Talk:Jim Joyce

\

Semiprotected for 24 hours

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ok, but you should be prepared for edit wars. 69.228.89.220 (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

He admitted he blew the call. The page should say that he missed the call, not made a controversial call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.132.47 (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been updated to reflect Joyce's admission. Resolute 02:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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.

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)

Edit request from 24.45.91.12, 3 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)

This is not a message board.

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

This section should be removed or renamed, because the idiots that wanted the page to say "appeared to show" have no sources to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.48.139 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

[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)

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

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)

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

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)

If this is the current standard of wikipedia, it is no wonder that it is dying as a website

Wikipedia is dying sources http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1496429/wikipedia-dying http://www.ciol.com/Global-News/News-Reports/Is-Wikipedia-dying-a-slow-death/5809123224/0/ http://techliberation.com/2009/11/24/is-wikipedia-dying-or-just-maturing/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html?mg=com-wsj

It's certainly news to me that Wikipedia is dying. In any event, this isn't a forum to discuss the No Original Research and reliable sourcing policies. If you think I've misinterpreted them, you're welcome to explain how. Although, as below, I think the value of further discussing the issue which initiated this discussion (how we should describe the correctness of the call) is probably pretty low. SS451 (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes you misinterpreted Wiki's "No Original Research" policy which states, ""Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research." No one knowledgeable of the Jim Joyce call would object to the call being called missed or incorrect. Sources could easily be found proving the call was missed in videos, pictures and published articles at the time of your post. Unfortunately, you and several wiki editor fascists were unwilling to take the time to verify the statements of everyone else. You decided to jump behind a policy without any critical thinking on your part. Fortunately, more knowledgeable heads have prevailed, and the page currently, accurately states that the call was incorrect. Thank you for doing your part IMO in ruining wikipedia.

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)

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)

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 another link http://deadspin.com/5553970/armando-galarraga-absolutely-robbed-of-a-perfect-game

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)

So what, you need 5 or 6 sources. By your method, 5 incorrect sources are better than one definitive video of proof. YEAH WIKIPEDIA!

No, you don't necessarily need 5 or 6 sources. But you do need at least one reliable secondary source, and if you only have one there had better not be several others which are contradictory or equivocal. A video or picture is raw data. And interpreting that raw data as showing either a correct or incorrect call isn't our job as editors. As above, this is indeed a quirk of editing Wikipedia, but I think the general policy has come about for good reasons. SS451 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do yourself a favor and research this topic. The consensus has already been formed. Read all of the links on this discussion page. Each mentions that the runner appeared to be out. If you can find a dissenting opinion, add it here. However, the discussion is over; get off your high-ass horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.48.139 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, precisely: that he "appeared to be" out. You're making my point for me. SS451 (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

First watch the video and look at the still images. Second, these sportswriters write like lawyers. They always want wiggle room. None of them have the balls to say that an umpire got a call completely wrong for fear of getting a kiss of death phone call from Bud Selig. If you don't know enough about sports and how leagues handle the criticizing of officials, you should not be editing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.48.139 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have watched the video. I've seen the images. I completely agree that Donald was out, and that the call wasn't especially close. That's not the issue here. As for your assertions of sportswriter bias, they're largely irrelevant. You write an article with the secondary sources which are available. If they are not saying that the call was incorrect, but rather that it appeared to be incorrect, that's the line we should take here too. Again, this is soon to be a moot point, if it isn't already. Given the clarity of the situation, I'm pretty sure reliable sources will be coalescing around the "was incorrect" rather than "appeared to be incorrect" formulation soon, despite the vaunted press control of Bud Selig. SS451 (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Once we settle on the correct verb (I prefer "showed" now that he has admitted it was wrong — "clearly showed" is unencyclopedic), let's get the tense right. At the moment it says "show", but the past tense "showed" is more appropriate. atakdoug (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine whatever. I don't care about the tense, but the verb used MUST be a statement of fact.

If every article uses the verbs "appeared to show" is that consensus that the call as incorrect or is that consensus that replays "appeared to show"? Or is that just lousy writers plagiarizing each other?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.48.139 (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC) 

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

Change to Blown Call please.

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

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)

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)

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. It was incorrect as a matter of fact. http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/06/02/the-lesson-of-jim-joyce/#more-3517?eref=sihp

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)

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

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

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

This guy isn't notable.

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

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)

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)

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)

Protecting from Vandalism

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)

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)

State the facts then Wikipedia and people wouldn't have to vandalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.67.65 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Edit request from 97.83.67.65, 3 June 2010

{{editprotected}} 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)

Ummm...no.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Um.... Yes. Watch ESPN or MLB Network, take your pick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.67.65 (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Um... NO. This is an encyclopedia. Until we have some means of verifying that, it isn't going in. (Nor do I actually agree with that. There's probably been worse.) --Sunao 00:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Replay

Yes

not a chance. The call was incorrect that is a NPOV. SAE (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(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)

"

Edit request

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 Anchor^Talk 02:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Blown (or Missed) vs Controversial

In this situation, I think it would be appropriate to call it a "blown" call. A controversial call (in most people's minds) is a call which can be argued (e.g. ball vs strike). This is surely a "blown" call, there is nothing to argue. I guess missed may a more "formal" way of stating "blown". The name is not that important, but calling it controversial is sugar-coating it. JakeH07 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "Blown call" is the perfect term here. SAE (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that the call was "blown" from many different sources (not cited here). It is also common usage in baseball to label such a call by an umpire as a "blown call." Though this is a controversy, the call was clearly blown, and the article should be changed to reflect that. At this point, there is no POV or OR in calling it a blown call. Abergeman (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Something more descriptive than "controversial" is called for here. Controversial would assume there was some ambiguity about the call. However in this case there is not. The umpire himself, the press, the fans in the stadium, the players, and indeed MLB are now all in agreement that the call was "blown" or at the very least missed or incorrect. There is no ambiguity about it, Joyce missed the call and cost Galarraga a perfect game. He is on record as stating as much. Gateman1997 (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a blown call. He has admitted his mistake, therefore, there is no controversy over the call's correctness.

But the article doesn't say that there is any controversy as to the call's correctness; it says that the call is controversial. Which it most certainly is. And then it goes on to say (and has already said, in the lead) that the call was incorrect, and that Joyce admitted as much. SS451 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not have controversy as the section and then blown call as a subsection. Then everybody is happy, no?

Adding Jim Joyce's reaction

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." 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)

 Done SirFozzie (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated. Resolute 02:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Until I was the replay??? TomCat4680 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Great, you got the power? Than also please change the label "Controversial call" to "Blown call" or "Missed call." The current header, the way it stands, is misleading and therefore incorrect. SAE (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I also agree. Controversial usually implies controversy over whether it was correct. It's misleading. Enigma^msg 02:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

@ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why not have "Controversy" as the section, and then "Blown Call" as a subsection. Then everyone is happy, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.117.164 (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Blown," "Controversial," however you word it, it's still incredibly vague. It needs to be more specific to the incident. I'm sure he's blown other calls, or made other controversial calls in his career. It should be something like Armando Galarraga controversy, or something specific to the situation. 136.181.195.10 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup. There certainly seems to be consensus on that point, and I've made a change. Resolute 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Those two cents were a little too late, I suppose. 136.181.195.10 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But always valuable. Resolute 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The vast majority of editors weighing in do not think it should be referred to as a "controversial call." There is controversy surrounding it, but the call itself was not controversial. Enigma^msg 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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. Enigma^msg 17:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Enigma^msg 21:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

I'm not determined to obscure anything, and I resent your saying so. I was speaking to how "controversial call" is typically used. Enigma^msg 22:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

MLB.com is reporting it as a "Missed call"

As his "ownership" of the bad call is significant and has created a positive spin on what was a very negative one, I believe his reaction should be included. It may also be worth noting that the Tigers gave Galarraga a convertible Corvette as a consolation on June 3, 2010 and that Galarraga delivered the line-up card to a tearful Joyce and shook his hand while other Tigers players also consoled Joyce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.39.85 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Press (kind of)

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)

It's definitely a blog, but Yahoo! blogs are reliable, imnsho. "Watch the controversial play here" hmmm. Resolute 04:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Edit request from 97.83.67.65, 3 June 2010

{{editprotected}} 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)

Section Title

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)

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)

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)

What happened to freedom of speech?

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)

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)

Wikipedia is a .org so technically it's not a private website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.117.164 (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

Whatever. Look, all I'm saying, is stop touting Wikipedia as this illustrious public tool, and making false proclamations like "articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site.", if Wikipedia isn't even going to make it possible for valid users to post critical information to the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.117.164 (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Awww Resolute beat me, +1. I don't think freedom of speech means what you think it does. We do not allow attacks on people, period. As DJ linked the goal for every article is a neutral point of view. In general everyone can edit, that does not mean that anyone can put anything they absolutely want. We do NOT allow people (or places/things/organizations for that matter) to be harassed, slandered and libeled on our pages, period. When we see information like that we can (and must) remove it. If someone was slandering you over and over on Wikipedia you wouldn't like it either regardless of what you had done. If you would like to see the policies WP:BLP would be a great start. James (T C) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, your completely misinterpreting my point, which isn't a big surprise. I'm not trying to slander, or defame anyone, period. I just think when information is discounted, simply because of a perceived bias, that Wikipedia users ultimately suffer. In the interest of providing concise, deep, meaningful articles, it is important to allow all points of view to be presented.For instance, in this case, it absolutely must be presented that, (1) there is a possibility of the call being overturned completely by Bud Selig, and (2) the call has re-energized a debate on the use of instant replay. So, I ask all of you wikibureaucrats to set aside your personal convictions for a moment, and truly analyze every piece of information that you receive, and always leave open room for debate, before making any lasting decisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecarroll (talk • contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Edit request from Mcberry, 3 June 2010

{{editprotected}} 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)

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)

I agree. I don't think controversial call is the appropriate term. Enigma^msg 22:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs an RV recentism

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)

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)

Would have set a major league record...

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)

Most perfect games in a season perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.98.238 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

this would have set three baseball records, if i have my dates right Galarraga's perfecto happened i believe three to four days after Halladay, one day shorter than the record set back in 1885. also this would have been the third perfect game this month. as well as being the fifth no-hitter in less than a year! Tu-49 (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Perfect Game Controversy

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 Anchor^Talk 02:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Ok, I can go with that. The title is long already I never really thought of that. Frank Anchor^Talk 13:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Factual Error

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)

Edit request from 71.41.7.34, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

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)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 22:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"The most egregious blown call in baseball over the last 25 years" should be removed

This is an encyclopedia. It should not be so opinionated. What should be said is that "Many say that this controversial call is one of the worst in baseball's recent history." Soxrock24 (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I also think that this quote be removed, and I've done so (from this page and from perfect game) per WP:BRD. It is the opinion of one pundit, albeit published in a WP:RS, and I don't think it deserves to be enshrined by WP in this way. The word "egregious" is easily interpreted as a direct attack upon Joyce, when instead the general tenor of discourse as I see it seems to be that similar mistakes by umpires are not uncommon, due to the difficulty of their job, and this one has grabbed attention simply because of its context. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But context is all important here, and—as I have pointed out elsewhere—Kepner is not a "pundit," but a beat reporter whose analysis of the event's historic significance is fairly representative. As my detailed discussion of this matter on BlueMoonlet's Talk page (where BlueMoonlet requested it, rather than on the perfect game article's Talk page) elicited no response, I'll excerpt a couple of the most salient points here:

• "Egregious" suggests the call was obviously wrong. It was. As Joyce himself allowed, he "kicked the shit" out of the call. The fact that other obviously wrong calls are made on occasion is irrelevant—egregiously blown calls are egregiously blown calls. The word is descriptive of a particular event, not a "direct attack" on the person involved. From the many articles cited here, in perfect game, and in Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game, the consensus is clear that this was not an exceptionally close play and that any major-league umpire, including the well-respected Joyce, would have gotten the call right the vast majority of the time.
• But that is not even the primary meaning of the word in this context. I read it as primarily characterizing not the nature of the call, but its historic effect—the denial of what would have been only the 21st perfect game in history. That is very clear from reading Kepner's entire article. There have surely been other calls botched as badly as Joyce's in the last quarter-century, but none of those have had nearly the impact on baseball history.—DCGeist (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No argument that the call was egregious (literal meaning: "exceptionally bad"). I further agree that this call may have been the most historically significant of several obviously mistaken calls over the past 25 years. However, if it is not the most obviously mistaken call of the past 25 years, then the quote is inappropriate. And DCGeist's own words show that to be the case, though he denies the point's significance, when he acknowledges that there have been "other obviously wrong calls".

The word egregious describes the quality of the call, not its historical significance.

--BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This response reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the word "egregious" is being used, a misunderstanding I have now attempted to clear up multiple times. One more try: the primary meaning of "most egregious" in this context is not the nature of the call—it was obviously mistaken, as are other calls—but its effect—of all the obviously mistaken calls made in the last quarter-century, this one had the greatest impact on the history of the game.—DCGeist (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You've made it clear that that's your view. My view is that the word could, at the least, very plausibly be interpreted by readers as an attack on Joyce, and that that should be a matter of concern to us. I think we've both stated our cases quite reasonably, and that it's time now for others to judge. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In the end, the comment was removed. Soxrock24 (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Reprotecting the page necessary?

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)

*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)

Thanks. I will watch for bad edits on it starting tomorrow. Isabella and Lego Liker _{Whatcha doin'?} 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Thanks again! Isabella and Lego Liker _{Whatcha doin'?} 03:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

We're also considering placing it under pending changes (see the bottom of [[4]]). –MuZemike 03:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

This article should be protected

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)

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)