Talk:Ángel Hernández (umpire)

On dropping the strike-zone slash roadie comments

As I write this, Terry Francona is in a standoff with our very subject over Mr. Hernandez's insistence that the Baltimore Orioles pitcher throw to home plate, even though the batter, Julio Lugo, is not in the batter's box ... twice! "You don't see that every day," says the Red Sox announcer.

Anyway.

I don't do a lot of Wikiwork, because the depths of complexity make my head spin. But the Hernandez article was crying out for referencing. So I decided to browse Nexis. I was unable to find any verification for the claims that Hernandez (a) is a roadie (b) has an erratic strike zone. So I deleted those claims. In their place, I posted everything I could find about Hernandez, which beyond the incidental stuff (e.g., an ejection written up by a hometown beat writer) wasn't much.

However, I think the 1999 MLBPA rankings and his survival of the NL umpire purge and the subsequent reaction, buttressed by the nationally publicized incidents with Mariano Duncan and Steve McMichael sufficiently separate him from run-of-the-mill controversial umpires.

False Report

"He ejected an organist in 1988 at a minor league game for playing the "Mickey Mouse Club" theme song.[5]"

According to the source given, Hernandez did not eject anyone this game. Can someone either take this comment out or reword it better?ADman 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Lambert Bartak, who has played the organ for the Royals for 15 years, was ejected from Rosenblatt Stadium by Umpire Tony Maners for playing the theme song from the Mickey Mouse Club Thursday night.

On Thursday, the Omaha catcher, Larry Owen, questioned a call by the home-plate umpire, Angel Hernandez. Out came Manager Glenn Ezell of Omaha. While they were debating, Bartak played M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E. Maners motioned toward the lower press box, where the stadium organ is located, and gave Bartak the heave-ho."

On moving to Gerry Davis's crew

I've added a citation request, but I think there's grounds for deletion. The tone of the comment seems pretty subjective. Jprg1966 (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2013

On May 8th, 2013 Hernandez blew a homerun call hit by Oakland A's second baseman Adam Rosales, which would have tied the game in the ninth inning. Despite a video review held by the umpire crew, Hernandez still ruled the apparent game-tying homerun a double. Withers, Associated Press

2601:A:600:6B:C4BB:6195:2806:7A04 (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Done (mostly). I added this to the controversies section of the article, but rewrote it with more neutral language. --ElHef (Meep?) 03:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I was extremely tempted to put this article under the category Blind people. The Collector 16:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Collector (talk • contribs)

Do it. I love getting people blocked for vandalism. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 17:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's calm down and take a step back, folks. Collector: edits like that are precisely what got the article protected - not constructive or helpful, even in jest. AutomaticStrikeout: Taunting another user is WP:Uncivil and unnecessary. How about everyone take a breath, focus on the content, and move on, okay? --ElHef (Meep?) 19:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I was a little annoyed after having read too many garbage blog posts on the matter. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The "neutral language" on the blown call in Cleveland is inappropriate weasel words. MLB acknowledges that the decision by Angel Hernandez was incorrect: ""Given what we saw," Torre said in the statement, "we recognize that an improper call was made."" http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_23207486/still-reeling-from-blown-replay-call

Facts are facts.RichardBennett (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you've got a reliable source, go ahead and make the edit. I agree with avoiding weasel words, within the limits of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR - last night when I answered the edit request, the source given just called it controversial and there had been no statements from MLB as yet. (I would look at the article you cited but I'm on a crappy computer at work and it won't load that page through all the popups.) --ElHef (Meep?) 20:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Neutral language is how we are supposed to operate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

The controversies section is longer than the rest of the article. That's not a good sign. I wonder about the importance of some of the anecdotes, like those of Mariano Duncan and Julio Lugo, and yesterday's blown call as well. All umpires miss calls. We can't just list every single one. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The undue weight problem is the media's fault. The writers love to jump all over any ump who blows a call and so that's where most ump-related "coverage" comes from. However, Hernandez is one of the most controversial umpires in baseball and I'm not so sure it is undue weight here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 17:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I know of his controversial nature, and that does indeed need to be included. The surveys that identify him as a "bad" umpire need to be kept. But is his ejecting Carlos Pena one time really relevant? The fact that he was moved from one crew to another? Maybe that is important, but the page doesn't say why it is. The May 8 blown call at this point seems like just any other blown call, so why the rush to add it? As for it being the "media's fault", it would help if we could add more on his early life, personal life, things like that, to balance this out. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's part of the problem. The media prefers to focus only on blown calls and controversies. As an aside, the May 8 call is very much notable. A blown call even after replay is very rare. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 19:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I would support removal of any or all of Pena, the crew change, Duncan, and maybe Lugo. Pena and Duncan seem like routine non-notable ejections, and I don't get the crew change addition at all. I might keep Lugo in there because of the multiple issues between them and the apparent singling out of a player, but I wouldn't object too hard to that being removed as well. I agree with AutomaticStrikeout about the May 8th call - getting the call wrong even after replay and then having an umpiring decision called out by MLB is a pretty big deal. As to possible additions, I found this, which is pretty thin. Beyond that, AutomaticStrikeout is right - with a reputation like this guy has, good luck finding any coverage of anything but blown calls in the media. (Also, apparently the undue tag got removed and if anything that section's getting bigger. I replaced the tag.) --ElHef (Meep?) 04:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

undue

Not sure why we are cherry picking polls where he ranked lowly and not other years? AIRcorn (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think those polls were cherry picked. I suspect Hernandez has always been ranked low and I can absolutely guarantee you that he has never been ranked favorably. Lepricavark (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Lepricavark. These are the polls that are discoverable. If Air has RS references to other polls, he should include them, but I haven't seen them.--2604:2000:E016:A700:2410:F617:C3D4:B71B (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the editors adding information (especially negative information to a WP:BLP) to justify its inclusion. Suspecting something or requiring another editor to balance out this information doesn't really cut it. It is not presented very neutrally either, third worst is meaningless without numbers (what if there are only three in a poll). Also this highlights the problem of using polls as sources. What is really needed are secondary sources. FWIW the sports illustrated link does not work[1]so a new one will at the very least need to be found. Also another source is an opinion piece[2] and two others are referenced to papers that do not contain sufficient information to be verifiable (page number or at least a heading). All in all this is poorly sourced and undue. AIRcorn (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been following MLB umpires for years. Ángel Hernández is one of the most widely disliked and criticized by fans, players, and media alike. We've already trimmed a lot of negative content from this article, but the reality is that we need to have some content that is unfavorable to the subject simply because that is how the sources that exist tend to treat this subject. As far as the polls are concerned, third-worst is meaningful considering that Hernández was one out of roughly 68 umpires on the full-time staff at the time those polls were taken. The content is phrased in as neutral a manner as I can conceive under the circumstances. I've spent a fair amount of energy on combating anti-umpire bias on our umpiring articles, but we do have to accurately represent what the sources say about Hernández. Lepricavark (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Lepricavark's above points. The number of RS-reported negative statements by players, etc., with regard to his ability is notable and beyond question unusual. If anything, as to the Kinsler dispute for example, which has led to a number of articles just by itself, this wp article downplays the RS level of coverage of Kinsler's criticism of the umpire. The RS articles have much more coverage, and there are a number of them.2604:2000:E016:A700:5432:F90:C980:766D (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not opposed to negative content, I just want to make sure this article accurately reflects a 25 year career umpiring at a high level. The very fact that he has made it at this level for so long must mean he is a decent umpire. The problem is that media don't really comment on umpires unless the make a mistake, but we need to be better than that. We are in fact required to per WP:BALASP. Individual incidents that don't have any lasting impact (e.g.. affect his career in some way) are better mentioned at articles on the game or series itself, not in a WP:BLP article. As to the polls I am not trying to remove them, I am just trying to find some balance to present this information. At the moment it reads like the polls are cherry picked to make him look bad. AIRcorn (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

We usually don't have articles on individual games or series, so we can't put content in such articles. The polls don't appear cherry picked to me at all. Please understand that I strongly loathe the media's tendency to only write negative articles about umpires, but our hands are tied in that regard. It's our responsibility to represent the sources, not to be better than them. I sympathize with your desire to accurately reflect a 25 year career at the highest level of pro baseball, but you'll be looking for a needle in a haystack trying to find favorable coverage. The media doesn't like umps and it especially doesn't like Hernandez. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe our hands are tied. As an encyclopedia our goals are different than those of a sports column journalist and I feel the BLP policy help us in this regard. As for series I was thinking of something like the articles in {{World Series}}. In my experience from watching umpire/referee articles people (including the media) tend to get more emotional about calls that don't go their way in major games and there is usually a better article here to go into this detail. To be fair the polls don't have anywhere else to go except here, so this is a bit tangential. Also I meant to acknowledge your contributions in this area a few posts ago. I only recently realised you were Automatic Strikeout in another life, so I appreciate your dedication to this often neglected area. I will look for some more information to balance out the polls when I get some spare time (this has some proper biographical material in it). I don't think we are terribly far apart in what we are trying to achieve here. AIRcorn (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I agree that we probably aren't far apart in our goals for umpire articles and I apologize if I've come across as hostile or unpleasant in any way. You do make a good point about fans being more emotional about questionable calls in major games. Lepricavark (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Mariano Duncan

Why is this notable. Ejections are pretty common so why does this one warrant a mention? The info is buried deep in the sources and don't say what makes this particularly unusual. There is also no mention of this incident at Mariano Duncans page. If anything Duncan comes across as the arse "that's when I point to every umpire and tell them they should be out of the game.". There is no evidence of any lasting impact given, just two dodgy (no pun intended) sources from Dodgers.com with the disclaimer This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs. AIRcorn (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

It is notable because it is very rare for an umpire to take a player/coach/manager's equipment and throw it into the stands. Very rare and very unusual. And I believe every single MLB.com article has that disclaimer. Lepricavark (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

In that case it should be apparent in sources. So far we have two sources[3][4] from a Dodgers website written by a Dodgers reporter[5] days after the incident. Is there any evidence of lasting impact from this? AIRcorn (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to the intrusion of such a standard in umpiring articles. If we play the lasting impact game, are we going to have anything left? How, for instance, was there any lasting impact in Hernandez being at third base for a no-hitter? There wasn't, but we include that content in part to try to balance out the negative content and in part because there's no benefit in stripping it down to a barebones article. It's challenging to find content for umpire articles and sometimes we have to bend the not-so-hard-and-fast rules a little bit. Lepricavark (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I met resistance to this before and started a discussion at the Baseball wikiproject (I never got around to the RFC, but maybe it could be revisited). Other editors mentioned lasting impact, which in some ways was stricter than what I was thinking. The editor I was having the initial disagreement with seemed to support the presence of non-local coverage, which I feel is probably the minimum. I have looked [6] but am struggling to find more sources. Maybe one of these two [7][8] (although they are still pretty local). I think the way the information is presented presently is very neutral and don't have strong objections to it. I just noticed the sourcing was quite weak (plus being in the controversy section along with other incidents didn't help). AIRcorn (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede deletion

And editor made this deletion asserting "Not suitable for lead". That is incorrect. It is absolutely suitable for lede, per wp:lede. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." As the article reflects, he has a certain reputation. It is appropriate to reflect that in the lede - not glibly whitewash the lede of any such mention, as the editor seeks to do.--2604:2000:E010:1100:3CC4:95F3:F526:24C0 (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

He has deleted it again - saying "this is a BLP." But we don't delete from ledes material the editor thinks is negative, because it is a BLP. WP is full of articles about people who are BLP, where the article follows wp:lede - rather than ignores it - when the BLP text has negative information. As it stands, from the lede, there is not a hint of what is in dozens of articles - the view of this umpire's performance in his job. 2604:2000:E010:1100:3CC4:95F3:F526:24C0 (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is incredible undue in any case, but that is a discussion for another day. When nearly half the lead consists of individual comments calling him the worst umpire that definitely fails BLP and Undue. The WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include information, particularly negative info into the lead. I am going to claim BLP and remove it again. Do not add it again until there is consensus to add it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you googled him??? Have you noticed what the coverage of him is, and that with this inclusion the lede fairly and properly reflects his RS coverage?

That is the test. It is not for you to instead delete the one lone sentence in the lede that summarizes that (and the text), leaving the lede only with positive mentions. You I am afraid misunderstand the process, if you think that is your and our remit.

Would you prefer one person's view in the lede? That's fine - the goal was not to pile on, but to reflect what is a commonly stated comment in RSs. There are as you no doubt know many more - this was not an effort to reflect all of them, just not to make it seem to be a solitary view.2604:2000:E010:1100:3CC4:95F3:F526:24C0 (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Improper revert

I have left word here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aircorn&diff=1022231844&oldid=1020271888

I will reply here. You added a bunch of negative info and "copyedited" other info to make it less neutral. Example changing "Lawsuit" heading to "Failed Lawsuit"; adding "many blown calls", putting the Zach Brazzilier quote in the lead. Even more concerning you also removed mention of his charity work for no apparent reason. Yes, some of your edits where improvements, but given the scale of the non-neutral ones I decided to revert back to the last neutral (well relatively neutral) version. Aircorn (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Untrue. And you are even now again suggesting that the deletion of text supported not by an RS but by his complaint in his now-failed lawsuit is an RS? Absurd. And hat you point to is simply accurate, follows the RSs, and accords with Wp:lede. Perhaps user:Lepricavark can weigh in.

I am sure they are watching and will comment if they feel it is necessary. Aircorn (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this page should be indefinitely semi-protected as it is a magnet for IPs who have an axe to grind with Hernandez and aren't really interested in improving the article. Also, I have removed the paragraph on the 'guessing' incident and the Francona quote. The notable games section is already onerously long. Hernandez is a lightning rod for criticism and controversy, and we cannot reasonably catalogue every single incident in this article. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Released?

I can find no evidence he was fired. The source provided has no evidence. 2604:3D09:A07E:8AA0:470:93B5:198F:3A (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The source provided cites 2 articles a NY Post article (https://nypost.com/2023/08/15/controversial-umpire-angel-hernandez-loses-major-league-baseball-lawsuit-appeal/) and an ESPN article (https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/34497311/mlb-argues-umpire-angel-hernandez-3-overturned-calls-2018-alds-cost-world-series-spot) both of which were written in August and neither one states he was fired. Psmells91 (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The source cited looks like a GPT-generated article that does not cite any real sources. MrSalta (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Revert request

Please revert the page back to the edit below (1171751417), since no valid source has said anything about Angel being fired (all places I found that said it are satirical places like the mlbonfax social media account).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ángel_Hernández_(umpire)&oldid=1171751417 131.247.224.201 (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)