Talk:Joe Morgan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

[edit] HR 200 & Steal 500

What year did Morgan score HR #200 & steal #500, which made him first player do to it? Trekphiler 07:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at www.baseball-reference.com, I think HR #200 came in 1978, and SB #500 came in 1976.--Priceyeah 07:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack blog

Not only am I not going to respond to the last post here, but I am going to remove all mention of the attack blog from this talk page. It's archived to history. If you'd like to introduce reliably sourced material about criticism or Morgan's philosophy re: statistics, please do so - but stop inserting spammy links for the attack blog which has become so prevalent on this page. Otherwise, blocks for meatpuppetry will be coming soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so much for open dialogue. The links I inserted were not spam. Blogs are an alternative form of media. The ones I referenced were "serious", reliable sports blogs. You are doing the casual visitor of Joe Morgan's wiki page a disservice by painting an incomplete picture of Joe. Now I remember why I tell my students that citing Wikipedia in their term papers is a bad idea. Respectfully, NP Np99163 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
So perhaps the most renowned sports-related blog on the internet has something to do with Joe Morgan, and that information is deemed unimportant enough to be a part of his entry? That's pathetic, and the defense of Morgan shows just as much bias as those who attack him. Chris Berman's page mentions Deadspin (which has its own Wikipedia page, to boot), and it's not even named after the man! Almost every movie page has a mention of criticism, as do many other pages. An entire, and successful, site was started primarily as criticism of Morgan and the mere MENTION of it isn't allowed? That's laughable. People come to this page to learn about Joe Morgan. A mention of Fire Joe Morgan is relevent to that.

What's worse is deleting any message about the subject in the discussion page. Fascism at its finest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.202.76 (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Weak argument...
  1. FireJoeMorgan.com was speedy deleted as non-notable. Fire Joe Morgan was proposed for deletion for lack of notability and also died. It's not a notable web site ("perhaps the most renowned sports-related blog on the internet" is what's really laughable here).
  2. Every movie page has criticism because movies are not living people. Read WP:BLP before you try that one again.
  3. As for Chris Berman, thanks for the alert. I'll look to see if that needs some trimming posthaste.
—Wknight94 (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me there must be a way of referencing the criticism of Joe Morgan -- which is certainly out there, even in more mainstream sources (a Bill James book passage comes to mind) -- while still keeping balance. The opening of the article refers to Morgan as an "Emmy-winning commentator." Certainly this implies a certain amount of support for Morgan's work. I simply think this should be balanced by the fact that his commentary is not liked by everyone. This article is not "neutral" if it presents the positive without the negative.
Also, I wholeheartedly disagree with the tactics of wknight94 here. To remove a relatively civil dialogue here on the talk page and call it "archiving" seems to be vandalism, however unintentionally. Talk pages are not like articles. You should not take it upon yourself to edit out an argument because you disagree with it. ~~ Meeples (talk)(email) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2005/04/press-for-fjm.html

The "attack blog" in question is very well-known and recognized by mainstream media (CNNSI, Newsday, NPR, among others) for both its remarkable style and its poignancy to current issues in sports journalism. Attempting to remove myself from the bias that I have as a subscriber, I find it hard to believe that it should be omitted from this particular wikipedia entry. As a broadcaster for the largest and most wide-reaching sports media company in the U.S., his opinions on sabermetrics have been heavily criticized, and thus deserve inclusion in his entry. Does a writer need to be paid by MSM to be "relevant?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.230.185 (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

After posting this last comment, I checked the discussion history and see now that this argument is going nowhere. I strongly disagree with the censorship exhibited by this moderator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.230.185 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it is vandalism, and I also think WKnight does not show an ounce of maturity. Even if he is to claim that every Wikipedia page on a human entertainer should have no critism on it whatsoever. Is there a way to file a complaint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.225.150 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Preventing any mentions of that certain Joe Morgan related sports blog is contrary to the entire mandate of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia had existed in the 17th century, would you go and delete any mention of Galileo because it disputed the beliefs of the church? Thats the same thing you're doing. You don't believe what they say (FJM/Galileo) has any merit, so you've taken it upon yourself to prevent anyone else from having the ability to make that decision for themselves. Pathetic, disgusting, and offensive. Is this what Wikipedia is coming to, or is it one sad little man? 207.154.101.37 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Fire Joe Morgan is the best source of telling you what baseball really is. I can't believe that someone is stooping so low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.206.144.121 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)