Talk:Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth was recently nominated to be promoted to good article status, and has passed! Congratulations and keep up the great editting! Highway 20:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• Archive of Babe Ruth/rewrite talk page
• Talk: Babe Ruth/Archive 2/July 2003 to March 2006

Bug?

When I access this page via the search tool in the side bar, I get the vandalized version (HE DEAD). But the history clearly shows the restored version as the most recent. And yes, I've tried clearing my cache. Dynayellow 19:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dates

An event in this article is a April 22 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Revert

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

---

I just had to revert this article. approximate 7:00pm EST, Oct 13, 2006.

Not sure how to report vandalism or how to get this article locked to users only. I hate vandals.

No Hitter

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)

It wouldnt be his no hitter it be the other guys

Incorrect Statement

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 (age 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

Bonds has passed Ruth, HOORAY!!!!!

Aaron, watch out!!! 71.131.48.24 04:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. Someone shoot should that juiced prick. TommyBoy76 14:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Last Will and Testament of Babe Ruth

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)

Dyslexia?

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

POV?

"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)

• Also the last sentence under "Retirement and later years" reading "Babe Ruth is not only an American Baseball icon, but also an inspiration to young baseball players all over the world." Have we polled all young baseball players all over the world to determine this? Unless there's a source, and even then, this statement seems clearly POV.SINsApple 03:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What #?

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

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

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)

Clean-Up the Article Disccusion

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)

• Wow, this thing is in bad shape. I have been blasting the thing for a few hours. This includes cleaning up bad info, requesting sources and re-arranging the article. A lot more needs to be done. I'm sure this might not look very well written with all the move arounds and cleaning that i did. Please feel free to make the text read better. I'll keep doing this until i feel like doing something else. --Tecmobowl 06:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Reverted article to earlier status

I have reverted this article to the way it was about two weeks ago, so any changes within that time will have to be redone. This article was voted as a Good Article, so it did not need major reorganization. Any major changes should be discussed first, and changes should be made properly, not with bad writing, bad organization, and sloppy editing. Tearing up sentences and paragraphs and failing to properly reorganize the article is not an “improvement." Note that if you have not contributed any substantial content to any article, your credibility with making major changes (especially deleting material) is not going to happen unless you discuss them first.

Some examples why this “improved” article had been reverted to its former incarnation:

1. Poor proof-reading. A new heading “The Braves Years.” Years? Ruth spent one year with the Braves.

2. Poor organization. A new heading “The Late 20’s" includes the 1925 and 1926 seasons. 1925 and 1926 are not the late 1920’s. Also, while one section of the 1925 season is put in the heading "The early 20’s", another part of the 1925 season is put in the “Early 20’s” section. 1925 is not the early 20's, and it is not the late 20's.

3. Chronology problem. The 1928 season is listed before the 1926 one.

4. Bad writing. “Ruth missed 21 games on the schedule that year; this included the last few weeks of the season.”

5. Poor organization. Ruth’s life in New York City is listed in the section “Impact on Baseball.”

6. Proof-reading problem. “He made the 1934 All-Star team, but that appeared to be more of an honorary selection than a reward for his play on the field that season (Ruth had also appeared in the 1st All-Star game the previous year, already late in his career).”

This same section mentioned Ruth in the 1933 All-Star game, there is no reason to mention it again in parenthesis.

7. Numerous short choppy sentences and paragraphs, the surest sign of lazy writing.

8. Very sloppy editing. This edited section demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject:

“The Yankees had a World Series rematch with the St. Louis Cardinals, who had upset them in the 1926 series. The Cardinals had the same core players as the 1926 team, except for Rogers Hornsby, who was traded for Frankie Frisch after the 1926 season. The series was no contest. The Yankees swept the Cardinals 4-0. Ruth batted .625 and hit three home runs in game four of the series.”

??? The 1926 World Series was won by the Cardinals 4-3, and Ruth hit .300 that series.

There are more examples but I think one gets the idea why this article had to be reverted. LibraryLion 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)