Talk:Roger Clemens/Archive 1

message: I believe that edits by User:12.154.167.138 on Jan 27th have made this article read in a pov fashion and may not flow as well as the previous version. Examples cited below:
* After a shaky 1999 and problem filled 2000 Clemens hit his stride in 2001 as a Yankee. It was on warn night in September, 2001 in memory of the Trade Center that Clemens won his 20th win of the season and for the first time by New York fans was considered a Yankee.
* Because the beloved Yankee Paul O'Neil who was the unofical clubhouse leader already wore number 21, Clemens' former number, The Rocket wore number 12 in 1999 but after his sub-par season 14-10, 4.60, 163 Clemens requested another number and number 22 he became. 
*Piazza charged the mound Clemens picked up a piece of bat and threw in the general direction of Piazza, clearing the benches of both teams. Neither were ejected from the game, although Clemens would later be fined $50,000.
*In 2003 Clemens won his 300th victory (After losing several attempts in a row) becoming a Hall of Fame deadlock, as a Yankee in Yankee stadium, something no one else has ever done. On that night with the flash bulbs going off and 2 of his sons bagging dirt from the mound no one could doubt that Roger was a Yankee
*He also appeared in the SI swimsuit issue with his wife Debbie (neither one of them looked forty).
Thoughts, anyone ? No Guru 17:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Npov edits 

message: W.Marsh keeps removing relevant criteria about Roger Clemens's controversies and dislikeability. While not removing all controversy Clemens has been involved in, he shapes it so Clemens's admirers have the last word.
To wit: he's deleted Bill Simmon's documented comments about Roger, Roger's disappearing headhunting act, and Clemens's inability to come through in numerous clutch situations.
W.Marsh needs to realize that a large segment of the baseball-viewing community dislike Clemens for these specific reasons, and Clemens is probably the last hall-of-fame pitcher you'd want starting any significant, pressure-packed game you had. 
Stop trying to rehabilitate the guy. He's not going to get love, no matter how much you try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.240.200 (talk) 
:I have a few concerns. First, you're reverting other edits when you add that. Second, it's long and unformatted, and a criticism section shouldn't take up half the length of an article no matter how much you dislike a guy. Third, a lot of it is unreferenced... saying things like "has been claimed", "One could also argue", "Some fans argue that"... this is classic use of weasel words to push a POV and needs to go. Add criticism with citations of actual articles and it can probably stay, so long as the overall length of the criticism section isn't frivilous. Just re-adding the section again and again is not good.
:For the record, I am not a Clemens fan personally... but that has little to do with how I edit the article. --W.marsh 13:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second W.marsh's comments. I suggest that you hash out your disagreement here on the talk page rather than getting into a revert war. And, 160.39.240.200, please sign your comments with the wikicode ~~~~ so we know who is writing a message. You might also consider creating an account on Wikipedia. -Phoenixrod 13:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edit 

message: I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure how to do this myself, but the comment that Dennis Eckersley was the first relief pitcher to win an MVP is incorrect.  Jim Konstanty won in 1950, Rollie Fingers in 1981, and Willie Hernandez in 1984.  It's probably better to just delete rather than correct the sentence, since it isn't really relavant to Clemens in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.15.236 (talk) 
:You're right, I've removed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Let me know if there's anything else wrong, or feel free to fix it yourself. --W.marsh 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Error 

message: A fact citation is hardly needed for this quote: "The emphasis on the 1996 "twilight" quote took on a life of its own following Clemens' post-Boston successes, and Duquette was vilified for letting the star pitcher go."
Try living in New England some time, or talking to a Red Sox fan. The Clemens mistake more than overrides all the good Duquette did for the franchise in the minds of Sox fans (he signed Manny Ramírez, for one). Though it, like selling Babe Ruth, was hardly an unreasonable decision at the time, Duquette has been vilified for it in the context of events he could not have foreseen.
Really, it's common knowledge that Duquette was vilified for this. The Clemens decision and the Ruth decision are probably the two most bemoaned baseball operations decisions in the history of the Red Sox franchise.
XINOPH | TALK  17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, that smacks of original research (see WP:NOR). "Well everybody feels this way!" is simply not a good source. If everyone feels that way, someone is bound to have written it in something that got published. So cite it :-) --W.marsh 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't write that everyone felt that way; read what I wrote. I wrote that the vilification of Duquette is common historical knowledge, at least in the sports world. This is not about how many people thought that, or whether a lot of people did; this is about the existence of heavy criticism being a common fact, rather than a specialized one requiring a source. This bears no relation whatsoever to original research. XINOPH | TALK  17:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact Needed? 

message: Much of the material being reverted to has POV issues, or worse.  "His inability to play well in clutch situations arose again..." is incorrect, as Clemens has performed exceptionally well in some big games, exceptionally poorly in others.  He won Game 7 of the 1986 ALCS, won the 18-inning Astros-Braves game, and would have won Game 7 of the 2001 World Series if the Yankees had held his 2-1 lead.  References to these games are being deleted in favor of comments about "a phantom hamstring injury."  Furthermore, Clemens' reputation for throwing close to batters most certainly did not "begin" to exist "in later years with the Yankees."  W.Marsh has greatly improved other sections of this page, but I don't understand these reversions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.199.33 (talk) 
:Thanks for discussing it... and I think you have a point that there are some issues with POV even still. But the solution is not to rewrite the controversy section to give equal time to his accomplishments, that's redundant and seems rather awkward, the solution is to make the controversy section simply accurate, well referenced summaries of the controversy he's been in over the years, and let the article as a whole (which is mostly summaries of his positive accomplishments) speak for itself. I've made a few changes to the section, and I encourage you to address anything else I've missed. --W.marsh 16:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking better, I've made some tweaks. I think we're getting closer. --W.marsh 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postseason/controversy/etc. 

message: can anyone locate for me a reference online listing Clemens' 2006 salary? thanks. Kingturtle 18:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. Nishkid64 03:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Salary 

message: While he accomplished a lot on the Yankees, obviously, his 12 years with Boston should credit the same if not more information then the Astros and Yankees, regardless of the WS wins on the Yankees.
:That is true. I think I will try to work on that and hopefully I can expand upon his best years with the Red Sox. Nishkid64 03:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team Stats 

message: Did that episode in the Controversies section really occur, where Clemens argued over paying his bill? The articles gives the date January 31, 2007 but I can't find any references of it online or in the news. --Aahchiou 12:19, 3 Feb 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restaurant Controversy 

message: If I were to come onto Wikipedia to find out about Roger Clemens' career, I wouldn't find out very much. This article spends a large amount of time on his controversies, which *are* worthy of discussion, but doesn't spend enough time on actual performance. It's a good article in my opinion, but it needs some reworking. The entire paragraph about his time with the Yankees contains two paragraphs of non-controversy information, and even those are all about his "retirement". That's my two cents. 
Blaiseball 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Issues With this Article 

message: Pitching inside is controversial? I suppose playing to win is also controversial. I know, in today's baseball batters think they can dig trenches with their cleats and then hang over the plate, but that's not the way a true competitor like Clemens plays. It's no wonder he dominates players today even more than he did 20 years ago. Mikevegas40 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitching Inside Is Controversial? 

message: Someone deleted all the steroid information in this article and that looks to me like pov. There is well sourced article from new your times. Leave the steroid thing in here. 67.41.157.5 00:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the steroid claims? 

message: Please consider using Template:Cite web for website citations, Template:Cite book for books, and Template:Cite news for any news related reference. I'm a big baseball fan and this has been a problem throughout many Baseball articles. -- JA10 Discuss • Edits 03:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation problems 

message: how is it that clemens' section about his return to the yanks in 07 is nearly twice as long as the section about his career with the red sox? i would gladly put in some work on this page but im busy with a different pitcher rite now.
I agree, not only is the Yankees section longer, there was one paragraph about his 8/7/07 ejection that rivalled the size of the entire Boston paragraph.  I fail to see why this one ejection should even be MENTIONED in the article (it's not the only time he was ejected in his career), let alone have an entire pargraph devoted to it.  IN the Boston section, there is ironically NO mention of the ejection in the 1990(?) ALCS, which was much more noteworthy at the time.  It looks like the author just wants to do a play-by-play account of Clemens' 2007 season.  162.136.192.1 18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs some overhauling 

message: In a book released in late 2007, native Houstonian and author Joseph Janczak in his nationally released book The Rocket: The Legend of Roger Clemens (Potomac Books  )claims that Clemens never did use steroids and his rise to fame was due to hard work that has been observable by many people during the past 25 years of Clemens' career. Additionally, each and every allegation or claim about Clemens and steroids has been through hear-say and gossip, which is not admissible in any reasonable debate and should not have been admissible into the Mitchell Report. Sportscreamer (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the user who left the comment say anything about Bonds? Maybe he loves Bonds also.--E tac (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steriods Use 

message: I removed some vandalism in the main heading regarding steroids - there were crude remarks about Clemens being homosexual and A CHEATER!!  Andrewdoane (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the user who left the comment say anything about Bonds? Maybe he loves Bonds also.--E tac (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I set up archiving on this talk page due to some outdated comments.   jj137 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: In the personal section it states "Debra once left a Red Sox game, when Clemens pitched for another team, in tears from the heckling she received. She claimed that the bad attitude of Boston fans was the reason they never won the World Series."  
Should we qualify this with some statement saying that the Red Sox have won the World Series numerous times (unless Debra said this before 1903, when BRS won their first WS)? Nutmegger (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debra's statement 

message: I would like someone to add a different picture of Clemens on the top right of the article. In that picture, he is pitching for the Astros, it would look better with a more updated one like when he was pitching for the Yankees in 2007. Please visit my talk page and user page. I would like a comment on my user page. I'm new here in wikipedia, joined feb 19,08.--RyRy5 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture Request 

message: I think we should add to the article that Clemens's lawyer says there is a photo that exists that shows Clemens at a party hosted by fellow steroid user José Canseco. This would be a very big clue in to finding out who is lying in this case.(Gordon24fan (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  José Canseco 

message: What does the last paragraph in that section - detailing Clemens' media appearances/spokesmanship deals/early autobiography - have to do with the accusations of steroid use? Th 2005 (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations of steroid use 

message: I remember around the time of his first retirement, Clemens made a statement that he would like to be inducted into the HOF as a Yankee, which created a lot of controversy, especially among Red Sox fans, because he spent most of his career with the Red Sox. I am surprised that this is absent from the article. Eventhough Wikipedia is known for recentism *cough*Steroid allegations*cough* I expected this to be in that short section, but it isn't. So could someone please add this with a citation? --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Should this article be nominated for Good Article status? If so, I will nominate it. I would like others opinions.--RyRy5 Talk & comment to RyRy?    04:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article? 

message: This articles appears to state that Koby Clemens is Jewish.  According to whom?  Is Debbie Clemens of Jewish descent? -- Gerkinstock (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody's Jewish in his family. Its just vandalism that managed to stick around for longer then it should have. It has been removed. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's Jewish? 

message: I see a noted typo. In the quoting of "never used anabolic steroids or human growth hormone warrants further investigation", it is missing an ending quotation  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.235.230 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Punctuation or Spelling Mistakes 

message: If McCreedy has confirmed that there was a relationship between the two, can we change the title to "Relationship with Mindy McCreedy"?  Patken4 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Made the change since no one disagreed.  Eevn Hardin says there was a relationship .  They just differ on whether or not it was sexual.  Patken4 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible involvement with Mindy McCready? 

message: 'Angela Merkel made quite a splash with the plunging neckline of the evening dress she wore at the opera in Oslo. Not generally considered a leader who exudes sexiness, the more-than-usual amount of chancellor cleavage on display in the Norwegian capital received considerable media coverage. Some commentators wondered if the dress signalled a general change in style for Merkel. Could somebody please explain to me why this is consider tabloid while  these are not?Matt_Leinart#Controversy Segolene_Royal#Policies Carmelo_Anthony#Controversies I read about the Merkel cleavage article in the news (most of the comments were complimentary). This blatant example of double-standard is unacceptable. Please refrain from removing the article's contents again.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something is done in other articles doesn't make it right.  Tell me exactly what is encyclopedic about this?Asher196 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removal of trivia from other articles would probably be a good idea and should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles.--Boson (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Quote from WP:NOT: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. Information about Ms. Merkel's cleavage hardly belongs in an encyclopaedia, and its absence is not going to "destroy every single article in Wikipedia".--Boson (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Clemens' involvement with McCready is relevant because it may be used against Clemens in his defamation suit against McNamee  - a case which is already (and justifiably) covered in the Controversy section. This may be why the editor who added the McCready information used a subheading under that section rather than creating a new section (which an editor later modified it to). This differentiates it from your Merkel edits. As for your other statements, please see WP:Other stuff exists. I am sorry that you are bitter that other edits of yours have been reverted, but please don't disrupt wikipedia to (try) to prove a point. Reverted. --SesameballTalk 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOT 

message: It was agreed upon here in topic #36 Baseball player infoboxes that the list of teams should be in chronological order. Please do not change it. Jackal4 (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Timeline 

message: There seems to be a back and forth here whether he should be considered a former/retired player or not. I presume that those in favor of "current" base their assertion on the fact that he never officially retired. So my question is - how much time has to go by before he can be considered "former"?  What if he never officially retires? Should he be "current" until he's ninety-years old?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I semi-backtracked from my comment. "Former" should never be used. A better intro would be, "was a pitcher....." Articles should be written with long-term considerations, and in 200 years from now, when he's long dead (unless steroids makes one live forever) "a former baseball pitcher" will make far less sense than "was a baseball pitcher". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I backtracked from my backtrack :-). It's hard to fashion an opening sentence using the word "was" without leading to an ambiguity that he's not alive. However, I'm having a hard time understanding your overall thought process. There are two editors that agree that he should be listed as retired, but you come along and just revert. But if you would have some sort deadline based on some sort of rationle, I would understand. However, you formulate your own seemingly arbitrary deadline and decide that all of Wikipedia has to abide by the deadline that you pulled out of your hat. Very perplexing. By the way, the reason he isn't officially retiring, I suspect, is becuse he does not want to get embarrassed by the Hall of Fame voting. Every player that retires is eligible for the Hall of Fame after five years. But if you never officially retire and are still alive you will not be voted on. Clemens won't officially retire because he is afraid that he'll get embarressed by the voting. Best,  --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not that "sad". If I wouldn't had publicized my mistake I wouldn't have learned what you just pointed out. Thanks!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former/retired or current? 

message: Yesterday, Roger Clemens Was Visiting Rich Gedman and his Can-AM team in Worcester,MA, He Was in the dug out here's the link: http://www.telegram.com/article/20080824/NEWS/808240611/1009/SPORTS  Dmanskater11 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visit To The Worcester Tornadoes 

message: I don't understand what "per agreement with the infoboxes" means.  This is the reason given to remove the fact that he is a free agent along with a source from the prose and the infobox.   Is there some policy, guide or essay somewhere that says if someone is a free agent it isn't listed in their article?  A new name 2008 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Agent 

message: According to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/1998/12/03/1998-12-03_clemens_demands_trade__yanke.html Clemens signed a 3/$24.75M deal with Toronto. I also remember the same number from watching the press conference at the time. I think the 4/$40M is off. Philname1 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toronto Contract 

message: It should be mentioned, in any article on MLB pitching, the "tightening" of the strike zone- throwing close pitches to keep a batter off the plate was part of the game for decades. Any pitcher who entered before the 2001 season had to alter, sometimes radically alter, their pitching to account for the new "tighter" strike zone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.45.97 (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chin Music" and "Dirty Pitching" 

message: The first line of the article: "William Roger Clemens, nicknamed "Rockette" because he is a girl", this is vandalism or there are a twist of words I don't understand?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kro3n3n (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was vandalism. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: There is no mention of the infamous Mike Piazza incident during the World Series except for a passing reference that calls it an "infamous" incident.  If it's so infamous, surely it should be included in this article.  I find it hard to believe that with such trivialities chronicled during his seasons, that something like this would be left off.  Anyone agree that this needs to be talked about in the article? Wikipediarules2221 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Piazza incident 

message: Did this happen?  I have heard it any number of times - he allegedly beaned one of his sons, maybe in training camp, after said offspring had the audacity to go deep against him.  Can't find an actual source, but the rumor is so persistent it warrants a mention either way, no?   ☯ ZenSwashbuckler ☠  18:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plunking-his-own-kid incident 

message: On January 20, 1991, Roger and his brother Gary were arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer at a Houston nightclub.  Clemens said he was coming to the defense of his brother Gary but Houston Police said Clemens jumped on the officer's back and put a choke-hold on him.  They were held overnight and released on bond the next day.TL36 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Mention of Felony Arrest for Assaulting Houston Police Officer 

message: Article does not discuss his retirement.  That's why I came to look at it.  but missing.  TCO (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  retirement? 

message: Shouldn't the ref for a SI photo be that issue of SI?  Also, please write and get her to donate it to wikipedia.TCO (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  bikini photo of his wife 

message: "Also has been known to Blow the occasional Goat." - source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.87.61 (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism