Talk:Jeff Kent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I didn't put in the feud with Bradley, and I do agree that it's questionable whether it goes into the article, but the feud is not unsubstantiated -- it's reported widely in the press, and it was not denied by any of the parties (Bradley, Kent, or Dodgers manager Jim Tracy). It's whether Kent is in fact a racist that is being disputed and unsubstantiated. --Nlu 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think without some cite that this event has had some notable impact on Kent's career, reporting unsubstantiated accusations isn't the job of an encyclopedia article. —Cleared as filed. 15:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

Kent is no longer a Giant and is hated by Giants fans...can we change the photo? I found a pic of him in a dodger uniform http://www.japantimes.co.jp/images/photos2004/sb20041211a1a.jpg ChopAtwa 04:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Jeff Kent → Jeff Kent (baseball player) – The reason for the requested move is that there is no primary Jeff Kent and the qualification by occupation of the article on this Jeff Kent will help readers to find the specific person they are looking for more easily. The main evidence in support of this is:

  1. This Jeff Kent is undoubtedly very well known in the USA for his baseball exploits, but baseball is relatively meaningless to people in most countries in the rest of the world, so it is very doubtful that he is world renowned. The other Jeff Kent on Wikipedia is Jeff Kent (author). This Jeff Kent is much better known in the British Isles (and maybe in other non-North American parts of the English-speaking world) than the baseball player.
  2. Jeff Kent (author) has renown for his achievements in a number of different fields. The baseball Jeff Kent has renown for success in only one field.
  3. Jeff Kent (author) is still active in the fields in which he is listed and therefore is adding to his achievements. The baseball Jeff Kent is no longer active in his field and is therefore not adding to his successes.
  4. Jeff Kent (author) is listed in a number of different international biographies, for example Dictionary of International Biography, International Biographical Centre, ISBN 978-1-903986-26-4; International Who's Who of Authors and Writers, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-85743-470-5, and International Who's Who in Popular Music, Routledge, ISBN 978-1-85743-514-6.

In conclusion, I'm requesting that the Jeff Kent (author) page remains as it is and that this page becomes Jeff Kent (baseball player).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoobysoo (talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Page view statistics (baseball player, author) indicate that the baseball player's page averages about 220 hits per day (with numerous spikes and a peak as high as 2400), whereas the author's page averages 10 hits per day (with few spikes and a peak of 420). The baseball player's page appears to be the intended target of most readers who search for Jeff Kent, even when subtracting the author's page hits from the baseball player's page hits (if we assume all those hits for the baseball player resulted in a click of the hatnote to get to the author's page). Average ratio is about 22:1 (excluding peaks), overall ratio is about 13:1. Mindmatrix 13:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't dispute your statistics, but in what way do they help the readership to distinguish which Jeff Kent on Wikipedia is which? Surely, two different article headings, showing the different Jeff Kents by their main occupation will help the readers to find the one they are looking for more easily. (Snoobysoo) (Snoobysoo (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
The page titles and the hatnote on the page with the title that is not disambiguated should be sufficient. The first phrase any reader landing on the baseball player's page sees is "For the author, see Jeff Kent (author)." Page view statistics are useful in determining if the plain title should be assigned a particular item, or it should be a disambiguation page; when the page views are heavily skewed, as they are in this case, the concept with the dominant amount of traffic is deemed to be the primary topic (as indicated by other comments below) and is assigned to the plain title. It's the same reason why London is about the place in the UK, and not the various other locations and other concepts with the name London worldwide (see London (disambiguation)). Mindmatrix 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As the page views cited above indicate, far more people are searching for the baseball player than the author. WP:PRIMARY TOPIC seems to indicate that the page should remain as is. Spanneraol (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per page views demonstrating the ball player as the primary topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be general agreement regarding the numbers of hits on the respective pages, but they constitute only one criterion for page naming. Other criteria giving a different conclusion were stated in the original request for the page move.

Also, naming a new page Jeff Kent (baseball player) will not hinder readers looking for this Jeff Kent from finding him. In fact, it will help because there can be no confusion as to whom the title is refering, as he is primarily known for a single type of activity. However, Jeff Kent (author) is notable in a number of different and unconnected fields. Therefore, a reader looking for Jeff Kent the campaigner may not know that he is also a writer and consequently may click on Jeff Kent. S/he will end up on the baseball player's article and probably then become confused, possibly giving up the search, believing that the campaigner is not listed on Wikipedia. The same case may apply to someone looking for Jeff Kent the historian, the musician and the academic. There is therefore a case, for the ease of the readership to find their right man, that Jeff Kent (author) becomes the primary Jeff Kent, even though his page visit traffic is considerably lower than that of the baseball player. In conclusion, for the readers, moving Jeff Kent to Jeff Kent (baseball player) would make sense and help clarification. (Snoobysoo (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

  • Potential conflict of interest. I think there is a high probability that Snoobysoo IS Jeff Kent (author) or someone very closely related to him. Looking at the page history of that article, Snoobysoo did not appear until after someone using the user name "Kent, Jeff" was busted for conflict of interest. Very shortly after that Snoobysoo showed up and has been the primary author of that page and of several other pages related to Jeff Kent (author). Spanneraol (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, that user knows the author, as he uploaded this photograph (and another) as an "own work". Mindmatrix 13:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contravention of Wikipedia Policy. The previous two comments (by Spanneraol and Mindmatrix) are in contravention of all Wikipedia's four Talk Page policies: Be polite and welcoming to new users; assume good faith; avoid personal attacks and for disputes, seek resolution.

Both users are being very impolite as they're talking about me as though I'm an inanimate object and not to me as a human being. Both (especially Spanneraol) are implying that there is bad faith on my part, without any evidence presented to support such an implication. The comments (epspecially those of Spanneraol), in their tone and implications, are personal in nature and not connected to the merits of the discussion. And I don't see any attempt at resolution in the comments; on the contrary, they are mildly inflammatory or potentially inflammatory in nature. The idea of this page is for a discussion to take place on the merits of the proposed case. The aforementioned comments are not debating in nature, but are implicitly accusatory and therefore unhelpful to a meaningful discussion. The Wikipedia policies for articles are: no original research; neutral point of view and verifiability. The information I have put onto site articles has numerous footnotes (many more than is typical on the site) and therefore my contributions are both verifiable and not based on original research. As all of my statements are factual in nature, they are therefore neutral by definition, as facts cannot be biased. I do know Jeff Kent (author), which has helped me to ascertain facts and add accurate information on the subject, which, I believe, has firmed up the article considerably. The world is full of people (and there are sadly examples on Wikipedia articles) who know everything about everything without actually knowing much about anything and like to add uninformed and/or misinformed information, thereby causing havoc in the world of knowledge. In terms of the level of accuracy that Wikipedia is looking for as an online reference work, knowledge of a subject is the key to success. A contributor never having met the subject of a biography is very likely to have a limited understanding of the subject. In terms of the discussion on this page, there is no advantage to me, nor to Jeff Kent (author) as far as I can see, in my proposal to move the Jeff Kent article to Jeff Kent (baseball player) because the Jeff Kent (author) article would be unaffected. Neither would there be any disadvantage to the baseball player. The advantage would be to the readers, who would more easily be able to find the subject they are looking for. I have presented my arguments rationally above and in good faith and in no way am I mischief making. I am therefore asking that the Wikipedia policies be respected and adhered to and that the discussion takes place on the merits of the cases presented. (Snoobysoo (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

There was nothing "impolite" or personal about our comments. We were simply pointing out that you had a conflict of interest due to your association with the subject. Since you seem to be quoting regulations you should know that editing articles about someone you have a personal relationship with without disclosing that relationship is against policy. And I disagree with your comment that it is not relevant to this discussion as you might have a distorted view of the relative importance of the author Jeff Kent. As to the merits of the case itself, as discussed before a substantial difference exists between those seeking the baseball article and those seeking the author and adding in a disambiguation page when none is needed is a disservice to those people. Spanneraol (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear about my earlier comment:
  • I briefly reviewed the article Jeff Kent (author)
  • On that article I found this photograph
  • On that photo page, it states Snoobysoo (you) is the uploader
  • On that photo page, it states the uploader, Snoobysoo, produced the work (an "own work")
  • I concluded that Snoobysoo, who took a photograph of the subject and uploaded it, must be acquainted with the subject. (At the very least, the author and Snoobysoo must have met for a photo session.) I said nothing further.
You then inferred that my comment is "in contravention of all Wikipedia's four Talk Page policies". I stated a fact and nothing more. You should review your own comment and evaluate it with respect to the policies you've cited. Mindmatrix 00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your page move proposal, the "advantage would be to the readers" is your opinion. Wikipedia has a policy about using the basic title for the article that is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It has been shown to you that this is the case for the baseball player. Everyone who has commented here supports that position except you. The article about the baseball player already contains a note at the top to direct the few readers searching for the author to the correct page. Nothing more needs to be done. But don't take my opinion for this - if you'd like input from a wider audience of Wikipedia contributors, you can request further comments to this page using {{rfc}}. Mindmatrix 00:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spanneraol and Mindmatrix, you are now addressing me personally in a pleasant manner and putting your responses in a debating way and I accept and respect that.

The position that we've reached, as I see it, is that the majority of the few users who've contributed to the discussion favour keeping the Jeff Kent page as it is because of the greater number of hits on that page, which is a single criterion. I alone favour moving it to Jeff Kent (baseball player) and have put forward several other reasons in support of this suggestion. No arguments against those reasons have been put. As it stands, therefore, I believe that in totality my points have the greater merit (the more so as no-one is disadvantaged by my suggestion), but that the conservative case (clearly) has the greater numerical support. I don't wish to persist in discussion on the subject indefinitely (not least because the moving or otherwise of the article isn't so important as to require continuous debate) and am asking you how you suggest we might reach agreement for resolution, in line with Wikipedia policy in disputes. (Snoobysoo (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move[edit]

{{Subst: Jeff Kent|Jeff Kent (baseball player)}} The reason for the requested move is that the previous discussion, above, was not completed and therefore should be continued. I asked for suggestions on how agreement for resolution might be reached, but there were no responses. As it is Wikipedia policy for agreements to try to be reached in disputes, this should be attempted. The key points that the opponents of the requested move need to consider are: 1. As the Jeff Kent and Jeff Kent (author) pages stand, how is a reader supposed to identify which of them refers to Jeff Kent, the campaigner; Jeff Kent, the musician; Jeff Kent, the publisher; Jeff Kent, the academic, etc, which the author is also listed as being? The current situation is not clear to the readers. Changing Jeff Kent to Jeff Kent (baseball player) will help the readers to select the right option. 2. What disadvantage to anyone would the requested move be? It clarifies the baseball player in his primary occupation, but does not elevate the status of the author. 3. Wikipedia policy does not require nor specifically request that there should be a primary topic and therefore the proposed change is in line with Wikipedia policy. But, in conclusion, I'm asking for suggestions on how agreement for resolution of the requested move might be reached. (Snoobysoo (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

The previous discussion was completed because no one supported your position. And frankly, I doubt very many people would really care about all the different occupations of Jeff Kent (author)... and if they do they could figure it out fairly quickly. Your opinion is against consensus as everyone else who participated in the discussion felt that the resolution should be to keep things as they are.Spanneraol (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion was clearly not completed. You are saying that might is right, that arguments are won by numerical advantage. Wikipedia laments that most disputes are often won by weight of numbers and not on merit. Why is it that you aren't prepared to try to reach some agreed solution? I'm open minded to that, but are you? (Snoobysoo (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Discussions usually last a week, and that one was closed after a week which is proper. Your solution is that you win the argument... I think things should stay as they are and I feel that your personal connection to the subject makes your opinion of his notability somewhat biased. Spanneraol (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Connection to a subject does not automatically make an outlook/opinion biased, although I agree that it might do. I have done my best to be objective in the discussions on the proposed move, but whether I have succeeded in that is, of course, a matter of opinion.

If several people are having a discussion about different points of view and one person asks the others for suggestions on how they think an agreement might be reached between them, the only way that the discussion has ended there and then is through the other people involved refusing, or being sufficiently disinterested, to attempt to reach an agreement. That's why I attempted this continuing discussion, to ask others to put forward ideas to which we could all agree. In my opinion, you are not being objective in the discussion. At the end of the last discussion, I asked for suggestions on how an agreement might be reached. I repeated that at the start of this discussion and at the end of my last post, I said, 'I'm open minded [to] . . . some agreed solution'. Your response to that was, 'Your solution is that you win the argument.' That is patently untrue and you are highly subjectively claiming I've said entirely different things than I actually have. Nevertheless, because there are only the two of us still communicating on my move request and you are unwilling to entertain any kind of an agreement, you have made it clear to me that my appeal for an agreement is dead in the water. Therefore, in conclusion, I'm acceding to the Jeff Kent article remaining under its current heading and not moving elsewhere under a new title. The reasons for this are: 1. No agreement has been reached for a change and therefore it seems right that the status quo should prevail. 2. Because of the very limited number of responses to the request for the page to move, it seems that there is very little interest either way, with this continuing discussion down to two parties only. Therefore the move or otherwise does not seem to be of much importance. However, I'm very disappointed that there has been little or no discussion of the merits of the specific points I have put forward in support of my requested page move and that there has been no attempt to find an agreed solution. Wikipedia's lament that weight of numbers, and not the merit of cases, tends to decide the outcomes of discussions has proved to be justified in this case, in my opinion. (Snoobysoo (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jeff Kent. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change Jeff Kent Photo[edit]

Jeff Kent is in the San Francisco Giants wall of fame. CHANGE HIS PHOTO TO ONE WITH A GIANTS JERSEYYYYYY Shmaney (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeff_Kent&oldid=1207950116"