Talk:Baseball color line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
Baseball Portal
Baseball color line is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article could benefit from adding images.
Assessment comments

The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit ° history ° watch ° refresh)

There are a few errors and myths being perpetuated by the Boston section of this article.

1)The article implies that the Red Sox failed to get to the WS until they 'fully integrated' in 1967. What exactly does 'fully integrated' mean? The article implies that the Sox got to the WS by employing the full-time uses of African-Americans George Scott and Reggie Smith. The fact of the matter is George Scott was a full-time player in 1966 also and Reggie Smith only saw a hand-full of AB's in 1966 not because he was Black, but because he was a poor hitter. Reggie batted about .158 in 1966 in the big leagues. However the Sox did use African-American Joe Foy as a full-time 3rd baseman, and African-Latino Jose Tartabull saw significant playing time in 1966 as well.

It's not correct to say the Sox wern't 'fully integrated until 1967', as they were just as 'fully integrated' in 1966.

2)It's also incorrect to assume the Sox failed to get to the WS between 1946 and 1967 for failure to integrate. The Yankees were the 15th team to integrate and they won several World Series between 1947 (When Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier) and 1955 (when the Yankees integrated...four years before the Red Sox)

In fact the entire Boston section is full of unverifiable hyperbole and smacks of a hatchet job. It should be removed until it can be re-edited.

This article says:

The separation's beginnings occurred in 1868, when the National Association of Baseball Players decided to bar "any club including one or more colored persons."

Who are what is being quoted here? The article says the rule was unwritten. Since it was 1868, this cannot be a videotaped statement, and if it was not written, it can't be a written source. If it's a newspaper article or the like, which is not a spokes-organ of the League, it should say so. Michael Hardy 23:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] baseball color line

I was afraid you missed this, so I copied this from my talk page to here. -- ❝Sverdrup❞ 19:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In this edit, you wrote

"any club including one or more colored persons."

Whom were you quoting? Please see talk:baseball color line. Apparently your information contradicts information added later, and the article has been that way for a long time. Michael Hardy 02:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a hard question! I can't remember, but I have searched around now; I can find something like that quoted at [1], where it says "any club which may be composed of one or more colored persons." I can't say for sure if this was my original source and/or if I modified the quote. I don't think the truth of the statement is at risk, but finding sources is always good (as we think now two years later. Sourcing statements wasn't practice at all in 2004). ❝Sverdrup❞ 15:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A Semi-Permeable Line

I've been reading All Those Mornings . . .At the Post which is a compilation of some of Shirley Povich's best columns that he wrote while he worked at the Washington Post. In a series of articles about the integration of baseball that he wrote in 1953, Povich mentions some strange things. The first is that in 1901 John McGraw, of the old Baltimore Orioles (now New York Yankees), signed "a light-skinned Negro from Cincinnati named Charley Grant." McGraw attempted to pass off Grant as a Cherokee but was eventually discovered when many of Grant's black friends came to Chicago to greet him and became a small celebrity in the black press, which inadvertently exposed him. McGraw was forced to release Grant when Charles Comiskey refused to allow the Chicago White Sox to play against the team (152-153).

The second strange incident, which I think needs context, is an odd claim made by Branch Rickey, that Clark Griffith "initiated the practice of bringing negroes into baseball under the guise of Cubans." (155). Does anybody know anything about this and who these players were? Jsonitsac 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This article states that John McGraw refused to take the field against teams with black players. Not only is this statement unsubstantiated in the article, it is completely libelous. McGraw was well ahead of his time when it came to his views on black ballplayers. In addition to the Charley Grant incident discussed above, Ken Burns' acclaimed history of baseball relates a story where McGraw's widow, upon his death, discovered lists of black ballplayers that McGraw had scouted over the years with notes on how they could fit in with his Oriole and Giant teams. Please remove this erroneous staement ASAP and stop sullying the reputation of a noble man.152.131.10.72 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the statement in the article refers to his playing years, presumably the early 1890s; it's entirely possible that his views changed afterward. I'm not defending the wording (it needs to be sourced), just pointing out a possible alternative explanation. MisfitToys 22:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying. It needs to be sourced or removed. 152.131.10.72 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the McGraw reference. It was baseless and unsubstantiated. I also removed the Cobb reference. Sure, Cobb was a racist, but by the time he played the color line had been firmly established.DavidRF 01:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bud

Where is Bud Fowler, he was the first African American to play on a pro white teams, and hes not even mentioned. 4.254.223.89 17:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Racial Epithet Deleted"

In a quotation in this article in which someone spoke a racial epithet, the word(s) itself has been replaced with "[racial epithet deleted]." I am certainly not in favor of bandying about racial epithets, but I have noticed on Wikipedia that other kinds of profanity, or other language that is debasing, offensive, crass, or crude, such as abuses of God's or Jesus's name, is maintained based on several ideas: (1) Wikipedia should not be censored, (2) it violates NPOV to edit words that may be offensive to some, (3) it is more important to have the information available than to worry about offending, (4) it is unenlightened to be concerned with mere words, or variations of these and other reasons. When one edits the profanity (I haven't tried personally, but I've seen it discussed on many talk pages and in edit comments), invariably, it seems, the editor is shouted down with reasons like these. So how did "racial epithets" get their special status, a higher level of supposed offense and taboo than other language that many, many people would understand to be offensive or debasing, and not necessary for the encyclopedia's purposes?Holy 20:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Censoring a racial epithet is against the rules. If some bozo verifiably used the N-word, then it can be quoted as-is. Someone trying to suppress it with something generic is going too far... unless the quoted source stated it that way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)