Talk:Babe Dahlgren

message: I'm still trying to figure out how I got sucked into this article.  I spent most of the time trying to keep this page unbiased once I figured out that user Mdahg was in grandson and author of the book, obvious by the fact that he has not posted since it came to light.  My issue is this.  I find no reference to a drug issue with Babe prior to the release of the book.  I have come across references that he was accused of having short arms by his manager at the time on the Yankees but that's it.  My feeling is that Mdahg has created this theory to promote his book therefore has no merit as an entry in Wikipedia.  Is anybody against me completely deleting the second and third paragraph?  This has surely been an education in research!--Low2snow (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The story is legit. Read *"Rumors of Drug Use Have Damaged for Decades." from the  New York Times. Kingturtle (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kingturtle, I did read that article.  But, that's my point.  The article was written after the book came out.  Prior to the release of the book there is no mention that Dahlgren was ever accused of doing drugs.  There no mention on any of the player databases or in any article I could dig up.  The only major footnote is that he replaced Lou Gerhig.  The NY Times article is reviewing what Matt Dahlgren wrote about in his book, which is self published.  I created the article for Rumor in Town after I found that the name of the  company that published Matt's book is registered to Matt Dahlgren.  The book reference falls under WP:SPS.  I added the book article to bring light to that issue in terms of keeping the page unbiased, but over the weekend I could not find any other reference prior to the books publishing date that mentions a drug rumor about Babe Dahlgren.  Which implies that the rumor was created after the fact to promote the book?  Does my logic make sense?  Look forward to your feed.--Low2snow (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Murray Chass is a very reliable source. If he is willing to write about in the NYT, I am willing to include it in this article. Kingturtle (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  Thank you for your feed back, Kingturtle.  I appreciate your time on this issue.--Low2snow (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, for what it is worth, I added the Chass reference to this article before Mdahg started editing (I think). Kingturtle (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you're right about that.  For the longest time, there was not a whole lot of major editing on this article.  The references to the rumor appeared, not long after the book was published.  I think if Babe Dahlgren's career had been tainted by an apparent rumor or accusation of drug use that would have been a major point along with having replaced Lou Gehrig.  Accusation of drug use for a ball player in the 40's would have been huge.  But, even still, after the rumor, Babe moved up in the MVP ranking and played on the '43 NL All-Star Team.  That whole issue doesn't make sense.  I agree with you on the point that Chass is a reliable source, but he's a using Matt Dahlgren's research as a source.  And under WP:SPS that should still be considered unreliable.  If his article is a critique of the book that's different.  But, I don't think Mr. Chass is coming out and saying that he personally discovered there was a rumor about Babe and supporting it with third party references.  He's just reciting the claims made by Matt Dahlgren in his self published book.  Why is there no reference to Dahlgren's use of drugs or for that matter a rumor of use prior to September 2007, the month Rumor in Town was released?  And considering the other points I made, he shouldn't have continued playing long after, let alone play on an All-star team or even move up in MVP ranking.  Any thoughts about this?  Also, thanks for taking the time with this Kingturtle.  I'm really learning quite a bit about researching and editing.  I'm hoping that this experience helps me be a thorough and productive editor here on Wikipedia.--Low2snow (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what we can do in Wikipedia is reflect what the book claims and reflect what writers from reliable sources write. Chass is acknowledged by the Baseball Hall of Fame as an upper tier baseball writer. He, and award winning sports journalist, writing a piece in the New York Times is as reliable as they come. Maybe we can find some more pieces written about the book (such as book reviews) from reliable sources. Also, it would be interesting to obtain a copy of the book and see if there are any references in it. What we shouldn't do is put our own interpretations into the article. You may very well have a terrific point about Dahlgren's MVP ranking and All-Star appearance, but until you get your ideas published in a reliable blog or news source, your idea will have to linger in the TALK pages. :) Kingturtle (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you regarding reliable journalists.  It's not my intention to question their integrity.  I'll do some more research and get a copy of the book to check the references it cites.  Thank you for the direction!--Low2snow (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to imply that you were questioning integrity. I think your criticism of the book is legit, but rather than write "This book states yadda yadda, but evidence shows badda bing," We should write "This book states yadda yadda, but this book review suggests badda bing." cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess the next step is to find the book at the library. Kingturtle (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked all the libraries in town.  The book is too new and not available.  I guess we move on to the next thing and wait for for more information.--Low2snow (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check my library. Also, maybe some library will buy a book if requested. I don't know. Kingturtle (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is it encyclopedic to include in the article, and reference the NYT articles, the bits about Dahlgren being called to report to the draft physical, being inducted, then being rejected?--Low2snow (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not. Kingturtle (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merits of Drug Rumor references