Talk:Ryan Lavarnway

"tools of ignorance"
Please explain how this phrase complies with formal encyclopaedic tone. Inserting phrases apparently for no reason other than to support a DYK hook seems to me highly irresponsible and disrespectful of the encyclopaedic status of the project. Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * RSs use it. It has been used by RSs vis-a-vis baseball catchers for decades.  Including in the The New Dickson Baseball Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the Smithsonian Q & A: Baseball,  and  The Cooperstown Symposium on Baseball and American Culture (papers presented at the Tenth Cooperstown Symposium on Baseball and American Culture, held in June 1998, and co-sponsored by the State University of New York at Oneonta and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum).  Hundreds of books, including the aforementioned dictionaries.  Over 8,000 articles.  It has been reflected in RS coverage of this baseball catcher.  This has gone through the DYK process, and been approved, and been reviewed by the community at the DYK page during that process. We have the decades of RS coverage, the use of the phrase in wp's coverage of baseball terminology, and the coverage of this ballplayer in RSs.  There is nothing un-encylopedic about using a word that Merriam Webster dictionary uses, along with thousands of RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All of which provides plenty of evidence for the meaning of the cliché, and no excuse for introducing such a cliché into a supposedly encyclopaedic article about a particular catcher. Kevin McE (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. —David Levy 18:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As reflected below, a number of RS encyclopedias use it. In addition to laymen dictionaries such as Merriam Websters, and a formal paper that at the Cooperstown Symposium.  That is the evidence in favor of it being "encyclopedic".--Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Straw man. No one has asserted that the term has no place in an encyclopedia.  Our position is that it's unencyclopedic in this context.  —David Levy 23:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, in no way does a DYK review constitute binding "approval" of an article's content. There have been numerous instances in which outright hoaxes and plagiarized text have slipped through.  (I'm not suggesting that either occurred in this instance.)
 * Secondly, no one disputes the fact that the expression "tools of ignorance" is used in baseball. But it's an informal term, appropriate for use in casual conversation and sports journalism but rarely appropriate for use in an encyclopedia (which maintains a formal tone).
 * It is, of course, appropriate for Wikipedia to mention the expression in our coverage of baseball terminology and our articles about people to whom the phrase is attributed (Muddy Ruel and Bill Dickey).
 * Likewise, it can appear in direct quotations attributed to specific individuals. But there must be a valid reason to include such a quotation (e.g. historical significance or direct relevance to an event covered in the article); a desire to mention the phrase is not a valid reason.
 * The term "tools of ignorance" has as much to do with Ryan Lavarnway as it does with any other catcher in baseball. Its inclusion in the article (accompanied by an explanation of its meaning) constitutes irrelevant trivia.  Reliable sources have used the expression in connection with Lavarnway and countless other catchers simply because it fits their journalistic style (one not shared by Wikipedia).  —David Levy 18:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The "formal" Merriam Webster dictionary describes it as a legitimate phrase. Nothing in the dictionary definition suggests that it inappropriate for wikipedia use.  Just the opposite.  The same with the baseball dictionary.  And the "formal" Cooperstown Symposium.  And the Smithsonian source.  It has been used in published RSs as such since 1939.  We follow RSs here.  Not the personal points of view of two individual editors who don't like what the RSs have used as a legitimate phrase for years.  Wikipedia is not at a higher or more formal level than Merriam Webster, the Cooperstown Symposium, and the other indicated sources, and there is nothing in our guidelines that suggests that appropriate phrases must be deleted because of individual editor's personal feelings that are in conflict with RS usage.
 * In addition, the phrase has been used by RSs vis-a-vis this particular catcher. That makes its use here especially appropriate.
 * And, of course, we have reflected the phrase in our wikipedia glossary of baseball terminology for quite some time now.
 * As to David's editing against consensus by deleting the phrase (in contrast to Kevin's appropriate approach -- simply initiating the discussion here), of course DYK review does not constitute "binding approval" of the phrase. But it does reflect editor review of it, but multiple editors.  The requirement to model appropriate standards of courtesy to other editors suggests that David should not be deleting the phrase where he knows that a consensus of editors has reviewed it, without having any objection.  The better course for him would be to do what Kevin did, when he knows that most editors who have reviewed it find no fault with it (and can see its use in dictionaries, etc., numbering in the thousands).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * David's edits were entirely in keeping with the balance of opinion expressed when the matter was discussed at WP:ERRORS.
 * As to approval "by the community" at DYK, it was challenged, and one editor accepted your edits as sufficient to get in onto the DYK queue. That same editor conceded at WP:ERRORS that it should be addressed at the article.
 * Discussion at the DYK nomination makes it clear that this was a case of "encyclopaedic" content being set up to enable a "hooky" entry at DYK, rather than a desire to present best encyclopaedic practice. This abuse was the basis of my opening post, and remains unaddressed.
 * You made 53 edits to this article before adding this phrase: I can only conclude that you did not consider it inappropriate throughout that time for the phrase to be absent.
 * If, on the other hand, you believe that this description is relevant and important in the article for catchers, you will no doubt be able to refer me to many other catchers' articles to which you have added it, or at least checked that it is present.
 * You suggest that "Many editors [will have] looked at this while it was at DYK": obviously not all of them will have looked at the talk page, but no-one other than you has responded to my challenge for defences of this phrase. Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First I've heard of any such discussion. Did David point to it, and I miss his reference?  Either on the talk page of the article where he deleted it, or in his edit summary?
 * As to the DYK review, three of us commented, and nobody objected to the use of the phrase.
 * Kevin didn't explain why the use of a 70-year-old phrase, used in both general and baseball dictionaries, and used in RSs as to this particular ballplayer, is anything other than eminently encyclopedic. Also, his conclusions are misplaced -- my first, 10th, 25th, and 50th edits were all equally appropriate -- why in the world, with AGF as your guide, would you assume that my first edit that is RS-supported is in my mind "more appropriate" than my 25th or 50th?  It doesn't work that way ... there is no sliding scale of appropriateness.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kevin questions the use of the phrase at the Project. Of course, more important is the use of the phrase by RSs, such as Merriam Webster's and the Baseball Dictionary, as we follow RSs--not wikis or individual editors.  But in any event the phrase is present on wikipedia -- and has been for a considerable period of time -- at the Project's "Glossary of baseball":  tools of ignorance.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Are you referring to the discussion at WP:ERRORS? I linked to it on my talk page (and left a talkback notice on yours), in one of my edit summaries, and in a reply to you on this talk page.
 * 2. Again, the DYK review addressed the phrase's sourcing/presence in the article, not its formality or relevance. One of the other two participants seemed skeptical, and the other (the promoter) later changed his/her position during the aforementioned WP:ERRORS discussion.
 * 3. Kevin isn't "assuming" anything. One need only read the the DYK review to see that you sought out sources and added that wording specifically to justify the DYK blurb.  It has absolutely no special relevance to Ryan Lavarnway and is commonly used in reference to the gear worn by countless other catchers (and catchers in general), so I don't know why you keep stating that it's "used in RSs as to this particular ballplayer."
 * 4. Again, no one disputes the fact that the term "tools of ignorance" is used in baseball and properly included in our lists of baseball terminology. But it's a nickname with no notable connection to this article's subject.  —David Levy 23:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary also includes the word "asshole." That doesn't make it a formal term.
 * 2. We follow reliable sources regarding factual information. This, conversely, is a matter of writing style.  The phrase "employs the tools of ignorance" means "plays as a catcher" (a detail clearly established elsewhere in the article), so its inclusion serves absolutely no purpose other than to add zest (which is appropriate in sports journalism and inappropriate in Wikipedia).
 * 3. You note that "the phrase has been used by RSs vis-a-vis this particular catcher." A Google News search currently yields articles in which it's used in connection with Alex Avila, Joe Mauer, Jesus Montero, Ivan Rodriguez, Kurt Suzuki and (in several instances) catchers in general.  Sports journalists commonly use this expression to enliven their prose (which, again, is inappropriate in an encyclopedia).  It has absolutely no special relevance to Ryan Lavarnway.
 * 4. Three users (including the promoter and you) participated in the DYK review, with only the phrase's sourcing/inclusion in the article (not its formality or relevance) addressed. As Kevin points out, you inserted that wording specifically to justify its use in the DYK hook, not because you believed that it improved the article.
 * In response to your message on my talk page (in which you referred to me as "one editor" acting alone), I noted that you'd previously reverted another user's removal of the phrase and replied to Kevin's message on this talk page. I also pointed you to WP:ERRORS, where Modest Genius agreed that the wording was inappropriate (and the blurb's promoter, who initially defended it on the basis that the phrase was sourced, appeared to become convinced of a problem).  Nonetheless, you now refer to "two individual editors who don't like" the wording and claim that there is "consensus" for its inclusion in the article.  —David Levy 20:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a friendly joke that goes back many, many years. Whether it's suitable in the context given is questionable, simply because it sounds like the way a sportswriter would write, rather than the way an encyclopedist would write. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * While the term itself, as noted, is (or at least was) fairly widely used in baseball circles to describe catching equipment as a group, I would agree that in this case its usage is spurious. It's similar to someone saying "Did you know that Paris Hilton, a famous rich person, wears peasant blouses?" (neither knowing nor caring whether she does or not): cute, perhaps, but not encyclopedic in any way. It's a ridiculous thing on which to hang a DYK hook, and honestly makes me wonder how it got through that process in the first place. -Dewelar (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As a few others have said, if there was a specific quote about this player that used the phrase - something like "There's this kid moving up the ranks that people will start hearing about soon. He's one of the best to put on the tools of ignorance n a long time, and his name is Ryan Lavarnway." Respected Hall-of-Famer/Ex-Catcher/Baseball-Font-of-Knowledge - then by all means have it in the article, put it in one of those floating quote boxes. But outside of an article about catcher's equipment, the catcher fielding position, baseball jargon, the person(s) to coin the phrase or the person(s) the phrase was first used in reference to, I don't think it belongs in normal prose of an article.  Afaber012  (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There actually were two RS references to the phrase specifically in relation to the subject of the article. They were deleted by the deleting editor. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, a Google News search for the phrase currently yields articles in which five other players (and, in several instances, catchers in general) are referenced in this manner. And that merely includes recent articles.
 * The term has absolutely no special connection to Ryan Lavarnway. —David Levy 23:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To suggest a possible consensus solution here -- at least two different sportswriters in two different articles cited here thought it was interesting to juxtapose Lavarnway's Ivy League background with "tools of ignorance." Why not mention that as a relevant fact in the article?   Sharktopus  talk  21:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Except I don't think it is a relevant fact. It seems a little odd to me to include a count of the number of times a phrase - any phrase, even one's like "best in the world", not just this one - is used to describe someone. In this case that phrase has no meaning beyond "he wore catcher's protective equipment", which is what all catchers do when they are catching these days. It's no different to noting how many writers used the term "diamond" instead of "park", "field", or "stadium" to describe where the game is played.  Afaber012  (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sharktopus, who hits on the correct issue better than I did. Responding to Afaber, who crystallizes the issue well, we wouldn't (or shouldn't) delete the phrase "diamond" from an article to describe where the game is played.  For precisely the same reasons.  It is also widely reflected in RSs, including baseball dictionaries and layman dictionaries of high repute, as well as in multiple RSs for decades.  I would not encourage the editors of an opposite view here to delete the phrase from the 3,000+ wp articles that use it, for the same reasons as those mentioned here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As noted above, a Google News search yields numerous uses of the phrase "tools of ignorance" in reference to various specific catchers and catchers in general.
 * Epeefleche wanted to use the term in a DYK hook, and when its absence from our article and its sources was noted, he/she deliberately sought pieces in which the term was applied to Ryan Lavarnway (specifically for the purpose of justifying the DYK hook's wording).
 * It's a colorful nickname that enlivens prose, not an encyclopedic fact. —David Levy 21:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not see why Epeefleche's alleged motivation keeps being cited. Surely the three (not two) sportswriters using the same combination were not motivated by getting a hook published by DYK. And if Epee's only motivation for adding this info to the article was to get a DYK hook, why would he re-insert it after the DYK hook has long been off the Main Page? Either it belongs in the article or it doesn't. Consensus will decide that.   Sharktopus  talk  21:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You mentioned the two articles in which the expression was applied to Ryan Lavarnway. I then noted the sequence of events to explain that those pieces were deliberately sought out, not randomly encountered because they're indicative of a Lavarnway-specific trend.
 * The same can be done with other catchers:
 * Alex Avila — article 1 | article 2
 * Jesus Montero — article 1 | article 2 | article 3
 * Joe Mauer — article 1 | article 2 | article 3 | article 4
 * Need I continue?
 * My point is that there's no special connection between Ryan Lavarnway and the phrase "tools of ignorance"; it's a term commonly used to add zest when mentioning catchers. —David Levy 22:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I see other examples of citing sportswriters for relevant colorful language such as "Steagles," "The Octopus," and "triple threat"   Sharktopus  talk  21:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In the cases you cite, the terms are specifically relevant to the articles they appear in. Ted Doyle played for a team, whose most commonly used name is "Steagles". ("Tools of ignorance" is not the most commonly used term for catcher's gear.) Marty Marion had the nickname "The Octopus" - it applied to him specifically, not just a group of people he happened to be included in. ("Tools of ignorance" doesn't specifically apply to Lavarnway.) And Triple-threat man is the article that explains the term, where it comes from and how it's used. (If it has to be explained when its not just used for Lavarnway, it probably shouldn't be here.) There are sound reasons for the terms used in the context you've just cited. There doesn't seem to be here.  Afaber012  (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Why is it any more relevant than someone happening to bring up something like my Hilton example above...or, for a more baseball-specific example, a first baseman who happens to be from Chicago, which has been nicknamed "the Second City"? See the joke there? It's the same kind of joke -- it's meant to be a cutesy rhetorical flourish. The fact that a handful of sportswriters happen to be equally lacking in imagination that they use an obvious juxtaposition to fluff up their articles doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedic article.
 * Regarding your examples, those are terms used to describe specific concepts, or in the case of Marion, used to describe the player himself, in sports coverage. In order to get "tools of ignorance" into this article, you have to take a couple of extra steps to wedge it in. The fact that catching gear has been referred to as "tools of ignorance" has nothing specifically to do with Lavarnway. He didn't give them that name, isn't related to the person who bestowed the name upon them, and doesn't give interviews in the press hyping the term. It's a coincidence that doesn't even really rise to the level of being interesting. -Dewelar (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To correct a couple of misapprehensions. 1)  Despite some disparaging characterizations of it above, it is listed in the Merriam Webster dictionary the same as any other encyclopedia-appropriate phrase.  2)  It is cited not only by multiple RSs in general over the past 70 years, but specifically in regard to this particular catcher.  3)  We have guidelines that speak to our following RSs, but the objection here seem to be based on non-guideline, not-following-RSs sentiments, as well as by some editors not being aware that the Merriam Webster dictionary, Cooperstown Symposium, and Dickson Baseball Dictionary, and Smithsonian Q & A all use the term in "serious" RSs.  4)  The comment about "asshole" being in the dictionary is a red herring -- if the RSs covering him called him an asshole, it would be perhaps pertinent, but here it isn't.  It rebuts the unsupported, POV comment that the 70-year-old RS-supported phrase is not encyclopaedic.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, the phrase "tools of ignorance" is commonly used to describe the gear worn by catchers. As noted above, a Google News search for the term currently yields articles in which five other players (and, in several instances, catchers in general) are referenced in this manner.  And that merely includes recent articles.
 * Again, we follow reliable sources regarding factual information. We don't imitate non-encyclopedic publications' flowery writing styles.
 * That the term "tools of ignorance" is commonly used to describe the gear worn by catchers is factual information backed by reliable sources. No one disputes that.  But it's irrelevant to this article, which pertains to neither the nickname nor anyone notably associated with it.
 * I mentioned that fact that Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary also includes the word "asshole" in rebuttal to your claim that the presence of "tools of ignorance" in that publication proves that the term is "formal." —David Levy 22:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. Let's take a look at WP:JARGON then. The phrase - though arguably common within the baseball community - is not a common one in the wide world. Its presence in this article would need to be explained, with something like "... he wore the tools of ignorance (a term used to describe catcher's protective equipment)..." which still doesn't explain that he played catcher. He could have worn the gear as a bullpen catcher, while warming up the pitcher at the start of the inning while the catcher was getting his gear on, or while on the bench because he found it really comfortable. Whereas if you don't use the phrase and just replace the above example with "... he played catcher..." you avoid the need to explain the explanation.
 * I don't think anyone is arguing that the phrase doesn't exist. But just because its out there means it has to be used. The phrase does have some disparaging connotations about it; it may not be an insult, but it could be seen that way, particularly by people unfamiliar with it. Again, if its in a quote about the guy, and the quote itself is significant enough to be in the article, then put the quote in the article. Otherwise, its a phrase that doesn't belong in this article.
 * I'd also point to the fact that the phrase doesn't even warrant its own article at the moment: Tools of ignorance is a redirect to a glossary. It's use there is fine, because it is a term that is used in baseball, and its being explained there. But its a colloquialism, not the standard term. It would be appropriate in the articles of the people who first coined the phrase, perhaps even the first people it was used in conjunction with. But not in every article that is for or refers to any catcher.  Afaber012  (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merriam Webster's is not a baseball-community specific dictionary. It is, as you describe in contrast, a "wide world" dictionary.  Further, the description was in the note (that the deleting editor deleted), as well as in the wikipedia click-through definition.  Third, the issue is not whether it "has to be used", but whether it "has to be deleted".  Fourth, we could quote the articles, but I don't see how that is necessary.  Finally, Merriam Webster's lists the phrase in the same manner as it lists every other fully encyclopaedic phrase in the article; while a top-level RS treats it as an appropriate phrase, we don't usually have articles about phrases because wp is not a dictionary (nor is it being used in every article about a catcher, so that discussion would take us off base ... so to speak).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * But the point is that its not used in every article about a catcher. I suspect that even looking at the larger articles for catchers, where there is a greater probability that editors would seek to avoid using the same terminology were other options are present, its not used outside of specific quotes that are actually quoted.
 * The fact that the description was in the note was perhaps the best example of what not to do under WP:JARGON. Not only did it mean explaining a jargon term, but the explanation was hidden in one of four footnotes at the end of the sentence, where a user would expect references backing up a claim made in the prose, not an explanation of the prose.
 * And the issue would probably best be described as "should it be used" rather than the two possibilities you provide. But even considering "has to be deleted", the answer (and you wanted a WP reasoning for it) is "if not deleted, replaced with something that isn't WP:JARGON".  Afaber012  (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, an explanation of the term's meaning was included. The problem is that there's no valid reason for such trivia to be present.
 * You claim that "the issue is not whether it has to be used, but whether it has to be deleted." On the contrary, the onus is on those who wish to include content in articles.  Setting aside the other issues, in what way does this wording improve the article?  What relevant information does it convey?  —David Levy 23:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)Again, the highest-level RSs -- Merriam Websters, a Cooperstown Symposium, a top Baseball Dictionary -- all treat the phrase the same as every other "encyclopedic" phrase. David -- you've presented nothing other than your own POV, in the face of the RSs, to suggest that it is not "encyclopedic".  Yet, you continue to state it, without RS support for your position, as though by repeating it you will make it true.  In addition, we have RSs referring to this specific catcher using that phrase.  We do follow RSs, and we do follow the writing style of encyclopedic RSs--which, as it turns out, use the phrase.  We don't follow David Levy, who disagrees with the RS usage, because of his particular POV as an individual editor.  If we had RSs saying that the ballplayer was an asshole, we could of course reflect that -- but that is a complete red herring argument.
 * The bottom line is that we've presented the RS coverage of this fellow that use the expression. The 70-year history of usage of the phrase in RSs.  The reflection of the phrase in high-level, formal, dictionaries and Cooperstown symposia (paper presented at the Tenth Cooperstown Symposium on Baseball and American Culture, June 1998, co-sponsored by the State University of New York at Oneonta and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum)).  That's all on the one side of the equation.  On the other side we have editor personal POV, and "branding" of the phrase as non-encyclopedic ... when the RS evidence points to precisely the opposite conclusion.  That's an "IDONTLIKEIT" argument, in the face of the thousands of RSs, top-level RS usage, and usage in relation to this catcher.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you didn't notice because of the ec, but I'll point to WP:JARGON again for you.  Afaber012  (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. First of all, this is a term accessible in Merriam Webster's in precisely the same manner as every other term in that dictionary, in contrast to the industry-specific terminology that won't be reflected in high-level laymens' dictionaries.  Secondly, the suggestion is that we "Minimize jargon, or at least explain it".  If this were jargon of the sort not covered in Merriam Websters, we would have addressed that suggestion by the explanation in full quotes that was in the article (as was suggested by one of the three editors at DYK) that was deleted by David.  Nor is this, as the guideline suggests we be on guard against -- a "new" word; it has been used by top-level RSs for 70 years.  So: a) it's not the jargon we are on guard against; b) even if it were, we had an appropriate explanation (which was deleted); and c) it is not the "new" word use that we are hesitant to introduce.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A term's inclusion in a mainstream dictionary doesn't mean that it's commonly used and understood among the general public.
 * Indeed, an explanation of the term's meaning was attached. The problem is that there's no valid reason for such trivia to be present, given that the expression needn't be included in the first place.
 * You've continually argued that it wasn't necessary to remove the wording, but you've yet to explain how its inclusion improved the article in any way. —David Levy 23:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You appear to be ignoring the substance of my replies. That's rather frustrating, as are your ad hominems and out-of-context references to my use of the word "asshole."  —David Levy 23:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Many people may use "tools of ignorance" generically, but at least two of the sportwriters cited in the article used it in a particular way regarding this particular player:
 * "....'tools of ignorance'. However when you consider the background of the Pawtucket Red Sox newest receiver Ryan Lavarnway, the ultimate word in that phrase may be better off left up to interpretation. Especially for a guy that can in detail describe to you the difference between Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Nietzsche...."
 * "....'the tools of ignorance.' How, then, do we account for the showdown at the plate playing out in these photos taken on a spring day in 2008? The runner barreling in from third [Lavarnway] is a burly catcher -- 6-foot-4, 225 pounds -- but he's wearing a Yale University jersey. What's more, he is a philosophy major, drawn to books like 'The Iliad' and 'The Odyssey.'...."
 * This is a term that WP:RS consider relevant to this particular player. The fact that the same term is used generically in many other contexts does not guarantee that it is being used only generically here. It is not.   Sharktopus  talk  23:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a term that a relevant source considered necessary to add some "interesting" information to their article. That doesn't mean its use here passes WP:JARGON.  Afaber012  (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Its use here is currently as follows: In 2007 he moved from right field to catcher, inspiring several sportwriters to draw a contrast between his Ivy League credentials and the tradition that catchers make use of the "tools of ignorance."   Sharktopus  talk  23:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * While markedly improved over the previous versions, this amounts to non-notable trivia derived from mere wordplay. —David Levy 23:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)It does, for the reasons indicated above -- it is not jargon, as it is reflected in Merriam Websters, a non-jargon dictionary, with no indication that it is jargon. If it were jargon, it had the explanation called for by wp:jargon.
 * Further, it is clearly encyclopedic. Encyclopedias (in addition to Merriam Websters dictionary) reflect it -- see African American pioneers of baseball: a Biographical Encyclopedia, The Cleveland Indians Encyclopedia, Latino Baseball Legends: An Encyclopedia, Diamonds around the globe: the Encyclopedia of International Baseball, Biographical Dictionary of American Sports, and Baseball: An Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, among others.  Those who are damning it "non-encyclopedic" seem to be reflecting their own POV, not what the RS encyclopedias and dictionaries reflect.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Straw man. No one has asserted that the term has no place in an encyclopedia.  Our position is that it's unencyclopedic in this context.  —David Levy 23:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ummm ... above the protest is that it is not encyclopaedic. But, in contrast to that bare, unsupported assertion, we have many encyclopaedias that do in fact use it.  As well as Merriam Websters, hundreds of books, thousands of articles.
 * Certainly, its wide-spread use in encyclopedias is more compelling reflection of whether it is "appropriate for an encyclopedia". Weighed against your unsupported statement, no matter how many times you make your bare assertion.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Our position, no matter how many times you attempt to refute a different one, is that it's not encyclopedic in this context. From the very beginning, we've acknowledged that there are other contexts in which its inclusion in an encyclopedia is appropriate.  —David Levy 00:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To put it more precisely, nobody has argued that the term "tools of ignorance" in and of itself is unencyclopedic. What we have argued is that making a point of pointing out a particular rhetorical flourish that happens to use the term is unencyclopedic. Honestly, I'd be interested to hear why leaving the phrase in is so important to you in the first place. -Dewelar (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that David admits that the term is not in and of itself un-encyclopedic -- certainly, prior comments seemed to suggest as much quite plainly. That was refuted by its use in many encyclopedias (as well as dictionaries, hundreds of books, and thousands of articles).  When encyclopedias use a term in the same manner as it was used here, that is in fact a reflection of it being encyclopedic.   That is what we have here -- the use in encyclopedias is much the same as the use here -- there is no difference in how the encyclopedias "happen to use the term".  None has ever been asserted.  None has ever been identified.  We've just had unsupported, POV assertions that it is not "encyclopaedic" (see the first comment above), or as David put it below "It has absolutely no basis in anything ... encyclopedic."  In short, this is a term used by encyclopedias in much the same fashion as here, as reflected in the above examples.  When encyclopedias happen to use the term, a number of times over, in parallel fashion, the argument that its use in the same fashion in "unencyclopedic" here seems to be based on nothing other than personal POV, and at odds with the truth.  Honestly, I'd be interested in hearing why deleting the phrase -- used in many encyclopedias, hundreds of books, thousands of articles, is so important in the first place.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So...your answer to me is twisting people's words, appeals to authority, and otherwise one big lesson in "what not to do in an argument", ending with a classic take on "I know you are, but what am I?" You're seriously pushing my ability to assume good faith here. I can do nothing more here. -Dewelar (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The examples in those "encyclopaedias" (which are written by journalists as opinionated, career review pieces, not as something that has the same NPOV objectives as Wikipedia) are in no way similar to the phrase that you wish to restore: the Yale University alumnus now employs the "tools of ignorance" as a rookie for the Boston Red Sox. I would have raised no objection to the phrase that Sharktopus proposed (except that I would quail at describing 2 as several), which gave meaning to the phrase, context to the application of it to Lavarnway, and proportionality to its relevance by moving it out of the lead.
 * Given your experience as a Wikipedia editor, I am bemused that you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between the use of a phrase in journalistic RSs and the way that opinions, informal language and clichés are used in Wikipedia.
 * "Honestly, I'd be interested in hearing why deleting the phrase... is so important" It is inclusion, not exclusion, that requires consensus. At the beginning of this discussion, you were very keen to appeal to the approval and review at DYK. Now that consensus is clearly against this phrase in the way you wish to use it in this article, it is notable that you have ceased to appeal to the importance of this.
 * You have not addressed the issue of why describing a catcher as employing the tools of ignorance is so much more important on this article than that of any other catcher. If you really believe it to be important to use this as an equivalent phrase to "is a catcher", I would expect to have seen you rolling the phrase out on many articles on catchers.  Kevin McE (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I have no problem using the phrase in the body, but not in the lede. I think that's a judgment call, and people can differ on it, and I'm happy to defer on it.  2)  The encyclopedias (as with the dictionaries and paper for the symposium) are not limited to "journalists".  3)  I'm also happy with the Sharktopus construct.  4)  The deleted construct did give meaning to the phrase, and context to the application of it to Lavarnway -- in the quote in the note, taken from an article about Lavarnway, which was deleted by David along with the text. 5) I point not only to how the phrase is used in RSs, but how it is used in encyclopedias -- diffs to those have been supplied.  It is, I've found, easy for editors to say "not encyclopedic", without having checked whether in fact a phrase is commonly used by encyclopedias in the same fashion, as we can see is the case here.  5) Deletion of the phrase here would be a bad precedent, as noted in the above comment about the use of the phrase "diamond" to describe a baseball diamond (which is used in thousands of articles at the project) -- these phrases are encyclopedic, as reflected by their use in encyclopedias, dictionaries, and thousands of RSs, and we have many of them.  To suggest that because an editor, based only on their own personal point of view and in conflict with usage reflected in encyclopedias, can suggest that such a term in not encyclopedic and delete it is a bad precedent, and could easily be followed by massive deletions of similar ilk.  Deletions that would be similarly based only on personal editor point of view, and belied by usage in encyclopedias.  IMHO, that we be a step backward.  6) The reason that the usage is especially appropriate here is that multiple RSs use it vis-a-vis this particular catcher.  7) If a consensus is happy w/the Sharktopus construct, that would be a fine result, and it certainly seems to cover our mutual thoughts as to what is acceptable.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem using the phrase in the body, but not in the lede. I think that's a judgment call, and people can differ on it, and I'm happy to defer on it.
 * The version proposed by Sharktopus is vastly superior to those that preceded it, but it still comprises trivial information. That a couple of sportswriters used the same humorous wordplay simply isn't noteworthy.
 * The encyclopedias (as with the dictionaries and paper for the symposium) are not limited to "journalists".
 * Do you assert that the baseball encyclopedias you've cited are equivalent (in content and writing style) to Wikipedia? Do you dispute that they, unlike Wikipedia, routinely contain flourishes?
 * The deleted construct did give meaning to the phrase, and context to the application of it to Lavarnway -- in the quote in the note, taken from an article about Lavarnway, which was deleted by David along with the text.
 * As has been explained, we don't unnecessarily insert terms requiring explanation. This isn't an article about baseball terminology, the nickname "tools of ignorance" or anyone widely associated with it, so there's no need to use that phrase (followed by an explanation of its meaning) instead of simply stating that Ryan Lavarnway is a catcher.
 * Deletion of the phrase here would be a bad precedent, as noted in the above comment about the use of the phrase "diamond" to describe a baseball diamond (which is used in thousands of articles at the project)
 * Yet again, you've quoted someone out of context and grossly distorted a statement's meaning. Afaber012 wrote the following:
 * "In this case that phrase has no meaning beyond 'he wore catcher's protective equipment', which is what all catchers do when they are catching these days. It's no different to noting how many writers used the term 'diamond' instead of 'park', 'field', or 'stadium' to describe where the game is played."
 * The point is that journalists use various terms interchangeably, so when a couple of sportswriters happen to use the nickname "tools of ignorance" in reference to Ryan Lavarnway's catcher's gear, we shouldn't seek to divine special significance. No one is suggesting that we shouldn't use the term "diamond."
 * The reason that the usage is especially appropriate here is that multiple RSs use it vis-a-vis this particular catcher.
 * Again, a Google News search for the phrase currently yields articles in which five other players (and, in several instances, catchers in general) are referenced in this manner. And that merely includes recent articles.
 * I also provided links derived from Web searches of three of those players' names in tandem with "tools of ignorance." With little effort (and no examination of anything but the top hits), I was able to find as many as four articles referring to a given catcher in this manner.
 * You've continually ignored these facts, pointing to your two cited articles as evidence that the term is "especially" relevant to Ryan Lavarnway (which it isn't). —David Levy 14:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that David admits that the term is not in and of itself un-encyclopedic -- certainly, prior comments seemed to suggest as much quite plainly.
 * I noted the following in my first edit to this page:
 * "It is, of course, appropriate for Wikipedia to mention the expression in our coverage of baseball terminology and our articles about people to whom the phrase is attributed (Muddy Ruel and Bill Dickey). Likewise, it can appear in direct quotations attributed to specific individuals."
 * That was refuted by its use in many encyclopedias (as well as dictionaries, hundreds of books, and thousands of articles).
 * And you're still attacking the straw man. Do you realize that you're posting essentially the same thing over and over?
 * When encyclopedias use a term in the same manner as it was used here, that is in fact a reflection of it being encyclopedic.  That is what we have here -- the use in encyclopedias is much the same as the use here -- there is no difference in how the encyclopedias "happen to use the term".  None has ever been asserted.  None has ever been identified.
 * If you honestly believe that baseball encyclopedias are equivalent (in content and writing style) to Wikipedia, I suppose that's your prerogative. But the claim that no difference has been asserted is an outright falsehood.
 * We've just had unsupported, POV assertions that it is not "encyclopaedic" (see the first comment above)
 * [well-supported, consensus-backed assertions that the phrase's use in this context is not encyclopedic]
 * or as David put it below "It has absolutely no basis in anything ... encyclopedic."
 * And again, you've quoted me out of context.
 * My exact statement was as follows:
 * "The above is a poetic device used to add liveliness to those pieces. It has absolutely no basis in anything factual or encyclopedic."
 * I was referring not to the term "tools of ignorance" itself, but to the passages quoted in the message to which I replied, in which Ryan Lavarnway's Ivy League background was contrasted with his current use of said gear — cute wordplay with no serious basis (e.g. a widespread belief that employing the "tools of ignorance" actually is indicative of low intelligence). —David Levy 14:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The above is a poetic device used to add liveliness to those pieces. It has absolutely no basis in anything factual or encyclopedic.  —David Levy 23:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is used in a number of RS encyclopedias. As we used it here.  Their goal is the same as ours.  You can't call it UN-encyclopedic, when RS encyclopedias use it in the same manner, and Merriam Websters lists it the same as any other appropriate phrase.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to wonder whether you're still reading my replies. —David Levy 00:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And are you seriously suggesting that a baseball encyclopedia is equivalent to (and adherent to the same style conventions as) Wikipedia? —David Levy 00:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The term appears in other references such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, but in those how many times does it appear within the definition or explanation of some other entry. If it does appear in that context it would almost certainly only appear in cases such as the ones I've described above where it would be appropriate. That the term has a recognised definition elsewhere is irrelevant to this discussion. And just because an explanation of the term is present in the article doesn't mean it passes WP:JARGON - it says first to minimize jargon, then offers the less preferred option of explaining it. We don't use colloquialisms outside of quotes.  Afaber012  (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The term in fact doesn't seem in use all that often. It's like using the term AAAA player or something, it's used occasionally, but it's not something you'd just throw into the article, and I'm not sure of the obsession with an article having to have this term. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is used in a number of dictionaries and encyclopedias, in hundreds of books, and in over 8,000 articles--including articles on the subject himself.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So's the term "scrappy", but it's not one I'm going to put in hundreds of baseball articles. You continually dance around everyone's point. We know the term's used in some sources, that doesn't automatically mean we must as well. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

My opinion: since the term is really just a way to describe the catcher position and isn't directly associated with Lavarnway, the term should not be used in this article. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's actually more than that. It's a way to describe the catcher's equipment that is used not only in encyclopedias and dictionaries, but actually in RSs directly associated with describing Lavarnway himself, as reflected above.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ...along with countless other catchers (and catchers in general), as reflected above.
 * No one disputes the fact that "tools of ignorance" is a longstanding nickname for catchers' equipment. We dispute its alleged relevance to Ryan Lavarnway in particular.
 * The statement "In 2007 he moved from right field to catcher, a position whose equipment is referred to as 'the tools of ignorance'." is analogous to the hypothetical statement "He was raised in California, which is referred to as 'the Golden State'." (citing articles in which writers happened to refer to Lavarnway as a "native of the Golden State" or similar). While factually accurate, these sentences end with information of no direct relevance to the article's subject.
 * Your insertion of this tangential trivia obviously was performed specifically to enable the terminology's use in the DYK hook submitted twenty minutes later . —David Levy 16:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a strong thread of disagreement among editors in general about whether or not interesting "tangential trivia" belongs in articles. Not a day goes by without disputes over trivia sections or "xyz in popular culture" sections in articles. Very few of these disputes have any connection at all to creating hooks for DYK. The purpose of this section is to discuss improvements to the article, not to accuse your opponents in content disputes of motives you think would be unworthy.   Sharktopus  talk  16:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. I don't, in principle, oppose the inclusion of trivia about an article's subject. The point is that this trivia wasn't about the article's subject.
 * 2. I'm not accusing Epeefleche of acting in bad faith. I assume that he/she sincerely believed that enlivening the DYK hook's wording improved Wikipedia.  I simply disagree.  —David Levy 17:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your civil reply and clarification. I did think that bit of trivia was interesting and relevant to the article's subject. Consensus here says it does not belong in the article, so I am ready to accept that consensus, but I still think what I thought, that it is a small loss to our readers to have removed it.   Sharktopus  talk  17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I appreciate your civility.
 * To be clear, I'm referring to the text inserted by Epeefleche, not the alternative version inserted by you — comprising information that does relate to the article's subject (but still strikes me as non-noteworthy). —David Levy 18:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor edit-warring to delete the "s" in RBIs
An editor is edit-warring to delete the "s" in RBIs. That's silly, and not appropriate.

Run batted in, as is made clear in the wikipedia article, has a common plural. Which is the format the editor keeps on deleting. As the wikipedia article states: "The plural of RBI is generally "RBIs", although some commentators use "RBI" as both singular and plural ..."

See for example the Featured Article discussion of the issue by user:Wizardman here (RBI and RBIs seem to be interchangeable in the baseball community, but most prefer the latter given that runs is plural).

There is no good reason to delete the format that is the MORE COMMON format. And edit warring to do so is not appropriate.

Further, the article has long used the format RBIs. For years. Since its earliest days. For an editor to come in, and have a BUT-I-PREFER-THE-LESS-COMMON-FORMAT approach, and seek to impose his less-common approach on the project, is not proper. --2604:2000:E016:A700:98BC:EC5A:8F7E:AC2C (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You are wrong on so many levels. If you actually read the article RBI, in many instances its talking about multiple runs. This argument is not worth my time. -  Galatz Talk