Talk:Jackie Robinson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Keeping track of FA improvements

ref 26 - "Ultimately, Robinson withdrew from UCLA in 1941, with only one semester to go, take a job with the government's National Youth Administration" - needs to be linge, page xiii with url=[1] instead of pages 70-71 so split into two refs

ref 57 - "In 1948 Jackie Robinson moved to his natural position at second base" and more of them, [2] it's The Dodgers Encyclopedia By William McNeil page 94, make sure all statements are on page 94, same source as ref 47 "Although he didn't get a base hit, the Dodgers won 5–3"

"player Jim Gilliam had staked a claim on second base" needs its ref put into cite book

"uniform number 42 alongside Roy Campanella (39) and Sandy Koufax (32)" better name for ref

Web sites that may or may not be reliable: Baseball in Wartime Larrylester42 Nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a great free image of the Robinons.[3] Also mentions his family. Gale reference proved birthdates. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Error in the article

In this article, it states that Jackie Robinson was the only player to average 110 runs or more in his first 7 seasons in the MLB. Albert Pujols blew that number away by averaging 121 runs in his first 7 seasons.Fat gabby (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If that stat is uncited, zap it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It was cited, but I think the source (ESPN) was wrong, or maybe outdated. I removed it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

he was —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.53.153 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1945 Negro League All Star game

Recently User:Smel4727 added an item to the infobox citing Robinson's appearance in the 1945 Negro League All Star game, which was almost immediately reverted (without explanation) by User:Yankees10. In view of the facts that (a) appearances All Star games in pre-1947 white major leagues are routinely included in baseball player infoboxes, and (b) before 1947, the Negro League All Star game was the highest honor available to African American baseball players, is there any valid reason not to include appearances in Negro League All Star games? Negro League All Star games were not the equivalent to minor league all star games, which often feature young prospects; instead, the Negro League All Star games usually featured many of the best players in baseball. For example, the 1945 Negro League All Star game included five future Hall of Famers (compared to six in the 1945 Major League All Star game, by my count). If there's a valid reason to exclude this honor from the infobox, I'd like to see it articulated and discussed. BRMo (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did it have a reference? If it did, I woulnd't be disinclined to include it. If it didn't, I would rather wait until it's added with a reference. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a reference for Robinson's appearance in the game: Dick Clark and Larry Lester, The Negro Leagues Book, Society for American Baseball Research, 1994, pp. 250–251. BRMo (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I would say format the ref real nice and add it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - done. Thanks. BRMo (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I think negro league facts are very encyclopedic when it comes to JR. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How come there is nothing in the aritlce that talks about his Negro league career.--Yankees10 04:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I pretty much wrote this article, and I'm not a baseball fan in any way. I just took stuff from sources, and removed what wasn't sourced. I even took it to WP:FAC (unsuccessfully). Not everything about him is in the article. I know I left out two (I think) of his children. The Negro League stuff is mentioned though, at Jackie Robinson#1947.E2.80.93Breaking the color barrier. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of his college education and military service, Robinson's Negro League career was quite short—only one season. Some of the other early players to cross the color barrier, like Monte Irvin, Larry Doby, andgiddyCampanella, had longer Negro League careers. BRMo (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

too or four years?

There seems to be a bit of confusion on the "Statement About Paul Robeson to HUAC" section, and we have seen a number of changes and change-backs. The first date is in reference to Paul Robeson's address to major league owners in December 1943 and Robinson's signing a professional contract in 1945. The "just over two years" is NOT in reference to Robinson's entry to the major leagues in April 1947, but his becoming a professional player in Organized Ball (the blanket term that encompassed major or minor league ball, but not non-American and non-white leagues) in October 1945 and then his playing for the Montréal Royals in April 1946, which ws just over two years after Robeson's address.

If you wish to refer to Robinson's MAJOR LEAGUE debut, it would be just over THREE YEARS, and the reference wouldn't work, as Robinson was referring to integrating the Royals in the citation.

And in reality, the Negro Leagues can be considered professional, so Jackie Robinson arguably became a professional ballplayer early in 1945, when he signed with the Kansas City Monarchs, about 15-16 months after Robeson's statement to owners. The statement should probably be revised to say that "Robinson became the first black ballplayer in Organized Ball", not "professional baseball". As the statement currently is written, the time between Robeson's statement and Robinson officially joining a formerly all-white professional team was about two years, three months. -- Couillaud (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Rereading my comment, I don't know specifically what Robinson's comment was on the cited page (I didn't look at the ref as carefully as I should have), but IF it refers to his major league debut, then it was April '47, a bit more than three years after Robeson's statement, and the entry should be changed to reflect that. If it refers to his professional debut with Montréal early in April '46 (or more accurately, his professional debut in a Dodgers exhibition game in March '46), then it was a bit more than two years. -- Couillaud (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I added the HUAC section and will defer to all of the Jackie Robinson fans in regards to time frame of official debut in the non-Negro leagues, should you choose to alter. I just modified the paragraph to reflect the statement in the intro about the Brooklyn Dodgers to simplify thingsCatherine Huebscher (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) i love you

Over 100 home runs in 6 seasons

the baseball career section of the article states that Robinson had over 100 home runs in 6 seasons

This statement is confusing to me because Robinson obviously never hit 100 home runs in a single season, and over the first 6 years of his career, he only hit 92 home runs

I'm not sure if this statement can be corrected to say over his first 7 seasons or if it needs to be taken out all together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.12.76 (talk • contribs)

Probably means he scored more than 100 runs, not home runs, in six seasons. Gimmetrow 20:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "Robinson scored more than 100 runs in six seasons..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would sound better with "100 runs in each of six seasons . . .", as the current statement reads to me as 100 TOTAL in six seasons. It's late and I'm tired, so someone may wish to reread that to be sure . . . - Couillaud (talk) 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

i love you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.137.14 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits Week of April 8, 2009

I've submitted this page for peerr review following a bunch of updates I made in advacne of Jackie Robinson Day (April 15). All prior comments should be dealt with in one way or another. I antiicpate a lot of viewing/editing on April 15, but I'd like to channel as many proposed changes through the peer review process as possible. At this point I think I could answer most people's questions.BillTunell (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC) what up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.137.14 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of comments

The third paragraph of the article says that Robinsons was "the first African-American Major League Baseball analyst" and cites a page from The Biography Channel (biography.com). However, I didn't find that information on the biography.com page.

The same paragraph ends with a sentence saying he married Rachel Isum and that after his death she founded the Jackie Robinson Foundation. In my opinion, that's not information that fits well in the lead section, and I recommend moving it into the body of the article. (The sentence about playing himself in the biographical film also seems questionable for the lead section.) BRMo (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Both well-taken, and incorporated into the article. The "first balck analyst" claim now has a direct source footnote in the middle of the sentence. BillTunell (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Last 42

Quote: "The Yankees' Mariano Rivera is the last player in the major leagues to wear jersey number 42 on a regular basis." Last night, Mariano Rivera relieved a bit earlier than usual in a game in a National League park, and found himself taking an at bat in the top of the ninth inning. It was his second time at the plate in his major league career, the other being three years earlier. He lined out to center field.
It occured to me that this could be the last time ever that a major league batter wore the 42.
That is, unless they continue to allow players to wear the number on special occasions.WHPratt (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, every Jackie Robinson Day most players now wear number 42. --Jtesla16 (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error in article.

In the section titled "UCLA and afterward", the sentence "At a time when only a handful of black players existed in mainstream college football, this made UCLA colelge football's most integrated team." contains a misspelling of the word college.

Fixed it. Good eye. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

FAC notes

This is a huge article. So, I'm going to put some notes here. They're basically for me, but if someone has a comment, I welcome it.

Is File:Jackie robinson story.jpg really free? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If you follow the loc.gov link in the image page, it verifies the abandoned copyright status. BillTunell (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Stolen bases and attempts

According to retrosheet [4] Jackie had 197 stolen bases, as noted here, but at least 54 caught stealing (figures unavailable for 2 seasons), so the computation of his stolen base percentage as 197 / 227 is not accurate - he would have had at least 251 attempts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. I asked at your talk page about that and something else. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is well taken. I have adjusted the statistics table as a result. I have not included the "caught stealing" totals for 1947 and 1949 listed on retrosheet, just because I cannot verify it with another source (MLB's offical statistics show no CS records for 1947-1950). But either way we should not have a CS total on the stat chart. BillTunell (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Title field in refs and capitalization

Shouldn't all the words be capped besides "the" and whatnot? [5] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The usual style is to capitalize words for titles of major works (such as books), but not of minor works (such as chapters, or news articles, or web pages). Eubulides (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. Didn't know that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Books URLs

I noticed that a few of the references use Google Books URLs. There are two problems with that. First, and most important, they are flaky. If you are on a shared IP address you can easily get back a message "quota exceeded" from Google (this often happens to me). Second, they have privacy issues, in that they reveal to Google (and presumably to others) something about the identity and browsing history of the editor who originally visited Google Books and came back with a URL. Accordingly, I'm inclined to replace them with more-traditional citations to chapters and page numbers, with ISBNs of course (and OCLC for older books that lack ISBN). With an ISBN or OCLC you can easily get the book off Google Books if you have a mind to. Eubulides (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly right. And, as a side benefit, we do not arbitrarily favor the for-profit Google enterprise over other enterprises, such as Amazon with its Search Inside feature, that offer similar services.—DCGeist (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are left over from me back in the day. I agree they should be removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through all these URLs in "Notes", and am starting on "References". The first book there was cited only once, so I took the liberty of moving it to "Notes". I assume that's OK? It seems like overkill to set up the whole indirect citation machinery when it's not needed (i.e., when a book is cited only once). Plus, lots of other books are already in "Notes". Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally keep these books there, since the "References" section doubles as a bibliography. Most articles don't even use it for the indirect citation code potential. BillTunell (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the links to google books? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I don't mean re-insterting the Google books links in the footnote citations. I just mean keeping the book citations listed in the "References" section below the footnotes. I've gone ahead and re-inserted them, with the exception of the Rothe book because it relates to the WP:LEAD issue above BillTunell (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kahn remembers Robinson

I found what appears to be a wonderful and authoritative citation on Robinson. Any reason we're not citing it?

Kahn, Roger (1996). "The Jackie Robinson I Remember". The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (14): 88–93.

It's on JSTOR. Eubulides (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because BillTunnel and I don't have JSTOR access? If you want to add it, go for it. But, JR is so well studied that we won't be able to include every good source, so I don't think it's mandatory to meet the FA criteria, since we've got a lot of good ones. Great work by the way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

i love books so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.137.14 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sportspeople of multiple sportsperson category missing

Add Category:Sportspeople of multiple sports

Professional football player and four-sport college athlete...

I'm not against it. Whatever other people think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing suggestions

I've started to slooowly go through the sources, checking them as best I can. While going through the lead I was struck by a couple of things.

• The lead cites several sources that are not cited in the body. This is a questionable thing. As WP:LEAD says, the lead is supposed to summarize the body, and if the lead is citing sources that the body does not, there's something odd. I propose that we redo the sources cited in the lead (and/or body) so that every source cited in the lead is also cited in the body.
• The very first source cited in the lead is Rothe 1948 (OCLC 15639018), to support the claim that Robinson "was the first African-American Major League Baseball player of the modern era." Is this really the best source we have for the claim? It's kinda weird to be citing a 60-year-old book that almost nobody has and which probably is not that good a source on Robinson. I suggest that the article instead cite a more-recent and more-accessible source to support the same claim.

Eubulides (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I changed the first ref, but the reviewer below says we should consider not putting cites in the lead. What do you think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer leads without citations, but many editors prefer citations even in the lead, and they generally win the arguments on WP:V grounds. So I'd go with citations. However, the lead shouldn't be a forest of citations; it should stick with high-level stuff that is easy to cite (only a few high-quality citations should be needed). Certainly the lead should not cite a source that is not cited by the body. Eubulides (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the Rothe book is fine as a source for the "first in modern era" claim, since it is a contemporary biography of the issue at the time of integration. I don't care if this footnote moved from the lead or repeated in the text of the article. My current concern is that we've changed the footnote citation to page 6 of the Lamb book, without changing the language of the claim. I can't web-preview page 6 of the Lamb book, but what are the chances it uses the same language as the original source? BillTunell (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary biographies, although often secondary sources, are closer to being primary sources because they are closer to the event, and as per WP:PSTS the article should prefer sources that are not that close to the event. More-recent sources have the benefit of hindsight and further research, and as such are more reliable. Rothe would be OK in a pinch, but this article (particularly the lead) should be using the best sources available, not relatively-low-quality sources such as Rothe. Eubulides (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. It says "he became the first black in organized professional baseball in the 20th century". That sounded the same as "the first African-American Major League Baseball player of the modern era" to me, but I could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FA comments: LEAD

I agree with above regarding the lead and its numerous citations, much less that there is one that isn't covered in the rest of the article. Furthermore, I don't think you've said anything in the lead that isn't "generally" known about Robinson, except, perhaps, about his engagement with the bank in Harlem. I would ditch the cites, or incorporate them later.

Here are my overall comments re the lead. I have more, but this is a start.

• 'Lead:

• Segregation dominated most aspects of American life at the time, and Robinson's baseball career had a major cultural impact and was a significant precursor to the subsequent Civil Rights Movement.

• I think it would be fair to say that Jackie Robinson's career was part of the sweeping civil rights movement. I wouldn't separate him from it at all, but rather put it in the broader context. Many historians would probably argue that WWII, & the black experience with military segregation, laid the groundwork for what came later.

• Well, that's what the refs say. This ref by Ira Glasser puts it in context with the WWII stuff, but not in quite the way you put it. Not sure what to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, my latest idea is to use summarize the Glasser ref later in the article. That will fix the problem of the ref only being in the lead, and allow for more context later on. Sound OK? It still won't say that WWII integration started it all, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that there are different perspectives on when to date the initiation of the Civil Rights Movement. Here's a passage from a strong source, The African American Experience: Black History and Culture, by Kai Wright, written from the perspective that the movement was ongoing from at least the end of the war:[6]

[Robinson] was actively involved in the Civil Rights Movement throughout his career.

The unresolved framing of the movement's history is captured in this passage, from Jackie Robinson: Race, Sports, and the American Dream, by Joseph Dorinson:[7]

Several years before playing baseball for the Dodgers, and long before anyone knew it had begun, Robinson was making his mark in the civil rights movement.

In sum, the language--"precursor of the civil rights movement"--used in the subtitle of the currently cited source (Glasser) hardly reflects a scholarly consensus. We should avoid using "precursor" to characterize Robinson and "subsequent" to characterize the Civil Rights Movement in the lede and recast along these lines:

Segregation dominated most aspects of American life at the time; Robinson's baseball career had a major cultural impact and contributed significantly to the Civil Rights Movement.

How does that sound?—DCGeist (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds better to me. Precursor is probably too strong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• In ten seasons, he played in six World Series, contributing to a World Championship for the Dodgers in 1955.

• This is wordy. How about: Over ten season, he played in six World Series and contributed to the Dodgers 1955 World Championship. (Actually, didn't he steal home? That in itself is unusual. I don't actually remember the series, although I do remember watching him play.)

• Baseball conferred a unique honor upon Robinson by retiring uniform number 42, his designation, across all major league teams.

• Major League Baseball retired his uniform number, 42, across all major league teams.

• .."an African-American-owned/controlled entity based in Harlem, New York."

• an African-American-owned/controlled financial institution based in Harlem New York.

Nice article, btw, and like you, I cannot believe someone hasn't tackled this before. Not sure why.  !!! Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is the fourth attempt! Thanks for the suggestions, I've incorporated them all, except for the WWII stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're counting? It's better, but still..... How about something like this:

Jack Roosevelt "Jackie" Robinson (January 31, 1919 – October 24, 1972) was the first African-American Major League Baseball player of the post-war era. Robinson broke the baseball color line when he debuted with the Brooklyn Dodgers in the 1947. His entry into Major League play ended nearly sixty years of racial segregation in professional baseball during which African-Americans were relegated to the Negro Leagues. Baseball historians agree that Robinson’s career changed the way in which Americans viewed one another across racial lines. The example of his unquestionable talent and character challenged the traditional basis of segregation, and helped to build a foundation for the anti-segregation movements of the 1950s and 1960s.

Beyond his cultural impact, Robinson's intensity, talent, and achievements changed the standard for exceptional baseball. Over the course of ten seasons, he played in six World Series and contributed to the Dodgers' 1955 World Championship. He received the inaugural MLB Rookie of the Year award in 1947; he was selected for six consecutive All-Star Games from 1949 to 1954; he won the National League MVP Award in 1949. He was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1962 on the first ballot. Recognizing his unique contributions to the game, in 1997, Major League Baseball retired his uniform number, 42, across all major league teams.

After his playing career, Robinson became the first African-American television analyst in Major League Baseball, and the first African-American vice-president of a major American corporation. He established the Freedom National Bank, an African-American-owned/controlled financial institution based in Harlem, New York. In recognition of his achievements on and off the field, Robinson was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom (19??) and the Congressional Gold Medal (19??).

Here is my concern: You are only citing baseball history sources, mostly those relating to him, not to the wider game nor to the civil rights movement itself. You've not got any civil rights movement sources that I could find. So basically, it's not clear that you'll be able to place him in the context of the Civil Rights movement without those. However, you might add this at the end of the first paragraph: His example is considered crucial to injecting new energy into the Civil Rights movement. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems pretty good. I'll wait for other people to weigh in before making any big changes like that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made the minor change discussed above to the end of the lede's first paragraph.

As for Auntieruth55's proposed major recasting of the lede, it is very well written. I'd support it with a few adjustments:

• The phrase "post-war era" is no longer immediately clear to many readers, I think. I'd go with something more straightforward like: "Jack Roosevelt 'Jackie' Robinson (January 31, 1919 – October 24, 1972) was the first African-American Major League Baseball player of the twentieth century."
• The anti-segregation movement shouldn't be split off from the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, for which voting rights were equally essential. Though Robinson's career, of course, took place against the framework of segregation, it boosted the movement as a whole. So I'd merge the language thus: "The example of his unquestionable talent and character challenged the traditional basis of segregation, and contributed significantly to [or injected new energy into] the Civil Rights Movement."
• "Beyond his cultural impact, Robinson's intensity, talent, and achievements changed the standard for exceptional baseball." Well...no. Those players who were considered exceptional before Robinson's arrival in the majors were still considered exceptional—the standard didn't "change". What Robinson did was contribute to a new (in fact, renewed) emphasis on aggressive baserunning, as we discuss in Legacy. I'd retain the existing language, and possibly supplement it with that last observation: "Apart from his cultural impact, Robinson had an exceptional baseball career." or "Apart from his cultural impact, Robinson had an exceptional baseball career and is credited with bringing a renewed emphasis on aggressive baserunning to the major leagues."

Again, apart from those three points, I think the proposal is excellent.—DCGeist (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of executing one change, again to the final sentence of the lede's first paragraph. The claim that "[s]egregation dominated most aspects of American life at the time" was simply overstated (it certainly characterized "most" aspects of life in the South at the time, but not necessarily elsewhere) and was, indeed, not supported by the source cited for it. My edit involves an adaptation and merger of the existing language with phrasing adopted from Auntieruth's proposal.—DCGeist (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

How are you feeling about the lead now, Auntie? I can probably make more of the changes that you suggest, but it will require a bit of reworking of the body to match it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Civil rights stuff

I'm going to put some things here, and see if we like any of it enough to add it in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Boston Globe - 'Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. called him a legend and a symbol in his own time" who challenged the dark skies of intolerance and frustration."', 'For his contribution to civil rights in America, Congress will honor Jackie Robinson with the Congressional Gold Medal today.'

New York Times - 'These and other forces were having noticeable effects even before Brown. Jackie Robinson desegregated Major League Baseball in 1947. President Harry Truman desegregated the federal military and civil service in 1948. Even in the South, significant racial reforms were afoot; black voter registration increased to 20 percent in 1950 from 3 percent in 1940. By the time of Brown, dozens of Southern cities had hired their first black police officers since Reconstruction.'

Yes, I like it. :) If you want to talk about JR in terms of the CRM, you need that. You might add a section called "Legacy" and include the baseball legacy in it. Baseball Legacy, The foundation, the civil rights movement. He was a fine example. I love your Leo Durocher quote. And his quote about respect. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I like it to. I'll start thinking on the best way to work it in. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of work.[8] I think I'll do what you recommend about a Legacy section. It's going to take me a bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put some links here, and work them in later. career was centerpiece of CRM Didn't speak out until later CR pioneer [9] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a slew of potentially useful quotes from both sports and general American historians, as well as from others, in How To Be Like Jackie Robinson: "His Place in History", pp. 211–212.—DCGeist (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Great find! I added a quote. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead is much better, I think. I would change "modern era" to modern baseball. Historically, the modern era refers to something much broader.

Re citations. I find it much easier to not use the templates in situations like this, and to separate the cites by a semicolon, rather than to make a separate numbered citation for each source. Unless it is possible to use the templates in an expanded way....not sure. This is more in line with what other encyclopedias do, and with what most scholarly literature does, at least in the fields I study. I did this in German Unification and although I initially took some flak about not using the templates, in a complicated article with multiple sourcing per citation, it is useful. And since you have tried to source and double source everything, the single cite style gives you waaaaaaaayyyyyyy too many footnotes for an article this size. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"baseball legacy"" subsection

The second paragrpah of the "baseball legacy" subsection has nothing to do with baseball -- and, in fact, is inserted as a non-sequitor in the middle of the baseball discussion. I'd either replace the paragraph somehwere else, or re-format and re-title the secton into a general "legacy" subsection. BillTunell (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the plan, I guess, I just haven't done it yet becuase I haven't been sure where to put the new Legacy section. Where do you think it should go? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the current version. BillTunell (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks DCGeist for fixing up that section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Image

File:JackieRobinson1945.jpg We don't seem to be using it. Should we? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

My only problem with it is that people have confused the photo as being from his minor league or Negro League career. I had previously removed the photo in favor of the Satchel Paige pic for the Negro Leagues section. Re-inserting the 1945 pic would be fine by me, provided that there is an adequately descriptive caption. BillTunell (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is talking about that image, but I don't have time to look into it now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging footnote references

DCGeist, I notived you merged about 20 footnote references today. I really think each citation needs its own footnote, for several reasons: (i) the rest of the article is based on unique-citation footnote format, (ii) it's easier to discern which references are whcih, especially for those that aren't linked, and (iii) consolidating footnotes makes using the multiple-cite consolidation code impossible (the [a][b][c][d]'s you see when notes are repeatedly cited). Without that, the size of the file gets out of control. Is it okay to undo? BillTunell (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(iii) is not an issue—you'll note that only unique cites (i.e., cites used just once) are merged; cites used multiple times are left untouched. (i) is a very minor issue—it is clear in this format that citations are to solitary sources where that is necessary; to multiple sources where that is applicable and possible. (ii) is a more significant issue, but I believe it is outweighed by (a) the fact that the article is easier to read with fewer callouts and (b) Tony1, among others, has been calling for merging stacked unique cites in FACs. For perspective on the issue, stacked unique cites are merged throughout the baseball article I brought to FA—including many where the references are not linked. This has raised zero objections or even queries and, again, improves readability.—DCGeist (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the way FA is going. It's because FAs use so many references, it can make it hard to read with all the little numbers. It's not a big deal to me either way. Basically, it makes the article easier to read, and the refs harder to read. I wonder if a new line between refs would make them look better? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly a plausible option. I've tested it out on the first multiple-source citation (currently footnote 10). See what you think. I do prefer the single-line format in which the sources are separated by semicolons--but I grant that that can't be universally consistent, because of those cases where more than one of the sources uses a cite template, which automatically produces a terminal period.—DCGeist (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The single line is probably better. It doesn't look right with the short book cites on their own line. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO the merged format looks terrible and is unreadable. Perhaps there are some work-arounds, but I've viewed dozens of baseball-related articles and don't like the look of any of the merged-note formats. Concerning (iii), it is important to note that footnotes are subject to change, and if a current note might be cited for another proposition in the future, the merged-citation format prohibits it. The merged-note format also makes it infinitely more difficult to edit the article for realiability and fact-checking purposes.

I appreciate the large amount of work DCGeist has put into this article recently, but I'm letting him know that I will revert the note consolidations in the near future. I hope DC does not take offense. BillTunell (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ISBN html tags

Any idea why the article is not hyperlinking some ISBN numbers? The recent edits seem not to get bluelinked, but looking at the underlying code, I can't figure out any reason why. BillTunell (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's the way I added dashes to them. This fixed it for me. Did it fix them for you? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's it. BillTunell (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.jackierobinson.com/home.html

That link isn't working for me. Is it for you? I think http://www.jackierobinson.com/ works. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed to the latter link. BillTunell (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Refs for later

[10][11] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Robinson and Gretzky

Source? Do I need a source saying robinson broke the color barrier too? There is not one here.... these are common knowledge. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There are endless sources, starting with the reason his #42 was retired. Is someone questioning it? Obviously, he wasn't the first black ballplayer. The Walker brothers are the reason there was a color barrier erected. 60-plus years later, Jackie (and Branch Rickey) broke that barrier. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And what has this to do with Gretzky? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He's talking about this diff. There actually are sources for every statement, it just that they are in the body of the article, and not necessarily duplicated in the lead, which is a summary of the body. The Gretsky stuff needs to go in the body, with a reference, if it is to be included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted a second insertion of the text (again without a source) here. The same editor added this assertion to Wayne Gretzky a year ago; it remained unsourced for over a year until its removal today, upon which he reinserted it, again without a source. I have reverted it there as well.

Mr Mummert: The color barrier assertion is sourced, at least twice, within the article content (it is not required to be sourced in the lead). Your assertion, by contrast, has never been given with an associated source. All articles, and most especially Featured articles (Gretzky is one, and Robinson is currently a candidate), must follow Verifiability policy, from which I quote:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

Please provide reliable sources to support the statement. Maralia (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so there's no issue with Robinson, right? It's strictly with Gretzky? I would think NHL.COM would have that information prominently, if it were true. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Voila. Apri 18, 1999. Contained within this article on NHL.COM. [12] Wow, that took a long time to find, eh? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gretzky's article already mentions his retirement. The issue is whether he and robinson are the only ones, and whether it should be mentioned in the leads of each article. This says the NHL was influenced by the Robinson retirement. I guess that could be worked into the body of this article. Not sure how important it is in the scope of JR's life and career. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, it's not, or certainly not for the lead, anyway. It could be mentioned in the body of the article as an oh-by-the-way. But this is different from retiring number 42. Jackie had to put up with unbelievable threats and pressure (so did Larry Doby, but that's another story). Retiring 42 has to do with breaking the color line, shattering 60 years of racism. Retiring 99 is simply an honor, more like if baseball were to retire Babe Ruth's number 3. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. Not digging the insinuation that I was raising a big stink over something trivially easy to substantiate. I'm well aware that Gretzky's number was retired—I put a substantial amount of work into saving his article at WP:FAR last year—but (as Peregrine Fisher explained above) the issue was the unsupported assertion that in American major league sports, Robinson was first, Gretzky was second, and there has been no one else.

It's certainly interesting that the NHL named "Major League Baseball's decision to retire Jackie Robinson's No. 42" as the inspiration for retiring Gretzky's jersey, but I don't think it merits inclusion here. In Gretzky's article, sure. Maralia (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done and at long last!..Modernist (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty darn cool. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a great thing to see an article about a great man as one of the best on Wikipedia. Good work to all contributors who worked on it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who helped. It's been a learning experience. BillTunell (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Roosevelt Stadium

On April 18, 1946, Roosevelt Stadium hosted the Jersey City Giants' season opener against the Montreal Royals, marking the professional debut of the Royals' Jackie Robinson. In his five trips to the plate, Robinson made four hits, including a three-run homer, scored four runs and drove in three; he also stole two bases in the Royals 14-1 victory. From the above cited article, regarding his debut and breaking the color line. Comments????Djflem (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting. What are you asking? Do you want to include it? It isn't cited in that article, which would make it problematic to put in this one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Both articles could use this[13] as the starting point of the citation, since one sub-page has Jackie's entire 1946 game log. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Or the articles could cite Tygiel (1983), p. 7. BRMo (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I added it.[14] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Republican?

Game over: ""I felt the GOP was a minority party in term of numbers of registered voters and could not win unless they updated their social philosophy and sponsored candidates and principles to attract the young, the black, and the independent voter. I said this often from public, and frequently Republican, platforms. By and large Republicans had ignored blacks and sometimes handpicked a few servile leaders in the black community to be their token "niggers." How would I sound trying to go all out to sell Republicans to black people? They're not buying. They know better." Done. This cat wasn't a Republican END OF STORY.

The source that he was a Republican is Long pp. 255-257. The source that he is an Independent is the Huffington Post, which is considered a borderline reliable source, and not appropriate for a featured article. If you want to add some stuff from his actual autobiography, that's another matter. It says "Robinson's ties to the GOP seemed more driven by a personal admiration for Nelson Rockefeller" which shows that he had something to do with the Republicans, and that the HuffPost writer doesn't think they're important. The whole paragraph that starts ""I was not as sold on the Republican party as I was on the governor" makes it sound like he was a republican who didn't agree with a lot things they did or stood for. Please revert yourself and find a better source if you wan't to describe the nuances in JR's political beliefs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The source that he was independent in his political choices, is his own autobiography, quoted by the HuffPost. Even the pagenumber of the autobiography (p. 340) is mentioned!

This discussion in a way touches on a kind of philosophical question: what makes someones identity? I vote here in the Netherlands not always the same party, mostly it's the GreenLeft party though, and I've even been a member of the GreenLeft party for two years or so. Does that make me 'a GreenLefty'? I wouldn't think so. The fact that he says that he "never identified [him]self with one party or another in politics" seems to me the dealbreaker here. We don't write about someones political preferences, I assume, unless it's crystal-clear. Well, I think, again, according to the quotes out of his own autobiography, that it surely ISN'T crystal-clear that he's a Republican. Even the fact that someone might help get someone elected from a certain party, doesn't make that person from that party. Is Maria Shriver, from the famous Democratic Kennedy-family, a Republican because she stood by her Republican man during his elections and maybe even voted for him? Btw, I haven't read Long, so of course it could be that Long has some solid proof that Robinson had a lifelong membership of the Republican Party. In that case I'll take back my claim of course that he was politically independent.--Majesteit (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we really disagree that much. I don't care which party JR goes with, and the stuff you've brought up makes it clear that just "he's a republican" isn't accurate, or at least doesn't tell the whole story. But, another user and I put in a massive amount of work to bring this article up to WP:FA status, and one of the requirements, to simplify it, is that books are used as sources, and not websites (whenever possible). I like the Huff Post, but they have liberal bias, so we shouldn't be using them as an accurate summary of his autobiography. We need to use the book itself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have briefly searched JR's autobiography and I have been unable to confirm the quote from the Huffington Post article. However, I did find this sentence (on page 139) which I see as clearly confirming that Robinson saw himself as an independent:

For instance, I made the point that I was not beholden to any political party, that I was black first, and that, while I believe the candidate I was backing was sincere, if I discovered that he wasn't after he got in, I'd be right back to give him hell. source

Maybe Long, or the person who cited Long, assumed that JR was a Republican from some of his conservative viewpoints or his support of Republican candidates (Rockefeller and pre-1968 Nixon). However, even if Long explicitly claimed that JR was a Republican, I think JR's own words (that he was not "beholden to any political party") and auto-biography should take precedent. Therefore I think it would be best to change that section to something like:

Robinson was active in politics throughout his post-baseball life. He held conservative opinions on several issues, including the Vietnam War (he once wrote Martin Luther King, Jr. to defend the Johnson Administration's military policy). However, Robinson considered himself independent, claiming in his autobiography that he was "not beholden to any political party", and supported both Republican and Democratic candidates.

Does anyone disagree with this? - Ektar (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he was a Republican with the views of an Independent, and not the other way around. But, I don't care, other than the highest quality sources are used. So far, the suggestions have not been good enough. It sound he like he was a registered Republican who disagreed with their views. Whatever we say needs to address whether he was indeed a republican, and if he disagreed with them, what did he disagree with them about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(first of all sorry for my late reaction) Ektar, I like the way of phrasing. Even though he may sound Republican to Peregrine, doesn't make him so. I agree that JR's own words should take precedent and that the post-baseball life section should be changed according to that, but I've already done that twice and there seems to still be an opinion that it is more just to call him 'republican' then 'independent' or 'not beholden to any pol. party'. Also I don't completely understand the explanation above from you that being conservative makes one a republican. In the sixties especially there were still a lot of Southern democrats fiercely defending segregation, so being republican was in that sense progressive (please tell me if I'm wrong). The fact that him being Republican is given in the Post-baseball life article with an example of him defending a Democratic president (Johnson) I think speaks for itself. It might make him a conservative yes, but that doesn't automatically make him a Republican.--Majesteit (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, How can you say the source for Robinson being a Republican is Long pp 255 - 257? I have "The Civil Rights Letters of Jackie Robinson, First Class Citizen" edited by Michael G. Long in front of me and the word Republican DOES NOT APPEAR on any of those pages. Page 255 - 257 is a May 13, 1967 letter to Martin Luther King Jr criticizing his stand on Viet Nam. Note that the President leading that war in 1967 was a DEMOCRAT.

Again the word Republican DOES NOT APPEAR on the claimed pages.

However quoting Jackie Robinson A Biography (1997) by Arnold Ampersad, page 340, "He was, in fact, a registered Independent" shows that there is a legitimate source that he was a registered Independent and no legitimate source that he was a registered Republican.Nightkey (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Registered independent" claim is indeed in the Rampersad book, but this one of the few cases in which this source, normally a good one, is mistaken. Being a "registered independent" means that one is registered with the American Independent Party, which during Robinson's lifetime was a pro-segregation party. The idea that Robinson would register as a member of this party is laughable, and almost certainly an oversight in the Rampersad book. No other source confirms it. I've edited accordingly. BillTunell (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks fine to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sam Huston" should probably be "Sam Houston". Love, a Texan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.24.118 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. BillTunell (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1947 World Series

I see all the other World Series mentioned that he and the Dodgers played in except his first, the 1947 World series.Tighelander (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)TighelanderTighelander (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)