Talk:Jim Joyce

message: Backlash from . SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by how long fans can hold grudges, 24 hours likely will not be long enough.  That said, I think everyone's eyes is on this article now... Resolute 01:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  My eyes will be on this article until it says something to the extent that the call was definitively incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.48.139 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend locking the article for a month so there will be no vandalism for the IP users who would mock at this umpire as well to forget by that time, agreed? 69.228.89.220 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  A month?  I think the way it is blocked now, with only a few editors privileged to change it and give their opinion, is long enough.  Not agreed. SAE (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but you should be prepared for edit wars. 69.228.89.220 (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now it is fully protected.  I suspect in 24 hours it will be dropped to semi-protection, which will allow autoconfirmed users to freely edit (those who are registered with 10+ edits).  I've little doubt that semi-protection will be required for some time. Resolute 03:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It has been updated to reflect Joyce's admission.  Resolute 02:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotected for 24 hours 

message: Jim Joyce now infanmous for being the worst umpire in baseball history. He blew the biggest call in baseball history on June 2, 2010 during the game of the Detroit Tigers and the Cleveland Indians. Galarraga, Detroits pitcher, threw a perfect game from start to finish. On the last out of the game Galarraga tagged first base to end the game and attribute his perfect game. But Jim Joyce, the worst umpire ever, called the runner safe when he was out by more then a step. Jim Joyce should be fired for his continious poor behavior in the manner he makes calls. After all, it has been said that the MLB should allow previews on calls such as the one that took place in this game. Jim Joyce robbed the 21st perfect game from Galarraga, and robbed history.
98.243.162.212 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Denied. See WP:NPA and WP:NPOV. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 98.243.162.212, 3 June 2010 

message: Jim Joyce made a terrible call at first base because Armando Gallaraga cleary caught the ball which was hit to Miguel Cabrera as he tossed the ball to 1st base Jim Joyce clearly didn't see the call because he was not looking at the base when the play was made. After the game, Jim Joyce and Jim Leyland got in a arguement which resulted in some of the Tigers bench clearing and Jim Leyland agruing with Joyce.
24.45.91.12 (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 24.45.91.12, 3 June 2010 

message: Change to Blown Call please. 
Not even close.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubsnskers05 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's standard Wikipedia practice to describe controversial or contentious things as controversies rather than using more subjective terms. You can clearly see this with respect to political scandals, where even if the term "scandal" is in wide use in secondary sources, we will generally prefer the neutral form "controversy." E.g. Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, rather than U.S. Attorneys firing scandal. I think we should retain the descriptor "controversial," and not change it to "blown call," regardless of the outcome of the question I've raised above. SS451 (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not controversial or contentious.  That it was a blown call seems to be fairly unanimous.  169.232.237.251 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Can you find a reference for the above statement? SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Could just use the Perfect Game article.. or again, we could just remove that part. SirFozzie (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  I was getting a ref when the article went under protection.  So I quit. SAE (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Call?????????????????? 

message: Motion to delete.	 
--207.255.199.12 (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, you just don't want to have an article on him just because of the missed call he made. If he wasn't notable before, he certainly is now ;) SirFozzie (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on, are you serious right now, or just plain dumb (@207.255, not SirFozzie)? 'He could be infamously known for years to come' Of course he will be, this is one of the worst calls in MLB history, and we could even see some rule changes come out of this (there will be a huge outcry for video replay on all plays after this for sure).--69.212.41.18 (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This guy isn't notable. 

message: I think that it's probably a good idea to protect Jason Donald (baseball) and Armando Galarraga, Frustrated vandals may try to vandalize those pages after first coming here. Just a thought, and just a small protection would probably suffice.--69.212.41.18 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Galarraga's article is already protected, and nothing is happening at Donald's.  There are plenty of admin eyes on it, however. Resolute 01:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is there vandalism going on at Jason Donald (baseball), there is also vandalism at Jason Donald, and even, for some reason, at Don Denkinger.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting from Vandalism 

message: It's not just a controversal call. It's the worst made ever in baseball history.
97.83.67.65 (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm...no.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 97.83.67.65, 3 June 2010 

message: Yes
: not a chance.  The call was incorrect that is a NPOV.  SAE (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I'm afraid I don't see how that's biased. Numerous sources (Detroit counts still IMO) and replays shown all over TV clearly show that he was in fact out which to me (with proper references) makes it fine to include if we make it clear that it was controversial.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replay 

message: After the game, Joyce acknowledged that he had missed the call: "I just cost that kid a perfect game. I thought he beat the throw. I was convinced he beat the throw, until I saw the replay."
That was recently added into the Perfect Game article. Frank AnchorTalk 02:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: I could add this myself, but given the article is fully protected will go through the talk page.  Joyce has reacted to the controversy and this should be noted.  I'm also not a fan of a "if x had happened then y would have happened" statements.  Thus, I propose to change the second paragraph of the controversial call section to the following:
-----
Tigers' color commentators said that "The Tigers' fans have been cheated out of the greatest pitching experience in Tiger history."Tigers Radio Broadcast, June 2, 2010  Joyce spoke with the media following the game and admitted he made a mistake: "I just cost the kid a perfect game. I thought he beat the throw. I was convinced he beat the throw until I was the replay. It was the biggest call of my career." Joyce apologized to Galarraga following the game after he saw the replay.
-----
Resolute 02:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciated.  Resolute 02:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: LMAO!  That is exactly what the USA Today reference says.  I've corrected the typo though, as that is obviously a mistake on their part. Resolute 02:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: "Controversial" is still correct, technically.  I agree with the above that it is the better word from an encyclopedic tone. Resolute 02:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's not correct.  There's no controversy around the call -- it's unanimous that the call was blown.  For a controversy to exist, there has to be, well... a controversy. SAE (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, no one is defending the accuracy of the call in any active sense, but as above, the AP and possibly other sportswriters have adopted the "appeared to show" formulation, for the time being. Since "controversy" is the ordinary, if rather dull way that Wikipedia describes anything which is subject to any dispute or uncertainty whatsoever, I strongly feel that the heading should remain as is for the time being SS451 (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where are you reading "appeared to show"?  ESPN, MLB.com, Sports Illustrated, all say either "missed call," or "blown call" or both!  "Appeared to show" was so 1/2 hour ago ;) SAE (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversial and debatable are not synonyms.  It certainly is not debatable that Joyce blew the call.  But the play itself is controversial. I'd like to see what others say before changing the current wording to blown or missed.  Resolute 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the thing to note here is that "controversial" isn't at all inaccurate, it's merely not as descriptive (or not as descriptive in a certain sense) as some would prefer. I really can't see why it's so important that the heading be changed when the section has already declared the call incorrect and recorded Joyce's concession of the same. It certainly is controversial; there's a strong WP style convention which tends to use "controversy" in headings and titles for situations analogous to this one. It should remain "Controversial Call." SS451 (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I definitely agree that this should be Blown or Missed call, because ESPN and MLB.com both state it as such. Kevinmon•talk•trib 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. Controversial usually implies controversy over whether it was correct. It's misleading. Enigmamsg 02:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree and insist on a change as well. Controversial as used in the article implies the call itself was in controversy when it was in fact not. Even the umpire admitted he made a mistake and the call was missed/blown. The article should be changed to reflect that. The only thing that is controversial about the whole affair (not the call) is whether it will lead to more instant replay. Gateman1997 (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  @ Resolute, "the play itself is controversial" -> yes, certainly, but the call isn't.  The call is not controversial, nor debatable; it's plain missed.  I think that with the most traffic coming now to this article tonight, that we are "blowing the call" here by coming with our own POV that it's "controversial."  Every source says "missed" or "blown."  We need to change it, fast!  SAE (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The call is itself a source of controversy. Not really as to its correctness, at this point, but rather as to its effects and the reasons behind it. Honestly, what you're looking for here is an exception to the consistent practice with regard to headings and titles. SS451 (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: We do not need to change it fast.  The article makes it clear Joyce missed the call, by his own words.  You are getting caught up on semantics. Resolute 03:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An exception is warranted when an event is so clear. And, although the article later makes it clear Joyce missed the call, someone glancing over the page should not be misled. JakeH07 (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, if another admin chooses to change the section name along those lines, I'd not object.  Maybe a more descriptive title would work better though?  I can't think of anything good off hand, but "Controverial/blown/missed call" lacks context. Resolute 03:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Yup.  There certainly seems to be consensus on that point, and I've made a change. Resolute 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two cents were a little too late, I suppose. 136.181.195.10 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But always valuable. Resolute 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: *Agreed.  That said, the section is no longer titled in that fashion.  In the long run, I suspect the current wording of the section title will be more appropriate, as this is already drawing debate on whether MLB should overturn the call (which would be unprecedented) and its impact on the expansion of video review of calls, which is controversial. Resolute 17:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think it would alleviate a lot of the complaints (see the edit request below) to just not refer to it as a controversial call. The section can be perfect game controversy or something similar, but it should be clear from the beginning that it was a blown/missed call and everyone agrees on that point, as opposed to a controversial call where some argue it was correct. Enigmamsg 17:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Why shouldn't it be referred to as a controversial call once? Again, there's no question that it was, and the article makes clear that the call was wrong. (It does so in the lead, in fact.) I just don't think arguing from the perspective of a reader who wanders into this article, skips the lead, reads the first sentence under the "perfect game" heading, and then fails to read anything else in the article is valid. The overwhelming majority of readers who even casually skim this article will come away with the correct impression that it was a controversial call which was incorrect, and which cost Galarraga his bid at a perfect game. SS451 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be referred to as a controversial call at all, because it's not an accurate description. Again, there is controversy surrounding it, but not about the call itself. That's why you have a lot of users complaining about it. It wasn't a controversial call. Enigmamsg 21:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you say there is controversy surrounding "it," what precisely are you talking about? The game, surely, but also the call itself. Evidence of the controversy surrounding it is the fact that dozens of secondary source have been broadcasting images and videos of the play that led to the call last night and today, with attendant discussion about the call. There is not a controversy as to the correctness of the call; but there is a controversy as to why it happened (both on the simple level of why Joyce did not correctly interpret the sequence of events, and on the institutional level of why a single official is currently allowed to make such a consequential call without any technological input), what its implications will be (expansion of instant replay, a possible overturning of the call itself) and of what difference it should make in interpreting the outcome of the game--that is, whether Galarraga "really" pitched a perfect game or not. All of this stems from the call itself, mostly directly. It's probably the most controversial call of at least the last couple decades. I don't know why you're so determined to obscure that rather obvious fact, when, again, the article makes it blindingly clear that the call was uncontroversially incorrect. SS451 (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not determined to obscure anything, and I resent your saying so. I was speaking to how "controversial call" is typically used. Enigmamsg 22:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Jim Joyce's reaction

message: I'm not sure if this qualifies for Template:Press since it looks like a blog but it got the front page of yahoo and I thought some editors here right now might find it interesting anyways: "It's not hard to see why Joyce's Wikipedia page was vandalized within seconds...." Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely a blog, but Yahoo! blogs are reliable, imnsho.  "Watch the controversial play here" hmmm. Resolute 04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It's a controversial "play" because the play, which included a "blown call," caused the controversy.  You are trying too hard to be even-handed here.  The call was blown AND the play is controversial.  It's not one or the other, so stop trying to make Wikipedia hide behind the noncommittal "controversy" shield.  Here, the most important thing is that the call was "blown" by the ump.  The headline could read, "Controversy Over Blown Call in Potential Perfect Game." Abergeman (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Press (kind of)

message: Look... It's even being reported on ESPN as a "blown call" and "the worst call in MLB history." So don't tell me that I was wrong.
97.83.67.65 (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 97.83.67.65, 3 June 2010 

message: Just a suggestion....it seems to me like the section should have a more specific title (somethings along the lines of "Perfect Game Controversy" or "Armondo Galarraga Controversy").  Jim Joyce is going to forever go down in history for this call, and I don't that section being deleted or merged with another ever.  If there were more than one controversial call included in the article, then "Controversial Calls" would be an acceptable title, but in this case, it is far more specific and should include a more specific heading. WildFan48 06:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable. It should obviously also go in the lead ("He is most famous/notable for making an incorrect call which ended Armando Galarraga's bid for a perfect game on what would have been the final out of the game"; that's worded clumsily, but you get the point) when protection comes down. SS451 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: A title like this would be better, agreed.  I'll make a change along these lines now, and we can continue to discuss improvements to it as the day goes on. Resolute 14:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Title 

message: Why is this page locked? It should be one here how Bud Selig has also faced controversy for not overturning the official decision; especially after the events of the 2002 All-Star Game. 
"He wants you to appreciate him for introducing the wild card, for authorizing the Mitchell Report, and for giving birth to the World Baseball Classic. He would also prefer it if you forgot all about that 7-7 score at the 2002 All-Star Game. Well, here's your big chance, Bud. The Tigers are in the books as 3-0 winners either way. So grab your heaviest lumber, step into the box, and remember one last thing:Don't shrug." wrote ESPN's Ian O'Connor upon seeing the replay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.117.164 (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What ever gave you the idea that you have "freedom of speech" on a private website?  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Uh, what?  It's privately owned and maintained.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: You could not be more wrong, actually.  "Public" in this context refers only to the government.  As such, your freedom of speech is protected only against government intrusion.  Wikimedia is a non-profit organization, but still a private one and has the right to enforce its own terms of service.  Wikipedia does allow valid users to edit, however in some cases articles require protection to prevent the addition of defamatory material. This was such a case, and the full protection was placed for only 24 hours to allow people to calm down.  In the meantime, please feel free to propose your additions here, and if they align with Wikipedia's policies, we can incorporate them. Resolute 14:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: WP:NPOV. -DJSasso (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Do you have any reliable sources that talk about that? For example newspapers etc? If so I would love to see that in the article. Without it sadly we can't have it, especially with living people we need to be very strict on sourcing something that could be construed as problematic. With it however I would love to see it. James (T C) 21:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are articles bouncing around.  Some on MLB.com even.  The possibility of overturning the call (and it's rejection) only happened this morning/afternoon.  My suggestion, Joecarroll, is to write the paragraph you want to add here, with the sources you want to use, and we'll add it to the article.  The full protection is going to drop shortly, allowing most registered users the ability to edit again.  There certainly is a lot of work to do on this article, and now that people have cooled down somewhat, the article will be better for it. Resolute 21:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to freedom of speech? 

message: Remove the word "controversial" 
From the page on Controversy:
Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion.
There are no dissenting opinions from "it was a bad call."  Additionally, it is clearly seen on video replay.  Thus, there is no dispute or debate, thus no controversy.  
Mcberry (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree... the call being bad might not be controversial, but the ramifications for baseball may be. This call has started a debate that might end up changing of the rules of baseball.  That isn't mentioned in the article yet but I suspect as the "controversy" plays out there will be plenty to add latter.  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree. I don't think controversial call is the appropriate term. Enigmamsg 22:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Mcberry, 3 June 2010 

message: Dude's been an ump for years and almost the entire article's about a blown call in a game between two bad teams who won't make the playoffs.  The blown call wasn't even the biggest news in baseball yesterday (that would be Griffey's retirement) so remove the whole thing from the article.  68.45.109.136 (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The recentism issue is fixed by expanding the rest of the article.  And this story eclipsed Griffey's retirement everywhere, even Seattle. Resolute 18:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs an RV recentism 

message: I'm not sure this is the right terminology.  I mean, what is the record?  Most perfect games in a 23 day period?  I would re-word to "A perfect game by Galarraga would have been an unprecedented third perfect game in the Major Leagues in twenty-three days."  Or something of that nature.  I'm not sure what it should be exactly, but that sentence just seems a little odd to me. 136.181.195.10 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is accurate to say it would have set a record for shortest total time period separating one perfect game from the second one to follow it. However, "unprecedented" or similar terminology makes that point just as effectively. SS451 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It would have set a couple MLB records, and nearly set several others. It definitely would have set the record for most perfect games in a season, in fact, one more perfect game this DECADE ties a record.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.39.85 (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's absolutely ridiculous what has happened in the last month, and I'm sure it would set records left and right.  Just that the way it's worded right now seems very odd.136.181.195.10 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would have set a major league record... 

message: I suggest changing the title "Armando Galarraga perfect game controversy" to "Armando Galarraga  near perfect game controversy," since thats what it was, a near perfect game (In the official records anyway) Frank AnchorTalk 02:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For purely aesthetic reasons, I'm inclined to disfavor the change; it's already a long heading, and this change would only make it clunkier. On substance, I could really go either way. No, it isn't an official perfect game, but given that everyone, from commissioner to umpire to all of sports journalism has now acknowledged that the call was blown, it really is accurate to call it a perfect game in a loose descriptive if not a formal sense. SS451 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I can go with that.  The title is long already I never really thought of that. Frank AnchorTalk 13:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Perfect Game Controversy

message: Video Replay was introduced in September 2008, not 2010, as the article currently says.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.65.175 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Error 

message: Joyce came to prominence in 2010 after he made an incorrect call at first base WITH TWO OUTS IN THE NINTH INNING that cost pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game,<
71.41.7.34 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 22:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 71.41.7.34, 6 June 2010 

message: I saw a IP blank a section and add racist comments on it, and it was immediately reverted. Do you think they havent't forgotten about the bad call 6 days from when it happened? Does it need to be protected again?  Isabella and Lego Liker Whatcha doin'? 16:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh*.  I was already on the fence on reprotecting last night.  There is definitely still too much vandalism happening.  Giving it another week of semi. Resolute 16:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I will watch for bad edits on it starting tomorrow.  Isabella and Lego Liker Whatcha doin'? 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Page was vandalized again. Do we need a longer block period that is longer than a week for this to stop about the bad call?  Isabella and Lego Liker Whatcha doin'? 01:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again!  Isabella and Lego Liker Whatcha doin'? 03:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We're also considering placing it under pending changes (see the bottom of []). –MuZemike 03:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that.  Articles like this are exactly what flagged revisions has in mind.  The truth is, this article is going to face vandalism for the forseeable future. Resolute 03:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reprotecting the page necessary? 

message: I think this page should be protected. Even seven months later, there's still constant vandalism. 173.26.237.244 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been only two vandal edits in the last two months.  Not nearly high enough to warrant protection.  There are also a lot of eyes on this article still - one of those edits was reverted instantaneously, and the other lasted three minutes. Resolute 22:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should be protected