Talk:Todd Bertuzzi

More Playing Career Information

There's only a tiny blurb on his playing career and since it's quite long and successful, a lot more time should be given to it. The way it stands, the article's just about Steve Moore and there's a lot more to Todd Bertuzzi than that. -RomeW 08:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Has there been conclusive evidence that Moore's injury was the result of a punch? I beleive he sustained Injury when his own player and others piled on top during the mele'.

July-2008

To the first comment above, the only reason Bertuzzi gets this much airtime in Wiki is because he maimed Moore. Otherwise he is just a pretty good international player. To the next comment above, regardless of which punch caused Moore's injury, it was Bertuzzi's attack which led to the maiming of Moore. Bertuzzi will be forever infamous and remembered for this reason alone; it will be noted in the first sentence of his obituary. -Jrgilb , April 2009

The Steve Moore incident - The Martin St. Louis hit et al

The legality of the original hit on Naslund is debatable at best. Also added background information about Moores hit from behind on St. Louis. The background information is important - the prevailing view among the US Media and non hockey fans is of the "goon" Bertuzzi attacking a rookie. Moore was developing a reputation as an unskilled headhunter all by himself prior to the neck breaking incident.

CanadianPhaedrus 20:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Canadian Phaedrus

Please cite a source that shows that the Naslund hit was 'debatable at best'.

Moore's hit on St. Louis has no bearing on Todd Bertuzzi whatsoever, it doesn't belong. I would tell you to add it to the Steve Moore page, but you already have done. Regardless of what you or I feel the prevailing view in the media is, we can only present the facts pertinent to the incident. It might sound to an observer as though you were trying to justify Bertuzzi's thuggery. Oh, and incidentally, please don't remove anything from this page. The 'Show Preview' button is your friend!  ;) --DarrenBaker 09:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Any video of the original hit on Naslund would be fine - but I have yet to find it hosted on the internet aside from an old Rapidshare account that is no longer active. This article really needs a link to that video so that a reader can come to their own conclusions. The fact that there were formal complaints made to the league and the statements by the Vancouver management and coaching staff indicate the hit is of questionable legality. I had the ESPN source linked - I will add it as a reference to the original statement.

The St. Louis hit has bearing - it helps to establish the context of his hit on Steve Moore. Your opinion is that the hit is of no bearing - clearly there are differing opinions. The fact that he made a second head hunting hit is pertinent to the incident - it explains why Bertuzzi desired the fight. Your view is of Bertuzzi's "thuggery". While its a shame he broke his neck, reviewing the actions of Moore that led to the incident frame Bertuzzi's response. His actions had cause: It was not an unprovoked attack. In short - the circumstances leading to the hit need to be presented.

Incidentally - please do not remove any of my additions to the article. If they were falsehoods it would be one thing - but removing factual information that gives context to the incident is ridiculous and undermines Wikipedia as a resource. So long as the information posted is fact - it is not your choice which information readers are allowed to see. The aim is to have a majority of views presented - not just the ones you agree with. With your self proclaimed lack of interest in hockey and this incident you should not be removing information regarding it.

CanadianPhaedrus 04:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)User: CanadianPhaedrus

The fact that someone complains about a referree's ruling in a hockey game does not make questionable in any way. I would think that the league's ruling bears this out. If it were in fact questionable, it isn't now, since the league found it unquestionably legal, and as such, you cannot use the word 'questionable' in the context of the hit. But this is completely moot, because it simply does not belong in the article. Using the framing argument, we should include every bit of drama that ever occurred in Moore's hockey career to offset the facts, making the article POV.

Various mainstream news outlets had called for the NHL to suspend Moore for the (in the MSN's view) illegal hit, nothing is online of course but it is in TV archive tapes. I think that information is critical to the background of the article, removing it makes Bertuzzi look like even more of a villan and presents POV issues. Tawker 01:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This article presents facts on the incident, and direct motivation. By inserting an unrelated fact, however truthful it is, you skew the balance of the article. Keep the fact in the Steve Moore page, which this page links to. If people want to read about Moore as a player, they can click on the link. Hell, you could also put it on the Martin St. Louis page!

My self-proclaimed lack of interest in hockey notwithstanding, I would like to keep this article unbiased. People who edit this article fall generally into two camps: Those who think Bertuzzi is a devil, and those who feel Moore deserved it. I won't let either camp ruin what is at the moment quite an unbiased article. As such, I will exercise my ability to revert any biased info anyone places on this page. If you doubt my objectivity, I suggest you look at the article before I first edited it. It was atrociously biased. I'm attempting to keep the peace here. --DarrenBaker 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

When there is a formal complaint to the league made, and public statements the hit is debatable.

Clearly we are debating the legality of the hit on this talk page - hence the phrase "of debatable legality".

Not every bit of drama would be warranted - I agree with that statement. But a second headhunting hit 5 days before the 'incident' against a player Bertuzzi routinely plays and practices with is relevant - your opinon notwithstanding.

The information present is fact - and relevant to the article.

Facts are to be presented and conclusions drawn by the readers based upon all the information available - not just the information you feel deserves a place.

The circumstances leading to the incident are as important as the incident itself.

Adding the comment to St. Louis' page would not be relevant - the headhunting hit is of minor importance in his career, but when ::Moore had his neck broken in retaliation for a hit it instantly becomes relevant.

I am confused by how you feel it is not relevant? Circumstances are important - especially when talking about an retalitory 'attack'.

It would be like having an article about a car crash but someone choosing to omit the fact that the driver was intoxicated and that there was ice on the road.

My position is that though you may disagree with the information I have added - unless the information is a fabrication it deserves to stay in the article because it establishes the context of Bertuzzi's retalitory actions.

As a side note - if you are truly concerned about the information in the article - perhaps a Neutrality Disputed banner would solve the problem. It would indicate at least that the information is subject to debate.

If nothing else it might get a few differing opinions represented rather than just the two of us.

CanadianPhaedrus 18:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)CanadianPhaedrus

True enough. I see your argument, but I simply cannot agree. The way in which you add the info, and the inevitable conclusion the wording intentionally leads the readers to is disreputable. Everything in the history of the human race is debatable, that much is certain. The problem here is that you are making a statement of opinion by calling the legality 'questionable'. It is, because of the ruling, no longer questionable by the league. They made their decision, and so it is written as fact that it was a legal hit. Just as we have to refer to a murder suspect as a 'suspect', and an exonnerated suspect as 'not guilty', since the law has proved their innocence, we cannot use words that indicate an opinion. You also can't cite a quote by the GM as a source, you can only quote the quote, since it is in fact opinion, and therefore not a reliable source.

Furthermore, I just don't see the relavence of the hit on St. Louis to the Moore hit. Does it prove that Moore is a headhunter? Probably... I'd believe it. However, we don't have any statements in the article showing that Bertuzzi is either a goon or a thug, or indicating that he has a history of violence (which he in fact does). It simply outlines the major incidents leading up to and involving the hit on Moore. Our duty as Wikipedia editors is to present the incident simply, without a bunch of circuitous circumstances thrown in under the paper-thin pretense that they lend to 'context'. Moore hit Naslund, the Canucks took umbrage and, according to the NHL, allowed an atmosphere of vengeance to settle into the Canuck bench. Bertuzzi overdid it (I don't believe on purpose), and Moore got grievously injured. The NHL fined him and the team, and the police investigated. Whether or not Moore was a headhunter has no direct bearing on why Bertuzzi did what he did. The St. Louis hit is a minor character in this play, and really has nothing to say.

My opinion is this: people get hit and get hurt all the time in this stupid game, since a culture of brutality and vengeance thuggery pervades every club. Revenge hits and escalated violence are cheered on by otherwise intelligent people who don't quite understand that it's feeding their more basic instincts, and getting them more in touch with their reptilian emotions, which is a bad thing. But, like I said, that's my opinion, and it doesn't belong in the article.

I will work on the wording a bit and see how you like it. --DarrenBaker 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have worked on the wording, and just could not justify adding anything regarding the St. Louis hit to the Steve Moore incident. If you can find a source that ties the two together, then I think it will be justified, but making the connection yourself would constitute original research, something not allowed here. I've gone ahead and put this debate on the mediation page, and hope we'll get some second and third opinions here soon. --DarrenBaker 06:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello DarrenBaker and CanadianPhaedrus. I watch the Third Opinions page, where I saw a call for comment on the Bertuzzi/Moore issue as it relates to this page. I will weigh in and say that I do not believe the information on Moore's previous hit against St-Louis belongs here. Almost every hockey player has "questionable hits" in their history. This seems more an attempt to portray Moore as a goon.

I would not be adverse to this if it were true, but according to the source Hockey Database Moore had but 47 penalty minutes in his 69 NHL games. Bertuzzi, meanwhile, has had 987 penalty minutes in 674 games according to the same source. That gives Moore an average of 0.7 minutes in the box per game, and Bertuzzi 1.5 minutes, or more than double. RomaC 05:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, RomaC. --DarrenBaker 16:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to echo RomaC's comment that commenting on Moore more than simply to describe what happened, in a Bertuzzi article dilutes the article itself . The Bertuzzi hit on Moore reflects on Bertuzzi's character (passion for the game, excitability, poor judgment etc). For Vancouver fans, the loss of Bertuzzi was huge. Moore was the victim both legally and according to the NHL. Any additional comments about Moore’s character should be put into his article. If there is further comment to be made on the hit itself, it would be to assess if Bertuzzi’s punishment has deterred others from making similar hits within the NHL, or the impact it had on the team’s success or their morale. Best to you all. LinuxDude 06:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. A request was made on WP:3O for a third opinion on this page. The opinion is regarding the issue: Whether an section about Moore should be added to counterbalance a section about Bertuzzi. My 3rd opinion is that "Yes, only if it is relevent, kept short, and NPOV, AND it adds something to the article. If only to illustrate a point, then it doesn't belong" Thank you for flying delta. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be mention of the following pile-up that occurred after the hit. It sounds like Bertuzzi hit the guy once, pushed him down, and he suffered 3 broken vertebrae, etc. Unlikely. This should mention that they both lost balance, and that players from both teams contributed to the pile-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.132.120 (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Do not delete my comments here again Darren. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comments were not deleted, they were moved to the archived discussion pages, of which this 3rd party request and resolution were a part. I will move the discussion back to this page to keep it in context. --DarrenBaker 18:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This talk article isn't long enough yet to warrant an archive, neither was moving my less than 1 day old comments. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for trying to keep it organised. --DarrenBaker 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Rather than copying-and-pasting the contents of the talk page into an archive page, you should do a page move from Talk:Todd Bertuzzi to the archive page.

The rationale here is that we want to keep the edit history for the original discussion along with the archive. As it stands, the only person in the edit history for Talk:Todd Bertuzzi/Archive 1 is you. --Saforrest 22:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

vandalism?

Why is this in there? I'm assuming it was a vandal. "In mid June 2006, Bertuzzi was pulled over and charged with a DUI by one of Kitchener-Waterloos finest. Unconfirmed reports describe him as sucking at hockey." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.144.162 (talk • contribs)

Weird vandalism removed. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Update?

Has there been any word on Moore's lawsuit since it was filed in February? Cfrydj 22:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Joke?

Is this slipped in by a prankster? "He enjoys fishing in the offseason, his favorite fishes to catch are salmon, narwhal, bass, and chinook." --Shyland 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

...Never mind, the line about fishing was added by a known vandal(142.179.6.71 on 31 January 2007.) Removing it. --Shyland 03:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Todd Bertuzzi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AIRcorn (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

While I am not a hockey fan (I live in a country that holds the record for worst loss in an Ice Hockey International) I am willing to reveiw this article. I have only ever watched one game live, which happened to be the Canucks, therefore I am probably not used to some of the terminology. Saying that, there was only one phrase that I found awkward so I take that to mean that the article is very accessible to most people. I have left general statements about each criteria and then gone into some more detail below. None of the comments mentioned are non-negotiable and if you feel that a comment is unfounded or not clear please leave a message underneath it explaining why. I will strike my concerns when we are happy they have been dealt with.

Criteria

• No DABs
• No Dead Links

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): ? b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): ✓ Pass

   Overall very good. As with any article this size there are a few sentences that could perhaps be clearer (see comments). The currency used should be indicated in the first instance [US/CAN]$4.6 million contract and just left as the $ sign for the rest - unless of course the currency changes (see MOS:CURRENCY). The only instance where I felt hockey specific terms were used was when the trades were talked about. For example the Panthers dealt him to the Detroit Red Wings might be a correct hockey term (or even an American/Canadian sports term), but it read awkwardly to me.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): ✓ Pass b (citations to reliable sources): ✓ Pass c (OR): ?

   Well referenced, mostly to news sources or hockey websites. I am fine with their reliability and a spot check has shown no major issues. They are all correctly formatted. Main concern is with a statement saying "widely considered the most effective" which is outlined further in the comments.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): ✓ Pass b (focused): ?

   Very detailed. Understandably the Steve Moore incident is a major focus of this article. Most of it was fine, but I found the Legal Actions section difficult to follow and rather long when compared to the other sections. I am not sure a whole paragraph on a leaked letter is necessary and everything below the first three paragraphs does not seem very focused. Also as there is a whole section on the incident it should only be mentioned minimally elsewhere, in particular the Vancouver Canucks season.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: ✓ Pass

   Well done for an article that contains some quite controversial information

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: ✓ Pass

   Nothing to write home about in the last couple of months

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): ✓ Pass b (appropriate use with suitable captions): ✓ Pass

   The fair use rational for the File:Bertuzzimoorepunchsmall.jpg is unconvincing. As the picture is so small and fuzzy I would recommend not using it. The flickr ones are fine, but File:Bertuzzi-nov27.jpg looks a little dodgy to me. Clicking on the source does not lead to the image or even permission to use any image from that site. I would not be comfortable passing an article with a potentially copyrighted images and will have to seek a second opinion if they are kept in.

   Suspect images have been removed AIRcorn (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Lead

• After two-and-a-half seasons with the club, he was traded to the Vancouver Canucks, his longest tenured team in the NHL. As written it is not clear which team the longest tenure is referring to.

Changed the prose around here, but I'm not confident I addressed what you're after. Let me know. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's fine as it is now. Just to clarify; from the MOS "Pairs of commas are often used to delimit parenthetic material". So in the original sentence it could have been assumed that the "he was traded to the Vancouver Canucks" was a parenthetical remark (i.e. not one of the main constituents of the sentence) and therefore the longest tenured team statement would apply to the Islanders. A bit pedantic I know, but ultimately an easy fix. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• After seven-and-a-half seasons with Vancouver, Bertuzzi was dealt to the Florida Panthers, with whom he briefly played for until being traded again to the Red Wings. As mentioned above I find dealt to a little awkward. Is there a better term that could be used?

For the life of me, I can't think of another word to use in lieu of "dealt" that would sound less awkward to a non-hockey fan. If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All I can think of is "traded". I found this wikilink Trade (sports) for MLB, NBA, NFL and Soccer. I see NHL is only mentioned briefly so maybe trade is not appropriate here. If it is, a wikilink to that article (and a expansion with more info about hockey......) wouldn't hurt. Not that you have to add anything to that article to get GA status for this one. However, if dealt is the standard term it should probably be left as is. It may sound awkward to my ears, but the meaning is clear so it is not a major issue. Also a quick Google search from Australia [1] shows quite a few hits, so I will leave it up to you. AIRcorn (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'd prefer to leave it as "dealt" then. I haven't encountered any problems with the term in previous articles in GA or FA and I feel like it's pretty standard terminology, even for a non-hockey fan. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Playing career

• His future coach with the Vancouver Canucks, Marc Crawford, passed on Bertuzzi during the draft as general manager of the Cornwall Royals; he has recalled not selecting him due to "maturity issues" and that he was "a big kid who hadn't grown into his body yet." Unclear sentence. Maybe "while he was general manager?"
• Bertuzzi competed for an Islanders' roster spot at their 1994 training camp, but was sent back to junior after going scoreless in three exhibition games. Junior what?
• After four seasons with Guelph, he left the club ranked third all-time with 280 career points, behind O'Neill and Martin St. Pierre. Would be good to say what he was ranked on next to all-time, i.e. "ranked third highest for all-time career points with 280," to make it clearer.
• While Milbury expressed regret at having to deal McCabe, relations between Bertuzzi and the club were strained. Another deal/dealt sentence.
• Both sides managed to avoid their arbitration meeting by agreeing to a three-year deal on July 26, 2001. Is "managed to avoid their" correct here? Seems a little like editorialising. Both sides avoided arbitration by ... or similar might work better.
• Parker proceeded to attack Jovanovski, at which point Bertuzzi left the bench to help his teammate. Attack is a loaded term. I know it is in the source but journalists can sensationalize, we shouldn't.
• During that span, Bertuzzi and linemate Näslund were given a new centre to play with on the team's top offensive unit. This is out of place. If it is referring to the new player then it is not needed as it is mentioned in the next sentence
• marking the beginning of what was widely considered the most effective line combination in the league for several seasons. These statements always cause issues no matter how many citations they have. This is because sports editorials are not really reliable to make blanket statements and widely considered is an unsupported attribution. It's not bad as it is and reflects the sources to a degree, but I would probably drop it a notch to say "...was considered by many to be the most effective...". "Many" is still a little ambiguous, but it is less likely to be challenged and it is still saying much the same thing. Ideally the article would say "such and such says it was the best".

I imagine this might come up again if you take it to FAC, but it is fine as far as I am concerned for GA. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

*Bertuzzi had emerged as an effective power forward, using his size and strength to position himself in front of the net, with stickhandling ability – a combination of skill that complemented Näslund's goal-scoring prowess and Morrison's playmaking ability. Borderline puffery. Would attribute it.

Took out and replaced some words. Let me know. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would still consider attributing it as it currently reads like an opinion. For example: "Bertuzzi had emerged as an effective power forward, able too use his size and strength to position himself in front of the net. According to the Canucks assistant coach Jack McIlhargey Bertuzzi's stickhandling ability complemented Näslund's goal-scoring and Morrison's playmaking ability [well]." If you can think of a way to reword that so ability isn't used twice in the same sentence it would work (I tried "skill" but it didn't seem right). "Well" is horrible too, needs another word that means slightly less than "perfectly". Maybe "greatly complimented Naslund's....". I will let you have a play with this. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Did some work. Lemme know. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I like it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Facing the Minnesota Wild, the Canucks squandered their own three-games-to-one series lead and were eliminated in seven games.Squandered is not very encyclopaedic
• His actions, which effectively ended Moore's career. were a retaliation to a legal Moore hit on Näslund during a previous game that concussed the Canucks captain and sidelined him for three games. Ungrammatical. As this is covered in detail later only the minimum amount of information is required here. I would suggest to just describe what happened and the punishment, leaving the next section to explore it further. As it is there is no support in the cited ref for the first hit being legal so that at the moment that constitutes original research. The length (indefinite)of the initial suspension should be mentioned here though as that impacts on this season.

Somewhere in the paragraph starting Inactive in 2004–05 due to the players lockout and his ongoing suspension, which had been extended internationally, Bertuzzi returned to the Canucks in 2005–06. it needs to be indicate that the indefinate suspension was overturned/suspended. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• The deal was made largely in part to the fact Bertuzzi was in the last year of his contract with no guarantee he would re-sign with Florida in the off-season. "Largely in part to the fact". Not very concise and rather unclear.

Steve Moore incident

• In particular, forward Brad May issued a "bounty" on Moore, while Bertuzzi called him a "piece of s---." We are not censured, but this is not something I will push.

I know it's pretty clear which specific word is being censured, but I figured because the source didn't spell out the word, the article shouldn't either.

I think it looks a bit funny saying saying someone said "s dash dash dash". Not really that concerned though and I don't think a GA is going to be challenged over it. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Spelled it out. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• The following year, Moore filed a lawsuit in a Colorado court against Bertuzzi on February 17, 2005. Don't have both "the following year" and "2005".

Re reading that I think it might be better to leave in the 2005 and take out the following year. That is because the year 2004 had not been mentioned for a while so it was not obvious what the following year was following. "On February 17, 2005, Moore filed a lawsuit in a Colorado court against Bertuzzi." or smething similar. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• On February 16, 2006, the day of Bertuzzi's first Olympic game with Team Canada, Moore filed another lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court against Bertuzzi, the Canucks, and Orca Bay, seeking $15 million in pecuniary damages for loss of income – CAD$1 million for aggravated damages, and CAD$2 million for punitive damages. As per the comment under Criteria 1, the dollar ammounts should be specified more consistently. Up until this point I had assumed the rest was in Canadian dollars.

By specifying US dollars first it is assumed that the preceding $ signs in the article are US. Therefore I think it might be better to add CAD$ to every instance where it is needed, only wikilink the first occurrence though. As this is an article about a Canadian you could convert all the amounts into Canadian dollars. The exchange rates at the time would have to be used and I imagine it could be more hassle than it is worth. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for clearing that up. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life

• They have two children born a year-and-a-half apart: a son named Tag and a daughter named Jaden,[1][120] both born in Vancouver. The colon does not work with the "both born in Vancouver" tacked on.

Took out colon and replaced with comma? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

With the rewording the colon could have stayed. Comma works too though. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Consider combining the last two paragraphs to even out the section.
• He has said that Bertuzzi takes after him in regards to his toughness and aggression. and His father has stated the he was proud of his own local reputation as a "dirty player" and referred to it as a "Bertuzzi trait." These two sentences would work better linked together rather than being on separate paragraphs.

Notes

• The information in the notes should have a ref for each incident.

I will place it on hold for now, but don't see any problems getting it up to standard. Cheers 06:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review; your input's really helpful. Did a little bit of work.. I'm hoping to finish off the above issues in the next couple of days. Cheers.. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I know it looks like a lot, but most of it is minor. If you have any questions about any of the comments let me know. AIRcorn (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm done as far as your initial comments go. I'm not sure how well I addressed some of the issues (I left comments on these above), but just let me know. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A few small points that I feel may need some more clarification. AIRcorn (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

K, did some more work. Let me know. Thanks for your time! I really appreciate the thorough review. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

All good. Will pass this now. Congratulations. AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Todd Bertuzzi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110628220203/http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/jimhughson/2008/11/naslund-is-still-a-canuck-at-heart.html to http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/jimhughson/2008/11/naslund-is-still-a-canuck-at-heart.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110628234837/http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/bertuzzi/timeline/ to http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/bertuzzi/timeline/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100328115858/http://www.cbc.ca:80/sports/indepth/bertuzzi/ to http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/bertuzzi/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight on Moore incident

The Moore incident has its own article, so why is the section on it long enough to be its own article? This isn't WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it should read: For more details on this topic, see Todd Bertuzzi–Steve Moore incident. --WatchingContent (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I started to trim the section. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Todd Bertuzzi. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=324855

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Todd Bertuzzi. 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/20110628213746/http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=7707b0e2-2f29-4893-a435-8b0fe6bdf7d0 to http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=7707b0e2-2f29-4893-a435-8b0fe6bdf7d0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109090854/http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=cbfa0d4c-2132-4141-8b5c-aa773b0c9382&sponsor= to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=cbfa0d4c-2132-4141-8b5c-aa773b0c9382&sponsor=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203002036/http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=lebrun_pierre&id=4883674 to http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=lebrun_pierre&id=4883674
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080930022422/http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=5d6b3ef6-25fb-41a3-945d-e9a5a572bbcb to http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/sports/story.html?id=5d6b3ef6-25fb-41a3-945d-e9a5a572bbcb
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=324855

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) 14:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Todd Bertuzzi. 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/20110706182717/http://hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/4730/la_id/1.htm to http://hockeycanada.ca/index.php/ci_id/4730/la_id/1.htm

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) 13:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)