Talk:Jeffrey Coho

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Television

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles

Regarding the fan outrage[edit]

I have been to several sites, many of them had people that didn't like Jeffrey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppet125 (talk • contribs)

When he first came on I thought they were going to write of Alan or Brad. They can't focus on 3 guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.180.186 (talk • contribs)

Sure they can. But i'm sure you noticed the severe lack of Brad so far this year. And Paul (though he was always out of the spotlight).Puppet125 20:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likelihood of leaving the show[edit]

This is not an issue under WP:NOR I'm sorry. The point of the matter being that it is a common sense issue. You don't "cite" common sense. If I were to tell you I need to go get some money, the common sense assumption would be that I am likely to go to a bank to do so. Do you need a citation for that? No. WP:NOR applies to those with some sort of agenda they are trying to push, there is none of that here and the fact that someone is asserting so is not only ludicrous but insulting. Take note of the following:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which is included in an article and appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Take note of the bolded statements. This does not advance any position, and certainly does not provide such narrative. It is a simple matter of fact that inclusion of such a statement makes it extremely unlikely, completely implausible really, that something to the contrary would be true. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To further add to my point, it would be irresponsible and erroneous not to put something to this effect in the article. As it stood after the rather careless truncation of that line, the article is highly construable as stating that he has left the show. Until a history of episodes shows otherwise, or something arises from a reputable source stating that he has left the show, it should be left as such. A major and continuing problem with Wikipedia articles about television shows is that articles generally truncate right at the point in time at which the last episode has shown, refusing to acknowledge that there are more episodes of the show to play out, and as a result many articles in essence become their own OR as they effectively assert a specific potential future. If anything the insertion of this likelihood is an act of ambiguity leaving open the multiple possibilities present at this point in time.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand the difference between assumptions/speculation and facts. Then you need to understand that an encyclopedia is a place for facts, not assumptions/speculation.

The only character who will probably not return for guest appearances on Boston Legal is Daniel Post, but it doesn't make sense to add a line that they're likely to return in each character's article.

I think it's likely that OJ Simpson killed his wife too. That doesn't mean I get to add it to the article without a citation and tell people that it's common sense.

My edit of that line wasn't careless, but your reinclusion of it is not only careless, it's pointless too. Rray 22:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Bierko has left the show is pure speculation at this point, unless you are Bierko himself or someone involved in the production of the show with actual knowledge of the facts of the situation. When the character Sally Heep was fired from CP&S and the actress Lake Bell went on to other roles, it might have been said that it was unlikely she would return to the show. It would have been incorrect as a matter of WP policy AND, as it turns out, as a matter of fact. The same holds true for the Bierko/Coho situation. Esjones 01:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about, instead of "However, he has indicated that he will remain in Boston, and as such it is unlikely that he will cease to appear on the show entirely.", it's changed to read "He indicated that he will remain in Boston, however, which leaves the door open for further appearances on the show."? That's not speculation, but rather a statement of fact. Brad E. Williams 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent phrasing, Brad. Certainly much better than what's there now. Rray 02:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that works better, and if it stops this nonsense I'm fine with it. Its nice to see people actually working on a solution instead of simply clearing things out that may not look right to them. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coho's daughter[edit]

Was the mention of Coho's daughter in 3x15 the first? I don't recall hearing about her before. It would probably be a good idea to add information on his family, if any has been revealed. I put in a brief mention of his daughter, but if anybody recalls additional family information, it should (IMO) be added. Brad E. Williams 14:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]