# Talk:Chinese home run

I was curious, so I checked - and the Los Angeles Times used the term on 20 Aug, 2019.
BMW (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You meant 1919, right? Wow! This is a find! I may want to let Jonathan Lighter know ...This is interesting as it predates the 1920s when all those stereotypes of Chinese were thought to have really percolated into all those derogatory slang terms. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I've incorporated the 1919 account found in the Los Angeles Times into the article. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the nation of China and is an entirely English term for an American sports event. While we're on the topic, is there any justification for the unsourced—and erroneousⁿˡ—"Chinese" translation in the lead? I'm of the mind that it should be pulled as well, pending some sourcing that this term has even been used (let alone is well known) in Chinese. — LlywelynII 16:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
ⁿˡThe current gloss treats "Chinese" as if it were referring to the nation of China rather than to humans. That's patently not what the phrase is talking about. (It may even be the case that some individual Chinese writer translated it this way: the patent error just reinforces how inappropriate it is to treat this as if it were a Chinese expression.) — LlywelynII 16:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I justify its inclusion in WPCHINA by the same criteria that Chinese fire drill is included in that project as well: it is a term that was at least originally derived from something Chinese. One of the posited origins of the term, if you read the etymology section closely, was a remark supposedly made by a Chinese American sportswriter about a century ago (about which more research should be done, I allow). I would also point out that extended riffing on the term in the mid-50s led to a Chinese American protest against its use, and a Chinese-language petition accompanying that protest. That is, as far as I can tell, more actual connections to Chinese culture than Chinese checkers has, and yet that article is listed under WPCHINA as well.I suppose we could take the gloss out, I admit; though it was just based on applying the usual adjective to the title of the Chinese WP's article on "home run". Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Do concepts such as Chinese whispers and Chinese checkers really need to be associated with China by its name and etymology alone? I'd say that the whole lot should be taken off WPCHINA. Would people do the same thing for French horn (invented in England) and English horn (invented in France)? --benlisquareT•C•E 14:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, as I implied above, Chinese checkers really has no business in that project, And as far as I know Chinese whispers isn't in WPCHINA at all (in fact, that's not even the universal term in English. But anything that has some actual etymological connection to China, I would say is different. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Addendum two and a half years later: Now that I've discovered that WikiProject Asian Americans exists, I have swapped it in for China as making more sense per the above. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chinese home run/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Courcelles (talk · contribs) 22:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll do this one. Courcelles (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A pleasure to have this done by someone I've met personally ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Ref 6, how do we justify citing a listserv post?
It's a listserv run by a notable academic organization, the American Dialect Society, that concerns itself with these things. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: Jonathan Lighter, quoted and attributed, is the editor of the Historical Dictionary of American Slang. I think that makes him a recognized authority we can cite, even when he posts on a listserv. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Sold on this, thanks. Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I added this inline with some more sources as well. And ... looking further down the listserv archive, I found that Lighter says he has found no evidence that Dorgan knew what a Chinese home run was, much that he had coined the term. So I have added that to the article, appropriately sourced, as well. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
"The idea was to express a cheap home run as Chinese then represented what was cheap, such as their labor" Direct quote needs a direct citation.
It seems to me the quote may have been given to Dickson rather than Sheehan ... now that I've found the Sheehan article in the Times archives and added it as a source, Shulman isn't even mentioned there. However, the middle page of the Dickson entry, where the quote likely is, is not showing anymore. I wouldn't have quoted it if it hadn't been in there, but I will probably have to see if I can look at a hard copy.
"Four years later, when the Giants moved to San Francisco and left the Polo Grounds,"  The immediate preceding paragraph is in the 1910's...
 Done I must have forgotten I had started that graf that way when I added the graf before it. Another reason why a second pair of eyes is always good ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
"...ichard Maney included the Chinese home run among the failings of the postwar game in a Times piece." Which Times, NY or LA?
"Writing in the Times as spring training" Again, and especially ambiguous this time around.
 Done I suppose I may have thought, given the context, since mostly New York papers were being quoted, that it was the Gray Lady, but you're right—can't really assume everybody would figure this out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
More soon. Courcelles (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure we need to mention the Urban Dictionary at all.
Well, I tend to believe that we should do more inline attribution, especially where some doubt might exist as to the information, so the reader can understand that they should take it for what they think it's worth. And I was also worried when I wrote it that someone would see UD in the cite and think I was trying to sneak it in. The point of using it, as I think I recall saying in the DYK nomination, is to show that any modern usage is limited to the secondary meaning (In fact, after finishing the article I submitted the primary meaning to UD myself; they rejected it). Not to suggest that UD has any greater credibility as a source than demonstrating something like that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Strong article on a term I've never heard before.  Good work. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Think we're almost done, except for the one quote and for three instances where a paper is called just "the Times" in prose, instead of specifying whihc one (Usually I'd be fine with this, but you have mentioned both the NY and LA Times in this one article) Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: OK, whenever you're ready. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Reread this earlier, all looks good.  Promoting. Courcelles (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to include a note about Urban Dictionary. If any reliable source mentioned that Urban Dictionary has three definitions for the term, or mentions UD at all, then I could see it, but that's not what the source is. It's no different than adding an Urban Dictionary citation to any other article. Daniel Case said that this issue was "accepted" but I looked here on the talk page and all I see is that Daniel Case himself said "yeah I wasn't sure but I included it anyway and here's why." It's not like even one other editor weighed in positively, and the only other editor to mention it seemed slightly against it. So no, that's not "accepted". JimKaatFan (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@JimKaatFan: OK, Jim, since you were so insistent about it and you've opened up a discussion here, I actually did the honorable, gentlemanly thing myself and ... went and looked to see if I could now find another source on this.Guess what? I did. "Kansas City Royals Announcers Should Re-Think Using This Derogatory Phrase", ThePostGame; April 29, 2015. Also "Royals Broadcasters Should Probably Stop Using the Term 'Chinese Home Run'", The Big Lead; same date.Do you think you could settle this in an amicable, gentlemanly way and put this into the article yourself since you've clearly got the time on your hands? Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Jim. Thanks for all ... your ... help looking up new sources and fixing this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Slow your roll, Mr. Sarcasm. The only thing I objected to was the citation to Urban Dictionary, which was patently ridiculous. Since that's been resolved, I really don't care how many citations you add to an article that you obviously have 100% ownership of. Go nuts, big man. And when you ask someone to "settle this in an amicable, gentlemanly way", it might easier to take you at face value if you don't go all stalker on my edits on other articles. (Zack Hample). Other than that, have a nice day, and I hope you behave yourself better in the future when dealing with other editors, because this interaction was decidedly juvenile from your end. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
@JimKaatFan: And for which I apologize, though I would nonetheless suggest you reconsider your own tone and approach to these things ... you've only been editing for a year, and what I have learned in more than a decade is that it's usually a good idea to slow your own roll and preserve civility by a) looking at the article's history and seeing if there's someone who contributes to it a lot, regularly answering questions on the talk page, keeping it clear of vandalism and unsourced additions (not so much ownership as stewardship) if you think there's a problem that should be addressed that's not a clear spelling or MOS mistake, even if you think it's a really obvious one, and b) ask them about it first before making a change. I'd also consider a less combative tone in your edit summaries.Happy Editing!But that section does still need more cites. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)