User talk:LibraryLion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY CONTENT TO THIS PAGE, USE THE CURRENT PAGE, THANKS

Ruth

You're writing an online bio of the Big Guy. I've always pretty much despised the Yankees on principal, or maybe it's principle, but there is no denying that Ruth is a fascinating character. And he was the greatest baseball player there ever was, or ever likely will be... hands down, no competition. Wahkeenah 21:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ruth loved media attention, but although he was well-covered, there were areas the media would not go in those days. I suspect his gluttonous appetites for beer, women and hot dogs would get a lot more explicit coverage than it did in his day. So it's hard to say how he would have dealt with it... but it's a fair bet he would have done a better job than Barry Bonds has.

FYI, I wrote the initial attempt at the Called Shot section. I've been curious about that event since I first heard about it decades ago, and it seems to me a good example of how legends are made. And being a lifelong Cubs fan, I can appreciate various angles on it. Then, as now, everybody had their own agenda. That's why some said "Yes" and others said "No". And the fact that the actual photographic evidence is inconclusive, fits somehow. Wahkeenah 23:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I concur with your idea. I will plan to create a separate article about the Called Shot, although I don't think I will have time for it today. It seems to be the trend to spin off separate articles rather than having a lot of minutia about a single event within a more general context, such as a biography or a team history (example: the infamous Bartman incident in the 2003 NLCS which has its own article). As with Bartman writeup (which I find very annoying and overkill, but that's another story) I could link to the Called Shot from both the Cubs and the Ruth web pages, elaborate on it a bit more, and avoid redundancy with the other articles. Wahkeenah 20:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) What I object to is someone deleting something just because, in their not-so-humble opinion, it doesn't belong. If they object to content (as opposed to obvious vandalism) they should raise the question in discussion, rather than just taking it upon themselves to delete it. I gather that sort of thing is rampant at this website. I just happen to be watching the Ruth page because I added the called-shot stuff. It is odd how much of a Babe Ruth fan I've become over the years, given that I have an inherent dislike of the Yankees. d:) Wahkeenah 20:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you're the one to ask, but it's worth a try. What is the policy about photos? Like the photo of Ruth swinging the bat. Was that copied from a book? Or did someone "buy" the rights to it? The reason I'm asking is I would like to post a photo of the "Baby Ruth" sign that was visible from Wrigley Field, but I would have to scan a photo from a book, a postcard, or something like that. 20:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I will ask an administrator that I've had some discussion with already. Of course, it could be like this joke: A guy sees a bunch of cars illegally parked. He asks a cop, "Can I park there?" The cop says, "No!" The guy says, "What about those other cars?" The cop says, "They didn't ask!" (Taken, without permission, from The Joys of Yiddish) d:) Wahkeenah 21:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I done did it. I made a fairly small and grainy scan from part of a photo in a 1950 book, which shows the center field area of Wrigley Field in the 1935 World Series. The area looked very much the same in the 1935 Series as it did in the 1932 Series, complete with temporary bleachers in the streets behind the regular bleachers. Ruth hit his "Called Shot" near that same flagpole. The notable difference, of course, is the addition of the "Baby Ruth" sign atop a flat across Sheffield Avenue. Please check it out and see if you think the copyright police will come knocking on my door anytime soon. FYI, I realized that someone had knocked my comments about the Baby Ruth sign out of the park some weeks ago, so I put that paragraph back. Maybe you can figure out a way to word it a little better. I wasn't sure which place to put the photo, but the "Called Shot" page seemed like the best place, since it had no pictures at all. Wahkeenah 02:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a website referenced that I think has a still from the grainy home video. I gather that wikipedia doesn't have much problem with copying a photo from another site as long as it's properly credited, so maybe I'll do that and post it in that article. Then the 1935 photo is a good complement to it, perhaps. Wahkeenah 21:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I put it in the article Babe Ruth's Called Shot. Check it out. It's like a blatant ad for the owner of the movie, and if that isn't "fair use", I don't know what is. d:) Wahkeenah 23:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I may have seen the picture before. It's of Ruth making a very obvious gesture, pointing with his arm and facing the third base dugout. If it's the one I'm thinking of, it's amusing because it shows the ivy-covered outfield walls... which didn't exist until 1937-38. Anyway, it might be good for illustrating the legend, in contrast to the reality of the grainy movie frame. Wahkeenah 00:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a different picture from the one I was describing, but it was familiar, as I have the same book from which you got it. I think it adds a nice contrast: The reality (the first pic shown) compared with the growing legend. These well-after-the-fact artists' renderings kind of remind me of how George Washington used to be portrayed, as some kind of god-like figure. I guess we Americans think highly of our Georges. Ironically, a piece of paper with Washington's picture on it will get you a Baby Ruth. :b Wahkeenah 23:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything from 1920-21-22, but the annoying thing is that I am also not finding my copy of The Babe: A Life in Pictures, which would have a photo of that era if anything would. The one I'd like to find, which has also been rendered as a colorization in recent years, shows Ruth skying one at the Polo Grounds. It's vaguely similar to a shot of Ruth connecting during B.P. at Yankee Stadium before the upper decks were extended around. If and when that book turns up, I'll let you know. Wahkeenah 23:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have read here and there that superior materials after WWI contributed to the ball being more lively, and the argument is made that the "livelier" ball was really already there in 1919, but not many took advantage of it right away, although Ruth certainly did. I have also heard the argument that frequently substituting a new ball was really the single most significant factor in the offensive explosion. Batters could bat with more confidence and aggressiveness. This use of a single "game ball" is still the way it's done in cricket. The difference is that the ball is already dark and the background is white. In baseball, a dark background behind an ever-darkening baseball tended to make batters tentative. Carl Mays' delivery was an extreme "submarine" style, and it's obvious that Chapman never saw it coming. That, along with Mays being an irrascible and essentially unapologetic character, helped tipped the scales the batters' way. The Lords of Baseball didn't need another Chapman. Incredibly, though, it would be another 3 decades before batting helmets came into general use. Wahkeenah 23:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting to go back and time and discern the real reason(s) for the various rule changes concerning the ball in 1919-20-21. I think it's fair to assume that the quality of a baseball will naturally improve over time, and that the athleticism of the players will also improve. Another factor over time has been the lighter bat, making it "whippier" and allowing even little guys to knock them out. I recall one time seeing pint-sized Jose Cardenal put one over the left field screen at Wrigley with the wind blowing in yet. FYI, I found my Ruth book and will look through it to see if there is anything good I can crib. :) That reminds me... please look at the article on Baseball and see if you think I and/or wikipedia will get in any trouble for the "God passing the ball to Adam" thing. :) Wahkeenah 23:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking it might be worth pointing out that lots of players were nicknamed "Babe" both before and after Ruth came along... although that might be too fine a detail. Wahkeenah 23:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)]]

To the right is the picture I was thinking of, which is actually a book cover, so it's supposedly fair game. Wahkeenah 00:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to say the Goodman film is worth seeing once, just like the Bendix film (or most any film) is worth seeing once. It has been so long, though, I don't remember the details. I recall thinking that showing Ruth as being fat when he was on the Red Sox was absurd, and of course they faked the "called shot" thing. It would be interesting to compare the TV movie from the previous year with the Goodman movie... if you could find the TV movie. Wahkeenah 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It's one of those oddities, like when they had two different movies about Tombstone in the same year. A co-worker who is into it said the Kurt Russell version was closer to the truth. But the Kevin Costner version probably got more publicity. Wahkeenah 21:03, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the 1932 "Called Shot" ... take your best "shot".  :) Wahkeenah 00:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Unusual deaths

You might want to respond to my comment on the Talk page of List of unusual deaths, concerning what should or shouldn't make the list. - DavidWBrooks 23:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Photos =

I'll be interested in seeing how you word the fair use. I have read the fair use page twice or three times and I still don't get it. It all seems very vague. Wahkeenah 21:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential nicknames

Please see my remark at Talk:List_of_U.S._Presidential_nicknames#Many_additions.2C_no_citations. I imagine your material is accurate, but some of it is pretty obscure, and really begs for citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article feedback

Hello,
I saw the posting for the Babe Ruth article on its request for featured status. I see it is receiving criticism in certain areas and I tought I might offer a suggestion. You may or may not already know that Sandy Koufax was recently featured, maybe 2 weeks ago (actually, I stole the infobox from that page). I was comparing the 2 articles and here are somethings that stood out:

• when I did a print preview, Kofax 9 pages, Ruth 27 pages;
• TOC items - Kofax 8, Ruth 25;
• pictures - Koufax 4, Ruth 25 (however, I think the Koufax article was criticized for having too few);
• of those pictures of Ruth, only 4 are on the right-hand side;

Regarding the content, while it is fairly well written and useful, it reads more like a biographical entry rather than an encyclopedic entry. Some paragraphs could be reduced to one sentence and combined into other paragraphs. It may be hard to reduce some very entertaining escapades to a mere "by the way" (or even delete completely), but I think that is what you are facing. Ask yourself, if I was British or Brazilian, would I care about every off-field antic or suspension in detail, or would I only care about finding out about what made this man an American icon? (All of that in a very brief/consice article mind you.) To me, it seems your biggest task is to decide what ends up on the cutting room floor. Unfortunately, I am not very good at determining what exactly in the article should be condensed, so I apologize for not giving you specifics, but I believe the Wikipedia:Peer review can dramatically assist you with that. I wish you luck and hope to see you on the main page soon.--CrazyTalk 16:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

If you do decide to withdraw it from featured article considereation, I do hope you submit it to the peer review, if not for the sake of someday obtaining featured article status, but rather for a sense of improving your strengths to become one of the premeire authors/editors here. Then maybe down the road somewhere the article would be of featured status, if that is a gaol of yours. Otherwise, I would like to encourage you to join the baseball players Wiki project. I think your efforts would be much appreciated over there. Keep on keepin' on.--CrazyTalk 16:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandals?

I assume your referring to the moron who put in something about Ruth's development "as a hitler", which was kind of funny although absurd, and something about doing underage girls, which was decidedly not funny. This site would have a lot more credibility if they would stop a-nones from just doing whatever they want to. A good start would be to lock down "featured" articles that they want to show off. Duh! Wahkeenah 06:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)