Talk:Casey at the Bat

message: There is a lot of unsourced editorializing showing up in this article. Baseball Bugs 11:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some work on it. I apologize for stepping on the toes of the concurrent writer, but the article reads like a review, either the writer's own invention or lifted from a book about poetry, but either way it was (and still is) much too editorial for wikipedia standards. Baseball Bugs 12:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not done with it yet. Baseball Bugs 01:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Where are you getting that from? Baseball Bugs 01:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm working mostly from Martin Gardner's book. Putting your own spin on it is considered "original research". Can you find a citation for that interpretation? Baseball Bugs 01:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not on scholastic grounds, it's on wikipedia rules grounds. You need to find a verifiable source, other than your own imagination. The burden of proof is on you to find a citation. Baseball Bugs 02:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: To put it another way... it may well be that there is something published that makes that argument. Wikipedia rules require verifiable citations on points of controversy or obscurity especially. That means from reliable sources (Gardner is a published author on a variety of subjects) and not quotations from weblogs and such stuff as that. Baseball Bugs 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's rules, not mine. You can argue against some of the fill-ins I've provided. And I kept some of the spin that you and that other editor put in. But the theory that he threw the game requires a citation. As far as the "hat" situation... well, "cap" doesn't rhyme with "bat", don'cha know. Baseball Bugs 02:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "With but one inning more to play" cannot possibly be the start of the eighth, because there would be at least three "half-innings" remaining in that case: two for the home team, one for the visitors. No matter how you define the term "inning", you can't have more than two half-innings in one inning. Also, that statement is not made when there are two outs and none on, it's made at the start of the inning, before anyone has batted. More to the point, though, assuming anyone ever did make that stretch, it was uncited. It was just someone's opinion. You hint at a citation. You could add that dubious point if you can cite it. Baseball Bugs 09:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I took away that uncited claim, and substituted an explanation that will hopefully make it clear why it must be the ninth. Notice I did not say the last of the ninth. Under the rules of the day, it could have been either the top or the bottom of the ninth, because at that time teams were allowed to choose (by coin toss) whether to bat first or last. I feared that would complicate matters, as would the other possibility - that the game is in extra innings, and the visitors scored 2 in the top of the tenth, or whatever. Or, it could be earlier, if there is a curfew or if the daylight is running out. But there is no hint of those possibilities in the poem, so normally it would be taken to be the ninth. In any case, it is Mudville's final inning. Baseball Bugs 10:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So where is the citation for the claim that some see it as the eighth inning? I've seen that statement in the article, but there is no actual citation. "...has sometimes been used by optimists or comedians..." is not a citation, it's just an unsupported statement.  Baseball Bugs 10:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Once you find the book, a specific citation is needed: Author, Publisher, Year, page(s), and the exact quote. Meanwhile, if the author knows so much about baseball, he would also know that any such claim is ridiculous. But if you can pinpoint the actual citation, it could theoretically be added. As a qualifier, I asked an admin to weigh in on this, if he cares to. He rang me up for the lack of a "valid" citation that John Belushi's "pep talk" from Animal House is used as a "rally starter" in many stadiums... which is absolutely true, but no "authority" seems to have commented on it, just many-many individual fans in weblogs. That tells you something about the level of citation that can be required, if someone decides to make a thing of it. Baseball Bugs 11:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My 2 cents. For an article about a poem, this article dissects each line like a dead frog. Talk about killing any understanding of poetry, and the poetry to be found in baseball, which Thayer did, and if truth be told, makes the article pedantic and flat out boring.--Buckboard 03:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing you weren't too fond of English Lit. 101, where they would slice and dice the Dickens out of the classics. Baseball Bugs 03:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for making my point. It was merely a suggestion for improvement. To quote M. Vick, I have no dog in this fight.--Buckboard 04:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that in wikipedia, restating a poem or song or whatever is generally frowned upon as "wikipedia is not a source" or some such; instead, quoting a poem or song is expected to be done for the purpose of analysis. Meanwhile, I see you charitably put a "fact" tag on the "misogynistic" rant. That section is clearly someone's editorial, and would be ripe for deletion, beyond whatever actual facts might be in it. Baseball Bugs 04:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentaries 

message: Maybe this is covering old ground.  A spot check of prior versions didn't show indenting of the commentary.  Having the text closer to the left margin and indenting the commentary reads easier for me.  But that's me.  
A spot check of prior versions did show italicizing of the text.  That makes some sense to me, but I find italicized text harder to read.  That is covering old ground.  For whatever reason, the text isn't italicized today.
Perhaps indenting the commentary suffices in giving prominence to the text. -Ac44ck (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indented commentary 

message: It seems surprising that no one has mentioned the stylistic resemblance between a certain "Lay Made About the Year Of The City CCCLX" and this "A Ballad of the Republic Sung in the Year 1888". Casey at the Bat is pretty obviously a comic pastiche in the style of Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Rome. The Lays were very well known during the late nineteenth century and would have been familiar to most of the San Francisco Examiner's readers. Take a look at them if you doubt the resemblance. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pastiche

message: Mice At Bat. Or should this book just go in its own article?
In-Correct (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If by "best" you mean "most in need of editing because it's way too long, which kills the rather obvious joke" then yes, I would agree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Added A Parody

message: "*The song "No Joy In Pudville" by Steroid Maximus is a reference to this poem." has just been added to the "Music" subsection.  Is this song a parody? an homage? If so, that should be noted and this text either moved to the appropriate section (or double-listed). Calling it a "reference" to the poem in question seems insufficient (and inappropriate). Artaxerxes (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music or parody? 

message: This section of the article seems pretty muddled, and to contain some stuff that doesn't belong in this article at all:
* It is implied that King Kelly has been suggested as a real-life inspiration for Casey, but by whom and where?
* It is also implied that Kelly claimed to have written the poem himself (citation needed), and that Thayer denied it in a letter(citation also needed). What does this have to do with "inspiration", shouldn't it be in the plagiarism section?
* There are various details of Kelly's career, what was written about him when he came to SF, the display of his signing check, etc. which don't appear to have any relevance to the poem at all. I think they belong in Kelly's own article, not this one.
* What did Thayer himself say about the inspiration for the poem, and where did he say it?
I would fix this myself if I had any sources, or knowledge of baseball. Could someone oblige? Chuntuk (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inspiration" section 

message: Allegedly Leonard Koppett, a well-known sportswriter, wrote an article in 1979 Sporting News alleging that Thayer wrote 18 extra lines saying that Casey deliberately struck out to help a bettor - which would radically change the meaning of the one of the most famous poems in American history. I can find nobody else anywhere who cites this astonishing fact - User:User:BeveragenBall apparently has seen a physical copy of the paper - which makes me nervous. I find it impossible to believe that if there was good evidence about these extra lines, they wouldn't be cited in some of the academic discussion about the poem. 
Am I missing something? can anybody else help? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Casey at Bat? He Was Fraud!" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Casey at the Bat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080711103818/http://www.hoops.co.il:80/index.asp?page=ViewEL&id=98 to http://www.hoops.co.il/index.asp?page=ViewEL&id=98
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified