Jump to content

Talk:History of baseball in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateHistory of baseball in the United States is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 14, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 19, 2004, June 19, 2005, and June 19, 2006.

The African American leagues

[edit]

Isn't the section header "The African American leagues" overly-PC? The whole section then details the Negro leagues. I realize it mentions Hispanics, but they also played in the Negro leagues. It seems perfectly appropriate to title that section "The Negro leagues" since it then refers to the main article Negro league baseball. I would change it myself, but I was not looking to fight the PC authoritarians. Am I missing something? Thoughts? 64.85.217.144 (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it appears to have been changed in this edit by an IP who also edited Obama's page and was subsequently blocked. Seems like trolling to me, so I am going to restore the Negro league heading. FYI. 64.85.217.144 (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MLB Historian revises baseball's roots

[edit]

Seems to me that the beginning of this page need a rewrite according to this recent article. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/sports/baseball/13thorn.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=John%20Thorn&st=cse Ckruschke (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Included this link as a reference to the ongoing -- and probably eternal -- question of baseball's parentage. Jim Houghton

History of Major League Baseball

[edit]

Any chance we can get a separate article going?--Levineps (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women

[edit]

It's absurd that an article titled "History of Baseball in the United States" doesn't mention women at all (apart from a brief mention of WWII). This article should really become a history of men's baseball or have a section for women inserted. Blythwood (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have the wrong article.--Gciriani (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, should stop drunk-editing. :D No idea why I wrote basketball at first, but I think it's a relevant point though. I've edited the original comment. Blythwood (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then start the section Women in the history of baseball. I see there is already an article on women in baseball, and you can start borrowing from that article. Once there is enough material to make it longer than a couple of paragraph, somebody will take further initiative to split the articles.--Gciriani (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of baseball in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sections needing citations

[edit]

I noticed that large swaths of the article has no citations, or just a few. To make it easier for anyone who wants to fix it, here's a list of the sections that have absolutely no references:

  • Growth (I feel this section is superfluous -- the few new items in it are outnumbered by the many repetitive ones. I'm new, so don't want to take responsibility for eliminating it. Can someone give me the go-ahead to include new items in other sections where they fit and lose this one?
  • Professionalism
  • Rise of the major leagues
  • The Negro leagues
  • Babe Ruth and the end of the dead-ball era
  • The war years
  • Pitching dominance and rules change
  • Players assert themselves
  • The marketing and hype era

Additionally, these sections do have some references, but could probably use more:

  • The dead-ball era: 1900 to 1919
  • Racial integration in baseball
  • The Major Leagues move west
  • The steroid era

ShimmerFairy (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of baseball in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First "Pro" game

[edit]

Dletter (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC) http://wane.com/2017/05/03/monument-at-fort-wayne-park-marks-first-ever-baseball-game/ Seems like this would be some good information to get included into the article (including maybe the photo of the monument).[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of baseball in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of baseball in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

I don't remember seeing "article may contain original research" previously. The article, when I started copy-editing and adding citations, had a lot of unsubstantiated claims, almost all of which I was able to find some kind of reference for, a couple not. However this tag was added in June, which suggests that perhaps I have added "original research" without realizing it. I feel I have improved this article a great deal and am ready to move on, but don't want to leave any mess of my own making behind. Does the editor who placed the tag have any obligation to point out where the issue resides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhoughton1 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Capoccia: Hello. Can you please describe why you added the "original research" tag to the article, here? The more specific you can be, the better. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
there are whole paragraphs uncited throughout and you guys are wondering about OR? I'm sure the OR has been there for a long time and not just recent.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 23:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris Capoccia: Some parts of the article needing more references is one thing, and as far as article tags go that's covered by the "more citations needed" tag. But he lack of citations doesn't necessarily indicate that the article possibly contains original research. If you look through WP:OR, it's about "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". For example, suppose the article said that Babe Ruth held the record for career home runs for 39 years, but there was not a reference for that. That would not be original research, because it's a statement of fact that could be confirmed, or possibly refuted, with a reference. But suppose the article said that baseball became less popular because many fans were disillusioned by the steroid scandal. That might be original research, based on the opinion or inferences of an editor. In conclusion, an "original research" tag should not be added to an article just because there's material that needs to have references added. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I went through this article carefully and added a slew of references. There were a few claims/statements for which I couldn't find anything I could legitimately call a reference. The original article was, I believe, written in 2006, and maybe references were available in the media at the time that are no longer findable with a reasonable search. So, what to do, especially as a newbie editor? Leave the "citation needed" and move on, leaving the struggle to someone else? Or eliminate the claim/statement altogether? Example, of Team Networks: "By fencing these channels off in separate corporate entities, owners were able to exclude the income from consideration during contract negotiations." Not only couldn't find substantiation of this, but if Team Networks were ever a big deal, and if teams played hide-the-bucks to make themselves look poorer at contract time, the team networks have long been subsumed into larger broadcast entities and the tactic has lost all meaning. So, again, does the whole paragraph need to go? I see no harm in taking it out, but I don't feel I should take on that responsibility. I know this isn't Editor Kindergarten, but I'd be grateful for guidance. Jhoughton1 talk

OK thanks for the feedback. I've deleted the OR header.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for that. About the "may need copy editing for tone." I believe I accomplished that over many hours of editing for clarity, grammar, syntax, etc. I've never seen a WP article I felt was perfectly written, but I do think this one now fits in the category of "clear and readable." Unless "tone" has a specific meaning in the WP context, I submit that the article has been copyedited to reasonable standards. And as for the citations -- fine. Again, if you take a certain slant on WP, they are ALL missing citations. And many that contain the "citation needed" tag still do not have the template at the top. Cheers, Chris, and thanks for paying attention (even if you're not a big one for answering questions :^) --Jhoughton1 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there are definitely a lot more citations in the article than there were several weeks ago. but there are still large paragraphs throughout without any. i could go through and tag each paragraph and delete the header if that's what you want.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 19:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is to learn what's right and what's wrong around here. I think there is material in this article that should disappear because I can't find substantiation for it -- but maybe someone else can. I have no insight into the original author's thought process or sources -- I'm surprised he didn't back up his own claims, but there it is. And encyclopedia article on the History of Baseball is never going to include every twist and turn, every tiny detail that, say, a book on the subject would. I have no problem taking out some of the un-referenced material in this article, as long as that's okay by the rules. --Jhoughton1 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Capoccia and Jhoughton1: If there is material that seems very questionable, and lacks a source, then sure, chop it out - and put it here (separate, new section is best), so other editors can clearly see what was done.
As for adding "citation needed" or top templates in each section that is missing inline citations, please don't. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles - almost certainly more than 90% - need more inline citations; adding a template isn't going to cause editors to rush in (from where?) to fix the problem. Similarly, adding "citation needed" to each and every sentence that lacks an inline citation isn't likely to result in much happening, since there are . Please use that tag only for sentences whose accuracy you doubt, but are important enough to leave in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I would never be the one to add "citation needed," at least not this early in my career. I continue to believe that this article contains enough reasonable citations to lose the template. WP needs to present as confident a face to the public as possible, thus only when claims or statements are truly dubious should there be a warning that says, in effect, "You shouldn't entirely believe this article." JMHO.Jhoughton1 (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National team

[edit]

Hello, the article doesn't mention the United States national baseball team at all, which is a big omission. Please fix it. Thanks! --186.53.121.31 (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has its own, quite extensive, page. If you feel this is inadequate to the subject matter, please feel free to BE BOLD and add that content. Ckruschke (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_baseball_in_the_United_States&oldid=1202730191"