Talk:Ron Gant

Gant/Hurbek controversy

Uh, Sean, I did check here for a discussion - there isn't any here, nor are the links to anydiscussions elsewhere. And if you revert me agin without a clear consensus here to do so, you'll be reported for violating 3RR. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Something's quite fishy here. An editor from MN, and an IP from MN also. Checkuser time! Using IPs to bypass 3rr is a no-no! - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fishy? Not sure what you are implying. As to before...my apologies, the previous discussion was at the Kent Hrbek article talkpage. It was also brought up at the time on the WP:NPOV noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_10#Kent_Hrbek. This was highly contentious in 1991 and it appears it still is. Rapier (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, got logged out somehow when I left my computer for a time and made an annonymous edit accidently. My bad. It was never my intention to hide my identity, and I didn't notice because the tildes simply left my IP address as opposed to SineBot fixing it. The same thing happened here on the talk page. The point stands. Rapier (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The only contention is from Twins fans who are hiding behind a technicality. Video is verifiable evidence on WP, as with movies. It doesn't need any more verifiction than that. Btw, I was implying you were using an IP to bypass any 3RR restrictions. My apologies for the lack of good faith. - BilCat (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV item is inconclusive - no decision was made their. The Hrbek page is irrelevent, this is not his page.

Back to the issue, the ump's call is his call, but that doesn't erase what actually happened - we can and should report both. Many sources, as pointed out in the noticeboard, agree with Gant. Feel fee to provide sources that don't. But sticiking only to the ump's call is not NPOV. - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the current version makes it seem like Gant is the only one who claims that Hrbek grabbed his ankle. That is misleading. How can we correct that implication? Is there an article on the game itself somewhere where this can be adressed in more detail? - BilCat (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

The event is covered at 1991 World Series, and is mnore expanisve and neutral (presents more sides than just the ump's call and Gant's claim. I propose that we add some of the wording from that incident to the article. (Since Gant apparently didn't make any death threats towards Hrbek himself, that part from the article can be left out.

CBS television announcers Jack Buck and Tim McCarver were adamant in their insistence that Hrbek had pulled Gant off the bag, as was at least one Minnesota reporter. But the call stood.

The part on the broadcasters definetly need to be sourced, however. If that can be done and if we can add something along those lines, I'll accept the "claimed" wording. Feel free to add to that if needed, and we'll see what we can work out. - BilCat (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If we add Drew Coble's comments as well then I'd have no problem with that wording. My goodness...did we just negotiate???  ;-) Nice to meet a reasonable editor and I hope we can come to an agreement. Rapier (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as we have reliable sources for all of it, I'd agree. I haven't checked the sources in this article, but the article only had a weak one. I'm busy repairing another comp at the moment, but I'll chack later tonight or tomorrow. I do try to be reasonalbe, but it has been a bit difficult at times. :) - BilCat (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)