Talk:Babe Ruth/Archive 3

message: I deleted a very unencyclopedic and possibly racist entry about Ruth's racial background.--ScipioAfricans 04:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: Should'nt the category "Pitchers who have thrown a no-hitter" be included in Ruth's article? It may sound a little weird, but the game on June 23, 1917 were Ruth walked the first batter he faced and got thrown out by the Umpire which led to Ernie Shore coming in and he recorded all 27 outs is by definition (according to MLB) a combined no-hitter. Darwin's Bulldog 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Hitter

message: I would like to correct an incorrect statement that Babe Ruth is 5th all-time with respect to a single season home run total. He is the 5th person in a list that includes Bonds, McGuire, Sosa and Maris ahead of him, however his total is 8th all-time.
Rank, Player & number of HR's that year:
1. Barry Bonds 73 2001 
2. Mark McGwire 70 1998
3. Sammy Sosa 66 1998
4. Mark McGwire 65 1999 
5. Sammy Sosa 64 2001 
6. Sammy Sosa 63 1999 
7. Roger Maris 61 1961
8. Babe Ruth 60 1927
I'd like to point out that when Babe Ruth set this particular record, it took 34 years for Maris to break it, and another 38 years after that for McGuire and Sosa to do the same.  ESPN in one of their shows speculated that the hardest thing to do in sports was hit a baseball, but to be more specific it's hitting that baseball for the purpose of breaking the Babe's record.  Only four men were able to do that since 1927.  Carajou 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Statement 

message: We wish to advise everyone that we (the Living Trust Network) have a copy of Babe Ruth's Last Will and Testament posted on our website, which we believe is of interest to anyone seeking information about the life of Babe Ruth. We have also discussed our desire to post a link to Babe Ruth's Last Will and Testament with Wikipedia administrators [See User talk:Livingtrust], either under "references" or "external links." Last Will and Testament of Babe Ruth. Wikipedia does not object to the link but has requested that we not put the link up ourselves since we are a commercial website. Instead, it has requested that we make it known that the Last Will and Testament is available, and anyone who wishes to add the link to the "reference" section or the "external links" section may do so. So, we solicite your help in adding the link set forth above. Thanks. Livingtrust 03:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Will and Testament of Babe Ruth 

message: How do you know?--Kingforaday1620 21:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyslexia? 

message: "Nevertheless, for all Ruth had done for baseball, he deserved an invitation even if his skills were at the end". This is VERY POV. --AngusH 06:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: What # did Ruth wear? -71.65.205.219 02:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What #? 

message: Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: This article is primmed for some cleanning up.  Duplicate information appears frequently and a number of the thoughts and ideas don't really belong.  I am going to start by cleanning up some of the smaller issues, but think this needs to be discussed further. --Tecmobowl 23:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe let the people decide, but your editing of an article that was already voted as a Good Article is plain bad, in IMHO. I don't know you, so this is nothing personal.   Maybe I'm just fussy, but shouldn't his 1926 year come before 1928?  Anyway do what you want as it probably doesn't matter in the end, since I find no article stays the same for very long.
* I said the article needs a lot more work, but that doesn't mean the old information was good.  The order is a consequence of a previous version, not of my edits.  Most of the information that you put back in place was either not sourced (b/c it wasn't true) or it was about the New York Yankees.  The article is supposed to be about Ruth.  Rather than leave the information out of order, why don't you put it in chronological order?  While I enjoy participating here, I don't have time to fix every problem in every article.  It was a good article a while ago, that doesn't mean it's still good.  Make it better. --Tecmobowl 22:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-Up the Article Disccusion 

message: This is obviously a very important article that needs a fair bit of work. I don't have enough knowledge to know what should be kept/not but I'm hoping there's someone able to collate what's here into a much better article?
E.g. of issues, text such as this is unsuited to an encyclopedia article:
"The highlight of the day was when his name was announced over the loudspeaker, and the crowd erupted into a loud roar."
"Ruth was a natural fit in New York City—the biggest star in the game needed the largest stage, the largest crowds, the largest media coverage. His flamboyance, vitality, and obvious flaws symbolized New York. His persona transcended baseball, and he was one of the enduring emblems of the carefree spirit of the roaring '20s." 
... And there's plenty more where that came from.
Length is another issue... It's not that I know exactly how long this article should be, but if we got rid of stuff like that and replaced it with simpler, more encyclopedic info, I'm sure the article would be a lot shorter. Joaq99 09:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs URGENT attention 

message: I found a number of conflicting reports during my brief research.  I tried to reflect this in the article.  Someone with better sources should really help out.Tecmobowl 07:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage Section

message: Per Wp:cite#Tagging_unsourced_material, I'm removing all of the un-sourced material.  If anyone has source, please feel free to add some content back. // Tecmobowl 06:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing un-sourced content 

message: From the article:
:"... he finished the season 2-1 ... helped himself by hitting .315 ... recorded only one at-bat ... he went 23 - 12, with a 1.75 ERA and 9 shutouts ... batted .376 in his first year ..."
I haven't the vaguest idea what any of this means, or even if it is good or bad. If I spent a bit of time Googling around then maybe I could eventually figure it out, but it would be good to have an explanation of this jargon readily at hand (presumably in the form of links to other articles?) for the benefit of readers from countries where baseball is practically unknown, such as the UK.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.30.211 (talk) 
:I believe the terms are linked previously in the article.  However, the idea that the article relies too much on stats rather than content is something i agree with.  This is one of the big problems I've had with the article.  It focuses entirely too much on statistical regurgitation. // Tecmobowl 08:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon needs explaining to non-US readership 

message: I've been away from this article for a year or so but it appears to me that since then a control freak named Tecmobowl has turned it into his own personal article, editing it to conform entirely to his own truncated views of what constitutes a Wiki article.  Half or more of the article is now missing (some of it for POV deletion, with which I agree), but much of it because of so-called lack of citations, references, sources, etc.  Given the examples of deletions I've glanced at, facts that are clearly known to any baseball fan, I've gotta wonder when this person is going to start demanding that every single word in the article be referenced with a footnote.  Where, for example, is the reference for the date of his birth?  What!  There's no footnote for it?  Then it must be removed.  And the same with everything else in the article.  Before we get into revert wars, and bringing in Administrators (which latter I will certainly do), would you please try to gain a sense of proportion about this business?  You don't need a reference to write a Wiki article saying "Pancho Segura was a great tennis player of the 1950s."  It helps to reference "He was widely considered to have one of the best forehands of all time" but not necessarily, because, like Ruth's power hitting, it was self-evident to anyone who knew anything about tennis.  If you say "He had the best forehand of all time", you had better have a reference to Jack Kramer, who said it.  Ditto here for Ruth.  I don't think any particular references have to be cited for the mourning attending his funeral. And, most of all, would you please consider the fact that other people have imput into this article and that some of them as just as dedicated Wikipedians as youself. Hayford Peirce 04:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources