Talk:Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)/Archive 1

Article protected
Please note I have protected the article from editing due to an ongoing dispute on content, please discuss and come to a consensus, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I proposed a compromise on the Baseball page, nobody objected to it, so I made the change -- and now William has initiated an edit war, and has posted nothing here (or there) regarding his objections. And now the article is frozen at the version he prefers.  What am I supposed to do with an editor who refuses to discuss?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK I hadnt seen the discussion on WP:BASEBALL and just protected what appeared to be an ongoing edit war and as you know it will always be at the Wrong Version. Perhaps if you could explain the proposed compromise here and see what other parties have to say. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Doctor Joe just lied. I did not refuse to discuss. I brought it to the WikiProject Baseball page a month ago. What Doctor Joe really means is he didn't like the outcome of the discussion....William 16:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks are not the way to go, William. Here is what actually happened: The original content (not written by me) stated that the decision to bring in Branca had "cost Sukeforth his job".  Several sources supported this contention.  William objected on the basis of one article quoting Sukeforth as denying that his resignation from the Dodgers was related to the decision.  This is essentially a primary source, of course.  On the Baseball page I proposed, as a compromise, changing the sentence to "...it MAY have cost Sukeforth his job" -- citing supporting references -- "...although Sukeforth himself denied it" -- citing the one article containing Sukeforth's denial.  I left ample time for comment, and no one -- including William -- objected.  So I made the change, and now William has reverted it multiple times without stating his objection to the compromise.  If you would like to do that now, William, without continuing to attack me personally, you are welcome to do so.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  16:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No answer. I thought not.  I will make the change one more time -- and I hope, if William still objects to it, that he will discuss it here, rather than resuming his edit war.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sukeforth resigned. That comes from a source in 1952. When it comes to sports legends, even sometimes sports facts, what's written when it happens is almost always more reliable than what is written years later. I finally figured out how the Dressen 'The Giants is dead' 1951 quote comes from. He told the press 'the Giants are done' after a July 1951 game. With the passage of time the quote got changed to something Dressen said in 1953, changed to occurring in August of 1951 when the Giants were furthest behind, and with all sorts of other embellishments.


 * Bottomline, Sukeforth leaving the Dodgers isn't important to the game. Just leave it out entirely. The article is about Thomson's homer, not what may or may not have been caused by it....William 16:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for information I have asked for more opinions on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. MilborneOne (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why Doctor Joe keeps insisting this is important.. it is only an opinion, not a fact.. No one with the Dodgers ever said this cost him his job. Doesn't belong in the article. Spanneraol (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's important because it's part of the story. I'm not sure why William persists in bringing up the "Giants is dead" quote, which is totally irrelevant to this discussion.  Sukeforth leaving the Dodgers, on the other hand, is totally relevant.  I believe that he resigned under pressure, after making what turned out to be the wrong decision on which relief pitcher to bring into the game; but my beliefs (and yours) are not important on Wikipedia.  What is important is sourcing.  Several sources, which I have attempted to cite, agree that he left due to that decision.  One single article quotes him as denying it; of course he denied it!  My compromise incorporates both sides.  The article is about Thomson's homer AND what may or may not have caused it.  One sentence about Sukeforth, stating both opinions, belongs in it.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First, he didn't make the decision.. the manager did.. and no one knows if the other pitcher would have done better. Your sources are all opinion pieces, no actual evidence from the time supports that he left because of this. Spanneraol (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Which is why I want to document both sides of the argument, as opposed to ignoring it entirely. In one of sources I cited, Dressen (the manager) threw Sukeforth under the bus. Have you read the sources?   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion, either here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, I propose the following: I will restore the fact (which is not in dispute) that Sukeforth left the Dodgers at the end of the '51 season, and add that Sukeforth denied that his departure was related to the Branca incident, although others have concluded/speculated that it was -- with sources reflecting both sides. Is that acceptable to everyone? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  21:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for your phony fact....William 11:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My "phony fact" is well sourced, and one person does not constitute a consensus. Since no one else seems to have any interest at all in this one-sentence clarification, unless you can come up with a better reason than I just don't like it -- which is not a valid objection -- I will make the addition once again, and assume good faith that you will not restart an edit war over it.  My thoughts and prayers are with your wife for her impending surgery.   DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate -- but the fact that one editor with an agenda can bring the improvement of an article to a shuddering halt is the reason that I do not edit Wikipedia on a regular basis. For the record, DoctorJoeE is correct.  I knew Clyde Sukeforth personally.  He told me (and many others) that he left the Dodgers after its management told him point blank that it no longer trusted his judgment.  I know that a personal communication does not qualify as "reliable" in the land of Wikipedia, but it is a fact.  He would not allow me to print it, because he was too much of a gentleman, and because he had too much respect for Branca and the other players.  He did, however, imply it strongly near the end of his life in the New York Times article that DoctorJoeE attempted to introduce as a source.  For the record, I agree with DoctorJoeE that Sukeforth's resignation is a part of the story and should be included in the compromise form suggested.   So much for your artificial "consensus", with all due respect.  Why anyone would insist on having it exactly his way, and object to a well-crafted and well-sourced compromise, without coming up with any better reason than Dressen's "Giants is dead" quote was inaccurate, is beyond me - but that's Wikipedia for you.  P  P  P  15:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * While I do appreciate the support, I've decided to move on. It's simply not worth the aggravation, for one sentence.  Sometimes all the compromise attempts in the world won't sway one stubborn user whose mind is made up.  If I find a direct quote I might try again -- but I do feel somewhat vindicated.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  15:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 9 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) → Shot Heard 'Round the Baseball World – This new title would make more sense as the title of this page. Aidan721 02:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too easily confused with the generic term "shot heard round the world."  -- Calidum  03:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - It still says baseball right in the name. It shouldn't be confusing at all.--Aidan721 (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, I misread the request. But I oppose the proposed title, as it's not one currently used elsewhere. -- Calidum  11:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. So far as I can tell, the proposed title is an invention not used anywhere except in this move request. That cannot be a proper title, when it's clear how the event is actually referred to in sources. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've never heard anyone call it the "baseball world". – Muboshgu (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Me neither. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On this page it says that the article with this name was called Shot Heard 'Round the Baseball World. From this page it says, "An article recapping the game in the New York Daily News on October 4 was accompanied by the headline, "The Shot Heard 'Round the Baseball World".[26] The phrase quickly spread to other media, and soon became a widely-recognized slogan for Thomson's homer."--Aidan721 (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that sentence should be amended to read, "The phrase quickly spread to other media, and 'Shot Heard 'Round the World' soon became a widely-recognized slogan for Thomson's homer." That small change would more accurately reflect the actual evolution of the epithet.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  19:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That sentence was included using a headline. You cannot just change the headline where ever you would like. --Aidan721 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My proposed compromise would not change the headline, which is in the previous sentence. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  02:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.