Talk:Babe Ruth/Archive 2

message: Denis Leary's standup routine, he commented Babe Ruth was the first American to have a voice-box put in his throat.  I checked snopes.com to see if this was an urban legend or not but could find no mention.  Any truth to this? --I run like a Welshman 10:59, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  first American with a voice-box in his throat -- true or not? 

message: I have added what should be the all the necessary biographical information from the years 1939 to his death.  Book references have been cited, and all re-written in my own words.   It is perhaps too long and detailed (although not for me) for a encyclopedic entry, and probably needs to be cut down to a more manageable size.  Wikipedians skilled in grammar and editing may feel free to fix what I wrote.  The article still needs Ruth's years 1933 to 1939 to be filled in, and I'm not sure I will have time in near future to do this.   LibraryLion
I reworded the Ford Frick part near the end, even though one could maybe delete the entire part in parenthesis and put it in the Ford Frick article.  I had made statement that to some maybe seemed speculative, implying Frick put the asterisk by Maris' maybe because he like Ruth better than Maris, and not because of the difference between the 154 and 162 game season.  Read this article 
and one might see how maybe Frick wasn't so unbiased after all.  If you don't want to access the page, in short, Frick was a friend of Ruth for decades.  They were bridge and golf partners, and Frick, then a sportwriter pretty much put Ruth on the highest pedestal, crediting him, as others have, as being the "savior" of baseball after the 1919 Black Sox Scandal. (The latter statement perhaps some truth, but to say major league baseball would have collapsed if there was never a Babe Ruth to save it is quite hyperbolic, in my opinion.  Baseball had been professional for over 40 years, it wasn't going away that quickly.)  In summary, I think one could make a contention Frick's asterick by Maris' home run total was done mainly out of his friendship with Ruth, but because of this uncertainty, I deleted that part.  LibraryLion  
Also I have written that maybe part of the article, especially the later years part needs trimming down, but now I don't think so, if fact it needs more, including the years 1923-1928 filled in.  If a little comic strip like Calvin and Hobbes (a fine comic strip, not criticizing it) gets 24 Wiki pages devoted to it, I think Ruth is worth a few pages himself.  LibraryLion
I gather you don't like my comment about Ruth sounding like Clark Gable.  Those are not my words, but a biographer's... and if you listen to their voices, you can hear it.  It's a minor detail, though.
The Frick connection to the so-called "asterisk" in 1961 was one of various stories circulating at the time.  One of Bill Veeck's books talks about this at some length and with no little amount of cynicism.  It was partly Frick and partly just the old guard in general protecting Ruth's legacy (remember, he had only been dead for 13 years at that point).  Over time, the Frick connection has come to be the "conventional wisdom", but it could use some more study.  Maybe you could say that "some people say..." or something equally vague.  However, the 8-game schedule difference was the "official" reason at the time, just as it became an issue in 1962 when Maury Wills challenged Ty Cobb's season stolen base record.  Wills broke Cobb's 96 mark in 154 games, as I recall, so it became a non-issue and nobody much remembers that parallel story.
As to Ruth "saving baseball", that is also conventional wisdom, and has a significant kernel of truth to it.  Baseball was looked upon with suspicion due to various gambling scandals, of which the 1919 Black Sox were just the "worst case".  Not just Ruth himself, but the Roaring Twenties, the lively ball, the offensive explosion in general, and broadening public interest and expenditure on spectator sports all combined to "save" baseball.  Even though the major leagues were mature by then, there was nowhere near the obsessive interest in sports then that there is now.  That obsession really started in the 1920s, evidenced by the mid-20s building-and-attendance boom that occurred at most all the major league parks.  Sound familiar?  You can make a parallel with the late 1990s and early 2000s building-and-attendance boom following the 1994 strike that threatened to destroy the game.  Whether the steroids issue will prove to be sufficient to negate all that happened in the last 10 years remains to be seen.
I am not a wikipedia "insider", but I don't see any problem with extensive information about Ruth.  As I indicated in the first paragraph, as one author has said, Ruth was the greatest ballplayer ever, no contest.  And by the way, I don't like the Yankees one iota.  I'm just reporting it as I see it.
Wahkeenah 00:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last years and death 

message: Much of the information in this section does not always deal with Ruth directly, but since this a famous historical team, I believe this merits it for more detailed information.  The 1927 season should probably be the only one written as such. --LibraryLion 23:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1927 Yankees 

message: I added some detail to the death of Helen and his marriage to Claire.  These topics were mentioned briefly in one paragraph, so I deleted that paragraph, but kept some of the original wording of previous contributers.  I am an inclusionist for the most part, and almost never delete any information from an article unless I know it's unfactual. In this case, since I actually expanded the information, it became necessary to rewrite portions, although the essential information others had contributed was not deleted.  
Some other changes:
1. Someone wrote Claire was related to Johnny Mize.  Since Mize's baseball career came after Ruth had retired, this information didn't seem to fit well in the paragraph about her, so I moved it to the Notes and Trivia.  
2. I deleted the isolated sentence "1920-1923 Amazing years" since much detailed information has been added to this time period.  
3. I deleted the isolated sentence "1925 Bellyache Heard Around the World".  In the near future, I will write in detail on this topic and insert in the article. 
4. I deleted the isolated sentence "1926 Return to Peak". I have written a synopsis of the 1926 season, but have not included as of yet in the article. 
5. Someone contributed information about uniform numbers, this information has been moved to Notes and Triva.             --LibraryLion 08:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: I rewrote the asterisk and Ford Frick section based on info that I got from baseball historian Bill Deane, a former senior research associate at the Hall of Fame and member of Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), of which I'm also a member.  He is currently writing a book about baseball myths and the asterisk controversy will have a section there.... Hayford Peirce 21:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Infamous Asterisk

message: Since the part about Frick and asterisk in the paragraph is a little long, it seemed to distract from the paragraph's main topic, which is about Ruth's death.  The entire section has been moved word-for-word in the Notes and Trivia section.  This part also perhaps should be additionally copied to the seperate article on Frick. --LibraryLion 22:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Frick 

message: Here are a just a couple of sources on the time frame for the medical links of tobacco and cancer, of course which there are many credible sites on this topic.  The dozen or sites I saw seemed to show the medical evidence was quite substantial in the 1920's of the tobacco-cancer link, although some web sites showed a variety of opinion on when the evidence was clearly indisputable.  From what I researched, the 1920's seemed to be about the right time period to say the link was conclusive.  This information of course is a distant side note on an article about Babe Ruth, I just included it for reference purposes only.  
    --LibraryLion 20:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer and Tobacco 

message: Some further research showed the term "Murderer's Row" was coined in 1919, not in the 1927 season, so I made this change.  Also, I had written a statement about Ruth's cancer being treated by radiation was a "relatively new" procedure, and although this could perhaps be somewhat accurate, radiation therapy for cancer goes back to the 1910's, and a few cases in the early 1900's.  Given this, I deleted the "relatively new" part.  I rewrote much of the 1921 season only because previous contributors missed the point on how great Ruth's season was.  
As a complete sidenote, one might wonder how a scraped elbow could keep Ruth out the last 3 games of the 1921 World Series.  In the present day, this type injury would almost never sideline a player.  In the pre-anti-bacterial drug days however, these infections could be quite serious.  In 1924, President Calvin Coolidge's 16-year-old son Calvin jr. played a little tennis but he did not wear shoes.  Calvin jr. developed blisters on his toes which became infected, and the infection led to septicemia which proved fatal.  No doubt anti-bacterial drugs would have probably saved his life, but these drugs were not completely developed until the 1940's.  Many historians say Coolidge never got over his son's death, and was the major reason he didn't run for re-election in 1928. --LibraryLion 22:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes and Corrections 

message: In the most recent biography of Ruth, "Babe Ruth: Launching the Legend" (2004),  author Jim Reisler writes Ruth's 1925 medical problems were caused by gonorrhea only, but from what I saw in the book, scanning over it for about 15 minutes, I saw no new evidence to back up this blanket assertion.  Next time I get the chance to see the book, I will make a complete check in case I missed his evidence.  If I find it, I will include Reisler's information in the article. --LibraryLion 19:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruth's 1925 medical problems 

message: The photo I used was not taken from the New York Times archives.  I would have not blatantly used this picture in Wikipedia if I took it from the Times photo archives web-site, as they clearly state one needs permission to use any of their photos.  My source was two books with this exact picture, one book published in 1979, the other in 1977, both however do not list any credit for this picture, but I know the New York Times is not listed in any of the listed picture credits in both these books.  
I found about four other web-sites that have this exact picture, am sure I could have found more, but I don't know if any of these sites have the rights to use the picture.  To clarify matters, I have written to the New York Times about this photo, who owns it, and rights to possibly use it for Wikipedia.  When they write back, I will update this information.  --LibraryLion 20:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All I know about it is that I see it in the New York Times just about every day on a page advertising old NYT pictures for sale.  That tells me that they own the rights to it.  All the other other Internet sites that have the picture are undoubtedly ripping it off from the Times.... I'll be curious to see if you ever hear from them about this pic.... Hayford Peirce 20:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1923 Yankee Stadium Photo 

message: * I have been recently been adding many pictures to add to the visual enhancement of the article.  I don't know at what point is 'too many pictures', but I believe there is more than enough written content to support all the pictures.  There are several more pictures I will add, but I will probably will delete (if no one objects) the Ruth-Bush picture, it just seems out of place.
*I (or anyone else who wants to contribute) need to add a little information about the transition from the dead-ball to the live-ball era.  I have also written a couple of paragraphs on Ruth's years 1935-1939, but this isn't quite finished as of yet.  I might add a couple of paragraphs more on Ruth's personality, just to balance it out with all the baseball information.  
*I might rewrite and delete portions of the 1920 season.
*Ruth's 1918 season has not mentioned.  It probably can be just a paragraph.  This was a unique year in baseball, Secretary of War Newton Baker issued his famous "World or Fight" order, and baseball had to end its season one month early, and the World Series, which Ruth was in, was played in early September.  It was during this World Series, when patriotic feelings were high, when the orgins of playing the National Anthem before sporting events began, according to some sources.   
 
*Ruth's 1924 season was not mentioned, but it can be left out.  Ruth had an outstanding year, won his only batting title, the Yankee's finished second, but other than that, this season was rather ordinary.  
*Other than the above material I will add, there is nothing major left-in my opinion-that the article needs.  After finishing everything I want to add, I will go over every sentence in detail, making sure everying is completely accurate.  I don't know if any article can ever be called 'finished', since Wikipedia articles are generally always in flux, but as far as the main body of  work, I believe this article is nearing ccmpletion. 
*If you are new to Wikipedia, feel free to add information, make suggestions, and correct grammatical errors to this or any article. 
*Conversely, if you feel something should be deleted, or you feel something is unfactual, please state your case on the discussion page first, then the section in question can be discussed.  Whether this article or any other, be cautious deleting any information.  Deleting is easy, anyone can delete.  Researching and writing factual information is hard work.  It sometimes takes several hours of research to write one paragraph, especially on more complex subjects (which fortunately this article is not.) --LibraryLion 23:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Overview 

message: I don't think one can quite say Babe Ruth replaced George Halas in the Yankee outfield.  The Halas career stats, all in the 1919 season, 2-22 .091 average, 8 strikeouts in 12 career games.  Somehow I bet the Yankees would have found a spot for him if he had any baseball ability.  Probably good thing he never made in baseball, because football needed him much more at the time.  --LibraryLion 07:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Halas 

message: Didn't the 2004 HBO documentary prove fairly convincingly that the primary impetus behind the trade was not for money but for Ruth's wild antics?  They did a pretty masterful job in taking down that legend by going through archival material.  Probably should be changed but want to see if any objections first.  Old64mb 21:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frazee trading Ruth 

message: I added this information, although it has never been authenticated, even though it is often repeated as a fact.  It sounds like something Ruth might say, but the question of itself, if asked, would qualify as one of the dumbest questions one could ask.  Hoover made a fortune with his mining companies.  In 1914, Hoover's net worth was estimated at over $4 million.  He was involved in humanitarian aid in WW1, everyone knew his name, and almost everyone had to know Hoover was a wealthy man well before he was elected President. 
The President's salary is window dresssing.  We all know you have much more money to become President than you would ever be paid for being President.  If the question was posed to Ruth, what Ruth was effectively being asked was "Do you think it is appropriate you are making a higher yearly salary than President Hoover, even though he is worth millions of more dollars than you?" --LibraryLion 22:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruth-Hoover Quote 

message: Some further research shows that the greatest increase in offense over a short span was from 1892 to 1894, when the N.L. batting average went from .245 in 1892 to .308 n 1894.  The reason is easily explained.  In 1893 the pitching mound/rubber was moved back from 50 feet to 60 feet 6 inches,  its present day distance.  --LibraryLion 21:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1892-1894 

message: They needed more offense, but safety was probably the major reason.  Pitchers over the years had developed throwing motions that had increased the speed on the ball.  The hardest thrower at the time was Amos Rusie.  Real old-timers said Rusie even threw harder than Walter Johnson (Obviously old-timers are always biased for their generation).  Rusie's speed was cited as literally endangering batters, as noted by one incident in which Rusie hit Hughie Jennings with a pitch that had Jennings unconscious for four days.  But the pitcher was also at risk.  Rusie himself had one of his fastballs lined back at him that hit him in the ear, which caused Rusie significant and permanent hearing loss.  
Who knows how hard Rusie threw in the 1890's, maybe mid 80's mph at the fastest, maybe that's even too high.  A 80-85 mph fastball thrown from 50' might be equivalant to about 95 mph at 60'6" to a batter.  Baseball had outgrown its own parameters, and 50 feet was just too close.  --LibraryLion 19:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  50' to 60'6" 

message: Some of the photos currently in this article will be replaced as I work on acquiring photos that are better matches for certain sections.  I have written fair use justification for some of the photos I inserted, including listing the photo sources and credits, and I will soon complete this for all the photos that need it in the article.  --LibraryLion 21:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Probably written a long time ago, a contributor wrote about Ruth's weight which gave the impression Ruth's weight increased to the common pot-bellied image while he was still member of the Red Sox.  However the common image of a more rotund Ruth is not as clearly visible until the mid 1920's.  Some photos of Ruth in 1923 show him as what I would call husky, not thin but certainly not portly. --LibraryLion 23:21, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruth's weight 

message: I have a section that Ruth's 1921 season is the greatest season ever. Some modern baseball researchers will state Ruth's 1920 season is his greatest, as well as the best season by any player.  This may be true taken in context of comparing his numbers to the league overall.  Comparing his statistics to others in 1920, and the fact he hit more home runs than 14 other teams is probably more impressive than anything he did in 1921.  However I qualifed 1921 as 'statistically', meaning in context of the raw numbers only, and not comparing to other peripheral factors.  By that definition, his 1921 is the best season ever. --LibraryLion 23:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1920 vs 1921 

message: The Wikipedia help desk received the following claim from the copyright holder.
I am the owner of the still photo of Babe Ruth. My copyright notice is not published on the page in Wikipedia. I must insist that this be corrected immediately or removed from the page. The copyright notice should be included with the visible photo, not as a separate item.
It should read: Copyright © Kirk M. Kandle, all rights reserved. Also, please include a link to www.thecalledshot.com.
Thank you for your iimmediate attention to this. 
I have made the changes as requested. Capitalistroadster 09:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Claim - the Called Shot

message: From the featured article discussion I've gathered that there are strong feelings on both sides of the length issues. I'd like to take a stab at shortening it, but I don't want to get in an edit war or cut something the majority of readers fell should stay. I think what I'm going to do is create a new edit, post it on a subpage, so that people can comment on the changes. I'll post something her when I have the subpage up. I look forward to your comments. --djrobgordon 15:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about to move the rewrite to the main page. I've had some indication that there are editors still interested in working with the old material, so I'm moving that to the rewrite page, however I won't be editing it. I'm going to archive the talk page from the rewrite on this page. --djrobgordon 16:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Article looks good and has featured article potential but may need sources of quotes etc to make that status. Thanks for your hard work on this issue. Capitalistroadster 20:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Is there any way that it can be decreased a bit? Fair use pictures are fine to use, but this one has an overabundance of them. Otherwise, it looks good. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the number of pictures is excessive.  There is no more than one picture per section.  Pictures are more visually appealing than a monotonous block of text. Jwolfe 01:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures in the article 

message: So, when is this going to be moved over to the main article? Jwolfe 22:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it before the weekend's up. --djrobgordon 06:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving over to the main article