Talk:Rickey Henderson/Archive 2

Tenure quote

I read on this site http://100percentinjuryrate.blogspot.com/2007/07/definitive-rickey-henderson.html that same story about ricky confusing tenure with ten years, but that site says it was Steve Finley not Tony Gwynn.

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 2, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: It was a pretty decent read, but I think the "Later years (1993-2003)" section should be written more in prose form, and not be so obsessive over stats (I know that's really hard to do with baseball articles). Also, it seems like readers who are not familiar with baseball might be confused over certain aspects of the article. For example, in the first few lines of the "Major leagues" section, you mentioned "Finley". I know this to be a reference to Charles O. Finley, but I doubt many non-baseball readers would know that.

Corrections have been made.

2. Factually accurate?: All the requested citation tags should be addressed. There's no way I would pass a GA if there are missing citations in the article. Also, I think more citations need to be added (they must meet WP:RS).

The only citation needed is for the Puerto Rican league stat. I cannot find that one anywhere. What other citations would you like to see?

There are three {{fact}} tags in the article. Please add those sources. If you cannot find the sources, then remove the material. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrections made. Timneu22 14:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, the article covers his entire 25-year baseball career. As stated in the FAC, you should also mention more of his personal life.

Next to address.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes, but to make sure, I'll re-read the article later.

OK.

5. Article stability? No problems here.

OK.

6. Images?: No problems here.

OK.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Nishkid64 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Response added to the list. I'll add some personal stuff in a day or so. Timneu22 10:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Revisions made

I believe all the request have now been made, as of this revision. We can only hope that the vandals stay away from the article. Please advise on other corrections/improvements. Timneu22 15:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bad" editing

That Henderson was the game's best leadoff hitter is virtually beyond dispute, and clearly surpass POV concerns, as a hundred different references could show. I think adding "...best of his era" to the intro is uncontroversial and also makes his status clearer than the "one of the best..." hemming.

The discussion about why Henderson was never moved from the leadoff slot despite his almost 300 HRs is exactly the 'prose form" sort of information requested above; look at the amended version and see. I've also added the exact total of Henderson's NY steals record. I restored the "His 25 steals increased his existing lead..." sentence because it satisfies the "prose form" request and also contextualizes Henderson's late career accomplishments. The Nolan Ryan 5,000 quote is also evocative of his personality and merits inclusion. Lastly, I've tightened the parade of back-and-forth retirement quotes.208.120.227.69 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm the biggest Rickey fan there is, and I know he's the best. However, you cannot even say that Babe Ruth was the "best ever" because this is an opinion. By saying "many consider [Rickey] the best ever", this tells people how it is — you can look all over the internet and find where he's the best and where people don't think he's the best. However, most people consider him the best. The current revision of this article is the most neutral way of stating it. Your other points are ridiculous:

• There was never consideration to move Rickey from the leadoff spot. Implying otherwise is untrue. That statement does not belong in the article.
• "His 25 steals increased his existing lead..." This is pointless. Every steal Rickey had after 938 increased his lead.

If you really want to contribute, try getting a wikipedia username. As for now, I'm going to revert your edits that make no sense. Thank you, by the way, for the Puerto Rico reference. Timneu22 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, but I have contributed. My edits to this page can be found as far back as 2005, and as much as half of the text in the article was generated by myself. I fully understand that this is not apparent. I've chosen not to register with Wikipedia because I have no interest in building a profile or a rep, and because I have watched many other disputes between users turn personal (and longterm). Since my Wiki IP changes every 1 to 3 weeks, I've avoided such kerfuffles.

I'm not here to construct a hagiography of Henderson either. But the softening of the introduction was too delicate about the consensus on his status as a leadoff batter, the near-uniformity of which is rare. The Wiki intro for Babe Ruth reads "consistently chosen as the greatest baseball player in history...", the Wiki intro for Mariano Rivera reads "often considered to be the greatest closer in baseball history", the Wiki intro for the Beatles reads "the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed band in the history of popular music".

You've misinterpreted the two edits above, or perhaps I did not make them clear enough for your tastes, for which I apologize. Despite your reading, the first edit contains no implication that a lineup switch for Henderson was ever considered. The sentence merely tries to explain why he remained in the leadoff slot to hit almost 300 HRs, while no other slugger of that caliber has ever done so.

The second edit refers to the MARGIN of Henderson's lead over his speedy contemporaries, not Henderson's incremental increase in career totals. That the active player with the second-most steals, and the third-most, and so on through the tenth-most, ALL lost ground in the career SB tables to a 42-year-old Henderson is notable.

I'll take a look at the specifics of your reversions and edits later; just wanted to respond and (hopefully) reassure you.208.120.227.69 22:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I like the current introduction. I think it makes it clear that he was the premier hitter of the 80s/90s and one of the best ever. "Many consider him..." is certainly clear to a reader that he might not be, but he probably is. Seriously, who else could be? Ty Cobb? Gimme a break. I still don't think the "keeping in leadoff spot" sentence belongs anywhere in the article, it just doesn't flow... and sorry but I also disagree with the 25-steal increase bit. A reader unfamiliar with this topic may be confused, as I am: is this important? Otherwise, I like the intro. Timneu22 10:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review my edits today, and approve or improve them. Thanks!208.120.227.69 04:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

I am failing this article for GA. I still think the prose needs to be worked on, and the issues with the "Later years (1993-2003)" section still need to be fixed. Some of the references come from blogs, which clearly do not meet WP:RS. Given the size of the article, I think more references are needed, and the article should incorporate more prose throughout. If you want more details about his playing career from 1993-2003, check out Rickey Henderson's page on baseball-reference.com. You can access day-to-day gamelogs there. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If I'm free, I will also give a hand with the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that Rickey has been in the news for becoming the first base coach of the mets, the edits are out of control for this page. I doubt it will ever meet GA with some of the idiots on here. Timneu22 10:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

NYM Hitting Coach is not certain

minaya was on with russo and was very iffy about rickey being the hitting coach, almost leading one to believe that it would instead be hojo. i'm going to change mentions of "hitting coach" to "coach" until something more definitive comes out. Riphamilton 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that what you said makes any sense, but there's a citation. Your edit will be reverted. Timneu22 09:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I told you so. haha. Riphamilton 05:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rickey Henderson: The Greatest Coach In Baseball History

I know that very recent events always create a sudden uptick in Wikipedia edits, and sometimes a distortion of emphasis. But the focus on Henderson's week-old coaching job (intro, photo) is way excessive. (Perhaps someone who feels otherwise could provide a list of the sport's all-time great first base coaches? If Henderson's job ranks as an instant "accomplishment," then Bobby Knoop, who held the same Angels' job for almost 20 years, must be an all-time sports legend.) Just on a purely literary level, the Bill James quote provides a perfect coda for the intro. To tack on the Mets gig afterwards is like Rhett Butler saying, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. By the way, do you know the bus schedule?"

• I've switched the photos. The one from this week is nice, and I'm glad to keep it in the article, but he's almost 49 years old in it and it's hardly the best available example of why Henderson has a Wikipedia entry.

  CORRECT.

• I've deleted the Mets first base coach box, as the succession goes all the way back to 2003 before stopping. To have any real value, this feature needs to be comprehensive... or at least, the historical information therein needs to predate the playing career of Jose Reyes.

  CORRECT.

• The intro has "run" hyperlinked twice in two sentences; I've removed the second instance.

  CORRECT.

• Henderson finally acknowledged his retirement as he was being introduced as Mets coach. The verb tenses need to be changed.

  CORRECT.

• There have been dozens and dozens of articles, both media- and fan-driven, discussing whether or not Henderson's lengthy non-retirement would delay his HoF eligibility. This occurred most recently when Oakland floated the idea of signing Henderson to a one-day contract, and whether or not such a move would inadvertantly "restart" his clock. It hardly seems necessary to provide references for a phrase like "contrary to speculation," but if it's really that problematic, I will.

  I disagreed with this and removed it.

208.120.227.69 15:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have little respect for those who hide behind IP addresses, but see my comments above. Almost all of this is entirely correct. People adding "is the NY Mets coach" in the intro is absurd; it is not what makes him noteable. Thanks for these edits, 208. Timneu22 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too choked up about official editors who might ignore official Wikipedia policy by assigning more first-reaction respect to any random username than they would to a sensible anonymous editor, either. But we're not here to search our souls; just to make the articles better if we can.

Re: "Contrary to speculation..." Here's ESPN getting it wrong in 2005: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2056132

Here's the San Francisco Chronicle, unclear about the matter in 2007: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/18/SPG11PTFL91.DTL

Here's the San Diego Union-Tribune getting it wrong in 2005: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050509/news_1s9rickey.html

I hope those links, and many others like them, answer your quiet curiosity regarding "WHO IS SPECULATING" about the "SAME CRAP."

The three-revert rule is rearing its ugly head, so I shan't make any more edits today. The "Mets coach" text and photo are both back in the intro, too. (Courtesy of one of those dastardly anonymous IPs... you just can't trust those guys! :) )208.120.227.69 17:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The last line of the intro said he "... currently is the Mets coach". That's not bad, I guess. The mets photo was there, too. I reverted the edit completely, even though I think the "mets coach" is an okay line for the last line of the intro. Earlier, it said "Rickey Henderson is the Mets coach" as the first line. That's just dumb. Timneu22 18:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be a mention that he is on the mets coaching staff in the intro. i don't care about the color of the statbox, that's kinda childish. his job is what this future hall of famer does currently. it's not promoting for mastercard. dave duncan was a great player, his article's intro states he's a pitching coach.... larry bowa, guidry, etc. the position he holds is tantamount to a roster spot on a major league ballclub. Riphamilton 05:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned before, I think it's okay to have that as the last line. The mysterious 208 user is the one to continually remove that line. It does belong, but only as the last line of the intro. The whole color-revert war is getting annoying. Timneu22 09:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image issue

The "henderson coach" image has some problems:

• it should not be in the infobox. Rickey is notable for being a ballplayer, not a coach.
• it is likely that the image isn't being used with proper copyright; it will be deleted soon.

Because of this, I've left the image in the "coaching" section but removed it from the IB. Timneu22 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If he's not notable as a coach, why is it being discussed? In that case, he's most notable as a player. Which is based on opinion - which I agree on Rickey, but Mike Scioscia is most notable for me as an employee-ringer for the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. Mghabmw 23:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Info box colors

Can someone please explain how the info box colors work - because this seems to change on a weekly basis based on people's individual discretion. I agree that based off his playing career, there is no argument other than Oakland A's for Henderson's colors. However, he is currently the first base coach for the New York Mets. That said, I would think that he should show Mets colors being that he is, at the present time, a high-profile coach for the franchise on the major league level. Someone pointed out that the info box is based on playing career only, but if that is true, then Willie Randolph should be shown as a Yankee, Mike Scioscia a Dodger, Joe Torre a Brave, etc. I don't understand why people can randomly assume there is an exception for managers but not coaches? I have even gotten into arguments with people saying that players should be shown by the colors of teams they are presently ANNOUNCING for (that I don't agree with - Ralph Kiner has announced for the Mets for 46 years but he should still be shown with Pirates colors for his playing days). If an individual is on the field, in uniform, on a nightly basis for a MLB team at the present time, I believe that team should bear his colors. If I am overruled, then fine, but we should establish a set precedent.

It should show A's colors. Rickey is notable for being a player, not a coach. Timneu22 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be current affiliation. He wears a Mets uniform, bench coach is an important position. I don't like the Mets, but it's most fair (in my opinion) to list Mets colors on Mets coach/player roster. As per the argument above, Willie, Scioscia... noted players for other teams. Mghabmw 22:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we acknowledge coaches or not? Kirk Gibson is a coach on Arizona and is shown with D-Back colors but Rickey is not shown with Mets colors. What is the wiki standard? Gmh224 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If Rickey Henderson is a couch with the Mets, then he is currently wearing a Mets uniform and should have Mets colors. Rickey is a classic Athletic, but he works with the Mets. Mghabmw 22:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Rickey is notable as an athlete. The current colors are appropriate. Timneu22 22:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So is Willie Randolph as one of the few Yankee (co)captains. He is also notable as a bench coach, which is his current status. After he stops coaching, then I see no problem with him being in green and yellow. Mghabmw 23:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care either way but it should be consistent. If Rickey is shown with A's colors, then Kirk Gibson should be shown with Tigers colors, etc.Gmh224 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Take this discussion here. Timneu22 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that I don't care so much about whether his info box shows Mets colors or A's colors. I'd think it probably makes more sense to show A's colors as the info box is designated for him as a retired player. However, I think it is definitely notable to say in the opening paragraph that he is presently coaching for the Mets. It is noteworthy in that it is his present position, and while nobody would dispute that his playing career with the A's is what he is most notable for, it is worth noting that he is in an MLB position at the present time. Gmh224 14:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mghabmw's constant reverts and updates to this article are just annoying. Why won't everyone just stop with the color wars already? The colors don't need to change every two days!!!!!!!!! 21:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The colors should be A's colors he is not the manager of the Mets he is a coach--Yankees10 21:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably true. But Mghabmw will revert anything like that. I wish that infobox had no colors and only allowed black/white or something generic. Timneu22 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He's on the current roster for the Mets. He wears a Mets uniform. Other than that, I agree that he should be an A whenever he is no longer wearing another teams uniform. Mghabmw 20:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth Name/Early years

There was an interview with Rickey on mlb.com on July 21st in which he states his true birth name, and how he came to have his current name, and that he was born in a 1957 Chevrolet, not an oldsmobile.

The appropriate links have been provided, I dont understand why they would be removed again.

It comes DIRECTLY from an interview with the subject where he makes these statements.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070721&content_id=2100450&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

His autobiography says Oldsmobile, and "... born Rickey Nelson..." isn't important enough for the first sentence. Timneu22 09:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

intro

An introduction should state who the subject is, who he was, and a summary of what he's done. Rickey Henderson is not dead, so stop concentrating on who he was. Mghabmw 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree here. See the Babe Ruth analogy in the recent invisible edit. While it is true that Henderson is not dead, it is also true that his status as an ex-player disproportionately outweighs it to a huge extent. Cal Ripken's intro (rightly, I would suggest) does not mention that he is a State Department envoy... and that's a far more unusual and high-profile gig than being one of 30 current first-base coaches. In the hope of compromise, I had previously added Henderson's Met job into the infobox, which is something you typically do not find in Wikipedia baseball articles. I hope that that edit accords it the sort of prominence you prefer.208.120.6.222 21:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, I have stayed out of these edit wars, but I gotta agree with 208 here. Timneu22 12:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Mghabmw. Nobody would argue that Henderson is more prominent as a first base coach than as an ex-player, but that is what the man currently is at this moment. It is certainly relevant and encylopedic to list that in the opening paragraph. If you made that the focus of the intro, then that would be wrong, but there is nothing wrong saying, "Henderson is currently serving as..." Jjj222 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This information is really redundant, as it's already in the article twice. Furthermore, you and your various sockpuppets have been blocked countless times from Wikipedia, so your abuse of the website and longstanding users makes your opinions very suspect. Work more on regaining your good standing in the community, instead of making provocative edits, and perhaps you'll find other people will trust you. Googie man 17:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, of course, with Googie man. I ask this: if Rickey were currently serving as the owner of his own restaurant, or as a hotel owner in Vegas, or as a Subway sandwich artist, would that information be added to the intro? Highly doubtful. So there's no reason to add that he's a coach. Timneu22 19:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All-Time Leader in Career Stolen Base %

I changed the reference to Tim Raines being the career leader in stolen base percentage to Carlos Beltran, as the record is based on players with at least 100 stolen base attempts. See the text below from http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Carlos_Beltran:

At 87.3% (234/268 as of May 29, 2007), Beltran has the highest stolen base percentage among players with at least 100 stolen base attempts. And then under "Records," they list him as the career leader in stolen base percentage.

Googie, I understand that you have a grudge against me personally, but please don't just blindly undo all edits, especially those with factual backing. Jjj222 15:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Four in a row under the same name! Congratulations Jjj22, that's the first honest thing you've done.....ever? I'd say it's you who have a grudge against me. How many times did you revert my honestly given Reggie Jackson photograph with one that's stolen? I think about 11 times. Also, have you thought about putting this information about Beltran on the Carlos Beltran article? Furthermore there is simply no comparison between what Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines did in 20+ year careers that what Beltran has done in 9. I'm sure that if you look at it in the right way, David Ortiz has a high stolen base percentage as well. You've simply proven yourself to be untrustworthy, and I don't consider it reverting your edits, but more like undoing the damage you've done, and continue to do. Lastly, this is just half-assed lazy editing, as you didn't include the whole truth about this being a record amongst *active* players, and you're making it sound like it's an all time record. It's misleading. There's no source either. Why is this on the Rickey Henderson article and not on the Carlos Beltran article, again? Shall I go on with the laundry list of how bad your edit is? Googie man 21:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

PS I did your work for you, look here. This is where the information about Beltran belongs, on the Beltran article. Why didn't it occur to you to do this? Googie man 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I never claimed that Beltran was a better base stealer than Henderson or Raines. Second, I was not the one who inserted the comment about Raines being the all-time leader in SB% either, that was inserted by someone else and I was merely correcting it as it was not right. Whether or not he is faster, or a better base stealer, Beltran is recognized as the all-time leader in SB% at 88% - as the record books count anyone with over 100 steal attempts. I didn't put it on Beltran's page because I don't care - I was just changing an incorrect reference that existed on this page. Jjj222 23:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim Raines attempted 600 more steals than Beltran so the statistic is arbitrary, misleading, and most importantly has no place on the Rickey Henderson article. And I imagine the fact that Beltran plays for your beloved Mets is simply a coincidence. And, you obviously cared enough to put the reference somewhere, so why not on the page where it most belongs? I think saying that you don't care about what goes on a page is the most honest statement I've read from you. There are a number of people who *do* care, and put a significant amount of time into providing an objective baseball encyclopedia, something bigger than themselves. Then, along comes Jjj22/Gmh22/JoeIdaho/Pascack/ and whatever else, and for no reason that I can see other than to be a malicious pain in the ass, you come along and fuck that up by insisting on putting on stolen images that you say you took. At least changing the color of the font on the Henderson page is a baby step in the right direction, but you have a long long way to go before your edits and motivations will be trusted again. Googie man 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As an experiment I decided to let your Beltran statement stand on the Henderson article, just to see what would happen. Sure enough, here's a note on your edit "citing Beltran is both true and deceptive; Francisco Rodriguez has a lower career ERA than Cy Young, too. How's this?)" So this is not just "my grudge", as you put it. You made yet another inappropriate, irrelevant, deceptive edit for the purpose of promoting a Met. I really think you have the highest percentage of edits reverted or completely changed on the history of Wikipedia. So the boringly predictable response is that you'll revert this about 10 times because you have nothing else better to do with your time. Most people who make misleading edits, serial vandals, and people who use multiple sockpuppets get the point after a month or two, but not you Jjj222/Gmh224/Pascack/Joeidaho/IPaddress, you've been at this since the summer or earlier. Hey, if you want to keep on making bad edits, go ahead, knock yourself out. Ultimately it's you acting maliciously and irresponsibly, and that's not my problem. Googie man 13:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User "208" is "Jjj222"... who knew? Timneu22 13:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? Both his and the 208 are located in NYC, where Jjj22 and his other identities live. If so, then Jj the Met Fanboy is in worse shape mentally than I thought. Maybe 208 is hsi "good" personality that's taking his medication, and Jjj22 is Mr. Hyde? Googie man 13:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you that user 208 is not me. In fact, I just undid his change. My IP is 192.234.99.1. There are 20 million people in the NYC area, you know. Jjj222 13:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well let's look at it two ways - if you are 208, you both make edits on wrestling (wrestling? Jesus Christ)and some other commonalities. If you aren't, then you've just again reverted the edit of someone who disagrees with you and points out how your edit is misleading. Furthermore, you're wrong, it's not 20 million in the metro area, but 21 million, and of all those 21 million, there is only one acting as pathetically. Which one do you suppose that is? Googie man 13:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted his message because it is incorrect factually. The MLB record is based on a minimum of 100 stolen base attempts. See the below quotation from the Sporting News (the article is 3-4 years old, though Beltran's percentage has remained at 88% today): "Beltran began the week as the majors' all-time leader in stolen base percentage among players with at least 100 steals--he was 186-for-209 (.890)" http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_37_228/ai_n6198556/pg_2

Hmmmm, OK. A broken clock is right twice a day, congratulations. However, there is another troubling aspect of this which you neglect, and that's your "not caring" enough to put the correct information on the Carlos Beltran article, which makes your edit on the **Rickey Henderson** page suspect, considering your abundantly checkered past. Googie man 14:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe I have a job and can't be on wikipedia all day long like you. Jjj222 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, Jjj222, please make that with not so much foam this time, and that's a venti too please. That's a rich one, coming from yourself. You just still don't get it. Five edits under the same name - now you really deserve a gold star. I've never in my life been banned from any web forum, never flouted any rules of any site in which I've participated. If I ever stooped so low, I'd blow my brains out. Obviously, some people hold the bar of behavior much lower for themselves. Furthermore, I'm sure your boss is going to love the complaint I;ll give to your company's ISP for a useless employee who damages a freely editable website. For God's sake quit wasting company time and go to a wrestling match, as you're extremely unwelcome on this website. Googie man 02:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. I could give a damn about you. Jjj222 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing you don't get! If you don't care, then stop following ME around and vandalizing MY work! Googie man 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Nominee

We're going to try this article again. Hopefully the vandals will stay out this time. Timneu22 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience during that admittedly ugly flame war between myself and Jjj222/Gmh224/JoeIdaho/Pascack/RandomIP. I'm simply on the warpath against vandals and he's a particularly bad one. I'll do what I can to help with the RH article. Thanks, Googie man 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am here to help as well. Just let me know. Jjj222 17:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

October GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): Y - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): Y - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'm going to have to fail this. It's generally accepted that there be at least one inline citation per paragraph, there are large sections that go without them. Plus, there are some quotes are aren't cited. There only being 3-4 sentences in the minor league sections is iffy, and it's very geared towards post-2000. I'd like to see all this fixed. Wizardman 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Stolen Base %

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Henderson also owns the record for times caught stealing (335). However, his overall 81% success rate on the basepaths is among the highest percentages in history. (Tim Raines ranks first among players with at least 300 career attempts, with 84%.)

There was a heated exchange in Archive2 on this subject. What I wanted to point out is that this is the kind of statistic where higher is not necessarily better: if your success rate is too high, it's possible you are not running enough. A game theoretic analysis would determine an optimal value for getting caught, which will be less than a 100% success rate. A more interesting statistic would be how often the leading base stealers got caught at second in a double play, which is where not running enough will likely show up. MaxEnt (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure how this information is relevant to the article.
2. The got-caught-in-a-double-play scenario wouldn't prove anything. What if Rickey is on first but Mike Gallego is on second? Not much can be done to avoid a DP there.

Timneu22 (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review Feb. 2008

Article fails for same reason as previous review. Article needs many more references. The lead can also use some improvement and expansion. See Wikipedia:Lead section.User:calbear22 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Completely disagree with the lead section improvement. Currently, it is concise and accurate; it gives a perfect encyclopedic introduction of the article's topic. Timneu22 (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yankees10's edit

Asked to "explain otherwise on the Discussion board," Yankees10 instead left the following message on my talk page:

Stop reverting the edits on Rickey Henderson, really who the fuck do you think you are, you are reverting his birthplace and a bunch of other things, really learn how to use Wikipedia before reverting again--Yankees10 04:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides his charming display of "good faith," he seems to believe that "give me a break check my edits before you undo them," "dont revert my edits, Im trying to get all the infoboxes consitant, seriousley check all the edits before you revert your undoing correct things," and "STOP REVERTING THE WHOLE THING!!!" are sufficient explanations for his own POV. They aren't.

Yankees10's edit keeps eliminating those areas for which Rickey Henderson is best known in favor of "consistent infobox" template that presents a lesser picture of Henderson's particular profile as a player. Is there currently some Wikipedia article drive to standardize all baseball infoboxes, even if it entails making them LESS useful than previously? Yankees10 may want to establish both the existence of this effort, and the empirical superiority of his editing choices, before making insulting (and more importantly, inaccurate) comments.

Specifically, here is what I've just changed back from his edit and why:

• Removed "Chicago, Illinois," which is not a birthdate as cited-- the deleted geographic information is thus buried all the way down in the 13th and 14th words of the first sentence of the article.
• Switched "Outfielder" to "Left fielder." Henderson played 2,423 career games in left, and 404 in center or right. That's a left fielder.
• Switched his career home run total to his career runs scored total. There's no comparison as to their respective historic significance within the realm of baseball statistics.
• "Holds numerous records" is completely uninformative. Are we expected to believe that Henderson's city of birth is more infobox-worthy than his 130-SB season?

Again, I would encourage Yankees10 to express his alternate viewpoint in a manner more conducive to consensus.208.120.226.252 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I mind the "holds numerous records" thing, because it linked to the records section below. Why have duplicate info? I don't care too much either way, though. The other stuff makes sense. Timneu22 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all the birthplace is being used for all the infoboxes, so removing that is completely dumb and basically vandalism, also it should say outfielder because he did play ALL outifield positions not just left, and also saying Holds numerous records is how it is done if the player holds more than just two or three. The only thing I agree with is putting the runs over the home runs because he wasnt much of a home run hitter during his career and just played a long time so he had that high total--Yankees10 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yankees10 has an eccentric view of what constitutes "vandalism" (it's more than a Wikipedia catchphrase for "I like the way I did it better"). Although getting him onto this page is a good start..

I'm not emotional about adding or omitting Chicago from the box, but I certainly think it's shortsighted and illogical to value a place of birth over a central, prominent aspect of a player's public image or accomplishments. An infobox contains thumbnail high points. Henderson's Chicago birthplace is not more important info than his 130-steal season.

Saying Henderson is best described as an outfielder is like saying Albert Pujols should be listed as an "infielder" (after all, both players have spent about 15% of their defensive innings at a secondary position). Blurring the distinction should be for tweeners like Rose or Banks or Eckersley or A-Rod or Yount, not for players whose positional stats are as disproportionate as Henderson's are.

The "holds numerous records" listing is unnecessarily obtuse. The Wikipedia page for constructing infoboxes explains: "infobox templates should be designed to dynamically adapt themselves to the absence or presence of particular fields," for purposes such as going "off model" for very good reason. It also links to the current Wikipedia infobox template for baseball players-- and as it happens, a generic "this man holds records" blurb is not "how it's done."

I'm sure all of this will be ironed out amicably in the days to come.208.120.226.252 (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but taking off a players birtphlace is vandalism, look at other infoboxes and youll see they have the birthplace (not all baseball players have them yet, but are currently being added), and also the whole point is he didnt play his entire career at left so saying he's only a left fielder is misleading and wrong, and lastly i've changed my stance on the records and achievements, heres how I belive it should look:

Rickey Henderson
Outfielder
Batted: Right Threw: Left
debut
June 24, 1979, for the Oakland Athletics
Last appearance
September 19, 2003, for the Los Angeles Dodgers
Career statistics
Home runs	297
Hits	3,055
Stolen bases	1,406
Teams
Oakland Athletics (1979-1984, 1989-1993, 1994-1995, 1998) New York Yankees (1985-1989) Toronto Blue Jays (1993) San Diego Padres (1996-1997, 2001) Anaheim Angels (1997) New York Mets (1999-2000) Seattle Mariners (2000) Boston Red Sox (2002) Los Angeles Dodgers (2003)
Career highlights and awards
10x All-Star selection (1980, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991) 2x World Series champion (1989, 1993) 3x Silver Slugger Award winner (1981, 1982, 1985) Gold Glove Award winner (1981) 1990 AL MVP 1989 ALCS MVP 1999 AL Comeback Player of the Year Holds numerous other records and achievements MLB Records 1,406 career stolen bases 2,295 career runs 81 career lead-off home runs 130 stolen bases single season

It wasn't vandalism by intent or definition, but as we've already moved past that, we can consider it a small matter. I understand what you're trying to do.

Just as a suggestion, someone should update the infobox template for baseball players on the Wikipedia master list of templates. The example that's there now does not match the one you're using as a guide.

I still disagree on the OF/LF premise. An obvious counterexample to the "outfielder" descriptive: Willie Mays played 2374 games in CF, and 468 in right or center. In other words, Mays played a LOWER percentage at his predominant position (CF) than Henderson did (LF). Yet Mays is listed as a centerfielder. And quite properly, too. By the same standard, Henderson should be described as a leftfielder.208.120.226.252 (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to agree on this quickly. This article was tweaked by many and up for GA nomination. Please don't edit war; let's just get to a concensus. Timneu22 (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox to incorporate most of Yankees10's stated preferences (keeping "Holds Numerous Records" listing, keeping Chicago, switched HRs to runs), and one of mine (leftfielder instead of outfielder). I hope this will be satisfactory to all.208.120.226.252 (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I still dont think it should say left fielder, everything else I agree with though--Yankees10 22:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Fail

Apologies for not simply putting this article on hold, but I feel as though the problems here are substantive and will likely take more than a few days.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

As you can see, most of the problems exist in the prose. The main problem, and the most glaring is the often unobjective and unencyclopedic tone. To bullet points:

• The first paragraph, and really the whole lead, spells this POV out. The lead should establish the entire topic, not be a run down of everything great Henderson ever did.

  The lead was said to be "too short." So we expanded it. Now it's a run-down of everthing? There is no consistency in the GA reviewers. What are the GA standards for this? Timneu22 (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Shortness was a major problem and we did good to fix that. I tried to guide the intro to improvement, and despite the reviewers concerns, the intro and the whole article have really improved. I'm sorry I didn't catch more of these issues and I'll try to help, so don't give up.User:calbear22 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the guideline for it comes from WP:LEAD. While users can interrupt it differently, I guess, to quote it:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." I think it does a good job of establishing notability, and giving context. But I'm not sure if it totally explains controversy or could stand alone as its own article. SorryGuy  Talk  17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a good example of how you want the lead to look would be Lee Smith (baseball). While he also had a great career, it does not go straight to the achievements or the numbers. It summarizes who he played for and when, says why he is notable, and then gives a short overview of his career is two good, solid paragraphs. Your current length is fine, but the coverage could be improved. SorryGuy  Talk  17:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't contest your assessment of the lead at all. I just think that despite the current leads limitations, it is actually an improvement from what was there before.User:calbear22 (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history, you are probably right. I do like the current version though. It could probably still use some work, but it is a far more neutral, general overview of the topic. SorryGuy  Talk  16:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The current revision is the best yet. I agree with 208 — it's not notable to put Oakland High School in the lead. The quote from Bill James is a powerful thing and gives instant credibility. It definitely belongs in the intro. Timneu22 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reference on birth place would be nice.

  It is referenced, his autobiography.

  I was referring to the born in a car part, and if it is reference, then a reference at the full stop after it would suffice. SorryGuy  Talk  17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Updated the reference. However, the webpage that is referenced says "57 Chevy", while the autobiography says an Oldsmobile. Oh well. It was in a car, for sure. Timneu22 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reference on Chase and Jones would be nice.

  I'd like to remove that altogether Timneu22 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Besides those, referencing in the play section is solid.
• However, the problem is things like "sweetheart", "little more than", "astonishing", "shattered", "remarkably", "aged well", and "incredibly" are all POV. Those are only some examples, many more exist to the point where the article is obviously done by Henderson fans. Having his autograph and having seen his 3,000th hit in person, I can understand it, but the article needs to present a neutral view of his career.

  Changed most of these. "High school sweetheart" is from his autobiography and referenced as such.Timneu22 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  I don't see this reference on the statement yet. SorryGuy  Talk  17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Everything after his career history needs to be compacted some. Perhaps what is now Stolen base king could become a Legacy section, which will be inevitable. Career milestones seems somewhat repetitive as well.

  Moved some stuff around... Timneu22 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• The illeism section needs to be more clear, it never even links illeism. I also don't think it reflects the criticism that Henderson faced at time or how some felt he was a narcissist.

  People felt he was a narcissist?‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  Timneu22 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, but a quick search does not reveal such in a reliable source. If you can find such, please do. I would say there was some criticism, or at least mocking that came from it. SorryGuy  Talk  18:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• The image tags could all use some work, several are out dated.

  Has never been a concern of previous GA readers. Frankly, the images are free and they should be kept. It's hard to find non-copyrighted stuff. Timneu22 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• References should come at the end of full-stops.

  Please provide reference errors. Timneu22 (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  First sentence of the lead, another on first sentence of early life, one about the run record coming off a home run. 28 should be off the period, not on it. SorryGuy  Talk  18:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Some the linking on dating is wrong. In the case of years by themselves, they should not be linked. For further information see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

  They are typically linked to "year in baseball". Is this incorrect? Timneu22 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Honestly, I didn't notice that and do not know if it is correct. SorryGuy  Talk  18:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That is all I have for now. Best of luck with this article in the future, SorryGuy  Talk  04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I GIVE UP. Timneu22 (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)