Talk:Jack Edwards (sportscaster)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

February 2007[edit]

Jack was one of the best soccer announcers in the country. Why was he not kept by ESPN for their coverage of USMNT and MLS games ? Nyrmetros 03:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


BEST PHOTO EVAR!!!!! ...not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, could someone not have cropped that a little better!? Sheesh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Anytime you guys want to provide a better picture to improve the article, feel free.SuperAtheist (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

I've posted on WP:BLP/N [1] hoping to get input on the edit war going on about the controversy section.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Announcers make remarks/observations all the time that some people disagree/take exception to. This is no different. Other announcers have had "remarks" removed from their WP page or just never added at all. Seems JE is being singled out? Newt717 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Does the other side to the debate want to weigh in, or are they just going to keep re-editing? Newt717 (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether you agree, disagree, dont care with JE's remarks... he made them, and then apologized for them. It ended there. There was no fine or suspension, or any ramifications for the remarks... it ended before the game could even finish. Wikipedia isnt a sounding board/forum for reporting on these types of occurrences. If it was, these pages would be inundated with complaints and gripes, and all objectivity would fly out the door. Newt717 (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Cs19812: This needs to be resolved. I had hoped you would discuss this matter. An explanation as to why you believe this is a "significant historical event" would be helpful. I would also appreciate anyone else's opinion on the matter of whether or not this type of information (announcer remarks that some take issue with) should be included on WP pages. I hope for a response from Cs19812, instead of just re-editing and nothing else. Newt717 (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There has to be some way to capture the comments he said without it causing offence Newt717. I don't think it has been removed by another user. Suggestion 1: perhaps renaming the headline from controversy to something else? Suggestion 2: Since the comment pulls in several different significant events (at least unique to Massachusetts & US history) that are not mentioned in the blurb, maybe it would be more appropriate to give it the level of detail (such as adding the marathon week, Robert Kennedy) than it might not seem like an attack on JE so much. Thoughts? Cs19812 (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

So you suggest that any remarks that announcers make, that people find offensive, is to be included on WP? I've searched many of Edwards' counterparts for other teams, and found no recorded instances, despite finding many examples out in the internet. Going even further into other sports team announcers, still nothing I've found on WP. Now suggesting that because this happened in MA, and that because RFK was from MA, and that because he was assassinated, and that JE referenced an assassin's name, and that this happened shortly after the marathon bombing.... to suggest that all of these things enhance JE's remarks, to elevate them to an importance where they need to be documented on WP, is a stretch. If anything, if you listen to JE's apology during the game, he mentions that its been a rough couple of days. He doesn't cite why, and we're not mind readers. The point I'm trying to get across is that announcers are known to make comments that people don't like, and from what I've found in research, happens more that anyone thinks. I have yet to find any examples of these types of comments being documented on WP where the weren't edited out, and do not agree that they have any place there. Opening this "pandora's box" would turn WP into a gripe-fest. Whats to stop it from going into newspaper, radio, entertainment personalities, etc. If JE had been fired, fined, or suspended, that would be different, and I would have put it up myself. Please respond without me having to re-edit to get your attention. Newt717 (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There are several other broadcasters with controversies sections. Here's just a few: — What if we change the heading notable broadcasts, rather than controversies? Then under that section you can add one that highlights how swell he is? Let me know. Cs19812 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A thought for the two of you. Perhaps it might help to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Third opinion to get a neutral third party to take a look at this dispute.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How swell he is? Don't know about that line. So you consider JE to be on the level of the four you listed? Kudos to you for doing some research and finding those examples, because I was looking at those announcers on the same level as JE, across the four sports. I’m not sure comparing JE, who doesn’t do announcing on a national level, where a certain level of professionalism is expected, to the likes of them is a fair comparison. I will say that some of the listed criticisms on Joe Buck’s WP page seem a bit over blown.

Something I have wondered about was why 7+ months after the remark was made did this become an issue again? A different user had added something early on in April 2013, which when I saw, I questioned as to the necessity of it being added to the WP page. I still believe then as I do now that JE was within his right to criticize the Pitt writers for nominating a guy (Matt Cooke) for an award that is for players who “best exemplify the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to ice hockey,” when that player has a well documented history of causing injury to several other players (including Boston Bruin Marc Savard). The criticism derailed when he suggested that Cooke had tried to assassinate Savard. And so 4 months pass, when one unregistered user edited in, during September, a similar edit to the one being used now, which was then edited out. Then another 3 months pass before the edit made by Cs19812 in December.

I think its time we move into 3rd party opinion as cube lurker suggested, as it does not appear that we can come to any sort of resolution. Newt717 (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Searchtool-80%.png Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Jack Edwards (sportscaster) and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an opinion of that sort.

I believe the material should be excluded under UNDUE until the article is expanded considerably further, it's just too much emphasis in this short article about a minor negative event. Let me also say that in its current state it ought to also be removed under BLPREMOVE as a matter of clear application of policy because it is, per that policy, "contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced". The current cite to is inadequate because is, as a business's house journal, a self published source and self published sources cannot be used for information about living persons. I would have removed it for that reason and not issued this 3O, but there are plenty of fully-reliable SECONDARY sources which can be substituted for it (here's one). However, having said that, I still don't think that it ought to be included at all since it gives undue weight to this one incident in comparison to the rest of his career. If that other material can be substantially expanded and sourced — I'd say at least double the amount of material that is here now and triple would be more like it — then this could be included, once the sources are improved, as a minor coda to the rest of the material. Now, having said all that, what I would recommend to you is to remove that material and before doing anything else, spend your time finding and adding sources to what's here since all of the unsourced material is subject to being removed at any time simply because it is unsourced.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 14:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Transporterman, that was very helpful. Firstly, I would disagree that the source is inappropriate,but, do understand the reasoning, no problem here. The LA Times source does a fine job, this will certainly be updated, thanks for that. Newt717, it looks like we need to improve all of the sources of Jack Edwards biographical information (which now I notice are quite lacking-probably should happen anyways) as well as add/source more biographical information about him (he deserves this anyways) then, the controversial comment won't be such a highlight (or lowlight). Do you want to work on this together? Otherwise, it sounds like we've got to remove just about everything on JE's page because nothing is sourced. I guess a another option is to update the Controversy source to the LA Times, so it will meet Wikipedia's standard, plus, be above the standard of JE's other biographical information, we can leave it at that and forget this thing ever happened. Cs19812 (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks to TransporterMan for weighing in on this debate. Second, I do not see how adding more information, other than what was initially present (which appears to mostly come from the first listed link in the external links section) to someone that is a team play by play announcer, is relevant. What biographical information isn't there that needs to be added? I'm looking at some of JE's counterparts (ie: Matt McConnell (Coyotes), Jeff Rimer (Blue Jackets), Bob Kurtz (Wild), John Ahlers (Ducks), Pete Weber (Predators), Rick Jeanneret (Sabres)) Wikipedia pages and they all cover their various work histories (when, where, who they worked with). All similar to what was covered on JE's page. So I don't see what needs to be added, other than sourcing the work info. Newt717 (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Cs19812: I'm waiting to hear how you want to proceed next. I don't see or know of anything that needs to be added/expanded upon that would be relevant to his position as an announcer. Sources should be added where necessary, and the controversy section removed. If you still disagree, we can move onto the next step to resolve this dispute. Newt717 (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Newt717: How do you feel about doing some collective research on Jack Edwards life so that we can 'beef up' his Wikipedia page? Cs19812 (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources added to bio information and that which could not be verified was removed. As suggested, the controversy section was removed. An internet search did not reveal anything relevant that was not already mentioned and sourced. Newt717 (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)