Talk:Colin Cowherd/Archive 1

you can't just come in and delete half an article on a whim
I most certainly can, when it fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. I am not going to trip the WP:3RR rule, which I believe you already have.. You are edit warring here. SirFozzie 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell me why this article shouldn't have a chainsaw taken to it, good AND bad
It is horribly unsourced, bloated, and varies from one swing of POV to another. If I went in and removed everything that failed BLP/RS right now, this thing would be a stub. SirFozzie 22:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed most of the radiocruft on the article, focusing this article on HIM and his controversies, not his show. You want to add it back, go to the article about the show. (I don't think it can be reliably sourced and is unencyclopedic, but it fails BLP big time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 22:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

I disagree with all of the above and have reverted your hacking. --STS01 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not hacking, it's removing unencyclopedic information that shouldn't be in an article. It is A) Not Reliably Sourced (and per WP:RS, the burden is on the person who wants to ADD the information, not the one who wants to take it out), and B)Fails BLP. SirFozzie 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, before you blindly go reverting me, your version has the awards section in two seperate places. SirFozzie 23:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You must assume good faith with other editors. Your attacks are detrimental to this article. --STS01 23:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Two way street, there. Reverted your hacking, hmm?. I have explained myself (and also built a case down further below) on why this should NOT be in an article, per WP's rules. Please tell me why you think it SHOULD. SirFozzie 00:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on the following items to be removed as not WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:ATT
''This is not your typical sports talk radio show. Celebrities and popular culture frequently draw analysis and their fair share of scorn. Cowherd, though, tempers his biting critiques with irreverent-yet-pointed punch lines.''

Hopelessly POV here. Has to go.

''Colin has several regular targets that he rants about.(some for entertainment & comedic effect) Among them: (removed large list of items) Cowherd also likes to gently goof on his wife Kim for her occasional empty-headed moments, though he makes up for this by constantly complimenting her looks, good spirit, athleticism, and her ability to keep him "real."''

Again, we're discussing Colin Cowherd. Not "The Herd With Colin Cowherd" (which has its own artcile on WP). If this radiocruft about the show needs to be ANYWHERE, it needs to be in the article about the show, not its host. And even then it needs to be properly attributed with a source that passes WP:RS.

The controversy section might need to go as well, it is sourced, but when I search for "Colin Cowherd" on Google News, the only link is to an AOL Sports Blog (and Blogs are NOT WP:RS). We need a reliable third party to source anything from.

This is what it should look like (and if no better sources are found for the controversey section, then THAT needs to go as well). Since it's sourced, the statement A self-proclaimed college football junkie, The Herd has a daily segment called "The Daily Football Fix",[1] a segment entirely devoted to talking about NCAA college football or the NFL, usually with a coach or ex-player analyzing. could also be left in, but again, I think that needs to be on the article about the show, not the article about HIM. SirFozzie 23:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further consideration and investigation, I do agree that some of the information about Colin Cowherds show should be moved to the article The Herd with Colin Cowherd. I've been dealing with an enormous amount of vandalism on this article. It's hard to assume good faith when there are so many editors attacking this article. I don't have time to engage in edit wars. Please wait for further discussion from other editors before removing so much information at one time. Thanks! STS01 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have agreed not to change the article until consensus is reached (I feel like unless it's OBVIOUS vandalism, instead of the electric-fence WP:3RR, if you're going to revert more then once, you better have taken it to the talk page, which I did. SirFozzie 00:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe a middle of the road approach as demonstrated by SirFozzie is the appropriate way to resolve this page. It was a bloated and slanted page before, and is slightly less so now. Bringing in an outside opinion was hardly a premature act as has been intimated on my talk page. Running roughshod over other editors for months on end has demonstrated the lack of consensus building in regards to this page, and it is important to bring in a person who can fairly approach the subject.--Bluefield 01:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "Big Lead"
Why should there be NOTHING on his page regarding his critical comments? Why should it all be moved to his show? If he said something like that on SportsCenter, would there be no note of it on his personal page and just on the SportsCenter page? Come On! Lasallefan

I agree this should be added to the site, there is an interesting piece by the Ombudsman from ESPN.com.

The above unsigned comment is from 76.80.250.139.

The comments aren't worthy of inclusion here. These questionably sourced & insignificant events are covered on The Herd with Colin Cowherd which is linked to this article. --STS01 18:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

They absolutely belong here. Colin Cowherd said them, on a show that bears his name. How can you possible argue that they shouldn't be on his page. And insignificant? The ESPN ombudsman devoted an entire column to it, to say nothing of many blogs addressing the issue. To say that there should be no mention of the issue on his page is absolutely ludicrous. Dburba 21:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with STS01's statement that they are questionable sourced and insignificant, I honestly believe that they should be on the article about the show. I have added it AND referenced it well on that article. (the Ombudsman's response, etcetera) SirFozzie 00:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
User talk:68.82.117.128 - Please refrain from deleting factual content from this page.

The alleged "factual content" that I deleted twice (more appropriately reverted) had statements like "The University of Virginia, because Cowherd is gay and an idiot.". That was taken directly from your Revision as of 19:47, 8 January 2007. I noticed that you didn't reinsert that twaddle this time around, although you did misspell at least one word and added unencyclopedic nonsense. I'd revert it again but I, unlike you, assiduously follow the rules regarding reverts and will pass the buck onto someone else for now.

Keep in mind that this is intended to be an encyclopedia, not your personal webhosting service. There is no place for the kind of nonsense you are spouting on this page. 68.82.117.128 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I get it now... 68.82.117.128 = Regular Target. I didn't catch the "gay" and "idiot" vandalism at first but that is now corrected. Thank you drive through.

No, you don't get it. This is not some personal conflict or contest that you have to win. In fact, by maintaining that you are correct to include such unencyclopedic nonsense as

- Strippers, er, dancers, named "Kitten." - Red Sox & Bama fan top the list. - The aforementioned "gay" comment

you are humiliating yourself and contributing not a whit to the goal of this whole thing: to inform people who the guy is, not to insult or denigrate others who might read it. As for me being a "regular target", that's not the case (I listen to his show regularly) but that has no relevance on the situation. You are putting yourself before the article, and that is inappropriate. This is not "your" article, just as it is not mine. The content you have contributed is inappropriate, and shows an inherent lack of respect for others, and is by the way very poorly written, being rife with spelling and grammar errors.

I've now tried to reason with you. Next time I will report you. I'm sorry it has to be that way, but it does. To repeat: this is not about you. Consider that before you continue this "war" you seem to want to fight. 68.82.117.128 20:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the history, I'm not the one who added the targets you keep deleting. I do happen to agree that these are regular targets that Collin often discusses on his show so I think they should remain. If you are truely interested in helping to maintain this article, pay closer attention to the edits. The gay comment has been removed and I regularly remove vandalism on this page.

I removed a section in the write up that repedaditive. Basically the same series of sentences were written about Colin Cowherd's passion for college football. I also removed parts where fans of singular teams were pointed out, because I felt this biased readers against Colin who are fans of those particular teams. Colin will mention any teams fans who are over reactionary and I believe he often chooses low hanging fruit. I did leave the UVA stuff though because that was a 4 to 5 month segment of his show where he singled them out.

I removed the reference to "kitten" in the quotes section. I don't think that added to the article, nor did it offer an insightful quote. 12.178.89.35 16:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, we must undo the butchery.

12.178.89.35 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC) "We" must just be you. I removed the perceived biased comments earlier and you reinserted them. Those comments aren't up to the usual "wiki" standard and if you need a forum to express yourself, I would suggest a blog. I placed the citation needed tag on both comments.

Rickramey - Please stop vandalising this page. thanks! STS01

MEDIA WATCH COMMENTARY: Cowherd's 'tornado-bait' comment takes callers by storm http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/SPORTS/702040331/1002

STS01 - Since I sourced my material, I'm hoping the 'tornado bait' story won't be deleted the way it was last week. Also, you might want to use a spell checker. You missed on 'vandalising'.

Rickramey - I don't see how this information is helpful to readers of this article. If we added every comment Colin Cowherd makes on his show, it would take weeks to read. Let's wait and see if the term "Tordado Bait" becomes a regular expression before adding it here ok? Try adding something useful instead of focusing your attention on slandering this person. Thanks! STS01 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

STS01 - How is it slander if it is the truth?

I am only pointing out how big of a hypocrite the guy is. He blasts people for what they say, he is not held accountable for the things he says. Again, it cannot be slander if it is the truth.

Rickramey I suggest that we hold off on adding anything about "Tornado Bait" at this time. If the term becomes regular on the show, then you can add it later. No problem. You haven't made any positive contributions here so far. It's quite obvious that your are just using this forum to vent your personal dislike for Colin Cowherd. I'd suggest that you vent your opinions in a blog or message board. STS01 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I just heard Colin Cowherds explanation of the term "Tornado Bait". He is definitely not targeting Southerners. See the term as it is used on the mobile home page. In the American Midwest, manufactured homes are sometimes facetiously referred to as "Tornado Magnets" or "Tornado Bait" due to the perception that tornados strike them more frequently than other structures. He is refering to "trailer trash" and that's not limited to people in the South. STS01 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way to prevent users from deleting the addition of information relating to his call for a DNS attack on a sports website on today's show? I've added it, only to see it deleted despite the fact that it is documented and verified. --Blue Field

Apparently you didn't listen to the entire show today. You are submitting your own personal opinion about the incident. It was not mean spirited. I'm sure the site is extremely grateful for the exposure. STS01 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I listened to the entire show on the archives prior to posting anything to ensure that I was not being biased. You can access it directly on the ESPN website. "I'm sure the site is extremely grateful for the exposure." Really? Being crashed for the past 12 hours is some sort of achievement and benefit for a website? Please, this is an objective thing. 1) It is a controversy 2) HE DID IT ON LIVE AND ARCHIVED RADIO and 3) It had a direct negative effect on a website. There is absolutely no reason to attribute this to a personal opinion.  The standard for Wikipedia is that it must be attributable to a reliable source, I believe Cowherd's own words are a reliable source.  --Bluefield

Telling his audience to all go to a website at once is not the same thing as calling for a denial of service attack. I will stop deleting it when it becomes factual and unbiased.

I say STS01 should be banned from editing the Colin Cowherd related pages. He deletes anything he disagrees with regardless of it's validity. He has become a hindrance instead of a help to this website.

I assure you my intentions here are to simply curb the enormous amount of vandalism I see here. As far as I'm concerned, this issue has been settled. IMO the story in question isn't worthy of mention here but I will leave it in since it seems to mean so much to Bluefield.STS01 21:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I may only be throwing more fuel on a fire that doesn't need it (I hope not), but I really have to take issue with STS01's statement that the controversies linked to Cowherd are "vandalism" and "[not] worthy of mention." Insignificant? Apparently Cowherd's own employer doesn't think so, because their official ombudsman weighed in on both the M Zone dustup and the Big Lead incident, and as a direct result of the latter, ESPN claims to have instituted a new official policy regarding on-air hosts instructing listeners to swamp a certain Web site or blog.

And on that subject, I think anyone would be perfectly justified in saying that Cowherd called for a denial-of-service attack against The Big Lead. Wikipedia's own entry for "denial-of-service attack" describes such an attack as "an explicit attempt by attackers to prevent legitimate users of a service from using that service," one that can include "disrupting a server by sending more requests than it can possibly handle, thereby preventing access to a service" -- pretty much exactly what Cowherd's listeners did. Moreover, it wasn't even as though Cowherd was telling his listeners to all go visit The Big Lead because of something really interesting TBL had posted that he wanted people to read; he specifically instructed his listeners to "shut it down" and, later, to "knock it out again, just for fun." I find it hard to characterize that as "not mean-spirited"; it certainly wasn't something he did to be nice.

The general consensus seems to be that these incidents belong on the show's entry page and not on Cowherd's; I respectfully disagree with that, but I can accept it. I have a much harder time, however, accepting the reasoning behind STS01's apparent unwillingness to let anything negative about Cowherd see the light of day, particularly when existing statements by both ESPN and Wikipedia contradict it. Captain Annoying 15:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Divorce Section
Colin Cowherd filed for divorce from his wife http://www.jud2.ct.gov/civil_inquiry/DispDetail.asp?DocNum=HHD-FA-07-4028879-S This should definitely be in there, since he talks about her (he did when they were together) non-stop. Put it in, because people want to know.


 * Court papers aren't a good primary source, is it being covered by third-party sources that fall under WP:RS? SirFozzie 16:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, he was talking about the absurdity of his then-wife getting one breast implant at a time until they could afford the other one on his show a few months ago.

Taylor Section
Hey, the reason why I cut down the Taylor section is, first that I think we were being overbroad in copying several paragraphs, verbatim from the Ombudsman's column (a possible Fair Use violation) into the article, when we could distill it down to one paragraph and get the same information. Secondly, we need to be careful not to give undue weight to controversies (I do agree it needs to be a part of the article, but it cannot dominate the article, and having several paragraphs on one incident was tipping the scales compared to the rest of the entry). Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

College attendance
I note something of an edit war on this page with respect to Colin Cowherd's college attendance, more specifically whether or not he graduated from college. The reference source, from the college itself, shows him to have received a Bachelor of Arts; another editor claims CC has stated several times on the show that he did not graduate. As a result, I have worded the statement neutrally to say he attended the college. Comments? Please provide reliable sources to contradict, if you wish to do so. Risker (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the "Attended but did not graduate" part.. by saying he attended, that's the bare neutral facts (as the college reference states). I agree with Risker above. Let's also cleave to NPOV. SirFozzie (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A little more information
For what years was Cowherd named sportscaster of the year? Can anyone find a source for this information. Thank you. Suffocation90 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversies
With respect to the lengthy debate about what to include on this page; here's my two cents: I think we would be remiss to leave out anything about the M Zone and Big Lead stories here. Using Don Imus as a similar example (or any host whose biography references specific incidents on their show), controversial actions by a media figure on their own program is worthy of inclusion in a biographical article. (It goes without saying, of course, that care should be taken to adhere to already-established Wikipedia standards.)

Cowherd has not been disciplined officially, but when his actions are deemed wrong by the official network ombudsman, it is a sign that the controversy is notable and I feel it crosses over from being a part of the show to being a part of the person. By looking at the article as it is, I don't feel we're painting a complete picture of Colin Cowherd by including only what's currently there. Slic e NYC (Talk) 02:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of compromise, would it be ok, to add one or two sentences per incident (in a section marked "Controversies from "The Herd With Colin Cowherd") with a quick description of the incident. BLP is a factor, I'd be able to feel ok about TheBigLead, because there's a rigorous source for that (the ombudsman's column on ESPN.COM), but I'm not so sure that the "Chicago Sports Review" (for the M Zone issue) would pass the higher bar for RS in a BLP article, for example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs) 05:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Sure, good idea. If you need a RS for the M Zone controversy, the ombudsman also weighed in on that: . Thanks for being willing to write something up. Slic e NYC (Talk) 13:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Take a look, any suggestions? SirFozzie 15:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

-- I agree that the controversies should be included. Since Colin Cowherd is listed on wikipedia due to his fame as a talk radio sportscaster, discussion of improprieties like plagiarism attacking The Big Lead should be included. I have inserted a brief section on the controversies. One of the sources includes an audio file of Cowherd's instructions for listeners to attempt to crash the site. bc88- 11 april 2007

looks like someone else beat me to it. I added a source linking to a blog which includes the audio file of Cowherd urging his fans to bring down The Big Lead.
 * I'm on the borderline about the link to MZone, BC, a blog would not normally rise to the point of a RS. However, the audio on the site MIGHT be a RS. I have to think about that. SirFozzie 15:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Due to the image at the top of the linked page and the regular profanity in this blog, I have removed this link. --STS01 18:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point. Sorry, BC, I have to agree with him on that one. SirFozzie 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, when I added a section of criticisms (then removed it, since someone had added a better soured section at around the same time), i focused mainly on the criticisms he received in blogs, since that seems to be the locus of most of these attacks. I thought it might be appropriate as a primary source, since it is a good example of a blog criticizing cowherd, but since the new criticism section does not focus on that, it should have been removed. thanks.

I'd love to see a cited mention of Cowherd's comment that the national sports media is trying to make women's basketball successful because they need it to be. The only differences between this comment, and the one that Rush Limbaugh made about Donovan McNabb, are that a) it wasn't racial, it was gender-based, b) it was on the radio and not TV, and c) he didn't say the word "desirous." Exact same sleazy, prejudiced sentiment, different target and venue. He should have gotten canned just like Imus and Limbaugh. For Cowherd to make the comment at another time that one should never talk about women's basketball is laughable.Thebookpolice (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You ever watch women's basketball? The level of play is so low that it isn't entertaining unless you have a personal relationship with one of the players. P.S. Given your gestapo-type sentiment toward differing opinion, you have chosen your nickname aptly. -S.A. Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.40.153 (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There's gotta be mention of his John Wall comments in the controversies section. They're either the 1st or 2nd most racist thing he's said on the air (the other being the Sean Taylor comments.) --Zach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.142.161.20 (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colin Cowherd. 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/20090219152724/http://theherdsword.com/ to http://www.theherdsword.com/

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) 13:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colin Cowherd. 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 tag to http://ftp.media.radcity.net/zmst/insideradio/Interviews/CowherdArticle04-08.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130125033543/http://blog.pundittracker.com/best-pundit-of-2012/ to http://blog.pundittracker.com/best-pundit-of-2012

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) 07:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)