![]() | History of baseball in the United States is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 19, 2004, June 19, 2005, and June 19, 2006. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
|
|
Isn't the section header "The African American leagues" overly-PC? The whole section then details the Negro leagues. I realize it mentions Hispanics, but they also played in the Negro leagues. It seems perfectly appropriate to title that section "The Negro leagues" since it then refers to the main article Negro league baseball. I would change it myself, but I was not looking to fight the PC authoritarians. Am I missing something? Thoughts? 64.85.217.144 (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that the beginning of this page need a rewrite according to this recent article. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/sports/baseball/13thorn.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=John%20Thorn&st=cse Ckruschke (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
Included this link as a reference to the ongoing -- and probably eternal -- question of baseball's parentage. Jim Houghton
Any chance we can get a separate article going?--Levineps (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
It's absurd that an article titled "History of Baseball in the United States" doesn't mention women at all (apart from a brief mention of WWII). This article should really become a history of men's baseball or have a section for women inserted. Blythwood (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on History of baseball in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that large swaths of the article has no citations, or just a few. To make it easier for anyone who wants to fix it, here's a list of the sections that have absolutely no references:
Additionally, these sections do have some references, but could probably use more:
ShimmerFairy (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of baseball in the United States. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Dletter (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC) http://wane.com/2017/05/03/monument-at-fort-wayne-park-marks-first-ever-baseball-game/ Seems like this would be some good information to get included into the article (including maybe the photo of the monument).
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of baseball in the United States. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on History of baseball in the United States. 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:
((dead link))
tag to http://www.old-picture.com/baseball-index-001.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't remember seeing "article may contain original research" previously. The article, when I started copy-editing and adding citations, had a lot of unsubstantiated claims, almost all of which I was able to find some kind of reference for, a couple not. However this tag was added in June, which suggests that perhaps I have added "original research" without realizing it. I feel I have improved this article a great deal and am ready to move on, but don't want to leave any mess of my own making behind. Does the editor who placed the tag have any obligation to point out where the issue resides? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhoughton1 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I went through this article carefully and added a slew of references. There were a few claims/statements for which I couldn't find anything I could legitimately call a reference. The original article was, I believe, written in 2006, and maybe references were available in the media at the time that are no longer findable with a reasonable search. So, what to do, especially as a newbie editor? Leave the "citation needed" and move on, leaving the struggle to someone else? Or eliminate the claim/statement altogether? Example, of Team Networks: "By fencing these channels off in separate corporate entities, owners were able to exclude the income from consideration during contract negotiations." Not only couldn't find substantiation of this, but if Team Networks were ever a big deal, and if teams played hide-the-bucks to make themselves look poorer at contract time, the team networks have long been subsumed into larger broadcast entities and the tactic has lost all meaning. So, again, does the whole paragraph need to go? I see no harm in taking it out, but I don't feel I should take on that responsibility. I know this isn't Editor Kindergarten, but I'd be grateful for guidance. Jhoughton1 talk
OK thanks for the feedback. I've deleted the OR header. — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
And thanks for that. About the "may need copy editing for tone." I believe I accomplished that over many hours of editing for clarity, grammar, syntax, etc. I've never seen a WP article I felt was perfectly written, but I do think this one now fits in the category of "clear and readable." Unless "tone" has a specific meaning in the WP context, I submit that the article has been copyedited to reasonable standards. And as for the citations -- fine. Again, if you take a certain slant on WP, they are ALL missing citations. And many that contain the "citation needed" tag still do not have the template at the top. Cheers, Chris, and thanks for paying attention (even if you're not a big one for answering questions :^) --Jhoughton1 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
What I want is to learn what's right and what's wrong around here. I think there is material in this article that should disappear because I can't find substantiation for it -- but maybe someone else can. I have no insight into the original author's thought process or sources -- I'm surprised he didn't back up his own claims, but there it is. And encyclopedia article on the History of Baseball is never going to include every twist and turn, every tiny detail that, say, a book on the subject would. I have no problem taking out some of the un-referenced material in this article, as long as that's okay by the rules. --Jhoughton1 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Chris, I would never be the one to add "citation needed," at least not this early in my career. I continue to believe that this article contains enough reasonable citations to lose the template. WP needs to present as confident a face to the public as possible, thus only when claims or statements are truly dubious should there be a warning that says, in effect, "You shouldn't entirely believe this article." JMHO.Jhoughton1 (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the article doesn't mention the United States national baseball team at all, which is a big omission. Please fix it. Thanks! --186.53.121.31 (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)