Talk:Jaromír Jágr/Archive 1

Archive 1

Who's the oldest player to score 50 goals? Him, now? Maybe that's worth mentioning.-Earthhuman

"From 1994-95 to 2000-01 on a mediocre Penguins team,"

Excuse me, no offence but I'd hardly call a team that won 2 divison title's and made it into the playoffs every single year in that span, mediocre.

Now "decent" sounds better already but still... ;) With the recent woes of the Pens people apparently forget that only Detroit amassed more points in the 90s than the Penguins did. The team was an offensive powerhouse, never missed the playoffs and went to the Eastern Conference finals twice. Jagr was a big part of that but certainly didn't lack offense support. And while he was responsible for having Constantine fired, Hlinka's downfall was that he only spoke Czech and refused to learn English over the summer despite the front office telling him so. Thus, he was sacked only 4 games into the following season. 84.180.31.139 07:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a big fan Penguins fan and I remember those teams fairly well. I disagree about the team from 94-96 being mediocre, those teams still had many good players left over from the Championship teams. But the 97-01 teams? Yeah, I'd say those teams were mediocre. The teams had good offensive talent but once Lemieux and Francis were gone they were not that good offensively. Jagr won scoring titles with players like Kip Miller and Jan Hrdina(Who was a pretty decent player, not dissing him) and while the second line had players like Robert Lang, Martin Straka and Alex Kovalev, who are all well known good players, until their big years in 2001 only Straka had scored over 66 points in a season. Lang's best was 65 and Kovy's was 66. They had some good players, yes, but that offense was heavily carried by Jagr.

What really makes those teams mediocre was the defense, which was fairly bad with players like Andreas Johansson, Chris Tamer, Hans Jonsson, Francois Leroux, Janne Laukkanen and Brad Werenka.

The Penguins also could never find a good starting goaltender, or one that could remain healthy, using in that span Tom Barrasso, Patrick Lalime, Ken Wregget, Peter Skudra, Jean-Sebastien Aubin, Ron Tugnutt, Garth Snow and Johan Hedberg.

The 97-01's had some good forwards, but their defense and goaltending were never good. A defensive system and Jagr's scoring is what got those teams into the playoffs and into the second round a few times. -CJF

Jaromir Jagr vs. Jaromír Jágr

A discussion about whether to use accents in hockey names has been started here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format.

A Little Trivia About His Number (68)

I always thought that this was a little neat piece of trivia. Jagr wears 68 in honor of both his grandfathers who were imprisoned in the Soviet Invasion of the the Czech Republic, then Czechoslovakia, in 1968, a.k.a. the "Prague Spring".

Also, it's not Czechoslovakia anymore, it's the Czech Republic (please check my spelling though) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.161.74.251 (talk • contribs)

Actually this is already included in the article. It also correctly states he was born in Czechoslovakia but resides in the Czech Republic, which is both a correct information. --Jan Smolik 09:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologize, I don't know how I missed that. I was looking for a fact fast and, well, overlooked that, sorry.

Layout (infobox + medals) looks realy wierd

I realy tried to fix the layout but I am not able to solve this puzzle. The only working option is to move one of the tables down enough (in the middle of Carrer overviw) so that tables do not influence each other and the surrounding text. It also seams that Wikipedia does not support table in table (I tried to put medals into infobox but it did not work well). Is anybody able to fix it? --Jan Smolik 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Player_pages_format, he should have a "International Play" section. That's probably the most appropriate place for it. ccwaters 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I wrote the section. The problem is that although I used medal tables so that I know what the final results were I wrote it mostly from top of my head so I cannot add any external links supporting my text. But 1994 world championships remained in the heads of fans for the long time. 1996 World Cup is taken mainly from its wikipedia article (I only added that Jágr had flu before the tournament). And 2004 and 2005 World Championships are still in a living memory (I thing I should be able to find some articles easily). --Jan Smolik 12:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Praha/Prague

Its called "Prague" in the English speaking world. Subsequently its called "Praga" in Spanish, "Prag" in German, etc, etc... much like its "London" in English, "Londýn" in Czech, "Londres" in Spanish... en.Wiki policy is to use the common English name if available. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) ccwaters 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK.

The reason I reverted the change was mainly it did not provide reason. I personally think that using Praha is also correct, although in 80 % of cases I use Prague in English. The user did not fix my major spelling and gramatical errors and just changed Praha to Prague which is not clear error but rather just a matter of oppinion. I am a big believer in writing names in original language. In Czech we often use name Řezno for Regensburg and Štýrský Hradec for Graz and it only confuses me as it is not even simmilar and for a long time I thought they are different cities. New maps I have seen recently generaly use original names. On the other hand I can see that there is a reason for exception with realy well known names like Prague (or in Czech London->Londýn, Paris->Paříž). --Jan Smolik 15:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Using the word Prague for the Czech capital in English has got a long history and therefore I believe it should definitely be respected, as well as other well and long established equivalents of names of cities. Jan.Kamenicek 13:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Just chiming in that Graz is called Gradec (small castle) in Slovenian and that it's in Styria, so "Štýrský Hradec" sounds entirely reasonable :) Zocky | picture popups 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal life

I feel, something about his personal life should be mentioned too, at least a list of his girlfriends. At least some of them are notable in Wikipedia because of other reasons too. Miraceti 18:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics

Let's not start this again. We keep articles about people at their proper spelling, as long as it's in the latin alphabet. There is no reason in the world for this to apply differently to hockey players than to all other people, and the discussion at the page mentioned on top (and other places) has shown that there is no consensus for hockey players to be treated differently. Zocky | picture popups 12:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've properly ducked, covered and ignored diacritic changes.  RasputinAXP  c 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Non-diacrite versions are sometimes used for technical reasons, and sometimes because people can not manage them - not necassarily because the non-diacrite version is "correct in English". I can not see that the issue has been completely solved, but neither can I see why having the article at the spelling with diacrites and a redirect from the non-diacrite-form should not make most people happy. Not sure why this is worth fighting over... // Habj 10:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

from conventions' point of view

First off, the "agreement" that was semi reached here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format has grounds based from here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). Here are a few points i want to mention from the naming convention:

• Diacritics should only be used in an article's title, if it can be shown that the word is routinely used in that way, with diacritics, in common usage. This means in major English-language works, such as encyclopedias, dictionaries, or articles in major English-language newspapers.
• If the word is routinely listed without diacritics, then the Wikipedia article should follow that method for the article title, though the diacritics are still allowable within the body of the article itself
• If it is not clear what "common usage" is, then the general Wikipedia guideline is to avoid use of diacritics in article titles.

All three points make sense. English, in the vast majority of cases, doesn't use diacritics and to add them creates a non-English spelt word (in most cases). The vast majority of newspapers, media outlets, hockey reference books, and other reference books written in English don't use diacritics (especially in hockey).

Here are a few other points from the MoS:

• Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists
• Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form
• If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works

Look, it doesn't make sense to use diacritics in titles! it goes against the basic naming convention and it goes against the English language!! the "only" agrument i have seen from the "diacritic fans" is that it is spelt wrong without diacritics. Well, sorry, but it isn't spelt wrong. If it is spelt wrong without diacritics, then 95% of English publications are making a big boo boo!! There is a reason why you don't find diacritic options on English keyboards: they are not English! Masterhatch 19:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Words of non-English origin sometimes keep diacritics in English. Look at List of English words with diacritics. And look up especially the word "coöperation", where the diacritics, although rarely used, even is of English origin.

On of arguments for the diacritics is that it is in accordance with their birth certificates and passports.

The main argument is that most Wikipedians seem to prefer diacritics.

Nobody wants people, who do not have diacritics on their keyboards, to use it. Just do not revert people, who have it and use it.

While i won't argue with you that some English words actually have diacritics, i will say that most words don't and in fact, those "some" English words that do use diacritics, most of the time, they are dropped. That is why the naming convention aforementioned says that if the words are most commonly written with diacritics in english, they retain those very diacritics. If words are written most commonly without diacritics, then they are to appear that way here in wikipedia.

What point are you trying to make in regards to passports and birth certificates? If their birth certificate is from Germany and has diacritics, what does that have to do with English? Nothing as wikipedia is following the English language spellings. Unless their passport is issed by an English speaking country (U.S, Canada, UK, Australia, etc) then it is moot point also. And as to your "most" claim, i would say that from what i have seen, it "seems" that "most" of the people fighting for diacritics aren't native english speakers. just an observation. Masterhatch 21:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to react to your opinion that using diacritics is against English language. No it is not. Besides names it is rare, but it is English.

You also mentioned your (in my opinion quite irrelevant) "observation" in another discussion about conventions and so I will repeat here what I reacted there:

People with diacritics in their names come from non-English speaking countries. No wonder that non-native English speakers are interested in their articles.

Another reason. You and others have correctly pointed out several times that many native English speakers do not have the diacritics on their keyboards. Then, of course, they do not use it and nobody wants them to do so. Just do not revert people who have it and use it.

I cannot consider the diacritics wrong, because it does exist in English (although rarely used besides names) and many people use it. The number of people using English far exceeds the number of people living in the so called English speaking countries. And if they know there is a diacritics in a name, they often use it (and nobody tells them they are wrong), if they do not, they omit it. Jan.Kamenicek 22:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming silly. Everybody but a couple of users who edit hockey articles (or maybe just one user?) thinks names should be spelled properly. That's why we got developers to enable UTF-8 article titles in the first place. A look at categories under Category:People by nationality shows that personal names are spelled in original (apart from a few very well defined exceptions, like royalty and ancient figures). Zocky | picture popups 00:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

you are right, this is becoming silly. But it all started a long time ago (in a galaxy far far away). Originally, the vast majority of hockey players' articles were started without diacritics. Then, a few "diacritic fans" started moving articles to include diacritics. In fact, they most almost all of them and then had the gull to say "we are ignoring the proposed hockey convention and most articles use diacritics anyway." This tactic peeved me off. Things cooled off for awhile as things were let be: some articles had diacritics and others didn't. Then it all started again when user:travelbird was going around wikipedia moving every single page he could find to include diacritics. Again, i was told that the English spelling was "wrong" and he deliberately ignored two conventions Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (hockey). Granted they are both proposed, but they are the closest thing to a convention that we have. He told me that he didn't agree with them, so he was doing his own thing to "fix" the spelling. Well, as a native speaker of English, it is severely insulting to be told that my English language is spelling something "wrong" because it is different than the way other languages spell it. Wikipedia is clear that the most common name and spelling is to be used for article titles and the name that most english speakers are likely to type into the search spot. All other possible names are to be redirected to that common name. I bet you anything that very few people are going to type Jaromír Jágr. They are going to type Jaromir Jagr. user:zocky typed this "Move back to proper spelling. No amount of discussion in wikiproject ice hockey can change the site-wide naming convention" into the reason for his move back. First off, the proper spelling in english is Jaromir Jagr. second, the site wide naming convention agrees with me, not him Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics)#Summary. The only reason that "diacritic fans" have is that "English spells it wrong". Sorry, but that angers me. English is English. We spell things how we want to spell things. sorry if our spelling offends other languages, but wikipedia isn't here to ammend that. Masterhatch 02:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Again: hockey players, presidents, beggars, criminals, doesn't matter. Their names are their names. And I don't care what you think the English language does or doesn't do. The English Wikipedia uses diacritics in personal names, that's all that matters. Zocky | picture popups 08:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe you are not aware of some of the history. Initially, all articles where at titles without diacritics, because mediawiki didn't allow them. So at that time, we had a bunch of templates for showing the actual correct titles of articles, which were widely used. Then developers enabled UTF-8 and a lot of articles got moved to proper spellings. Well, at least my Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (Gramercy Books, New York) says that e.g. Düsseldorf and Dvořak are proper spellings. Zocky | picture popups 08:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it matters what English language does. But English language accepts diacritics, and not only in names, although these non-name cases are rare. There is no reason to state it is wrong. I saw many textbooks of English language published by notable publisher's like Oxford University Press or Longman. The only rule about names was that they have to start with a capital letter. No rule about omitting diacritics in names of foreign origin. So keeping it cannot be wrong, otherwise they would know something about it in Oxford.

Other encyclopedias (like Britannica) sometimes omit diacritics, sometimes not. If they do not, does it mean they are using bad English? Jan.Kamenicek 10:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It does matter what the English language actually uses, to an extent. "Use English" is not a God-given rule, it's a convention of Wikipedia. It has been overwhelmingly shown that it's not wrong in English to use diacritics in non-English personal names, and using them is Wikipedia's practice i.e. convention. What doesn't matter is the wrong opinion of a single person about what the world is like.

All of this would make at least some sense if we were edit warring about how to write the names in articles, but we aren't. This is just about the name of the article, which is silly, since we have redirects. There's nothing evil about redirects - a redirect doesn't mean that a given title is wrong, it means that it's one of the correct titles. Zocky | picture popups 15:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll notice I've kept my mouth shut. The problem here is that there are those who will always view the English spelling of foreign names to be wrong and correct them, and they're not going away. I gave up last time we had this fight. I still give up. Personally, I've stopped caring how nationalists feel names should be spelled and concentrate on writing what I can. They'll come along and correct me when I spell it anyway.  RasputinAXP  c 16:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If your position is that all articles titles should be spelt using the 26 letters of the English alphabet, that's a reasonable position, and you're welcome to propose that in an appopriate venue. However, what we have here is the contention that titles of articles about people who, among other things they do in life, happen to play hockey, should follow a special set of rules, separate from articles about other sportists, people and other topics. That's an unreasonable position, which has been proposed and rejected. Zocky | picture popups 18:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My problem isn't using diacritics in articles. My problem is having diacritics rammed down my throat and told that English spellings are wrong. When people are going around changing articles to add diacritics and telling me that the English spelling is "wrong", that really pisses me off. Sorry, but English isn't wrong. Sometimes English uses diacritics, sometimes it doesn't. But most of the time, it doesn't. Since wikipedia has a policy of using the most common spelling in English, whenever the most common spelling does not include diacritics, diacritics shouldn't be used in titles. Whenever diacritics are most common, they should be used in titles. We have a convention (albiet proposed) that actually states this!! I ask you, what is wrong with that? Let's use the most common spelling in English, please.

Here are some media internet publications that spell Jaromir Jagr without diacritics in the title: nhl.com, rangers official site, yahoo sports, espn, Jaromir Jagr website, SI, CBC, hockeydb, hockeyfans, legends of hockey, penguins page, info please, unofficial jagr site, tsn.ca, allposter.com, aol, euro hockey.net

Here is a czech site not in English that uses "Jaromir Jagr", not "Jaromír Jágr" in the English sentences (it does use Jaromír Jágr in non English sentences) czech site

Now, all i did was copy every link from the first two pages of a google search. In the first two pages of google, not one site used diacritics in the title, not even that czech site! I would also like to include that my local paper, Nanaimo Daily News, and the Vancouver Province don't use diacritics. I was too busy to go down to the library today like i had planned, but i bet you top dollar that if i was to look in any reference book about jagr or any other hockey player, i won't find a single title using diacritics. My point? Stop ramming diacritics down our throats and telling me that English spells things wrong when it disincludes diacritics! In English, it is not common to use them. It is a POV edit to include diacritics in English when diacritics are not the most common way to spell the name in English. I just don't see what part of that you don't understand. Now, i challenge any diacritic fan to show me sources in English that use hockey players names more frequently with the diacritics than without. I promise you that you will not find English sites or other publications that use diacritics more often than not. Masterhatch 02:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Take this to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or some other appropriate venue. Either get all articles (or all articles about people) to abolish using diacritics, or stop pushing special treatment for a narrow subset of topics which has nothing to do with diacritics. As said elsewhere, English orthography has no hockey-specific properties. Zocky | picture popups 02:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get you. It is already a naming convention!! Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) There are no special rules for hockey. The wikipedia naming convention already agrees with me on this issue in every way. By the way, it isn't just hockey players that are written without diacritics in English in most major publications around the English speaking world. Cheers! Masterhatch 03:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me:

This page is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".

Now, which part of that is hard to understand? If you take a look at the talk page there, it's clear that there is no consensus (nor majority support) for that proposal to become a guideline. On the other hand, a look at subcategories of Category:People by nationality shows that in practice, personal names on the English Wikipedia are conventionally spelt with diacritics when they have them. Zocky | picture popups 03:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, not once have i called that a "policy" or even a "guideline". But i have been very clear that that is the closest thing we have to a naming convention (which i have not taken any part in writing, btw) that we have. While that convention is still only proposed, there is a policy that supports avoiding diacritics "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." and a guideline " you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." Sorry, and excuse me. Masterhatch 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Now you're arguing purely for the sake of the argument, right? The idea that a rejected proposal is "the closest thing we have to a naming convention" is ridicuolous. Zocky | picture popups 08:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, i am not actually, but by the sounds of your circle running, i get the feeling that you are. Let's see, what have i done? I showed you multiple sources that don't use diacritics, even a czech source! and i showed you three general naming conventions, one policy, one guideline, one proposed, that favour the avoidance of using diacritics. What have you done? you showed me a list of articles on wikipedia that use diacritics. Big deal, i already know that there are articles on wikipedia that use diacrtics! that is what this is all about! If you look around wikipedia, there are tonnes of articles that don't follow the MoS on various levels and that reek of POV. As faithful editors, it is our job to get all the articles following the various conventions found on wikipedia and to improve and create conventions that make sense. Masterhatch 04:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Facts of the matter are:

• There were no diacritics in any article titles until community consensus was established that we want diacritics in article titles and developers because of that enabled UTF-8 encoding for article titles.

• Well, if you hadn't noticed, some English words are more common with diacritics and so are some names. Those examples are what diacritics are for. They are not for going against the naming convention that says the most common form in English is to be used.

• There are now thousands of articles under titles with diacritics, because hundreds of editors moved them there.

• Just because hundreds of editors moved them there doesn't mean that the thousands of editors agree with that move. Also, have you thought that many of the articles that were moved were moved with a minorities POV? It only takes one person (for example user:travelbird) to move dozens upon dozens in one day. That doesn't mean that the majority of people agree with travelbird doing that.

• There is no convention that says "don't use diacritics". Every time such a convention was proposed it was rejected by a majority of editors.

• true, but a policy that was agreed upon clearly states that the most common form in English be used. Only in a select few minority cases are diacritics more common. For those articles, diacritics should be used.

• We have redirects, so any concern about users not being able to find articles is misplaced.

• Exactly!! redirect to the non diacritic title! The lesser common diacritic title should redirect to the more common non diacritic title. That's what redirects are for.

• Some English dictionaries (like the Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language published by Gramercy Books, New York) list foreign names with diacritics, disproving the argument that using diacritics in English is wrong.

• not once have i said that it is wrong to use diacritics, i have always said that it is less common in the vast majority of English publications to use diacritics and since wikipedia has a policy of using the most common English form, diacritics should only be used when they are the most common form. I know that there are some publications that use diacritics. But I also knwo that they are a minority. Masterhatch 05:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So, we have long-term community agreement and practice on one side, and two faulty arguments on the other. Zocky | picture popups 23:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• sorry, i have don't see an agreement and the only practice is see is users like travelbird who go around moving articles blaring out "the english spelling is wrong!!! you must add diacritics!!". All i have ever seen is users changing articles to add diacritics and then say that "oh, look, most of the articles have diacritics!!" Also, all the agreements i see in conventions point the other way. So, then, tell me, what are my two faulty arguments? You lost me on that one. What was it? "use the most common english form?" or was it "most of the conventions point to the avoidance of diacritics?" Please tell me what my two faulty arguments are. Also, could you please come up with sources to back up the use of diacritics in this article's title. Unless you come up with sources (other than references to other wikipedia articles that use diacritics) in English, i see no reason to continue talking to you about this. The naming convention is clear on this matter and so are all the English publications i can get my hands on. It's your turn to show me outside sources that use Jagr's name with diacritics (in English, of course). Masterhatch 05:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? "Use English" is a convention of Wikipedia, i.e. its local custom. It's not a natural law and there is no naturaly correct interpretation of it. It is also the custom i.e. convention at Wikipedia to use diacritics in English when writing proper foreign names which use them. It doesn't matter what other sources say, it doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters is that it's how things are done on Wikipedia and how the vast majority of editors thinks it should be done. As said multiple times before, if you want to go against common practice i.e. convention, get a guideline discussed and passed, otherwise what you are doing is disrupting the work of many other people who work on many different things at Wikipedia. Zocky | picture popups 09:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you just confused the daylights out of me. What do you mean there is no natually correct interpretation of it? I think it is pretty clear: The vast majority of users have agreed to use the most common form of English in article titles (that is why Wikipedia:Naming conventions is a policy) that is most easily recognisable by the majority of English speakers. Now, i want you to show me this "convention" to use diacritics when writing foreign names. I haven't seen it. What the **** do you mean it doesn't matter what other sources say? that is what wikipedia is all about!!! using other sources to document your work. so, you say that the vast majority of editors want diacritics? If that were true, then there would be a convention to reflect that. Personally, i think it is a minority of editors who want diacritics and that minority goes around moving all the pages. Those minority are a very loud minority, unlike the majority who, for the most part, are very quiet about the subject. I also feel that the majority of editors don't give a rats' arse if there are diacritics or not. Well, as to your comment about getting a guideline discussed and passed, the process is already started here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics) and here Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format#Use of diacritics and non-English characters. Both of those proposed conventions follow established policies and guidelines already in place.

One more thing: You accused me of "disrupting" other wikipedians. Well, maybe you should look at both sides of the fence and realise that this whole mess started with editors moving well established articles from nondiacritic versions to diacritic versions about 6 months ago. about two or three editors were going around moving every article they could find, disrupting me and several other wikipedians in doing so. So, is it me disrupting other wikipedians or is it me who was disrupted? From what i can tell, the jagr article was created on 30 June [1] with no diacritcs. Masterhatch 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just some clarification, because this seems to be going nowhere

• "Use the most common English name" is an internal agreement on Wikipedia, and we could chose to do it differently, if we so wished. "There is no naturally correct interpretation of it" means e.g. that if Wikipedia decides that all articles should be titled with uppercase first letter, that's how it's done, regardless of the actual common practice in English or how other sources choose to do it.

you said, ""Use the most common English name" is an internal agreement on Wikipedia". I couldn't agree with you more! Jaromir Jagr is the most common way to write his name in English. We have that policy as a convention for wikipedians to follow and help solve disputes. I suppose you could go against that policy, but in doing so, you are being a vandal. Wikipedia follows the most common form in English to simplify things and keep disputes at bay.

• It's conventional to say "hello" when you meet somebody. In Europe and North America at least, it's also conventional to shake their hand. There's no written law that says you must do it, but if you don't do it, you're not following the convention and in that particular case, people would consider you rude for it. Written or unwritten, using diacritics is the convention in the English Wikipedia, as a look at people by nationality categories will show. It doesn't really matter how it came about, what matters is that that's how it's presently done, and that it's rather stable. These move wars are not common, but they are disruptive.

show me this convention. Oh, and by the way, not all articles currently have diacritics who "could" have diacritics. So, again, i ask you to show me this mysterious convention and to show me a source outside wikipedia. You have done neither. I have shown you policies, guidelines, and proposals against the use of diacritics and i have shown you outside sources. You have pointed a list of people here in wikipedia that have diacritics in their name. Big deal. Show me a convention or an outside source and i might take you seriously.

• Anyway, the whole argument that articles were originally at non-diacritic names and that some bad people moved them is useless. This article was created at the title without diacritics because it was technically impossible to use diacritics in titles at the time. By that measure, you could claim that C++ should be at C plus plus, because that's how it was originally done.

We still have a proposal that is calling for the absence of diacritics in article titles and we are working towards a guideline. What are you doing?

My whole point all along has been that this article shouldn't be treated specially, i.e. different from other articles about people. If you want a general change in the article naming practice (and no amount of argument and wishful thinking is going to change the current state of thousands of articles) this talk page is not the appropriate venue. Zocky | picture popups 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

well, we are already working towards a guideline about diacritics in article titles. To sum it up, diacritics are to be only used in article titles where that is most common in English. You, my friend, are going against the grain. If you don't like it, then you should discuss your dislikes here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (standard letters with diacritics). We are trying to form a convention that follows standard English and already established conventions on wikipedia. Have a good day! Masterhatch 22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Move protected

The article has now been protected from moves. Please use the talk page to discuss where the page should be moved, and once you've reached an agreement, please request unprotection. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

first line

You know what's funny? the first line of the article says it all: "better known in English as Jaromir Jagr" So, if he is better known in English as Jaromir Jagr, then why is there a fight to include diacritics? The evidence is clear, Jagr's English entry into wikipedia should not include diacritics. Masterhatch 02:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well noted. Further more, I'm certain if anyone could produce a photo of Jagr in an NHL jersey (Pgh, Wash or NYR), most likely his surname is in the English form JAGR. Maybe such a photo would be undisputable evidence, for not using diacritcs? GoodDay 13:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You should then move Lemieux to Lemıeux. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.192.174.166 (talk • contribs) .

Nice try, but no. The letters on jerseys are all capital letters.  RasputinAXP  c 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean they're in capital letters and that's why they drop the diacritic ? As in Simon Gagné ?

I think this is a big difference between Europe and USA. In Europe the name of the person is what is written in birth registry. So we cannot accept that Jaromir Jagr without diacritics is actually a name. It is how he writes his name in american environment but it is not his name. In US tradition name of the person is how this person calls himself. So your former president can be called Bill Clinton. Americans would mostly agree this is his name. Europeans would say no this is just how he calls himself. That is why there is a problem with Czech ice hockey players in the USA but not with Czech footballers in England. Check Petr Čech.--Jan.Smolik 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Jagr but Vladimir Ruzicka led the Czech team in Nagano 1998

The statement "In 1998 he led the Czech Republic's team to a gold medal at the Nagano Olympics." is not correct, i would say.

I simply remember that Vladimir Ruzicka was the captain of our team :-) as he was one of the oldest guys there. I was searching the i-net for some proof and have found at least this link - "http://www.praguepost.com/P03/2004/Art/0819/news4.php".

There You can read "Hlinka's longtime friend and the Nagano team captain, Vladimir Ruzicka, was appointed to take over the national team."

And at this site "http://world.ohf.cz/cze/index.html" You can find "On the fourth spot there is Slavia Prague, led by Vladimir Ruzicka, the captain of Olympic champion from Nagano."

And also here "http://www.wch2004.com/countries/cze/czechs082704.html" one can find "Hlinka's longtime friend Vladimir Ruzicka was quickly appointed to take over the national team. Ruzicka, who captained the Czech team in Hlinka's most glorious coaching achievement in the 1998 Nagano Olympics where the Czechs won gold medals, said ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.42.25 (talk • contribs)

Why the hell was the fact that Jagr hates Gypsies/Roma people and supports their forced sterilization in Europe taken out when I tried to add it? Why are you trying to hide these facts and protect his image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.123.159 (talk • contribs)

What THE HELL are You here talking about? I have not found any fact about such Jagr's relations to Gypsies. Can You please paste here a link to some interview where there are such Jagr's statements? And please set up new discussion section about such bullshit, thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.93.42.25 (talk • contribs)

How is it bullshit, it was on Czech TV, the problem is that you North Americans dont have access to Czech media. Ask anyone from there, Jagr supports the forced sterilization of gypsies, as does a large percentage of the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.104.115 (talk • contribs)

I live in the Czech Republic and I cannot imagine that Jaromír Jágr would say anythink like this publicly. Can you cite any reputable czech source (not tabloids)? It was in Czech TV is not sufficient. Say when exactly. --Jan.Smolik 20:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics

The superfluous argument of diacritics not being a part of the English language is fundamentally wrong. Please see the article English words with diacritics for further information. -Mz55 15:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a straw man. NHL players' names in English do not contain diacritics, whether or not other English words do. Geoffrey Spear 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To stop the edit war going on here I compromised and used the correct spelling in the first sentance and the english spelling in the rest of the article. I hope everyone is okay about it and before edit the page please make an argument for it in this section on the talk page. --Krm500 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, revert wars lead nowhere. Generally, I prefer diacritics in the whole article, but this solution might enable peace and therefore I support it. Jan.Kamenicek 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a compromise, but indeed there should be a VOTE for the correct way and that then used throughout. Everywhere. Now it's just both wrong and ridiculous. Let it be then wrong or right, but Wikipedia really can't afford the ridiculous. -Mz55 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This compromise, should end these diacritical debates. Title (non-diacritics), content of article (if needed, diacritics). See Pope John Paul II for example. Title of that page, is in English NOT Italian. GoodDay 20:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The compromise ends the edit war going on here, not the debate. And the popes title is english since it has an excisting english translation of his name. So does Gothenburg (Göteborg in swedish) and there I have argued for the use of the englsih translation since it excist. --Krm500 22:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This article (reached by compromise), is an example for all NHL euro & french canadian bio articles. GoodDay 19:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Times have changed, WPP now calls for all player pages (where needed), to be moved to 'diacritical' title. Since I've no 'diacritical' keys, someone else will have to do the honors. GoodDay 00:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll move the page. Jan.Kamenicek 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mullet Reference

I'm deleting the reference to his "proper hockey mullet" to make the article more encyclopedic. I personally do not see its relevance...especially the sentence re: Ziggy Palffy. If it is deemed important by others that this info be re-included, so be it, however I suggest that it be placed in a different segment of the article, e.g., a trivia segment. Yem75 05:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Title of Article

The consensus on this page, was to have the title Anglonized (without diacriticals). Please respect this consensus (and all other Player pages consensus). GoodDay 22:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're doing this again. Let me repeat what I have said elsewhere: Being a hockey player does not affect a person's name in any way. Editors who edit hockey articles can't change conventions for hockey player names independently of site-wide naming conventions. Zocky | picture popups 01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Move the page, if you want. Though I'm guessing the majority opinon here is still no diacritics. GoodDay 17:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm now in 'full' agreement, these WikiProject pages WPH and WPP calls for this page to be moved to 'dacritics' (consensus vote here, is no longer valid). GoodDay 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Friction between Jagr/Mario in 2001?

Does anyone have a source on the following sentence: "With the return of Mario Lemieux from retirement, the Penguins had two superstars but friction developed between the two; Jagr held the captaincy but many fans regarded Lemieux as the talisman of the team." I ask because I actually remember Jagr saying he was really excited about the return of Mario. I remember friction between management/coaches and Jagr, but I don't remember Mario and Jagr actually having problems as teammates. The sentence also doesn't make sense grammatically or logically. It somehow ties friction between two players to how fans felt about one of them holding the captaincy. Additionally is there a source on the fans caring about who had the "C"?? I ask because I remember (as a fan) thinking it made perfect sense for Jagr to keep the captaincy, at least for the remainder of the 2001 season. The dude had just won three straight scoring titles... something even Mario never did. How could you take the "C" off his jersey mid-season??? - Sam 87.65.39.133 14:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain about this (the Jagr/Lemieux feud). GoodDay 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

-Jaromir led the Czech Republic to Gold at the 2005 World Hockey Championships in Austria- Jagr was not the Czech Captain at this time, therefore claiming that he LED the Czechs is quite POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dominik92 (talk • contribs) 04:01, August 23, 2007 (UTC).