Talk:David Ortiz

message: Its a pun - He pointing to his name !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.51.22.50 (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: On April 9, I rewrote the lead section of this article. Among the edits I made was removing the second sentence, "He played for the Minnesota Twins from 1997 to 2002 and the Boston Red Sox from 2003 to 2016", and replaced it with "who played 20 Major League Baseball (MLB) seasons, primarily with the Boston Red Sox", which was added to the first sentence. No objection was made to my rewrite, it has remained virtually unchanged for over six months, and a note about the lead not adequately summarizing the key points of its contents was subsequently removed.
This month, on the 9th, the first sentence of the lead was changed without explanation to say Ortiz "played 20 Major League Baseball (MLB) seasons with the Minnesota Twins and Boston Red Sox" instead of "primarily with the Boston Red Sox". While subsequent sentences and paragraphs place emphasis on his time with the Red Sox, only saying Ortiz played "with the Minnesota Twins and Boston Red Sox" in the first sentence gives his time on these teams equal weight. When written in this manner, it does not establish that Ortiz spent most of his career and is best known for his time with the Red Sox, as opposed to the Twins. The sentence creates a false impression from the start, and if anything, it gives more weight to his time with the Twins by virtue of the Twins being mentioned before the Red Sox.
To identify which team an athlete mainly played with / is best known for instead of simply listing all of his teams is not uncommon - e.g. Pedro Martínez ("most notably the Boston Red Sox"), Randy Johnson ("played primarily for the Seattle Mariners and the Arizona Diamondbacks"), Mike Piazza ("played most notably for the New York Mets and Los Angeles Dodgers"), and Ichiro Suzuki ("spent the bulk of his career with two teams: nine seasons with the Orix Blue Wave of Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB) in Japan, where he began his career, and 12 with the Seattle Mariners of MLB in the United States"). It is part of identifying to the reader what the individual is notable for. Ortiz's time with the Red Sox is what made him most notable.
For comparison, saying Ortiz simply played "with the Minnesota Twins and Boston Red Sox" is like saying Brett Favre simply played with the Atlanta Falcons, Green Bay Packers, New York Jets, and Minnesota Vikings. Would it be better for Favre's lead to be written like this? While it's technically accurate, it doesn't give one team emphasis over the other in Favre's career, save for maybe the Falcons by again virtue of being first. Favre may have played for all of these teams, but he spent the vast majority of his career with the Packers, hence why his article's lead section makes note of it. Bluerules (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your wording. The bulk of the MLB articles identify all the teams played for in MLB right in the intro. You relegate his time with the Twins, which was more than just a cameo to an after thought in a subsequent paragraph.  It's better to say as it was before you changed it that he played for these two teams and that the bulk of it was with the Red Sox where he did so and so. Right now you have his time with the Twins on par with his playing in the Mariners farm system. By the way, the proper procedure is to leave it alone after you are reverted and then to talk not to revert back before you start talking. Spanneraol (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, would it better to put Favre's time with the Falcons, Jets, and Vikings on par with his time with the Packers? Even if the bulk of MLB articles identify all of the teams an athlete played for in the intro, that does not change the fact that MLB articles and other athlete articles also identify which teams a player is best known for / spent the majority of his career with. If Ortiz's time with the Twins was more than just a cameo, why was there no mention of what he did besides play for them in the lead before I rewrote it and still no mention of it in the current revision? His time with the Twins was relegated from the beginning with this article. When compared to his time with the Red Sox, his time with the Twins is simply an afterthought, a footnote compared to what he accomplished with the Red Sox. All of his career highlights and awards were made while he was with the Red Sox. So like Favre, it is not better to say it as "with the Minnesota Twins and Boston Red Sox" because despite the article being predominantly dedicated to his Red Sox career, the sentence gives his time between the two teams equal weight, and misleads readers into assuming his tenure with one team was not significantly more prominent than the other. At the end of the day, his time with the Twins essentially is on par with his playing in the Mariners farm system with the public because the average individual doesn't identify Ortiz with either of those teams. He or she identifies him with the Red Sox. That's not an assumption - again the lead was primarily dedicated to his time with the Red Sox before my edits, he played significantly longer for the Red Sox, all of his career highlights and awards in the infobox occurred during his Red Sox tenure, and all of his pictures, including his main one, are from or related to his Red Sox career. That being said, I am not opposed to adding a sentence such as "He also played for the Minnesota Twins" in the first paragraph. My only issue is a sentence like that affects the flow of the opening paragraph, which discusses his accolades and accomplishments with the Red Sox. As I keep noting, his time with other teams is dwarfed by his time with the Red Sox in this article. Nevertheless, if you and others believe it is improvement, I will agree to mentioning his time with the Minnesota Twins in the first paragraph so long as the emphasis on his Red Sox career remains in the opening sentence (e.g. "...primarily with the Boston Red Sox. He also played for the Minnesota Twins"). As far as proper procedure goes, I believe it best to focus on edits and content than individuals when a discussion moves to the talk page, save for persistent vandalism. My edit was reverted a second time for a different reason due to an error I made and I was under the impression that an understanding was being reached. Bluerules (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of examples one could choose to make your point. That's the beauty and curse of an open source project. The lead sentence of Ozzie Smith says he "played in Major League Baseball (MLB) for the San Diego Padres and St. Louis Cardinals from 1978 to 1996". Clearly he's more recognizable as a Cardinal than a Padre, similarly to how Ortiz is more recognizable as a Red Sox (Sock?) than Twin. The lead makes clear Ortiz's connection to the Red Sox and brevity of his tenure with the Twins, and Spanneraol is absolutely right that his tenure with the Twins deserves more weight than that in the Mariners organization. I think it's preferable to include the Twins in the first sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That there is, but that also doesn't change the point that editing the lead to emphasize an athlete is more recognizable for one team than the other is not a practice commonly objected to and the fact that other articles follow this approach. If Smith's article was changed to put his time with the Cardinals over his time with the Padres, would that be reverted? No objections were made when I changed Steve Young's lead to emphasize his 49ers tenure over his Express and Buccaneers tenure, changed Joe Montana's lead to emphasize his 49ers tenure over his Chiefs tenure, and changed Peyton Manning's lead to emphasize his Colts tenure over his Broncos tenure, which I was thanked for. While the lead (and article) overall establishes Ortiz's connection to the Red Sox and brevity of his tenure with the Twins, the first sentence does not - it's the subsequent sentences that make this clear, while the first sentence does not put emphasis on his time with one of these teams over the other one. While on one hand, his Twins tenure is deserving of more weight than his Mariners farm system tenure - which is reflected in the overall article - both are still dwarfed in the article and in the public eye by his Red Sox tenure. Still, I am not opposed to mentioning his Twins tenure in at least the opening paragraph, if not the first sentence. So as I stated above, my suggestion is to mention his Twins tenure in the second sentence, which would give his Twins tenure weight over his Mariners farm system tenure in the lead, while also keeping most weight on his Red Sox tenure. Is there any issue with this approach? Bluerules (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I propose breaking out the material on the shooting of David Ortiz to a new article at Shooting of David Ortiz. Since this is now unfolding to be a rather bizarre and involved conspiracy, it seems likely that there will be a substantial amount of well-reported investigation and criminal prosecution, parts of which will become increasingly tertiary to Ortiz himself. bd2412 T 04:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break out shooting 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion