Talk:Jim Joyce

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jim Joyce article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ohio Stub‑class

	Ohio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Baseball Unassessed

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Semiprotected for 24 hours

Backlash from [1]. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 98.243.162.212, 3 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)[reply]

Denied. See WP:NPA and WP:NPOV. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Indians fan, but will say that Detroit's Gallaraga deserved a perfect game. MLB needs to come up with a system for reviewing close calls. Perhaps something similar to what the NFL has might work. This game may go down in history as the game that brought about instant replay in major league baseball. What an unfortunate day for Detroit Tiger fans and an even more unfortunate day for Jim Joyce.

Jim Joyce just came out of the closet, and would like to give Gallaraga a beej for the misconception

Edit request from 24.45.91.12, 3 June 2010

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)[reply]

Edit request from 24.45.91.12, 3 June 2010

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Jim Joyce. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Jim joyce made a bad call at 1st base he was clearly out the fans said. But, he is just plain stupid when it comes to being an umpire. He is also for breaking the hearts of many Tigers fans and making an idiotic call at 1st base which resulted in a saga. He shouldn't really be umpiring the MLB.

24.45.91.12 (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a message board.

"Appeared to show" or "showed" or "clearly showed"?

Now that the page is protected, we may as well try to reach some sort of consensus about how we can appropriately describe the relationship between the replays and the correctness of the call. I favor the "appeared to" form, for reasons given in my last edit summary. However, I'm open to persuasion. I suppose the relevant question is how unanimous secondary sources have to be in declaring the call incorrect in order for its incorrectness to be established as a fact for our purposes. SS451 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. It clearly shows that he is out. But I prefer "shows" as NPOV as opposed to "Clearly shows." Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Shows". Using "appears to" makes it sound like there is some ambiguity involved. - JefiKnight (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no appearance anywhere. He was out according to replays and pics. Maybe we should included that. I just heard Jim Joyce admitted that he blew the call so... SAE (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Joyce is speaking soon to admit he fouled up. SAE (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think our own reading of the photographic or video evidence suffices to establish that the call was incorrect for purposes of Wikipedia. Only secondary sources can do that. However, if Joyce has admitted he blew the call, then that would certainly be relevant information which should be added to the page once full protection lapses. SS451 (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs657.snc3/32463_758095468663_22222276_42131901_304764_n.jpg

Except you can't really see the ball in the one directly above. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better photo http://twitpic.com/1terza

Extrapolating from the photo is definitely OR. That can't be the basis for any descriptor. However, the unanimous opinion of secondary sources (newspapers, sports websites, etc.) could be the basis for the article asserting that the call was incorrect. However, I think it will take at least 24 hours to establish that this really is the unanimous opinion of secondary sources. (FWIW: I agree with you. He was clearly out. But our opinions aren't relevant to the issue of how to describe the call on this page.) SS451 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are an idiot. All you need to know by links. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/gameflash/2010/06/02/29713_recap.html http://twitpic.com/1terza http://www.freep.com/article/20100602/SPORTS02/100602063/1321/Tigers-Galarraga-denied-perfect-game-on-blown-call http://www.mlive.com/tigers/index.ssf/2010/06/armando_galarraga_comes_within.html

As I've already said, the articles from secondary sources are certainly relevant evidence as to whether or not the call was incorrect. Photos and videos alone can't be, because they don't interpret themselves, and original research is required to draw conclusions from them. (We should, however, link to photos and videos and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.) The point you seem to be missing is that some sources (reliable, secondary ones) are appropriate to draw upon in writing a Wikipedia articles while others (one's own judgment) simply aren't. That has nothing to do with the ultimate status of the call; it's just a quirk of writing for an informational resource which is completely dependent upon the fact-gathering and interpretation of outside sources. SS451 (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just BTW, the source currently cited for "appeared to show" did not mention anything showing. Chamberlian (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't actually add the source or read it. I was just trying to get the language right. I think there are no shortage of reliable secondary sources out there right now asserting that the call was blown. SS451 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For consideration: ESPN (well actually, AP) is currently using the "appeared to show" form in their piece on the game. See [3]. Not definitive, of course, but some indication of how reliable sources are treating this at this point: cautiously. I don't agree with the decision to have the definitive "shows" in the article at the moment. I suppose it's not a big deal, though; it seems overwhelmingly likely that reliable sources will rapidly develop a consensus that the call was in fact blown, at which point our passing that information on because non-POV. Still, I do not think we've reached that point of external consensus yet, less than an hour after the controversial call occurred. SS451 (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look below. Joyce has admitted that he just plain missed the call. There is more than appearance here. There's evidence. There's secondary sources (other than ESPN). And there's admission. But I'm sure this will be sorted out in the next day or so SAE (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think it's likely that a consensus among reliable sources will soon develop that the call was missed. I just happen to think it's too soon to declare such a consensus for purposes of this article. But it seems that other editors here disagree, and since this is mainly an issue of how the article will appear in the next several hours and not of how it will ultimately appear, I think further discussion of this point probably is not warranted. Thanks to those who contributed productively, though. SS451 (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Call??????????????????

Change to Blown Call please.

Not even close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubsnskers05 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey, "incorrect" is not a subjective term can we change it to that. Also comparing this situation to a political scandal is asinine. Political scandals are complex and all of the information of a situation is not know. Watch the replay once. It is very clear, the call was incorrect.

I agree that the call is incorrect. For the reason given above, I don't think it's appropriate for us, in this article, to declare that the call was incorrect as a matter of fact. I'm quite certain it's not appropriate to change the header to "blown call," bolstered by rather consistent Wikipedia naming practice in similar contexts where inherently subjective judgment calls come into play. And I do think the analogy to political scandals works in terms of showing how Wikipedia tends to name and describe situations where the facts are not unanimously attested in reliable secondary sources. SS451 (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Jim Joyce. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Change the controversial call section as follows: A perfect game by Galarraga would have been a set Major League record of three perfect games in twenty-three days.

to

A perfect game by Galarraga would have been the third perfect game in twenty-three days, and the 21st in Major League Baseball history.

(or, we could just remove the section)

SirFozzie (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a reference for the above statement? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could just use the Perfect Game article.. or again, we could just remove that part. SirFozzie (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting a ref when the article went under protection. So I quit. SAE (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy isn't notable.

Motion to delete. --207.255.199.12 (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, this bad idea. He will be mentioned in many sports related news outlets over the next week, and he possibly could be infamously known for years to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.48.139 (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Joyce

He is the biggest faggot umpire ive ever wached since narnia

"I missed the damn call." Jim Joyce

"I though I got the play. I thought he beat the play. Now that I'm standing here and watching it on the reply ... I missed it, I missed it." Jim Joyce

Actually, I believe it was "I missed the f***ing call" (you're talking about his argument with Cabrera, right?). But same difference really...--69.212.41.18 (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]