Talk:Marty Brennaman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 06:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marty Brennaman bio -- family info not entirely accurate

The family info listed for Marty is not exactly correct. Sherri is NOT mother to Thom... if you check dates of birth, you would find this to be quite implausible. Thom (and I think Dawn, too, but I am not sure) are the product of Marty's earlier marriage. He married Sherri sometime after 1982, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.179.188 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cite a reference from a reliable source. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial comments

OK, folks, knock off the edit war over Marty's comments about the Cubs, or we'll have to lock down the article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Lock it down now with the comments removed entirely. How absurd to think such an event deserves a mention in an encyclopedia. My favorite team's broadcasters criticize other city's fans at least a couple times per month. 71.180.139.129 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously there is absolutely no reason to have that Cubs fan comment on here. Or do we need to edit every radio announcers article anytime he comments on another teams fans? It was a minor, minor incident blown up by poor Cubs fans who had their feelings hurt and I think having that as the majority of his article takes away from the article as a whole.

His comments received considerable media interest and buzz, and ruffled the feathers of a large national fan base. Some people learned who Marty Brennaman is for the first time as a result of the exposure of the incident, and omitting the incident entirely from the article may indicate a lack of a Neutral POV.Beam1985 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the concept of NPOV as it applies both on wikipedia and in other facets of life. The NPOV policy is not a guideline for determining the importance of a statement, nor is it a guideline that means that every last "good" or "bad" thing that a person has done is included in his biography in order to provide a "balanced" portrayal of that person. What NPOV means is that those items that are deemed important enough to include based on a variety of criteria are presented in a fair manner in which all important interpretations of that item are included and presented with neutral languange that betrays none of the biases of the wikipedia article author.
What we have hear is not an item worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Local announcers are responsible for keeping fans interested during their broadcasts, for drumming up enthusiasm for the home team, and stoking rivalries in order to keep their fans enganged throughout the season. A variety of methods are used to do this, and belittling the opoosing team and/or its fans may be part of this process. Many of these comments are relatively innocuous, while some come closer to the line of good taste, but the above poster is right that these kinds of comments are made all around and not unique to Mr. Brennaman. Ruffling the feathers of a "large national fan base" that quite frankly should not care about what one announcer for a competing team says anyway is hardly a claim to signifigance, as large national fan bases find dozens of things to get riled up about during any given week. Furthermore, your "national coverage" seems to come from local Chicago sources, blogs, and the like and not many important national news sources. I find no mention of it on epsn.com, si.com, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, or the New York Times, for example. Local papers, even those of national import, are going to focus on this because they like a little local incitement to sell copy. I have no idea whether any national television or radio outlets have picked up this "story", but, again, a little controversy is good for ratings. An encyclopedia is not ratings driven, however, and its editors need to put events in proper perspective. I had hoped wikipedia contributors could hold themselves to this standard, but on this page, regrettably it is currently looking like this is not the case. Indrian (talk)
While I respect your views in this matter, I must disagree with your opinion that the item isn't worthy of inclusion. I would like to point out that I never made any claim about any specifics of national media coverage, but here's 3 pages on the subject from Google News search results. The incident has been mentioned on ESPN. The originality of broadcasters making comments is irrelevant. 64.254.198.20 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
MLB.com is used as a source in the article, which is a national source of baseball news. 64.254.198.20 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion as well, but I do not take very seriously those who vandalize wikipedia as you did with your edits here [1] and here [2]. Indrian (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)