# Talk:Joe West (umpire)

So in parts of the article, it states that West is from Asheville, North Carolina while other parts say Greenville, North Carolina is there a correct answer? This would help with categories, or is he "from both?" Sportsguy17 (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it, I believe. Sources consistently describe him as being born in Asheville and raised in Greenville. He just shouldn't have been characterized as a Greenville "native" in the lead. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 01:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joe West (umpire). 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130203072713/http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=uniontrib&page=mlb/scores/final/finallog.aspx%3FGameID=29395 to http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=uniontrib&page=mlb%2Fscores%2Ffinal%2Ffinallog.aspx%3FGameID%3D29395
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) 16:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Note to editors and talk page watchers: there is likely to be a temporarily high level of off-wiki attention to this page due to this Reddit post suggesting that a certain recent WP:SPA on this page has a severe conflict of interest. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have been monitoring the Reddit discussion, I'll be adding this to my watchlist for the time being. Given there is protection for now for about a month, I hope everybody will have given up and forgotten about it by then. Yoshi24517 Chat Online 00:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Is there a good reason why we haven't included {{connected contributor}} yet? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Has the account been verified? Levivich (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
No, but that's not required. When someone comes in claiming personal knowledge and has a clear agenda in editing, it's reasonable to put that on the talk page. Unless there's something I'm missing, it seems like it should be here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
West has acknowledged the account was his and gives more explanation about his reasoning for changes in this interview. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for linking that Barkeep49. I have started to try update the article to fix what are genuine inaccuracies that can be fixed with existing sources or an appropriate application of WP:ABOUTSELF. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that supports adding {{connected contributor}}. Levivich (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, per WP:OUTING, has he stated that on-WP? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Given that the person who operates the account has at least once signed a Talk page message with "Joe West," and Joe West has confirmed in the media that he was indeed editing Wikipedia, I think that would satisfy the req? --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
IMO that's good enough (I'll take your word on it). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: regarding this revert, the above discussion might allay your BLP concerns. I respectfully disagree that a single-sentence mentioning the Wikipedia controversy was undue, and I would be in favor of reinstating the sentence. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

If you want a serious discussion about the merits of including anything concerning West's dispute with Wikipedia in the article, I suggest you start by proposing text that is actually supported by the sources cited. Per my interpretation of WP:BLP policy though, even properly-sourced content would be undue - particularly after taking note of the fact that West's objections to the content evidently had substance to them, judging by recent edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
The text you deleted was supported by the sources cited. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
No it wasn't. None of the sources stated that West "issued legal threats to many Wikipedia editors who reverted his edits". And if the sources had stated this, they would be demonstrably incorrect, since there was only one 'threat', concerning a single editor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Upon further review, you are correct about that. And I don't think a singular legal threat warrants mention in the article. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that two legal threats were made at User talk:Crewchief22. Still, that doesn't qualify as many. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I too am in favor of reinstating a sentence about West's editing, which in both cases that it has appeared was very well supported by its accompanying RS. I don't see how one sentence would be undue, given the comparative dearth of post-retirement coverage of him. I disagree that BLP policy should be interpreted to exclude news coverage about on-wiki activity related to disliking Wikipedia material, and also disagree that all of his objections have been found to be substantive. Specifically, the edits in question included removing factual, well-sourced information about a fine related to the Joe Torre shoving incident that still remains in the article. --Pinchme123 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
We don't include questionable material just because there is a 'comparative dearth' of other material available. As for the remainder of your comments, I suggest you read WP:BLPEDIT, and then ask yourself whether this long-standing aspect of Wikipedia BLP policy was actually complied with before West made his comments about legal action. The evidence seems to the contrary, and I'd have to suggest that if it had been complied with, the situation would never have arisen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of including a subject's edits, or about evaluating their edits. This is about including coverage in the news about a subject's Wikipedia behavior. Nothing in BLPEDIT speaks to that. As to the rest of your statement, there's reported evidence of multiple legal threats, contradicting your own assertions about that fact. Whether two threats is enough to be reported in the news isn't up to us, it's up to RSes, and multiple RSes have deemed two threats enough to report on them (you also deleted this material when it was supported by this article , which also mentions a legal threat).
I mentioned the dearth of other coverage because, for something to be undue, it would need to be given unnecessary weight given the totality of the subject's coverage in sources. Sources don't say much about West, but what they do say includes this incident at enough of a rate to refute any assertions of its inclusion as undue.
But even if it stands that the coverage of legal threats by RSes isn't enough to warrant mention here, the remainder of the incident should still be mentioned.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Without the 'legal threats' the story amounts to 'man edits Wikipedia article about himself'. Which, it should be noted, is something said man is actually entitled to do. WP:COI is a guideline - and not one it is at all reasonable to expect the subject of an unwanted biography to be even the slightest bit aware of. If anyone had actually taken the trouble to engage with West with more than boilerplate messages, it seems highly unlikely that this situation would have arisen. WP:BLP emphasises the need to write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", and adding negative content about the subject's interaction with Wikipedia is hardly compliant with this sentiment when one takes into account that our own poor behaviour inflamed the situation. Furthermore, the whole thing looks like navel-gazing, since I sincerely doubt we'd even be discussing this if West had been involved in a spat with say Twitter users instead. I see absolutely no reason to assume this minor event will have any long-term significance. West is notable as an umpire, not as someone who argues with amateur biographers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
This entire reasoning is merely a substitution for the decisions by RSes. Your evaluation of what would or would not have happened in alternate realities is entirely irrelevant; this incident really happened, and RSes really decided to cover it.
I'd also like to specifically call out your assertion of a Royal We with respect to Wikipedia editors; "we" are not a monolith and "we" didn't do anything in this situation to warrant painting "our" behavior. Nor are we "amateur biographers".
RSes covered this incident, and it's significant enough in his coverage to warrant inclusion with a sentence.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
There are many Wikipedia policies which make it clear that having a source for something isn't in of itself always sufficient to justify inclusion. WP:RS is frequently full of ephemeral trivia, while multiple policies and guidelines make it clear that such material doesn't belong in articles. In the days of newsprint, this story would have ended up on the budgie-cage floor within a few days, and if it lasts longer now it is only in the archives. A fuss over nothing, that wouldn't even merit discussion here were it not for it involving Wikipedia. Self-congratulatory navel-gazing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
More unsupported assumptions about an alternate reality, in addition to sidestepping actual policy descriptions (something is due if it is proportional in the RS coverage; this incident is proportionally covered, so it is due).
This conversation isn't going anywhere. You object inclusion, I support it. If others wish to contribute their opinion, perhaps this will go somewhere, but until then there's nothing substantive to discuss anymore.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Based on the sources I see at [1], I think including this atm fails WP:PROPORTION and WP:NOTNEWS. Related essay at WP:NAVELGAZING. Some WP:OTHERCONTENT (well, discussion about content) at Talk:Emily_St._John_Mandel#RFC:_attempt_to_correct_the_Wikipedia_article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
This is not about a subject attempting to change a basic fact about themselves (a divorce). This is about a subject attempting to change the basic facts about others (Torre) and making legal threats when those changes were rejected. Which is exactly what the RSes reported. I contend this is dissimilar from the Emily St. John Mandel case, because it is not "undue trivia". --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
And I think, per sources I've seen, which are from a 3-day period (and fansided seems rather WP:BLOG-ish [2]) that this fits "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" here on the talkpage, but for main-space purposes it's a very minor blip, at least atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Off-topic, but I was reminded of this article: "Pausing here to acknowledge that this is all highly meta: a discussion taking place on Wikipedia about whether Wikipedia should include information within that subject's Wikipedia article about how that subject covertly and unethically edited Wikipedia. (Taking it a step further, there's a relatively high possibility that the very article you are reading will at some point be cited on Wikipedia since this is usually the case with Slate and other outlets that have covered the site." In that particular case, consensus landed on "include". You could consider adding the West-issue at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The information on Joe's Wife is possibly outdated. An article by MLB.com says his then-girlfriend "Rita Scott, and brother, John, joined West at third base.." It's also confirmed in a Sports Illustrated article from 2017 "His girlfriend, Rita Scott, is there, along with Fletcher, Ron Kulpa and Alan Porter, the other umpires in his crew.". But there is a similar article from ESPN in 2020 which states they were married "He plays golf. He is a singer-songwriter of country music and the husband of Rita, a former racquetball national champion.". With a follow up in 2021 from USA Today,"West returned to the field after several minutes, hugged his wife, Rita". I'm not sure how to word it, but it might be worth updating. After the recent editing controversy, I decided to take a look and seeing the dubious source. YellowStahh (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD, if you think you can improve it, go for it! Imdb is definitely not the best source for personal info in a BLP. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Well I'm not super great on the wording myself. I don't know if we want to completely disregard the Jean Jo Masons marriage as it's not a completely realiable source. YellowStahh (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I have updated that section with a couple of those sources as well as the interview he recently did linked above by Barkeep49. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Just a note that I removed his marital history twice[3][4] because it is based on a non-RS podcast under WP:BLPNAME. This podcast interview doesn't satisfy WP:BLPSELFPUB because  it's not published by West and it involves claims about other people (exception 2). The marital status and full names can be reinstated if they are supported by RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely absurd, you're casting aspersions on West that he is lying about his marital status, which is an uncontroversial fact. But just for good measure, here is an RS reporting that West's wife's name is Rita. I'll remove her last name from the article and add this source. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLP supercedes WP:BOLD here. Per WP:BLPNAME, The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. It should be sufficient to say that he's been married twice. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Then why isn't that the edit you made, instead of over-deleting? I've added back in and written a new format for the source that makes clear it's an interview. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)