Talk:Mitchell Report/Archive 1

Archive 1

Thursday 2 PM approaches

There is gonna be one hell of a rush to edit this page tomorrow... Have fun everyone! KRay 06:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

omg i loled. Coolsnak3 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolsnak3 (talk • contribs)

Origins

It is misleading to simply state that Mitchell was appointed to investigate in the wake of *Game of Shadows* and allegations involving Barry Bonds. Yes, that book, and that player, played a role in the forces that led to his appointment, but there were other important - perhaps more important - factors as well. The New York Times article 12/13/07 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/13/sports/baseball/13mitchell.html?em&ex=1197694800&en=13aefc5012cd51c1&ei=5087%0A) lists a number of events that led to Mitchell's appointment, and highlights that it was the relative inaction of current MLB Commissioner Bud Selig, and subsequent misstatements to congress by both Selig and Union head Fehr, and embarrassing testimony (and, in one famous case, refusal to testify) by former MLB players, that led to the Mitchell investigation. This is an important point, as it would be unfortunate if this article got off on the wrong foot by biasing the steroid issue as primarily about Bonds. Bonds will no doubt play an important role in the history of this issue, and this article should not shy away from discussing his role clearly when warranted, but, but it should not become a place to carry on the already tiresome pro-con Bonds debate. Gogh (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Early leaks

Should a major news outlet get their hands on this report before 2 PM today (and they probably will) would it be acceptable to add information about it before it is offically released? Smartyllama (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I was wondering that, too... ESPN is claiming a source claims Clemens is named. --W.marsh 15:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• NPR stated that several news sources have been given advance copies of the report, but are not to release any information until after the news conference. ESPN.com was one of those news sources mentioned. If you are unable to watch it on TV, I would recommend refreshing ESPN.com until they post the information (or just check back here). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 15:34Z
• I'd be careful about posting inacurate "leaks" from news sources. Be safe and wait for the official release. Spanneraol (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ESPN has an advance copy of the report. Any "leaks" from them are very likely to be corect. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 15:59Z
• Yahoo and ESPN are reporting that Andy Pettitte and Roger CLemens will be named on the report. [1]--Dynamicfun (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • ...wow. Andy Pettitte? Unbelievable. This could get very, very nasty. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 17:53Z

Protection

Sorry, I misread the semi-protection rationale the admin gave, I didn't realize libel was being added. At any rate, it would be nice to get this article fleshed out by 2 PM (with facts, not speculation, there's still a lot of legitimate content to add). IP editors can probably help with that. Feel free to re-protect if it gets out of hand. --W.marsh 15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If the reports that up to 80 names could come out, there may be a need to semi-protect a lot of articles. WP:BLP is pretty insistent on citations. --Elliskev 16:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The lock is intact, but the the semi-protection level needs to be restored(for a prolonged duration)because it expired, inadvertantly allowing for IP edits... Ranma9617 (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

All Sides

In an effort to try to cover this as an encyclopeidic topic, I believe it will be helpful to extensivly site Howard Bryant's article on espn.com based on reperformance of much of Mitchell's investigation. While he doesn't say the report is flawed, he does point out many of the flaws in the system, and gives personal accounts of the interview process. I fear after the names are released this is all anyone will focus on, while the article should cover all sides of the story. I don't have time right now to update, but if anyone wants to get started, here is the link: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3153129. I think this can end up being at least a Good Article if we cover the issue from all sides.--Fresh (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaks and early reports

...are just rumors. Wikipedia doesn't deal in rumors.

I've reverted additions. We need to wait until the report comes out. --Elliskev 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If reliable news sources are reporting on ealry names that WILL appear on the list how can we NOT include that now? I think ESPN is reliable source since they have an advance copy. --Dynamicfun (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

ESPN is not using the report as a source. The first sentence is: "A former New York Yankees strength trainer says information he provided to the George Mitchell investigation regarding supplying..." That's not the same as a leak of the report. It's a rumor of what might be in the report. --Elliskev 17:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough.. We can wait a couple hours for the actual list.--Dynamicfun (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be posted at mlb.com at 2 pm EST. So 1 hour 11 minutes. ;) --Elliskev 17:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

SportsRumblings is reporting a "leaked list"[2]. If this is real, it could bring down baseball, or at reduce the fan base substantially for a few seasons, as long as these players remain in the game. Fans hate it when other teams' players use steroids, but what about when their own players do. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 18:03Z

Names in the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was No Consensus to Merge into Mitchell Report (baseball). -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger of the list of names into the main article is appropriate. Virtually all of the folks who access the main article will do so in search of the names. 69.116.168.77 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC) wepesq

Not having the list is pointless, this is a report that is all about the names in it to the general public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.172.226 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So when the (speculated) 60-80 names are released in a little over an hour, I suggest not adding a big laundry list of players' names to this article. It would not be encyclopedic to have a section with "The players that were named in the report are..." with all the names involved. What do you think? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however, saying something like (and I'm just guessing on these names) "72 players, including such well known players as Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds were named in the report." Smartyllama (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be fine (and honestly, basically required)... just not a bullet-pointed list (inherently unencyclopedic) of the entire "72 players" (or however many). --Ali'i 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A separate list article would be fine, maybe? --Elliskev 18:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think a separate article, something like List of players named in the Mitchell Report is appropriate. I agree that a list would clog the main article, but I believe the list itself is relevant. It is the list of players that will garner most of the attention of media and the public in the coming weeks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be wonderful. Maybe get it started? --Ali'i 18:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the full list should be posted somewhere. --Dynamicfun (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps the "Mitchell Report" article should have a section on who was listed with some of the major names (ie, Clemens, Petite and a few others), but it should also say "For further information see 'List of all MLB players named in the Mitchell Report'". (Dcs315 (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

If there's really that many people named, that's enough for a category. Kafziel ^Talk 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A separate list is the best option. However, I wouldn't say in this article, "several famous players such as X and Y", because the list (if SportsRumblings is right) is filled with famous names. I would just say, "several star players are in the list" and link to the list. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-12-13 18:10Z

OK. I created the page. I'll work on it a little bit. I hope it doesn't get speedied... --Elliskev 18:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why we can't list them in this article... with 3-4 columns it wouldn't really take up that much space. It's "encyclopedic" to explain to readers who was mentioned in a report, in an article about that report. --W.marsh 18:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How is a bullet-pointed list of say, 70 players, stuck in the article "brilliant prose"? Isn't that out goal? We can write a brilliant article on the subject without listing every last player named in the report. --Ali'i 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to get so combative about it... sometimes a list is the best way to convey information, rather than insisting we always use prose and anyone who disagrees doesn't know what "brilliant prose" is. Lots of articles uses lists where practical, Party leaders of the United States Senate just to pull a random example. But I agree with the below comment about needing to see the context all these names are given in. --W.marsh 18:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

E kala mai if I came off as combatative... It certainly wasn't my intent. I just think that a list of names in the middle of an article is not the way to go. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the "big" names such as Pettitte, Clemens and other big names that will come out should be listed here in some form. --Dynamicfun (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We really should see what context is used in the report. Just "people listed in the report" without context seems wrong. Is someone listed in the report because they bought steroids? Or for some other reason A longer article not only listing the people but explaining the circumstances of their listing would be better. Spanneraol (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with W.marsh. Keep the list in the article, it's the "meat" of the report. In addition, a cat will probably be created, which would make the list pointless in a seperate article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The list is not the meat of the report. The report contains reccomendations, conclusions, and other things. We don't know what for sure, but making that claim without seeing the report is wrong. Smartyllama (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What it will include and what everyone is interested in are two different things. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And if they're interested in the names, they can just go to the names page. Why not name every single character in a book on that book's page? because there needs to be a seperate page for characters. Smartyllama (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The question that has to be answered is what the people want to see on Wikipedia when they search for the Mitchell Report. I think that the obvious answer is the names. The ideal is that people should see what they want without having to go through a bunch of links. Your book anology is obviously distinguishable. The meat of the book is the story. The meat of the report is the names. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense... the "gossip" of the report is the names. The meat is the other material. It's about 400 pages long. --Ali'i 19:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not what I consider important and it's not what you consider important, it's what the people are looking for. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

lets wait and see who is officialy on the list63.3.10.2 (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The report is up at mlb.com.. all the names are in there... though its hard to navigate through. Spanneraol (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

After skimming through the report, I think it would be a mistake to try to include a list in this article. It's not really a simple matter of "here's who used steroids". Each player on the list has a different story. I think it would eventually have to be split out to a separate article, anyway. Then again, we have individual articles for every player that ever lived. --Elliskev 19:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We should have this article link to another that has the list of players. There is no doubt that many would turn to Wikipedia to find the list (I sure did). Keep them separate so that the main article does not get clogged, but still have the list on a separate page for those who want it. VincentValentine29 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The names need to be included here. That is the reason I searched wikipedia to begin with. This is a concrete piece of evidence as to who has taken steroids. I am sick of all the lying and would like to know who and who is not clean. 13 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielvon (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

All the names should be notable enough to surely have articles themselves. This makes a category very appropriate. Then this page can simply link to the category in a "See also" section. Sancho 22:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you folks not aware of List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report? --Ali'i 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't. Just guessing, but I don't think the others in the conversation were aware of this either. Sancho 22:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that most people are aware of the other article. They come here through the merger template at the top of the page (if it stays there of course) where it states that there is another article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in and say I think the List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report should be merged with the Mitchell report article. It's not like the list is going to grow beyond what we have, and it makes more sense to have a section titled "Players named in the report." This is most certainly what people are looking for, at least until we can get all the recommendations flushed out.Csbarrett (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I just want to address the question Ali'i had about "brilliant prose". Consider this: could an article on the Mitchell Report ever become a featured article without mentioning the players named therein? The answer, of course, is no. What constitutes "brilliant prose" is debatable, but the featured article requirement of comprehensive coverage is quite clear. So, if it would be required at that point, it should be merged now. Splitting them just means we'll end up with a mediocre article and yet another list, rather than a comprehensive single article with potential. Kafziel ^Talk 23:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I never really got the "brilliant prose" comment. It has nothing to do with the merger proposal. Whether it's merged or not, the "brilliant prose" will end up somewhere in Wikipedia.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about merging the two articles. Mitchell Report (baseball) will be all about the report, the reactions to it and the actions taken because of the report. List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report is there to fully expand on what the Report says about the players themselves. These are two issues that if made into one article would get cut into two later on just because of the immense amount of infomation this entire event is going to cause over the next few months. Also, i'd recommend that List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report be renamed Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report due to it no longer being a "list" of infomation. dposse (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dposse, if this article ever goes for Featured Article status (which, in theory, all articles should eventually seek), it will face objections for not being comprehensive. That's a fact, not just my opinion. I've worked on a number of FAs and I can say pretty confidently that anyone opposing on that basis isn't going to withdraw their opposition when you point out that there's another article that has the other half of the story. If anything, it will make the opposition that much stronger. Kafziel ^Talk 00:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree Kafziel. Mitchell Report (baseball) should be the entry on everything there is to know about the Mitchell Report. There is nothing that separates this report from the players named in the report. Again, the list will never expand. It's only going to ever be the players we know of right now, which can be neatly listed in a section of the Mitchell Report (baseball) entry. Also, it would be better to fully expand on each player's role in their own page rather than use the List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report entry for this.Csbarrett (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the players role should be mentioned along with their name on "the list" and not expaneded in their own article. When I searched for the names the context and a brief statement as to the "evidence" against them provided me with a better sense of what is going on. If that role isn't mentioned in context with their name being listed (in the main article or not), a reader will just assume they are guilty by virtue of their mention, not taking into account the nature of the evidence against them. Kmsw (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The creation of Category:Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report is another incentive to merge the articles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, both Category:Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report and Category:Mitchell Report (baseball) are up for deletion. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Informal poll

DISCLAIMER: I put together a tally of what is going in this discussion to get a better idea of what the concesus is regarding a merge. I think that I represented everyone's vote correctly. If someone thinks that I am incorrect, then change the vote accordingly. Please keep this just a vote section and discuss everything above this. If someone wishes to add their vote, by all means... --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Support Merger

1. 69.116.168.77 (talk)
2. 67.83.172.226 (talk)
3. W.marsh
4. brewcrewer (yada, yada)
5. Kielvon (talk contribs)
6. User talk:Kafziel
7. Csbarrett (talk)
8. Kingturtle (talk
9. 65.30.164.29
10. MercolaOverMerck
11. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 03:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
12. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 13:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
13. EndlessDan 14:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Dynamicfun —Preceding comment was added at 15:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
15. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
16. old64mb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Like stated above, Mitchell Report (baseball) should be the definitive article on the issue. Tanthalas39 (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Merger

1. Ali'i 17:55, 13
2. Smartyllama (talk)
3. Masonpatriot (talk)
4. BRIAN0918
5. VincentValentine29 (talk)
6. dposse (talk)
7. Mr mark taylor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose I think that the list is substantially different than the entire text/context of the report. —ScouterSig 17:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Daysleeper47 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
10. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC) This list itself, with the appropriate summary for each player, is a large enough article to stand on its own, and it's too cumbersome, even stripped down, to include in the main article. It's best to flesh out the two articles as they are as they serve different purposes: the Mitchell report says much more than the list itself... and the main article must ensure that there is "room" for the ramifications to come. If they're merged, they must be split (very) soon afterwards.
11. Spot87 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Patken4 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Managerpants (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Dcs315 (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Looking at the report, it is not a list of names - in fact, there's even a comment in it that including the names at all was a matter of some dithering. So the list of names is a minor subdivision of the Mitchell Report. Some of the WP:NOR fanatics I've seen would probably even claim that picking and choosing all the names out of the report, like doing simple math, is against this policy, but I'm not one of them. The list provides a useful resource relevant to each of the players on the list and toward the report, but it's not the same article. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
16. When I first saw the proposal, I thought this would be an obvious merge - and then I saw the list! The list of names, in itself, is a large article and is still growing. I think it is too large to be a section within the Mitchell report article (which is likely also still expanding). It is probably more appropriate to form a small section (i.e. an expansion of the current implicated players section) that describes the different categories of players (as in the "list"), with links to the list of names (possibly with a "this article is about...for the list go see page X disamb header a the top of the article (as is done in the evolution page).~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 21:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Elliskev: I understand arguments on both sides. However, I think that this will eventually end up as two articles. The list is getting pretty big. The report article is woefully incomplete. --Elliskev 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The separate list article is getting kinda bulky because we're adding the context of each player's mention in the report. I don't particularly care where the list goes, but just warning people, this will be one very large article if the list is merged here. Might be best to leave it separate.
  Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:54, 12/14/2007

i don't care to vote one way or the other, but i'd think its better to have all the informatio on one page unless the length of the article is an issue and the list being elsewhere will help significantly. SJMNY (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Outsider's comment - I am Australian and don't even properly know what this Mitchell Report is all about. However, I have already had five USA friends email me to help them find the relevant Wikipedia articles and two of them wanted "the list". So people are reading this article in droves by the looks of it. So whatever you decide to do, just remember who we do it for. Keep up your good work! Manning (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Close Merge proposal?

Is this still an issue, or can the merge banner be removed? --Elliskev 21:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. If anyone disagrees, talk about it here. --Elliskev 22:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I count 4 pro merger and 7 con merger. That isn't a concensus. No reason to close the discussion so early. See Help:Merging and moving pages for the proper way of closing the discussion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

fine... Leave it up... I have read that, btw. I've also read WP:SNOW. There's also the other article to consider. Lack of discussion doesn't necessarily mean lack of consensus... --Elliskev 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "lack of discussion." There is a full-fledged discussion going on at the section above this one (Talk:Mitchell Report (baseball)#Names in the article). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report‎ should be merged into this article. That article will only be a list or a chart, which can easily be contained in this article. Kingturtle (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There are at least 5 names on this page not appearing in the Mitchell Report and referencing an unrelated article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.129.248 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Combining Names & Main Article

Is there a reason why the names are in a separate article? It seems kinda pointless that the most important aspect of the report remains in a separate spin-off article

65.30.164.29 (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of names

I think we should remove the names of the players implicated in the report in order to protect their privacy. -Roofus (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The names are drawn from a publicly available document. [3], [4] (warning to users with slow computers, don't click those links). Also, the names are readily available on lots of websites. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 00:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The information is publicly available on the webpage of their employer. Wikipedia is very far down the chain in terms of their privacy... removing the names in the name of privacy makes us less informative for misguided reasons. --W.marsh 00:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither here nor there, but technically, MLB does not employ the players. The players are independent contractors working for the individual clubs. --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. The Mitchell Report is public record. Therefore, Wikipedia should lay out what is written in the Report. Kingturtle (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Privacy??? It's in USAToday.com, fer cryin' out loud. Ain't no privacy issue here. Print it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; it's in the media. Why reprint it here? I suppose we could link to a story that has the names. -Roofus (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Roofus, Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. Kafziel ^Talk 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not strictly true. However, we don't censor public knowledge. And each name will have a link to an individual article, which is something a linked-to site might not have. The names should be listed here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The comprehensive player list should only exist in one place. I don't particularly care where that is, but I'm currently working on the separate list article, which someone seems to have copied into this one despite the merge discussion above that hasn't concluded yet. I've since deleted that list from here. I'd just like to urge people not to copy the list into this article yet. If/when a merge is decided on, the list will be moved here. For now just participate in the merge discussion. Thanks.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 08:49, 12/14/2007

There seems to be some confusion here: people do not need consensus or discussion to add information to this article. We want people to be bold in editing pages, including the addition of that list of players. The only thing we need consensus for is to change the other list into a redirect to this one. Short of that, the fact that a discussion is ongoing does not mean every other editor needs to participate in it (as long as they're not edit warring). Kafziel ^Talk 08:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there is enough detailed information in the separate list that it justifies keeping it separate, i.e. to avoid this main article from getting too big. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's such a thing as too small, but there's no such thing as "too big". There's a rough rule of thumb to start thinking about breaking things off around 50k, which this article is nowhere near (and is not likely to ever be). Technical considerations don't start until around 400k. Wikipedia is not paper, so articles are as long as they need to be. Kafziel ^Talk 09:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

They're not forbidden from adding info here but it's better to keep articles non-redundant. We have the separate list article for a reason. Having to maintain two versions of the same list would be impractical and lead to inaccuracy.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:06, 12/14/2007

Which is why the other article should be here. Since you can never force other editors to stop adding the list here (even if we reach consensus about it on this talk page), it makes sense to have it where we can watch it. Kafziel ^Talk 09:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care where the list is, but yes we can force people to not add the list here, by removing it when it gets added and directing the person who added it to the separate list article. As I've done. Again though I don't have any particular attachment to the separate article. Merge or no merge I don't care.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:13, 12/14/2007

You seem to be missing my point. What you did was okay for now (I chose not to revert you) but it wouldn't be acceptable in the long term. If it becomes an edit war, you would be wrong for removing it even if backed by consensus on the talk page. Kafziel ^Talk 09:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No I wouldn't. Talk pages exist in order to make decisions on what to do in the article. If consensus on this talk page is for keeping the list out of this article, then anyone would be perfectly justified in removing it, if it got added again.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:19, 12/14/2007

Boy, if I had a nickel for every 3RR violator I've blocked who said that...

Acting as some sort of "consensus enforcer" is not protected under any of our policies; there's no exception to edit warring for acting on the side of consensus. Don't fall into that trap. Kafziel ^Talk 09:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I'd do it more than 3 times in 24 hours. You can block for 3RR even if consensus supports the violator. I never disagreed with that.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:26, 12/14/2007

PS You're defending people going against consensus. If there's consensus for something, and someone goes against it, they should be reverted -- not necessarily by the same person every time, but in general. The consensus decision arrived at via talk page discussion should be enforced. I fail to see how you could possibly have a problem with that.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:34, 12/14/2007

The point is that nobody can say, "You can't add that because we're discussing it at X location." That's simply not how it works. Notice that our policy on consensus does not require discussion; talk pages are only needed as a last resort, if the edits themselves don't make consensus evident. Real consensus is found not by talk page discussion (amongst a few in-the-know editors who happen to be present over the course of a certain week) but by practical application (by the ignorant majority who make their opinions known simply by editing the article itself). The latter always wins out in the end. Kafziel ^Talk 09:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent for readability)

True, if we keep seeing the list added here then we may have to concede that it's what people want, but we're far from that point right now. I think the list was added here once so far. Other than that one instance we have the discussion on this talk page, which you're participating in. You having "chosen" not to revert me is honoring the current consensus.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 09:48, 12/14/2007

There's no consensus. The reason I didn't revert you is that, as an administrator, sometimes my actions are given more weight than they ought to be. I don't want someone saying, "Well Kafziel did so-and-so, so that's the version he supports." But, if it makes a difference, consider yourself reverted in spirit. :) Kafziel ^Talk 10:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You already agreed that you support the list being in only one location for the reasons I stated above, so even you have no reason to revert me -- other than that consensus might be in favor of a list being here, which we don't know yet, so that isn't a valid reason. If you agree the list shouldn't be in two places and there's no consensus for a merge yet, you have no reason to revert. But no, it makes no difference, so if it makes you feel better you may consider it reverted "in spirit", whatever that means :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 10:11, 12/14/2007

And, with that, we're back to my very first statement: The only thing we need consensus for is to turn the other page into a redirect. We do not need consensus to add information to this article. Which would have been my reason for reverting you. Kafziel ^Talk 15:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And, with that, I again direct you to your agreement that the list should only exist in one place. Lack of consensus doesn't mean that we need to do the opposite, or that you should act against your best judgment. You're saying your reason for reverting me would be that we don't need consensus not to... which is ridiculous.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:02, 12/14/2007

Now you're switching to a straw man argument by trying to oversimplify my position. I never said simply that the list should only exist in one place. I said the list should be in one place and that that place is here. Period. No equivocation. So, no, it wouldn't be against my best judgment to keep you from removing it. It's okay for it to exist in two places for a few days while we work this out, because there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. And this new course of argument is beside the point because I didn't revert you anyway. What I'm saying is that anyone (yes, including me) would be well within their rights to do so because the only real measure of consensus is action, not discussion, and nobody has the right to tell other editors they have to see the talk page before they can edit. Kafziel ^Talk 21:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"The only real measure of consensus is action and not discussion"... that's a new one to me. But you do say now that you're okay with the list being in two places for now, which is a change. At any rate I would suggest that if a discussion is going on in which we're trying to determine consensus for a decision, you should perhaps wait it out and participate before acting -- not because a policy tells you to but out of consideration for those choosing discussion over edit warring.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 21:39, 12/14/2007

That's not a change. Everything on Wikipedia is always okay for a short period of time - that goes without saying because it's the concept all wikis are founded on. Once the dust settles, it should only be in one place - here - but until then, as I said, there are no emergencies. So don't panic. As for the rest, yes - as odd as it might seem on the surface, discussion is a last resort. Our policy on consensus makes that pretty clear. The main point of all of this is that, while I might (and, in fact, did) decide not to re-insert the information myself, anyone who wishes to may do so without your (or anyone else's) permission. If you want to talk more about that, let's take it to user talk. Kafziel ^Talk 22:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said anyone needed my permission. Anyone can be bold and add whatever they want. But I'm still free to be just as bold in removing it, as long as I don't do it more than 3 times in the same 24-hour period. As for discussion being a last resort, perhaps it is (generally?), but once it has commenced, for whatever reason that course was arrived at, the nice thing to do would be to delay action until it's completed. No, we don't need to talk about it further. Thanks for your time.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:18, 12/14/2007

new cat

I created a new cat Category:Mitchell Report (baseball) to include the non-players that are involved in the Mitchell Report but aren't included in Category:Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report; and I made the latter a subcat of the former. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

89 players?

The main page news blurb says that exactly 89 players were named. If this is accurate, it should probably replace the needlessly vague "more than 70" that we have there right now. -Elmer Clark (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unclear sentence in Section 1

The appointment was made after several influential members of the US Congress made negative comments about the effectiveness and honesty of anti-performance enhancing drugs policies and efforts by both Commissioner Selig and the director of the Player's Union, Donald Fehr.[2]

This didn't make any sense to me - what "efforts" are being referred to here? Efforts to do what? Manning (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

efforts to uncover or weed out illegal substance use in the sport. not that i wrote that sentence or think its as clear as it could be SJMNY (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write it either but I think it's pretty clear. Members of congress said they feel anti-drug policies and their enforcers (Selig and Fehr) are ineffective. What's not to understand?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 10:20, 12/14/2007

Well if you cut out the middle clause you get "The appointment was made (...) after efforts by both Commissioner Selig and the director of the Player's Union, Donald Fehr.[2] I'm just saying the sentence doesn't make any sense as it doesn't explain what the exact effort was about. Efforts to do what? I don't know anything about this issue as it hasn't made the news here in Australia, so I'm just reading it as an outsider trying to understand what is going on. Manning (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Admission to accusations

I edited F.P. Santangelo's page to reflect his admission in the press to at least part of the accusations. As I did so, I realized one thing that would be helpful is to keep track of would be those (few) players that actually have owned up to at least part of their actions, which allegations they deny, and when. Anyone have an idea how to keep track of this, or should this simply be among the list of players? Old64mb (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In the list article you can see the allegations and whether or not the player admitted to them. If it says the player declined to be interviewed, that obviously means they didn't admit to anything.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:19, 12/15/2007

Actually, no, that's my point. Santangelo declined to be interviewed but then later admitted to some of the allegations. It may be just me, but I find that a useful reference, although the more I think about it if the two pages don't get merged it's an argument for the list article. Old64mb (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If a player declined to be interviewed but later admitted the allegations then that could be included. Although if the admission isn't part of the Mitchell report then that should be specified, with the source of that info included in a separate ref. So by all means if you know of such instances please add the info, and I would add it right inside the allegation box, after the Mitchell report summary.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:08, 12/15/2007

The Red Sox connection

Mitchell is on the Boston Red Sox board of directors, and produces a report naming numerous Yankees but suspiciously few Sox. That conflict of interests and smell-test failure really need to be addressed in this article. It's a very significant aspect of the story, after all. 76.123.216.96 (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable news source that addresses this angle then you could add it to the article. Without a good third-party source, though, I'm afraid such speculation doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:38, 12/15/2007

Well, it looks like somebody already went ahead and added a section. I removed a bunch of weasel words from it and changed its title from "Criticism" to something more specific about the allegations. Also, I failed to see how the fact that Mitchell resigned from the 9-11 Commission is relevant to a report about baseball, so I removed it. Finally, I also added a peacock template for the use of "many" and "star" in the phrases "many star players". Someone needs to show exactly how many players from the respective teams were in the report, rather than just telling us that it was "many". Also, since there is no universally agreed-upon standard for what constitues a "star", either list the players and let the reader decide which of them are "stars", or remove the term entirely.SixSix (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than stars, let's count everyday starters. Kingturtle (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually think it is relevant about his 9-11 Commission dealings. Reason is that he stepped down because he had a conflict of interest there, yet he didn't when he had one here supposedly. It gives credence to the targeting of the Yankees (tho, on a personal matter, I won't allege that yet despite being a Yankee fan myself). It is information about the credibility of the report. Arnabdas (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable news source that makes the 9-11 commission relevant to the Mitchel Report, and add it. Kingturtle (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this source? It's an opinion piece but part of a major publication, and addresses the topic. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071231/zirin Tejastheory (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep Op-Eds out of this and use news stories. Kingturtle (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually here's a news source which is wholly dedicated to the allegations of bias. http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/la-sp-mitchellbio14dec14,1,6912601.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-majorbaseb Tejastheory (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Those don't seem to be saying much, but enough to back up the one sentence we've now got in the article. So looks good to me.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:33, 12/19/2007

Sasha, the difficulty it writing the Conflict of Interest section well is the lack of references. I've been trying to write what ESPN is reporting and what the LA Times is reporting, without putting in non-sourced conjecture. The more sources we can find that address this topic, the better. Kingturtle (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Op-eds from notable magazines and newspapers are legitimate sources at least when it comes to showing the criticism is indeed out there. — Red XIV ^(talk) 03:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the section now. There's no longer any conjecture and the Arab-Israeli confusion is gone. We're just stating the conflict of interest as reported and repeating Mitchell's statements as reported. That's all we can do until someone publishes a more in-depth look at the situation. I don't think it needs a rewrite, at least not for now.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 16:41, 12/20/2007

Yea, its been fixed. I was confused by the Israeli-Arab stuff. Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the Northern Ireland peace process part. That achievement has to do with Mitchell's effectiveness as a negotiator, not whether or not he has a conflict of interest. It doesn't belong here. Arnabdas (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture

If someone can find a good picture of the presentation of the Mitchell Report, that would be a much better picture than the present. I searched for a while, but couldn't find anything good. The freddinator (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Chances of getting caught?

This article says that 5 to 7 percent of players were caught using steroids. The other relevant piece of information is: for any given player using steroids, what were his chances of getting caught? I assume that by timing treatments appropriately that they could minimize this? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the report some trainers did claim to know how to stagger the treatments so they wouldn't be detected, plus some substances like HGH aren't even detectable via the current tests. A decent probability wouldn't be calculable, 'cause if there is a way to remain undetected, they all could've used it had they known about it. The most we can do is find out the frequency of the tests and the frequency of the required treatments, and then assume all substances were detectable, which they aren't... I think the testing frequency would be a valuable figure alone though, if anyone has that info.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 22:13, 12/15/2007

The chance should be at least theoretically knowable. For example, if a dealer is caught who confesses to a long history of supplying a certain group of players (and if it is substantiated), then you could look retrospectively at how many were caught by the testing scheme before the confession. Of course, whether this is known is another question. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's pretty much the situation now. We have the names in the Mitchell Report (assuming they're all true) and we have the number (or percentage at least) of players caught by the tests beforehand. Compare those two figures and there's your probability.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:00, 12/16/2007

I was thinking along that line, but I've had far simpler deductions run afoul of WP:NOR. Besides, I'm not altogether sure this group is representative (it should be biased for more famous players, who presumably use steroids more often and are less likely to get caught). Still, the math should turn up somewhere sooner or later, which is why I mentioned it in this discussion. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Steroid era in baseball

does anyone else think it's time to start a page called Steroid era in baseball. George Mitchell's report seems to confirm that this is the historical name that will be given to the period. he even refers to it as such in his press conference. also, many sports columnists are using the same phrase. is it too early to start a page like this or is it time?74.131.53.9 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Too early. Maybe if the phrase becomes common in the media then an article might be warranted, but that hasn't happened yet.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:13, 12/16/2007

There also are not exact dates. Do we use Jose Canseco's first year since he was in some ways the person that was the reason for the March 17, 2005 Congressional hearings? And 2005 for the year it ended? Steroids were against the rules in baseball long before that and in 2002 Ken Caminiti did an interview about steroids with Sports Illustrated. The phrase is common in the media, but it is too early to know even approximately what dates to use or how many people did use steroids. If only the star players were using them (which doesn't seem to be the case) is it really a "steroid era?" And furthermore, would you include amphetamines in that since they are also a performance enhancer? It seems like there will be an "era" in baseball for steroids, but there are still far too many questions about what it is and when. Dcs315 (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We do have articles for other era's, like the Dead-ball era. I suppose you could call the steroid era the same thing. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 04:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Like the deadball era, which arguably should be merged, the steroid era is just a subset of the overall history of pro baseball, and is already organized like that in Wikipedia: History_of_baseball_in_the_United_States#The_steroid_era. Perhaps a redirect from steroid era would be a good idea. --W.marsh 05:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've always assumed the Steroid era began with the emergence of the Bash Brothers in Oakland, and ended when MLB started seriously testing. Mitchell makes it clear that detectable steroid use is now down due to testing, and now the problem is HGH. i didn't realize that there was a subsection about the steroid era in History of baseball in the United States, but i think that section will have to eventually be expanded to the point where it will need to be an independent page. i agree, maybe it is too early to try and tackle that, as alot is still left to be flushed out. but it appears the term "steroid era" is the accepted current term to describe the inflation of homeruns and other related statistics and probably will go down in history as such. 74.131.53.9 (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh, Equazcion? The phrase "Steroid Era" is in common usage in the media. 76.123.216.96 (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is then I stand corrected. I wasn't aware.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 10:03, 12/18/2007

Doesn't that imply that all baseball players are somehow involved in that scandal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstandgoal (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not necessarily. We don't need to include everyone in order to define an era. It's just a generalization; a measure of the feelings of the public and how people view the climate. The 60's was the hippy era, but not everyone was a hippy. Sometimes even just a few select people can define an era, if they make a big enough impact.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 10:03, 12/18/2007

kudos

IMHO, this is by far the best reference on this topic anywhere. Kingturtle (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

COI Question

Perhaps I am just dense, but I can't figure out why a Sinn Fein representative is being quoted as saying Mitchell was fair and impartial in his report on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Is there something missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.141.40 (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Someone seems to have mixed up Mitchell's roles in the Irish and Middle East peace talks. I've slapped together a temporary fix but anyone is welcome to expand on that. Thanks mr. anonymous :)

Equazcion • argue/improves • 15:21, 12/20/2007

TOC

TOC nested on right is the best way to make text wrap around it and eliminate all that white space.

Equazcion •✗/C • 14:17, 12/22/2007