Talk:Luke Scott (baseball)

Relevance?

What is the relevance of Scott's opinion on whether or not Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or not? Why should his opinion be included in an encyclopedia? He's a baseball player, nothing more. For the moment, I will be removing that material and directing editors here to discuss its future inclusion or exclusion. Strikerforce (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When the things he says are so controversial that they are reported as a lead story on MSNBC, Yahoo News, and USA Today among other news outlets, his interview became notable. There will certainly be more coverage of it as he will now be asked about it in future interviews. To ignore that aspect of his life in a biographical article seems rather ludicrous when it has gotten so much coverage. Kinston eagle (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is relevance because he has gone on public record stating this adamantly as well as other controversial topics. Reference: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Answer-Man-Luke-Scott-talks-Nugent-hunting-and?urn=mlb-292970 Floracalifornia (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Floracalifornia

Pardon the bluntness, but so what? Who is Luke Scott? Why should the average Wikipedia user (or any other person in the world) care what he has to say? Is he a well-known media personality? Is he a politician? Is he in some position of influence? No, no, and no. To the average person, he is just another in a long line of "birthers" with a conspiracy theory. In that regard, I don't believe that it's relevant for inclusion. A missing kid in North Dakota could potentially be the lead story on MSNBC, Yahoo News, and USA Today, but would that entitle that child to a Wikipedia article? The fact that Scott's statements are making headlines and that is being used as justification in this instance borders on Other Crap Exists. Strikerforce (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's guidelines, he is a notable person. This is a biography of a notable person. Biographies are the record of the notable and newsworthy events of a person's life. This interview was a notable and newsworthy event. Apparently, the editors of those news organizations feel that people would care what he has to say. Kinston eagle (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Kinston eagle's point here is spot on. Strikerforce's argument does not follow wikipedia's guidelines at all. This isn't a page about "birthers." This isn't a page about some rando talking about "birthers." Mentioning a controversial interview on a page about a notable person is not only allowable, but should be included on the page. Suggest Strikerforce re-reads the wikipedia guidelines that he posted here himself. 160.94.158.216 (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Plus, I think it's completely opinionated to say, "Why should anyone care?" You can't gauge that and you can't use that as a defense to take the information down. 128.227.98.223 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Why should anyone care?" is, by definition, the very question of relevance. It is most certainly allowable as a "defense to take the information down". The question here is relevance, not my reasoning for deleting the section. If consensus determines that the section is relevant, that's one thing, but to say that I shouldn't have deleted the information because "it's completely opinionated to say 'Why should anyone care?" is inaccurate. Strikerforce (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's completely accurate. Unless you can gauge it, then something besides, "Who cares? So what?" is needed, and so far, I feel like you haven't given that at all. 128.227.98.223 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The facts he states are demonstrably false! That makes his remarks worthy of inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.217.227.73 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If they are facts, they are not false. So are they fact, or not?44grim (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is well established that when a baseball personality says something controversial enough that the regular news media reports on it rather than just the sports media, it is relevant in their biography page. See for example, John Rocker, Al Campanis, Magglio Ordóñez, etc... Kinston eagle (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

With the article in its current (fairly sad) state, it would be undue weight to give this more than a trivial mention unless the article is expanded with more career details. — KV5 • Talk • 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For further consideration, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, the page about the birthers, only lists elected officials questioning Obama's citizenship, and leaves out many other notable individuals who have challenged said citizenship. I think we'd need some time to evaluate the importance of this, including examining any other political statements he may have made in the past, before making a decision. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To comment directly on those examples, Rocker and Campanis experienced significant repercussions for their statements. The inclusion of Ordóñez's support of Hugo Chavez is questionable at best. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the remarks have had enough coverage to make them worthy of inclusion... however, the way they were originally presented in the artical was in a somewhat biased style.. The material should be included but rewritten to a more neutral tone. Spanneraol (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He said something bad about someone we like. We need to permanently tattoo this on his forehead here and ensure that he is forever scarred by it. Now if it was by someone we like - we'll let's just say that any old BLP argument would be good enough to keep it out. Too bad he said something we don't like. So screw him.99.141.243.84 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the remarks have gotten enough "coverage" to make them worthy of inclusion. They'll be forgotten in 2 weeks time (though, probably closer to 2 DAYS) because a. it's not newsworthy and b. people will be more focused on where cliff lee, carl crawford, and others go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 44grim (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC) I disagree that these remarks will be forgotten in a few weeks or days. As someone stated he has affiliated himself with the extreme birthers. Indisputable facts show that the president was indeed born in Hawaii. This so called birther movement was fueled by the election of the first African American president. Many perceive the birthers as nuts or even racist. A major league baseball player being perceived as having racist attitudes is not just going to just disappear in the media. His statements about Obama should be included on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David610 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This event is noteworthy and qualifies for a very brief inclusion in Wikipedia. To not include it would be preposterous. Ulterion (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So, one person thinks his comments are not relevant, and 15 people have made excellent arguments that his comments are relevant. So why aren't they included on the page yet?24.192.186.152 (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

First off, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Second of all, because there is no consensus yet. I don't know what you think I "voted", but I'm taking a wait and see approach at this point. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

so, the consensus is "facts can be false" and "irrefutable evidence" is an online birth certificate? Anyone heard of photoshop?44grim (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you seriously want to debate the validity of the birth cirtificate? That isnt even the issue here... the Issue is.. should Scott's remarks be mentioned.. I feel they should, but as a minor note without undue weight. Spanneraol (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic. This talk page is for discussion about improving this article, not for tangential arguments (see WP:NOTAFORUM and the talk page guidelines). Evil saltine (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I definitely think that the controversial interview should be included. I don't understand Strikerforces argument where he states that "he is a baseball player, nothing more." So his page should include nothing but baseball? Countless pages on wikipedia about people include "controversy" sections. The reason by which he became a notable person is irrelevant. And Muboshgu, yes this isn't a democracy. But for real, let's come to a consensus already. There is no valid reason this shouldn't be included on the page. Keep it short, keep it simple, and just include the citation so someone can go and read the actual interview if they want. Wikipedia shouldn't be this hard, guys. Timmy989 (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to be moving towards consensus. If someone wants to put something short and to the point in, I won't object. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I would, but it is locked.Timmy989 (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I put it back in. --Muboshgu (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is a story that is still talked about a year from now maybe. Otherwise I think this is a cause of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it falls under either of those, and I think the tiny little blurb about it that Muboshgu wrote is just what the doctor ordered.24.118.51.136 (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe there should be no mention of this. It is not as if this person a politician, he is just a baseball player. The odds of this having enduring notability are highly unlikely. Truthsort (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You seriously must ask yourself whether this has any sort of long-term significance. A lot of people here seem to be forgetting that this an encyclopedia and that this is not the place for this type of trivial news coverage that has no importance at all. Of course, this is the product of a news spike, where users will come and add it without bothering to look if the content actually has any historical magnitude. Truthsort (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It was a news worthy event in the life of Scott... and thus is worthy a small mention in the article. Spanneraol (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, it is just news coverage. This is not an important part of Scott's bio. It does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Truthsort (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree not noteworthy, this is not a Senator's declaration on the floor of Congres, nor is it the beginning of a movement, nor was it even introduced as anything other than an aside. Bloggers may need filler, but Wikipedia is not a depository for minutia, ephemeral blogging or the wisping filler News of the moment. .99.141.243.84 (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, not noteworthy. In a few weeks, no one will care, and it certainly has very little biographical content to it. — Loadmaster (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It was in the news, which makes it noteworthy and news coverage of an already notable individual is worth reporting in his article... especially since the event is sourced properly... The article is fairly slim as it is and adding details about him that have been reported in the news is certainly a worthy adition to the article. Spanneraol (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your argument that it's news is actually an argument against inclusion. See WP:NOTNEWS. Your other point that the article needs "filler" is also an argument against inclusion.99.141.243.84 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You make no sense in your argument that news is not worthy of inclusion.. WP:NEWS says nothing that would justify removing sourced content from this article. In fact none of your arguments make sense via any policies. If the information is sourced from a reliable publication then it should be added... Your comment that "because it was in the news it shouldn't be added" simply makes no sense. Stop removing the valid, neutral tone, and sourced content from this article. Spanneraol (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read the link, it's quite clear: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. ... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. " What support, if any, do you have for it's "enduring notability"? That's the standard, not simply a link to a mention.99.141.243.84 (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the wording of the guideline, I agree that this little blip does not qualify for inclusion. Rugbyhelp (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That guideline is meant to prevent articles on people or places that arent notable and have one article written about them because of one newsworthy event.. not to prevent adding information on people who already have articles. You are mis-interpreting the guideline. Spanneraol (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Linked to at yahoo news

Congrats. yahoo news headline story links here here saying "his Wikipedia page has already been updated(link) with the comments" First time I've seen where this type of reference has been done. I think its cool that this BLP is so on top of this, regaardless of whatever you eventually do with it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that link now looks silly since the quote is no longer in the WP article. Yahoo should have linked to a permanent diff edit instead. — Loadmaster (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In 10 years, I bet more people remember Scott for his comments than for the fact that he played winter ball in Venezuela in 2007. Nevertheless, only the latter remains on his WP article.  ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincy14142135 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Criblecoblis, 9 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} [Redacted per WP:BLP] Criblecoblis (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: Please only use {{edit semi-protected}} when you have a legitimate edit request. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Birther comments revisited

When we talked about this last year, there were some who supported including this in Scott's bio, while others opposed it. It eventually made its way in without a clear consensus one way or the other. Considering this piece, a writeup on his personality following his birther comments, I believe it is absolutely an essential part of his biography. Perhaps now that we are almost a year out, we can take stock and decide on it once and for all. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Previously the information was included originally.. some objected and we discussed it... no consensus existed to remove it so it should have remained, however some with strong beliefs declared otherwise and forced the information out after a brief edit war.. it was eventually put back in and should stay barring any consensus the other way. Spanneraol (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that the whole "birth certificate" issue has been dealt with and the argument has been silenced, I don't see it being relevant. If the point is to show how outspoken and blunt he is, there should be at least one other thing that can be cited, can't there? But there aren't any here. And since Scott's most notable achievement is "being traded for Miguel Tejeda", I doubt that "a notable thing he said once" can be justifiably put here. I recommend deletion of the whole section, and I'm honestly a littel surprised Luke Scott hasn't signed on wikipedia and deleted it himself. It makes him look stupid. Peabody80 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It was clearly obvious that there is nothing notable about these comments other than he said it. Most of the arguments in favor were that it was newsworthy, but we look at the enduring notability of events and these brief newsworthy stories are discouraged. Truthsort (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand your "its newsworthy so we dont include it" comments, we include lots of bits on athletes that are much less reported. ... It ads to a deeper background on his personality and since this was covered in multiple reliable sources and is included without editorializing.. the arguments for removal make no sense and seem politically motivated. Spanneraol (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This does not say anything about his personality. It was interview he did and had no long term impact on him. I'm not sure why that is so hard for you to understand. He is not a politician and his opinion here has no relevance in his bio. Truthsort (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree... it's got news coverage and is part of his history.. which will affect peoples views of him... it should be included. I'm done debating this subject though. Spanneraol (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Again news coverage does not automatically mean it has an enduring impact on his bio. It is not our job to include content so we can "affect peoples views of him". It appears you want to add this for all the wrong reasons. If you are not going to discuss this further, then I'll simply just remove the content. Truthsort (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I didnt say we were adding content to affect peoples views of him.. we are adding newsworthy content that received attention.. I would say it had an enduring impact on some peoples impressions of him.. which is more notable than other stuff commonly included in bios... you want to remove it for all the wrong reasons. I didnt want to keep discussing it because obviously we arent going to convince each other and should thus wait for more comments from others before making changes. Spanneraol (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of Spanneraol's comments here. I'd like to see input from other editors as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand that newsworthy events do not automatically meet the threshold for inclusion. There is no evidence to suggest people's views on him have changed. Truthsort (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand that newsworthy events are not automatically ignored just cause you dont like them. Spanneraol (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Who says that any evidence that this changes people's views on Scott needs to exist? The writeup on his personality is an essential part of his biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The writeup was primarily in response to this interview. There are no other examples of his personality getting attention, and Spanneraol how about abiding by WP:AGF instead of baselessly accusing me of wanting it removed because I don't like it? Truthsort (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason the writeup was conducted is immaterial. That it was conducted is the point. It meets the definition of "significant coverage" in my book. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"It meets the definition of 'significant coverage' in my book". This is argument used for notability on articles not for inclusion of content in an article. And yes the reason is important because it was soley in response to this and does not remotely indicate that his "outspoken" nature has ever resulted in any other notoriety. Truthsort (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuing discussion at BLPN. Spanneraol (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott is a baseball player, not a Fox News contributor

Therefore, shouldn't his article be treated as such? Yes, it says a lot about how pathetic and forgettable his baseball career is and will be that he is known more about his birther comments than about his accomplishments as an athlete. However, the inclusion of his birther comments in the article leads one to wonder: if he hadn't made the comments in the first place, would there even be a Wikipedia article about him? I hope the answer is yes, because it means that the focus of the article will be what it should be. Friedenlieber (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Scott's Obama Derangement Syndrome

Perhaps it's because Scott is such a shitty ballplayer that he and his fans would prefer to talk about their contempt for Obama than Scott's forgettable career. The truth is, Scott hasn't said anything that his fellow, redneck, WASP-y, 'good-'ol-boy', homophobic, subliminally racist, Southern-fried dipshits from the various Nowheresville's across the Neo-Confederacy haven't already said. Remember John Rocker people? Enough is enough.DerWer2014 (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a long debate at the top of this page that led to the current language.. which is notable because it received news coverage. It is a minor part of the article, and doesnt have undue weight.Spanneraol (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)