This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jeff Kent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I didn't put in the feud with Bradley, and I do agree that it's questionable whether it goes into the article, but the feud is not unsubstantiated -- it's reported widely in the press, and it was not denied by any of the parties (Bradley, Kent, or Dodgers manager Jim Tracy). It's whether Kent is in fact a racist that is being disputed and unsubstantiated. -- Nlu 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Kent is no longer a Giant and is hated by Giants fans...can we change the photo? I found a pic of him in a dodger uniform http://www.japantimes.co.jp/images/photos2004/sb20041211a1a.jpg ChopAtwa 04:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 16:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Jeff Kent →
Jeff Kent (baseball player) – The reason for the requested move is that there is no primary Jeff Kent and the qualification by occupation of the article on this Jeff Kent will help readers to find the specific person they are looking for more easily. The main evidence in support of this is:
In conclusion, I'm requesting that the Jeff Kent (author) page remains as it is and that this page becomes Jeff Kent (baseball player).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoobysoo ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, naming a new page Jeff Kent (baseball player) will not hinder readers looking for this Jeff Kent from finding him. In fact, it will help because there can be no confusion as to whom the title is refering, as he is primarily known for a single type of activity. However, Jeff Kent (author) is notable in a number of different and unconnected fields. Therefore, a reader looking for Jeff Kent the campaigner may not know that he is also a writer and consequently may click on Jeff Kent. S/he will end up on the baseball player's article and probably then become confused, possibly giving up the search, believing that the campaigner is not listed on Wikipedia. The same case may apply to someone looking for Jeff Kent the historian, the musician and the academic. There is therefore a case, for the ease of the readership to find their right man, that Jeff Kent (author) becomes the primary Jeff Kent, even though his page visit traffic is considerably lower than that of the baseball player. In conclusion, for the readers, moving Jeff Kent to Jeff Kent (baseball player) would make sense and help clarification. ( Snoobysoo ( talk) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
Both users are being very impolite as they're talking about me as though I'm an inanimate object and not to me as a human being. Both (especially Spanneraol) are implying that there is bad faith on my part, without any evidence presented to support such an implication. The comments (epspecially those of Spanneraol), in their tone and implications, are personal in nature and not connected to the merits of the discussion. And I don't see any attempt at resolution in the comments; on the contrary, they are mildly inflammatory or potentially inflammatory in nature. The idea of this page is for a discussion to take place on the merits of the proposed case. The aforementioned comments are not debating in nature, but are implicitly accusatory and therefore unhelpful to a meaningful discussion. The Wikipedia policies for articles are: no original research; neutral point of view and verifiability. The information I have put onto site articles has numerous footnotes (many more than is typical on the site) and therefore my contributions are both verifiable and not based on original research. As all of my statements are factual in nature, they are therefore neutral by definition, as facts cannot be biased. I do know Jeff Kent (author), which has helped me to ascertain facts and add accurate information on the subject, which, I believe, has firmed up the article considerably. The world is full of people (and there are sadly examples on Wikipedia articles) who know everything about everything without actually knowing much about anything and like to add uninformed and/or misinformed information, thereby causing havoc in the world of knowledge. In terms of the level of accuracy that Wikipedia is looking for as an online reference work, knowledge of a subject is the key to success. A contributor never having met the subject of a biography is very likely to have a limited understanding of the subject. In terms of the discussion on this page, there is no advantage to me, nor to Jeff Kent (author) as far as I can see, in my proposal to move the Jeff Kent article to Jeff Kent (baseball player) because the Jeff Kent (author) article would be unaffected. Neither would there be any disadvantage to the baseball player. The advantage would be to the readers, who would more easily be able to find the subject they are looking for. I have presented my arguments rationally above and in good faith and in no way am I mischief making. I am therefore asking that the Wikipedia policies be respected and adhered to and that the discussion takes place on the merits of the cases presented. ( Snoobysoo ( talk) 22:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC))
The position that we've reached, as I see it, is that the majority of the few users who've contributed to the discussion favour keeping the Jeff Kent page as it is because of the greater number of hits on that page, which is a single criterion. I alone favour moving it to Jeff Kent (baseball player) and have put forward several other reasons in support of this suggestion. No arguments against those reasons have been put. As it stands, therefore, I believe that in totality my points have the greater merit (the more so as no-one is disadvantaged by my suggestion), but that the conservative case (clearly) has the greater numerical support. I don't wish to persist in discussion on the subject indefinitely (not least because the moving or otherwise of the article isn't so important as to require continuous debate) and am asking you how you suggest we might reach agreement for resolution, in line with Wikipedia policy in disputes. ( Snoobysoo ( talk) 11:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC))
{{Subst: Jeff Kent|Jeff Kent (baseball player)}} The reason for the requested move is that the previous discussion, above, was not completed and therefore should be continued. I asked for suggestions on how agreement for resolution might be reached, but there were no responses. As it is Wikipedia policy for agreements to try to be reached in disputes, this should be attempted. The key points that the opponents of the requested move need to consider are: 1. As the Jeff Kent and Jeff Kent (author) pages stand, how is a reader supposed to identify which of them refers to Jeff Kent, the campaigner; Jeff Kent, the musician; Jeff Kent, the publisher; Jeff Kent, the academic, etc, which the author is also listed as being? The current situation is not clear to the readers. Changing Jeff Kent to Jeff Kent (baseball player) will help the readers to select the right option. 2. What disadvantage to anyone would the requested move be? It clarifies the baseball player in his primary occupation, but does not elevate the status of the author. 3. Wikipedia policy does not require nor specifically request that there should be a primary topic and therefore the proposed change is in line with Wikipedia policy. But, in conclusion, I'm asking for suggestions on how agreement for resolution of the requested move might be reached. ( Snoobysoo ( talk) 12:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
If several people are having a discussion about different points of view and one person asks the others for suggestions on how they think an agreement might be reached between them, the only way that the discussion has ended there and then is through the other people involved refusing, or being sufficiently disinterested, to attempt to reach an agreement. That's why I attempted this continuing discussion, to ask others to put forward ideas to which we could all agree. In my opinion, you are not being objective in the discussion. At the end of the last discussion, I asked for suggestions on how an agreement might be reached. I repeated that at the start of this discussion and at the end of my last post, I said, 'I'm open minded [to] . . . some agreed solution'. Your response to that was, 'Your solution is that you win the argument.' That is patently untrue and you are highly subjectively claiming I've said entirely different things than I actually have. Nevertheless, because there are only the two of us still communicating on my move request and you are unwilling to entertain any kind of an agreement, you have made it clear to me that my appeal for an agreement is dead in the water. Therefore, in conclusion, I'm acceding to the Jeff Kent article remaining under its current heading and not moving elsewhere under a new title. The reasons for this are: 1. No agreement has been reached for a change and therefore it seems right that the status quo should prevail. 2. Because of the very limited number of responses to the request for the page to move, it seems that there is very little interest either way, with this continuing discussion down to two parties only. Therefore the move or otherwise does not seem to be of much importance. However, I'm very disappointed that there has been little or no discussion of the merits of the specific points I have put forward in support of my requested page move and that there has been no attempt to find an agreed solution. Wikipedia's lament that weight of numbers, and not the merit of cases, tends to decide the outcomes of discussions has proved to be justified in this case, in my opinion. ( Snoobysoo ( talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jeff Kent. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Jeff Kent is in the San Francisco Giants wall of fame. CHANGE HIS PHOTO TO ONE WITH A GIANTS JERSEYYYYYY Shmaney ( talk) 16:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jeff Kent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I didn't put in the feud with Bradley, and I do agree that it's questionable whether it goes into the article, but the feud is not unsubstantiated -- it's reported widely in the press, and it was not denied by any of the parties (Bradley, Kent, or Dodgers manager Jim Tracy). It's whether Kent is in fact a racist that is being disputed and unsubstantiated. -- Nlu 15:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Kent is no longer a Giant and is hated by Giants fans...can we change the photo? I found a pic of him in a dodger uniform http://www.japantimes.co.jp/images/photos2004/sb20041211a1a.jpg ChopAtwa 04:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 16:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Jeff Kent →
Jeff Kent (baseball player) – The reason for the requested move is that there is no primary Jeff Kent and the qualification by occupation of the article on this Jeff Kent will help readers to find the specific person they are looking for more easily. The main evidence in support of this is:
In conclusion, I'm requesting that the Jeff Kent (author) page remains as it is and that this page becomes Jeff Kent (baseball player).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoobysoo ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, naming a new page Jeff Kent (baseball player) will not hinder readers looking for this Jeff Kent from finding him. In fact, it will help because there can be no confusion as to whom the title is refering, as he is primarily known for a single type of activity. However, Jeff Kent (author) is notable in a number of different and unconnected fields. Therefore, a reader looking for Jeff Kent the campaigner may not know that he is also a writer and consequently may click on Jeff Kent. S/he will end up on the baseball player's article and probably then become confused, possibly giving up the search, believing that the campaigner is not listed on Wikipedia. The same case may apply to someone looking for Jeff Kent the historian, the musician and the academic. There is therefore a case, for the ease of the readership to find their right man, that Jeff Kent (author) becomes the primary Jeff Kent, even though his page visit traffic is considerably lower than that of the baseball player. In conclusion, for the readers, moving Jeff Kent to Jeff Kent (baseball player) would make sense and help clarification. ( Snoobysoo ( talk) 11:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC))
Both users are being very impolite as they're talking about me as though I'm an inanimate object and not to me as a human being. Both (especially Spanneraol) are implying that there is bad faith on my part, without any evidence presented to support such an implication. The comments (epspecially those of Spanneraol), in their tone and implications, are personal in nature and not connected to the merits of the discussion. And I don't see any attempt at resolution in the comments; on the contrary, they are mildly inflammatory or potentially inflammatory in nature. The idea of this page is for a discussion to take place on the merits of the proposed case. The aforementioned comments are not debating in nature, but are implicitly accusatory and therefore unhelpful to a meaningful discussion. The Wikipedia policies for articles are: no original research; neutral point of view and verifiability. The information I have put onto site articles has numerous footnotes (many more than is typical on the site) and therefore my contributions are both verifiable and not based on original research. As all of my statements are factual in nature, they are therefore neutral by definition, as facts cannot be biased. I do know Jeff Kent (author), which has helped me to ascertain facts and add accurate information on the subject, which, I believe, has firmed up the article considerably. The world is full of people (and there are sadly examples on Wikipedia articles) who know everything about everything without actually knowing much about anything and like to add uninformed and/or misinformed information, thereby causing havoc in the world of knowledge. In terms of the level of accuracy that Wikipedia is looking for as an online reference work, knowledge of a subject is the key to success. A contributor never having met the subject of a biography is very likely to have a limited understanding of the subject. In terms of the discussion on this page, there is no advantage to me, nor to Jeff Kent (author) as far as I can see, in my proposal to move the Jeff Kent article to Jeff Kent (baseball player) because the Jeff Kent (author) article would be unaffected. Neither would there be any disadvantage to the baseball player. The advantage would be to the readers, who would more easily be able to find the subject they are looking for. I have presented my arguments rationally above and in good faith and in no way am I mischief making. I am therefore asking that the Wikipedia policies be respected and adhered to and that the discussion takes place on the merits of the cases presented. ( Snoobysoo ( talk) 22:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC))
The position that we've reached, as I see it, is that the majority of the few users who've contributed to the discussion favour keeping the Jeff Kent page as it is because of the greater number of hits on that page, which is a single criterion. I alone favour moving it to Jeff Kent (baseball player) and have put forward several other reasons in support of this suggestion. No arguments against those reasons have been put. As it stands, therefore, I believe that in totality my points have the greater merit (the more so as no-one is disadvantaged by my suggestion), but that the conservative case (clearly) has the greater numerical support. I don't wish to persist in discussion on the subject indefinitely (not least because the moving or otherwise of the article isn't so important as to require continuous debate) and am asking you how you suggest we might reach agreement for resolution, in line with Wikipedia policy in disputes. ( Snoobysoo ( talk) 11:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC))
{{Subst: Jeff Kent|Jeff Kent (baseball player)}} The reason for the requested move is that the previous discussion, above, was not completed and therefore should be continued. I asked for suggestions on how agreement for resolution might be reached, but there were no responses. As it is Wikipedia policy for agreements to try to be reached in disputes, this should be attempted. The key points that the opponents of the requested move need to consider are: 1. As the Jeff Kent and Jeff Kent (author) pages stand, how is a reader supposed to identify which of them refers to Jeff Kent, the campaigner; Jeff Kent, the musician; Jeff Kent, the publisher; Jeff Kent, the academic, etc, which the author is also listed as being? The current situation is not clear to the readers. Changing Jeff Kent to Jeff Kent (baseball player) will help the readers to select the right option. 2. What disadvantage to anyone would the requested move be? It clarifies the baseball player in his primary occupation, but does not elevate the status of the author. 3. Wikipedia policy does not require nor specifically request that there should be a primary topic and therefore the proposed change is in line with Wikipedia policy. But, in conclusion, I'm asking for suggestions on how agreement for resolution of the requested move might be reached. ( Snoobysoo ( talk) 12:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
If several people are having a discussion about different points of view and one person asks the others for suggestions on how they think an agreement might be reached between them, the only way that the discussion has ended there and then is through the other people involved refusing, or being sufficiently disinterested, to attempt to reach an agreement. That's why I attempted this continuing discussion, to ask others to put forward ideas to which we could all agree. In my opinion, you are not being objective in the discussion. At the end of the last discussion, I asked for suggestions on how an agreement might be reached. I repeated that at the start of this discussion and at the end of my last post, I said, 'I'm open minded [to] . . . some agreed solution'. Your response to that was, 'Your solution is that you win the argument.' That is patently untrue and you are highly subjectively claiming I've said entirely different things than I actually have. Nevertheless, because there are only the two of us still communicating on my move request and you are unwilling to entertain any kind of an agreement, you have made it clear to me that my appeal for an agreement is dead in the water. Therefore, in conclusion, I'm acceding to the Jeff Kent article remaining under its current heading and not moving elsewhere under a new title. The reasons for this are: 1. No agreement has been reached for a change and therefore it seems right that the status quo should prevail. 2. Because of the very limited number of responses to the request for the page to move, it seems that there is very little interest either way, with this continuing discussion down to two parties only. Therefore the move or otherwise does not seem to be of much importance. However, I'm very disappointed that there has been little or no discussion of the merits of the specific points I have put forward in support of my requested page move and that there has been no attempt to find an agreed solution. Wikipedia's lament that weight of numbers, and not the merit of cases, tends to decide the outcomes of discussions has proved to be justified in this case, in my opinion. ( Snoobysoo ( talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jeff Kent. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Jeff Kent is in the San Francisco Giants wall of fame. CHANGE HIS PHOTO TO ONE WITH A GIANTS JERSEYYYYYY Shmaney ( talk) 16:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)