Talk:Jackie Robinson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jackie Robinson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Jackie Robinson was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-03-21
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

An event in this article is a April 15 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

Contents

[edit] Not First Black Baseball Player

The opening sentence says that Jackie was the first black baseball player in the modern era, but the source link does not work. As we know, there were many black players in pro-baseball during the 1800's. Many (all?) history books incorrectly state that Jackie was the FIRST black beseball player, and we owe it to history to correct this blatant inaccuracy, in a more detailed and authoritive way. While it's true that Jackie was the first black player in modern history, this article completely fails to end the pervasive myth that Jackie was the first one ever. To the reader, there is a failure to get accross the change in black rights (for the worse) that occured areound the 1900's. Jackie is a great historical example of black rights finally returning and the reversal of the discrimination that occured after reconstruction ended. Please see James Loewen's work for more information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.23.185 (talk)

  • The modern era began in 1900. Therefor, the statement is correct. //Tecmobowl 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course, the statement is technically correct. I am only commenting that for all the school kids out there doing research, we should EMPHASIS the fact that he was not the first black ball player in the pro's. It was Woodrow Wilson and his policies that stopped blacks from being in the pro's and little kids should know that racial integration took a big leap backwards at the turn of the 20th century, and didn't right itself again until Jackie Robinson. If we don't EMPHASIS this point, this article only perpetuates the false myth that Jackie was the first black ball player ever. It is easy to overlook the 'modern era' remark in the sentence, especially when there is no further comment. Let's add some comments about this! This article is a great oppurtunity to point out that american society has stepped backwards in the past, and can do so again (some would say we are doing so right now in 2007) if we don't learn from our mistakes. After all, isn't that why history is so important?

[edit] Palwankar Baloo

Why is Palwankar Baloo linked to this article? I really don't see the relevance or relation he has with the life of Jackie Robinson. Yes, both were pioneers in their respective sports but the reference to Baloo seems out of place and I believe his name should be deleted. --Dysepsion 02:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I would guess that this is the parallel: "He was the first member of the Dalit (also known as the "Untouchable") caste to make a significant impact on the sport." WikiDon 02:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the circumstances are similar enough to warrant a link. And anyways, it can't really hurt to have one more link down at the bottom of the page. Who knows if people's attention spans are long enough for them to even read that far!!!??!  :-) Alhutch 00:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
FYI, This link no longer exists. - Abisai

[edit] Why is there no mention of his UCLA career?

I think it is important to remark that Mr. Robinson was also an elite college athlete at the highest level of competition—division I. Mr. Robinson is the only athlete in UCLA history to letter in four sports (football, basketball, track and baseball). From the UCLA webpage:

“Robinson was a student at UCLA from 1939-1941. He enrolled as a transfer student from Pasadena City College and made an immediate impact on the ’39 Bruin football team, averaging 12 yards per carry and 20 per punt return to lead the nation. In basketball, he twice led the Pacific Coast Conference Southern Division in scoring, and in track he won the PCC and NCAA broad jump competitions. Oddly, given his historic role in breaking the major league’s color barrier with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947, baseball was Robinson’s worst sport at UCLA — he hit .097 in his only season, though in his first game he went 4-4 and twice stole home base. Robinson was among the 25 charter members to UCLA’s Athletics Hall of Fame in 1984.”

In my opinion, this information would be a great addition to this article.



[edit] Request for clarification

In the section on Robinson's debut game in the major league, the only comment on his performance is "he batted 0 for 3". To those such as myself who know nothing about baseball, and are reading this article because of its subject's historical significance rather than because of any great interest in the sport, this is meaningless. If his performance in the game is signficant enough to be worth mentioning in the article, then it would be nice if it could be clear to everyone whether he did significantly well or significantly poorly! — Haeleth Talk 00:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not that unusual for even an excellent baseball hitter to bat 0 for 3 in any given game. It does mean he didn't do anything exciting at the plate (i.e. offensively) in a closely-watched game. Stellmach | Talk 00:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retired Number

42 was not retired from the yankees. mariano rivera is 42

42 is retired by the Yankees. All players who wore 42 prior to 1997 were allowed to keep the number until they retired. The Yankees don't get an exception just because they're the Yankees. - FreePablo

I believe he is the only player wearing that number presently. - Abisai

[edit] Neutral?

I read this part of the article and wondered "During that first season, the abuse to which Robinson was subjected made him come close to losing his patience more than once. Many Dodgers were highly resistant and hostile to his presence. A group of Dodger players, mostly Southerners led by Dixie Walker, insinuated they would rather strike than play alongside a black man such as Robinson, but the mutiny was ended when Dodger management informed the players they were welcome to find employment elsewhere. He did have the support of Kentucky-born shortstop Pee Wee Reese, who proved to be his closest comrade on the team. One game, Cincinnati players were screaming at Jackie, and then they started to get on Pee Wee. They were yelling things at him like "How can you play with this nigger?", with Jackie standing by first base. Pee Wee went over to him and put his arm around him and smiled, to the astonishment of fans. Jackie smiled back. The pair became a very effective defensive combination as a result. Pittsburgh Pirate Hank Greenberg, the first major Jewish baseball star who experienced anti-semitic abuse, also gave Robinson encouragement." Read it.... anyway, I added the ole {{POV}} to it...--IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph might need fact checking (therefore a {{fact}} tag on the paragraph itself), but I don't see where it warrants an NPOV tag. BlankVerseI think he was a very god player beacause every bodywas against him and he still did goood. 18:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe some fact-checking and a citation or what have you. Perhaps re-write it a bit, but it doesn't seem NPOV if we can get a citation. So it'd be nice to get the tag gone sometime soon. 12.214.163.67 19:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Although I don't have a copy on hand, most of this is in line with what I recall reading from The Boys of Summer. Durova 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested photograph

I'm posting a photograph request for the bronze bust of Robinson at Pasadena, California across the plaza from city hall: please add to the article if it becomes available. Durova 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Jackie Robinson

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, someone had linked everyone who was against Robinson to the South while not mentioning that Reese and Chandler were from the South as well. The mentioning of the South is pointless and it seems to imply that racism was not prevalent in other parts of the country. Mauvila 03:09, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time in army

There should be more information on Jackie's time in the army. MpegMan 01:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Hopefully there's more data on this in the current listed reference I'm using to update this article. I haven't gotten that far yet. robertjohnsonrj 01:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor League Debut

I'm trying to find out information about Jackie Robinson's debut in the minor leagues: it was in April, 1946 in Jersey City, NJ. Does anyone know anyone who might have been at that game? caroulis@lasalle.edu

The article's currently listed reference has a section on the negro leagues that I will be adding shortly. robertjohnsonrj 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source conflicts

[edit] Source conflict as to why he left UCLA?

Most of the article's currently used reference sources claim he left to take a job at a National Youth Administration camp so as to help his mother financially. One however (Bigelow) claims he had used up his athletic ability. Conflict?

  • Not really encyclopedic. Why he left is a matter of opinion, not fact. I don't think the "why" belongs in the article. Tecmobowl 04:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite source conflict over Jackie's pro football career.

In his autobiography, he states that he played professional football with the Honolulu Bears, then returned to California from Honolulu two days prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.[1]. However, reference, Baseball's Great Experiment has him listed as playing for the Los Angeles Bulldogs. Conflict.robertjohnsonrj 01:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite source conflict over Jackie's pro football career - corrected.

Source Rampersad states he played on 1st the Bulldogs, then a week later, the Bears. robertjohnsonrj 01:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Lt. commision date conflict

Respectively, I Never Had It Made has the month as January, 1943, while Current Biography 1947 has the date as November, 42. robertjohnsonrj 02:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments

This article has improve alot, and could pass WP:GA status soon, but several comments.

Some uncyclopedic text still laying around, I removed the quotes section has one is unsourced, one has little to do with the article, it's Robinson thoughts on Branch Rickey death, should be placed there, and the last one should have a quote box. Please remove the trivia section or merge it to the article.

The lead needs to be expanded to two paragraphs per WP:LEAD and strongly needs a copyedit, some grammar issues and word issues that I see, In so doing... very choppy wrting in parts especially in the Post-baseball life section, many one and two sentence paragraphs. Ref 96 doesn't have a page number, and I doubt a ref is needed for that, some fact tags that need to be fixed. Hope that helps. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree completely. The article has been actively edited by a number of people. Many of the additions since this started include WP:POV and weasel words. Information in the article should be verifiable AND encyclopedic. Until these incidents are fixed, i don't think WP:GA is appropriate. // Tecmobowl 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this article is not heading in the right direction, would anyone else like to comment and how do we resolve the problem? // Tecmobowl 03:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what to do to fix these problems. The confrontational elements that I've added to the article are from, I believe, reliable and neutral sources. I could be wrong about that, of course. Do you have any further suggestions to correct these problems? Thanks for your comments. robertjohnsonrj 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that removing the weasel words and non-encyclopedic information would be appropriate. I would be the first to agree that more can be included than what I put in my last revision [1]. However, the article is now longer than what is recommended and I find it disjointed and confusing. I try to avoid rewriting everything when i do a major edit. I find that would lean heavily toward a violation of WP:OWN. Therefor, a decent amount of what I left can still be improved upon. // Tecmobowl 04:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion page being ignored

I rewrote the lead into two paragraphs, as per one of the 1st instructions left on the discussion page. Was it not good enough? Is that why it was returned to the previous way? robertjohnsonrj 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You added in a number of non-encyclopedic information in other sections at the same time. To be honest, I just didn't have the time to go in and pick out the good stuff. I think you should read WP:CITE before making more edits. Again, that's more a suggestion than anything else. I'm not an admin. Furthermore, you write in the passive voice and change tense a number of times. Again, I am NOT the owner of the article and would be happy to discuss these points further. In the meantime, I think it would be best for everybody if we discuss what else needs to be edited. One last note, you mention that he is "a current member, posthumously, of the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame". Posthumously is in appropriate. First and foremost, he was elected while he was alive. People are not "removed" when they die. If you are elected to the Hall of Fame, you are always a member of the Hall of Fame. Second, that information does not enhance the article in my opinion. It would be a good idea to mention his induction into the Hall in 1962 in the introduction of the article. However, since the article already states that he died in 1972, it is a given that Jackie is a member of the Hall of Fame posthumously. I welcome a response as well as feedback from others. // Tecmobowl 05:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] President Honors Jackie Robinson at Congressional Gold Medal Ceremony

I found and web-archived this web site as a source to support the fact that Jackie Robinson was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, but I don't know how to add it to the main article: www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050302-12.html] Could someone more knowledgeable about this do this? TY robertjohnsonrj 22:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • robertjohnsonrj you need to stop editing this article in any fashion. Your edits are NOT good. If you would like to add to this article, please discuss your thoughts on THIS page before proceeding. This is becoming dangerously close to a case of article ownership. I do not want to be responsible for the entire article, but until someone else starts to contribute, I will be reverting these edits. I do not want to have to write the entire article, but i will if i have to. // Tecmobowl 00:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hero

In short, Jackie Roosevelt Robinson is a true American hero. That's pure PoV, some people may not think that, or many people would think someone else is. It's also in a very uncyclopedic tone. That is a pure violation of WP:NPOV a key wikipedia policy. Jaranda wat's sup 23:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Let's see what others think as well.
My view is this. America clearly has heroes. Jackie Robinson is clearly one of those heroes. Saying Jackie Robinson is *not* an American hero is absurd. Perhaps you are not aware of history and the impact Jackie Robinson had on this country. Besides, that sentence you eliminated gives a well rounded finish to the introductory section. Saying Mr. Robinson is not an American hero because some people might not think that is like saying Gandhi in not an Indian hero because some people might not think that. Since no one ever agrees 100% with anything, everything is always POV because some people might not think one way or an other. Do you see what I am saying? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 23:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with Jaranda on this. The statement should be left out. I agree that to say Robinson is not an american hero is not appropriate. However, the absence of the original statement does not equate to the converse. Tecmobowl 03:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, only because of you two, I'll agree to leave out the hero statement for now, even though every one knows that's the truth and its factual (but I still await the input of others). Hey, he won a Congressional Medal, and he's not a hero? Be that as it may, I restored these statements:
More importantly, long before Rosa Parks, it was Robinson who refused to move to the back of the bus (1944). And long before Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it was Robinson who set the stage of freedom for many Americans to follow by taking first base in Major League Baseball (1947).
because they are true, they are historically significant, and they are already sourced in the body of the article. Further, without these statements, the article is written as if he was a great baseball hero. He was, but his more important contribution was to freedom of all Americans no matter what skin color. His commitment to freedom is evident before, during, and after baseball. Removing these statement for a fourth time claiming they are unsourced will cause me great concern that your edits are biased or perhaps there is a deeper problem. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Those statements are POV and do not belong. I agree Robinson was an important figure socially and more should be said to that effect in the intro paragraph. However, it needs to be done in an encyclopedic fashion. I have subsequently removed those statements. The entire tone of that statement seems more like a fan paper than an encyclopedia entry. // Tecmobowl 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have the greatest input on this page at this time. You seem to be judge and jury, based on my reading of the other comments on this talk page, including your own. Be that the case, I implore you to write the proper words it takes to turn this ship in the right direction in the way it seems you and I both agree in principle. Instead of you constantly cutting out my contributions that Robinson is more important to freedom than he is to baseball, I am asking that you write the appropriate information yourself for placement in the introductory section because right now this article clearly emphasizes baseball and deemphasizes freedom and especially Jackie Robinson's groundbreaking contributions to same. If this article still looks like Jackie Robinson is important because of his contribution to baseball, as it appears now that you again removed my additions, I will be forced to place a NPOV tag on this page and specify why on the talk page. Here's your chance to shine. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
To interject another opinion here: That Robinson had a huge effect on baseball is indisputable. That '"his more important contribution was to freedom of all Americans" is opinion, and kind of over-the-top. Clearly, he was important beyond baseball. How important is debatable, and articles should stick to indisputable fact. Fan-1967 01:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing. It's not interjection, it's what we are all supposed to do. I agree with you. But the quote you quoted me on will not appear in the final version -- indeed I have asked Tecmobowl to come up with the best language. So let's see what the final language is to ensure it sticks to indisputable facts. And let's all be sure those facts are facts, not a version of the facts seen through Google eyes and the passage of time. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I would be leery, though, of including anything that would say that he is "more important to freedom than he is to baseball." Many, many people were groundbreakers for civil rights in that era. He was an important one, but there were many. On the other hand, in baseball he was alone, and it's difficult to suggest he's more important outside baseball than in it. Fan-1967 02:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by judge and jury and think we should stick to the discussion of the content and not get personal. I think the term freedom is being misused here. Robinson had an impact on civil rights, not on freedom. Further to the point, the information that was removed was not encyclopedic. The article does not deemphasize Robinson's effect. Rather, it simply glazes over the topic. I think incorporating the trivia section (which mentions his medal of honor), will help. I do believe some more factual information about his social work would be appropriate. In accordance with what 1967 said, stick to the facts.//Tecmobowl 02:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I struck out the text you didn't like, although it was not personal, merely an observation. (Funny, on a baseball page, I struck out text.) I think there's a serious issue of bias here, though unbeknownst to you, and therefore innocent. Look, one of you is even called Fan something. Fan of what? Baseball or sports generally. What is being emphasized on this page? Baseball. By whom? Fan something. Tecmobowl -- do not place so much emphasis on deconstructing my wording here in Talk -- it's essentially irrelevant. Concentrate please on improving the article in a way we both agreed in general. I'm looking forward to seeing what you have in mind. I gotta say, though, his medal of honor being in the trivia section makes me wince and further supports my view generally that this article needs an attitude adjustment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
How exactly is the language you use irrelevant? Further to the point, if anyone is biased, it is you. No attitude adjustment is needed, just stick to facts, that's all anyone is saying. //Tecmobowl 04:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I tire of this. Make some suggestions for improving the wiki page or I'll do it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 04:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This article has changed a lot since I first commented on it. It's getting better. Good. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any reason why the paragraphs added on Robinsons

Political career and business career were deleted? I have added them back in, including my research references. If someone believes them to not be factual, please point out why.Nrpepper92113 02:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You've been having the same problems, I see, with the same people. Here's the key: get solid references. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
No offense here, but I think there is a big difference between proclaiming someone a "Hero" (an opinion), or "More Important to Liberty that to Baseball" (another opinion)than me wanting to tell someone he co-founded the Freedom Bank (a fact) wrote a syndicated newspaper column (another fact) or campaigned for politicians (also, a fact). He also won both of the medals mentioned. It is all quite provable, and documented. So, no I don't think we're having the "same problem" with the "same people." Thanks anyway. Nrpepper92113 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thoughts

who said wodrow willson was the first black base ball player? He was a prez. Anyway, we think robinson was the first black major leauge base ball player because it is a popular myth. and when legend becomes fact, print the legend. He is the supposed first black base ball player because he was the most popular and faced the most struggles. answer you questions? 209.247.5.219 18:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC) matt

[edit] Gap in his history: 1939-1945

Could someone fill in the gap here? It jumps from his early junior college days right to being selected by Rickey to break the color line. It would be great if there was mention of what he did during this time period (negro leagues?) to catch Rickey's eye. DavidRF 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

David: I am going to register and try to figure out how to add a short outline on this very formative period in Jackie's life in the coming week if I can figure out how to get behind the edit protection. The basic facts of his participation in the fight to open up officer training to blacks in the Army and of his court martial acquittal are not contested. Is this article "protected" or just "semi-protected?"
I came to this Wikipedia entry on Jackie Robinson with my son who is writing and article on him for 6th grade. For myself, I had hoped to find factual information or knowledgeable opinion on why he was discharged in 1944 when the military still believed they were looking at two more years of war in the Pacific if things went well. I was amazed at how limited and sanitized the information on Jackie is. I will try to make a minor contribution instead of complain. 19:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Chet
I don't think the article is protected in anyway, but it does appear to be high traffic and highly monitored. If you can provide information from 1939-45 with citations then, by all means post it in this discussion thread and we can see if we can get it incorporated into the article. Because of the high traffic and monitoring, citations (preferrably books and not websites) are likely to be needed.DavidRF 03:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Good article" status on hold failed

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


It still needs more inline citations in "Post-baseball life" and "Awards and recognition." Not the most stable article, but OK for most purposes. If those sections are properly cited, then I'll make this a GA. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This Good Article nomination has failed because no attempt was made to address the issues above for 7 days: see diff. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/c/Talk%7EJackie_Robinson_d21b.html"