![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A redirect for now, but really deserves an article: possibly the most important book ever written about professional baseball, and it has been through multiple revised editions. Its publication history is much too complicated to be folded into the article on Bouton. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:57, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Has the discussion become a bit slanted in edits of September 9, 2008? Specifically, are edits by 72.146.62.234 and 74.163.52.153 very much POV? -- DAW0001 ( talk) 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend that this entire article be deleted. There is so little that is not opinion on it and I erased the only link, which was broken. it seems that some person who hates bouton wrote most of this. his book opened many doors to the cleaning up of baseball and he is actually more respected now than anything. but this doesn't really matter because the article should be factual and as it is written now is completely opinion. there is enough written about it in the Bouton article that simply providing as link to a page more about the book would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.184.151 ( talk) 15:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with the previous statement that this article be delated. The book is arguably more notable than Bouton himself. If it needs to be fixed, (or completely redone,) do that rather than deleting the article. 75.63.234.37 ( talk) 19:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
March 25, 2010: Whatever text was there before, today it seems more than fair and accurate concerning the text of the book and the subsequent results. It doesn't make sense to add in all of the stories and anecdotes, but the reader of this article gets the flavor and the tenor of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.168.22 ( talk) 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I nominated this article for a POV check because parts of it sound like they were written by an angry fan or player. For instance, the article ends with, "One thing seems certain though, and that is that Bouton will be remembered. Not for his talent, his ability, or his determination, but for taking advantage of his situation and cashing in on what he'd learned in confidence." Although it is understandable that many people are still angry with Bouton, there are also many, including Micky Mantle and others Bouton wrote about, who are not angry with Bouton. The mainstream sports media, such as the coverage ESPN gave to Ball Four in Sports Century, has taken a much more sympathetic view of Bouton than the view of whoever edited this article. Therefore a neutral article should reflect the fact that people remain divided on the appropriateness of the disclosures Bouton made in Ball Four and not summarily condemn him for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redkern ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no familiarity with this guy Bouton or his book, but the whole article reads like the bitter rantings of someone who just discovered that his puppy was killed in the writing of the book. I added 'citation needed' comments pretty much everywhere. If nobody is going to fix it, it should just be deleted - in it's current state, this article doesn't seem worth having. 115.130.33.78 ( talk) 05:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC) jac
That ESPN Documentary: Ball Four provides a clue as to who might be defacing this page: Roger Kahn* (*or some surrogate). Some of the exact same things Kahn says are repeated here--as if a mantra. Note: ESPN did not think "Boys of Summer" important enough to do a similar documentary --that "Ball Four" would deserve a separate wiki entry from Bouton's Bio would piss off few people-- but is evidenced in that Bouton's Bio is untouched by such slander. This is selective, and critical only of Bouton's writing, insinuating (as Kahn did in the aforementioned documentary) that Bouton may not have even written the book (so who's got the jealousy problem?). There is so much hatred and out right lies that have been inserted that the ISP numbers from that poster should be recorded for possible action.
Suggested Corrections:
(Source: New York Public Library: Books of the Century, 1997)
Granted, there are sources for the above (ie; the glossary in Home Games, page 13--and Ball Four, page 40). But it fails to take into consideration the alternate (more general) definitions provided on page 80 in Home Games, as well as the explanation of "shooting stingers," in Ball Four, page 200, which clearly does not involve anything surreptitious. With "Beaver Shooting" being as important as the Monroe Doctrine (joke), this is important to get right.
It contradicts the previous (true) sentence. Plus, since Mantle is only mentioned on about 5 of 500 pages (Ball Four has an index--though each update has additional mentions--but the index proves the claim to be a LIE).
___________________________
When you watch the clip with Kahn--watch his eyes as he speaks about Ball Four. He is consumed with rage. It is plain to see, as his face turns red, the veins on his neck bulge, and his eyes just about pop out of his head. NOBODY IS DOING A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT ANYTHING HE WROTE. _____________________________ Now, even if the poster isn't Kahn--they sure are using his talking points. But how, unless he/she cared so much to get a transcript of Kahn's bit--could they come so close to his exact words? And if the defacer were simply quoting Kahn--from this ESPN interview--why no citation? Without citation--the only way the comments avoid plagiarism is if Kahn, himself, is the author. Something to think about for the POV reviewer: This is not a player or a fan that is angry here--this is an angry WRITER. I'd bet the house that it is Roger Kahn. To hedge my bet:-to place--I bet on someone from the Vintage Baseball Association. There was an article that I tried to use as a SOURCE here: "Dubunking the Vintage Base Ball Federation," by Scott Sullivan on Associated Content--but I was banned by wiki from using the link as it has been blacklisted--and probably rightfully so. There are vicious lies about Bouton and misreprentations of what Bouton's league is claiming to be--and I wanted to use it as an example of what is going on here. The main source of the feud (even reported in the New York Times)Bouton's VBBF aims to capture the spirit and rules of an era, and the VBBA claims to have accuracy down to exact years. They are mad because Bouton wants to create a professional league. And they are mad that Bouton's VBBF uses a hodgepodge of rules from that era. That's it. That's why they are so bitter and have created all these web pages--whether a 3rd baseman can wear a flyswatter mitt or should have to play barehanded--stuff like that. I kid you not. (Google: "Jim Bouton" "Vintage") And here's the irony: the spokespeople for the VBBA league (criticizing Bouton's VBBF for being in-authentic) never mention that the VBBA plays with a synthetic, plastic ball--and settles the discrepancy between rules (when a "1860's team plays an "1870's" team) by playing half a game by one set of rules, half the game by the other (and if extra innings--they alternate inning by inning until the game is decided) that's authenticity for you....
One thing to be sure of--Bouton certainly made some enemies (he was on Nixon's enemies list too). However, they all seem to do Bouton the favor of exposing themselves to be liars in public. And such is the case now.
209.244.187.207 ( talk) 07:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Above unsigned post was submitted and edited by me, Big Orange. I thought I had signed it--and stand by all comments--copies of ESPN's SPORTS CENTURY are available and required watching for person making POV decision. Big Orange ( talk) 05:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Roger Kahn* (*or some surrogate) had been using Wiki pages for self promotion/advertising purposes. Now, I'm not arguing that Kahn doesn't deserve mention, and am not against having a seperate entry for "The Boys of Summer," but Kahn has an wiki entry for just about everything he ever wrote--what's up with that?
What a crock of shit is that? Everything but Kahn's Bio entry--and "The Boys of Summer," should be deleted pronto. You at wiki--and we readers--are being used for one man's personal and financial gain. Not very POV at all.
MORE RECENT OBSERVATION: The links were pulled from the Kahn site (maybe I was too quick to criticize) since I last logged in/ noticed. Maybe someone else took care of it on that page. He even had a link to his own dead son's wiki bio--a person not notable for being anything other than Kahn's deceased offspring. That it was finally caught...great. But what took so long? And when is the mess that has become the wiki "Ball Four" entry going to be cleaned up? Is Lawrence Ritter's, "The Glory of Their Times," being similarly defaced since I last visited?§
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A redirect for now, but really deserves an article: possibly the most important book ever written about professional baseball, and it has been through multiple revised editions. Its publication history is much too complicated to be folded into the article on Bouton. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:57, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Has the discussion become a bit slanted in edits of September 9, 2008? Specifically, are edits by 72.146.62.234 and 74.163.52.153 very much POV? -- DAW0001 ( talk) 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend that this entire article be deleted. There is so little that is not opinion on it and I erased the only link, which was broken. it seems that some person who hates bouton wrote most of this. his book opened many doors to the cleaning up of baseball and he is actually more respected now than anything. but this doesn't really matter because the article should be factual and as it is written now is completely opinion. there is enough written about it in the Bouton article that simply providing as link to a page more about the book would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.184.151 ( talk) 15:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with the previous statement that this article be delated. The book is arguably more notable than Bouton himself. If it needs to be fixed, (or completely redone,) do that rather than deleting the article. 75.63.234.37 ( talk) 19:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
March 25, 2010: Whatever text was there before, today it seems more than fair and accurate concerning the text of the book and the subsequent results. It doesn't make sense to add in all of the stories and anecdotes, but the reader of this article gets the flavor and the tenor of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.168.22 ( talk) 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I nominated this article for a POV check because parts of it sound like they were written by an angry fan or player. For instance, the article ends with, "One thing seems certain though, and that is that Bouton will be remembered. Not for his talent, his ability, or his determination, but for taking advantage of his situation and cashing in on what he'd learned in confidence." Although it is understandable that many people are still angry with Bouton, there are also many, including Micky Mantle and others Bouton wrote about, who are not angry with Bouton. The mainstream sports media, such as the coverage ESPN gave to Ball Four in Sports Century, has taken a much more sympathetic view of Bouton than the view of whoever edited this article. Therefore a neutral article should reflect the fact that people remain divided on the appropriateness of the disclosures Bouton made in Ball Four and not summarily condemn him for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redkern ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no familiarity with this guy Bouton or his book, but the whole article reads like the bitter rantings of someone who just discovered that his puppy was killed in the writing of the book. I added 'citation needed' comments pretty much everywhere. If nobody is going to fix it, it should just be deleted - in it's current state, this article doesn't seem worth having. 115.130.33.78 ( talk) 05:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC) jac
That ESPN Documentary: Ball Four provides a clue as to who might be defacing this page: Roger Kahn* (*or some surrogate). Some of the exact same things Kahn says are repeated here--as if a mantra. Note: ESPN did not think "Boys of Summer" important enough to do a similar documentary --that "Ball Four" would deserve a separate wiki entry from Bouton's Bio would piss off few people-- but is evidenced in that Bouton's Bio is untouched by such slander. This is selective, and critical only of Bouton's writing, insinuating (as Kahn did in the aforementioned documentary) that Bouton may not have even written the book (so who's got the jealousy problem?). There is so much hatred and out right lies that have been inserted that the ISP numbers from that poster should be recorded for possible action.
Suggested Corrections:
(Source: New York Public Library: Books of the Century, 1997)
Granted, there are sources for the above (ie; the glossary in Home Games, page 13--and Ball Four, page 40). But it fails to take into consideration the alternate (more general) definitions provided on page 80 in Home Games, as well as the explanation of "shooting stingers," in Ball Four, page 200, which clearly does not involve anything surreptitious. With "Beaver Shooting" being as important as the Monroe Doctrine (joke), this is important to get right.
It contradicts the previous (true) sentence. Plus, since Mantle is only mentioned on about 5 of 500 pages (Ball Four has an index--though each update has additional mentions--but the index proves the claim to be a LIE).
___________________________
When you watch the clip with Kahn--watch his eyes as he speaks about Ball Four. He is consumed with rage. It is plain to see, as his face turns red, the veins on his neck bulge, and his eyes just about pop out of his head. NOBODY IS DOING A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT ANYTHING HE WROTE. _____________________________ Now, even if the poster isn't Kahn--they sure are using his talking points. But how, unless he/she cared so much to get a transcript of Kahn's bit--could they come so close to his exact words? And if the defacer were simply quoting Kahn--from this ESPN interview--why no citation? Without citation--the only way the comments avoid plagiarism is if Kahn, himself, is the author. Something to think about for the POV reviewer: This is not a player or a fan that is angry here--this is an angry WRITER. I'd bet the house that it is Roger Kahn. To hedge my bet:-to place--I bet on someone from the Vintage Baseball Association. There was an article that I tried to use as a SOURCE here: "Dubunking the Vintage Base Ball Federation," by Scott Sullivan on Associated Content--but I was banned by wiki from using the link as it has been blacklisted--and probably rightfully so. There are vicious lies about Bouton and misreprentations of what Bouton's league is claiming to be--and I wanted to use it as an example of what is going on here. The main source of the feud (even reported in the New York Times)Bouton's VBBF aims to capture the spirit and rules of an era, and the VBBA claims to have accuracy down to exact years. They are mad because Bouton wants to create a professional league. And they are mad that Bouton's VBBF uses a hodgepodge of rules from that era. That's it. That's why they are so bitter and have created all these web pages--whether a 3rd baseman can wear a flyswatter mitt or should have to play barehanded--stuff like that. I kid you not. (Google: "Jim Bouton" "Vintage") And here's the irony: the spokespeople for the VBBA league (criticizing Bouton's VBBF for being in-authentic) never mention that the VBBA plays with a synthetic, plastic ball--and settles the discrepancy between rules (when a "1860's team plays an "1870's" team) by playing half a game by one set of rules, half the game by the other (and if extra innings--they alternate inning by inning until the game is decided) that's authenticity for you....
One thing to be sure of--Bouton certainly made some enemies (he was on Nixon's enemies list too). However, they all seem to do Bouton the favor of exposing themselves to be liars in public. And such is the case now.
209.244.187.207 ( talk) 07:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Above unsigned post was submitted and edited by me, Big Orange. I thought I had signed it--and stand by all comments--copies of ESPN's SPORTS CENTURY are available and required watching for person making POV decision. Big Orange ( talk) 05:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Roger Kahn* (*or some surrogate) had been using Wiki pages for self promotion/advertising purposes. Now, I'm not arguing that Kahn doesn't deserve mention, and am not against having a seperate entry for "The Boys of Summer," but Kahn has an wiki entry for just about everything he ever wrote--what's up with that?
What a crock of shit is that? Everything but Kahn's Bio entry--and "The Boys of Summer," should be deleted pronto. You at wiki--and we readers--are being used for one man's personal and financial gain. Not very POV at all.
MORE RECENT OBSERVATION: The links were pulled from the Kahn site (maybe I was too quick to criticize) since I last logged in/ noticed. Maybe someone else took care of it on that page. He even had a link to his own dead son's wiki bio--a person not notable for being anything other than Kahn's deceased offspring. That it was finally caught...great. But what took so long? And when is the mess that has become the wiki "Ball Four" entry going to be cleaned up? Is Lawrence Ritter's, "The Glory of Their Times," being similarly defaced since I last visited?§