Talk:Ed the Sock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just adding a note. If you Google Ed the Sock and/or Steven Kerzner, you'll find him taking credit for any puppet with "attitude" that follwed his Ed puppet. He ignores the fact that Jim Henson had a cigarette-smoking SOCK puppet in "Sam and Friends," back in 1955; had hard-drinking, angry Muppets on Satruday Night Live in the 1970s, and even ALF, from 1986, had a bit of an edge to him. Ed's fans come in here and change the history. The fact is, Ed the Sock is a minor character which, after being on national Canadian television for over 13 years, isn't a property of interest outside of Canada and its local Toronto audience. Kerzner claims that he beats The Tonight Show and The Late Show in the ratings, but only in Toronto, and only on the only night he is on, which is Friday. His local audience generates a ratings spike, but he is not beating the big shows, since he isn't there to compete with them 5 nights a week, nor has he ever produced a full week of shows in his entire career. His is a weekly show, not a weeknight show.

His weak website speaks for itself, considering the length of time he's been on Canadian TV: http://www.edthesock.com/

Contents

[edit] Kerzner link

During my edit re: Fromage I put back the wikilink to Kerzner since it is now showing as a red link, as opposed to a self-referencing redirect which is was before. 23skidoo 22:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


It should be noted that the show 'Ed the Sock' now does appear in the U.S. on G4TV as part of their "Midnight Spank" programming.

[edit] Any actual information on Steven, not his character?

???

Steve prefers to keep the focus on Ed. I once saw an article on his work with Ed in the Toronto Star (I believe) that obviously was endorsed by Steve, but I'm personally reluctant to include any details. --The GATEKeeper 04:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Can anyone explain to me why a link to an interview with Ed The Sock would be considered "linkspam" by a user on here?

--The GATEKeeper 00:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC) When almost your only contribution to Wikipedia is adding links to your own site? That might be it. Please see Wikipedia:External links and WP:V and WP:CITE.

The problem is two-fold: it's using a free resource to generate hits, and the content is not verifiable. It is required that information be provided from reputable sources, and in general websites don't meet that.

I'll get someone else to look over it. brenneman(t)(c) 01:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I can live without the 3 visitors Wiki generates if you actually feel my articles aren't relevant. That said, I think the random ramblings of Wiki writers is probably less reliable than 90% of the links created from Wiki to outside websites, and I'd rather add those than my own comments. --The GATEKeeper 02:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been wrong before, it would be mad of me to think that I couldn't be wrong this time. In fact, I've had a bad run with external links these last few days so it would be about par for the course. That being said, I remove lots and lots of external links and I'm usually right... which could simply be making it harder for me to see that I'm wrong this time.
I've put a note on an admin's talk page asking for review, but not a very nice one. (The note, not the admin.) It wouldn't hurt if you did the same. Look at the logs to find one that's active and drop them a note.
Worst thing that happens is that I have to eat some crow, I've done that before.
By the way, have a look at WP:WEB. If TheGate qualifies, why not write an article? C'mon, join our random rambling.
brenneman(t)(c) 02:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm honestly not clear enough on everything here to know what to do on the logs page, so I'll happily accept whatever the powers that be decide. I also honestly should say I understand Wiki could get overwhelmed if too many links were posted.
As for writing, I know I should contribute now and then, and I believe my site qualifies, but perhaps I just need to get to know the way things work to feel comfortable enough to do that. --The GATEKeeper 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The first paragraph seems a bit overboard on the anti-Ed commentary, and the rest of the article goes the other direction with a bit too much praise. The entire thing needs to be reworded to more neutral language. Powers 15:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what's overboard in the first paragraph. The bit about being compared to Triumph should be moved down, I'll agree there, but I don't see an NPOV issue in the first paragraph. What statements in particular concern you? 23skidoo 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I took another look, it's not as bad as it seemed at first (the first paragraph, that is). I think what bugs me most is the final clause; it just seems to be trying too hard to discredit Kerzner (especially considering Kerzner hasn't even been mentioned yet). I think that last clause could be removed with much detriment to the article. But that's a minor issue, admittedly. Powers 22:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would just add that the "Sam & Friends" link seems tacked on. The brief explanation in the opening paragraph alludes to this link perhaps, but it seems less than relevant. --The GATEKeeper 19:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Henson fan

Whenever you leave an encyclopedia open to the public, things can get odd. Google "Ed the Sock" and you get numerous claims from his creator, Kerzner, that Triumph the insult dog is a rip-off of his sock. http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/02/14/347102.html http://www.counterbias.com/003.html "Triumph the puppet pooch popped up. "'Don't even talk to me about that piece of crap. Ripoff. It's amazing" Ed the Sock snapped.'" http://www.mavericktimes.com/edthesock.html

Just look at a pic of Don Rickles, with his bow tie, insults, and you have Triumph. Many comedians of the time had a cigar. Also, Conan O' Briend had a puppet on before Triumph; it was the NBC Peacock, a puppet representation of the NBC peacock logo.

Ed owes a lot more to Sam and Friends than Triumph owes to Ed. Kerzner threatened to sue NBC, but he never did it. He ejoys badmouthing them, but doesn't have the guts to follow through.

Whoever has the final say, would you please leave out the material which claims Trumph is a rip off of Ed if you're going to remove the Sam and Friends material? Is that fair enough?

I think some of that stuff is part of Kerzner/Ed the Socks humour, talking big, swearing and getting annoyed at things etc. Also, part of that #1 thing is we had some voting thing afew years ago "whoes the most popular Late Night host" or something, all I remember is the advertisements in the subway. Highlandlord 02:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] AMERICAN point of view?

"It is fairly common for Canadian fiscal conservatives to also be socially moderate or liberal."

What the heck is this doing in here? This is a commonality, this is the what the Conservative Party of Canada stands for. It's like saying "American fiscal conservatives are commonly socially conservative, as well."

It really bothers me that this has to be included as a Canadiana factoid, and America really seems to be the only country who would need this frivolous bit of information. Canada has four or five major parties (Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Greens, BQ), America has two. It should be obvious that you shouldn't judge a person simply by the name of the party they prefer. Yeesh. Plus, if you cram everyone as "conservative" and "liberal" you're saying that there are only two wholly-reaching points of view which you could possibly adopt.

It's Wikipedia.org, not Wikipedia.us. This really has no business being in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.244.18 (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)