Talk:Roger Clemens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Article Punctuation or Spelling Mistakes

I see a noted typo. In the quoting of "never used anabolic steroids or human growth hormone warrants further investigation", it is missing an ending quotation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.235.230 (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conjecture on Piazza incidents, error in shutout number

"Clemens threw at and hit Piazza in the head with a pitched ball." "Clemens threw a piece of a shattered bat at Piazza"

These statements are conjecture. "Throw at" implies intent. I happen to believe Clemens did not "throw at" Piazza, he was probably trying to buzz him high and tight, but wasn't intending to hit him.

I also believe he did not throw the bat at Piazza, he just flung it away in disgust, and it happened to pass in front of Piazza. If he'd truly thrown the bat at him, you'd have seen an even more outrageous spectacle.

But, I don't know this, and neither do you. Only Roger knows whether he tried to throw either object at Piazza, and Wiki is no place for either of our conjectures. State the facts only, please.


"During that time they were shut out eight times."

The actual number is nine. (TNM)

I agree...I have read numerous articles on clemens's point of view of the piazza incident, and for one he says, "Everybody remembers the concussion. But nobody remembers that the ball hit the bat before it hit him in the head". Also, he says, "...So I fielded what I thought was a ball, but then threw the bat away in disgust." NOT TO MENTION the fact that the ball had obviously gone foul, and Piazza was running towards first base. "Why was he running to first?", Clemens questions.

[edit] What and Why for Where

In response to Where, the item about carrying luggage was repeated twice in the article. I deleted one of them, and moved the Korean/Japanese comment to "Controversy," rather than "Personal." I also trimmed the June 2006 comeback info; although Clemens' game last night is of current interest, the article is supposed to take a long view. I'm not even sure the result and opponent matters in the context of Clemens' career, but what the heck.

[edit] Thank you themetalgod!!!!!!!!

Finally! someone who shares my view! I'll always be your friend even tho you don't know me. :}

[edit] Possible involvement with Mindy McCready?

If McCreedy has confirmed that there was a relationship between the two, can we change the title to "Relationship with Mindy McCreedy"? Patken4 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Made the change since no one disagreed. Eevn Hardin says there was a relationship [1]. They just differ on whether or not it was sexual. Patken4 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT

'Angela Merkel made quite a splash with the plunging neckline of the evening dress she wore at the opera in Oslo. Not generally considered a leader who exudes sexiness, the more-than-usual amount of chancellor cleavage on display in the Norwegian capital received considerable media coverage. Some commentators wondered if the dress signalled a general change in style for Merkel. Could somebody please explain to me why this is consider tabloid while these are not?Matt_Leinart#Controversy Segolene_Royal#Policies Carmelo_Anthony#Controversies I read about the Merkel cleavage article in the news (most of the comments were complimentary). This blatant example of double-standard is unacceptable. Please refrain from removing the article's contents again.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is done in other articles doesn't make it right. Tell me exactly what is encyclopedic about this?Asher196 (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Removal of trivia from other articles would probably be a good idea and should be discussed on the talk pages of those articles.--Boson (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Support removal of this "information" per WP:NOT#NEWS.--Boson (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Removing these info would no doubt destroy every single article in wikipedia. It does not help wikipedia's stated goal to build a comprehensive encyclopedia.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a noted typo. In the quoting of "never used anabolic steroids or human growth hormone warrants further investigation", it is missing an ending quotation

Quote from WP:NOT: "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. Information about Ms. Merkel's cleavage hardly belongs in an encyclopaedia, and its absence is not going to "destroy every single article in Wikipedia".--Boson (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)'

As per the article of Angela Merkel and the discussion on Talk:Angela Merkel, Clemens' involvement is not encyclopedic and therefore should not be part of his biography. McCready's article is also full of trivia, rumors, and even more bizarrely a detailed arrest record. I have removed them as per WP:NOT to establish a consistency in wikipedia. No double-standard should be allowed.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Clemens' involvement with McCready is relevant because it may be used against Clemens in his defamation suit against McNamee [2] - a case which is already (and justifiably) covered in the Controversy section. This may be why the editor who added the McCready information used a subheading under that section rather than creating a new section (which an editor later modified it to). This differentiates it from your Merkel edits. As for your other statements, please see WP:Other stuff exists. I am sorry that you are bitter that other edits of yours have been reverted, but please don't disrupt wikipedia to (try) to prove a point. Reverted. --SesameballTalk 21:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is obvious. A plunging neckline is a lot less noteworthy then adultry. If there were reports about Angela Merkel being involved in a adulterious affair, it would be included in her page as well. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because you couldn't get some line about cleavage into the Angela Merkel article doesn't mean you can remove what is apparently encyclopedic information about Clemens from this article. Since the Mitchell Report, Clemens has been defending his reputation and it has become the defining story of his post-baseball career so far, it could keep him out of the Hall of Fame. The affair is just the latest development in that story, but it could be quite a big one, since it's a centerpiece of the defamation lawsuit. To leave it out of the Wikipedia article is just dumb. --Rividian (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As the other have said, the situations are different. One is fashion statement that led to nothing. If Merkel's plunging neckline led to some sort of fashion craze, it might be notable. Adultery, particularly when it could be central to a defamation lawsuit, is a notable matter. Also McCready is notable individual herself. Considering that there are reports of at least two other women in New York and John Daly's ex that Clemens had relationships with during his career (should these reports be added to the article?), there are some important issues here. Patken4 (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)