Talk:Matt Cooke

Criticism section

I added a Criticism section. It was justified at this point because of the current wide publicity over the hit on Boston's Savard and also because it was highlighted on Hockey Night in Canada. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor removed the criticism section and I reverted that. I thought I'd explain why. 1. There are people who believe what Cooke has been criticized for is just part of hockey. This is simply not the case. Hits to the head, are NOT part of hockey and never have been. Hitting in hockey has the strategic function to take an opponent out of play. Hits to the head have no strategy other than to cause injury. 2. While Cooke is not the only offender, his actions drew wide media coverage. Head-hits were already under scrutiny and the NHL had rules to deal with them to come into effect in the next year. However, when Cooke was not suspended for the Savard hit criticism was so negative, the league was embarrassed into putting it into place immediately. Therefore Cooke became the focal point of a major rule change. This makes notability. 3. Don Cherry on HNIC devoted an entire segment to Cooke showing video of his head-hits and also revealed Cooke confronted him personally about his criticism. This also creates notability. 4. Cooke has been an effective hockey player in his career, but this event is a significant event in his career and thus the size is appropriate. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In the days leading up to his latest and longest suspension, it has been widely reported and has now become the the widely accept consensus view that Cooke is a dirty player and a headhunter who will soon be out of hockey if he does not clean up his act. His chronic offenses are not simply hockey plays. They are deliberate and repeated attempts to injure and concuss opposing players. This narrative is unquestionably the central piece of Cooke's career story that needs to mentioned in the introduction and emphasized more in the body of the article. You can split hairs over my choice of words but the theme is inarguable. Jrgilb (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Inviting discussion of this topic. I have included it in the lead, and reversed the previous reversal. This is THE story of Cooke's career. To remove it from the intro is the equivalent of removing the story of Tiger Woods' infidelity from his lead (it's there, and not by me). This is not a Matt Cooke puff piece. Jrgilb (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• http://bleedingallblue.blogspot.com/2011/03/video-nhl-needs-to-send-message-in.html Blog post from March 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rauterkus (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jrgikb, you apparently failed to notice (read above your comment) that I was the one arguing that there should be a section on Cooke's suspension history, so I'm hardly biased in favour of Cooke to make this a "puff piece" when I removed it from the lead. You're exaggerating the effect of removing it from the lead and I'm unconvinced it should be there. Cooke is a talented player who has played dirty, but he is not a goon. I won't revert it because you have continued the discussion. I will say, that if the lead is going to mention the suspensions it cannot be in the form it is now. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bash, point taken, I repositioned my comment above so it is simply more discussion of how to introduce Mr. Cooke, and not a reply. I do believe the newspaper story written when he retires will mention his head-shot notoriety in the first two paragraphs. His obit may push it down lower, mainly to be kind. It is, at this point in Cooke's career, the first thing most people who know about Cooke would think of. Agree he is talented and also not a "goon" as the term is used to mean enforcer or fighter (e.g. Probert). Cooke is something different, and frankly worse, which is a headshot artist. This type of player is now under the league's microscope with the rise in concussion awareness. He may actually be the poster child. I have no objection to tightening up the reference in his introduction. But that is the essential story of Matt Cooke today. http://www.downgoesbrown.com/2011/03/matt-cookes-suspension-hearing-top.html Jrgilb (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Matt Cooke remains at war with himself. At times since 2011, he has tried hard to keep his dirty play in the closet, but there have numerous moments when he just can't resist his baser instincts, which have not gone away. If you watch the slow-mo replay over and over, as I did, you will see Cooke skating into the corner to ride Karlsson into the boards, THEN lifting his skate up quite unnaturally to step on the back of Karlsson's ankle. It was not deliberate per se, rather it was reflexive, but it was still an proactive attempt to injure another player (and one of the NHL's very best, at that), and a dirty play. I agree with Mr. Melnyk, and would have suspended him for at least a few games. With luck, he will be fishing after Games 3 and 4 of the Eastern Conf finals. I believe the "Changing His Game" section is a bit of a whitewash of Cooke's antics since 2011. He remains a decent NHL player, but his one differentiating attribute remains his pattern of repetitive dirty play. The article should reflect this point. Jrgilb (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

What your expressing is largely personal opinion and Wikipedia can only reflect published material. Published opinion likely won't support your view. For example, on the game 3 Pittsburgh-Boston Hockey Night Canada broadcast Don Cherry, a very strong critic of Cooke in the past, praised Cooke's play. In this context that opinion carries weight. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Belleville or Stirling?

I noticed an editor reverted an edit which gave Cooke's birthplace as Sirling. Months ago, I did the same revert myself, because the NHL gives it as Belleville. However, the fact that this came up again made me curious and I did some looking. Stirling is a very small town near Belleville. The Wikipedia article on the town, Stirling-Rawdon, does list Matt Cooke as being fom Stirling with a citation. I did some googling and it appears he was from Stirling and here's one citation for that [1]. So, the question is, do we go by the NHL, or by other references? Opinions? BashBrannigan (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The parameter is for place of birth not hometown. The provided article does not state that Cooke was born in Stirling-Rawdon. It is something that could be addressed in the prose i.e. Cooke was born in Belleville, Ontario, but grew up in Stirling-Rawdon. But for the info box I would go with the NHL unless you find a reference actually stating he was born in Stirling. With a population of only 2,139 for Stirling alone (just under 5,000 combined) there is the possibility that Medical facilities aren't equipped with a Pediatrics wing meaning families have their children in the near by Belleville or perhaps Cooke's family preferred to use the facilities in Bellville. Whatever the case may be sources say he was born in Bellville.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that it was place of birth. Your logic seems sound, unless it was a home-birth, then Belleville is probably right. BashBrannigan (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Changing his game section

The Cooke quotes in this section need to be paraphrased. They aren't memorable, and they are sloppily formatted. They add nothing more than paraphrased quotes would. fds^Talk 19:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop the presses

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:BLP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Cooke seems to be as malicious as ever. Tonight he checked Erik Karlsson, whose back was turned, into the boards. As he reached Karlsson, Cooke lifted his left skate much higher than necessary, and stepped into the backside of Karlsson's upper ankle, slicing Karlsson's achilles tendon. It looks from the video like a deliberate, malicious, pernicious play, with an intent to inflict a very bad injury. Yes, Cooke seemed to have changed his game since I last weighed in on this page. However, he has now re-approached his old lows. He used to be an obvious head-shot artist. Now, he is much more subtle. I suggest the editors should hesitate before adding anything more to the "changing his game" theme. Maybe not. Jrgilb (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC) if you have something in print to verify what your saying then please feel free to add it. If he is suspended or disciplined it would be worth adding. BashBrannigan (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC) BashBrannigan: are you trying to imply that this incident should only be mentioned if it ends in a suspension? I beg to differ. Cooke may have ended the career of another All-Star player, and that is certainly noteworthy on its own. ChakaKongtalk 15:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC) I didn't add anything to the article, but I support whoever did so. It does NOT matter that the NHL has decided to whitewash this disgraceful and deliberately inflicted injury by this slimeball Cooke. The paragraph I just read it sounds right to me. Many people, like me, will continue to challenge Cooke and his defenders on this incident. Jrgilb (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a general reminder that it is not our place to push our own POV into the article. Nor is the talk page a general forum for discussion on the topic. Jrgilb - I will aslo specifically remind you that WP:BLP applies to talk pages, and defamatory statements are not permitted. If you want to push a WP:POV/trash Cooke, take it to a message board. Resolute 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect, the newspaper article written when Cooke retires will put greater emphasis on Cooke's dirty play than this article does. Five years after he retires, it will be the only thing anyone will remember about him. Several contributors over the years have proposed revisions that would be more consistent with the commonly held perception of Cooke, and one that is widely reported and sourceable in the general media. I am simply arguing for a more accurate article, and in favor of those revisions, which are periodically removed or watered down by other contributors. Jrgilb (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Fully half the article is dedicated to his suspension history and questionable legacy. If anything, the article is already weighed too heavily toward that viewpoint, as his actual playing career section is thin in places and outright missing several seasons worth of information. Resolute 16:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Karlsson incident should be removed.

As it currently stand the Karlsson incident should be removed. There's nothing substantive in the media, and consequently nothing in this article, supporting that the injury was deliberate and so the simple inclusion of the incident becomes an accusation against Cooke. The facts presented in the article are these: Cooke and Karlsson made contact, Karlsson was seriously injured, the NHL ruled it accidental, Senator fans thought it was deliberate and are really angry. So it is being included because Ottawa Senator fans are upset?? It is fine to include the incident in the Ottawa Senator or Karlsson article, but putting it in the Cooke article is guilt by implication. I removed it once, but I was reverted by an editor who said it was an admin who added the content. I can't tell who that admin was, but I would welcome their feedback. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who added it, but I'm not expecting it needs to be locked in. It is also considerably toned down compared to what was originally written. I kind of agree with you, but on the other hand, Melnyk's comments today certainly warrant inclusion. There may well be enough that has happened that a small mention is warranted - a couple sentences on the hit, Melnyk's comments, general opinion it was a non-incident. Resolute 23:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I would actually agree with you that Melnyk's comments need to be included. As I mentioned, currently there appears to be no sensible reason for this content because it appears from reading it that only the "fans" are upset. Melnyk's extreme critism would give some justification for the content. But so extreme are his comments that there would be the concern that it becomes POV. Perhaps try to balance with quotes from Cooke? BashBrannigan (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added Melnyk's comments to the section per this discussion. Direct quotes, so hopefully nobody will play the NNPOV card. ChakaKong^talk 18:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to get others into this too (Resolute?) as simply adding Melnyk's comments is bias. The question now is how to balance the POV? BashBrannigan (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Where is the bias? I'm not sure how there can be POV in someone else's quote. Was it not YOU who clearly agreed that "Melnyk's comments need to be included"? You say "simply adding Melnyk's comments is bias", but it seems to me that adding anything else BUT the quote will likely inject a bias. ChakaKong^talk 19:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it even relevant whether it was intentional or not? We're talking about an incident in which one of the NHL's top players was lost for the season, and this has been all over the sports news since the moment it happened. That alone should be enough to justify at least a mention that it happened; Cooke was responsible, no matter what his intentions were. I'm strongly against the removal of this information and I feel it's fine as it currently exists. In fact, I question the neutrality of BashBrannigan's point of view in trying to have it removed in it's entirety. ChakaKong^talk 00:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, if this was any other player, this debate wouldn't be happening. Things do sometimes just "happen" in the course of a game. That said, Cooke's reputation means that intent is going to be in dispute, and the balanced approach that is happening in the article now seems fair. It's also of course very fresh - let the current section stand, and it will die down eventually. Over time, it may even warrant removal later depending on what develops in the future, per WP:Recent. Second, for a good example of a similar situation, see the Chara/Pacioretty incident, which was much more controversial, and eventually led to arenas changing their stanchions, etc. Chara had no reputation as a dirty player, although Montreal fans were incensed. As that section currently stands, it reports the facts without hyperbole or POV, and even ends with the mention that Pacioretty later returned to play again. After Karlsson recovers, we'll see where things go. But I suggest keeping it as is, for now; it's factual, non-POV, and we all know that if it is removed outright, IP editors will simply reinsert anyway after the protection expires. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I resent ChakaKong questioning my bias. The article's history shows I've contributed quite a bit of content which is negative towards Cooke. I'm not by any means a fan of Cooke, but I edit Wikipedia solely based upon content merit. In fact, it is actually ChakaKong Wikipedia page which identifies this editor as a Senators fan. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who attempted to remove the information entirely without prior discussion. Me being a Senators' fan has nothing to do with this; there seems to be some consensus expressed that the information is "balanced" and neutral. So what does me being a Senators' fan have to do with anything? ChakaKong^talk 01:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

First, it is perfectly OK to delete content without starting a discussion (see: Wikipedia:Be bold) and in fact it was me who started THIS discussion. Second, I was only responding to your unwarranted accusations of my bias, by pointing out your own. Yes, your being a Senator's fan isn't relevant, but don't accuse others of bias. Stick to the facts. I will now not respond to any further comments by you, regardless of content, which do not deal with the article. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You clearly should have expected resistance when you attempted to whitewash the incident. You only initiated THIS discussion when you didn't get your way. ChakaKong^talk 02:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop being personal! (see:Wikipedia:No personal attacks) BashBrannigan (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to simply archive this section too, but I'd rather discuss the merits of the section. Resolute 01:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matt Cooke. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804073817/http://foundationofhope.ca/ to http://foundationofhope.ca/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)