# Talk:Milton Bradley (baseball)

Someone who knows more about Milton Bradley might want to put a little more information on his actual Baseball career instead of his legal troubles.
Professional athletes' off-field accomplishment/woes are as important as their on-field performance... However, anyone interested in his career details can click on the link provided.
His mother didn't say that thing about the father making damn sure he got a junior, ESPN did. Check the source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate263 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 

Is this guy related to the founder of the Milton Bradley Company? --Nintendude 20:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

They are definitely related....LOL....NOT!!!!  One is white and one is dark black....definitely a family resemblance if I ever saw one....LOL.

Rollie Fingers, Milton Bradley, and Coco Crisp are my favorite baseball names ever.  So awesome.  Wickethewok 05:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this section has undue weight within the article and is poorly focused (it covers baseball suspensions, legal issues, and family relationship issues). I think it should be turned into a sourced paragraph reading more like a biography than a rap sheet. Things like his divorce may be noteworthy in such a biography, but the section should also describe when he got married if it's going to mention when he got divorced. It just doesn't feel like a neutral section. I'll wait a day or two to see if there are other comments and then do the rewrite of it myself. Leebo T/C 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the section for now until I have time to write a neutral, sourced bio. Anyone wondering what the rationale for this is can look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Leebo T/C 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been a month. Bradley is a controversial player. I gently suggest either hurrying up your re-write or simply adding the old section back in. -Phoenixrod 07:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Now it's been two months, and as of a couple of hours ago Bradley has had another on-the-field blowup.  If something isn't changed and no further objections are made, I'm going to revert the article or put the section back in.  You absolutely cannot have an article about Milton Bradley without discussing his behavior issues. PeteF3 23:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
this section needs to be back Djgranados 05:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for forgetting about this, but I completely disagree that a biased section is better than none. Neutral point of view is non-negotiable. PeteF3, and Phoenixrod, write a neutral bio if you want to discuss it. Leebo T/C 03:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Leebo, I never looked at the old biased version and I wouldn't support having one; if the old version is bollocks, we can't just revert without citation and rewriting. You're right. My point was simply that controversy must be addressed with Bradley (certainly in line with BLP and NPOV) rather than excised completely. The section does need to be back—in a proper form. I took your comment ("I'll wait a day or two to see if there are other comments and then do the rewrite of it myself") to mean than you would be doing it yourself a couple months ago. -Phoenixrod 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
um, the incident with winters is definitely not written to encyclopedic standard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.252.216 (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC) 
I disagree with the changing of the Controversy section to "STAYING HEALTHY;..." from "CAREER ISSUES;..."  The section was initially added by myself to point out in as unbiased a manner as possible that he has struggled not only with injury but also with on-field blowups and ego trips, which this title doesn't take into account, representing the controversy solely as an injury issue.  Also, I do believe the current update is a full-scale plagiarism from an article on the subject, though I'd have to search to find it.  Mike Cameron also was seriously injured in the ITPHR by Atkins when Bradley stepped on his them, suffering a partial ligament tear in the right thumb, sidelining him for at least the rest of the reg. season and likely the playoffs.   --NJDevils1087

Maybe my brain's just not working, but what is ITPHR? -Phoenixrod 05:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
ITPHR = Inside-the-park HR  -NJDevils1087 19:51, 15 October 27 (GMT-5)
Well, two years later and the controversy section at the moment is incredibly awful - it details three incidents, with no sense of context at all.  Good work, Wikipedia! john k (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of this section anyways? Can't those sections be incorporated into the corresponding sections in his career section? Spanneraol (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the guy is a controversial player who gets into tons of shit, but because of BLP concerns the article apparently only mentions three disconnected incidents with no context.  Here is an old version that gives more detail on pre-2007 incidents, but without sources.  Just about every news report on his recent suspension has been all about how he's a player who's been troubled for a long time and had a string of stuff like this, but the wikipedia article can't be bothered to talk about any of it. john k (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence 'Junior, who shares a name with a popular board game pioneer, has always been teased about his name, but has never changed it because the memories it evokes "only drive him harder"' because it is misleading; it's clear from the ESPN reference that the "only drive him harder" part is about his memories of his father, not teasing about his name.  TresÁrboles (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that Source #17 is a broken link. Not sure if there is another similar reference to replace it. Kevinmon•talk•trib 19:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Should there really be a mention of his dad naming him in the intro? Triggafinga (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Milton Bradley (baseball)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 16:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh Milton Bradley, there's a player I vividly remember watching. Will review shortly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Here are the issues I found:

For references, the publishers/works only need to be linked on the first use; all subsequent ones should be delinked.
"11 year MLB career" add ndash (11-year)
"For the year, Bradley finished 17 in American" 17th
"He has a career batting average of .271, with 135 home runs and 481 runs batted in (RBI) over 1,042 games played." no comma needed after .271, and 'in' is needed after the rbi in parentheses.
"but instead signed with the Expos after he was drafted by the team in the second round of the 1996 Major League Baseball Draft." The date could be added here, since I'm sure B-R has it,
I believe major league is two separate words, so remove the dash where used.
"In 2002, on April 15, he was placed on the" Is there a better way to word that? Starting it with "In April 15, 2002.." isn't ideal, though it would be an improvement.
"with the MLB Indians" rm MLB, seems obvious that's the case.
"the disabled list following" add (DL) after disabled list since the abbreviated form's used after.
"Indian's training" Indians'
link Eric Wedge
Any contract info that could be put in for 2005, or anything interesting that happened? With how full 2004 looked, 2005 paled in comparison.
I'm a little confused why the Royals trade was voided but the Padres one was fine, since he was injured during the Padres trade. Did the Royals void the trade on their end? If so make that clearer.
The Padres' section is unsourced sans the one ref at the end. If it's being used for the whole thing then at least put it in at the end of each para, if not source the rest of it.
"one of the most consistent hitters for the Padres throughout the rest of the season." a source distinctly noting that is needed.
The Mariners section is just not good; it just feels like a couple facts thrown onto the page with no structure. It could easily be one solid paragraph noting the stats alongside his issues for the parts of two seasons he played.
Have any other teams come close to signing him since the May 2011 release? I imagine not as I have not heard anything, but thought I'd ask.
Found a lot of issues, more then I expected honestly, but it's all fixable. I'll put it on hold for five days and pass when it's fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

About halfway through. Two questions: the quote from John Hart, in the source it uses "major-league", should I leave that alone, and how should I fix point number two? Do you want "11–year"? Albacore (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
For the quote major-league is fine, since quotes have to be written as is. For the second, it should just say 11-year. Not sure why I said to put an ndash there, that's wrong. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Fixed and added, and I've also added some things from his MLB profile. As for teams since 2011, I haven't been able to find anything using a Google and a Highbeam search. I also looked for something saying he retired, but haven't found that either. Albacore (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 12:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

An Associated Press article written on the 11th of January addresses Bradley as "ex-OF", does this mean he's retired? Do we update the article? CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 15:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

He's retired IMHO....William 16:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Given the latest legal developments, no question in my mind he's retired. Wizardman 16:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I consider anyone who hasnt played anywhere for over a year to be retired, unless they are rehabbing an injury or something. Spanneraol (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Milton Bradley (baseball). 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://web.archive.org/web/20110514005616/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/mariners/2015005893_mari10.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/mariners/2015005893_mari10.html
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) 06:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

We need to steer clear of opinionated wording as much as possible. Read MOS:DOUBT where 'supposed' is one of the listed words to watch out for. If the call was disputed, then say it was disputed and back it up with reliable sources but please stop inserting non-neutral language. Sro23 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)