Talk:National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum/Archive 2

Drug Abuse
Should a section about players who used performance enhancing drugs be included under Controversies since the issue has been talked about so much and Mark McGwire recieved such a low percentage of Hall of Fame votes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dparks09 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Segregation
There should be a mention of the HoF's short lived idea of segregating the Halls. They planned on putting the Negro League players in a separate wing, and not consider them "true Hall of Famers". They only changed their minds after they got blasted in the newspapers. I have at least 1 source from the LA Times that quotes ' "This notion of Jim Crow in Baseball's Heaven is appalling," Jim Murray wrote in 1971 in this newspaper. "What is this -- 1840? Either let him in the front of the Hall -- or move the damn thing to Mississippi." ' Probably by 69.22.215.20 between 10 Nov and 17 Mar. --P64
 * See Hall of Fame selection procedures, below. Alternatively, we may need a main article covering all selection history: BBWAA elections, Veterans Committees and predecessors, Negro Leagues committees. --P64 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Broken references
The links to references 1,3,5,6,16,18,20 are broken. Evidently NBHOFM has changed their addresses or even unpublished them. The link in reference 10 is working. Those are all the links to NBHOFM and all I have checked.

NBHOFM at the Internet Archive is a likely source to fulfill those references (using the given URLs). --P64 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hall of Fame selection procedures
Perhaps there should be a main article on the BBWAA writers election, as there is a main article on the Veterans Committees. Section "Inductees" in this article includes much too much "Selection process" and "Changes to Veterans Committee", which should be relegated to those one or two main article(s) and to the annual series such as Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 2011.

This article should feature the current Hall of Fame, Museum, and Library --and their general history-- rather than how Hall of Fame membership is selected, or how Museum and Library collections are developed. --P64 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bull Durham controversy removal proposal
This was brought up a couple of years ago but never commented on further, but I have to agree. When reading the article on the HoF and Museum this is a very WP:RECENT item that really doesn't merit inclusion in the main article, especially in the detail that iit currently sits in. While all the facts appear to be correct, I don't believe that inclusion is warranted as per WP:UNDUE and other policies. I didn't want to delete it without broaching the subject here, does anybody feel differently and should we set up a formal RfC? Thanks all. SeanNovack (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree; and since there has been no objection in over a month, Yes check.svg Y Done I have removed the section. --64.85.217.193 (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)