Talk:Steve Bartman incident/Archive 1

wow
great article. very well written. Cacophony 06:44, 28 September 2004 (UTC) Seems Chicago has a long history of using scapegoats. The Great Chicago Fire falsely accused Mrs. O'Leary, 1945 Series blamed on billygoat, and Steve Bartman. Did you know anyone who sat in that seat #113 would have been that same goat. The outcome would still have been the same. No one can really blame a single event for the Cubs choking so bad and losing very decisively. But, here is an interesting fact of the number 113. It symbolic of Jesus's crucifixion, the word victim appears 113 times in the bible, sacrafice for sins are used 113 times in the New Revised Standard Version of Bible, it is noted to mean refund of debt. Salemni sacraficed 113 bulls and 1130 sheep. Scapegoats term arose from the sacrafice pof a goat by walking him through town with everyone taunting, throwing stones as casting their sins onto the goat to be led out of town never to be among it's fold again and usually killed. Sounds familiar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.107.159.160 (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC) Maybe if Chicago quits blaming their misfortunes on any one event or person better outcomes might happen. It is called Karma. By the way how could Wrigley Field really be nicknamed the Friendly stadium or whatever it is? Friends like that who needs enemies? Look how they treated Bartman.They need to change their nickname and the song from Take me out to the ballgame to take me pout of the ballgame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.107.159.160 (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For further research: There's another noteworthy Cubs situation from 1969, wherein rookie centerfielder Don Young made a game-losing error and was scapedgoated by his teammates, Ron Santo and manager Leo Durocher in particular. And while coaching the Chicago Bears, Mike Ditka never lost a game without blaming someone else. WHPratt (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Bartman Scapegoat?
I found lots of references to Bartman being a scapegoat, but nothing that would be linkable. I guess someone with better resources will have to get the links for the Scapegoat factor section, or it will end up remaining in the circular file. CodeCarpenter 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I deleted the section is not the statement that Bartman was made a scapegoat, but rather the mini-essay that went along with it that provided no sources. For the record here it is below.


 * Bartman became a scapegoat for the Cubs' failure to advance to the World Series. Part of the intrigue of sports is the tendency among some fans and writers to ascribe supernatural characteristics to teams. Teams that seem to win frequently, such as the New York Yankees or the University of Notre Dame, are said to have a "mystique" or "aura" about them. Teams that seem to fall short frequently, such as the Cubs and the Boston Red Sox (until 2004) are said to be "cursed" or "jinxed." In specific cases, disappointed fans may look for a scapegoat. For instance, Red Sox fans often blame Bill Buckner or team owner Harry Frazee (who sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees); Cubs fans now often blame Bartman or an actual goat.


 * Maybe other editors could chime in about this ? -- No Guru 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I found this discussion by the originator of the text User_talk:Hadal, giving some reasons for the section. Even they feel it was general, so if they have no desire to add citation or create a sports scapegoat page, I have no problem with it being gone.  I will comment to User_talk:Hadal and User_talk:Wahkeenah regarding the deletion, just to be fair.  CodeCarpenter 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I shortened it to keep it within the realm of the rigid standards enforced by this so-called encyclopedia-that-any-moron-can-edit. Wahkeenah 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job ! -- No Guru 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything I wrote originally was certifiably true. I could add back the part about Buckner, for example, as there are plenty of sources, including interviews with him in which he expresses his ongoing bitterness at being made a scapegoat for the Red Sox's entire-team ineptitude in 1986. However, I've had about enough of belaboring the obvious here. Wahkeenah 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem a little upset about this. That section had no sources and read like an opinion (Part of the intrigue of sports is the tendency among some fans and writers to ascribe supernatural characteristics to teams.). But it's sourced now and the article is all the better for it. Like I said. Good job. -- No Guru 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Bartman Ball into this article
I'm proposing a merge, but really, there isn't any info in Bartman Ball that isn't already here. The only additional information there is the names of the broadcasters who worked the explosion. Any objections to me adding those names to this article and turning Bartman Ball into a redirect? --Djrobgordon 22:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The first half of the Ball article was already included in greater detail on this page, and the second half had more to do with the "ending the curse of the billy goat" event, so I moved the information to that page.TheGreenFaerae 07:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Various baseball "curses"
Being that wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I think the way this article referenced various baseball curses is just plain goofy. The article speaks about these curses, and the breaking of these curses, as if they were actual events that have happened. My edit of this content is not to dispute whether a "curse" has ended or not, but rather to rephrase them as the superstitious nonsense that they are.Helixweb (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Helixweb, thou dost protest too much. Few would say that there are actual "curses" in baseball which have some real otherworldly basis; it is a type of mythology that is prevalent in baseball.  And part of this is that baseball has always had a number of superstitions tied up in it (don't step on the foul line, don't refer to an in progress "no hitter" in the dugout, etc.). I don't know whether there should be an article about Bartman, but if there is one, the Cubs "curse" bears mentioning, even has to be mentioned, because the reaction to him from makes no sense without it being mentioned. And there's no question that the idea of "curses", whether in baseball or other contexts, can have a psychological effect. Now, do I believe there's a real otherworldly connection between stepping on the foul line and something bad happening? Of course not. But there can possibly be a placebo effect? Maybe.  And I'm probably not going to step on the foul line next chance I get.John ISEM (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with you that it should be mentioned. I just didn't like the way it was spoken about in the article as if it was a real and tangible thing. For example, I changed the wording from "The curse still exists to this day" to "the curse is still referenced to this day". Agreed that it is a notable and worthy piece of baseball culture that should be mentioned.

Correctness of ruling
There is no doubt that the correct call was made. The pitcher, Mark Prior, raised a question about it. But not only did the umpires remain firm in the ruling, every replay showed that the ball was on the spectator side of the wall. The complaint about Bartman was simply that he (and other fans who were also reaching for the ball) should have backed off and given Alou a better chance to catch it. To leave out the "correctly" adjective implies that there is doubt about the correctness of the ruling. There isn't any doubt. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

POV and OR
This article is a BLP nightmare, is impossible to conform to NPOV, and has many instances of OR. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An AFD last year failed. Maybe it will pass this time. This is getting to be an old news story in any case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The sports world is not going to forget about Bartman anytime soon. Even if he does someday become more obscure, that is no reason to delete the article. We have plenty of articles on obscure dead (and living) royalty of England, China, etc.  Most of them did nothing more notable that simply being born to the right parents. Johntex\talk 01:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding a pretty blue link to a personal essay does absolutely nothing to bolster your argument. We are striving to be comprehensive.  We document things that are both famous and obscure.  That is a fact and it is a relevant fact to this debate. Johntex\talk 02:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And using "Other Stuff Exists" arguments don't bolster your own. Saying "the subject is notable" does not pass muster, you must prove it. Steve Bartman fails WP:BLP1E. Please feel free to join in the discussion at the AFD page (you can find it at the link up at the top, in the AFD template). It's probably best if we keep all discussion in one place. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden for deletion falls on those who want to delete. As shown in the original AFD, their is no basis for deleting the article. Johntex\talk 17:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's wrong. If something is not notable Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Previous AFD is irrelevant, as consensus can change. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bet you feel like a horses ass now that this is getting its own ESPN 30 for 30 show. Not notable yet its still talked about 8 years later and people still make articles, its referenced on major sitcoms (Family Guy, etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.91.179.12 (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

why delete
why would this article be proposed for deletion? It's a great article about a well-documented incident. Makes absolutely no sense to delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrShamrock (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because he's not an "incident". The incident itself was notable. He is not, under wikipedia guidelines. I would say that's the basic argument against the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we have any guidelines that say this guy is not notable enough for an article, those guidelines are flawed. Renaming the article to "Steve Bartman incident" or similar would be just doing a back-flip to put the information at a needlessly complicated title. Johntex\talk 01:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! To not have a Steve Bartman article in Wikipedia would raise questions about its own relevance.  He is virtually a house-hold name, at least in the baseball world, and most certainly in the Chicago Cubs world.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrShamrock (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to join in the discussion at the AFD page (you can find it at the link up at the top, in the AFD template). It's probably best if we keep all discussion in one place. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the "This day in history" page at history channel.com for the date that it happened on ( I don't remember), there is an article for the bartman incident. If that doesn't make it significant, then does it need a national holiday?!Cedargang (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Renaming
Anyone interested on working to rename the article, even though the AfD was closed out with Keep as the consensus? dfg (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A move to rename is not a move to delete, and could be pursued. If the incident is worth keeping separate, i.e. if there's enough material, then it could be renamed to "Steve Bartman incident" or some such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't think there's enough material to keep this separate? Zagalejo^^^ 18:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a biography in name only. There's a few sentences in the Bio section, dwarfed by the rest of the article which is solely about the incident. I'm surprised the AfD-closing admin didn't comment further on this aspect of it. Well, maybe I'm not. dfg (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, it shouldn't be a biography. Who this guy is or what he does for a living is irrelevant. It's about the incident, not about him. Is there enough material? Well, take away the irrelevancies and see what's left. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it irrelevant? As I've said elsewhere, some biographical details are actually beneficial. We can use them to portray Bartman as a caring, productive member of society, and not some random boor. Zagalejo^^^ 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is that relevant? He was perceived (wrongly) as having interfered with the play. His character, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it. Even if it were Billy Graham, or Charles Manson, the result is the same. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's legitimate historical information that paints a more complete picture of the guy. Zagalejo^^^ 19:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors really should leave their feelings about the man and whether or not he did anything wrong at the door. It's an easily identifiable personal bias, and doesn't help the quality of the article any. We should just stick to what sources say. If the best reliable sources happen to mention who he is and what he does/did for a living, fine, and that should be the extent—a sentence or two—of the biographical info that goes in the article. At the risk of going in circles (again), Bartman is not a notable man, but his name and the brouhaha are. dfg (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If he himself is not notable, then there is no purpose to provide any "biographical" data, as it has nothing to do with the incident. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The biographical details may not have a causal relationship to the incident, but I still think readers would want at least a couple sentences of background information. The article would look weird without such information, even if it were renamed "Steve Bartman incident". Maybe we should have an RFC. Zagalejo^^^ 00:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
Steve Bartman → Steve Bartman Incident — As mentioned in the section above, the article really isn't about Steve Bartman himself who is notable only in a wikinews sense, it is about the Cubs game where he touched a foul ball and what occurred after it. Furhtermore, one would hope that an article about the incident instead the person that it would generate less anonymous vitriol. — KelleyCook (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support for the reason given in the nomination. The incident is the story, not the specific guy. Obviously, his name is well-known and has to be part of the story. But if John Smith had done it, it would still be about the incident, not the guy as such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Realistically speaking, people are going to search for "Steve Bartman" not "Steve Bartman incident". The exact phrase "Steve Bartman incident" only results in 22 Google news hits and 1 Google books hit. But whatever; I don't really care. If it is moved, though, the title should be Steve Bartman incident; there's no need to capitalize the "I" (unless you can convince me otherwise). Zagalejo^^^ 16:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is where the REDIRECT comes in. Redirect "Steve Bartman" to the article. It's standard practice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And you're right, "incident", not "Incident". This is not a movie, like The Oxbow Incident or something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per my reasoning at the last AfD discussion, which is reflected in Bugs' comments. dfg (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments: