Talk:Billy Sunday/Archive 1

User 74.11.50.2 (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Very Nice Nice article. A lot of great info in the footnotes that I almost missed. Seems odd - could this info not be incorporated into the article. Also, is it worth mentioning the piece of trivia that he is mentioned in the lyrics of the famous 1922 song Chicago, later made popular by Frank Sinatra? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.50.2 (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks from all of us who worked on this article. The information about the song is given in (what is at this moment) footnote 70.--John Foxe (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User 66.57.105.182
User is just vandalizing, just ignore. I just removed that nonsense. Best wishes Feydey 20:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

User 209.173.13.167
Vandalism on 5th of April, removed...

Where is Bina, Iowa? I have never heard of this place. I have read that Billy Sunday was born in Ames, but also in Nevada. While researching Glenwood, Iowa on wikipedia, I noticed that it once was called something else by the mormons who founded it. Maybe Bina is either an extinct town or the previous name of a current town.

User eosha
This article needs help... I added the two tags. Spelling, grammar, content, links... everything.

User rocketj4
Cap Anson, Sunday's manager, said in his 1900 autbiography that Sunday struck out his first 13 times at bat. However, contemporary newspaper accounts report 11 strikeouts at most, with 2 of those outs reported simply as outs and likely being made another way. His verifiable strikeouts-in-a-row are four. See: "Sunday at the Ballpark: Billy Sunday's Professional Baseball Career 1883-1890," by Wendy Knickerbocker, Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2000, p. 31-32.

User Rocketj4
This article has been cleaned up and expanded. There is now more information on his preaching career, and links have been fixed and added. I left the POV tag. There is controversy about his wealth, his conversion date, and his influence, and I didn't edit the tone and content of some sentences that reflect this. Rocketj4 14:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)rocketj4 8/6/06

POV?
I'm an agnostic and I can't see any bias in the article.Wilton Dorsey 23:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

User Rocketj4
Thanks--I removed the POV tag.Rocketj4 17:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wealth at death
Sunday should have died a wealthy man, but his sons' ex-wives bled him dry through the years. Only one of his children survived him. Actually two did; Billy, Jr. died in 1938 (at 37) and Paul in 1944 (at 33).--John Foxe 13:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if he was bled by relatives, Sunday still died leaving $50,000 during a time when the average skilled industrial worker earned substantially less than $1,000 from an entire year of labor (Fite, G. and Reese, J. Economic History of the United States. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1959, p. 579). He died with an exceptionally large fortune. Indeed, many rich people lost their money during the Depression and died in poverty.Sermonizer 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Where does the $50,000 come from? I checked McLoughlin and Bruns and couldn't find it?--John Foxe 15:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Detroit News reported the $50,000 figure
 * and USHistory.com reported additional information on Sunday’s wealth at death . Both of these references are listed on my revision of November 7, but were reverted within about 30 minutes by Moeron. Sorry that you didn't get a chance to see them before they were so quickly removed.Sermonizer 19:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The Detroit News notes the $50,000 offering collected during the 1916 campaign (not at Sunday's death in 1935). That was a powerful lot of money in 1916, but Sunday shared it with his staff.  The USHistory.com sentence is just gossip. I don't think anyone knows what Sunday left at his death. In any case, neither McLoughlin, Dorsett or Bruns--the three scholarly biographies--mention it. If McLoughlin had known, he would have shouted it from the housetops because one of his theses is that Sunday was in league with the running dogs of capitalism.--John Foxe 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed
I'm not going to stick those silly little "citation needed" tags on this article, but it certainly needs some citations.--John Foxe 21:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly biographies
The Bruns book, while thorough and engagingly written, shouldn't be regarded as having the same authority as McLoughlin, Dorsett, and the most recent biographer, Martin, and, for Sunday's baseball career, Knickerbocker. Bruns' book has some factual errors in it. I don't know whether those errors represent not enough close editing or insufficient scholarly attention, but the errors are there. Nevertheless, it's the most accessible full biography out there.Rocketj4 18:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. To my mind, and with due respect to the late William McLoughlin, a fine historian, Dorsett's biography is the best of the bunch. --John Foxe 18:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Financial success denied! But why?
It's unfortunate that such a concerted effort is being made to hide the fact of Sunday's financial success. Not only did he raise huge sums of money for the cause, but he accepted very large (and perfectly legal and moral)personal gifts. One example is the new $8,000 Cadillac given as a personal gift at a time when skilled industrial workers labored for an entire year to earn less than $1,000. These efforts to conceal the truth, for whatever reason, give the article a clear POV in violation of Wikipedia policy.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with such a gifted and successful evangelist being financially successful and Sunday could have made more money as a baseball player. He obviously didn't evangelize for the love of money and I'm unaware of any hint of financial misconduct.Sermonizer 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Trust me. There will be no attempt at hiding Sunday's financial success if I have any say in the matter. If you give me a chance, I'll spell it out in detail--and with citations. What we were talking about earlier was his wealth at death, which is a different matter entirely.--John Foxe 21:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Conversion date uncertain
The date of Sunday's conversion is uncertain. He generally referred to it without any specific date, but when he used particular baseball games as part of the story, those games were in 1885, 1886, and/or 1887. The evidence seems to indicate that the conversion was most likely in 1887. See the extensive discussion in Knickerbocker's book, p. 80-89. A very perceptive description of Sunday's conversion may be found in Firstenberger, p. 17-20.--Rocketj4 22:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another note: Dorsett isn't entirely correct when he said that Sunday's conversion was noted in the newspapers. Contemporary newspapers in Chicago and elsewhere did begin to comment on his religious activities, but not right away. Unfortunately, there are no newspaper references to his conversion experience; if there were, then this discussion would be moot.--Rocketj4 19:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Baseball career recap
I have tried to round out the description of Sunday's baseball career, to include the information that baseball fans usually look for in career recaps.--Rocketj4 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, although as you can probably tell, I don't know much about baseball. --John Foxe 20:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't mean to be picky, but...Sunday's all-around good play was as important to the Pittsburgh fans as his stolen bases, and the strike-created league wasn't simply a competing organization. (Baseball clubs are referred to as organizations; leagues are a bigger deal.)--Rocketj4 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Even more nit-picking....in the complicated world of baseball finances, even back then, it matters that the team had no cash for payroll and that a trade involved cash; teams can have money but still badly need cash. Also, most baseball readers and writers don't refer to teams so formally as to use "it" instead of "they." Sorry--just tweaking that section to read the way baseball historians and fans would expect.--Rocketj4 18:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the corrections--and for rewording the sentence to make it grammatical as well as acceptable to sports fans. My feeling was that the "all-around good play" business was null for vagueness, but having taken a look at Knickerbocker, I'm satisfied.--John Foxe 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Another small change...I put the Marshalltown-Des Moines game back in the text, instead of tucked off in a note. It seems to me that Sunday's having been instrumental in an event that not only was of major social importance in Iowa in those days but also garnered as much press coverage as any of his early revivals is worth as much space as the fact that J. Wilbur Chapman had a doctorate. "Our" article is under consideration to be added to the Wiki basball project. Sunday belongs there, as an important character in the game's early days and also because baseball was a major part of Sunday's life. Let's have the article's baseball portion be as well developed as the rest of the piece.--Rocketj4 18:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree.--John Foxe 19:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Showing Sunday as more than one-dimensional
Again, I must protest tucking some of my additions into footnotes. I think it is as interesting that Sunday played for both teams in a pickup baseball game in rural Iowa as that Bob Jones thought Sunday was a poor speaker. A great deal of Sunday's popularity was due to the fact that he was not a one-dimensional evangelist--that he had an active life in an enormously popular venue (baseball) and that he understood intimately the attractions of popular culture. I know those details seem trivial to you, but I submit that portraying Sunday in all his dimensions by no means trivializes his stature.--Rocketj4 21:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly willing to put Bob Jones in a footnote if you'll do the same for the baseball stuff.--John Foxe 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will defer to your judgment about whether or not Bob Jones belongs in a footnote. I was hoping you might grant me the same respect. In other words, since this piece is going to be a lengthy one, let's treat each other(and others who might add information) with collegial respect. Our assumptions should be that we are serious, that we want to increase general knowledge about Billy Sunday, and that we want to produce a worthwhile and authoritative short biography of the man.

That having been said, I repeat, Sunday was not a one-dimensional evangelist, and much of his popularity during his lifetime was due to that fact. Had baseball not been an important and integral part of his life, then he would have been a very different preacher. Consequently, there should be a fair amount of textual space afforded to that aspect of his life and his ministry. (I suspect that he mentioned baseball in at least 80% of his sermons.) I don't think I have inserted too much material relating to baseball, at least if one looks at the word count. --Rocketj4 22:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with an emphasis on Billy Sunday and baseball. What I find out of place is the use of quotations more appropriate to a journal article than an encyclopedia entry. I've tried to avoid that.  It's great to say that Billy Sunday used his baseball experience as a public relations device, but the quotations from the Garner newspaper, etc. belong in the footnotes just like the material on Cap Anson's aunt.--John Foxe 23:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree. (For the record, I am not the one who inserted the material on Cap Anson's aunt.) However, I do think judicial use of quotes will enhance this piece. For example, you used one of my favorite Sunday quotes (when he says he became a Presbyterian because he was hot on the trail of Nell), and it is useful because it illustrates Sunday's personality in a way that expository prose cannot. In the same manner, I think the Garner newspaper quote is useful, because it illustrates how Midwesterners viewed Sunday before he became a well-known evangelist in a way that expository prose would not. So, in my opinion there is room and value for both of those quotes. (By the way, how do you pronounce "tomato"?)--Rocketj4 23:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll agree to disagree with you about those Garner quotes. There's a legal maxim, "De minimis non curat lex," usually translated as "The law is not concerned with trifles." But I think a better translation is "Don't sweat the small stuff."
 * You did get me thinking about Sunday mentioning "baseball in at least 80% of his sermons." You know, if you have some way of documenting that, it should be included in the text.
 * Although most of my immediate ancestors are immigrants from eastern Europe, you and I pronounce "tomato" the same way.--John Foxe 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm-don't know if could document it--probably not. But, for a quick summary of how much baseball was part of his revivals, see Rodeheaver, 88,90,133-4. Of course his conversion story included baseball, so every talk that included that story included baseball, and he has baseball anecdotes in 2 of his stock sermons, his talk to men and "The Devil's boomerangs/Hot cakes off the griddle." I don't think baseball is in the "Booze" sermon, although he often referred to famous players whose lives and careers were shortened by booze. He did continue to umpire minor league games and appear in charity games right into the 1930s, and in each city that he did that he would talk baseball on the day of the event. He was also asked by popular magazines (Cosmopolitan, Saturday Evening Post) to comment on baseball, which he did. His first "book" was "Burning Truths from Billy's Bat." Baseball was a big deal in American culture in the 1920s, so it helped Billy's cause to refer to it in his talks. Baseball was just integral to who he was--hence my guess that 80% of his talks included some mention of baseball.--Rocketj4 20:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It simply can't be correct
The assetion that Sunday preached face-to-face with 100,000,000 simply can't be true, even thought it is accompanied by a reference. In 1910, the total population of the entire country was only 92 million. For the first 12 years of his career, Sunday spoke to communities mainly in a couple of states. For perhaps 12 more years he often preached in cities. That brouight him to 1920, at which point his career was alreading fading. In the absence of come convincing evidence, the 100 million figure should be deleted. Incidentally, this outlandish assertion should cast doubt on the credibility of the reference source itself.Improbably 23:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course Sunday did not preach to 100 million different individuals but to many of the same people over and over again during a campaign. Before his death, Sunday estimated that he had preached nearly 20,000 sermons, an average of 42 per month from 1896 to 1935. During his heyday, when Sunday was preaching say, twenty times a week, his crowds were huge. Firstenberg estimates just the number of people who "hit the sawdust trail" at 1,250,000. By the way, Firstenberg as well as Dorsett's biography gives the 100 million figure.  In the face of two scholarly biographers, the burden's on you to prove this improbable statistic wrong.--John Foxe 15:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging that this incredible statistic is "improbable." However the place to note that it is questionable is in the article itself.Improbably 18:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because something's improbable doesn't make it incorrect. The statistics to prove it are there.  For instance, well into Sunday's decline, his six-week 1923 Columbia, South Carolina campaign had 479,300 people in attendance at 79 meetings.  That number was 23 times the white population of Columbia--and nearly 1/200th of those 100 million.  Rather than trying to back away from the statistic, I'll try to emphasize it more in the article.--John Foxe 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just read this page for the first time, and I, too, was struck by the improbability of the 100 million figure. Not primarily because of the population of the United States in the era 1896-1935, but simply because Sunday claimed (accurately, one assumes), that he'd preached 20,000 sermons in his lifetime. To have reached 100 million people over this period, his average audience size would have been 5,000. Is this possible---remembering that for many of his earliest sermons it would have been far less? Perhaps. It's certainly a number that could be proved either to be plausible or implausible, by someone willing to look.

Another related issue is this: Only about a million individuals are supposed to have "hit the sawdust trail." The implication is that only 1 percent of Sunday's listeners came down to the front. This strikes me as being a far smaller percentage than I would have assumed---particularly as there was no restriction on renewing one's faith by coming down to the front at such meetings. La revanche des aubergines (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dorsett (92-93) has a sample list of trailhitters from 1915-17. More than a third of that million is accounted for just from that sample, just those for years, without considering side trips and stops between major engagements during the period.--John Foxe (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe too long??
With all due respect, this piece seems somewhat too long and involved for an entry in a nonspecialized encyclopedia. The piece is now about 5000 words, and you aren't finished. The entry for Sunday's contemporary, William Jennings Bryan, is only 3500 words. (Word counts for both are text only, not introductions, notes, and bibliographies.) Maybe you might consider some summary arguments and judicious pruning? --Rocketj4 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about the length. The article on Fawn M. Brodie (biographer of Joseph Smith and Thomas Jefferson), which I wrote earlier, is 39K, and it's an official Wikipedia "good article" even though Brodie is a far less significant figure than Sunday or (especially) Bryan.  Of course, that doesn't mean that "Billy Sunday" can't be pruned. Cutting the unnecessary is a virtue.--John Foxe 14:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Some summarization of your discussion of his religious views might also help to avoid POV tags, too. I don't think either Sunday's fundamentalism or his knowledge of the Bible is in question, or even unique in any particular way. But that's only my opinion.--Rocketj4 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In the next paragraph, I'll question Sunday's fundamentalist credentials. On the other hand, if there's no question about his religious views, then my discussion of them can't be POV. --John Foxe 14:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

In my (never humble) opinion, it's a POV issue because.....you are the only one who cares how fundamentalist he was. The general reading public understands that he was a fundamentalist, and the depth and rigor of his fundamentalism wasn't important to him, so is such a discussion necessary in this venue? I submit that it's a POV.--Rocketj4 15:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sunday's appeal
One of the unusual features of Sunday's revivals was the high percentage of men who attended, and many contemporary commentators remarked on that. (Bruce Barton, 1913: "no other evangelist can number a larger proportion of men than women on his convert rolls.") A large part of his success was due to the fact that he did not discuss theology; instead, he talked about personal salvation, using the popular vernacular. He used Biblical stories, not exegesis, and he used alliteration and slang, not rhetoric. In other words, in the eyes of the American public, he was not an egghead or a prissy preacher--he was a man's man and he knew how to talk to ordinary people. (Yes, this is how his baseball background and his use of baseball anecdotes and imagery enhanced his ministry, but that's not the subject of this particular rant.) His sermons would have been out of place in a church, but they worked just fine in auditoriums and concert halls, and tabernacles. From Literary Digest, 1916: "other preachers have said the same things before, but never in the same way--the way that the highbrow, lowbrow, or middlebrow all can understand. He has gone out to the people, found them where they are, and delivered his message in terms they could grasp." I'm having trouble recognizing that guy in this article.--68.238.56.79 15:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. (Martin's book, "Hero of the Heartland"," covers Sunday's appeal in depth.)--68.238.56.79 15:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Oops--I imagine everyone knew it was me, but I forgot to sign the above.--Rocketj4 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've heard this tale before, but I don't think it's based on any hard evidence. I don't believe Barton.  Not that Sunday didn't attract men, but that other evangelists didn't.  I'd bet that Edwards, Whitefield, Finney, Moody, and Chapman all attracted more men than women.  But I wouldn't know how to go about proving that thesis.--John Foxe 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, given the times and social conditions (not to mention denomination and geography), I'm sure Edwards and Whitefield spoke to many more men than women. Studies of the revivals and camp meetings of the early Methodists and Baptists often discuss the prevalence of women; those conditions are often regarded as the foreunner of the womens' rights movement in the 1840s. Finney employed his wife to speak to the crowds of women; one reason was so he could try to reach more men. As for Moody and Chapman, given their times and social conditions, I suspect there were at least as many, and probably more, women in their audiences than men, except of course when Moody spoke to the YMCAs. There are quite a few studies of gender in revivalism out there in the academic literature; the data is as hard as any other data on revivals. A quick check of the Library of Congress catalog gives this book: Women of awakenings : the historic contribution of women to revival movements / Lewis and Betty Drummond. Grand Rapids, MI : Kregel Publications, c1997. There are monograph studies of revival participation; I just didn't take the time to search farther. Try your preferred index to the journal literature; the studies are there. Not that men didn't participate; they did, and most wholeheartedly. But apparently women attended in greater numbers.--Rocketj4 12:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Take a look also at studies of the "muscular Christianity" movement of the turn of the century-early 20th century (Sunday's time period). Much of the impetus of the movement came from the general feeling that religion had become feminized and the province of women; the movement would, it was hoped, regain religion as a male sphere.--Rocketj4 12:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem accepting that more women participated in late-nineteenth century than in early-nineteenth century revivals or that there was a lot of flabby talk about "muscular Christianity" (mostly among Social Gospelers) at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
 * But what Barton says is that "no other evangelist can number a larger proportion of men than women on his convert rolls". I don't believe it; and so far as I know, there is no evidence to prove such a statement. I would argue (on the basis of no evidence whatsoever beyond the anecdotal) that all the major eighteenth and nineteenth-century revivalists had more male than female converts. Billy Sunday would therefore be the continuation of a trend rather than an exception to it.--John Foxe 15:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll agree that the gender of revival converts may be arguable, but church membership, or conversions that "stuck," isn't. One citation found quickly at hand: From "One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society," Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman, New York: Harmony Books, 1993 (a statistics-based study, which is historical as well as contemporary) p. 210: "The lay and professional literature has consistently shown what ministers and parishioners have observed: that women are more likely than men to join religious organizations and participate actively." p. 211: "Participation in churches has ALWAYS BEEN [emphasis mine] lower for men in all major Protestant and Catholic denominations in America."--Rocketj4 17:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. But joining religious organizations and participating in them doesn't necessitate a conversion experience; and of course, this constant female interest in religion has no bearing on the gender ratio of conversions that occurred during meetings held by such evangelists as Whitefield and Moody.--John Foxe 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Softpedaling his critics?
While it's true that Sunday had bipartisan critics, surely the opinions of "wealthy society women" aren't in quite the same league (or sphere of influence) as John Reed or Upton Sinclair. Socialist (gasp!) those gentlemen may have been, but nevertheless they were serious social commentators as well as intellectuals, widely read and respected even though (equally?) widely disagreed-with. Reed and Sinclair were journalists; the afore-mentioned women were writers of letters to the editor. Not exactly comparable.--Rocketj4 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See if you like this version better. An unusual number of Sunday's critics were socialists.  I think they may have been truly concerned that Sunday's goods might sell better in the proletarian marketplace than theirs.--John Foxe 10:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Religious views
I've made some reversions to the religious views section. As you said earlier, they're important to me. But there's another consideration as well. Billy Sunday is hardly memorialized anywhere today: a plaque at his Iowa birthplace, a memorial church, his home in Winona Lake. So far as I know, no religious denomination or religious school has a building, scholarship, or ministry that honors him. Bob Jones University has a dorm named for his wife. My guess is that Sunday doesn't quite fit anywhere today, and that's in part because his fundamentalist doctrine was combined with a live-and-let-live attitude toward certain non-believers.--John Foxe 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He is memorialized actively and well in Winona Lake; they are very proud of him there. He is still very popular throughout the Midwest. But I guess you're right about no religious memorials (unless Grace Bible College in Winona Lake has something--you could check). As to the section on his religious views: I would be surprised if he ever once said, wrote, or maybe even heard the phrase "substitutionary atonement." That isn't to say he didn't believe it. I was trying to make that section more accessible to the average Wikipedia reader, who (I'm guessing) will not be familiar with some of your language. I wasn't trying to misrepresent Sunday's beliefs--only to render them in terms more widely recognizible. I know a lot more about religious and social history than I do about theology, so perhaps you're right that Sunday doesn't fit well (theologically) anywhere today. Rest assured, though, his importance in American religious and social history is unquestionable.--Rocketj4 22:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You've noted two things that need to be checked: 1. Would Sunday's theology have been sophisticated enough for him to have mentioned or "even heard" phrases like "substitutionary atonement"? 2. What sort of memorials are there to Sunday out there? Both of these questions might be worth at least a footnote's notice. I'll see what I can find.--John Foxe 15:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've now taken a long look at Anderson's dissertation, and I'm impressed with the relative sophistication of Sunday's theology. Here's a quotation about substitutionary atonement from his New York City campaign: "Jesus became [the sinner's] security; Jesus took his place on the cross, and God let you escape the curse of the Law by your acceptance of Jesus as your substitute.  He took your place and if you turn your back on Jesus Christ you will be eternally damned." "Isaiah 43: 10," 8.  I left just a citation to Anderson in the article.--John Foxe 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never questioned Sunday's belief in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, nor that he preached that Jesus died for our sins. What I question is whether he ever used the phrase. However complex his beliefs may have been, his explication and preaching of them were not. He did not employ, nor do I think he was much exposed to, theological discussion on the level where "substitutionary atonement" was used instead of "Jesus died for you and me." He was not a seminarian, nor did he spend much time with seminary or academic theologians. I would prefer that an article for a general encyclopedia reflect that, with use of appropriate language. I continue to believe that emphasizing theological distinctions over presenting the man in the context in which he lived and preached is a POV, and consequently the article will deserve that label.--Rocketj4 17:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

One small piece of evidence for the argument that Sunday's credentials as a fundamentalist were not of great importance to him: when William Jennings Bryan invited him to participate in the Scopes trial, Sunday declined. (McLaughlin, p. 310: "Sunday took no part in the Scopes trial to help his friend Bryan. See New York Times, July 4, 1925, p. 2.) The Scopes trial was a highly visible battleground for the theological wars of the 1920s, and his absence from the fray strongly suggests that he did not identify himself as a soldier in the fundamentalist army. There seems to me no doubt that his beliefs were Fundamentalist; however, in his ministry he did not confine himself to any particular theological arena.--64.222.210.107 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)--Rocketj4 17:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don’t understand why, if Sunday understood, believed in, and preached substitutionary atonement, it should be inappropriate to use that term. He even says on the evangelistic platform, “God let you escape the curse of the Law by your acceptance of Jesus as your substitute.” One of the benefits of an on-line source like Wikipedia is that if a reader doesn’t know a technical phrase, the explanation is (at least, hopefully) just a click away.


 * As for Sunday’s non-participation in the Scopes Trial, I have a different take. Once we get past the fact that 1925 wasn’t a particularly good year for either Billy’s or Nell’s health, I think that Sunday, who posed as the aw-shucks rube, had more prescience about what was going to happen at Dayton than the better educated Bryan.  In fact, it should not have been difficult to imagine what might occur if a number of university professors and New York lawyers took on a former baseball player.


 * You make me wonder if my attempt to explain Sunday’s religious beliefs is unclear. I thought I was making just your point: that while Sunday's theology was fundamentalist, his practice and associations weren't necessarily.--John Foxe 20:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that maybe I've gotten lost in the trees and can no longer see the forest. Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that if someone who had been to a Sunday revival read this article, that person wouldn't recognize the preacher he or she heard. If that's so, then that bothers me. But maybe I'm mistaken. If I can manage to do it, I think I'll refrain from any more commentary and defer to others out there in Wikipedia-land. Anybody else care to chime in?--Rocketj4 22:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review
Overall this is a very good article... the most important thing is to increase the introduction. you have a 37KB article, but only one sentence in the introduction. Get that to 3-4 paragraphs, fix the sentence with Anson, get rid of some of the POV/OR statements and I'll pass this as a GA... the others bullets are up to debate.Balloonman 03:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The intro section needs to be expanded. It should be 3-4 paragraphs in length.
 * "he was much better educated than the typical American."[2] The citation doesn't seem to fit the quote, is it correct? Also, what does it mean?
 * "Sunday's professional baseball career was launched by Adrian "Cap" Anson, a Marshalltown native and future Hall-of-Famer, after he was given an enthusiastic account of Sunday's prowess by his aunt, an avid fan of the Marshalltown team." This sentence needs a lot of work on it. It is very difficult to follow whose aunt Anson or Sunday... who was the future hall of famer Anson/Sunday.  I am pretty sure I know the answers, but it needs to be cleaned up.
 * "Sunday struck out four times in his first game, a major league record, " Is it still a record? Or only at the time?
 * "Over his career, Sunday was never a strong hitter: his average was .248 over 499 games, about the median for the 1880s." seems contradictory... wouldn't it be more acurate to say that he was an average hitter than "never a strong hitter?"
 * even though he never placed better than third in the National League in stolen bases---This left we wondering how many total stolen bases he had and possibly where he ranks in all time SB's... not required, but I am left wondering.
 * "bordering on engagements." quotes need to be cited.
 * The stuff about his decendents needs to be cited.
 * I personally don't like how the notes hide the references and external links. I'd like to see them brought to more prominence.  But that's a matter of taste I guess.
 * easy enough to characterize ---true, but it doesn't sound encylopedic.
 * Incredible as it may seem --- POV?
 * I know that you are only putting notes at the end of the paragraphs, but some of the facts need notes when mentioned.
 * "including Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. became a special friend." The period between the Hoover and John is hard to catch... it looks as if John is part of the preceding list.  Can you break it up somehow?
 * "but it is a mystery when the Sundays had time to enjoy it." sounds like OR... needs to be cited or eliminated.

I'll answer for the baseball portion, since I'm primarily responsible for that section. I hope the sentence about Cap Anson is clearer now. As for the four strikeouts in Sunday's first game, I believe it is still a major league record. But it's a dubious record, since it's only for a player's first game and the record was shared by several other players--so I just deleted the statement. I changed the sentence about his hitting stats; hope it's clearer now. The stolen bases number is a little problematic. Stolen bases weren't recorded until 1887, and even then there wasn't an immediate consensus on the criteria for what constituted a steal. Sunday's best number in a season (1890) was 84; the all-time record for stolen bases in a single season is 138. His standing all-time is insignificant, That having been said, however, it's really not all that useful to compare players from different eras with just the numbers, since conditions in the 1880s were vastly different from, say, post WWII. For 19th century players, it seems to me to be most useful to compare players to their peers; hence my notation that Sunday never ranked higher than 3rd in the league. For the record, once SBs began being recorded, Sunday stole 34 bases in 1887, 71 in 1888 (3rd in NL), 47 in 1888 (8th in NL), and 84 in 1890 (3rd in NL). He lost parts of some seasons due to injuries, and I have no doubt that he could have been the league leader in one of those seasons if he hadn't gotten hurt. But that's the way it goes. Anyway, I hope I've answered your questions and given more clarity to the baseball section in the article.--Rocketj4 21:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Review
Ok, I've been questioning my passing of this article for GA ever since I did so... I'm a relatively new inexperienced reviewer. I've also been asked why I passed it based upon some POV concerns. So I've asked for a Good Article Review. Please feel free to join in the discussion Balloonman 03:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Billy Sunday"
Why is there no mention in this article of the fictional novel based loosely on the childhood of Billy Sunday, and on that note, why is that same novel not mentioned in Frederick Jackson Turner's article (he is the second lead character in the novel "Billy Sunday" by Rod Jones, in which he is in the process of writing his famous "The Significance of the Frontier on American History" thesis).

Having read the book, I cannot say that the novel is historically accurate, rational, or flattering in any way. Nevertheless, I feel that this depiction of he and Turner should be recognized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dudemanguy5 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Take a look at footnote #39, in "Social and Polical Views." Hope that will address your concern. Rocketj4 22:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

wording of intro
In 19th-century professional baseball, there were not "minor leagues" as we know them today. Therefore, to say that Sunday was an "outfielder in the Major Leagues" really doesn't say what you mean, in a 19th-century context; it's more appropriate to make the distinction that Sunday played professional baseball, and then in the body of the article identify which league. The leagues that were not part of the baseball's National Agreement were not analagous to the minor leagues of the 20th century, and the number and names of the leagues that are analagous to the 20th century's Majors changed on a regular basis until about 1891, when there was just one. In summary, it's more accurate to leave the wording as it was. --Rocketj4 22:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There were most certainly minor leagues in the 19th century (for one thing, there were a few black players in the minors, but virtually none in the majors), including the International League, Southern League, New England League, Western League, etc., and they were clearly subordinate to the NL, American Association, Players League, etc. It's standard in article intros for major leaguers to note that they played in Major League Baseball; to simply say they played professional baseball suggests that they never reached the majors. MisfitToys 01:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Minor leagues" are essentially training leagues--in the 20th century, completely so, which is why they are owned by major league teams. The leagues you cite were not regarded by anyone as training leagues. The level of play, and most certainly the level of pay, was not as competitive as the National League, the Union Association, the American Association, or the Players League, but the other leagues weren't regarded as "farm teams" as we regard minor leagues today: they were simply competing leagues. Nor were the terms "minor league" or "major league" employed in those days. Finally, since the organization "Major League Baseball" didn't exist in the 19th century, the term shouldn't be capitalized when used for 19th-century baseball. If that's the standard for wiki intros, so be it, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't an accurate description. --Rocketj4 12:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I support Rocketj4 here to the extent of my limited knowledge about baseball and my greater knowledge of capitalization and syntax.--John Foxe 13:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Minor league teams did not begin to be owned by major league clubs until the 1930s, but were nonetheless regarded throughout the 1880s and 1890s as developing talent for the majors; the only difference was that minor league owners would hold onto players until they got the best offer, rather than simply feeding them to a parent club. The notion that the New England League was "competing" with the NL in the late 1880s is rather nonsensical. By your definition, we'd have to treat the AL/NL as being essentially competitive with the Eastern League and American Association until the 1930s, which is somewhat ludicrous. Major League Baseball, by a 1969 ruling, encompasses the entire history of the six recognized major leagues beginning with the NL in 1876, regardless of whether they were formed prior to the formal incorporation of Major League Baseball as a separate entity. MisfitToys 23:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Among historians of 19th-century baseball, there is a fair amount of disagreement about which leagues should be recognized as "major." (MLB to the contrary, notwithstanding its legal monopoly.) If you take a careful look at professional baseball's history, and at the criteria upon which the afore-mentioned disagreement is based,  you'll note that the distinguishing characteristic of what constitutes a "major" league has always been, unfortunately......money. The New England League couldn't compete with the National League, because (even then) the National League could keep the New England League from having a team in Boston. But that's beside the point. What's relevant to the discussion here is that players were not scouted by Boston and then signed on to play for Lowell or Portland until their skills were developed--meaning the New England League was not a "minor league" in the way we define minor and major leagues today. It was another league--not so rich, not so structured, but still an independent league. There were teams in the19th-century American Association and National League that were not as good (or as long-lasting) as teams in the New England League--but they were in the NL or AA because the powerful businessmen of those leagues wanted to "own" those cities. (The Buffalo team owned by the players Deacon White and Jack Rowe might be seen as a case in point.) What I'm trying to say is that while it is meaningful to a contemporary audience to use the terms "major league" and "minor league," those are 20th-century concepts not really applicable to 19th-century baseball. But then, what we were really arguing about here was the wording of the introduction to the article. I do understand that the edited version tells modern readers right up front that Sunday played at the highest level of professional baseball, whereas in the original version a reader wouldn't know that Sunday was in the venerable National League until/if he/she read the full text. And it is important that the reader get that information in the lead-in to the article. I guess I would enter the plea that, for historical accuracy, the sentence read "a popular outfielder in baseball's National League during the 1880s" instead of "a popular outfielder in Major League Baseball during the 1880s." I recognize the importance of some consistency in wikipedia articles, and I welcome your copyediting efforts. Therefore, I will try to exercise some self-discipline, and I'll try to refrain from editing your revisions.--Rocketj4
 * I think that's a fair revision; it's also standard policy to state the person's nationality and occupations immediately, and I'll revise that back as well. MisfitToys 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

evolutionary theory and religious liberalism
From article: "Sunday often rubbed against the grain of his audiences by preaching against the rising tide of religious liberalism and evolutionary theory,[40] as well as against dancing, gambling, and other popular middle-class amusements."

This sentence has a citation. However, it does not fit with what I have read. Is this an accurate summary of the references? Or is the "rubbed against the grain of his audiences" OR or POV? Seems POV to me, considering what is written about Billy Sunday in Edward J. Larson's pulitzer prize winning history book "The Scopes Trial and America's Continueing Debate Over Science and Religion."

This book, on page 28, states..."Popular evangelist Billy Sunday, for example, repeatedly linked eugenics with teaching of evolution during his 1925 Memphis crusade, which coincided with legislative consideration of the Tennessee anti-evolution bill. 'Let your scientific consolation enter a room where the mother has lost her child. Try your doctrine of survival of the fittest,' Sunday proclaimed at one point.  'And when you have gotten through with your scientific, philosophical, psychological, eugenic, social service, evolution, protoplasm and fortuitous concurrence of atoms, if she is not crazed by it, I will go to her and after one-half hour of prayer and the reading of the Scripture promises, the tears will be wiped away.'"

Why was Billy Sunday so popular, if he was rubbing against the grain of his audiences? It doesn't make sense, and is not supported by a RS (Larson). In fact, the reference is citing Larson, but Larson does not, anywhere that I have read, portray Billy Sunday as rubbing his audiences the wrong way; on the contrary, Billy Sunday would get his audiences motivated against evolution with such talk. Consequently, it appears that the citation is a mischaracterization of Billy Sunday. ImprobabilityDrive 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, on page 54 of "The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion", Larson writes "...but no fundamentalist of the twenties could match Sunday's ability to draw a crowd and win converts." (You don't win converts by rubbing them the wrong way.)  Consequently, it appears that the statement in the article citing Larson is a mischaracterization.  ImprobabilityDrive 04:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I have removed the offending phrase.--John Foxe 12:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ??Maybe I don't understand Improbablity's question here, but by my reading, he didn't like the phrase "rubbbed against the grain of his audiences," which remains in the article. I also don't think he upset his audiences in the manner suggested by that statement, and I'd be happier with a more substantive fix. I'll try to give one.Rocketj4 14:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, your change seems reasonable; however, I did not have the sources referenced. (But, as I said, it seems strange that you would gain so much of a following by rubbing your audience the wrong way.)  ImprobabilityDrive 09:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Did Billy Sunday really support sex education in the public schools?
I added a Fact to this statement because it seems extraordinary. ImprobabilityDrive 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if Sunday did (at least once somewhere) advocate sex education in public schools (on one occasion he suggested that a segregated vice district was preferable to outlawing prostitution), but I can't find it in either McLoughlin or Dorsett, so I've deleted it.
 * I've also tweaked some of the syntax and added citations from McLoughlin to replace those of Larson.--John Foxe 18:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with McLoughlin, but replacing Larson seems extreme, since Larson seems to be a reliable and neutral source. I added back the footnote, without changing the text of the article, since the "bridge" matches Larson's obersvations in the citation provided.  ImprobabilityDrive 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You might notice that I've adjusted the notes a little, to be more accurate. The Larson note is combined with references to McLoughlin and Firstenberger, all of which support the point. About sex education ... Firstenberger, p. 66, states that Sunday supported sex education, but without any implication that it should be in public schools. His talks to men and women clearly stated that he thought young men and women, especially women, ought to know what trouble they could get into. But it's tricky to explain who (and when) he thought should have sex education, so it's better, I think, to just skip it. Rocketj4 21:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The larson change looiks good to me. If Firstenberger says he supported Sex Education, was the implication through the schools or via parents?  If the implication is through the schools, I guess I don't have much of a problem, though what he meant by Sex Education then and what I understand Sex Education to be now are probably two different things.  If you have a reference, though, I would not challenge it.  ImprobabilityDrive 00:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Firstenberger, Sunday used several contemporary books to deliver his "sex" talks to men and women. The talks seemed to be very successful and then Sunday supported having something similar in the public schools. I'm sure the books Sunday used are not something we would recognize today in a sex education class. If you're curious, though, Firstenberger does list some of them.--Rocketj4 10:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sunday and the Klan
Although I have the highest respect for Larson—in fact I consider his Summer for the Gods the best book written on Scopes—he is not an expert on Sunday. I've left the "unofficial Klan night" in the footnote, but I'm somewhat skeptical. McLoughlin asked Nell Sunday about the Klan specifically, and she recalled the them attending "in a body once...but I do not know where."(275)--John Foxe 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstenberger, p. 30, says a dozen members attended a rally in full regalia in Richmond, IN on 5/14/22 and gave Sunday a check. Two other instances of Klan support are also noted there.Rocketj4 10:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * McLoughlin suggested that Mrs. Sunday was remembering an event in either Tulsa, Oklahoma; Portland, Oregon; or Richmond, Indiana because "these cities contained particularly active and prominent Klan branches in the early 1920s."(275)--John Foxe 12:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

copy editing
Civil Engineer III has done a fine job of copyediting this article. Without reflecting on his effort in any way, I have made a few reversions both for clarification and to dewikify a few common terms.--John Foxe 15:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Criticism of Sunday
I've moved some of this recently added material into the article proper, including adding some quotations to the footnotes and deleting other material from unknown opponents who were just venting. I take a dim view of tossing undigested materials from a web search into a well-crafted article. If there's reason to add more critical material about Sunday, it should be done with some thought to style and literary grace.

Besides, there's no sensible reason for a section header called "Contemporary Criticism of Sunday" unless there's also a section called "Contemporary Praise for Sunday"--or for that matter, "Recent Criticism of Sunday."--John Foxe 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The appropriate response would be to add that material, not to delete mine. Or, more to the point, say that the section has point-of-view problems, retitle it as "Contemporary Views of Sunday," and add balancing material. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the criticism of Sunday during his own time is important to a full view of his ministry. The Lindsay Denison article in particular was widely read and discussed. Probably the article as it was sounded a little too boosterish, for a man who garnered passionate interest, both supportive and condemning. I am on record in the earlier sections of this discussion as being of the opinion that the article needed to consider Sunday's preaching in as much depth as his theology. It was as a very popular preacher, not a thinker, lecturer, or social commentator, that Sunday made his mark. I do agree that it is better to incorporate what Sunday's contemporaries thought of him into the existing article rather than adding a new section onto the end. Some thoughtful rewriting will probably enhance the article.Rocketj4 13:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for thoughtful writing. There's just no need for a separate section called "contemporary criticism"; and any long quotations should be consigned to the footnotes.--John Foxe 15:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you've gone way too far... although as long as the material is in the footnotes I don't object too much. But, for example, you say "In messages attacking sexual sin to groups of men only, Sunday could be graphic for the era," but in fact Bett's objection was that 'The sermon on amusements was preached three times, to mixed audience of men and women, boys and girls. If the sermons to women had been preached to married women, if the sermons to men had been preached to mature men, if the sermon on amusements had been preached to grown folks, there might have been an excuse for them, and perhaps good from them.'" In other words, your summary completely fails to present Betts' issue. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we'd need some quotations from Sunday's sermon to judge whether Bett's was exaggerating about the "graphic" nature of Sunday's message on "Amusements."
 * Unfortunately, the texts of Sunday's sermons, as recorded and published in print, are sufficiently divergent from the descriptions of them by his contemporaries that I have to at least wonder whether they haven't been tidied up. I just don't find it credible that grown men fainted and were taken to the hospital after hearing this. In the same way, I doubt that Carl Sandburg, when speaking of Sunday, used the word "bunkshooter." But short of time travel I don't think there's any way to find out. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess is that Betts is simply annoyed and using a rhetorical weapon suitable for the era—one in which the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the right of railroads to run segregated (in both senses) "ladies' cars."
 * I've re-added the Lindsay Denison quote with some comments from McLoughlin just as an example of what can be done with some of this material. I'm not even sure Sunday's emphasis on hell was exceptional for the period—although he used the word more flippantly than did most of his contemporaries.--John Foxe 17:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dpbsmith is saying that Betts' objection was more to the fact that the audiences were mixed than that the sermons were graphic. Betts objected to sex talks being "preached three times, to mixed audience of men and women, boys and girls." Quotes from the sermon aren't relevant to that objection, and Betts was entitled to be annoyed, or to hold any other kind of opinion. I do think a thoughtful addition of contemporary views of Sunday will add to the piece; and those views will be critical as well as admiring. He wasn't the kind of guy that people were indifferent to.--Rocketj4 22:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Betts was being disingenuous. He was seeking a weapon—any convenient weapon—to attack Sunday, especially something that might play well in Syracuse and Boston. If Sunday's talk about sex to mixed audiences had been truly offensive for the period, there would have been complaints from evangelicals and the businessmen who put up the seed money for his campaigns. The fascinating thing about Betts is not his loathing of Sunday, which should be expected, but his frustration that other educated men won't see things his way.  For instance, this passage:
 * "Mr. Sunday has been away from Syracuse over a month, and even now one must be very guarded when and where he makes any comment on his work, in any spirit of criticism and even of fair play. At a public gathering last night I sat next a university professor. He was not a trail hitter.  He has been a church member for years.  He is a clearheaded man.  But we could not possibly compare notes on Mr. Sunday, with open minds. He thinks the good Mr. Sunday does is so great that we ought to accept his faults without criticism.  The remarkable thing is how wide and deep this tide of emotion has run through our city. (40)"
 * A skeptical examination of Sunday is certainly necessary, but so is a skeptical examination of the critics. Betts' attacks on Sunday can't be given a free pass simply because they're critical. We have to ask, "Is the criticism accurate? Is it fair?" For that, we need evidence.--John Foxe 10:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. There are such things as "facts about opinions." It's not Wikipedia's job to judge absolute truth, nor to do original research, but to present accurately and fairly what secondary sources say. If the left-wing critics of Sunday are properly identified as left-wing critics, readers are properly on notice of likely bias. If I quoted too much on one side, it should be brought back into balance. But opinions are not prohibited in articles, only editors'  opinions. The criterion is "verifiability, not truth." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even many of Sunday's admirers, inculding Homer Rodeheaver, complained about Sunday's "sensationalism, commercialsim, and misleading statistics" (McLoughlin 269). John Reed thought Sunday was more ignorant than evil. The prevailing opinion was probably expressed by Betts' professor acquaintance: the genreal public "thinks the good Mr. Sunday does is so great that we ought to accept his faults without criticism." The Wiki article should discuss those three sentences in more depth, I think; criticism of a popular and important public figure can be described in a neutral way, without either agreeing with it or spending a lot of text analyzing the critics' possible motives. I mean no offense, but your quick editing or deletion of material that appears to question Sunday's importance in any way has been the primary reason that I am on record as worrying that this article has a POV problem.--Rocketj4 11:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with criticizing Sunday; I've done some criticizing myself. And I think we agree about Sunday's "importance." What we disagree about is the significance of his critics of the left, many of whom believed (religiously) that the proletariat was being led astray. Rodeheaver did take Sunday to task in that wonderfully illuminating letter of July 3, 1927 (to Mrs. Sunday!), but most of his criticisms are not ones that that resonate with McLoughlin, whom you quote above.  Rodeheaver dislikes Sunday's trend toward "indefinite invitations," his "spirit of dissatisfaction and irritation," his seeming lack of personal interest in the trail hitters, and his berating of crowds over their small offerings.  But Reed to the contrary, Sunday was neither "ignorant" nor "evil," and to stand in the article, Reed's comments would have to be viewed within the context of his own ideology.--John Foxe 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't know that John Reed was a religious man. Sunday's critics on the left included both those on the political left and those on the Christian left; Reed would represent the former, while Betts might represent the latter. And obviously those critics are biased. But there were, as you must know, critics (like Rodeheaver) who were not on the political or religious left who were quite appreciative of Sunday's success as an evangelist at the same time that they were quite bothered by his sensationalism and commercialism, his "rhetoric and demagogic technique" (McLoughlin, 260). Perhaps Woodrow Wilson was one of those. It's not farfetched to assume Wilson was sincere when he asked Sunday not to go overseas in WWI because he could do more good stateside, but also sincere when he said the US had plenty of entertainers overseas and therefore didn't need Sunday. Subtext: Wilson (and many others) viewed Sunday as an entertainer as much as a preacher, but his particular brand of entertainment was not one Wilson wished to send to the troops. That facet of Sunday's revivalism, the showman and commercialism aspects, is important but underdiscussed by us. It accounted for some measure of his success and probably a large measure of the criticism levelled at him from political and religious moderates. --Rocketj4 15:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To continue.....I think John Reed's assessment of Sunday is telling. Reed realized that Sunday wasn't evil because Sunday was a sincere evangelist and not a charlatan. I think Reed understood that for all Sunday's political comments, in the end he was neither a Rockefeller (John D.) Republican nor a Roosevelt (Teddy) Republican; Sunday stumped for and spoke against both businessmen and progressives. I think Reed thought Sunday was ignorant because, although Sunday sincerely cared about working people, Reed thought Sunday acted as if unaware of the effects the actions of his patrons (business leaders) had on the lives of those same people.
 * And that is important because it places Sunday squarely in his times. It's a measure of Sunday's importance in his time that so many other influential people, social, political, and cultural leaders as well as religious leaders, found it necessary to consider his minstry and to comment on him.
 * Here's a quote from Rodeheaver (20 Years, p. 32): "One of these sermons, until he tempered it down a little, had one ten-minute period in it where from two to twelve men fainted and had to be carried out every time I heard him preach it." I guess the sermon was probably fairly graphic.--Rocketj4 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That Rodeheaver quote is in the footnotes, and there's no reason why it shouldn't make its way into the body of the article. Of course, Rodeheaver was talking about the "men's only" meetings—and he was bragging. (I heard him say it with pride on that 1950s-era Bruce Lockerbie film.) Rodeheaver was bothered by a number of things that occurred in Sunday meetings during the 1920s but "sensationalism and commercialism, rhetoric and demagogic technique" were not among them. Those are quotations from McLoughlin with Rodeheaver nowhere in sight. (As for Reed, I was talking about the "religiosity" of socialism.)--John Foxe 18:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Did Billy Sunday really try to shut down Chicago?
Like it says in the Frank Sinatra song:

♪Bet your bottom dolllar that you'll lose blues in Chicago, Chicago. The town that Billy Sunday could not shut down♪

That song is the only way that I know his name, and I believe that's true of every non-evangelical under 80. The song should probably be mentioned in the article's opening. The article indicates he was an advocate of temperance (though, notably, his conversion came about while [and perhaps because] he was drunk).

Sunday no doubt viewed Prohibition as a victory for his cause, and in many towns Prohibition ended "nightlife," or strongly curtailed it. But neither Chicago nor New York were "shut down," as speakeasies sprouted everywhere. Bustter (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded on your talk page.--Rocketj4 (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sunday's race with Latham
According to the Chicago Tribune (Nov. 9, 1885), New York Clipper (Nov. 14, 1885), and Sporting Life (Nov. 18, 1885), Sunday beat Arlie Latham in a foot race by "three yards." By me, that's about ten feet.Rocketj4 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to add that the newspapers are referenced in Knickerbocker's Sunday at the Ballpark, quote from Chicago Tribune on page 47.--Rocketj4 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those primary source references.--John Foxe (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

New Request for Citations
I'll give the references for some of the recent "citation needed" additions. Sunday's early life in Iowa, at the orphanage and then doing odd jobs, can be found in every available biography of Sunday. For a popular account, see chapter 1, "Prairie Days," in "Preacher: Billy Sunday & Big-Time American Evangelism," by Roger Bruns. Or, as I said, in any biography of your choice. As for Sunday's influence on the prohibition movement, that too is oft-referenced. For a couple of encyclopedia entries that are easy for me to quote quickly, see: "American Social Leaders," by William McGuire and Leslie Wheeler, p. 438--"He helped shape public opinion that led to Prohibition." "Dictionary of American Temperance Biography," by Mark Edward Lender, p. 476--"While his precise impact is hard to judge, many contemporaries were convinced that the popular evangelist was of crucial importance in establishing public support for the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment." That Sunday spent time in an Iowa orphanage, that he had a few jobs before he played professional baseball, and that as a public temperance advocate of almost unrivalled popularity and fame he was a contributer to Prohibition---all seem to me to be common knowledge, not OR by anyone, and not needing citation. But perhaps I'm wrong and that stuff needs to be referenced.

One more, since it's a baseball reference. A reference for the fact that Sunday appeared at the 1935 World Series appears in the obituary for Sunday in "Sporting News" of Nov. 14, 1935, p. 2: "he attended one game of the 1935 World series, but declared himself so disgusted with the umpiring that he stayed away from the remaining contests." (Quoted in "Sunday at the Ballpark: Billy Sunday's Professional Baseball Career, 1883-1890," by Wendy Knickerbocker, p. 156.) --Rocketj4 (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listing those citations here. In my view nothing in the lede needs citation because the material is covered in detail below. But I think it's worth adding the baseball citation.--John Foxe (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

GAR
Due to recent changes to the article, I have nominated the article at good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Amplification and Sunday's high school education
The idea of using the term "electronic amplification" was to exclude Billy Graham, Sunday's only real competitor. You can't have evangelistic campaigns in stadiums until you have electronic amplification. (Even Sunday was on the edge trying to communicate to ten thousand people with only a glorified sounding board.) Obviously radio and television evangelists don't have "crowds" in the traditional sense, and it's always tricky to estimate their listening audience anyway. (If you'd like, we can work Billy Graham into that sentence.)

As for the Dorsett quotation, this is a standard Wikipedia device for citing experts. We assume that a fellow such as Dorsett, who has written a biography of Sunday, is an expert unless he can be effectively challenged by some other expert.--John Foxe (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we say "modern sound systems"? Or "modern stadiums" (stadia if you must)? Or "modern microphones"? I understand your point, but the phrase "electronic amplification" doesn't convey what you want.
 * Your current sentence is better. There may not be a smoother way to phrase it.Rocketj4 (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Dorsett's statement is a classic example of POV. Remember, I like the Dorsett biography; I like Billy Sunday; and I'm inclined toward a biased POV and to portray Sunday in a sympathetic light. But even I think Dorsett's statement, which is unsourced, is too booster-ish. Remember also that the Dorsett biography does not pretend to have a NPOV. I'm going to change that phrase once again. Here is my expert to counteract Dorsett: Robert F. Martin, whose biography is well documented and more recent. P. 8: "He had almost completed a high school education, which many young Americans of his generation lacked." I will put that citation in the footnote. That is a neutral statement; saying Sunday was "much better educated than the typical American" isn't. The language is important--it's language that is neutral or biased, not the facts. Yet the point is equally conveyed in the more neutral statement, being that Sunday was lucky enough to have a good education even though he was poor.--Rocketj4 (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand Wikipedia convention. We can be POV, but authorities like Dorsett or Martin cannot be.  If Dorsett, an authority, says X is true, then X is true for Wikipedia purposes unless his statement can be challenged by some another authority (for instance, a reference to average education level in a history of the late nineteenth century that demonstrates his statement is incorrect.)--John Foxe (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You have more experience with Wikipedia conventions than I do, but if I understand the rules, then if you or I were to cite a history of US education to support Dorsett's opinion then that would be OR (original research), disallowed under Wikipedia's rules. (Perhaps foolishly, but it is a general-interest encyclopedia.) I have to wonder why you prefer Dorsett's opinion so strongly over Martin's; I'm left to assume it's because you think Sunday has to be above-average in every way. Well, he may have been, but perhaps the reader should be left to figure that out for him/herself. Anyway, I'm changing the sentence again back to the NPOV. If I understand Wikipedia rules, if you revert me again that's the third strike and that's against the rules.--Rocketj4 (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, a history of US education to support (or dispute) Dorsett would be fine and dandy by Wikipedia rules (although I'd probably try to make it back to the original census records or whatever). I reiterate that Dorsett's opinion (which does not conflict with Martin's) is authoritative unless you can find another authority who disputes it. But it's a minor point, not worth squabbling about. I'm satisfied with the quotation in the footnotes if you are. Finally, you're mistaken in your belief that I'm an unquestioning partisan of Sunday who believes him "above average in every way."  Actually I'm a supporter of good writing who believes that if you get the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax right, most everything else important will follow; and on the other hand, if you're satisfied with substandard prose, the content will be substandard as well.--John Foxe (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the new footnote for the statement suffices as it includes both sources. I'm going to go through the article again in next day or two and list any issues with POV that I see at the GAR page. That way we can focus on each one and address them accordingly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The footnote is fine with me, too. Thanks for your input.--Rocketj4 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Most Celebrated and Influential Evangelist?
That is a ridiculous statement. For one, a citation would be needed at least, but for two, no such citation could even exist that could prove that Billy Sunday was the most celebrated and influential evangelist, as if the world suddenly came to an agreement on this statement. I'm going to be bold and revise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.80.19 (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably sure that every historian of American religion would agree with the statement that Billy Sunday was indeed the most talked about, most written about, and best known evangelist of his era. His contemporaries and those who followed him continued to talk and write about him, and he continued to be well known. He was a very famous evangelist from 1900-1920, and he is still studied and remembered today; that much is inarguable. I don't want to equate evangelism with popular culture, but consider this: Babe Ruth was the most celebrated and influential baseball player of his time, and today every baseball fan knows who he was, and many non-fans know who he was also. Elvis Presley was the most celebrated and influential rock & roll singer of his time, and today every rock & roll fan knows who he was, and many non-fans know who he was also. In a more important arena, let's say that Martin Luther King, Jr. was the most celebrated and influential civil rights advocate of his time, and today every historian of civil rights knows who he was, and many non-historians know who he was also. To say that Billy Sunday was “the most celebrated and influential American evangelist during the first two decades of the 20th century” places him squarely in his time and place, and in no way implies that the world stopped to take notice of him or that he assumed an importance outside of his time and place.--Rocketj4 (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oregon connection?
Unless I'm missing something, Sunday's connection to Oregon is highly tenuous -- any objections if I remove the WikiProject Oregon tag? -Pete (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the tag should be removed.--John Foxe (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks John. I may have been hasty though: after I left this note, I looked to see who had added the tag to begin with; it was, who is one of WikiProject Oregon's longest standing editors, and has lived her whole life in the state. And she's on wikibreak. I'm guessing she added it with some knowledge of his impact on the state, which is perhaps not fully drawn out in the article. So I'm thinking it does no harm to leave it. -Pete (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, if someone knowledgeable thinks it worthy, that's fine with me too.--John Foxe (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think his presence in Hood River was important to local residents, since he was a national celebrity. He purchased his home there in 1909, and it was the Sundays' vacation home for several years. Sunday developed the property into an apple orchard; the area had many such orchards. After the Sundays bought their home in Winona Lake, IN, in I910 or 1911, they moved from Chicago to Indiana. They continued to vacation in Oregon for several more years, but for progressively shorter times. I don't know when they finally stopped going there, and sold the property, but I'll guess in the mid to late 1920s. So, for Oregonians, he was probably the source of some pride. No harm to leave the tag.Rocketj4 (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sundays named their home in Winona Lake, IN, "Mount Hood," presumably after Oregon's Mount Hood. The town of Hood River is at the foot of the mountain, so it's a reasonable assumption that the Sundays valued their Oregon vacation home enough to commemorate it with the name of their permanent home. Just another piece of evidence to support keeping the Oregon tag.--Rocketj4 (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow this is an old discussion. Yes, I added the WP:ORE tag in 2009(!) when I was researching Odell, Oregon but didn't take the time to work that info into the article. (Hint: What links here?) Annnnd, strangely enough, vindication from Oregon Encyclopedia. That's a wrap. Valfontis (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

More assessment comments
Substituted at 12:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Substituted at 12:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Billy Sunday. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060831152343/http://www.scn.org:80/~davidb/sunday.html to http://www.scn.org/~davidb/sunday.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141022224454/http://www.ameshistory.org/residents_sunday.htm to http://www.ameshistory.org/residents_sunday.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Billy Sunday. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119174411/http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/061.htm to http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/061.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008144641/http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/029.htm to http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/029.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008144513/http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/041.htm to http://www.wheaton.edu/bgc/archives/GUIDES/041.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)