Talk:Kent Hrbek

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

Ron Gant issue[edit]

There is no POV problem here. The description presented is how the play was scored by Major League Baseball. Any other way of describing it would have to be considered POV. The fact that the decision is controversial is already stated, but the official scoring decision is what is described. Rapier1 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is POV when you base it off of what you want. I provided a REF, and have found others as well, that have it listed the same way. Only you and others trying to push their POV seem to be trying to chage the story. --Marlin1975 (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith when editing. According to your own reference, the word "appears" is used to describe the interpretation that you are attempting to put forth. Thank you for reminding me that it wasn't a pick-off play, it was Gant rounding the base on a single, but again, my "source" is the official scorecard MLB has for the game, showing that Gant was out. According to the rules of the game, had Gant been pulled off the bag, he still would have been standing on the base when the next batter came up. You might disagree with it, but Coble's call stands, and his is the only opinion that matters. You are atttempting to present this issue in a way that goes against the official scoring decision as if it were fact. Saying that it was "controversial" is fine, but presenting the opinion that goes against the official scoring decision as "truth" definately violates NPOV. Rapier1 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN you have not provided a REF. In fact REF 3 AND 4 both say he was lifted. So yes you are stating YOUR POV and any other edit will be a 3RR without proper REF. --Marlin1975 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My "referrence" is the official scoring decision of Major League baseball, which the reference you provided gives nicely. Also, your ref even states "And, in what appeared to be a pretty nifty move -- for wrestling -- Hrbek seemed to", and so on. Since this is such a problem for you, and in an attempt to maintain 3RR, I've put this up on the NPOV board so we can get a concensus. Feel free to continue your arguement there. Rapier1 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get a cite on the tyrannosaurus rex note though? Wizardman 16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kent Hrbek. 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) 12:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_Hrbek&oldid=1214118550"