The Hartford Civic Center (XL Center). It should be moved there. Whalerguy1 (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I still feel strongley that the sections in this article on retired numbers and departure from Hartford should be protected from editing for users that are not signed in. Although the edits not officially "vanalism" they so violate Wikipedia's policies. The retired number edits violate Wikipedia's template policy on sports teams that moved or are defunct. And the edits in the Departure from Hartford section violate Wikipedia's policy for neutral POV and writing hearsy without any citations. Even thorugh this is not official vandalism, I think these consistant violations of Wikipedia;s policy on these two sections warrants them to be protected. This would eliminate all of the rediculous back and forth that goes on in this article with unregistered users trying to envoke their emotional bias into this article. Ravenswing, if you have the authority to protect these two sections, please do it. Whalerguy1 (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Which I don't, not being an admin, but articles can only be protected (and almost never permanently) during spates of relentless vandalism. These incidents aren't, really; they're good faith edits, however much they run afoul of common sense and the facts on the ground. I agree it sucks, and I'm narked that I've probably reverted attempts to add illegitimate retired numbers twenty or thirty times over the years, but it is what it is.  Ravenswing  21:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Return to Hartford"

Quite aside from that this is a fantasy and a pipe dream, the bit I just reverted is completely speculative and unsourced. Quite aside from that, does anyone else scratch their heads over the bizarre fact that the speculative return to Hartford was as large as the entire sections detailing the team's actual playing days on the ice, and the Departure From Hartford section is about as large as the rest of the article combined? It's pretty damn weird when what editors consider most significant about a 25-year old major pro team is that it moved to another state. Ravenswing 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited to reflect the conjecture and the moot point reality re: the Penguins moving to Hartford.24.117.250.51 06:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the various efforts to revive the team and the continued loyalty of the fans by supporting events such as the Hockey "Whalers" hockey festival being planned at Renchsler Field, and other events involving alumni players are an enormous part of understanding the legacy and impact of the franchise. The efforts to bring back NHL hockey do indeed relate to the franchise, as the name "Whalers" remains attached to the Hartford NHL market, even though the market is currently vacant.Zfish118 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm afraid not. The Whalers franchise is, right now, in North Carolina, and any efforts to restore a NHL team to Hartford have nothing to do with it, one way or another. Leaving aside that Howard Baldwin's track record off using his own money to buy teams is terribly shaky, that he's already been through three NHL franchises, that this sale to Baldwin's been announced in the Hartford press as imminent for months, that the edit history of this article is jammed with pie-in-the-sky rumors that hopeful Whalers' fanboys believed to be A Done Deal, and that CCWaters and I spent some time in vain looking for any actual proof that the Whalers brand name was legally held by the city of Hartford, so far there's a lot of speculation and wishful thinking floating around the blogosphere. Unfortunately, we can only print facts here, and even were a new NHL franchise named the Hartford Whalers to reappear, no more mention in this article would be appropriate than there is for the new Ottawa Senators franchise in the original franchise's article.  Ravenswing  00:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Retired Numbers Again

I just re-added the three whalers numbers that were re-retiin your thinking about the Whalers retired numbers,the fact is; they still retired the numbers on a whalers jersey, in front of whalers fans, in the arena that they played a large numbers of games in.

And I'm taking them right back off again. THE HARTFORD WHALERS NO LONGER EXIST. More than that, you can just scroll up to read. Ravenswing 07:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that its time to put it to a vote whether or not those three numbers stay under the retired numbers

No there's nothing to vote on. Those banners were raised about 9 years after the Whalers moved away. They are listed at Hartford Civic Center where they belong. ccwaters 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

RG Who? Who the **** do you think you are anyways? telling us what to do, i think the majority of people here think that they should belong on the page. despite the team DOES not exist anymore. I am going to put a poll on the webpage about it. or perhaps on here.

Also, You have NO right to boss anyone around on here. this site is free for everyone. You do not OWN this page. You don't own anything. So I suggest we get an advacte person here.

I also suggest you leave the poll on the page, so we can give everyone a chance to speak there mind. I don't know where the hell you live buddy. but IIRC, This site is NOT ran by China, and is ran in the USA. Am I right?

So i suggest you stop being bossy. And let the people speak.--Dr. Pizza 20:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies, in particular the ones against personal attacks, that Wikipedia is not a democracy or a soapbox for advocacy. That being said, your "majority" of people equals three, only one of whom is a project veteran. In any event, until and unless the current legal management of the Hartford Whalers franchise (= Karmanos, Rutherford & Co.) act, the "Whalers" are still not retiring anything more. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting, on form. Ravenswing 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the Hartford Whalers do not exist, it is silly to call the numbers retired since it occurred almost nine years after the team left the city. However, I think this event can be included in the article. Here is my proposal:

"In addition, Ulf Samuelsson's #5, Ron Francis's #10 and Kevin Dineen's #11 have been honored by fans of the team. On January 7, 2006 at a Whalers appreciation night, the three numbers were hoisted to the rafters of the Hartford Civic Center during a Hartford Wolf Pack game."

I don't see any other logical and correct way that it can be in the article.Patken4 21:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've no strenuous objection to such a phrasing included in the main text of the article (the "Return to Hartford?" section most likely), although it's still no more valid than if the public skating rink in West Hartford decided to raise Nick Fotiu's and Corrie D'Alessio's numbers to the rafters, and it'd be rather neat if those editors rabid to make such changes actually devoted their energies to beefing up the article as a whole. Including anything of the sort in the strictly factual Retired Numbers section is completely out of line. Ravenswing 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter? It's an interesting tidbit about Whalers History. The numbers weren't retired because they were Wolfpack players. The Springfield Falcons still hang the Calder Cup banners that were won under a different team/franchise the Springfield Indians.

It matters because its not factual. I don't think the Springfield Falcons make any claim to the Indian's championships. Nor do the Philadelphia Phantoms make any claims to the Philadelphia Flyers or Philadelphia 76ers banners still hanging in the Wachovia Spectrum. ccwaters 18:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct; the Falcons do not claim the Indians' championships, nor does the AHL credit those championships to the Falcons. The banners still hang in the Civic Center because the franchise and the fans (myself, as a season ticket holder sitting in the rink for those final two banners among them) like it that way, but that doesn't make them "official." I'm sure seeing a banner for Ron Francis hanging in Hartford gives local hockey fans warm, fuzzy feelings, but there's nothing official about that either. Ravenswing 03:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So is it wrong to mention the fact that the city of Hartford, retired the numbers of said players in respect for their contribution to hockey in Southern New England. BTW, I'm a huge Bruins fan, so I am not biased towards the Whalers. I grew up in the town of Enfield, mostly Whaler fans (or as we called them, the Hartford Failures), but those fans are some of the most diehard fans in all of sports.

No, its mentioned in the proper article: Hartford Civic Center. ccwaters 15:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the honorary "retired" number be added to the section I created called the "Legacy and Cultural Impact". Many other articles on Wikipedia have a section that include "pop-cultural" reference to the subject, even when these are not officially "endorsed" by the subject. The continued fan loyalty for the franchise long after its departure is I believe, significant to understanding the nature of the team. Actions taken to promote the memory of the team, such as symbolic jersey retirements made by by a significant stakeholder such as the city/state I would argue are appropriate to mention in the article. People who visit the Whalers page are likely interested in such factoids, as can be seen by the numerous efforts to add them. Separating them into a legacy section I think solves the problem, while keeping other stats sections "pure" so to speak.Zfish118 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I checked the XL Center page and no mention is made of retired numbers, so I'll mention them in the legacy section as unofficial or symbolic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfish118 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Legacy and Cultural Influence

I strongly believe that such a section is needed to talk about some of the "controversial" subjects repeatedly brought up in this discussion thread. The continued influence of the team's brand and name on fans is vitally importantly to fully understand the team's place in Connecticut history. There are a lot of admittedly unofficial events held in honor of the team by significant stakeholders in the brand, such as the City of Hartford, the XL/former Hartford Civic Center, and former owner Baldwin. The actions conducted by these entities and individuals are a direct result of the former team's existence. Such actions, outside of the context of the defunct hockey team's existence, would be entirely without meaning. Therefore I think it is entirely appropriate to document such major contributions to Whaler's lore on the official page, much as MANY MANY wikipedia articles feature similar sections documenting cultural references.

That so many have added similar facts and cultural references, sometimes inappropriately mixed into sections dealing with official team actions, suggests that there is indeed a consensus to build such a section. I have laid a bare bones stub of a section that I welcome and encourage other to build upon and improve, and I hope that others accept this as an invitation to significantly improve the documentation of the cultural impact of the team even after its departure. Zfish118 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've no issue with such a section, though I would note that there is no such "large consensus" as you suggested in your edit summary. I would be cautious about expanding the section further than it currently exists, as undue weight would become an issue. Resolute 20:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I created this section because it better reflects the stated intent of my contributions, based feed from others. Previously I've been discussing these issues in the "Return to Hartford" section, as my original contribution, which was reversed, focused more on this field. I've been basing my consensus reading both the return to Hartford, and the Retired numbers controversy. I shorten the mention of a return to Hartford to merely mention names of people who have attempted such actions, rather than focus on there efforts. I still believe a discussion of the team's mystique is warranted. Zfish118 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Information on the cultural impact and recent events would fit in better with a seperate article on the sports marketing firm Whalers Sports and Entertainment and not here. The Whalers franchise moved to Raleigh in 1997 which means that new events after 1997 that may have something to do with the Whalers does not belong in this article. This information belongs in a different article on profefessional hockey in Connecticut. If we are going to include anything to with the Whalers after 1997 in this article, then why not include everything the Wolf Pack did to reach out or not reach out to Whalers fans. But that information does not belong here. If the Wolf Pack are renamed the Connecticut Whalers, then that information belongs in the Wolf Pack article or perhaps a new article exlusive to the Connecticut Whalers.Whalerguy1 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If I created such a page, would it be appropriate to have a small section of some sort mentioning the continued fan involvement with the brand name, with a link to the main article?Zfish118 (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a short section is relevant, as there obviously has had an impact that exists after the team's demise. It would by necessity have to be short and focused on the team's legacy. Resolute 04:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with whalerguy1 that information on the cutural impact and events since the Whalers moved to Raleigh should be in a seperate article on prfessional hockey in Hartford or Whalers Sports and Entertainment. Any information on changing the Wolf Pack into the Connecticut Whalers should be in the Wolf Pack article.208.242.14.197 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Pretty much my take too. The Hartford Whalers' history ended in 1997, and these claims of "cultural impact" are trivial and/or speculative, and often lack reliable sources as well. So there are diehard fans who miss the Whale, as well they might ... but that's little different from the diehard fans who miss any vanished team. Heck, there's no "cultural impact" section for the Brooklyn Dodgers article, a subject which any sports fan would concede has ten times the impact and a hundred times the sources, by comparison. Such information, if well sourced, is more properly placed either in the Hartford city article, the Wolf Pack article or in a general Hartford sports article. (You might also want to put a hold on that "Connecticut Whalers" article ... given that this sale to Baldwin and associates was announced as imminent in June, imminent in July, imminent on that linked article on the 23rd and still hasn't happened yet.)  Ravenswing  02:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty that I see is that there are events that involve former players. That these events have happened and are being planned I believe is indisputable. What is an appropriate way to mention this ongoing involvement in the "main" Hartford Whaler's article, so as to direct interested readers to a separate article about this and similar topics? I believe these are topics are closely related and need some sort of cross referencing to be accessible to readers.Zfish118 (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There isn't. Wikipedia is not a web host, and cannot be used for a Whalers' nostalgia and fan page, or to publicize such events; these are explicitly in violation of Wikipedia policy. There are already several such active and well-run websites out there, and the Courant continues to maintain a Whalers' section, for interested fans. Beyond that, the alumni-based activities of former players are deemed trivial and almost uniformly not included in their articles; the few such mentions you'll find are the bare mention that a retired player is active in alumni affairs, or that he is the founder or president of a team's alumni association.  Ravenswing  18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is far from my intention. My intention is to discuss encyclopedia-worthy information, and cross link relevant topics. The existence of a hockey industry and fan base today is heavily influenced by the previous existence of the Hartford Whalers. That the former team still still inspire talk of major investments and policy in Connecticut government is part of its history.Zfish118 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, the continued mention of the Hartford Whalers in pop culture is at least as relevant to the team as the "...influence" of Guinea pigs on "[Culture] and media..." to the topic of guinea pigs! Link:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cultural_references_to_guinea_pigs#Cultural_and_media_influenceZfish118 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That is sort of apples and oranges. You are talking about a world wide influence on the Guinea Pigs side of things, and a relatively small local influence in terms of the hockey team. Something might be well known to people in the local area, but that doesn't automatically guarantee notability. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Connecticut Whale

From the revision history: " Djsasso (talk | contribs) (45,649 bytes) (not relevant to be in an about at the top of the page) (undo) "

Would a not "not to be confused with..." be more appropriate?Zfish118 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The names aren't really remotely the same, personally I don't think any note should be at the top. The most I would probably add would be a link in the "See Also" section. But even that might be a stretch. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Some hockey articles have line mentioning that "market history". Would the current market holder, the Hartford Wolf Pack/Connecticut Whale merit inclusion in the opening paragraph, or elsewhere in the article?Zfish118 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly not in the lead. At most, I'd include a single statement at the end of the "departure from Hartford" section stating that the Whalers were replaced by an AHL frnachise, the Hartford Wolf Pack. Resolute 15:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"DO NOT EDIT THIS SECTION"

Is there a reason this is present? Is there a precedent for this commented statement on Wikipedia? It seems as if it would dissuade edits of all types, and seeing how the sections in question clearly have multiple typographical and formatting errors in need of fixing, I'm about to remove them from each section present unless there's a clear or officially supported reason they're here and not on any other Wikipedia article subject to vandalism. -Pyronite (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed the rest of the notice, it doesn't say you can't edit it at all. It warns you not to add content that violates policies etc. And yes these sorts of notices do appear on many pages. This one could probably be worded better however. -DJSasso (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The clear reason they are there is that these sections are constantly being changed; take a look at the edit history. I'm about to put them right back up.  Ravenswing  04:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Trades

I've removed most of the Ron Francis trade section, in particular the laundry list of EJ's purportedly terrible trades. Quite aside from the unsourced POV of it all, it's hard to describe dealing journeymen of the likes of Jody Hull, Todd Krygier and Dean Evason as "destructive." (Never mind dealing the remaining 210 points of Hull's career for the nearly 700 pts of Michael Nylander's.)  Ravenswing  20:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Big E in the NHL

The Wikipedia article on the Big E Coliseum says that it was "briefly being the venue for the Hartford Whalers when the team joined the National Hockey League, until the repair of the Hartford Civic Center in January, 1980." Did this include any NHL games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.71.84.144 (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)