Talk:Babe Ruth/Archive 3

Revert
I deleted a very unencyclopedic and possibly racist entry about Ruth's racial background.--ScipioAfricans 04:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

-

I just had to revert this article. approximate 7:00pm EST, Oct 13, 2006.

Not sure how to report vandalism or how to get this article locked to users only. I hate vandals.

No Hitter
Should'nt the category "Pitchers who have thrown a no-hitter" be included in Ruth's article? It may sound a little weird, but the game on June 23, 1917 were Ruth walked the first batter he faced and got thrown out by the Umpire which led to Ernie Shore coming in and he recorded all 27 outs is by definition (according to MLB) a combined no-hitter. Darwin&#39;s Bulldog 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldnt be his no hitter it be the other guys

Incorrect Statement
I would like to correct an incorrect statement that Babe Ruth is 5th all-time with respect to a single season home run total. He is the 5th person in a list that includes Bonds, McGuire, Sosa and Maris ahead of him, however his total is 8th all-time.

Rank, Player & number of HR's that year:

1. Barry Bonds 73 2001

2. Mark McGwire 70 1998

3. Sammy Sosa 66 1998

4. Mark McGwire 65 1999

5. Sammy Sosa 64 2001

6. Sammy Sosa 63 1999

7. Roger Maris 61 1961

8. Babe Ruth 60 1927

I'd like to point out that when Babe Ruth set this particular record, it took 34 years for Maris to break it, and another 38 years after that for McGuire and Sosa to do the same. ESPN in one of their shows speculated that the hardest thing to do in sports was hit a baseball, but to be more specific it's hitting that baseball for the purpose of breaking the Babe's record. Only four men were able to do that since 1927. Carajou 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Last Will and Testament of Babe Ruth
We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Babe Ruth's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Babe Ruth. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Babe Ruth's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Babe Ruth. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 03:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexia?
How do you know?--Kingforaday1620 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

POV?
"Nevertheless, for all Ruth had done for baseball, he deserved an invitation even if his skills were at the end". This is VERY POV. --AngusH 06:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the last sentence under "Retirement and later years" reading "Babe Ruth is not only an American Baseball icon, but also an inspiration to young baseball players all over the world." Have we polled all young baseball players all over the world to determine this? Unless there's a source, and even then, this statement seems clearly POV.SINsApple 03:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What #?
What # did Ruth wear? -71.65.205.219 02:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clean-Up the Article Disccusion
This article is primmed for some cleanning up. Duplicate information appears frequently and a number of the thoughts and ideas don't really belong. I am going to start by cleanning up some of the smaller issues, but think this needs to be discussed further. --Tecmobowl 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, this thing is in bad shape. I have been blasting the thing for a few hours.  This includes cleaning up bad info, requesting sources and re-arranging the article.  A lot more needs to be done.  I'm sure this might not look very well written with all the move arounds and cleaning that i did.  Please feel free to make the text read better.  I'll keep doing this until i feel like doing something else. --Tecmobowl 06:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe let the people decide, but your editing of an article that was already voted as a Good Article is plain bad, in IMHO. I don't know you, so this is nothing personal.  Maybe I'm just fussy, but shouldn't his 1926 year come before 1928?  Anyway do what you want as it probably doesn't matter in the end, since I find no article stays the same for very long.


 * I said the article needs a lot more work, but that doesn't mean the old information was good. The order is a consequence of a previous version, not of my edits.  Most of the information that you put back in place was either not sourced (b/c it wasn't true) or it was about the New York Yankees.  The article is supposed to be about Ruth.  Rather than leave the information out of order, why don't you put it in chronological order?  While I enjoy participating here, I don't have time to fix every problem in every article.  It was a good article a while ago, that doesn't mean it's still good.  Make it better. --Tecmobowl 22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted article to earlier status
I have reverted this article to the way it was about two weeks ago, so any changes within that time will have to be redone. This article was voted as a Good Article, so it did not need major reorganization. Any major changes should be discussed first, and changes should be made properly, not with bad writing, bad organization, and sloppy editing. Tearing up sentences and paragraphs and failing to properly reorganize the article is not an “improvement."  Note that if you have not contributed any substantial content to any article, your credibility with making major changes (especially deleting material) is not going to happen unless you discuss them first.

Some examples why this “improved” article had been reverted to its former incarnation:

1. Poor proof-reading. A new heading “The Braves Years.”  Years? Ruth spent one year with the Braves.

2. Poor organization. A new heading  “The Late 20’s" includes the 1925 and 1926 seasons.  1925 and 1926 are not the late 1920’s.  Also, while one section of the 1925 season is put in the heading "The early 20’s", another part of the 1925 season is put in the “Early 20’s” section.  1925 is not the early 20's, and it is not the late 20's.

3. Chronology problem. The 1928 season is listed before the 1926 one.

4.  Bad writing. “Ruth missed 21 games on the schedule that year; this included the last few weeks of the season.”

5. Poor organization. Ruth’s life in New York City is listed in the section “Impact on Baseball.”

6. Proof-reading problem. “He made the 1934 All-Star team, but that appeared to be more of an honorary selection than a reward for his play on the field that season (Ruth had also appeared in the 1st All-Star game the previous year, already late in his career).”

This same section mentioned Ruth in the 1933 All-Star game, there is no reason to mention it again in parenthesis.

7. Numerous short choppy sentences and paragraphs, the surest sign of lazy writing.

8. Very sloppy editing. This edited section demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject:

“The Yankees had a World Series rematch with the St. Louis Cardinals, who had upset them in the 1926 series. The Cardinals had the same core players as the 1926 team, except for Rogers Hornsby, who was traded for Frankie Frisch after the 1926 season. The series was no contest. The Yankees swept the Cardinals 4-0. Ruth batted .625 and hit three home runs in game four of the series.”

??? The 1926 World Series was won by the Cardinals 4-3, and Ruth hit .300 that series.

There are more examples but I think one gets the idea why this article had to be reverted. LibraryLion 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't care care to rewrite the whole article myself, but much of the information in the article as you have reverted it is just as bad (the info on the 26 world series for example was already in place). If you would continue to build on the structure that was put in place and correct information, rather than just revert to older versions, the article would be much better.  If it was a good article, then why is point 8 in there?Tecmobowl 22:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what happened when I tried to pare down this article about a year ago. I posted a rewrite on a subpage, got near-universally positive feedback on it, and then got railroaded by LibraryLion when I put the rewrite up on the main page. Then he cataloged minor errors in my rewrite in an attempt to discredit the entire thing, and mass-reverted my edits until I tired of the headache. Sound familiar? --djrobgordon 22:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it does sound familiar. I just took a second to look at point 8 again, the section is about the 28 world series...not the 26 series, so it is (as far as i can tell) ... correct.Tecmobowl 23:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that Library Lion is personally attached to the article. Look at his/her user page.Tecmobowl 02:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have had similar problems in the past. This article reads like a biography, not an encyclopedia,and I attempted to change that.  I don't remember LL mass-reverting my changes, but my changes were limited to style and grammar changes.  However, I did get a decent amount of pushback regarding the changes.


 * Having said that, the last time I went over the article (again, some time ago), it was well-written. My problems were centered on non-NPOV and length.  In fact, it's its sheer length that is preventing me from going over the article tonight in detail.  Again, this is not a biography.  Actually, right now it *is* a biography, and that's not good.


 * I'm in the middle of a serious edit session with another page right now, but I'm game to add another one to the list. Shall all 4 of us (djrobgordon, Tecmobowl, Library Lion and I), and, of course, anyone else who's interested give this a shot?


 * As stated, my issues are with the article's tone and length. I would like to see something more scholarly, with more citations, and distilled to the essential details.  This may (and I would say *shoudld*) mean that some of the "flavor" of the article will be lost.  Does anyone else share these thoughts?


 * Tmassey 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I say have at it, I only started the process because I saw the problem. There are still a number of problems with the article as a whole.  A number of the "gramatical" issues pointed out are a result of trying to mush multiple "versions" into one.  My only advice is: The article is about Ruth, not the New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, or any other team.  It is also not about his manager, friends, or parents.  Those topics should be touched on, but should not become the focus of any single section. --Tecmobowl 04:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you guys want to rewrite and reorganize the article in any way, go ahead, I'll let you do what you want if that is your desire. Of course this article was voted as Good Article, so it sort of makes you guys accusations of this being poorly written as dubious.  I do not think the article needs changed, but I have done all I wanted to on this article, and right now I do not have much time nor desire to help in any reorganization of the article.  If others want to find the original longer article, they can always find it.


 * (Regarding the 1928 World Series, Techmobowl, if you had thorough knowledge the subject you would have instantly known it was a mistake and you would have corrected it. I have not watched the article for over a month, and I have not gone over the article in detail for some time to moniter how original information may have been corrupted by other users.)


 * You guys seem to take my criticism of your writing skills as personal attacks, and this is not the case. I criticize your writing skills on this article, your writing on other articles may be fine.  The biggest problem I have with you guys is you make many obvious proof-reading mistakes, hence I question your attention to the finer details of good writing, and I wonder if you guys have really done any complete research on Ruth.  These basic mistakes make the article look unorganized and unfactual.


 * Also, I do not believe one should not be obsessed with length, quality is the only thing that matters. No one ever agrees on the right length for articles anyway, and I find preconceived ideas of what the "right" length is counter-productive if one is cutting articles shorter for the mere sake of keeping them shorter.  Wikipedia articles, especially the biographical ones, are getting longer and longer, and while longer articles do not automatically equal more quality, more information that is well-written, at least in my opinion, is always better.


 * The point about his team, teammates, family, etc, being included or deleted. Ruth plays on a team, and baseball not an individual sport.  His team merits a mention, because success or lack of success of the team also effects Ruth.  Note that the mention of his team and or teammates was always a brief paragraph, except the 1927 team. I also like having more information about someones family, but others may disagree.  Anyway, I'll stop here.  You guys construct the article the way you want.  LibraryLion 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a warning: is a borderline vandal and tends to act as if he owns articles, removes content, and acts as an expert when he is not. A lot of his "improvements" are removing information and poor rewrites. You have been warned. TV Newser Tipline 04:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * TV Newser, if you continue with these bogus claims and continue to harass me, we can bring admins back into this. Until then, either contribute to the goal of wiki or go find something else to do.  I'm not leaving b/c of you and you are just going to have to learn to deal with me.  I suggest you focus on content and not on these stupid, pointless accusations.Tecmobowl 05:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs URGENT attention
This is obviously a very important article that needs a fair bit of work. I don't have enough knowledge to know what should be kept/not but I'm hoping there's someone able to collate what's here into a much better article?

E.g. of issues, text such as this is unsuited to an encyclopedia article: "The highlight of the day was when his name was announced over the loudspeaker, and the crowd erupted into a loud roar." "Ruth was a natural fit in New York City—the biggest star in the game needed the largest stage, the largest crowds, the largest media coverage. His flamboyance, vitality, and obvious flaws symbolized New York. His persona transcended baseball, and he was one of the enduring emblems of the carefree spirit of the roaring '20s." ... And there's plenty more where that came from.

Length is another issue... It's not that I know exactly how long this article should be, but if we got rid of stuff like that and replaced it with simpler, more encyclopedic info, I'm sure the article would be a lot shorter. Joaq99 09:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While this is true, I don't think this is any different than what has already been mentioned on this talk page. In the future, it would be helpful if people would do some editing.  I realize not everyone has a great deal of knowlege, but many people can identify statements that are overtly POV or lacking an encyclopedic quality.  If you see one, just edit the information out of the article. --Tecmobowl 23:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not looking for an argument mate, but I do want to make an appeal for some new blood to help with this. I was surprised with the state of the article despite the large number of recent edits (although at a glance the 23/10 changes look v good.) I also wanted to provide some specific examples of the type of writing I see as sub par -- I see the whole fan website feel as by far the most pressing issue, as opposed to the order etc.

I will do some minor rephrasing but when it comes to large scale changes I'll probably hold off for the moment for two reasons:

a) First I want to appeal for people with more knowledge of BR to do it first - they'll do a faster and better job.

b) It's a LOT of work and cutting so much text is probably going to be controversial. As you'd know those examples were a drop in the ocean.Joaq99 13:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Marriage Section
I found a number of conflicting reports during my brief research. I tried to reflect this in the article. Someone with better sources should really help out.Tecmobowl 07:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I commend the current authors for an objective article. Nevertheless, Ruth's rapid professional decline seems to call for some comment. Alcoholism perhaps? If so, I realize that this absolutely has to be referenced, probably to a modern day writer. And does saying this open the article editor to criticism that s/he is trying to "tarnish" Ruth's name?Student7 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly have no problem with a well referenced explanation about the end of ruth's career. One thing i would suggest, i think that the article, as it exists now, relies too much on statistics.  Wiki is for the general public, not for people familiar with baseball.  Have at it! // Tecmobowl 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing un-sourced content
Per Wp:cite, I'm removing all of the un-sourced material. If anyone has source, please feel free to add some content back. // Tecmobowl 06:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Article is now sourced. Let's keep it that way.  Perhaps someone else can go in and work on the flow a little bit better. // Tecmobowl 07:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jargon needs explaining to non-US readership
From the article:


 * "... he finished the season 2-1 ... helped himself by hitting .315 ... recorded only one at-bat ... he went 23 - 12, with a 1.75 ERA and 9 shutouts ... batted .376 in his first year ..."

I haven't the vaguest idea what any of this means, or even if it is good or bad. If I spent a bit of time Googling around then maybe I could eventually figure it out, but it would be good to have an explanation of this jargon readily at hand (presumably in the form of links to other articles?) for the benefit of readers from countries where baseball is practically unknown, such as the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.30.211 (talk)


 * I believe the terms are linked previously in the article. However, the idea that the article relies too much on stats rather than content is something i agree with.  This is one of the big problems I've had with the article.  It focuses entirely too much on statistical regurgitation. // Tecmobowl 08:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)