| 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
editSo, this was written by a Pirates PR guy right? "Continues to lead them towards a championship caliber team.." etc?
What? Neutrality please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.29.240 (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Someguy1221 - perhaps you should proofread your own page before you edit the work of someone who actually knows how to spell
This article contains no discussion of Nutting's controversial role as a member of the Pittsburgh Pirates ownership group. Simply citing his charitable work and philanthropy does not change the fact that a large portion of the media and fan base identify him as one of the driving forces behind the team's failure over the last decade plus. MLB's recent investigation into the Pirates use of luxury tax-revenue sharing money highlights this concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roudigerpitt (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
"Nutting ruined a historically prolific franchise." - I don't think this is very neutral, either. Can we change this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.32.100 (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Anon edits
editTo the anon, could you show me, please, where the source says what you wrote? The source is here. We have to be extra careful because it's a BLP that's been vandalized in the past. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. The link is a list of ESPN's rankings of the owners. If you scroll to the bottom, the Pirates are 4th from last, below all other MLB teams.
97.102.60.229 (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. I'm afraid it doesn't support the edit you made; before you could add that edit, you'd have to find a reliable source who interpreted the list the way you did. See WP:PSTS for an explanation (read the section about primary sources). We have to extra careful about this when dealing with living persons. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, still don't understand what's wrong with it. ESPN is almost universally recognized as a reliable source. Isn't the fact that they made a list an interpretation of the quality of job the owners are doing? 97.102.60.229 (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Can you show me where it says, or clearly implies, "In 2010, Nutting was rated Major League Baseball's worst owner by ESPN"? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The list is where he is rated the worst. They're not rating the franchise as a whole, only the ownership. The Pirates are the lowest MLB team on the list, which makes them the worst rated ownership in the league. Could it be changed to "The Pirates ownership, led by Nutting, was rated worst in MLB by ESPN?" There are many sources showing Nutting as the leader of the group. 97.102.60.229 (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't say that either that I can see. I think you need to find a secondary source who reports on that rating, and who interprets it the way you do. We need that (a) to show that the rating is worth mentioning, and (b) that it says what you are saying. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Does the secondary source need to specifically say that they are rated worst in the league, or just provide proof that the ratings are credible and should be interpreted as a ranking of the quality of ownership?
97.102.60.229 (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- If you can find secondary sources that come close to saying what you're saying, then we can look at them and decide how best to word the edit. The point is that we can't make leaps of logic, unless the implication is so obvious that any educated person with no knowledge of the situation would look at the source and agree that's what it means. See WP:PRIMARY, which is policy (the ESPN website is a primary source for its own ratings): "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)