Talk:Flood v. Kuhn

"In its entirety Section I takes up seven pages of the United States Reports.[22]"
This may be a fact, but it seems to be a rather misleading one to me. Far from a detailed essay, Section 1 is only 615 words long, much of it taken up by that list of players' names. A person reading this page would be under the impression that Blackmun undertook a lengthy history lesson, instead of the brief synopsis that the actual text supports.76.108.205.225 (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Within the context of a Supreme Court opinion (at the time, anyway) that was pretty much what it was. Seven pages of Finnegans Wake-esque writing that have absolutely no legal relevance to the case. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern is not the accuracy of the statement or the breach of normal Supreme Court protocol of the time (which I am not disputing). It's the context.  You tell someone that something lasts 7 pages, they're going to think of an essay 4-5 times as long as what was actually written.  Put in context, the section qualifies as brief.  I'm not sure if the "7 pages" should be taken out, or a note put in stating the actual length, but it seems to me that, as it currently stands, it's inadvertently deceptive.--76.108.205.225 (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So we should put in the word count as well? Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't even appear to be accurate that Part I takes up seven pages in the U.S. Reports. As indicated at, Part I begins on page 260 and ends on page 264, so it's less than 5 pages. I don't have the actual United States Reports in front of me, but someone should be able to look them up and give the proper page count. (Footnote 1 precedes Part I in Blackmun's opinion and consists largely of quotes from the Major League Rules and the Uniform Player's Contract relating to the reserve clause.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's about four pages. I will amend appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Baseball assessment comment
Substituted at 14:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flood v. Kuhn. 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/20081008210203/http://www.dsl.psu.edu/faculty/ross/Flood.pdf to http://www.dsl.psu.edu/faculty/ross/Flood.pdf
 * Added tag to http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/443/264/443

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) 19:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Trimming needed
Hello. To whom it may concern,

Firstly, I have removed my good article nomination of this article, as it has been edited far beyond the scope of what I initially submitted for review in April. If someone were to conduct a review now, there is no universe in which I could respond to many of the comments. I am not trying to WP:OWN the article. I do not care if someone else submits it at GAN.

That being said, the article in its current state is much too long. Per WP:TOOBIG, anything with a prose size over 100 kB is likely far, far too big. This currently clocks in at 173 kB, enough to slow my computer down when I opened it.

Additionally, I noticed that many of the specific dates that I had added when I initially submitted the article at GAN have been removed. I would prefer if precise dates be included wherever possible, as this is absolutely something that I would nitpick if I were a reviewer at GAN or FAC. —  Ghost River  17:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have never had a reviewer at either page have an issue with that, and I would request a second opinion if one did ... I consider exact dates to be excessive detail that should be included only if there is continuing relevance to that exact date, or if events are occurring within a short time frame. There is nothing in policy that requires them (in fact, I believe SS supports, and in fact by using the term "nitpick" it appears as if you are tacitly aware that it is an entirely arbitrary criterion for article quality. Frankly, it appears too often as if an editor continually using them is trying to impress a reader or reviewer with the quantity of the research they did, while not being aware that the ensuing article may look cluttered with the facts. I am also rather taken aback by your tone ... I realize what you may have been through recently and you may not be yourself, so to speak, but that "I would prefer" sounds rather WP:OWN-ish. And to be fair in that department, I am also a little offended myself that this seems to be symptomatic of the way you have approached this whole thing. I know it is not necessary that you ask anybody else's permission to edit an article in any way but ... a cursory look through the article history would probably have disclosed to a perceptive editor that I created this article 14 years ago and then developed it at least to DYK level, after which I have regularly maintained it. When I see an article that I think could be expanded to some level of recognition-worthiness, I make a point of searching through the history to see if there is anyone who put substantial effort into it and pays regular attention to it, someone to whom it might be a good idea to reach out to before making major changes, about what's in the article and why, what could be added and what could be removed. Had you done so, I might have been willing to have a good discussion about these things and I wouldn't be feeling the way I am now, and perhaps the article would be a GA. Instead, I watched it blow up on my watchlist for several days at a time, after which you nominated it and went on to other things. Then, after your accident and subsequent rehabilitation, you finally wander back here and make this rather presumptuous post that addresses "to whom it may concern" ... again, as if invisible wikisquirrels not worthy of a name put this together (And may I say that it was necessary: you were framing an article about a Supreme Court decision primarily through a sports lens. Your additions about Flood's biography are welcome and useful, but it was lacking in legal background (it did not even cite the case directly, which you can do, and generally the writers of sports articles and books are not the most ideal sources for interpreting what a judge writes, especially when said judge's language is pretty plain and there are more legally focused writers you can cite), you were apparently unaware that there is a different template for citing law-journal articles than there is for regular journal articles, because there is a different format for those citations). Again, it would not have been so difficult to look through the article history and see who spent a good deal of your downtime making all these edits. While I realize the article got extremely long in the process, that 100K cap is not a rigorously enforced rule, more IMO a guideline intended to keep newer editors from overstuffing articles with tables and lists of cruft like, say, the dimensions of and distance between every wooden bench in a subway station. We have plenty of featured articles over that length; while this article is now undeniably the longest in WP:SCOTUS, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, also a featured article, is 127K. If you have some cuts to suggest to it to get it down to 100K, no one's stopping you from going to the talk page and asking "to whom it may concern" why they aren't doing it. . That said ... I began to come to the same conclusion myself as I was nearing the end of my expansion. I realized there's really enough her to spin off into a new article that would ideally be titled Professional baseball antitrust exemption, and while I could have just gone ahead and done it myself I thought it better to wait until you were up to working on the article again because I thought you might like to be consulted since you had nominated it for GA on what was entirely your own initiative. Thought. Now that you have withdrawn the nomination, again on your own initiative, that question is settled. I will at some point later this summer (I hope) create that spinoff article and, then, I think, nominate the remaining article here for GA as it will be leaner and meaner. You of course deserve some credit for what you've done, and if you'd like to be part of that process, I'd welcome it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No,, you most certainly do not really feel like a car hit by a motorcycle here. I woke up on the asphalt with people waving their hands in my face asking how many fingers they were holding up and trying to figure out what was happening to me. The first thing I saw was blood and smoke coming out of my bike and a stranger was trying to pull my helmet off to see if any of it was coming from my face. You do not get up every morning with an arm that's screaming in pain. You do not go look at where you parked your bike and start to shake with fear because what if it happens again. You do not stare at your cracked, scuffled, and missing-a-chunk helmet thinking about how that could have been your skull. You do not get nightmares about flying through the air because an SUV flew around a corner going twice the speed limit not giving a single fuck about who else was on the road. You do not get panic attacks when you see cars out of the corner of your eye even when you're a pedestrian on the crosswalk. You do not get to use my very real trauma as a metaphor for Wikipedia edits. And the victim blaming continues with the fact that you compare yourself to the car here. The car that suffered almost no physical damage. The driver was fine. I'm the one who had to shell out money for repairs, for my body and for my bike, I'm the one who has to go to physical therapy, I'm the one in very real physical and mental pain. Your low blow is so far out of line here it's repulsive. —  Ghost River  15:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize ... I had been working late, was not in a great mood thanks to yesterday's news, and I will strike that part. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)