Talk:Eddie McGuire

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

Misc[edit]

I see my add about Eddie as Humphrey B Bear in 12th man finally deleted after adding it 3 years ago. Hehe, finally every add I've ever made to wikipedia has been removed. Skinhat


For more info see Media Man Australia @http://www.mediaman.com.au/profiles/mcguire.html


Thanks for tidying that up and shifting the CNNNN piece lower. I can't say I've ever heard him called Toorak Eddie. Is this commonly used? Grimhim 20:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to hear a bit about his childhood, which is not yet mentioned in the intire article. I remember hearing that he was born and raised in Broadmedows, as well as having attended Broadmedows high school, which should be mentioned.

I think his incompetency as Nine Network CEO needs some more detail.

In the 'Football media' section the page says "Despite Lane's resignation, Friday Night Football proved a huge success for Channel Nine," but there is no previous mention of Lane or his resignation, and no first name to indicate who Lane is. Again, in the 'CEO of the Nine Network' section, it says "McGuire's decision to force Wendt off the Sunday program backfired with the relaunch of the show on 3 September 2006", with no previous mention of Wendt or the Sundayshow. I can only presume it is Jana, but the first name should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.213.122 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Eddie's a wanker"[edit]

The edit that I added refering to the Port Adelaide crowd chanting "Eddies a wanker" is not vandalism! This is a good example of how Eddie is percieved by some football fans as well as how football fans react to someone they don't like. Adding to this the incident was also recorded in the Melbourne newspaper "The Age" hence it has a reliable source, and therefore was a real incident that is worth noting. I find it interesting that this was the only externally referenced piece of information on the page and it was removed! Does Eddie have Wikipedia editing goons?

Clearly the answer to your question is, "Yes".

The more significant questions are who, and why?

NPOV[edit]

On from "In May 2006, McGuire traveled..." there seems to be a bias view including "The locals were quite peeved". Last time I checked "peeved" isn't even a word. There are also no links to articles to support these clams. And there is no mention of the fund raising that has been promoted by the Nine Network which leads me to think once again that this is nothing more then a bias paragraph. The changes made by Billyharrison on 9th May 2006 seems to be less bias to the current article. Lodders 10:36, May 11 (AEST)


Thanks to Billyharrison, for fixing that up, lets hope it stays that way.Lodders 11:11, May 12 (AEST)


Fair bit of Eddie-Bashing here. Removed the following baseless opinion:

Moreover, his well-honed 'good guy' image has been irretrievably tarnished, making a return to on-air duties unlikely.

And this assumption around "popular culture"

"Most newpaper headlines featuring his name now routinely link it to the word 'bone' or 'boning'."''

I've got no great love for the man but let's try to keep the bias out of this. NoBias 7:16, September 29 2006(AEST)


Lodders: FYI, peeved is definitely a real word, in relatively common use (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peeved). ojitarian 13:19, November 16 2006 (AEST)

Old NPOV[edit]

OK...why is there an NPOV notice in this page? I checked the discussion page and nothing came up on the NPOV...BigDan 11:57, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Public speculation[edit]

According to the PBL website, it doesn't just control the Nine Network (which it could if it owned 51% of it); it owns it. Grimhim 07:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you need a link to confirm this: [[1]]Grimhim 10:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism[edit]

Is this thing about autism real, or is it a surruptitious vandalization? Also, PBL owns 45% of Channel 9, which gives it effective control. But it doesn't own it outright. You can still buy Channel 9 shares! :) - Richardcavell 10:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the autism reference. I can't find anything published anywhere that suggests this. It sounds mischievous. And I'm baffled by your view, Richardcavell, that PBL is a minority shareholder in Nine but somehow "effectively controls" it. The network is 100% owned by PBL. PBL appoints its CEO. Nine is not a listed company. Unless you're aware of something that's so far eluded the ASX or James Packer, the only way to buy shares in Nine is by buying shares in PBL. But all means point me to a good source if you can find evidence to the contrary. Grimhim 03:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Nine was delisted on 9/11/1994. *Bangs Head*. - Richardcavell 09:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWTBAM host[edit]

The article is incorrect. WWTBAM had a different host initially - an older man with grey hair. I clearly remember watching the first episodes in 1999 and it had a different host. Davez621 13:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing this with Frank Warrick, the Brisbane Channel 7 newsreader, who hosted "Million $ Chance of a Lifetime" on Seven. The show went head to head with Eddie's for a season before Seven conceded defeat.Grimhim 23:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'bone' = sack?[edit]

When has the colloquial 'bone' EVER meant sack? Whilst the intention may have been to fire Rowe, the statement would most commonly be interpreted as a sexual reference. --Stickyweb 08:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. "Bone" means "fuck", it doesn't mean "sack".

Not any more! The funny thing is, Eddie got Boned himself!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.59.71 (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CEO resignation[edit]

Can't find any web as yet to this, but this is true. --glasnt<3 03:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that report is false. Eddie was sacked (or to use his terminology "boned").

9 vs. Nine[edit]

I think it's fine to say "Channel 9", but when shortening it to just the number, it should be Nine, not 9. I've made some edits accordingly. JackofOz 01:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation[edit]

Eddie McGuire is the outgoing CEO of Nine, he has not yet left the position and will not officially step down until june 30, 2007.

(Jones234Jones 10:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Get your facts straight Jonesy - Eddie was sacked, he did not "resign".

Image[edit]

This article badly needs a photo. ROxBo 22:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Put it on Wikipedia:Requested pictures and you may get one. Chicken-7 11:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Do we really need to see his smug, supercilious face? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.59.71 (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: deleted content[edit]

Popular culture

Yesterday I added this under the heading of popular culture, unfortunatly someone saw fit to remove it:

" In 2006 the Australian Musical Comic Sammy J (aka Sam McMillan) released a satirical song, entitled "The Eddie McGuire Song". It makes the allegation that McGuire once raped him, and challenges McGuire to deny it. The truth of the allegation is not known, it is assumed to created as a joke but McGuire is yet to rise to the bait.

A version of the song is available on Sammy J MySpace at http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=93459383 "

It's all true and verifiable if you follow the link, I just don't know how to embed it as a reference in wiki code. Could someone please do that instead of arbitrarily deleting true and relevant information. Also see www.sammy-j.com as evidence.

Thanks

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Close to three-quarter time calls'?[edit]

You might be interested to find that the match in question took place in 2002, and not 2003 as was stated in the article (edited). This can be told due to the fact that the Port Adelaide players are wearing the teal strip which the Power opted to don for the clash (round nine, 2002, Friday Night Football, Collingwood gave the Power an early start before clawing to within a kick, Anthony Rocca narrowly failing to tie the scores with half a minute remaining).

Is it actually a controversy? Labelled an 'embarassing error', wouldn't all sporting commentators have had moments like these? One to ponder... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnson 26 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hancock[edit]

There is a slight facial resemblance to the late British comedian Tony Hancock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.250.143 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Section for "eddie haters"[edit]

From reading the discussion page I suspect a lot of "Eddie haters" are desperate to add their two cents on the article, and lets be honest they are not Collingwood Magpie supporters. Can I suggest to the rightful author of the Eddie McGuire article to actually create a new Section called "Eddie McGuire Football Controversies" to the affect. I think this would satisfy most haters as their would be frenzy of additions and edits. The recent Collingwood Grand Final win will certainly add further interest to this proposed section. --211.27.67.46 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't encourage a criticism and controversy section. They never make articles better. Just watch the edits closely. HiLo48 (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Collingwood supporter and I dislike Eddie, but this article is not the place to air that. #notmypresident --118.200.160.78 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Business entrepreneur"?[edit]

I have removed the words 'business entrepreneur' and replaced them with game show host. If anyone knows any business he has started please add it, otherwise this statement is untrue. Although he was CEO of Channel 9 this does not make him a entrepreneur. Also I put sports journalist, instead of just 'journalist' as I think this more accurately reflected what he has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.218.57 (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was sacked as CEO of Channel 9. Maybe that makes him a "Failed Business entrepreneur"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.38.64 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racist[edit]

His racial vilification of champion football player Adam Goodes is an issue that editors should ensure in not sanitized in any way from the main article by Eddie supporters and Channel 9. This person has made his fortune from his "personality". This dark aspect of his true character and personality is important to highlight to counter-balance the false public persona he promotes of himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.44.46 (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We state that he has acknowledged his remark amounted to racial vilification. No sanitising there. But we draw the line at describing him as a racist. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 13:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Maguire's statement is an example of a person inadvertently revealing their true nature. His so-called "apology" was prefaced by these word - and I quote - "I wasn't racially vilifying anyone". How can you say, Jack of Oz, that "he has acknowledged his remark amounted to racial vilification"?? Please note, I am not having a go at you. We are all entitled to our views on this. But they were Maguire's exact words at the time, were they not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.79.15 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our job is to describe what happened, as described in reliable sources, and let our readers draw their own conclusions. It's not our job to tell the world that he is a racist, or not. You can decide that if you like, but it won't impact our article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough HiLO48. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.58.111 (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, even if it were our job to come to a conclusion about him - which it isn't - we'd balance a great many positive things he's done over many years to counter racism, against one (1) negative incident that he has profusely apologised for. This one incident - and nobody's excusing him for it, certainly not me - does not suddenly eradicate all the good work he's done in the opposite direction. How does this one incident reveal his "true nature", and how come all the good stuff he's done fail to reveal anything about his nature? That just doesn't work on any level. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I don't find his past conspicuous charity and self-serving "good stuff" overly redeeming. Maguire has prior form when it comes to inappropriate denigrating comments, firstly sexist and now racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.40.30 (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to refer to the following quotation from the article, concerning the racism controversy Eddie McGuire has been involved in:
On Friday 24 May 2013, during a match at the MCG, a 13-year-old Collingwood fan racially vilified Sydney Swans player Adam Goodes by referring to him as an 'ape'.
...
McGuire ... said that the girl did not know that what she had said was a racist slur.
This simply asserts that calling someone an ape is a racial slur; but I have never heard of this before, and it is not self-evidently true to me that it is. It seems to me that this girl is certainly guilty of being rude and abusive in a general sense (really not all that notable in itself for a 13-year-old caught up in the emotion of a football match), but not racist - unless there is some widely-known but non-standard meaning of the term "ape" that I am not privy to.
It certainly is a term of general insult or abuse, as are probably many, many things yelled at football matches (many very likely much worse than this); but I don't see how it is specifically a term of *racial* abuse. I feel this article should not simply assert that it is without explaining why, and in whose opinion it is.
So on what basis does the article make this assertion? If a reliable source can be found that indicates that this is generally accepted as being racial abuse, perhaps it should be mentioned - or else the insult should simply be quoted, and then mentioned, not as *being* racial abuse (as if it were an undisputed fact), but as being interpreted by so-and-so as racial abuse (and the various people who have asserted this could then be mentioned); and readers could then draw their own conclusions as to whether it can reasonably be considered racial abuse.
Does anyone else agree with me on this? I would modify the article myself, only I haven't been following this affair quite closely enough to be able to quote all the relevant sources and people. M.J.E. (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that Adam Goodes took it as a racist comment. If it had been "You're an idiot!", I doubt he would have been anything like as upset as he was. It may not have been in the girl's mind at all, but it's easy to see how a certain unenlightened cast of mind might think "Aborigines = sub-human = ape". That Goodes took it that way is what's important here. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jack is right. Even local legislation takes this position. It's the view of the target of the words that matters, not what's "generally accepted". Wording such as the latter would only lead to endless debate, inevitably involving more racially based comment about the victim. That is to be avoided at all costs. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically Wikipedia is biased towards protecting alleged victims "at all costs", even if it means not following secondary sources. If you really want to keep the word "unknowingly" out you should at least change the reference to one that favours your bias. Doing otherwise, is effectively interpreting the primary sources which is original research. Hopefully the recent changes in Wikipedia culture haven't resulted in changes to that fundamental policy. Ansell 22:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think HiLO48 is correct, but it is an interesting issue. Not long ago, Australian cricketer Andrew Simmons was abused by a large number of a crowd in India, calling him a "monkey". He claimed the abuse was racial vilification, and no doubt perceived it to be so, but the motivation of the abuse was in reality his unusual style of wearing sunscreen - by wearing prominent white zinc cream sunscreen around his mouth - which caused members of the crowd to abusively compare his appearance to a monkey's face. I am not saying Simmons was wrong in the stand he took. But where the definition of racism is in the heart of the abusee, rather than the abuser - these definitional issues will continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.37.245 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's Andrew Symonds. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 12:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eddie McGuire. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 02:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eddie McGuire. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about Eddie McGuire here:[edit]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Eddie_McGuire --120.22.146.148 (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eddie_McGuire&oldid=1194050696"