Jump to content

Talk:Mark Howe

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

Now this is more like it.

[edit]

I've thought for many years that one of the biggest HHOF screwjobs was that Mark Howe hadn't been a first- or second-ballot inductee. Well done.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  12:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post playing career

[edit]

Discussion moved from my personal talk page as it pertains to this article:

Mark Howe

[edit]

I have again reverted your edits to the Mark Howe page stating that he "lives in Philadelphia with his wife, Ginger." Mark has been a good friend and professional colleague of mine for more than thirty years. I see and have dinner with him often in the pressroom of the Philadelphia Flyers when he is there scouting for the Detroit Red Wings, most recently last Thursday with both Mark and his dad, Gordie, who was here for Mark's jersey number retirement by the Flyers last night. As you can see from the return address on this envelope which he sent me last August, Mark currently lives in Jackson, NJ, a South Jersey suburb of Philadelphia. He and Ginger have also been separated for more than three years. The Detroit Red Wings page that you cited is way out of date. Centpacrr (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That all might be fine and dandy, but does not seem to fit WP:V and seems like WP:OR.--UnQuébécois (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This information is neither "unverifiable" nor is it "original research". Howie's entry in the 2011-2012 Detroit Red Wings Media Guide can be found on page 18 of that publication and as to family it states only that he has three children but makes no mention of his former wife, Ginger, from whom he been separated for about five years. I have also provided you with proof positive documentation (a US postal cover he sent to me last August with his return address plainly printed on it) that he does not reside in Philadelphia, but instead lives in Jackson, NJ, a rural community located in south central New Jersey almost sixty miles NE of center city Philadelphia. As the location of Mark's residence and his marital status is private personal information that is not really relevant to the article, however, I have removed all reference to both from it altogether. Centpacrr (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All you provided was a pdf of an envelope that "came" from someone, with a return address for a "Mr Mark Howe", that does not constitute proof positive. The Wings media Guide not mentioning his wife is irrelevant, the absence of something in a media guide is not proof that it is not. While what you are saying is possibly true, it is WP:OR. What I provided in the article was WP:V.--UnQuébécois (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been advised now twice that Mark Howe lives in Jackson, NJ, not Philadelphia, and have been shown a scan of a document that he personally provided to me (a mailed envelope) with his return address. As for additional proof of this, however, see also his entry here. I have worked professionally in hockey in Philadelphia for over forty years, written three books and countless articles on ice hockey, have known and worked with Mark personally since he joined the Flyers as a player in 1982, had dinner with him and his dad, Gordie, as recently as last Thursday, and spoke with him again just last night when the Flyers retired his jersey. This does not constitute "original research" on my part but "first hand knowledge" while you are depending on a third hand link with incorrect, obsolete information.
As for his marital status, see his nine minute online video of his Hockey Hall of Fame induction speech where at 4:54 he speaks about being long separated from Ginger, and at 5:56 where he thanks his companion of several years, Sharon (who is shown seated next to Gordie in the audience), for being the woman in his life. You can also see Sharon accompany Mark onto the ice at the 11:17 mark of the 22-minute online video of his number retirement ceremony in Philadelphia last night. Thus you can clearly see that the information relating to his "living in Philadelphia with his wife, Ginger" on the Red Wings website on which you are depending is obsolete and incorrect, and this is confirmed by her no longer being mentioned in Mark Howe's bio section of the 2011-2012 Red Wings Media Guide (page 18), only his three children are. I have therefore again deleted this incorrect information from the Mark Howe article as it is clearly -- and verifiably -- incorrect. Do not insert it again as the sources cited above -- including Mark Howe's own words -- show that it is false. Centpacrr (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please look over WP:V and WP:OR as they are pertinent to your arguments. An envelope scan is not verifiable proof of anything. First hand knowledge is not acceptable in Wikipedia. From WP:V: "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it unless it is verifiable." What was there, is cited from reliable sources. If you have an issue with the source, I suggest you contact them directly. --UnQuébécois (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please Centpacrr (talk · contribs) stop removing sourced material, and adding original research.--UnQuébécois (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even LOOKED at the three verifed sources that I posted above, or have you just chosen to completely ignore them?! As for the problem with the Red Wings site, I will probably be seeing Mark tomorrow night at the Flyers game and if I do I will tell him of the misinformation. In the meantime don't just keep parroting WP:V and WP:OR and LOOK at the two videos linked above (Howe's Hall of Fame induction speech and the Flyers' Jersey retirement ceremony) which conclusively proves -- in his own words -- that he has been long separated from Ginger Howe, and the other site which conclusively identifies his residence as being in Jackson, NJ. Also please be aware that if you revert this again to include this false information you will be in violation of the 3RR rule and subject you to being blocked for disruptive editing. As for "Bob" vs "Bobby" Clarke, I have known Bob personally since he was drafted in 1969 and have never heard him refer to him self as "Bobby", always "Bob". Centpacrr (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point. First hand knowledge is not verifiable. The media, the fans, all spoke of Bobby Clarke, while he was a hockey player, and even today. That is verifiable, I have included one of many sources for that. If you have a reliable source for Mr Howe's address, not some "social/networking" site, which anyone can pretend to be whoever, please provide, I have not found one. Apparently, as you said "parroting WP:V and WP:OR", seems to be what needs to happen as you have not yet read them. You might know these people personally, that is great for you, but that does not make your "knowledge" verifiable for Wikipedia's purposes.--UnQuébécois (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys, UnQuébécois asked me to take a look at this issue. Let me preface this by saying that both of you may perhaps have gotten a little heated (particularly Centpacrr). That's understandable, when one of you sees the other as consistently violating policy, and the other sees the first as being pointy, obstructive, and bureaucratic. There have certainly been no serious breaches of etiquette, so it's not a big deal. And really, you're probably both somewhat right about each other from your respective points of view. So let's just take a moment to sit back, relax, and chill out a bit.

Aaaaahhh.

Okay, now on with the show:

This reminds me of a scenario described by Jimbo that I happened across, in the context of the "verifiability, not truth" debate. Here is a link (it's not working super well, so you might have to scroll up a bit to get to the section header, but you get the idea.) Now, I don't necessarily say we should follow this model because Jimbo said so, and I don't think that we should assume things at face value in all cases, but on some level, perhaps we should take a step back and look at what we're doing with common sense. The divorce thing: the video of the man himself's speech is clearly enough to say that he's divorced in the article. You can probably even source it with the speech. The Philadelphia thing: in the absence of a reliable source (the one that is cited is obviously out of date, due to the divorce thing, and it's not at all unreasonable or uncommon that someone would move after a divorce, so we have some reason to think that it's inaccurate), the technically correct thing to do is probably to remove his place of residence altogether, but I'd say let's let common sense win out for once, ignore all rules, and put in the New Jersey information, despite the fact that PeekYou and (particularly) the envelope aren't really RSes either. This isn't particularly contentious or inflammatory (or even all that important) info, so I don't think BLP's a huge issue. We can source it to the PeekYou, if you like. That said, finding a more reliable source for it would definitely be optimal. The Bobby/Bob thing: his Wikipedia article is named "Bobby Clarke," so let's stick with that; it's not really all that important, is it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the nine minute Hall of Fame induction speech linked here made in Toronto on November 14, 2011 Howe says at the 4:56 mark: "Although I have been separated for a number of years now, I would be remiss not to thank Ginger for bringing our three wonderful children into this world and for the commitment she made to them as their mother." At the 5:57 mark Howe says (while his companion, Sharon, is shown on camera sitting in the audience next to Gordie): "Sharon, you are such a loving and caring person. You make me feel proud, confident, and good about myself. You love me for the person that I am, and yes, I love you too." At the 11:16 mark of the 22-minute Jersey Retirement ceremony video linked here at the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia on March 6, 2012 Mark Howe is seen walking out on to the ice with Sharon, his long time companion, and not Ginger, and they stand together throughout the remainder of the ceremony. Howe mentions Sharon in his speech at the 17:44 minute mark and at 20:44 kisses her after finishing his speech. This is reliable and verifiable evidence that he is neither any longer married to or living with Ginger Howe.
As for "living in Philadelphia" in the obsolete online bio, in this kind of publication such a statement does not mean that an individual literally lives within the "City and County of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" but only in the vicinity or "greater metropolitan area" of the city. Since I have known Mark he has lived in at least three greater Philadelphia area suburbs: Cherry Hill, NJ; Huntingdon Valley, PA, and Jackson, NJ, but he has never lived within the city limits of Philadelphia. Also he moved to Jackson, NJ, after his separation from Ginger, not before, but I will probably see Howie at the Flyers home game with Florida tomorrow (Thursday) and will ask him when he moved there.
As I consider both the location of Mark Howe's private residence and his current marital status to be strictly personal information with little or no relevance to what makes him as the subject of the article "notable" I removed both of them completely. The problem arose when UnQuébécois kept insisting on restoring them to the article despite ample reliable sourced evidence that neither one is true. The sources that I have provided are not my "original research" despite the fact that the the subject of the article has been a personal friend and professional colleague of mine for more than thirty years and i know the two claims he makes are false. This is why I have provided the irrefutable published and verifiable evidence (i.e. Howe's own recorded words) to bolster what I also know to be the facts from my own "first hand" experience. All that I have asked UnQuébécois to do is to not continue to repost abjectly false and misleading information in the article just because he found it in a published source that is provably incorrect on these two points. It thus needs to be removed without delay. Centpacrr (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, you only have irrefutable evidence of the divorce thing, and it's not exactly what I would call published. The only sources you have for the residence piece of it are a personally uploaded scan of an envelope which, in reliable source terms, means basically nothing, and a self-posted profile on a random site that we don't know who posted. One of the reasons for things like verifiability, reliable sources, and, especially relevant here, the policy on self-published sources, is that, on the Internet, we have no way of knowing if you are who you say you are. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, can really only be as good as their sources. By the strict letter of the law, UnQuébécois is probably correct, and those rules that he's admittedly interpreting strictly are here for a reason.
Look, none of this is particularly damaging or inflammatory to anyone. I understand and appreciate your passion about this, but being strident about removal of information in the absence of a pressing need to remove it is not a great way to endear yourself to anyone, in Wikipedia or elsewhere. Just stay cool, we'll get there in the end, there is no deadline. (Not that this is always true in the case of BLPs, since malicious, untrue information can have a real, negative impact on real people, but in this case, I don't think it's doing any harm.)
With all this said, if you just want to remove that sentence (as you have done), without adding anything to replace it, I can solidly support that. Purely for informational purposes, I'd advise caution in the future about using the word "notable" in disputes about the content of an article; "notability" in Wikipedia terms has a quite specific definition, and its only relevance is to whether a subject should receive his own article. It does not at all govern the content of an article. Not that you're wrong about his marital status and location being insignificant; I think you're quite right about it, which is why I can wholeheartedly support the simple removal of the info. Just, for future reference, it might help your case to use the word "significance" or something like that rather than "notability"; people could jump all over you for misusing the word.
Finally, let me just say again: thanks! I really do mean it when I say that I appreciate your passion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially under the circumstances, there is no need to include such personal information in the article at all. Certainly, as far as verifiability goes, I want rather more than that audio clip, which verifies nothing more than at the time of his HHOF induction, Howe was with a woman who wasn't his first wife. (Come to that, his language does not even reference a divorce.) Since this is a BLP, we are required to have high-qualify sources verifying any item that might be challenged. Demonstrably, this is information which has been challenged. Ravenswing 18:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just fyi, Ravenswing, since the above discussion got a little disjointed: the audio clip was being used to justify the challenge and removal of content that it contraindicated, not the addition of new content that used it as a source. I misunderstood that at first, as well, which is why I'm now coming down firmly on the side of Centpacrr. A lot of my prior post was really just continuation of a thought more than anything else. Also, I was using the term "divorce" a bit loosely, more just as a word for "the state of not being married" than its strict definition; since we weren't discussing adding the word "divorce" to the article itself, I figured such inprecision was okay. Sorry for any confusion. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me to be a clear example of an inherent weaknesses in the editing of WP: the problem caused when an editor permits him or herself to become ensnared by process and allowing that to trump substance and accuracy. First let's agree that the overall reliability and value of any encyclopedia such as the WP project ultimately depends upon the verifiable accuracy of its contents, and not the process by which that was achieved. So instead of getting bogged down in Wikilawyering WP:OR and WP:V, in the instant example let's just consider how a reasonable editor should weigh the total body of evidence presented to him or her -- whether it be published or the unpublished "original research" (as UnQuébécois calls it) of him/herself or others -- when that evidence casts doubt on and/or totally refutes the reliability of a "published source". In this case UnQuébécois bases his/her belief that Mark Howe, the subject of the article, "lives in Philadelphia with his wife, Ginger" on a single sentence in a single unsigned source (an online bio) which he/she claims must therefore be treated as "gospel" simply because it was "published" on the internet.
As a friend and professional colleague of the subject of the article for more than thirty years I know of my own personal knowledge that both of these statements are false and therefore endeavored to correct them in the article. When I did so UnQuébécois claimed that even if I were correct (which I am) about the inaccuracy of the two statements in the source he relied upon, those false statements must still be allowed to remain in the article because my personal first hand knowledge (i.e., that he does not live "in Philadelphia with his wife, Ginger) constitutes "original research" and thus should not even be considered in evaluating the reliability of his single unsigned source. While it is indeed my personal knowledge, that does not mean that based on my long term relationship with the subject it should not be considered as part of the overall evidence that the underlying original statements in UnQuébécois' source are incorrect. So let's look at how UnQuébécois misapplied the process of verifying his original claims which I have refuted.
As for Mark Howe no longer being married to and living with Ginger, when UnQuébécois asked for "verifiable sources" on that I provided links to online video files of two events televised live throughout the US and Canada on November 14, 2011, and just two days ago on March 6, 2012, in which the subject of the article himself provides unequivocal evidence both in his own words and visually (showing him with Sharon, not Ginger) that proves the source depended upon by UnQuébécois is clearly wrong on this point thus there is no basis whatsoever for him/her to continue to insist upon including this false statement in the article. I also advised UnQuébécois that Howe's entry in the 2011-2012 Detroit Red Wings Media Guide appearing on page 18 of that publication mentions only he has "three children" but make no reference whatsoever to Ginger or a wife. Curiously UnQuébécois dismisses this as "irrelevant" claiming that "the absence of something in a media guide is not proof that it is not". This seems to me to be at best both twisted logic and an abject abandonment of common sense as it relates to this matter.
The second issue is whether or not he "lives in Philadelphia" which I also personally know that he does not. When UnQuébécois challenged this, as evidence I provided him/her with two things. The first is a digital scan of a postally serviced cover which Mark mailed to me from his home in Jackson, NJ, late last summer which contains both his Jackson, NJ return address label, and USPS applied franking indicating that the cover had been mailed to me from Jackson, NJ ("ZIP Code 08527") on August 28, 2011. Now this may not qualify as a "reliable source" in and of itself which can be cited as an inline reference in a WP article, but it is certainly sufficient evidence to "cast doubt" on the reliability and accuracy of the unsigned bio upon which UnQuébécois depends to insist that he lives "in Philadelphia" thus making that claim unreliable even if "sourced". As additional evidence of his living in Jackson, NJ, I also supplied a link to an online '"person search site which provides information based on public records showing that Mark Howe lives there which also renders UnQuébécois' source as unreliable on this point.
While whether or not to include the location of Mark Howe's private residence and his marital status in his article as that information has nothing whatever to do with what makes him sufficiently notable to have a WP article is a small matter, the editing principle that it raised as to its sourcing is not insignificant. And that is just because the fact that something has been "published" does not in and of itself make it a "reliable" source. When evidence is found -- be it published, unpublished, or even "original research" -- that even casts doubt on a statement made in the source (let alone conclusively proves it false), then it is incumbent upon a reasonable editor to reject the published source as unreliable and not use it in an article unless and until it can be independently verified otherwise. Centpacrr (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting a little philosophical and off-topic here, but that's all right, I guess; there's really not much more to discuss about the content issue. Overall, I agree with you, especially after looking at WP:Burden of proof, but I would be careful about saying things like:
"When evidence is found -- be it published, unpublished, or even "original research" -- that even casts doubt on a statement made in the source (let alone conclusively proves it false), then it is incumbent upon a reasonable editor to reject the published source as unreliable and not use it in an article unless and until it can be independently verified otherwise."
That's a pretty sweeping statement, and is perhaps overly broad. Bold, but not reckless. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for Howe being a resident of Jackson, NJ, see also "Former Whaler Mark Howe Joins Father Gordie in Hockey Hall of Fame" by Bruce Berlet, the longtime hockey writer and sports columnist of the Hartford Courant, which begins: "Mark Howe was making the one-hour drive from his beach house in Beach Haven, N.J., to his home in Jackson, N.J., on Tuesday afternoon when his cell phone rang." Centpacrr (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's much better. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with a belief in a slavish dependence on WP:V is that information that is "verified" by a source that is not true is still incorrect and thus should be removed and/or corrected. WP:V is just a tool, not an end in itself, and thus when evidence is found -- be it published, unpublished, or even through "original research" -- that casts serious doubt on sourced information, then it is incumbent upon editors to reject the earlier published source as unreliable and not use it in an article unless and until it can be independently verified as otherwise. After all that is what the editing process is all about. Centpacrr (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; it's just that the doubts do have to be serious (in the various senses of the word). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the Flyers pressroom now but Mark is not on the pressbox seating list to be scouting here tonight so I will instead send him an email to inform him of the error in his bio page on the Red Wings' site so that it can be corrected. I have also reorganized the "post playing career" section of the article to put the material about similar topics in there together and in logical order. Centpacrr (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, that'll help a lot. I'm gonna bow out at this point; looks like you have everything under control now. Drop me a line at my talk page if you think there's anything else I can do. Tthanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Mark has shown up at the game, I advised him of the issue, and said that he will contact the Red Wings' PR staff to ask them to correct the error on his on line bio page. He also confirmed that he does indeed live in Jackson, NJ. Centpacrr (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shorthanded goals record

[edit]

Centpacrr, I know you're not a fan of WP:V, and place greater reliance on your personal friendship with hockey figures, but this is why we check things first, and an example why personal recollections aren't reliable. It took me all of 20 seconds to toodle over to hockey-reference.com and verify that Howe is, indeed, the career leader in shorthanded goals by a defenseman. Paul Coffey is the next highest with 20. I expect that Howe was unaware of it because it's not the sort of career record that gets bruited about; I remember vividly the interview with Val Fonteyne in which Fonteyne was startled to find he'd been the least penalized player of all time. Ravenswing 13:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with including information like this as long as it is reliably sourced. I did not find such an "official record" listed by the NHL for career SHGs either by player or by position, and so asked Howie about it when I had dinner with him last night in the Flyers pressroom before their game with the Red Wings if he knew anything about his having such a record. He said he did not, and that he only knew that he shared a Flyers single season record for SHG with Mike Richards. What was there before had no sourcing. As you have now added a link to one (which is all that WP requires for such an entry) I see no problem with including this information even though the NHL does not list SHGs by position among its official records. I've sent Howie an email letting him know that he holds this unofficial NHL mark, however you should also be aware that Howie did not play his entire career as a defenseman but was also a left wing for a good bit of it as well. I have therefore sent him a note asking if the change from left wing to defense was made while still in the WHA, or if he played wing in the NHL as well. Centpacrr (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He played some at left wing -- not much -- his first couple seasons in the NHL, which I took into account; he scored four SHG in those first three seasons, which even had he been credited as a left wing in all three of those years would still put him comfortably ahead of Coffey. Ravenswing 16:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That being the case, listing the number of SHGs Howie scored in the NHL as a defenseman as "28" as making him "career leader for shorthanded goals by a defenseman" with that number is really speculative and unproven if there is evidence that he may have scored one of more as a forward, and that caveat should therefore be included in the entry if it is to be retained. I'll await to hear what Howie says in response to my email before deciding how to do that. Centpacrr (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per email from Mark Howe on March 16, 2016: "I played about 4 games while with Hartford at LW and also spent about 10 games as a Flyer on RW with B(ob) Clarke. A (Coach Bob) McCammon experiment that went awry." Entry annotated accordingly with explanation and wikilink. Centpacrr (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Howe. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a terrible mistake!

[edit]

No no no!! Mark Howe cannot have ANY rookie records from his 1979-80 inaugural season, since WHA players were not considered "rookies" in 1979 when WHA and NHL merged. (For example, Gretzky's 137 points in his first NHL season is not a rookie record for that same reason - Selanne's 132 points is.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.240.253.128 (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Howe&oldid=1207654333"