Talk:Jeffrey Leonard

Lack of References and presence of Vague Lingo
While it is a fairly well-written article, it contains no references. References certainly make Wikipedia a more trusted site, as many people don't trust Wikipedia (and rightfully so). Also, what is the "Brew Crew Hall of Shame"? This is a confusing term for those that don't live in the Milwaukee area. If it is actually a true thing, it is still a regionalism or is local lingo known to Milwaukeans (and, chances are, most Milwaukeans aren't familiar with it, either. Example: For all you know, I could actually be from Milwaukee AND be a Milwaukee Brewer fan, and still not be familiar with this or aware with the existence of this "Brew Crew Hall of Fame." Please explain. It's vague for most people. If this thing actually does exist, it's a thing that's known mostly to Brewers fans, but not known to fans of other teams or regions.

Also, I feel that someone should write about the story about Leonard's insistence, fairly late in his career (I seem to recall it was while he was with the Giants) that he no longer be referred to by the media as "Jeff Leonard". While this may not be fascinating information to some readers, it might be interesting to others. It would add some more color to the story (mush like the humorous "Penitentiary Face" nickname or the allusion to his distinctive home run trot. As I recall, he was pretty doggone insistant about suddenly being known as "Jeffery Leonard" after years of being referred to as "Jeff Leonard." It's colorful, and If feel it would make the article more interesting for the reader. As I recall it, he made quite a big stink over this particular thing, even though it's, in reality, a rather small matter. It's similar to Richie Allen, after arriving in L.A., suddenly, out of the blue, insisting that the media no longer refer to him as "Richie Allen", but rather "Dick Allen", after over ten years of his colorful career. It was strange and kind of odd, but it was revealing about Allen's personality, and it's a great anecdote for those who are too young or are not baseball fanatics to find interest in the article. Same with Tony Perez, who, after many all-star caliber seasons with the Reds and being known as "per-EZ", suddenly made it known that he preferred that the radio and television media pronounced his name pronounced "PE-rez" by the media (although I don't recall his being as acerbic and insistent about it as Leonard and Allen were about their names.

These are just friendly suggestions; just my two cents, and nothing more. It's just my opinion; constructive criticm, not insistence. I think that Wikipedia should be fun to write for (after all, we are not getting paid; we are doing this in our spare time. My philosophy on this is unlike many of the dogmatic, beauricratic-like self-appointed "big shots" who bully the "status quo", the editors and writers who are the life-blood of Wikipedia and without whom Wikipedia wouldn't exist. These self-appointed "authoritarian figures" take themselves way too seriously, and make editing and writing Wikipedia into an unpleasurable thing, thus scaring away the people who are writing or editing Wikipedia for fun and a desire to participate in an interesting project. Often, as a result of the self-appointed holier-than-thou bullies who brow-beat the nice folks out there, they take away any desire to participate in this "noble project." I, myself, have been bullied by some pretentious, power-hungry and headstrong "Wikipedia Bullies", as I call them. They are, in my opinion, detrimental to any "success" that Wikipedia can ever achieve, because these power-hungry administrators and (as well as many, many non-administrators)are on a "power trip"; they fancy themselves as PURVEYORS OF KNOWLEDGE!!!!!!!!! However, they come off as buffoons, as Ted Baxter types (although without the humor that actor Ted Knight brough to the Ted Baxter character!)A lot of these "Wikipedia Bullies" feel powerful behind their computer keyboard as anonymous dictators; a lot of them are, most likely, insecure in their day-to-day life; unhappy and powerless in their day-to-day existence away from the computer terminal, where they can come off as the "bad ass" tough guys that they aren't in real life. Kind of like the Wizard of Oz scenario, where the "wizard" yells "don't look behind the curtain!", after which he is revealed to be a weak and effete coward.

Thus, these insecure Wikipedia dictators/bullies have a detrimental effect on the quality of their own sinecure; with their brow-beating dogmatic self-righteousness, they scare away many people who could have potentially helped Wikipedia. But don't let them scare you; for these mean-spirited people who intimidate well-meaning Wikipedia editors and writers, Wikipedia is the entire reason for their existence; without Wikipedia, these fools would probably dry up and blow away.

As I mentioned, Wikipedia is often derided as the laughing-stock of the internet because of the incongruous combination of self-importance combined with unreliable and often incorrect "information." (now, THAT's a strange combination of words: "incorrect information"!)

That's why, when seeking information on a given topic, I take information that I "learn" on Wikipedia with a grain of salt. A lot of the "information" on the pages of Wikipedia is dubious at best. Wikipedia has a long way to go if it's every going earn the trust of reasonable, rational, and intelligent people. Runt (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)