Jump to content

Talk:Don Cherry

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

Requested move 20 June 2022

[edit]
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)[reply]

– A while ago I was asked to help with moving a page on Don Cherry's dog, and was considerably surprised to find that that animal did not belong to Don Cherry at all, but to someone else of the same name (someone I'd never heard of, but who I learned was very well known within a narrow field). I moved this page and was reverted (see above); a second attempt to do the same has also been reverted, so it's probably time for some discussion.

The trumpeter appears to be the WP:primary topic:

But no matter, all that counts here is that the hockey person is not. No objection if a title such as Don Cherry (ice hockey) is preferred to that I've proposed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Racist vs Controversial

[edit]

No part of his speech was racist, it was anti immigrant, which means it could have been against a white immigrant? AustinAuriat (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources cited in this aticle all say that his comments were racist. Contesting that "no part of his speech was racist" requires multiple reliable souces. Please see WP:RS, and provide sources to support your claim. Flibirigit (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is it was anti immigrant. Listen to his speech, he didn’t say You ____ people (ex. Indian, Chinese) AustinAuriat (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it with reliable sources. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and provide tangible evidence. Flibirigit (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, I just don’t see the ‘racism’ AustinAuriat (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources can be found which support "anti-immigrant" or something else, then multiple views of his comments can be included. Flibirigit (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, I’m sure you agree that “controversial” shouldn’t bother anyone but the term Racist doesn’t sit right with me. Especially after years on the air, we choose to call him racist after only one anti immigrant comment? AustinAuriat (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter what sits well with you, and Wikipedia is not calling Cherry a racist. What we say is what reliable sources say: he was "fired by Sportsnet from Hockey Night in Canada for making racist comments about Canadian immigrants during his show." Meters (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current citations choose to call him racist, not all of them do though, most don’t AustinAuriat (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reliable sources that say his comments were not racist, including Ron MacClean[4] and Bobby Orr[5]. Wikipedia strives to be neutral; clearly that sentence in the lead is only representing one side of the controversy. It would be more accurate to say that he was fired for making what Sportsnet believed were racist comments. 2607:FEA8:54E1:2A00:E729:35AD:5457:3C61 (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia went out of its way to find citations that are woke, you shouldn’t be openly calling him racist, trying searching up Don cherry fired and you’ll see those sites do not call him racist. Immigrants could be from anywhere, like England or France or Germany, or anywhere AustinAuriat (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC, which I assume Wikipedia would consider a reliable source, posted on their website a source which refers to Cherry's comments as 'divisive' in the title. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGoodfan101 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think divisive is a good word, or nothing at all. Why must we tarnish his reputation? AustinAuriat (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AustinAuriat, Wikipedia went out of its way to find citations that are woke is simply not a statement that should be taken with any level of seriousness. Please find a policy-based argument.
IP editor, MacClean and Orr's perspectives are addressed in the article and do not need to be in the lead.
The fact that not all sources explicitly call Cherry's statements "racist" does not justify removing the statement that has reliable sources (WP:DUE, WP:SOURCESDIFFER). As Flibirigit says, with reliable sources, other perspectives on his comments can be added. Wracking talk! 17:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, but why did you go out of your way to find woke statements? I don’t understand it. AustinAuriat (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the first three searches that came up for “Don Cherry fired”
1
2
3 AustinAuriat (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Austin, you need to understand that as Wikipedia allows for multiple viewpoints, there are sources that outright claim his statements were racist and there are sources that say "Controversial" or "Anti-immigrant". There are even viewpoints that disagree with his firing (e.g. Bobby Orr). Regardless of what we think, we maintain WP:NPOV on all articles. So, having this word stated in the article should not be your concern when both the anti-immigrant stance, racist stance, and even controversial stance is given. All of whom are collected with reliable sources. Conyo14 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to say racist or divisive or controversial. Can’t we just leave it at ‘comments’ AustinAuriat (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can talk to the sources about that. Wikipedia is used to record the encyclopedic knowledge of reliable sourcing. I am sorry if you are deeply offended by a word used in the correct context. Read MOS:RACIST to see the official guideline of this practice. Conyo14 (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AustinAuriat: IMHO, Sportsnet was waiting for any reason, to fire Cherry. But, we have to go by the reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

podcast not listed

[edit]

the podcast is not mentioned 2607:FEA8:6002:3500:6510:F705:9BE6:549D (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ron MacLean comments

[edit]

Should the second paragraph of the Don_Cherry#Removal_from_Hockey_Night_in_Canada section remain in the article? I believe yes. It was the first Hockey Night in Canada show since the firing, and MacLean spoke directly about Cherry's firing, easily the most notable firing of a HNiC host in its entire history. The first on-air comments immediately after the incident from a longtime broadcast partner of Cherry's should absolutely be included. If you're going to argue that this paragraph is insignificant, how can you justify including comments from Bobby Orr and Nazem Kadri, who are not broadcasters and have little-to-no connection to Cherry? Andrew Englehart (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone tried to exclude it from the page? GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Flibirigit, more than once. That paragraph was initially in the article from March 2020, and was stable until March 2024. Andrew Englehart (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Abiding by Wikipedia's rules"

[edit]

Please refer to WP:Use_common_sense and WP:Ignore_all_rules. Why on *Earth* would a reputable source decide to explicitly declare that comments that aren't racist are not, in fact, racist? Sources within the article reporting on his firing for anti-immigrant comments, such as the Washington Post, do not refer to his comments as racist, but they don't explicitly say his comments weren't racist because there's NO POINT UNLESS THEY'RE WRITING SOLELY FOR A WIKIPEDIA CITATION! OBVIOUSLY the Washington Post refered to them as "anti-immigrant" and left it at that, because NONE of his comments involve race at all, so there's NO NEED TO MENTION RACISM! The fact that "reputable sources" have spread blatant disinformation, directly contradicting what readers could ascertain if they WP:Read_the_citations DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT NONE OF HIS COMMENTS PERTAINED TO RACE! WP:The WP:Washington WP:Post WP:Is WP:Reputable. The Washington Post does not mention race. Neither did Don Cherry. Therefore, this article should be modified according to WP:Use_common_sense and WP:Don't_lie_to_readers (a subset of WP:Use_common_sense) to align it with the WP:RS Washington Post, and remove the objective catagorization of his comments as racist. WP:Thank_you, WP:Live_Laugh_Love, and WP:Have_a_good_day. Kaotao (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Multiple sources call his comments racist. It's up to you to get consensus to change this. Meters (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters And how would I do that? Kaotao (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have started a talk page thread about. Wait and see what other editors think. Note that this has been discussed before. You yelling at us with bolded all caps is not going to help convince anyone, and neither is the cutesy image you added. The Washington Post is not the be-all and end-all of reliable sources. Wikipedia does not have to use the same wording that that publication does. As I wrote Multiple sources call his comments racist.. Meters (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters Most reputable sources, such as the aforementioned Washington Post, don't mention racism, because as I've said, there's no reason for them to. If two sources considered reputable by Wikipedia said that a toaster (which was not, in fact, capable of filing tax returns) was capable of filing tax returns, and the vast majority of major reputable sources made no mention of such a thing (which is, in fact, to be expected, and does not indicate that the toaster must be objectively capable of filing tax returns), by your logic Wikipedia would be forced to explicitly state that the toaster was capable of filing tax returns in objective terms. This is absurd, and cynically undermines Wikipedia's mission to provide a neutral, objective point of view. Wikipedia should not spread disinformation that a minority of minor sources it considers reliable are spreading just because major reliable sources did not feel the need to address it. Mentions of his comments being called racist can be added to the main body; "racist" in the introduction ought to be replaced with something like "critical" (in line with the WP) or "controversial" (in line with the CBC). Kaotao (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our purpose here is to simply regurgitate the most reliable sources we can find.... and lead our readers to them so they can educate themselves further. We have a source that contradicts these? Moxy🍁 01:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Our purpose here is to provide a factual encyclopedia that does not blatantly lie to its readers. Our purpose is not to selectively choose terms used only by tabloids over terms used by more reputable sources, then to pretend that we are doing so to enlighten our readers. Find me a reliable source that contradicts that his comments were critical of immigrants. Kaotao (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to present any sources to advance your position. Moxy🍁 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy and Meters: there are multiple sources listed in the Talk:Don_Cherry#Racist_vs_Controversial section above which simply call Cherry controversial and not racist. Unfortunately nobody added them to the article. For the text that does mention racism, MOS:RACIST and WP:RSOPINION recommends using WP:INTEXT in addition to WP:INCITE when sources use "contentious labels" like racist. This also needs to be corrected. Flibirigit (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should be acknowledging all the terms used and explain the context around them or link our readers to sources. We should not leave our readers in the dark or give weight to one over the other if that can't be demonstrated. We should summarize and guide our readers to proper sourcing so they can make their own conclusions and add academic publications that have analyzed this. This is done for much more controversial topics such as Canadian genocide of indigenous people. We don't need some sort of section on it all we have to do is simply say something like; "his comments have variously been described as lovely, endearing, knowledgeable etc..." Moxy🍁 03:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there are multiple sources calling his comments racist. Some of them are linked in the lead, including USAToday and Reuters. There are others using that term or similar ones: "racism and xenophobia", "racial xenophobia", "discriminatory", "hurtful", "offensive and discriminatory", "divisive", etc. And these sources, far from being "tabloids" include CTV, SportsNet (his employer at the time), academia, The New York Times, etc. Meters (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters There are also multiple reputable sources that aren't calling his non-racist comments racist. "Hurtful", "offensive", and "divisive" are not synonyms of racist. Kaotao (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have never denied that such sources exist calling him racist. Unforturnately, the currrent text seems to ignore sources which do not use the term racist. I support saying something like "his comments have variously been described as racist or controversial". Flibirigit (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kaotao, please stop with the photos. It's very annoying and condescending. Flibirigit (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit Condescending? She's the mascot of the site. Kaotao (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flibirigit I added that to the main body. Kaotao (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are nine sources in the article (all reliable) that describe the comments as racist. Wikipedia uses reliable sources as the basis for everything written here. Whitewashing the word "racist" from the article is not "Abiding by Wikipedia's rules", it's the exact opposite. Use the text provided by sources, which was already pointed out by Meters (talk), Moxy🍁 , and others. Andrew Englehart (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most reliable sources (such as the CBC, as pointed out) do not use the term racist. MOS:RACIST advocates for using different terms when possible, and different terms are indeed used by the most reliable sources cited in the article. Kaotao (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restored..... I suggest you review User:Guy Macon/One against many. Moxy🍁 16:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy There no consensus against bringing the article in line with MOS:RACIST. I was arguing with you, and others, for making the article factual; that occured before Fibirigit noted that MOS:RACIST prohibits usage of the word "racist" when possible. Since then, over a month passed with no attempt to contest the now MOS:RACIST compliant lead either with a reversion or in the talk page, until you and Andrew showed up against Fib (who has reverted Andrew once already) and I. That makes it 2 vs 2 for and against MOS:RACIST. Not a consensus. Kaotao (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to change what has been longstanding despite your misinterpretation of MOS:RACIST avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject... [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The fact that it was removed without an edit summary by an IP doesn't change the fact that the vast majority here believe it's best to inform our readers and let our readers make a decision on the usage of the term by multiple sources. We are not here to sanitize articles but to engage readers in educating them with reliable sources. You're in the midst of a discussion with long time content editors who have decades of experience with this.Moxy🍁 17:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy It wasn't removed by an IP; it was removed by me. A month ago. It stayed up. And Fibrilgit kept it up just yesterday. MOS:RACIST does advocate for using other terms when possible, and numerous reliable sources—the most reliable cited sources in the article (and thus the ones with reputations to uphold)—do use different terms; thus MOS:RACIST absolutely does apply here. You've straight up refused to provide a pertinent case for your point the entire time I've had the displeasure of speaking to you; "engaging readers by educating them with reliable sources" is complete nonsense in an argument about which term used by reliable sources should be used. Do you think that I can't read, that other editors you want to convince can't read, or both? The edit which uses "controversial" that stood, no contest, for over a month, moves the sources objectively calling his remarks "racist" down into the body to back the claim that "people called his remarks racist", leaving the most reliable sources, such as the CBC, which don't call them racist, in the lead. This follows MOS:RACIST precisely. The vast majority here did not contest that edit; so, again, 2 vs 2. If you'd like, "controversial, called racist by some" in the lead would also be MOS:RACIST compliant, but I'd assume you're not going to budge, or even acknowledge what I'm saying. Kaotao (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that your pov on a policy vs many many sources helps our readers. How the hell our we to say he got fired if we dont say what the sources say?[10]
Moxy🍁 17:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy Yep, still stonewalling. Not only are you stonewalling, but you're misrepresenting, cherrypicking, and outright fabricating cites for it;
Rush, Curtis (April 29, 2013); Don was "called racist" in 1989, "racist" appears nowhere else in the article
Allen, Kevin (November 12, 2019); Opinion article
"Covering Don Cherry"; "described as racist" and "accused of racism", same as in my edit; here's another quote;
""No question the language that he used in this commentary has been pointed out as being incredibly divisive, as alluding to new immigrants, or newcomers to Canada being the ones who do not have respect for the veterans."
That language is very precise, particularly the phrase “alluding to new immigrants”. I saw this as accurate, and fair - and much in line with the values Mr. Birch felt were missing in CBC’s coverage."
As for the other CBC cites covering Fergus, valid, but that's just in a single image caption; in most cases, including the entirety of the CBC's main article on the controversy other terms are used.
Draper, Kevin; Austen, Ian (November 11, 2019); "widely viewed as racist", no other mention of racist in the article; again, perfectly in line with MOS:RACIST and my edit, which stood for over a month.
"Myles Garrett, Don Cherry and the changing nature of the sports boys club"; Only uses the term "xenophobic" to describe his comments; also from The Conversation
So, out of your own cherrypicked sources, USA Today, and The Conversation are very much for using the term "racist", while the CBC and The Guardian use "racist" once or twice, primarily using other terms (the CBC in its own meta-article on Cherry only says that his comments were described as racist, and advocates for "incredibly divisive"), and finally, the Toronto Sun and the New York Times don't directly call him racist at all. A third of the sources you yourself picked as examples don't even call him racist! And another third prefer other terms. Two thirds of your own sources run counter to your point. Of course, logic only occurs to you when it backs what you want, it doesn't matter if they use other terms more often; all that matters is one of them uses racist at least once, then we must use it in place of all other terms used. Anything short of that is censorship and POV pushing. Both MOS and the sources are against you, and pretending you don't understand what I'm saying is only a valid tactic for so long.
GoodDay also agrees that racist is inaccurate, and that "anti-immigrant" would be correct. 3 vs 2. A consensus is brewing. Kaotao (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wow wall of text...have ask for more input from the Canada project (Canadians familiar with the topic) and the BIO noticeboard (editors wise to our policies). Have no clue what each will think of this. Clear we need more imput. My POV is mention them all. Again your free to present any other sources.Moxy🍁 19:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware Flibirigit mentioned "I support saying something like "his comments have variously been described as racist or controversial" Moxy🍁 19:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy I support this. Good idea. Kaotao (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy I also agree that we should mention that his remarks were called racist and all else without asserting that his remarks were racist. Kaotao (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So say what is in green below? Do we have sources that say anything else? Moxy🍁 20:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-immigration", rather than "racist", would be a more accurate description. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct a few sources indicate an xenophobia POV.[11] We should list them all as mentioned above. Say somthing like his controversial statements have been variously described as anti-immigration, xenophobia, or racist.Moxy🍁 19:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second: There are literally nine reliable sources already in the article that describe the comments explicitly as racist. There are more that could be added, but really, nine is enough; I don't feel like getting into a REFBOMB situation is necessary to make the point. If we avoided the term, then at that point we're inserting our own POV rather than abiding by the sources. Let's be real: the people apologizing for Cherry's racism are not making their arguments based on sources. Just stick to the sources. That's policy. Andrew Englehart (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about the proposal just above your post? Moxy🍁 23:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Allen, Kevin. "Hockey Night in Canada analyst Don Cherry fired after making racist comment on air". USA TODAY.
  2. ^ "Don Cherry's racist rant doesn't receive support of Royal Canadian Legion". Yahoo Sports. 12 November 2019. Retrieved 23 September 2023.
  3. ^ Bonesteel, Matt; Strauss, Ben; Bieler, Des (November 12, 2019). "Don Cherry fired from Sportsnet after criticizing immigrants on 'Hockey Night in Canada'". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 30, 2024.
  4. ^ Pingue, Frank (29 November 2019). "Hockey world watching as NHL deals with fallout over racism scandals". Reuters. Retrieved 18 August 2024. a popular hockey commentator was fired for remarks that were widely viewed as a racist attack on the patriotism of Canadian immigrants
  5. ^ "Don Cherry on relationship with Ron MacLean: 'I don't think we'll ever be friends again'". Yahoo Sports. 18 May 2022. Retrieved 23 September 2023. The longstanding intermission show on Hockey Night in Canada ended in 2019 when the then-85-year-old Cherry went on a racist rant, targeting Canadian immigrants for not wearing the red poppy on Remembrance Day.
  6. ^ Allen, Kevin. "Hockey Night in Canada analyst Don Cherry fired after making racist comment on air". USA TODAY.
  7. ^ "Don Cherry's racist rant doesn't receive support of Royal Canadian Legion". Yahoo Sports. 12 November 2019. Retrieved 23 September 2023.
  8. ^ Pingue, Frank (29 November 2019). "Hockey world watching as NHL deals with fallout over racism scandals". Reuters. Retrieved 18 August 2024. a popular hockey commentator was fired for remarks that were widely viewed as a racist attack on the patriotism of Canadian immigrants
  9. ^ "Don Cherry on relationship with Ron MacLean: 'I don't think we'll ever be friends again'". Yahoo Sports. 18 May 2022. Retrieved 23 September 2023. The longstanding intermission show on Hockey Night in Canada ended in 2019 when the then-85-year-old Cherry went on a racist rant, targeting Canadian immigrants for not wearing the red poppy on Remembrance Day.
  10. ^
  11. ^ Elcombe, Tim (January 26, 2025). "Don Cherry's xenophobia forces Canada to grapple with tough questions". The Conversation. Retrieved March 15, 2025.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Cherry&oldid=1284901831"