Now I see 

So basically, your plan is to find any single record which disagrees with all other records and that is the one you are going with.  In the case of Mike Sharperson, Social Security records suffice so you change his birth year to 1960 - even though all other sources say 1961.  But, in the case of Larry MacPhail, Social Security records agree with all other sources that his birth year was 1890 so instead you use his draft records - apparently the only source that shows 1888 - and change all references to his birth year to 1888.  Except in the case of MacPhail - as well as Casey Stengel and Chief Bender - his own gravestone disagrees with you (yes, there is a picture here)!  Doesn't that mean that MacPhail faked his date of birth for the draft and not the other way around?!  And Stengel's fake birth certificate was the one that said 1889?  You say Chief Bender's sister found his birth certificate in 1942 and it said he was born in 1883.  Then why did he have 1884 put on his gravestone when he died - 12 years later?!

This tactic of yours gives the appearance that records are only good enough for you when they make you look like the hero investigator - the one who cut through all popular misconceptions and "found the truth once and for all".  Social Security records are gospel in one case (Sharperson) but are bunk in others (MacPhail and others).  If you're really writing a book using this tactic - and without pointing out that those dates are the lone exceptions - then you should really be ashamed.  And if your editors and publishing company don't point out the error of your ways, they should likewise be ashamed.  And if you think that research like that is going to be permitted on Wikipedia, then you are mistaken.  Please do read WP:ATT and its related pages and understand that your lone exception style of research is the exact opposite of how we do things here.  —