Talk:Craig Breslow

Name Correction
the Boston Red Sox Official site lists his name as Craig Andrew Breslow, not Antonio. 68.215.10.135 14:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Revised it. Tx. --Epeefleche 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Breslow being Jewish
Even with ethnicity, Wiki policy calls for its mention in the opening if it is relevant to the subjects's "notability."

To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia.

That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.   This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to include that fact in the opening paragraph of their bio.

(Query, btw, as well whether one might argue that where a person is included in an ethnicity list on Wiki, as under "Black Jews," their ethnicity is notable.)

Some commentators seem to confuse what is meant by "notable" with their own, non-Wiki definition.

Notability does not mean that they are famous for being of that group.

There are a number of Halls of Fame and list and articles relating to Jewish athletes, for example, I do not think that we have the same for Catholics or Protestants.

"Jewish Sports Legends" is a book that one can find at. The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame Jewishsports.net bios can be found at. Jews in Sports bios can be found at. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame bios can be found at. Jews in the Olympics can be found at and medalists can be found at. The Baltimore Jewish Times runs articles on Jewish athletes:. The Holocaust Museum runs articles on Jewish athletes in the Holocaust: and. "From the Ghetto To The Games: Jewish Athletes in Hungary" focuses on certain Jewish athletes. It is mentions such as these, which are typically reflected in the bios in question, that reflect that the Jewish nature of the person has been noted in articles, etc ... which is what Wiki policy focuses on.

Finally, "categories" are not sufficient. They are not part of the article. If the article is quoted in full, they are not quoted. And, I might add, it is I expect typical for every other "category" information to be reflected in the text of the bio -- It would be highly unusual, if not unique, to only reflect the fact in a category, but not in the text. --Epeefleche 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection
Is it considered notable that Craig received the honor of being "Resurrected", the highest award that one can receive in Global Insights, at Trumbull High? The award grants one "immortality" by being able to put a tombstone depicting a revolutionary individual on the wall. His plaque is still there.
 * ummmm ... I think not .... --Epeefleche 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox linking
I'm took the time this evening to research infobox linking on WP:Baseball and suggest that you look at before again reverting my edit. For an examples see: (1) Hideo Nomo and his 2 stints with the Los Angeles Dodgers, (2) Ken Griffey Jr. and his 2 stints with the Seattle Mariners; or (3) Ricky Bottalico and the Philadelphia Phillies. This talk page deals with with wiki-links in the infobox and the lead. Bob305 (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob -- I don't see consensus support in that second string (the first one, five years old, never heard of wp:overlink) for the notion that you should revert the prior-existing format in the infobox. To link multiple times both the baseball year and the name Boston Red Sox -- both of which are already linked once, directly above, in the same section of the same infobox.


 * The only rationale for that is something that is not agreed to in general in wp principles -- a couple of editors who thought a few years ago that aesthetically it looked better (to them) to link the year, multiple times, in the same infobox. That is a clear violation of wp:overlink.  WP:overlink already received input of those editors who think that multiple linking is aesthetically a good idea -- and rejected it.  And there's nothing specific to baseball in the minority view expressed in the above string.  So this is really a wp:overlink, Project-wide issue.  And, of course, a couple of wayward articles fall into wp:otherstuffexists.


 * And seriously now -- you are yet again reverting the earlier-adopted format in the article, which violates wp:overlink, to edit-war over a format that you personally prefer, on the basis of that string ... which lacks consensus support for your position? Even where there are two acceptable formats, which is not the case here given the above, it's not seen as seemly to edit-war over the format you prefer, where a prior format existed ... look at how we handle dates, for example.  Wastes everyone's time.  Please consider, and self-revert.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that aesthetic reasons (aka Link patchiness) are often used to justify carpet linking. They should not, because it is but one small logical extension to link each and every word. Such use undermines the linking system and makes readers less inclined to follow our links – once a reader has been "led down the garden path" a few times in articles where an article's links send them to subjects where the relationship is tenuous, they are increasingly unlikely to click on these much-abused convenience links. The other side is that if every term is linked, finding the link you want becomes the proverbial needle in the haystack. Fortunately this only really concerns infoboxes, where the worst linking practices are allowed to proliferate unchallenged. Even having said that, and knowing the leeway for overlinking in infoboxes, there is absolutely no consensus for repeat links of the manifestation above. I see no reason why anything should be linked twice within infoboxes. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if infobox text is mostly (or all) blue, it all too easily morphs into just blue-coloured text in association with being inside the box—the assumption that it's a matter of colour-formatting to distinguish it from other text. Readers are more likely to realise that items within an infobox are discreet links when those links are (more) visually discreet. Tony   (talk)  02:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The teams in the infobox should all be linked as that is the general consensus among the wikiproject. The years are a different matter all together as I think many feel that the years shouldn't be linked at all. Spanneraol (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The instant issue -- raised by Bob's multiple reverts -- isn't one of a team being linked once within an infobox. That's in accord with wp:overlink. The instant issue is that of a team (and a year) being linked more than once within the infobox.  Which is not in accord with wp:overlink, as OhC and Tony point out (and isn't a baseball-specific issue, in any event).--Epeefleche (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well all articles have the teams linked in every instance in the team list.. it just looks weird otherwise. Not sure why you are trying to change what has been established for quite some time. And the overlink thing refers to articles not infoboxes.. and it specifically mentions that links may be repeated in infoboxes. Spanneraol (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not the case, AFAIK. As to "it just looks weird otherwise" -- I understand that's your personal view.  I think otherwise.  So do the prior two opining editors.  And overlink certainly refers to all parts of the article -- the lede, the infobox, and the other text ... why would you assert otherwise? That's simply not true. And wp:overlink drives what we do in overlinking instances.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Well all articles have the teams linked in every instance in the team list.. it just looks weird otherwise." – Rubbish: it looks no weirder than a page with the odd word or term linked. And au contraire, there's no requirement that everything be turned blue. "And the overlink thing refers to articles not infoboxes.. and it specifically mentions that links may be repeated in infoboxes. " – Yes, infoboxes have a slightly different dispensation to article text in that their contexts are treated separately from text, so a link in the text doesn't count towards the total when repeated in infoboxes. But that's all. I can't find any such specific permission to "Blue out" the entire infobox, or repeat any links there may be. Maybe it's the product of an over-vivid or fanciful imagination, of seeing what you want to see. ;-) --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Image
Someone may want to put this image in the article ...--Epeefleche (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Live link for footnote 46 (listed as dead)
FYI: Here's a live link for the Footnote 46: http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Red-Sox-player-gives-math-lesson-108472.php

Red-Sox-player-gives-math-lesson

Almadenmike (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Degree
Despite what the linked article suggests, Breslow did not double-major at Yale (unless he got another BA in a completely different discipline). There is a single degree called "Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry." See department here: Samer (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What you link to refers to what Yale offers now; not at the time Breslow attended, or indeed what he majored in. The RS support in the article in contrast indicates that it -- at the time Breslow earned his degree some years ago, and in particular Breslow's major -- was a double major.  We go with RSs, not with individual editor OR.  See WP:SYNTHESIS and Verifiability, not truth.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry Department at Yale was founded in 1969. It's possible that it split and then reformed, but that seems unlikely. I can understand the desire for verifiability. But at what point does citing a likely incorrect "fact" become contrary to the ideal of spreading knowledge? Wouldn't it be better to adopt some neutral language, such as stating that he majored in molecular biophysics and biochemistry, which would be true whether it was a double or single major? Goldfish-silverfish (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Welcome to wp.  If there were only one rs, or a non-solid rs, or it were unclear in how they word it, that might make sense.  But there are a number of top RSs that report it specifically as a double major.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation, which I understand and accept. I notice, though, that Samer and I are not the only ones who are inclined to make this change. Someone seems to have done it again today. With the Red Sox in the World Series and interest in the players high, I suspect that more people who know something about the Yale major will be visiting the page for the first time, and some of those will attempt the edit. I guess that's the nature of Wikipedia. Goldfish-silverfish (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed that a number of editors with very few (if any) prior edits have done that. Sometimes articles are protected from editors with few edits when that happens, and is not supported by wp policy.  You will see here that many, many sources report it as a double major, including mlb.com, which is the official source for baseball articles.  If mlb.com were to be informed otherwise -- by those people -- and change what it reports, I would be happy for us to reflect whatever mlb.com says.  I understand, if it is indeed a mistake of mlb.com and the other sources, that it can be annoying ... but the key is always to get the sources to change what they are reporting.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm one of those low-edit-count wikipedians who came here to correct the double-major inaccuracy. (I majored in MB&B at Yale in 2007.) Although many sports reporting sources indicate that Craig was a double major, I suspect they are all based on the same misconception. This video from MLB.com (http://wapc.mlb.com/play/?content_id=10561995&topic_id=9991168) at 2:19 contains an interview with Joan Steitz, a professor of MB&B at Yale, stating that "I am a professor at the department of Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry, the department that Craig majored in." Later in the video at 2:30, Craig himself then notes that "molecular biophysics and biochemistry would seem to be an atypical major, I think, for a baseball player." There is clearly no indication of a double major, coming both from his former professor and from the man himself. And an article from Yale Alumni Magazine (http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/3259) quotes Craig as saying "Well, I majored in molecular biophysics". If these aren't reputable sources indicating that Craig's major was *not* in fact a double major, then I don't know what, save a snapshot of Craig's diploma, would be! --Gjuggler (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm good with relying on the words of Breslow himself -- the first non-wp:synth argument -- over the RSs.  Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Major at Yale
MB&B is a single major at Yale, not a double-major. Link

All of these news sources got it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comf631 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Youtube video
Should Breslow's appearance in a Youtube parody of Rex Ryan's foot fetish video be included in the article? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You are referring to "He also starred in a parody of Rex Ryan's foot fetish video called "ihaveprettylefthand".

There is no reason to delete it. It is heavily covered. By top-level RSs. Entire articles are devoted to it. Not even a question.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point of having it in. Just because something is sourceable does not make it a requirement to have in an article. Wizardman  00:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Wizard -- of course, there is no requirement that pretty much anything in particular be in an article. If that is the question, we can delete most of the material from most of our articles saying there is no requirement to have it in the article.  The question, perhaps, is whether there is a requirement to delete it--despite the fact that it is heavily covered by top-level RSs--because an editor would not himself have included it, or would not have done so in the RS publications had he authored them.  The way we always get around editor POV is by looking to the RSs.  Otherwise, IDONTLIKEIT prevails, and the fact the person you are interested in won x award gets delete, even though 6 RSs covered it.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm of two minds about this, but, on balance, I think it's fair to put it in the article. It's a lengthy article, so it's not like users will think Breslow is only notable for this appearance. One sentence is sufficient. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  15:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: and http://www.strike3foundation.org/ here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Craig Breslow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090214191918/http://www.twincities.com:80/ci_11691923?source=most_viewed to http://www.twincities.com/ci_11691923?source=most_viewed
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080906173654/http://www.connpost.com/sports/ci_8589276 to http://www.connpost.com/sports/ci_8589276
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090523111516/http://www.twincities.com:80/sports/ci_12411970 to http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_12411970

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

2015-2106 updates
Breslow's timeline from 2012 to present seems a little muddy on this page. Shouldn't the "Boston Red Sox redux" section be updated to "2012-2015" with a new section "4.10 Miami Marlins (2016–present)" with the latest contract there? It's currently under a subsection "2015" which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since the announcement was just made a few days ago. It seems like "2015" should include relevant news about his 2015 season.Pistongrinder (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I made the updates, but the section on Breslow's 2015 season with Boston is sparse. I'll look to add more details.Pistongrinder (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Craig Breslow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100102212607/http://ivyleaguesports.com/article.asp?intID=7110 to http://www.ivyleaguesports.com/article.asp?intID=7110
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080130155119/http://www.newstimes.com:80/ci_8107443?source=most_emailed to http://www.newstimes.com/ci_8107443?source=most_emailed

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Craig Breslow. 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/20130523023358/http://www.sportingnews.com:80/mlb/feed/2010-09/smart-athletes/story/sporting-news-names-the-20-smartest-athletes-in-sports to http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/feed/2010-09/smart-athletes/story/sporting-news-names-the-20-smartest-athletes-in-sports

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) 22:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)