Jump to content

Talk:Stan Musial/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Anything interesting

Anything interesting about Stan Musial?

I WANT DIRT.

This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. In some cases where a person has had public struggles, or their lives intertwined with other noteworthy people, it's appropriate to put it in there. Like the Bob Costas quote in the article, one of the most remarkable things about Musial is that there isn't anything sensational. Since this is the discussion section I can state my personal opinion here. Musial has stayed in St. Louis, the city that made him famous, and he's always been generous in giving his time to charitable causes, even as his age has advanced and his health has declined. Virtually everyone who asks him for an autograph gets one. Why do you have interest in trashing the reputation of an old man who's done nothing but give back to his community for the past 40 years since his career ended? --Dave Farquhar 18:37, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK, dirt. He's MBL's answer to Richard Petty, who also signs every autograph asked for. And it's been said Musial's statue hits better than most of the players in the majors today. Trekphiler 04:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I met him by accident -- our paths crossed in a hallway. My jaw dropped when I recognized him, and I stammered. He was friendly and gracious. I was 45 years old, yet he jokingly called me "Kid", and I felt privileged for it.
It's a truly wonderous thing when your childhood heroes turn out to be even better than you imagined they could be.
Davidkevin 21:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm named for him (as were probably dozens of kids from his era). Don't know whether my father was a particular fan of the Cards but he evidently thought enough of him to give me a lifetime legacy of hearing "Stan The Man!". Sounds like The Greyhound is a real role model and well worthy of the high esteem and regard in which he's held. Glad to hear it. Lonewuf 23:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Name?

I reverted an edit that claimed his name was "Stanislaus", since both The Baseball Hall of Fame website, and baseball-reference.com have his birth name as "Stanley". Was this a vandel, or is there some backing to this? Darwin's Bulldog 09:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

See article at http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=816&pid=10216 [bioproj.sabr.org] on his name. Quoting it here... "Lukasz named him Stanislaus(in original Polish spelling is Stanisław) and gave him the Polish nickname Stashu (PL- Stasiu), which was quickly shortened to Stash (PL- Staś), usually pronounced "Stush." Once he entered public school, Stash's name was Anglicized to Stanley (or Stan) Frank." . . . So everyone's right. --Labajas 01:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hall of Fame Induction Year

In the body of the article it says that "He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility in 1969." But in the "Member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame" box it gives his first year of eligibility as 1968, still keeping his induction year as 1969. Which is it? Tracer Bullet 19:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Musial was elected to the HOF in 1969 according to the Hall's website. But was this his first or second year of eligibility? According to the official rules (Rule 3.C), "Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election ..." Since Musial retired in mid 1963, then his first calendar year of non-active status is 1964. Therefore, it isn't until Jan 1, 1969 that you could truthfully say 'Musial has ceased to be an active player for at least 5 calendar years' (the calendar years of 1964 - 1968 inclusive). In other words, 1969 is his first year of eligibility. The same thing happened when Gwynn and Ripken were elected in early 2007. ESPN says that Gwynn and Ripken were elected in their "first year of eligibility" (2007) when they both retired in 2001.

I will revert the change. jigawatt 23:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hit Leader

I altered this because it makes no sense that Ty Cobb could overtake him when Cobb retired in 1928."His 3,630 career hits made him the NL's all-time leader at the time he retired, and still ranks fourth all-time, behind Pete Rose, Ty Cobb, and Hank Aaron."

At no time did Musial have more hits than Cobb; it's just that all of Cobb's hits came in American League games. But you're correct about potential confusion: The original writer must have figured that "all-time" implied "all major leagues" as well. WHPratt (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Stan the Man

The use of the picture of Musial, while free, isn't instructional with respect to the article. The reason Musial is of interest is due directly to his physical attributes as a player. Showing a picture of him when he is in his 70s is not helpful. We have sources for non-free images of Musial as a player. We should use those pictures, so I edited to add the picture of Musial during his days as player. Never been to spain (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting a note on the discussion page about this topic. While I understand your point of view that the picture copyrighted by the Baseball Hall of Fame is in some ways better than the free use image located on Commons, I respectfully disagree with your arguments for using the copyrighted picture now that a free-use image is available. Consider this quote from paragraph four of the "Wikipedia policies" section located on the Wikipedia:Basic copyright issues page:
"Basically, fair use content should be replaced by free content whenever possible, because we want our content to be truly free. The rationale we use to claim fair use on Wikipedia (a non-profit website) might not apply to someone wanting to distribute a version of the article elsewhere, forcing them to remove the image anyway."
As a frame of reference, I recently completed a one and a half year goal of getting Ozzie Smith's article up to Featured Article status. Like this article, at one time the infobox used a copyrighted Baseball Hall of Fame image of Ozzie as a player. As I pointed out to the user who reverted the infobox pic back to the copyrighted picture, Ozzie's article likely wasn't going to reach Featured, or even Good Article status, when an available free-use image was not used in place of a copyrighted one.
Second, I also respectfully disagree with your assertion on the free-use rationale explanation of the copyrighted picture that finding a free-use image of Musial as a player is "likely impossible." Considering that cameras where invented before Musial's MLB debut in 1941 (I can get a reference for that if you request one), and that Musial played before crowds of thousands of people thousands of times during a 22 year period, I don't see the logic behind that rationale. I have hope that one day one such photo will be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Until then, we can aspire to achieve Wikipedia's goal of a free encyclopedia by using the free-use image.
Third, I also respectfully disagree with your assertion on the free-use rationale explanation of the copyrighted picture that Musial's, "importance in history is due directly to his physical attributes." With the article in its current incomplete state, I would argue that there is no referenced material that could support such a statement. In terms of "physical attributes," the only important thing I can think of is his unique batting stance, but again, when this article goes up for its Good Article Nomination, I still believe that aspect of the copyrighted image will not justify its use when a free-use image of Musial is available for the infobox to illustrate the article.
In short, because Wikipedia's goal is to be the free encyclopedia, I believe there is no question the free-use image should be used in place of a copyrighted one.
I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter. Particularly I'd like to know if you would object to me using the free-use image in the infobox again. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do object.

Wikipedia articles are supposed to contain valuable information regarding the subject of the article.

You do agree that the only reason an article should exist in Wikipedia is because he was a baseball player and what he did as a ball player? The article exists only because of Musial's playing days. Using a picture of an 86 YOA Stan Musial makes no sense in an article that is 99% about what Musial did under the age of 40. That picture does not help understand the subject of the article. It is kind of like writing about a destroyed building and then preferring a picture of the vacant lot over a picture of the building itself.

In this instance, what if I did a crayon drawing of Stan Musial and dedicate that to the public domain? That image would be free. Should we use it simply because it is free?

As to obtaining a free image, if one exists, where is it? You can't find one. I can't find one. I'm sure you've looked. I've certainly looked. A free image is one where the owner gives up the copyright. Stan Musial is one of the biggest names in pro baseball, so if a free image hasn't surfaced by now, I doubt one will. While cameras did exist when he played, but few people had cameras capable of taking pictures of a good quality (fixed focal length, poor film, etc.) Again, you are simply wrong when you say that a free image will turn up some day. And, if one does, then we can use it.

Your last point is simply ludicrous. Exceptional athletes exist because their bodies can do things "the rest of us mortals" can't. Seeing athletes at their prime is extremely important to get a flavor for the athlete. Musial looks just like any other 86 YOA, overweight old man.

As to the Ozzie Smith article, I'm not crazy about that picture either. The articles are supposed to be informative, and I think a picture of Smith when he was playing is infinitely better. But at least Smith could walk without assistance in that picture. Never been to spain (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As I anticipated, it appears the copyrighted picture was removed from Wikipedia on 23 May 2009, by something called the User:ImageRemovalBot. I'm surprised there wasn't any listed reason given by either the bot or the user controlling the bot, but unfortunately it has left the article without a picture. Therefore, I once again propose using the free-use picture of Musial from 2008 as the Infobox picture, since it is temporarily the only resource available. I welcome further comments and discussion. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
At the moment, he's one of the greatest ballplayers still living, so the old-age picture is somehow satisfying. I'd say, hold off and replace it with a younger pic only after Stan shuffles off the mortal coil (not for some time, it is to be hoped.)WHPratt (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

20 vs. 24 All-Star Games

Recently the anonymous user at IP address 64.218.96.58 has made edits classifying Musial as a 24-time All-Star Selection, as opposed to the 20 times currently listed in the infobox & in the body of the text. If need be, I'd like to open discussion on this issue to eliminate the conflicting edits on this matter. As I'm sure the user at 64.218.96.58 is aware, the official line from the Cardinals is currently that Musial is a "24-time All-Star", as the team phrases it on promotional material such as 2009 season schedules. As some editors may be aware, the conflict in number of All-Star games arises from the years when MLB hosted two All-Star games in a single year, one picked by fans, the other picked by coaches and/or players. I vaguely recall this issue being discussed on the halloffame=yes|halloffame-importance= page sometime ago, so it may be helpful to refer back to such a discussion if need be. Personally, I'd like to stick with "20-time All-Star selection" for now, at least until all the missing gaps in the article are filled in. Again, I welcome thoughts and comments from anyone interested in this issues. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious why you would advocate 20 when Musial did actually play in 24. I'm not familiar with the history - was there only one selection, even in the two-game years (1959-1962)? But yes, you should certainly get smarter people's opinions at WT:MLB - and find previous discussion. Wknight94 talk 11:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and used Hank Aaron's article as a basis to include the extra All-Star games Musial participated in during 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962. By listing Musial's involvement in both of the All-Star games held that year, it's a lot easier to justify the phrasing "24-time All-Star selection." Again, this seems to be the best fix for now, but any other ideas/comments are certainly welcome. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Monowi, you've cited WP:LEAD, but WP:LEAD urges the following:

  • Briefly summarize the most important points, in such a way that the intro can serve as a concise version of the article.
  • The relative emphasis given to material in the intro should reflect its relative importance to the subject.

Here are some of the problems with the introduction that you've restored:

1. Repetition-- Musial's 3,630 hits are listed twice; so are his 475 home runs.
2. Excess text-- signing a "professional" contract, "concurrently earning" an MVP, 1966 being later than 1963, etc. This kind of prose can be trimmed from an intro.
3. Misplaced emphasis on lesser details that have little to do with Musial's reputation-- specifically, his hometown and high school days (all MLBers played baseball as teens), his Navy service (numerous MLBers had careers interrupted by WW2, many to a greater extent than Musial), the specific date of his debut (every player has one of those). Relative placement is also a problem-- in the reverted intro, his sandlot Donora play gets preference over his three World Series wins.
4. Missing emphasis and context-- e.g. the text I added about his relative rank in various offensive categories at the time of his retirement, and the two supplemental quotes. (Incidentally, your edit accidentally excised those quotes completely.)
My reading of WP:LEAD suggests that the deleted intro meets the standard more than the current one does, and I would appreciate specifics as to why you feel otherwise. Thanks.208.120.7.152 (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed for Musial being Honored in Donora in 2007

As the headline above explains, there is currently no citation for Musial being honored in Donora in 2007. I have little doubt it actually happened, but I was surprised I couldn't find any web article to back it up. If another editor can find a citation for him being honored in Donora, please feel free to post it here or in the body of the text. Until then, I'll most likely remove mention of the Donora celebration as I plan on submitting this for a Good Article review soon. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stan Musial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman 16:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I'll be reviewing this over the course of the next couple days (splitting it up due to size). Here's some issues I found:

  • All hyphens for numbers need to use ndashes, i.e. 6-6 record needs to be 6–6 record.
  • "Musial also played one season on the newly revived Donora High School baseball team, where one of his teammates was the grandfather of future major league player Ken Griffey, Jr." By extension, he's be the father of Ken Griffey Sr. too, so that should probably be added.
Done. Monowi (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Images need WP:ALT text (I could care less about it, but if you want to go for FAC then they'll want it).
Done. Monowi (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "However, the Cardinals finished one game behind the Dodgers in the standings." Be more specific; were they one game away from the pennant, or were the two further down in the standings; how many games did they win?
  • "The twelfth All-Star appearance of Musial's career occurred in 1955, when Cincinnati's Ted Kluszewski outpolled Musial by 150,000 votes to win the start at first base" Reword; now it sounds like he got the appearance because of losing the voted.

I'll put the article on hold and pass when this is fixed. I was surprised how little there was to modify, so good job on it. Wizardman Help review good articles 16:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the final couple points, so I'll pass this as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Help Desk Question

I was reading the article on Stan Musial largely because I was reading my acquired bobblehead box that Stan Musial played in 24 all star games as of 1963. It also noted he was a rookie in 1941. That doesn't seem to compute. Your article says Musial played his first all star game in 1943 and served in the Navy 1945. Your article further says he played his 24th all star game in 1963. I don't see how that is possible. Thanks 68.93.10.251 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cross posted from WP:HD#stan musial. GB fan (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that there were 2 Major League Baseball All-Star Games in each of the seasons 1959 to 1962, which would help with the accounting. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Also cross-posted from WP:HD --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Musial's final hit

I feel it is worth noting, as Bob Costas did in Ken Burns' series Baseball, that Musial's final hit-- number 3,630-- was to right field... just past the lunge of a rookie Cincinnati Reds' second baseman named Pete Rose. Rose, of course, would have more of a few hits of his own-- surpassing Musial for the National League career hits mark, and in 1985, Ty Cobb for the all-time hits mark. With all the discussion of balance in Musial's hitting, this is just one more example of the balanced hitting of "Stan the Man." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.48.168 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

honorary doctor of humanities from Monmouth College in 1962

This is mentioned on page 227 of "Stan Musial: The Man's own story as told to Bob Broeg", published by Doubleday in 1964. Today I am meeting difficulties attempting to create correct tagging to reference the book; someone else please step in and do it, if I don't get back to this soon...thanks.

Yes, I suppose using the subject of a biographical article as the source is a no-no, but here I expect both Broeg, who actually wrote the book, and Doubleday would have fact-checked it.

Now I also see that Monmouth College has a web article "The day Stan Musial came to Monmouth College" By Jeff Rankin dated 01/21/2013", about that day in 1962 . But I still can't get reference tagging to work...ouch! 69.95.62.192 (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Publius3

slugging margin

This expression is used in section 1946–1949. As far as I can tell, there's no such term: No article about it, and even Google had no hits. It's not slugging percentage, as the text mentions a "gap", which, although it fits with "margin," does not fit with the definition of this. Please {{ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed and explained 01:46, 20 January 2015‎ by Michael W. Parker (talk · contribs). --Thnidu (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The next closest NL hitter behind Musial was Johnny Mize. Check it out here. --EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Exemption in WWII?

How come nothing detrimental has been said about Musial's war record? Enlisted January 1945, honourably discharged March 1945 from a repair yard?! I can't believe it, out before Iwa Jima had even ended. How come Musial never got any grief unlike the likes of John Wayne, Frank Sinatra or Errol Flynn? Seems glaringly obvious, despite his wholesome image, his contribution to the war effort was a lot, lot less than the likes of James Stewart (colonel in USAAF), Clarke Gable (flew five combat missions with USAAF) or Douglas Fairbanks Jr (combat leader)!! 86.157.48.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Musial was discharged in March 1946, not March 1945. He served just over 14 months. 2605:E000:84D3:1D00:7C86:7BA7:30D5:1B2B (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stan Musial. 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) 19:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stan Musial. 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) 02:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stan_Musial/Archive_1&oldid=1101832931"