Talk:Ken Griffey Jr./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Griffey in the Steroid Era

This is a nice mention but I think it should be relocated. It's not very Personal, unless you count it as a "personal choice" to have never taken steroids. Maybe it should be relocated to a section of its own with mention of the Mariners' clubhouse steroid allegations as made by Shane Monahan. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The section was deleted with no discussion, I added it again (though I didn't write it originally). If you have a problem with it please discuss it here. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah It's a good section, I don't think he took steroids but the questions and allegations are still out there. People shouldn't delete the section because they don't agree with the accuser. I think there are more people who say he didn't take them and those voices should be added too. It might need to be expanded and move, it's not very personal.--70.59.140.187 (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I didn't delete the section because I necessarily disagreed with it, it was because at the time it had no sources, and looked to be entirely original research.--Henry talk 04:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't refer to you. An IP deleted a part of the section. You did the right thing. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section.

• The section has two main points. Neither needs to be here.
  • Griffey's historical status has been elevated by the absence of steroid rumors regarding him. That is already discussed in the lead paragraphs. It does not need to be repeated.
  • There was an espn.com article where a player who was on some of the same teams as Griffey made claims regarding widespread use of steroids and amphetamines in the clubhouse. This article never mentions Griffey's name, nor has Monahan ever mentioned Griffey specifically, nor has such a connection been reported in any article I can find. Thus I believe bringing up Monahan in a discussion of Griffey is original research. The notability of Monahan's claims is questionable regardless.
• The section inaccurately quotes Monahan as saying "The only person that I didn't see take [steroids] was Dan Wilson." The actual quote was "The only person that I didn't see take greenies was Dan Wilson." Greenies are amphetamines, not steroids, so this paraphrasing is incorrect. Amphetamines have been common in baseball since at least the sixties, and were not at all discussed in the Mitchell Report; they are not a "steroid era" phenomenon.
• The usatoday.com link "Reds outfielder Griffey rises above steroids cloud" is useful and relevant, and I moved this to the related sentence in the lead paragraph which was previously uncited.

--Jnala (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you claim it was inaccurate, you should have changed it, not removed it. The fact is, you took the "good pr" article from that section and moved it somewhere else. The Monahan statement was rebutted by numerous players who were on the Mariners roster in the 90's and that was added into the section because just adding the one side wouldn't be very neutral. The fact is, neutrality is now skewed. Any player who was as predominant in the 90's as Griffey is going to get questions about preform enhancing drugs. It should be added in a neutral manor listing accusations and list out supporters of Griffey's clean image. Our personal ideas of Griffy have no place in this article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Numbers

Is there any need for a section? All but one are not cited, so I think the one that is can be moved to a more appropriate section. Any thoughts? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. The one that is cited could be moved into the biography section at the appropriate place. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Nearly all are uncited and including wearing number 42 in honor of Jackie Robinson is rather pointless since hundreds of players, managers, and umpires wear the number each year. I mean if it's so important to include on Griffey's page, might as well make a section on Tim McClelland's page for it. I say if no one say otherwise in the next few days, it should be taken out. HidyHoTim (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues

The article has alot of issues, most of all the lack of citations and POV writing. I'll begin with the following:

In 1999, he ranked 93rd on The Sporting News' list of the 100 Greatest Baseball Players. This list was compiled during the 1998 season, counting only statistics through 1997. It was argued by some that, had the voting been done two or three years later, he would have been ranked several places higher: at age 29 (going on 30), he was the youngest player on the list.

I'll add a citation for the list itself, removing the third sentence and leaving the note of him being the youngest player on the list. This kind of editing pretty much needs to be done throughout the article, if anyone is interested.--Chimino (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This may be a good idea for a collaboration at WP:BASEBALL. It would be nice to have this article at GA or FA status by the time he's elected to the HOF. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Last active player from the 1980's?

Anyone know who the last active player from the 80's is? I think it's Ken Griffey Jr. but I am not sure. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{14:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)}

Omar Vizquel.--Yankees10 14:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Position issues

The people who continue to revert his position need to stop, as this can be viewed as vandalism. Wikipedia strives to have the most accurate information, not popular opinion. Griffey, Jr. played multiple positions throughout his career. When someone plays rightfield for 4 entire seasons and DH for 2 seasons, he can no longer be viewed as a centerfielder. On ESPNs statistical site, his position is even stated as designated hitter. Please refrain from changing his position as this can viewed as vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.168.204.10 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is paragraph on suicide attempt really necessary?

I really do not find it that relevant that there is an entire heading devoted to Ken Griffey Jr. 1988 suicide attempt. Is it really necessary to have a whole heading about it? I mean it has been 23 years since it happened.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.210.106 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Add some videos with some key statements by Griffey....such as "trade to reds" or going back to Seattle for 1999 season....maybe some announcer quotes.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.38 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Kingdome/Safeco Field

I don't feel it's necessary to include the information on the Kingdome/Safeco Field in the article (i.e. Safeco being "the house that Griffey built"). I don't know of a single person in the Seattle area that refers to it as such, and I've only heard minor references to it on television ads around 1996 or so, and right around 1999 when Safeco opened. Certainly, the details of Governor Lowry calling the legislature into special session have no relevance to the article.

-- 207.108.208.108 (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Napgate

This is a WP:BRD discussion of the recent removal of the "Napgate" description from the header of a section which covers the issues leading up to Griffey's retirement (dubbed "Napgate" with multiple citations) and actual retirement. As the term appears well-sourced and is a core part of the section as currently written, the edit has been reverted to prior consensus. Explicitly, consensus can change. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it back, since in a BLP, those concerns trump BRD. I really don't think this "napgate" is so important that it needs to be in the section header. It's a part of the story of his midseason retirement, so it should stay, but "retirement" seems sufficient as a header to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What "concerns?" I'm unaware of a WP:BLP policy which restricts the use of non-pejorative terms about an event which are extensively used in the ensuing media coverage and well-cited. About half of the section's content is explicitly about Napgate rather than retirement, hence its appropriate use in the header. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree.. the section is about his retirement and why he retired... "napgate" is a term that was used at the time but i dont feel it has real lasting notability today and its use in the section header implies a bigger controversy than it really was. The section should be "retirement". Spanneraol (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Two paragraphs, two different topics. Napgate didn't cause his retirement, it preceded his decision to retire. If he didn't retire, Napgate is still notable and well-cited. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I still disagree that "napgate" is important enough in the scope of his career to have its own section... the material should either be included in the Mariners section or in the retirement, and I feel retirement makes more sense as it led to his retirement. Its undue weight to give it its own section. Spanneraol (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If the two topics are linked, they should share the section as has been the long-standing treatment. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I am unaware of any policy which precludes the common name of an event from being used as a section header. Also, you specifically referenced a WP:MOSHEAD violation, but there does not appear to be any on-point issue therein. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization was incorrect. But I also agree it's WP:UNDUE to include in the header. It's described in the section, that's all that's really needed. oknazevad (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, what viewpoint is lacking representation or being under-represented? UW Dawgs (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing. But UNDUE is also about overstating things as well. oknazevad (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

As most of the section's content is about Napgate, how is using the term in the section header "overstating?" UW Dawgs (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It inflates the importance of "napgate" in the scope of his career. Spanneraol (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ken Griffey Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080529101140/http://www.charityhop.com/graphics/2008_reds_griffey.jpg to http://www.charityhop.com/graphics/2008_reds_griffey.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Main Picture

Griffey Jr. played for the White Sox so his main picture has every right of being a White Sox picture as it does Mariners. I propose that the main picture is him with the White Sox on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with the remaining days being with the Mariners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFlamingTurd (talk • contribs) 18:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think Griffey is better identified as a Chicago White Sox (Sock?) than as a Seattle Mariner? He spent 13 seasons in Seattle, and less than one in Chicago. You're really proposing we alternate the image on an ongoing basis? Articles are supposed to be stable in content. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Put another way, let's look at his games played totals. Griffey played 1,685 games for Seattle, 945 for Cincinnati, and 41 for Chicago. If you really wanted to alternate the lead image, it should be with a picture of him with the Reds, not with the White Sox. And since the article body has images of him with all three teams, there's no issue here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Not that it needs saying, but subject mostly known as pictured with Seattle. I honestly can't imagine this to be a legitimate suggestion or sincere editor, fwiw. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'm treating the comment seriously per WP:AGF. It was serious enough for the editor to edit war over. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ken Griffey Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120129155844/http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/13867227/cincinnati-deserves-this-fun-successful-reds-team to http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/13867227/cincinnati-deserves-this-fun-successful-reds-team

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ken Griffey Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708093953/http://bringgriffeyback.com/ to http://bringgriffeyback.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224223623/http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Ken-Griffey-teammate-says-he-was-not-sleeping-during-game to http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Ken-Griffey-teammate-says-he-was-not-sleeping-during-game
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529101141/http://www.charityhop.com/graphics/2008_reds_griffey_seattle.jpg to http://www.charityhop.com/graphics/2008_reds_griffey_seattle.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)