Talk:Jackie Robinson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jackie Robinson article.
Article policies
Good article Jackie Robinson was a nominee for Everyday life good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
March 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

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

Contents

[edit] Just one thing

Just my 2 cents, the opening paragraph might want to mention he was a second baseman. It's kind of a large detail to his MLB career. That info is in the artice but its kind of buried in.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.238.240 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 April 2007.

[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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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 EMPHASIZE 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 EMPHASIZE 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?
    • I think the real point is that while the "of the modern era" verbiage is accurate, it's misleading. I added, then amended, a line which at this time reads "While not the first African American professional baseball player in history, his Major League debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers ended approximately eighty years of baseball segregation, also known as the baseball color line." I think this is also both factual and an important part of the document's overview. I didn't include who *was* the first African American professional baseball player ever because it doesn't seem to be well established from what I can tell, and because this article is about Jackie Robinson, not First African American Baseball Player. //Zipwow

[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.

I agree. His accomplishments at UCLA are notable.

[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)

The word "Transgression" (in the phrase "not only presaged his transgression of the color line in baseball...") is incorrect. Transgression has a pejorative connotation. Saying "pioneering integration of baseball" or "pioneering crossing of the color line in baseball" would be fairer and more accurate --Robglaser 01:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was using the word in a metaphorical sense: "transgression" means breaking the rules, someone's rules. I also had in mind a self-conscious allusion to the Lord's Prayer (I am an agnostic, but the idea, forgiveness, is beautiful: 'forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass. Yes "trespass", isn't "transgression." So perhaps that was obscure. I accept your change, if you think it helps the article. -- Heybai 18 April 2007 at 6:30 pm in Taiwan.

[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

the above statement is one of the most ignorant i have read. whoever "matt" is, he should be sacked.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.189.246.113 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 15 April 2007.

[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 reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (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)

[edit] 60th Anniversary Celebration

Does it make sense to list all the players who are wearing 42 on April 15 this year? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amazins490 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

It does make since to show every player who is wearing 42 on April 15.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yanks53 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 9 April 2007.

Add the Milwaukee Brewers to the list of teams of all players will wear 42 on April 15.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.204.92.86 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2007.

[edit] What about the reason he retired?

It has always been my understanding that Mr. Robinson, upon hearing he had been traded to the Giants, stated his displeasure and said he would rather retire than play for the Giants. When the Giants did not agree to void the trade, Jackie retired. What a Dodger!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcus29fan (talk • contribs) 23:56, 9 April 2007.

That's already in the article. DavidRF 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't the only reason. It was certainly among them, but he also wanted to enter the civil rights movement, and he found that more important than his twilight years in baseball. --MonkBirdDuke 06:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The notion that he wouldn't play for the rival Giants is a fans' fantasy. This is a profession, not high school. Players go where the money is. Jackie was 37 years old and he had other things to do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Roger Kahn's book about the Brooklyn Dodgers, The Boys of Summer, confirms that Robinson was strongly considering retirement after the 1956 season, as he was not getting along with Dodgers management, and was feeling his age, and while the trade did add more weight to the decision, it was the idea of a trade at all; the fact it was the Giants was irrelevant. According to Kahn, the Giants offered a large salary to him, and actually made Robinson's decision to retire more difficult. --- Couillaud 02:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about changes to Military Career Section

I replaced this passage, which I contributed earlier this week but which someone in the past few days deleted, to Robinson's military career:

The racism which poisoned baseball permeated all of American society. Jackie Robinson's remarkable courage and his resolute stand for simple human decency must therefore be seen as profoundly important not only to professional sports, but to the entirety of American culture. Jackie's early resistance to racism in the military should also remind us that there were perhaps thousands upon thousands of "Jackie Robinsons" who preceeded him with similar gestures, both small and grand, but of whom we shall never know, as their lives never entered the public limelight in such a striking and spectacular manner.

Whoever deleted it believed I had copied it from an encyclopedia. I did not. If I had, I would have cited that as my source. These are my words, and they are supported by the references I cite elsewhere in the section. Further, I believe these few sentences contextualize Jackie's significance to what I believe to be the central problem facing the United States since the end of Reconstruction, namely the Jim Crow Laws, which was America's version, from 1877 till the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of South African Apartheid. I did not plagiarize these sentences. Please don't delete them again, or please explain why you have.

Heybai 06:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Heybai

I don't think they are being deleted because they think you plagiarized, I think they are being deleted because they don't conform to WP:NPOV -- Amazins490 03:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I read on the Wikipedia rules you cite, concernuing NPOV and bias: "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one ideology."

Isn't the point that Rosa Parks and Jackie Robinson are consider national heroes today because they stood up for the truth? What exactly is "biased" in my deleted paragraph beyond the wide parameters Wikipedia allowed by protocols? I am again replacing the paragraph, drawn from the sources I cite and general public knowledge, and hope no one deletes it a second time and will at least have the courage to admit that they are uneasy about admitting to America's racist past. -- Heybai

The last paragraph of the military section is atrocious. It has nothing to do with Robinson's military career and is so fawning as to come across as almost satirical. This, and a number of other sections in this article, needs to be re-written to lose the 4th grade textbook style as soon as possible. Update: I couldn't stand it and deleted the paragraph. It just had no redeeming value. Good to see it's stayed off. Schrodingers Mongoose 04:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fawning" -- is that the basis of your criticism? I only noted in a few short sentences that Jackie is "Jackie Robinson," famous American hero, because his career and life made such a splash. It had this effect because it affected every single American in one way or another. How many "Rosa Parks" were kicked, punched, arrested, spat upon, before the "Rosa Parks" whose unprecedented State funeral symbolized the downfall of the violence and abuse of Jim Crow America, 1877-1964?

Do you really find discussion the Jim Crow laws trivial, and my connection of this very famous public figure with this painful periof of our history "fawning"? At the start of the 20th century W.E.B. DuBois predicted the new century's central issue, in the US and worldwide, would be "the color line."

I replaced the paragraph. And how can you contend Jackie's earlier, little-known military resistance "has nothing to do with his military career"? For heaven's sake. Do a little reading, will you please? Do you actually believe drawing a connection between Jackie Robinson's life to our Jim Crow nightmare satirical? You have to come up with better reasons than belittling my writing -- better than these this shallow, ill-informed, dismissal. Race/racism touched all our lives in extremely personal, extremely public, and terribly painful ways. Fawning, eh? Is that what it is? Who/what is your source for this "fawning" theory of yours?

Finally, could someone -- someone with a little more depth than this fellow -- suggest the protocols in a dispute such as this? Obviously Mr. Fawning and I could go back and forth, pointlessly destabilizing the article. This is the only Wiki article I have ever contributed to in a significant way, and I did it with care. I love baseball. I love Babe Ruth. It hurts me to think that I cannot be absolutely certain Ruth wasn't the greatest player (a great lefty pitcher AND among the greatest of hitters of all time) in the greatest American game ever invented, all because Jim Crow & Major League Baseball disallowed 1/6 of the best players in American from competing in the League during his career. I support Wikipedia, but if it's going to turn into this sort of free-for-all, I've got better uses for my time and energy. -- Heybai 18 April 2007. I am in Taiwan, and don't have a clue what time 6:30pm here is in UTC.

The next day. I replaced the "offensive" paragraph, with some revisions, and someone else immediately deleted it, this time citing "no original research" as a cause. Wikipedia does require that statement be backed up with sources, which I provide earlier in the section. It also provides some latitude. Would the phrase "the sun rises in the east each morning," require "research". I am a historian. I have an inkling, I believe, of the parameters, of when statements demand supporting documentation. Again, I ask: Are the editors of my section perhaps uneasy about accepting the realities of the Jim Crow laws, which touched our lives so profoundly? I will not change the paragraph again, but I would ask some of you to reflect on your own thinking. Heybai 03:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Heybai

I don't think the paragraph is being removed because of any reflections on the realities of history. It is not being removed because people disagree with it. It is just not simply encyclopedic. Wikipedia is about reporting facts, and the paragraph in question does more than that. The fact that there were many heroes before Robinson who were just never publicized is undoubtedly true and very sad, but that's not in the realm of this article or Wikipedia as a whole. It is not the article's place to make the argument that Jackie Robinson was a hero and that he did the "right thing" even though I'm sure everyone here believes that to be so.
As important as racism may have been, and as sad as it was, this article on Jackie Robinson is not the place to show regret for it. -- Amazins490 04:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of at least responding to me. I do wonder at your definition of "encyclopedic" and your assertion that Wikipedia "is about reporting facts." I wrote:

"The racism which poisoned baseball permeated all of American society. Jackie Robinson's remarkable courage and his resolute stand for simple human decency must therefore be seen as profoundly important not only to professional sports, but to the entirety of American culture."

Even within your parameters, can you truly label this unfactual, or un-encyclopedic? Jackie Robinson is a national hero **because** the ramifications of his example had such a wide-spread, wide-ranging effect. I don't have time to tinker with the article anymore and see it repeatedly vandalized for spurious and, in my view, faulty reasoning, but I do thank you for explaining yourself and not merely attacking me, as another user did, for my "fawning" express of what I see as the-plain-as-day truth. Jackie Robinson touched all of our lives just as hyperlink lights up the web in untold and unknownable ways. Peace be with you. Heybai 13:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Heybai

To Dysepsion and others:

I wrote, you have twice deleted, the following sentences at the start of the paragraph related to the military career of Jackie Robinson:

"The racism which poisoned baseball permeated all of American society. Jackie Robinson's remarkable courage and his resolute stand for simple human decency must therefore be seen as profoundly important not only to professional sports, but to the entirety of American culture."

I respectfully ask how you see this to be unfactual or inappropriate to the article. Please also read my comments on this issue on the "discussion" section to the Jackie Robinson article.

Your simple notation that I provide no research strikes me as odd for two reasons: 1) I do cite sources earlier in the article, and 2) it seems to me to be a statement drawn from general knowledge. I know what plagiarism is.

If I were to write, "The sun rises in the East and provides fundemental life-giving energy to our planet," would demand a published citation? And suppose, too, this sentence appeared at the end of an article on "the Sun," in which I had already given adequate references. I am asking you to reconsider, and replace the deleted material if you see my point. If you do not, then I am truly sorry for your lack of insight into our culture and our history. I'll let it stand as you have left it.

I don't want to get into a squabble, but it seems to me any discussion involving race/racism provokes muddled thinking, quick, and not-too-clearly considered reactions. I have thought about baseball, race, and America for decades, and I have been teaching at the university-level for most of that time. I am a historian and know how to do research. Please have the courtesy to address this issue rather than simply dismissing a passage on a topic which touches all of our lives. These are things I care about deeply. Heybai 14:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Heybai

You have been given reasons by several editors that what you are including in the article does not conform with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view and original research. No one doubts that Jackie Robinson was a pioneer both in sports and society. Everyone agrees, however Wikipedia is not the forum for personal essays. That entire paragraph is not cited and moreover you use a 1st person point of view in it. I personally find it very offensive and extremely misinformed that you would think other editors are deleting it because they cannot grasp the concept of racism in America. One does not need to be a historian, teacher etc. to realize the ramifications of the racial tensions both in Jackie Robinson's time and now. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 15:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dysepsion et al --

I would ask that you please again check the deleted paragraph in question. It appears in full at the top of this section.

You write: "That entire paragraph is not cited and moreover you use a 1st person point of view in it."

You do realize, don't you, that a truly "first person poing of view" must include first-person pronoun "I" (we/us is plural, and thus generalized) to be so labeled? E.g. "I personally find it very offensive and extremely misinformed that you would think other editors are deleting it because they cannot grasp the concept of racism in America." Now *that* from you -- "I personally...", etc -- is an example of the first person point of view.

Additionly -- and you don't' seem disposed to accept my sincerity at face value so I fear you won't get this point -- I was not accussing anyone of racism, or being a racist, and if I gave that impression, however obliquely, I humbly apologize. I was only noting that the subject tends to evoke powerful feelings, as is exemplified by your response to me. If we were exchanging opinions over my hypothetical article, "The Sun" (the one I imagine above), would you respond to me in this tone?: "I personally find it offensive that you would accuse other editors of low moral standards in criticizing your depiction of solar phenomena." Think about it.

I'm letting the article stand as is. If someone wishes to add to it in line with my original draft, they have my blessing, but my first experience writing for Wikipedia is beginning to take on Lord of the Flies overtones. Regards, Heybai 11:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Heybai

It's very amazing that even now you're trying to distort the arguments. When I mentioned you can't use first person point of view, I meant that you can't use first person in information in an actual Wikipedia article. This does not pertain to discussion pages. Any experienced editor knows that. Of course racism provokes powerful emotions. That is a given, however for some reason you don't get the concept that personal opinions have no place in an article. I didn't think you were accusing anyone of racism with your previous statement. What I was offended by was your implicitness that editors were deleting the paragraph because of their own ignorance of the issue of racism in America. I'm sorry that your Wikipedia experience has not been a pleasant one, but you should seriously familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and edit other articles before you get into a heated debate and accuse people of "vandalism". --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel like this becoming more personal than it out to be. Here is the deleted passage, written by me, Heybai, its author:

The racism which poisoned baseball permeated all of American society. Jackie Robinson's remarkable courage and his resolute stand for simple human decency must therefore be seen as profoundly important not only to professional sports, but to the entirety of American culture. Jackie's early resistance to racism in the military should also remind us that there were perhaps thousands upon thousands of "Jackie Robinsons" who preceeded him with similar gestures, both small and grand, but of whom we shall never know, as their lives never entered the public limelight in such a striking and spectacular manner.

You claim that this is written in the first person: "...what you are including in the article does not conform with Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view... Everyone agrees, however Wikipedia is not the forum for personal essays. That entire paragraph is not cited and moreover you use a 1st person point of view in it."

Yesterday I objected that the deleted section was not written in the first person, and today you respond: "When I mentioned you can't use first person point of view, I meant that you can't use first person in information in an actual Wikipedia article. This does not pertain to discussion pages."

So where have I gone wrong? Show me please where in the article I take a first-person point of view, as in "I believe" or "It is very clear to me," etc. What exactly are you telling me? I a truly confused. Heybai 08:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Heybai

P.S. Have a look at the revised paragraph which includes an additional published source, and let me know what you think. I don't think I can do much better than that. JR was a great American, and not merely a famous ballplayer who set a "first". That's what I am trying to document in this section. Heybai 09:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Heybai

First person = "Jackie's early resistance to racism in the military should also remind us that there were perhaps thousands upon thousands of "Jackie Robinsons" who preceeded him with similar gestures". Having mentioned that, the revised paragraph is much better. The cited source validates the statement. All of this confusion could've been avoided if sources were initially provided. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The quote is good. (This paragraph doesn't belong in the military career section, though.) My advice to you is to stick to the quotes. Your prose tends to be too idealistic and idolizing. (e.g. "an early turning point in the life of the nation"). We don't want this to read like a hagiography. This talk page is starting to read like a negotiation where the text is toned down incrementally until it is finally acceptable to the one reviewer who is present at the time. Well, months from now someone else is going to read it for the first time and is going to want to change it. So much has been written about Jackie Robinson over the years that there should be plenty of quotes by historians and other influential people to fill an entire section of this article. People will edit your prose -- that's wikipedia -- but people cannot edit an accurately cited quote from a good source.DavidRF 17:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I accept that my admiration for the man has led to style issues which many editors cannot brook. Fine. But I think describing my sentence as "hagiography" is a little too critical. I believe (yes, me "the first person"), Robinson's career was an early turning point (his stance int he military, his baseball breakthrough, as were others, e.g. Brown vs Board of Education, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. I am not canonizing JR in such a statement. I am also a little weary of Wiki users overly-confident demands for published sources. Were I to publish my thoughts on Robinson and then cite my printed publication would that really render them more valid?

Here's a dialog you may have read:
Wilbur: "What does 'gullible' mean?"
Charlotte: "It means someone who is easily fooled."
Wilbur: "Well, that's a relief."
Charlotte: "Trust me Wilbur, people will believe anything they see in print."
-- from Charlotte's Web, 1952, by E.B. White Heybai 14:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Heybai

Its an encyclopedia. Be as neutral as you possible can in the prose and let the quotes do the talking for you. Jackie Robinson is an american icon, one of Time magazine's Top 100 people of the century, the subject of dozens of biographies. I have heard noted historians, journalists and politicians say things like what we've been asking you the wikipedia editor not to say yourself in countless documentaries. So go out and get some quotes! DavidRF 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Could clarify what you mean here? I honestly cannot folow this: "...say things like what we've been asking you the wikipedia editor not to say yourself in countless documentaries. So go out and get some quotes!" Please, for heaven's sake don't take this as a personal attack. I want to understand your point -- "you the wikipedia editor not to say yourself [etc]" -- leaves me scratching my head.

As for getting quotes, didn't I do just that yesterday by updating the section with a quotation from this source:

Thorn, John. "Our Game" pp1-10 In Total Baseball: The Official Encyclopedia of Major League Baseball 7th ed. John Thorn et al eds. Total Sports Publishing, New York, 1992.

My brief section on Jackie Robinson's military career cites five (5) sources. But I wish to again remind you and others that simple statements of fact -- e.g. "the Sun rises in the East" -- needn't be backed up by scholarly quotations, and that the printed word is as liable to be tainted with untruth as is an utterance. Samuel Johnson's famous Dictionary (1755) contains the following definition "Oats:A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland appears to support the people."
As Charlotte says...
Heybai 07:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Heybai

"I have heard noted historians, journalists and politicians say things like what we've been asking you -- the wikipedia editor -- not to say yourself in countless documentaries. So go out and get some quotes!" (I added a couple of dashes added for clarity, apologies if it was confusing.) What I mean here is that the POV statements in your prose are completely unnecessary. You can add an entire section on Jackie Robinson's influence on american culture and status as an american icon and fill it with quotes from historians, journalist and politicians. I actually think that would be a great addition to the article. But when the prose surrounding the factual recount of Jackie Robinson's military career is peppered with POV statements then it decreases the credibility of the article.
To answer your question from before: "Were I to publish my thoughts on Robinson and then cite my printed publication would that really render them more valid?" The answer is yes (if you were a respected figure worthy of quoting). This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Nobody cares what anonymous wikipedia editors like you or I think of Jackie Robinson. Readers want to see things backed up and cited. If opinions are stated, they want to know to whom those opinions can be attributed.
Thanks for adding the citations. The Thorn quote is great. I said so above. Some of the citations contain extra prose, though. Look at the honorable discharge citation. mlb.com says he was tried on August 2, acquitted and honorably discharged on November 28th. Good citation. But then you add "but his story, and his resistance to hatred rooted in bizarre notions spawned by scientific racism and popular predjudice had only really just begun". Thats quite a bit more commentary than was included at mlb.com! The citation should really be moved to an earlier location in the sentence because it looks like we are incorrectly citing mlb.com for the commentary. Plus, the comment at the end which I already mentioned above: "an early turning point in the life of the nation". There's a lot of commentary there, too! "Early" itself certainly takes on quite a meaning considering the country was 168 years old at the time. Who's point of view is that? These are not "simple statements of fact".
Your use of cryptic methods like Charlotte's Web quotes and odd entries in Samuel Johnson's dictionary is clever but it does not exactly tell me that you understand the NPOV type of prose that wikipedia aims for in its articles -- though judging what the length of what I just wrote it certainly does prolong the discussion on this talk page. DavidRF 16:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for the clarification. That really did help, and I don't want to belabor the point, so we needed go on from here. This section on Robinson is the most I've written for any Wikipedia article so it has been a tutorial for me (and clearly exasperating for some of you who have been arguing about POV and style issues for some time!). I used Wikipedia all the time as a ready reference but am skeptical of it as an authoratitive source. It is unique, and I will continue to support it. My quote from Dr Johnson's was meant to underscore my point that all utterances -- speech or print -- need to be examined critically. For generations Johnson's Dictionary was THE authoritative source for the English lexicon. Similarly the first 3 editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1771, 1779, 1797) are a scream for their outlandish statements of "fact" and their claims to what we call "neutrality". This is a deep philosophical issue I won't draw others down this road any farther. I simply wish you would all recognize that "printed sources" do not equate to TRUTH and neutrality. Heybai 08:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Heybai

[edit] Jackie Robinson Day

I think that "Jackie Robinson Day" actually deserves it's own article at this point. After this outpouring of support that JAckie Robinson day received this year, the day will keep being celebrated within the MLB on an annual basis, and will be a regular part of the MLB schedule...like the all star game or fourth of july. --MonkBirdDuke 06:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to do this, there is information on previous Jackie Robinon Days here, here and here -- Amazins490

[edit] 60th anniversary tribute after the fact

Not sure how to deal with the fact that while the Astros and Phillies had been planning having the whole roster wear 42, they never did because they're game was rained out. Any ideas? -- Amazins490 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Giants just wore the same jersey the next day, (after the rainout)...I think it may lose some of the national influence (media wise), but it doesn't lose any significance.

[edit] Vandalism and rewrites

Looking through the history of this page, it has been partially rewritten and vandalized so many times, probably a few completely independent versions have existed. Currently, mention of his time at UCLA and the negro leagues doesn't exist, and the military section is completely changing every half day. I'll bet that even if someone fixed everything it would get messed up again within a week. Too bad for such a high profile article...perhaps Wikipedia will never get these kind of articles right. Ken6en 08:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. You will see my back and forth over the military section. Honestly -- and I realize it is a very complex issue -- but a topic dealing so closely with the history of race in America is bound to provoke emotions. And even pointing that out provokes further emotions, etc. What I wanted with my inclusion of the Military Career was to flush out more of the man's life, but I won't re-edit it at this point. I don't think Wikipedia is robust enough to handle a topic so likely to hit so many nerves. Too bad -- I'd love it if there was a fairly substantial and stable article on JR on Wikipedia which young kids could turn to for an introduction or ready reference. Heybai 14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Heybai

     Jackie Robinson was born in Cairo, Georgia, on January 31, 1919. His parents were Jerry Robinson, a plantation farm worker, and Mallie, a domestic worker. There were five children in the Robinson family: Edgar, Frank, Mack, Willa Mae, and Jackie. Jerry Robinson left his wife and children, never to return, when Jackie was six months old.  Jackie’s mother washed and ironed clothes for well-to-do people and was on welfare relief.
    At this time in history, there were many racial restrictions for black people. The movies were segregated, African Americans could swim in the municipal pool and attend the YMCA only on designated days, and some eating places were closed to black people. From the teachings of his mother, however, Robinson learned important lessons of self-respect and self-confidence.
    Encouraged by his mother and his mentors and by the exhilaration of successes in sports, Robinson turned more and more of his energies to the playing fields.  He played football, tennis, basketball, track, and table tennis. In athletics he had more freedom to relate to people on equal terms, with less emphasis on race and more on body development, coordination and performance level.                                                                               
    Robinson won letters in football, baseball, basketball and track at Muir Technical High School and Pasadena Junior College. When he left the latter in 1939, he declined attractive offers from universities nationwide and chose the University of California at Los Angeles. Robinson’s honors at UCLA were impressive: for two years highest scorer in basketball competition in the Pacific Coast Conference, national champion long jumper, the school’s first athlete to letter in four sports, All-American football halfback, and varsity baseball shortstop. He left college in 1941 because of financial pressures, not many units from a bachelors degree.
    Driven by growing, overwhelming desire to play professional sports, Robinson went to Hawaii in the fall of 1941 to join a semiprofessional, racially integrated football team, the Honolulu Bears. On weekends he was a member of the team, and during the week a construction worker. 
    In 1942, Robinson was drafted into the U.S. Army and sent to segregated unit in Fort Riley, Kansas, Robinson was commissioned as a lieutenant in 1943.
    The genesis of his professional baseball career came in 1945, when he signed with the Kansas City Monarchs of the Negro American League for $400 a month. Robinson was treated  with reverence because of his overall playing skills, speed, and batting average that approached .400.
    Branch Rickey, president of the Brooklyn Dodgers, had searched nationwide for the ideal African American man, one talented enough to play on major league teams and well enough adjusted within himself to withstand the attacks sure to come in the racially prejudiced setting.
    Rickey interrogated Robinson extensively for three hours on August, 28 1945. In a dramatization of hotel, restaurant, and game situations, he glared at Robinson, shouting demeaning words and phrases while observing his reactions. Satisfied that Robinson met the tests of ability, stamina, and tolerance, Rickey exacted a contract offer. Rickey made the historic announcement that Jackie Robinson, a black man, would play for the Montreal Royals, the minor league affiliate of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Satchel Paige gave a ringing endorsement of Robinson as the best possible selection for “The Noble Experiment.”
    In the winter of 1946, while Robinson was playing with Montreal, he married Rachel Isum. At the end of one year with the Montreal Royals he won the title of Major League Rookie of the Year. With Robinson on the roster, the Dodgers won National League pennants in 1947, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1955, and 1956. In 1955 they defeated the New York Yankees in the World Series.
    When the Dodgers decided to trade Robinson to the Brooklyn Giants after the 1956 World Series, he retired from the game, declining to join his team’s archrivals from the same city. He had a lifetime batting average of .311, and 197 stolen bases over his career.
    Robinson’s induction into baseball’s Hall of Fame in 1962 was a cause of celebration for black people around the world. Robinson’s skill and service was a symbol of victory to African Americans in the counting struggle against injustice, proof that black Americans are as capable as any others. 
    Robinson’s Hall of Fame plaque records the highlights of his excellent career. He was the leading National League batter in 1949 and holds the fielding mark for second baseman, playing 150 or more games with .992. He led the National League in stolen bases in 1947 and 1949 and was named Most Valuable Player in 1949.
    Jackie Robinson’s last public appearance was on October 15, 1972, at Riverfront Stadium , when he threw out the first ball in the 1972 World Series. Nine days later, rescuers  were unable to revive him from what would be the fatal heart attack that struck when he was 53-years old in his home on October 24, 1972. Robinson’s funeral was held three days later.  The funeral procession passed through Harlem where thousands lined the route.  The people were paying tribute not only to Robinson’s athletic abilities, but to him as the symbol of opportunities for African Americans in professional sports without limitations of race.  Jackie Robinson had been the trailblazer for future African American athletes who followed long after he had withstood the pains and frustrations of his day.

[edit] jackie

Image:Http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers and honorees/plaques/images/Robinson Jackie.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hunter barr 12341 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Scott Simon interview & Georgia Encyclopedia

These links should be used as a source, not as an EL.//Tecmobowl 09:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Tecmo Banned Indefinitely. FYI--Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for repeated violations of Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] External Links: what is spam?

User Etacar11 just reverted an edit of an external link, describing it as 'Spam'. I'm not sure I agree, as the link does not seem to go to any overtly commercial site. What are the criteria for making such a call? -- Couillaud 17:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jackie robinson 1982.jpg

Image:Jackie robinson 1982.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection?

Perhaps it's time to semi-protect this page. We have been doing virtually no real editing of the page for nearly a month, but we seem to be constantly reverting vandalism, almost entirely from IP addresses; the only registered user I can find that vandalized was ImCoolerThanU, who has himself done nothing but vandalize this and one other entry. I believe that if we make editing this page open to only registered editors, we'll cut the vandalism down to a fraction of what it has been these last couple of weeks.

I'm seeing a similar pattern on the Satchel Paige entry as well. The same solution might apply there as well.

--Couillaud (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Have you talked to an admin? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Goldwater

The reference to Robinson working for Goldwater was an error in the first edition of The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. James has since retracted this in the paperback edition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.123.101 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion?

In the "Early Life" section it discusses the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, then mentions he was drafted, then skips to his baseball career. It should clarify whether or not he was drafted into the military or onto a baseball team. (I believe it was both, though he may have enlisted voluntarily for WWII.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.131.80 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2008

[edit] First pro football experience: 1941 Los Angeles Bulldogs

Since the article seems to be semi-protected, I cannot add the fact that Robinson played football for the Los Angeles Bulldogs of the Pacific Coast Professional Football League in 1941.[2][3], two months before he played with the Honolulu Bears[4] This is also a worthwhile mention as there was a color barrier in the National Football League that kept out such future stars as (UCLA classmate) Kenny Washington and Woody Strode. If someone could do the honor... I thank you. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jackie was a shortstop and he played some outfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.191.12.25 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference needed

I removed the following:"He had wanted to manage or coach in the major leagues, but received no offers." I do not know if this sentence is true. Can someone find a reference that says he wanted to coach?--RyRy5 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAN Fail

See User_talk:RyRy5#Re:Jackie_Robinson Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep all GA reviews in the article's talkspace, not in userspace. There is no record of how you reviewed the article, or how you applied the Good Article criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)