Talk:Don Cherry

message: "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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Liberal Media Potshot 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Del cherry?

message: "...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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Canadian cultural icon 

message: 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)
thread_title: Nickname

message: 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)
replies: text: Analogies are subjective. Possible POV. Flibirigit 03:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK to use if we mention who's saying it. -- Mwalcoff 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Analogy for Americans 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recognition in Parliament 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction (Racism allegations) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Grapes" or "Grapes Cherry"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's a good point. He's very well-known for it. --Wafulz 02:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suits, Again 

message: 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)
replies: text: What sources do you have that it is a well-known theme song? Flibirigit (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  ZZ Top 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: 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)
thread_title:  please help  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments requested 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coaching Record 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Don Cherry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090331114421/http://www.cbc.ca:80/whodoyouthinkyouare/stories/ext_don.php to http://www.cbc.ca/whodoyouthinkyouare/stories/ext_don.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208163523/http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011700 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0011700
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 ; the earlier pending change was not accepted by . 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)
replies: text: 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 "". 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)
thread_title:  Colorado Rockies power struggle sourcing 

message: Was Cherry fired or did he quit, HNIC. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Rogers Media told him to apologise. He said no way. They said, goodbye. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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

text: Fired. Geordie (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quit or Fired 

message: 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)
replies: text: He didn't say he retired; he could easily come back with another media outlet in a year commentating on hockey, so he's still an ice hockey commentator, unless he states otherwise. And if I know Canadian hockey fans, he probably will be on somewhere else eventually. Andrew Englehart (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

text: He's still alive & still commenting on ice hockey. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence (intro) 

message: 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)
replies: text: " His opinions upsets a negligible portion of viewers." - that sounds like the original material to me. What's currently there is pretty much straight from the websites that reported on this. I haven't read one article that said he only upsets "a negligible portion of viewers". Andrew Englehart (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: Correct grammar in the "Removal from Hockey Night in Canada" text
Move the period inside the quotations:
...these guys paid the biggest price."[52] 
... stating "I have had my say."[56] Ketchupppppppp (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: in these cases, but be aware of MOS:LQ.  It's not an issue of grammar, and it's not always done like that here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2019 

message: The other Don Cherries [sic?] on Wikipedia are as of-note as this fellow. This article should therefore be a disambiguation page and this Don Cherry’s article can move to Don Cherry (hockey) or something. Morganfitzp (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Compared to the other articles, this seems to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree wholeheartedly. This article should be moved to your recommendation or something similar and this namespace should be reserved for the disambiguation page. SiliconRed (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

text: More agreement here. The disambiguation page should be top level, and this article should be subordinate. Django mtl (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The only Don Cherry that has similar views to this page is the trumpeter, but even so, this Cherry is higher by a decent margin.  Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

text: I treated this as a contested WP:RMUM (though there wss an informal discussion above) on your behalf, and reverted the move. Coutesy notification to ; feel free to initiate an WP:RM, if you wish.—Bagumba (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation page request 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved  CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 14:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your views link is for the last 3 months (and omits poor DC the singer); I report the last 12 below. I don't think that google news hits is appropriate when one of the people is alive and the other has been dead for more than 25 years! EddieHugh (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

text: *The dab page gets about 14 views a day. Subtract that from Hockey Don's total and he still gets 57% of views. Srnec (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 20 June 2022 

message: the podcast is not mentioned 2607:FEA8:6002:3500:6510:F705:9BE6:549D (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide reliable sources mentioning the podcast, if you wish for it to be considered for inclusion. Flibirigit (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  podcast not listed