Talk:Merril Hoge

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

Note to editors[edit]

Please refrain from inserting original research and POV comments regarding Hoge's on-air analysis. This is an encyclopedia article, not a opinion column. WarpstarRider 20:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Don't make the comment about him denouncing his faith unless you have a source to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdplayahatadegree (talk • contribs) 19:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN Evidence of Hoge's bias against Vince Young.[edit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDahCWm0oVg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFGucgncvYo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96lJQORkbjQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kQaJKEac98 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPgcSwWnYrk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.184.55 (talk • contribs). 00:01, April 11 2007 (UTC)

  • Um, no. For one thing, YouTube videos are not reliable sources. The other problem is, using a few instances of criticism and using them to claim the Hoge has "bias against Young" or "irrational hatred of Young" or whatever keeps being inserted into the article is a textbook example of original research. It doesn't belong here. WarpstarRider 01:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny how you keep on reverting all these edits on Merril Hoge. You must either hate Vince Young, or be a Merril Hoge lover. Perhaps both. Either way, anyone that knows anything about football knows how full of crap Hoge is. Is Young great, or even going to be great? Not yet, and who knows? But does he suck, as Hoge basically is saying? Absolutely not. He took a team that was absolutely lost and clueless, and after becoming the starter, nearly took them to the playoffs in the tough AFC. Sorry, but Merril Hoge shows that he clearly lacks football knowledge if he says that some guy that no one has even heard of, is a better prospect than Matt Leinart or Vince Young. We aren't talking about skills or how their career will turn out, but as far as PROSPECTS go... what he said was simply ridiculous. 71.252.184.55 03:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for my latest edit, I think it deserves to stay, as many people DO feel that he is biased against Vince Young, whether its true or not. It is evidenced by the large amounts of edits to this page on the said subject, as well as being a common topic of debate amongst many who discuss sports, including sports forums on the internet. 71.252.184.55 03:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia article, and everything must be validly sourced. Especially a biographical article; see WP:BLP. "Guys on internet forums think he's an idiot" is not valid encyclopedic content. Neither is your recent edit [1], which is also a blatant violation of WP:WEASEL.
Personally, I don't like him very much either. But my opinion of the man doesn't matter, and neither do other editors' opinions; this article simply needs to be kept in line with WP policy. That means that only verifiable, reliably sourced information should be placed here, and not the opinions of people on internet sports forums, blogs, etc. WarpstarRider 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I say that we should delete the part where it is talking about him being a Steelers homer, and says "...often with humorous reactions from the other analysts." Personally, I don't think what he says is funny at all, and neither is what the other ESPN meatheads say. Saying that what he says and their reactions are humorous is an opinion, and should be deleted then. 71.252.184.55 15:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Merril Hoge's criticism of Vince Young has been a fairly significant subject of controversy, leading Hoge to get into a few on-air shouting matches with his co-hosts, most notably Ron Jaworski. Unless WarpstarRider is himself Merril Hoge, I don't see why he thinks that this one sentence isn't valid. Anybody that follows what goes on among the NFL analysts at ESPN knows all about Hoge's constant criticisms of Vince Young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.155.83 (talk • contribs) 20:59, April 11 2007 (UTC)

Again, you need reliable sources that show that his commentary about Young is notable. Analysts criticise players all the time; what makes this instance so significant? WarpstarRider 23:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He got into an on-air shouting match with Ron Jaworski over his criticism of Young, there's been quite a few newspaper articles written about it, and of course if you watch Merril Hoge it's pretty quickly evident that he has something out for Young. But you're right, proof is needed, what the hell do newspaper articles, hundreds of blog entries, hours of sports radio discussion, and tons of video clips of Hoge never saying anything positive about Young prove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.155.83 (talk • contribs) 13:43, April 12 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... no rebuttal to the last comment, yet Warpstarrider edits it out, instead of giving a good reason why it doesn't belong. It is a fact. He criticizes Vince Young often, and many people have been led to thing that he has a bias against Vince Young because of that. Does he have a bias? Perhaps, perhaps not. But its clear that he does criticize him rather often, and that many watchers feel that it is excessive. Especially to get into an on-air shouting match to prove a point that had no backing or proof whatsoever. 71.252.184.55 16:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There still have been no reasons or sources provided that show why this is of such vital importance that it needs to be included. This is no different than any other commentary on these sports analysis shows; this point is just being singled out because the player ended up having a good season. WarpstarRider 19:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the links provided by the other guy good enough for you? Dumbass... 71.252.184.55 02:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how this is what I've been asking for the whole time... WarpstarRider 11:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could have simply watched the videos, which showed him saying the exact same things that he was quoted as saying in those articles... 71.252.184.55 14:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not getting it. Read the policy pages: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:BLP. For one, YouTube videos (which are likely copyright violations) can't be used as sources. You need to provide reliable, published sources (such as the newspaper articles that were finally produced) to back these things up, as well as to back up the assertion that the on-air incidents are notable enough for encyclopedic coverage. That's how things work around here. WarpstarRider 09:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possum61 (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)I don't care what you think of Vince Young. This kind of crap does not belong on wikipedia:[reply]

Hodge has drawn ire from some fans and critics for his criticism of Titans quarterback Vince Young[1], but he has been proven correct on all accounts, because Vince Young proved to be a mental midget and the definition of "suck". The problem is Texas VY jock riders can't wake up and smell the odor of fail that surrounds Vince Young on a daily basis or recognize that he's one of the biggest busts in NFL history, so they just continue to bash a analyst who has been spot on with his criticisms of Vince Young since day one. <--------- i bet you feel stupid now, huh?

Wow^^^^ that's so mature and ignorant. Sarcasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.86.237.68 (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wyatt, Jim (2006-12-15). "ESPN's Hoge not yet a fan of Young". The Tennessean. Retrieved 2007-02-14. Retrieved from Google cache.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Merril Hoge. 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) 21:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Merril Hoge. 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) 07:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Merril Hoge. 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) 07:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Merril_Hoge&oldid=1207607390"