Jump to content

Talk:Don Cherry

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.244.92.52 (talk) at 22:55, 13 November 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Coaching

How come Cherry's coaching paragraph doesn't include his 1976 Canada Cup, where his tip to the players to fake a slap shot while skating in on the Czech goalie and then put the puck in the net, led to Darryl Sittler's game winner in OT and the Canada Cup? Also, he was coach of the 1981 Canada World Championship team, which finished in fourth place. Alslammerz

Ownership

Cherry is or was an owner of a minor-league hockey team in which he demanded that only Canadians be allowed to play on the team. Does anybody know the name of the team? Zoe

But he also was vocal in his support for the United States during the recent Iraq War, and attacked the official Canadian neutrality. I wanted to add that part, but wanted to put in the dichotomy of the minor league team, but I need to know the name of the team first. -- Zoe
He owned the Mississauga Ice Dogs-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl Andrew (talk • contribs)
He did not demand that only Canadian players play on the team. The team did have American players. The team is in the OHL and they are allowed to carry two non-North American import players, usually Europeans. Cherry did not have any such import players on his team during the time in which he owned them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.163.2.8 (talk • contribs)

Suits

I don't understand the claim that Cherry's plaid suits are an unverifiable fact. The intro to Coach's Corner that is played every week (every two days, or so during the playoffs) clearly shows a cut-out of Don in a plaid suit. For confirmation of this feel free to see: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/hnic/coach.html . Furthermore, I don't think it is enough to say that he is known for wearing pin-stripe suits and gold ties. Many people wear black pin-stripe suits and gold ties and aren't known for it. I hope that my most recent edit clarifies things. Carruthers 21:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I feel that Cherry is known more for wearing creative (or loud) suits in general and not one specific type of suit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.163.2.8 (talk • contribs)
Perhaps it would be appropriate to include some comment that he is well known for his flamboyant apparel, specifically, double breasted suits in a variety of (frequently bright) colors and patterns, as well as shirts with huge french collars and cuffs. You can't forget his penchant for polka-dot ties, either. Further, I don't think I've ever seen him in the same suit, tie, or shirt twice. Who else on television dresses like a pimp every week? And how could that not be mentioned? And who provides all these clothes?
Although I can't find it on the net, several years back on tv, Cherry's dressing style was said to be one of the tackiest, if not the tackiest, of all celebrities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.117 (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News and Rumours

Is he actually going to be in the Disney movie "The Wild" (CGI animation)? Imdb lists Don Cherry as providing a voice and links to this Don Cherry but I'm still not convinced.--Fmaack 11:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. He was talking about it on the Grapeline: a daily radio segment he has on Toronto's Fan 590 radio station. Apparently, the director of the movie is a Canadian and wanted to have him in there. 72.138.81.82 21:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are the rumours that Cherry will be fired and that he has been courted by the Tories really encyclopedic? Maybe if he actually runs as a candidate that would be noteworthy but as it stands now the story seems to be: Peter McKay went to a hockey game and *thought* about asking to talk to Cherry about maybe running. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carruthers (talk • contribs)
Actually Don did use European hockey players on the Mississauga Ice Dogs and yes he has been asked to enter politics but guys he's seventy years old 5 minutes per week with one liberal is all he can take! BJC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.126.185 (talk • contribs)

Hockey violence

Unlike those who decry the violence in North American ice hockey; Cherry embraces it. HOwever, he insists that it be done in a "clean" manner where gloves are dropped and sticks and other equipment never used. He feels that this is a necessary outlet for frustrations and lets player themselves police the game to an extent and prevents indirect violence such as "accidental" tripping, which he insists is far more common Europe. Does this belong in the article? Rlquall 12:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added a passage about this, see what people think.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttawaShane (talk • contribs)
However, this is purely Cherry's prejudice. He never substantiates his claims with any proof or references.

Liberal Media Potshot

"Cherry is generally regarded as being an outspoken conservative on many issues, making him often at odds with the overall tone of CBC programming, which is generally characterized as liberal-leaning."

C'mon, it's an article about a sports commentator, not about CBC bias. Fair enough about the "outspoken conservative" bit, but there's no need to discuss perceived bias in his employer's productions. And, besides, "generally characterized" is vague. Generally characterized by rightwing press and politicians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.164.18 (talk • contribs)

Generally characterized by anyone who's watched the channel, I think. You write liberal stories to keep favor with the liberal government, do you not?

The comment about the liberal-leaning character of the CBC makes it a little more obvious what the conflict is between Don Cherry and CBC management. If he made conservative comments on a conservative channel, nobody would notice. It's the way his perspectives differ from those generally expressed by CBC that make them that much more obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.217.115 (talk • contribs)

It is POV pushing. What you suggest is a matter of speculation, not evidence. Whether CBC is "liberal-leaning" or not is a matter of opinion, not fact, and I've seen no evidence to suggest that Canadians "generally consider" it being of a certain orientation. Fishhead64 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"You write liberal stories to keep favor with the liberal government." What do you mean that the Canadian government is liberal. People often make the assumption that political parties are their names. For example, that the Liberal Party is liberal. However, the party name has nothing to do with ideology. Regardless, the Canadian government can hardly be considered liberal and neither can the CBC. Look at Rex Murphy, for example, he is somewhat of a Rush Limbaugh character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.117 (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rex Murphy is quite capable of criticising all parties, whereas Rush, the GOP hack, seems capable of criticising only one (unless it's a GOP'er who isn't ideological enough).205.189.194.208 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Del cherry?

if del cherry, don's father, is one of kingston's best ever athletes, why isn't there a wikipedia article on him? 131.111.8.97 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Kingston's a small town, and he didn't accomplish anything notable outside of it. 72.138.81.82 00:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

family

does he have any children? if so what are their names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.224.89 (talk • contribs)

Daughter Cindy and Son Timothy (Tim)
In 1979, Tim needed a kidney transplant and Cindy donated hers. The entire Bruins team donated blood for the operation.
This is from Cherry's book Grapes. If you want to add this to the passage. Alslammerz

business/charity

I added a brief bit on Don Cherry's restaurants, and also on charity work. others may be able to add detail if they feel more detail is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttawaShane (talk • contribs)

Canadian cultural icon

"...Many consider him to be a Canadian cultural icon." Please give me a break, canadian cultural icon, my a... !!!? This says a lot about the extent of canadian culture; I'm glad to be a frog, merci beaucoup ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperchipper (talk • contribs)

It also says a lot either about the lack of upstanding figures in Canada's history and/or the lack of knowledge of Canada's history on the part of Canadians that he would be selected among the top 10 greatest Canadians' of all time list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.117 (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I wonder what Quebeccois in general would think about that, as well as Canadians of Slavic descent. He was also a cheerleader for the Iraq war, and wanted Canada to participate in it.205.189.194.208 (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname

While at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Grapes Cherry's name came up and someone asked where the nickname comes from. I found the one reference but there must be a better one. If someone could find it and add it. THanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analogy for Americans

Sports Illustrated had an article in 1993 about Cherry that described him as "part Rush Limbaugh and part Dick Vitale." That analogy means little to Canadians but is the perfect description of Cherry for Americans. Think we should include it in the article? -- Mwalcoff 02:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analogies are subjective. Possible POV. Flibirigit 03:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to use if we mention who's saying it. -- Mwalcoff 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, we certainly know about Rush Limbaugh! (We Canadians generally know about American cultural icons as much as our own, if not more.) As for Dick Vitale...he's a football coach or a sportswriter or something, is'nt he? I know his name and nothing else.Vonbontee (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition in Parliament

I don't have a linkable source, but I was listening to it at the time, and it's probably in hansard, but that takes digging. Rustalot42684 01:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly who are you claiming made this statement about Cherry? The speaker of the house is Peter Milliken. Are you saying he recognized himself in parliament?. I don't see how the other MPs you mentioned factor into any of the statement. Flibirigit 02:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction (Racism allegations)

Donald Stewart Cherry (born February 5, 1934 in Kingston, Ontario, Canada) is know as the must racist canadian, promoting racism agains french speaking canadians. He is know as the "English Separatist".

How does this pass the Wiki standard for biographies of living persons? It is an unsourced allegation of racism and is potentially libelous. It should be removed immediately, for poor grammer if nothing else. J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.163.44.138 ([[User talk:142.163.44.13
8|talk]] • contribs) 17:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC).

It was removed abo

ut 30 minutes before you posted your comment. I saw it and came to the same conclusion you did. With no reference to back it up, I deleted it on the spot. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Don Cherry is widely criticized for many comments he has made targeting specific ethnicities such as French Canadians and Europeans while on the air during Hockey Night in Canada and this has led to Cherry's broadcasts being put on a seven second delay by the CBC" --- Why are acurate, referenced details being deleted regarding Don Cherry's comnents targeting French and European ethnicities??? Why is the deteled information not showing up in the discussion section? the fact is that Don Cherry's comments that talk about French Canadians, Europeans, Swedes and Russians has been criticized by many is in print, in the news and on the internet - why the censorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumblecar2 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to the lead was deleted for several reasons. First, Cherry's controversial statements are already dealt with in the article and whether it belongs in the lead needs discussion. Second, you haven't provided references which support the argument you wish to make. The first time you added it, you failed to provide ANY documentation that Cherry was known for "derogatory statements towards many ethnicities." When you tried the second time you only had one reference and it was just an opinion piece and didn't support your argument. In your third attempt, you added more references, but several of the references were from Wikipedia (Cherry's article in different languages) and wikipedia cannot reference itself. The other references are concerning that Cherry was criticized for a single incident which, again, doesn't support "Cherry is widely criticized for many comments he has made targeting specific ethnicities". BashBrannigan (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I am new to editing on Wiki (this is my first attempt to contribute). The first time I wrote I did say derogatory. However after it was intially deleted I returned and wrote "Don Cherry is widely criticized for many comments he has made targeting specific ethnicities such as French Canadians and Europeans while on the air during Hockey Night in Canada and this has led to Cherry's broadcasts being put on a seven second delay by the CBC" which is not in reference to his outspoken nature but to the large amount of publically visible criticism that exists in print and on the internet. I did back this up with an article from editor of themetropolitain, an article from the CBC and a published book on sociological behaviour "Ourselves in Canada: Media and Power" that has an entire chapter devoted to Don Cherry entitled "The Prime Minister of Saturday Night: Don Cherry, the CBC, and the Cultural Production of Intolerance" publisher=Prentice Hall isbn=9780205733163

1 = http://www.themetropolitain.ca/articles/view/964

2 = Book: Ourselves in Canada: Media Power and Policy pages 59-72

3 = http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2004/02/06/cherry040206.html -- this being the best reference that demonstrates my point as it is written by the CBC, the very organization for which Don Cherry is employed. Jumblecar2 (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on living persons need to be of the highest standards. Neither web reference supports your edit, which makes me suspect the book reference until an impartial editor has looked at it. For what you are trying to add, it would almost have to be word-for-word from the source, without interpretation. Also, you titled this section "Racism allegations", which by itself is completely unacceptable. !BashBrannigan (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not title this section racism allegations. It was already here. I used this section because it was titled INTRODUCTION
The web reference do back my edit
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2004/02/06/cherry040206.html "During the first period intermission Cherry spoke out about players wearing visors on their helmets. In full flight he said, "most of the guys that wear them are Europeans or French guys ..." The remark was roundly criticized by French language groups across the country."

http://www.themetropolitain.ca/articles/view/964 "Viewers may notice a trend: He seems to take special pleasure in players who aren’t Anglophone North-Americans being the victims of rough play. Among a few borderline bigoted incidents, the CBC had to put Coach’s Corner on a seven-second delay in 2004 after he mocked “French guys and Europeans” for wearing visors on their helmets"

SO how many incidents and references should I use to state that: Don Cherry is widely criticized for many comments he has made targeting specific ethnicities such as French Canadians and Europeans while on the air during Hockey Night in Canada and this has led to Cherry's broadcasts being put on a seven second delay by the CBC? Jumblecar2 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was already titled "racism allegations". Sorry, my mistake. I can't add much that what I've said before, however, if you're going to add a statement like "Cherry makes derogatory statements towards many ethnicities" you're going to need a reference that says EXACTLY that. Wikipedia needs to be careful with living persons to avoid potential libellous content. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually based on the wiki policies regarding biographies for the living, I can agree that the term derogatory is perhaps harsh. If I were to use: "Don Cherry is widely criticized for comments targeting specific ethnicities such as French Canadians and Europeans Canada and this has led to Cherry's broadcasts being put on a seven second delay by the CBC" but use more references; specifically references of critism towards Cherry regarding multiple events; do you think that could be acceptable? - Thank you for your feedback BrashBrannigan. Jumblecar2 (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of those references says "Don Cherry is widely criticized for comments targeting specific ethnicities"? Your addition looks like synthesis, which means it's your interpretation of the references and if that's the case it'll be removed.BashBrannigan (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting BrashBrannigan, I can see how stating anything controversial even if true, can be difficult when discussing someone still alive on wiki. Ok, I do agree with your statement and I am not looking to make up history or interpret history; I am trying to find a way to include a valid comment referring to Don Cherry, specifically in the way that many people outside of traditional English Canadians perceive him. How about:

Don Cherry comments have targeted specific ethnicities on more than one occasion; these have resulted in infuriating Russian communities[2]; as well as comments deemed reprehensible that were roundly criticized by French Canadian groups around the country and which later resulted in Cherry's broadcasts being put on a seven second delay by the CBC. [3]


where ref [2] = http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2002/03/01/cherry030102.html "Cherry's remarks infuriated Russian communities in various cities and towns across Canada"
and ref [3] = http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2004/02/06/cherry040206.html "The CBC has decided to put an end to "reprehensible" remarks by Hockey Night in Canada commentator Don Cherry." and "The remark was roundly criticized by French language groups across the country"
I believe this (I hope) this meets the wiki policies and is inline with what you have been trying to communicate to me. Thanks again for your assistance and help with outlining this for me. Jumblecar2 (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No this isn't correct. First, it doesn't belong in the lead. One editor removed your previous addition out of the lead, but you've tried it again. Also the wording is not proper. Some version of what you are trying to add might be appropriate, but not this. I don't have the time at the moment, so I won't remove it just now. Other editors are welcome. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have saved them the trouble and edited/removed it myself. I do not want something posted that does not fall in scope of wiki's policies. I'll admit finding the words to say it properly is alluding me now but I'll keep trying till I get right. I will need to think about this a little before trying again however.
One thing I disagree with you BrashBrannigan is that I do feel that it does belong in the introduction. It was previously removed because the editor C.Fred thought I was mentioning the fact he is outspoken when in fact I was mentioning that he is criticized in the news, and in print for targeting ethnic minorities on more than one occasion - this is a huge aspect of who he is especially outside of English speaking Canada so I would argue it introduction-worthy. I just need to find the "wiki" way of saying it.
I apologize for taking up your time BrashBrannigan and would like to say I do appreciate the effort you have given me.
Jumblecar2 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumblecar2 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ice dogs

Didn't Cherry sell his interest in the Mississauga Ice Dogs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.5.65 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

"Grapes" or "Grapes Cherry"?

Does his nickname ever get prepended to his last name? Whenever I've heard it used, it's always just been "Grapes," standing alone. Given the usage, and comparing that to "The Big Hurt," Frank Thomas, I'm thinking that the intro needs reworded to just give his full name, and then give the nickname later in the paragraph.

Am I wrong about the usage? Or does anybody have a reason why it shouldn't be done like other stand-alone sports nicknames (Thomas, Wayne Gretzky)? —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political views and controversy

I feel this section is a very poor representation of Cherry's views. For example, there are three citations from a student journalist newspaper opinion column, which is a bit questionable in a national and international context. In addition, some of the phrases are very strongly worded considering Cherry hasn't outright made these comments. For example:

Cherry has a strong dislike of the "European style" of hockey, and has often insulted French Canadian hockey players on his show, blaming them for bringing diving, high-sticking and the introduction of visors into the league, while taking the jobs of "good-old Canadian boys."

This statement is a borderline attack and ignores statements he has made criticizing Canadian and American players.

After questionable gestures on the part of Atlanta Thrashers' star winger Ilya Kovalchuk, Cherry fumed: "Someone should have broken [Kovalchuk's arm], but they didn't.

This statement is just thrown in there without any context or results, sort of "furthering" the point on anti-Europeanism. Many of the statements seem to be selective and intentionally short to push a point of view.

Also, I think the section should be split up- I don't see why the section should cover controversies and then have stuff like Crosby's A and his support of Harper. --Wafulz 22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support your comments. Flibirigit 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


He can certainly be said to be anti-European, racist, sexist and anti-French Canadian who regularly engages in unsubstanitiated diatribes against those he hates. For example, he'll often say some player he hates is doing something "like a girl" and he has espoused ideas of aboriginals which can not only be said to be racist (ie, suggesting they are lazy or don't try hard) but also that they expose his lack of knowledge of Canadian history (or even of today), particularly when it comes to minorities. For example, this, this, and this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.47.117 (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think this section should be expanded upon. He is more known for his controversial xenophobia and prejudices than for his actual hockey knowledge. People tune in just to see what or who he is going to attack next. His career on television is based on being controversial and politically incorrect, yet this section is minute. How about expanding on his deliberate mispronunciation/mocking of non-Canadian players' names? His "Canadian hate Canadians" comments he made tonight? There's tones of material to work with here--Lvivske (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry said on Coach's Corner: "Most of the guys that wear them are Europeans and French guys." This statement triggered an investigation. That is a misrepresentation of the controversy. What people took issue with was Cherry's implication that Europeans and French Canadians are cowards and play dirty, seeing as they are more likely to wear visors. The cited article does not therefore vindicate him at all as it shows that visor-wearing players are in fact less likely to commit high-sticking infractions (that is, "play dirty"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohdan80 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suits, Again

How can you have an article about Don Cherry without talking about his loud suits? --70.81.251.32 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. He's very well-known for it. --Wafulz 02:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZZ Top

Alright, so its pretty well known that the ZZ top song 'Sharp Dressed Man' Is the unoffical 'theme song' of Cherry. So, is it worth mentioning? I'm not trying to cause any sort of flame war or what not, just trying to throw this idea onto the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.61.34 (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you have that it is a well-known theme song? Flibirigit (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been mentioned on Coaches Corner or something, but the song itself is never played on the show, or even associated with Cherry at all. It was just a quip by a broadcaster.--Lvivske (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't played on Coach's Corner now, but at one time it was indeed the intro song. You must be too young to remember it. Tim in Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.225.122 (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname

Per WP:HOCKEY's decision to remove the nickname field from the infobox, it is being moved here for use later. "| nickname = Grapes" -Djsasso (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please help

where did don cherry go to school if you know please post it on the page. Thank you. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.2.11 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wife Beater

The movie about his life, which was written by his son, and which he cooperated in the filming of portrays him as a wife beater. Since this is not a rumor, and admitted, it should be added to the main page. 67.68.9.149 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty serious allegation, so the sourcing would have to be much better than a movie that implies spousal abuse.-Wafulz (talk)

Comments requested

An editor, 81.57.78.10, keeps making the same edit which myself and another editor have reverted now 5 times and it will likely be 6. I believe the edit to be so obviously improper that I don't think it is even worthy of an RFC. However, to avoid an edit war, I started this section.

The first is the original the second it the edit and the bold is the content which is being replaced. It is from the Political views and controversy section.

"Later on, a study was published that proved Cherry to be partially correct: 50% of Europeans and 40% of French-Canadians wore visors, compared to 22% of North Americans born outside of Quebec, but players who wear visors committed proportionately fewer high-sticking penalties than players who do not."

is replaced by:

"Later on, a study was published that proved Cherry to be wrong; players who wear visors committed proportionately fewer high-sticking penalties than players who do not."

The original is correct because 1. it exactly what the published source says. 2. the fact that Cherry was partly correct needs to be included because of NPOV. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with the original wording, but if it avoids an edit war, I could suggest that we perhaps could say "Cherry was correct about the proportion of players wearing visors, but incorrect about who took the high sticking penalties." The wording would have to be more elegant, but I don't have the time just now to think of it. Just my two cents in hopes of peace. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching Record

Since Cherry is considered to be a coach, why does this article have an extensive report of his record as a player, and yet none as a coach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.42.150 (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source for the stats, add them and cite them. Not terribly complicated ;)BruceJohnJennerLawso (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Rockies power struggle sourcing

An IP user (or two, but likely same person) has twice tried to delete part of the Colorado Rockies section, pointing to lack of a source. I've accepted one of those pending changes, which was subsequently reverted by Echoedmyron; the earlier pending change was not accepted by Kb03. But I think the IP user has a point. The short citation is incomplete, the longer reference that should underlie it doesn't exist, and thus it cannot be verified. This is particularly problematic in relation to WP:BLP as it's a controversial subject. I think we need a proper source for this to remain in the article. Sakkura (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree that it needs better sourcing - my edit summary saying that the first IP removal claimed it was "unsourced" was from memory, my mistake on the wording. But I felt it was better to restore it with the original tag indicating that the source was incomplete, so that it can be fleshed out. I see that in the Lanny McDonald article that work is cited repeatedly, with the book listed in a "Sources" section under the footnotes as "McDonald, Lanny; Simmons, Steve (1987), Lanny, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-549501-5". I don't think this work is available online, so I was reluctant to complete the source myself, lacking a copy of it. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quit or Fired

Was Cherry fired or did he quit, HNIC. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most news sources (AP, ctvnews.ca, Toronto Sun) have been saying "fired". The original statement uses the awkward phrasing of "Following further discussions...it has been decided it is the right time for him to immediately step down". Sounds like he didn't have much choice in the matter. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rogers Media told him to apologise. He said no way. They said, goodbye. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was fired. Jalenridge (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles I've read said "fired". Andrew Englehart (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely he was a contractor and therefore it's an ending of a contract - as firing is only possible in an employment situation. Of course, that's a bit complicated for the tabloid press. CT55555 (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fired. Geordie (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence (intro)

It currently reads: Donald Stewart Cherry (born February 5, 1934) is a Canadian ice hockey commentator. He is also a sports writer, as well as a retired professional hockey player and National Hockey League (NHL) coach.

As he just lost his main profession, shouldn't it be "retired ice hockey commentator" or "former ice hockey commentator?"

CT55555 (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be politically correct, it should be "disgraced former ice hockey commentator". 74.88.66.192 (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

Fourth paragraph, citations needed. It's terribly written like it's original material. It's also an over-simplification of the issue. It would be better to say "In Cherry's Coach's corner segment of the show, he talks about issues related to ____ so that ___. To connect with the viewers he often speaks in an off-the-cuff fashion. These dialogues often become political. His opinions upsets a negligible portion of viewers." ... "Sometimes proven controversial" is passive voice and it's vague. The page does not present the evidence that a significant amount of viewers are upset or only the minimal amount who take the time to complain. ... "for comments suggesting Canadian immigrants benefit from the sacrifices" Cherry has already clarified this vague statement; he meant everyone to be included not just immigrants. It's impossible to literally comprehend the statement. It's not suggesting anything rather say "Viewers interpreted this as____" The rambling doesn't hold weight due to the unscripted manner. As such it's not newsworthy but perhaps cringeworthy. Why should anyone care about a newscasters opinion in the firstplace? Where's the significance? Answering these two questions would significantly raise the quality of writing. 65.255.181.151 (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

"In November 2019, Cherry was fired by Sportsnet from Hockey Night in Canada due to the fallout from comments suggesting Canadian immigrants benefit from the sacrifices of veterans but do not wear Remembrance Day poppies."

Should be changed to(the original statement implies that as a fact as opposed to an opinion of some people.):

"In November 2019, Cherry was fired by Sportsnet from Hockey Night in Canada due to the fallout from comments some believed suggested Canadian immigrants benefit from the sacrifices of veterans but do not wear Remembrance Day poppies." 104.232.203.77 (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partially done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just change the article back a couple versions? Such sloppy writing should not be allowed on Wikipedia. It would be better for this page to be outdated than for it to quote-mine/misquote. It's not written in a NPOV. There's no benefit to an article being updated with a current event. 65.255.181.151 (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you suggest? Propose your change here. This is far more than a current event. This event ended Cherry's career, and therefore, is a very significant event that requires mention without doubt. Also, nothing in the article shows NPOV, and nothing is misquoted. All quotes are cited and given in full. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot see the NPOV issues and terrible interpretation of the quote than you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. The quote is not complete. Wikipedia is not a news organization. Yes it's okay to say that Don Cherry left sportsnews. The details are a matter of political opinion. It's too soon to edit the page before Don Cherry even has a chance to respond. Someone removed your edit of "that suggested Canadian immigrants benefit from." Now it's back to the terribly written version rather than the kind of okay version. Don Cherry has since clarified that he did NOT mean immigrants he meant EVERYBODY. I am Canadian, it's a fact that unless you're Indigenous you or someone in your family line immigrated to Canada. It's an unscripted segment that he messed up his words. Don Cherry's clarification of his statement must be presented in this article or this article is worthless. The people responsible for such biased writing should be banned from Wikipedia. They jumped the gun for the editing stats/points while ignoring accuracy. 142.244.92.52 (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Cherry&oldid=926047574"