Ty Cobb has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 31, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed May 25, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed March 1, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

	This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Ty Cobb is the current Baseball Article Improvement Drive collaboration! CAST YOUR VOTE for next week's article

To-do: E · H · W · R Updated 2007-02-06 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Verify : Use {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}} on existing references.

Ty Cobb was recently nominated to be promoted to good article status, but has unfortunately failed. Reasons for failing GA:

• Lack of references
• NO use of inline citation
• And all but two of the pictures don't have the right tags

Good text, but these areas are way too sloppy to let it slide, fix it and renom please Highway 10:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd time around: The image tags look pretty good to me, but the inline citations are really a killer for me, especially when the article claims that another authors work was filled with "half-truths and misinformation" and doesn't offer a single source or stitch of evidence as to how.

References and inline citations are needed, there are in fact a number of claims tagged that have not yet been addressed. There would be a good place to start.TonyJoe 21:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recently went through all the references and updated them to use the same format. I also removed any references there were not reliable. Think the article is ready for another GA run?--Roswell native 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and renominate it. I, for one, think it's good enough. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is pretty much identical to http://www.thebaseballpage.com/past/pp/cobbty/default.htm

Does anyone have any right to reproduce it here??

The similarities must have been removed; all I'm seeing today (1/22/2002) are the stats. - RjLesch

Ahh yes, that was me -- GWO

-

"...that his co-biographer Al Stump wrote posthumously..."

How can someone write after they are dead?

The bio states Cobb was the first man elected to the United States Baseball Hall of Fame. It's actually the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. Also, he was not the first man elected. Five players were elected at the same time (1936), and Cobb had the most votes.

How was he the "first"? Just because he got the most votes doesn't mean he was the first elected. According to the Baseball Hall of Fame he wasn't the first elected. If anyone wants to verify contact the HOF

He is said to be "the first man elected into the HOF" because he got the most votes in the first election ever to the HOF. It's more a honorific title than a literal one.

The bio also stated that Cobb had a .666 batting average but http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/historical/individual_stats_player.jsp?c_id=mlb&playerID=112431&HS=True and http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/Cobb_Ty.htm states it was actually .667.

Cobb was a competitor and had faults, but he also had other compensating qualities, which Stump down played. My opinion is that Stump did a hatchet job.

• Maybe, but Cobb's insufferable personality was well-documented by many of his own contemporaries, and the fact that so few bothered to go to his funeral says a lot. I once asked my grandfather, who was a huge baseball fan, what he thought of Ty Cobb. He said, "I always liked him as a player." Off the field was another story. Wahkeenah 01:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb was a superb player but a thoroughly despicable human being. Over a batting title, the Tigers sent congratulations to the other guy... Trekphiler 05:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a vision of Daffy Duck meeting Ty Cobb and saying (or spraying) his famous line, "You're dethpicable!" Wahkeenah 05:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there something about him having killed a black man, and being acquitted? And if so, shouldn't this be in the entry? DS 01:11, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• No, he did kill a man once but he was not black, and he was actually trying to rob Cobb. He did get into fights with some black men, and I've read that he assaulted a black woman working in a hotel once.
  • Okay, but given that he did kill a man - even if in self-defence - shouldn't that be in the entry? DS 11:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, he bragged about it in his autobiography. Go for it. Wahkeenah 16:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term racist always comes up when talking about Cobb. People have to remember this man was born in Georgia. His father lived during the Civil War. Cobb admired his father greatly. So if he seemed racist it shouldn't be too surprising. I'm sure many Southern Gentleman were considered racist at that time in history. You have to remember Cobb endured much harassment and prejudice when he join the Detroit Tigers. A young man from the south who was trying to break in the line-up in 1905. Cobb ended up having a nervous-breakdown his first year.

Thats true, but it is an unfortunate part of Cobb's life and image, and it deserves mention.

There is no question Cobb was a racist where minorities were concerned. However, he wasn't all that fond of white people either, least of all Yankees (Babe Ruth and otherwise). He got into an infamous and one-sided fist-fight with a handicapped New York fan in the stands who made the mistake of calling him a "half-n*gger". Wahkeenah 00:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, was Cobb more racist than his early 20th Century contemporaries, or other ballplayers from that era? If so, then it belongs in the article, but if not, then racism needs to be mentioned for every ballplayer.

• "(even supposedly shunning Babe Ruth for his allegedly black facial characteristics)"

Seems a little tacky to me, especially for something in the first paragraph of the article. In fact,I don't think parenthetical items should be one of the first things we read in an article. --AlanzoB 00:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the article may try a bit too hard to paint Cobb in a favorable light. For example, it includes a remark sort of favoring integration of baseball (as long as the black players are polite). But because the statement was undated and appeared in the article between discussion of events occuring in 1910 and 1912, it would suggest to readers that Cobb favored integration in the 1910s and thus was ahead of his time. In fact, those remarks came in 1952 (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=480633&postcount=71) after several teams had already integrated. I edited it to reflect that. I also the phrase "outspoken proponent" should be applied to someone leading the charge rather than praising integration in a couple of newspaper interviews. --JamesAM 04:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To mention Cobb's record for one team, the Tigers, significantly understates his accomplishments -- he's arguably the greatest of all time, not merely in Tiger history.

Better to say, As of 1970, 42 years after he retired, Cobb was first among all players ever in Batting Average, Runs, Hits, Stolen Bases, At Bats, and Games played. Since then, different players have broken different records. Here is how Cobb now stands:

 Batting Avg - 1st
 Runs - 2nd
 Hits - 2nd
 Doubles - 4th
 Triples - 2nd
 RBI - 6th
 Stolen bases - 3rd
 At Bats - 5th

• The arguments about who was better, Cobb or Ruth, have been going on for generations. Obviously, Cobb never won a championship while Ruth won several. They were both huge drawing cards. They were both well-paid. Cobb, in particular, was notorious for holding out for more money. But did Cobb change the nature of the game, the way Ruth did, or did he merely take the existing "inside" game to another level? And a number of his own contemporaries regarded Honus Wagner as the superior overall player to Cobb. Some of that might be bias because Cobb spread so much ill will wherever he went. Which also raises the question, did Cobb hurt his own teams as much or more than he helped them? Wahkeenah 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that Cobb took the existing game to another level... while Ruth changed the game all together... I doubt anyone would deny that.. but I'm not sure that is a knock on Cobb either, he played the way he played and did not change even after the Ruth era began. Alot of people hated Cobb, but by their stats I doubt one could say Wagner was better... though he may have been a better defensive player. As far as the Championships, I think Championships are more of a team effort than a individual effort, Ruth played for better teams than Cobb did, hence he was able to win Championships. Cobb did not do to badly in the three World Series he played in either. In his first he did, but he was a young player. In his second he hit .368, leading the team. In his third he had a low average in the .230's, but he also hit more RBI's than anyone else on the Tigers team for that World Series. Cobb did not necessarily enhance his game in the World Series the way a Jordan would in the Finals, but Cobb did not completely fold either. I personally would rank Ruth higher though, because Ruth was a HOF candidate as a pitcher, and as far as hitting goes I feel that he and Cobb were equals. I'd probably rank Cobb #2 behind Ruth all time.

Re: the section about the death of Ty's father. A lot of this is stolen from here: http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014142.html GWO (Yes, the same one from 2002 up there)

Took care of it. Gorrister 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update his stats so I know where he stands now among the all-time greats.

And is it true he sharpened his spikes?

The sharpened spikes! I remember reading this when I was a tyke.192.249.47.11 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He always claimed it was not true. He was a sharp guy, though. Baseball Bugs 00:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has no importance to me because it does no tell me, in details, about Ty Cobbs youth. I would certainly hope that somebody else out there has the same thinking.

I agree that there should be more on Cobb's youth.Slater79 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my understanding, Ty Cobb's legendary hit total was changed in 1995. It was a shock when I first saw the new number because I stopped following baseball between 1990 or so and 1997, and I never knew why this was. Then I came across the story:

"Although Lajoie led the AL in batting twice more, hitting .355 in 1903 and .381 in 1904, the race he lost to Ty Cobb in 1910 is a piece of baseball legend. The 1910 batting title was hotly contested, with a Chalmers automobile to go to the leading batter. Most of the baseball world rooted for the popular Lajoie and against the hotheaded Cobb, who had won the three previous titles. On the final day of the season, Lajoie bunted for seven infield hits and swung for a triple in a doubleheader at St. Louis. St. Louis manager Jack O'Connor was ultimately fired when it was revealed that he had ordered his third baseman to play deep against Lajoie. Lajoie finished second by a point despite the machinations but received an auto anyway. Later historical research by The Sporting News revealed Lajoie 's .384 average actually should have won the title. Cobb's official average of .385 was inflated because one of his games was inadvertently counted twice. In a dispute that rose to the highest baseball levels, Commissioner Bowie Kuhn ruled in 1981 that the mistake would not be corrected."

Obviously that has since been reversed and Cobb now has new career stats. Should this story be included in the article? It may seem trivial, but given the importance of the records involved (one of which he still holds, the other he held for so long), I think it has weight.

I think it would be nice to mention when the hit total was changed, and who it was who discovered it. Funnyhat 17:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Second Marriage" section leads off with the following statement "At 62, Cobb remarried. The bride was 40-year-old Frances Cass. This marriage also failed, and she later filed for divorce. She felt that he was simply too difficult to get along with when he was drunk. However, Cobb counter filed and won the suit." First, it might be useful to give some idea of how long after marriage she filed for divorce. But more importantly, the problem with this statement is that I have no idea what it implies. Divorce laws are nowadays quite different from what they were and this could use some explanation; that is to say, what does it matter who filed and who counterfiles and who won and what the consequences of winning or losing were. Hi There 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb was not the first. For example, fellow baseball star Christy Mathewson had already appeared in three movies in 1913-1915. Heavyweight boxing champion "Gentleman" Jim Corbett had multiple credits. If you consider auto racing a sport, Barney Oldfield had also starred in multiple films. There are other examples.

This whole page is an overly favourable worship of Ty Cobb. Not anywhere are his infamous acts of violence and humiliation owards people of black descent mentioned. Wikipedia is supposed to be a balanced source of information, not a piece of one sided hero worship of a man of appalling character who happened to do well at baseball.

Provided that you adhere to these guidlines: neutral point of view, verifiability, and can cite reliable sources, you're welcome to edit the article yourself. I recommend discussing your changes on this talk page, first, but baldfaced complaining accomplishes little when the solution is right at your fingertips. Thanks.

From the article: "Very near the end of the season, Cobb’s Tigers had a long series against Jackson and the Naps." .. who are the Naps? --Mike Schiraldi 20:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The naps were/are the Indians. They were given that nickname because of Napoleon Lajoie.Tecmobowl 20:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team names weren't always official and hard-and-fast, as they are today. For just a few examples- for a while, the Boston Braves were known as the Boston Bees. The Washington Senators were often known as the Nats (short for Nationals). The Phillies were sometimes called the Quakers. Also, a little off the subject, Napoleon Lajoie was, more often than not, referred to as Larry Lajoie (or at least as often as he was known as Nap or Napoleon. It was a much more colorful time in baseball, up to the 1960s, when nicknames seem to have disappeared, including colorful nicknames of teams that weren't officially designated by "Major League Baseball, Incorporated." Slater79 21:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Al Stump section be moved to a new page specifically about Al Stump? Although I don't know much about him, he was a very famous writer. Perhaps he deserves his own page. Just a thought. --Tecmobowl 22:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wp:cite#Tagging_unsourced_material, I'm removing all of the un-sourced material. If anyone has a source, please feel free to add some content back. I will remove everything from the meat of the article. The intro needs to be re-written. If i don't do that tonight, i will leave the un-sourced material until that time. // Tecmobowl 05:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the article according to the GA criteria I have decided to put the article on hold until some things are fixed. Most of these are easy to fix and shouldn't take too long. Adding the inline citations will probably take more time, but are the most important in me passing the article. Some of them are simply statistics which should be easy to find.

1. Add wikilinks or further clarify: silhouette, batting average (somewhere early in the article for readers who don't know what it means), hazing, American League pennant, bunt, shenanigans, umpire, heckler, nigger, strike, sandlot, brain tumor, will, & scholarships. Fixed all mentioned and numerous more. Let me know if I missed any.
2. "William Cobb suspected his wife of infidelity, and was sneaking past his own bedroom window to catch her in the act; she only saw the silhouette of what she presumed to be an intruder, and, acting in self-defense, shot and killed her husband." It would probably be best to break this up into two statements.Completely rewrote the last part of this paragraph - please see if this addresses the issue.
3. Is Spring Training capitalized? If it is, leave it. If not, fix it. - You are correct, "spring training" is not capitalized. I also wikified it as there is an entry for it.
4. There appears to be a hard return between the fourth and fifth paragraphs in the Early years section that should be removed. Spacing issue appears to be a result of the quote box and the image proximity. Another editor has worked on it to make it less obvious, but the space still is noticeable.
5. "It was also in 1909 that Charles M. Conlon snapped his famous photograph of a grimacing Ty Cobb sliding into third base amid a cloud of dirt, which visually captured the grit and ferocity of Cobb's playing style." This statement mentions a photo, if you can, add it to the article. It may be available for free use since it was taken in 1909.
6. "Perhaps what angered him the most about Ruth was that despite Ruth's total disregard for his physical condition and traditional baseball, he was still an overwhelming success and brought fans to the ballparks in record numbers to see him set his own records." Don't user perhaps, this sounds like OR. Rewrote beginning of sentence to begin "In spite of Ruth's total diregard...."
7. Misspelled: yougest -> youngest (last paragraph in the 1915-1921 section),
8. "Universally disliked (even by the members of his own team) but a legendary player, Cobb's management style left a lot to be desired. He expected as much from his players as he gave, and most of the men did not meet his standard." This sounds a little POV, try rewording it a little better, and it should probably be standards. Rewrite done, let me know how it looks.
9. "Leonard was unable to convince either Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis or the public that the two had done anything for which they deserved to be kicked out of baseball." Incorporate this sentence into the paragraph above or below it, or expand upon it. Expanded this section and cited it. Please check additional text for any other problems.
10. "This marriage also failed as she later filed for divorce. She felt that he was simply too difficult to get along with when he was drunk. However, Cobb counter filed and won the suit." These statements could use cleanup and inline citations; also, what suit? Cited refs for his marriage and subsequent divorce. Could not find any details around the actual divorce so I removed the last two sentences.
11. "He, like everyone else, found Cobb difficult at best, and impossible at worst." Reword this statement to be more encyclopedic. In trying to research this to find an actual McCallum quote, I decided to remove completely as there isn't a reliable source that backs up this sentiment. I did add more info around the actula book and supplied refs to the book itself and a review in the New York Times of the book. Hope this is acceptable.
12. "Publicly, however, Cobb claimed not to have any regrets: "I've been lucky. I have no right to be regretful of what I did" .[39]" Fix spacing of the period.
13. "At the time of his death. Cobb's estate was reported to be worth at least US$11,780,000 - $10 million worth of General Electric stock and $1.78 million in Coke stock. [43]" Move inline citation directly after the period.
14. For the image of the baseball card, add a description under the card explaining what it is (year, team, etc.)

Add inline citations for:

• He then went to try out for the Anniston Steelers of the semi-pro Tennessee-Alabama League, with his father's stern admonition still ringing in his ears: "Don't come home a failure."
• He would never hit below that mark again.
• In one notable 1907 game, Cobb reached first, stole second, stole third, and then stole home on consecutive attempts.
• By the time he died, he owned three bottling plants, in Santa Maria, California; Twin Falls, Idaho; and Bend, Oregon; and owned over 20,000 shares of stock.
• After some wrangling, American League president Ban Johnson declared all batting averages official, with Cobb seemingly hanging on to win, .3850687 to .3840947.
• The Chalmers people, however, decided to award an automobile to both Cobb and Lajoie.
• The commissioner's committee voted unanimously to leave the numbers unchanged, but this ruling has typically been ignored by the game's statisticians. Completely rewrote this section, and added several additional refs. Please recheck to see if this introduced any new issues.
• Cobb's dominance at the plate is suggested by this statistic: he struck out swinging only twice during the entire 1911 season.
• When onlookers shouted at Cobb to stop because the man had no hands, Cobb reportedly replied, "I don't care if he has no feet!"
• While Cobb preached ascetic self-denial, Ruth gorged on hot dogs, beer, and women.
• His 16 total bases set a new AL record.
• Cobb finally called it quits from a 22-year career as a Tiger in November 1926.
• With their careers largely overlapping, Ty Cobb faced Johnson more times than any other batter-pitcher matchup in baseball history. Rewrote to say they faced each other many times and moved claim of the most # of matchups to the talk page.
• Cobb retired a very rich and successful man. He spent his retirement pursuing his off-season activities of hunting, golfing and fishing, full-time. He also traveled extensively, both with and without his family. His other pastime was trading stocks and bonds, increasing his immense personal wealth.
• "He always wanted us to work s hard as we could at anything we did," Cobb's son James told sportswriter Ira Berkow in 1969. "Just as he did." Moved from article to talk page in case some one is able to cite later.
• By then, Cobb drank and smoked heavily, and spent a great deal of time complaining about the collapse of baseball since the arrival of Ruth. cited and changed wording a bit to match source (replaced bit about Cobb with Modern players comment).
• It was on a hunting trip near his Lake Tahoe home that Cobb's long-range plans were going to be cut short, as he collapsed in pain and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure and Bright's disease, a degenerative kidney disorder. removed unverifiable info and cited.
• He returned to his Lake Tahoe lodge with painkillers and bourbon to try to ease his constant pain. Moved from article to talk page in case some one is able to cite later.
• He checked into Emory Hospital for the last time in June 1961, bringing with him a paper bag with a million or so dollars in securities and his Luger pistol. (Also change a million or so to something like "about a million dollars in securities") added citation and added more specifics about the securities per the cited refernce. Also changed Luger to pistol and I haven't seen the gun make specified in some of the more reliable sources used so far.

Feel free to check the items off as you complete them, you have seven days to fix them all. When you are finished fixing these or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. --Nehrams2020 10:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the suggestion of the GA reviewer, I am going to move several uncited quotes currently in the article to the talk page until a citation if found.

• Ty Cobb faced Johnson more times than any other batter-pitcher matchup in baseball history.
• "He always wanted us to work as hard as we could at anything we did," Cobb's son James told sportswriter Ira Berkow in 1969. "Just as he did."
• Cobb returned to his Lake Tahoe lodge with painkillers and bourbon to try to ease his constant pain.

--Roswell native 06:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed this article according to the GA criteria. I am impressed with the amount of suggestions fixed and citations added in such a short period. The article is well-written and has plenty of images that help exhibit the material. Be sure to cite any new information that is added to help this article keep its high quality. Consider taking it to a peer review and then FAC. As a side note, the GAC currently has a backlog that could use experienced users' assistance. If you have the time, come review an article or two. Again, good work, the article looks great. --Nehrams2020 08:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read that Cobb was actually cheered by the crowd after he beat up Lueker and that his team came out of the dugout with bats in case he needed backup.

The article says, he struck out swinging only twice during the entire 1911 season, citing an article that supports it: http://www.thebaseballpage.com/players/cobbty01.php The cited page says (at the bottom):

Sources used for the Ty Cobb Player Page: Ty Cobb: A Biography, by Dan Holmes; The Tiger Wore Spikes, by John McCallum; Interviews with Richard Bak and Marc Okkonen, Ty Cobb, by Charles Alexander.

While I appreciate that it's properly cited, I think it's doubtful enough to remove it:

• Strikeouts were not recorded in 1911 (see http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cobbty01.shtml )
• 2 strikeouts in his 591 at bats would be a AB/K ratio of 295 (to 1), the all-time record for a season, and by far the 20th century record (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/ABpSO_season.shtml )
• It specifies swinging strikeouts, so arguably Cobb struck out more. But if he only struck out swinging twice, how many times did Cobb watch the third strike? 2? 5? 10? If we say 8, which I think is a lot, he'd have 10 total Ks, which means an AB/K ratio of 59.1, which would be approx. the 29th best season in the 20th century (see link above).
• For the years strikeouts were recorded (1913 and following):
  • His career AB/K ratio was 21.1 (see bottom of his stat page, linked above)
  • His AB/K ratio improved steadily (which I think is true of most players), not exceeding 20 until he was 31 years old, and not exceeding 30 until he was 36. In 1911 he was 24 years old.
  • His best (nearly) full season was his last one (1927 - 134 G), 41.8 AB/K

I'm guessing the Baseball Page is repeating an unfounded rumor, and the evidence weighs heavily against the story. Next, I will provide statistical evidence of how many Cobbs can dance on a the head of a pin. :) Guanxi 02:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I have moved the quote here so other folks can refer to it and possibly cite other reliable sources to back up this claim, until then I agree that it does not belong in the article.--Roswell native 04:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb's dominance at the plate is suggested by this statistic: he struck out swinging only twice during the entire 1911 season.[1]

The source for the Joe Jackson story (reference #70) is dubious at best. I would like to see a different source for that claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lecollye (talk • contribs) 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am moving the added info below from the article to the talk page because it was cut and pasted in it's entirety from the quote source.

• Needs to be rewritten in new prose
• Need to be worked into the legacy section (rather than a Miscellaneous section - whihc is really a trivia section IMHO.
• I think the statement about Cobb being an anti-semite needs some additional cites - I'm not arguing it isn't true (in fact, my own POV is that it is almost certainly true), just that I have read a lot about Cobb recently, and I have seen no mention about his anti-semitism - every story I found focused on his racism towards blacks. If this is the only source we can find, then I think it's being given undue weight. It would be preferable to cite additional sources.

Portion moved here was: On Sept. 27, 1999, the Tigers played their last game in Tiger Stadium, with players in the starting lineup wearing uniform numbers of great Tigers of the past. But Gabe Kapler's jersey was blank. The reason was that Kapler was wearing Cobb's number -- which, since Cobb played in the era before uniform numbers existed, was no number at all. The larger irony: while Kapler is Jewish, Cobb was a notorious anti-Semite.[1]

--Roswell native 22:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... if you think that this article could be improved with more footnotes, here is another cite as to a virulent ... anti-Semite.... http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nAkOWOXOqeYJ:entertainment.westword.com/1995-01-18/film/fit-to-be-ty/+%22ty+cobb%22+anti-semite&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=39&gl=us ... and note that his racism is already mentioned in the third para of the article. --Epeefleche 23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked at Baseball Almanac stats for Cobb and at Retrosheet stats for Cobb, and they also differ from B-R.com and MLB. Those two sites essentially match up with B-R except, but differ in baserunning stats. Those two sites include have another year of caught stealings credited, so he has over 200 of them. The Almanac keeps the same stolen base figure, but Retrosheet gives him one fewer (891). Obviously, we don't need to include the stat lines from those respective sites, but should there be a mention of them on the page? -- transaspie 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must list the official MLB stats. And you could list any or all of the others, with proper reference(s). To choose one and assert it as being correct (as some previous editors have done) is a POV violation. And the disparity among the various fan-based stats sites demonstrates their fallibility. Baseball Bugs 03:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MLB ones are certainly the ones we mention in the article, I wasn't going to change that. I was just thinking that we mention them as a way of showing further inconsistencies with the stats. Sadly, it's irrelevant at the moment because of the fact 1/3 of the article has apparently gone missing...  :( transaspie 04:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I changed it recently, the POV-pushers were citing the non-MLB stats as established fact, which is not the case at all, as your research demonstrates. I'll have to see what you mean about parts of the article disappearing, though. Hopefully I didn't zap something by mistake. Baseball Bugs 12:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One user made substantial changes on the 28th, including rubbing out the MLB stats. I put it back to that point (actually to one of your update points). Any significant changes since then by yourself or others would have to be recovered by them. Baseball Bugs 12:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why must we use MLB's stats? If others are more accurate, why not use them? For example, suppose on July 1, 1915 Cobb got 3 hits, but MLB erroneously states he had 2 hits. Should we misinform readers and say he had 2 hits? I believe we should publish the facts of what happened, and not MLB's story. It may be difficult at times to determine the true facts, but I don't think MLB has a special claim on accuracy. Guanxi 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am very confused at the moment. It wasn't long ago that this article was a GA-class article with 90-100 cites. Now it's at 20 cites and it is flagged for not being verifiable. Why is this happening? I mean, I know what caused it, since I watch recent changes, but I can't understand why it's ended up like this. It makes no sense that we've taken one of the few decent baseball articles out there and destroyed it. -- transaspie 03:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one of the reasons why I picked this article back up. I have actually put in a good deal of work some months ago as a starting off point and I have no idea what has really happened. I'm tring to chip away at it a little bit at a time. Sometimes this means removing content in preparation for restructuring the article. I did move most of the content for 1910 Chalmers Award to its' own article. This was due to the fact that the article is excessively long (i forget the WP link for that information), that the information in that section was long enough and substantial enough to deserve its' own page, and because the debate over his statistics is hotly debatable and therefor subject to massive amounts of editing. This article is one of the many that will always change a great deal and just needs to be revisited every now and then. // Tecmobowl 04:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Technically, what happened over the last few months was that it became a good article. The fact it got long was part of it the reason it earned that status; it became comprehensive and sourced and it was duly rewarded for it. A player like Cobb is going to have a long article...that's just the result of him being a legend and having a lot more written about him. It just seems really drastic to remove 27K of text and citations. I can't understand how a good article would be so messed up that it would need such a complete overhaul. I'm sure you know what you're doing to this article, but it's just...something that my silly little mind can't really comprehend at the moment. -- transaspie 05:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh the article will remain long, there is no question. Again, i just siphoned off some of the content and moved it to 1910 Chalmers Award. I too am trying to figure out what happened to all the citations. Certainly anything you can do to help would be much appreciated. // Tecmobowl 05:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Somehow, when you rewrote the article to be more neutral, you inadvertently did something. The revision summary shows major differences between the two articles. I will give you the benefit of a doubt there because I don't know how exactly that could've happened. But 40% of the text was lost and 75% of the citations were removed when you accidentally did that. 27.5KB were removed, and only 4 KB of them are now in the Chalmers Award article. A lot is unaccounted for. I am certainly willing to fix it but I feel like it'll just get reverted. I'm a little afraid of fixing it for that reason. I know you meant well with what you edited...and I know you're not intentionally doing anything wrong...but unfortunately it had some unintended effects which have bothered me. -- transaspie 05:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with transapie: The article was very good, and much of the quality work is now gone. Also, some editors are too willing to revert other's changes: We need to respect others' input as much as possible and form consensus where disagreement is unavoidable. If each editor does what they think is 'right', we will only have endless disagreements. Guanxi 13:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Transaspie - Well to be honest with you, I have no idea. I'll often times dig up old versions that were well written and use information from them. It looks as if I made a lot more changes than I intended to. Feel free to revert or edit or whatever. I did intentionally move the 1910 chalmers content out, but that doesn't seem to be the issue. To be honest, I'm not sure what I did. As for the statements of cobb's greatness, i will comment later when i return from lunch..etc...etc.. // Tecmobowl 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is, when other editors tried to make those changes, they got reverted back to the previous state. Promise you won't do that if I have a go at it. -- transaspie 19:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm really just fed up with this whole thing, you people want to focus on who knows what for who knows why.... you do your thing and i'll do mine. Keep the information factual and unbiased and we'll be good to go. // Tecmobowl 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry for doing this...but I'm putting Ty Cobb through a Good Article Review. I would prefer not being so dramatic, but this is the only conceivable way I can think of to get this madness to stop. -- transaspie 06:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues resulting in WP:GA/R nomination appear to have been addressed. Subsequently, article shall retain GA status. Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 06:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps input from others can help here. An editor keeps reverting the following as NPOV:

Cobb is widely considered one of the greatest players ever

You can find previous discussion so far at User talk:Tecmobowl#NPOV on Ty Cobb page and User talk:Guanxi#NPOV on Cobb; but to summarize my beliefs (I don't want to speak for Tecmobowl):

• It's factually true: Not everyone believes it, but that's not what is claimed nor is that Wikipedia's standard -- but I'd be surprised if anyone disputes that it's the opinion of the overwhelming majority.
• It's important: It's the primary reason for Cobb's notability, and essential information for someone reading about Cobb for the first time.
• It is NPOV: The NPOV page itself offers an example of just such a statement in the A simple forumation section.
• The reversions should stop -- See WP:Resolving disputes: If another editor disagrees, the proper response is not to revert but to improve it -- find something on which everyone agrees. If that's impossible, take it to the Talk page.

I'm going to post the edit again; if someone disagrees, I encourage them to not revert but to improve it -- help find a solution (again, per WP:Resolving disputes). I've tried to find a solution, but the only response has been more reversions. Guanxi 17:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is the problem: People write that Cobb is the greatest ever in the article...but is there anything in the article that reinforces that belief? No. No. No. The reason Tecmobowl deletes is because the claim is unsubstantiated. If you look at Michael Jordan's page, the introduction to his article clearly mentions him as one of the greatest, and the section on his legacy reinforces this belief. That's how you're supposed to do it. No one's made an attempt to do it here. If you get a few paragraphs about how Cobb is considered one of the all-time greats, and not just mention the results of polls in passing (the fact he is third all-time on TSN's top 100 list is mentioned as an aside in the end of a paragraph and his appearance on the All-Century team isn't even mentioned in the article and is only shown on a template at the bottom of the page) then you can write something like 'Cobb is considered one of the greatest players of all time'. Otherwise, the reverting will continue... -- transaspie 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• transaspie -

• Interesting idea about backing it up further down in the article: That would certainly be better. I agree we should add the polls to the Legacy section. I can also name Bill James off the top of my head; do you know of any others? Note that the Legacy section covers his enduring records now (as of yesterday).
• I think it is otherwise supported later in the article: The intro lists his dozens of records and HoF balloting, the 1910 sections says he was MVP; the 1911 says he led the league in many categories; 1915 begins with him setting the SB record, his consecutive batting titles, & his consecutive games w/ hits; the other sections mention many other successes; and finally the Legacy section now discusses his records (added yesterday). What else do you think we should add (besides the polls)?
• Tecmobowl doesn't give the reasons you attribute to him; he says it's non-NPOV, which is different. I don't see how you can speak for him?
• the reverting will continue... -- isn't that a bit of an ultimatum? I could say the same thing, but how would that help the article? I think your suggestions are a big help though, so thanks.

Guanxi 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ooh...yeah that did sound rather confrontational at the end. Sorry about that. Anyway, I have been looking up sources which would mention his status. I'm trying to find direct quotes from people about Ty Cobb which would help improve the article. All I've got is an article by Shirley Povich which means him being the greatest of all-time as an aside...which might help because Povich was well-regarded as a writer. I'm basically looking for quotes because there's the old adage about lies, damned lies, and statistics, so we can't solely rely on them. I mean, I don't know what 90 records he held and what 43 he supposedly has now. As for Tecmobowl...yeah, the reverts were about NPOV. The fact we did nothing to support the claim is why he kept deleting the line. This is simply my opinion, and your mileage may vary. -- transaspie 21:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking around for polls, I came upon the following:

• http://www.sabr.org/cmsFiles/Files/Assessing%20Ty.xls
• http://baseballguru.com/bburgess/analysisbburgess10.html (maybe the same as the first one?)
• Go to sabr.org and search for greatest AND ever
• This guy is determined to prove Cobb the very greatest ever. While probably not a reliable source for Wikipedia, his citations could be helpful: http://baseballguru.com/bburgess/
• Also, maybe google/microsoft/amazon book search can help. For example: http://books.google.com/books?q=ty+cobb+%2Bgreatest&btnG=Search+Books

Guanxi 23:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is the best way to explain why i've been doing what i've been doing. Here is a direct copy of a paragraph in the introductory section of the Babe Ruth article. Without making any claims of how "widely" considered he is or is not, it provides the reader with unbiased information that allows them to make their own interpretation:

"In 1969, he was named baseball's Greatest Player Ever in a ballot commemorating the 100th anniversary of professional baseball. In 1998, The Sporting News ranked Ruth Number 1 on the list of "Baseball's 100 Greatest Players." The next year, baseball fans named Ruth to the Major League Baseball All-Century Team."

That is the ideal way of communicating the concept. // Tecmobowl 22:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, how's this as a compromise (not the exact wording, but the general idea): Most baseball historians and journalists [writers?] name Cobb among the greatest ever, including [prominent citations go here]. I realize it's not exactly what either of us want, but here are my thoughts:

• Baseball historians and journalists is much more specific than the vague 'they' implied by the current version (and being specific is strongly recommended by the NPOV article section I cited above, now that I re-read it). I think we could include fans, but I don't think that adds anything, so I don't mind leaving it out.
• I still feel like limiting it only to specific polls implies that maybe the others don't think so. We can't list the thousands/millions who think so, but I think we need to refer to them somehow.
• It substantiates the claim as best it can be substantiated.
• We now have plenty of citations -- see the discussion above with transapie

Guanxi 23:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I changed it to 'historians and journalists' (see Status as of ~14:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC), below) I think it sounds odd -- what about the fans? However, if someone wants to leave out fans, I'm willing to do so. Guanxi 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "fans who are students of the game's history" or some such? If you took the average teenage fan, they might never have heard of Ty Cobb. They are more likely to have heard of Babe Ruth. Speaking of which, "one of the greatest" has no POV issue. Anyone who would dispute that statement about Cobb clearly knows nothing about the game's history. It's good not to say the greatest, because that would be POV-pushing. I think the answer to that question is Ruth, and in the dead ball era, some of Cobb's own contemporaries thought Wagner was better than Cobb. All 3 of them are charter members of the Hall, so that tells you something. d:) Baseball Bugs 16:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I wrote this about the same time as Guanxi, actually...)

• Tecmo, though it is accurate and fair, it also makes for a very weak lead. It is perfectly fine to say that he is an all-time great if you give it proper treatment in the article. As I said earlier, the article on Michael Jordan does well on this. Bill Russell has a bold statement about his defense which is touched upon in his legacy section and is effectively reiterated with various cited statements throughout the article. Wayne Gretzky is an earlier featured example with a different format, he has references to his greatness from one source mentioned directly in the article and other references cited in the introduction. Tim Duncan is a good article, and that also has a reference to his greatness in the lead which is cited by facts. Anyway, enough about other players, back to Tyrus...

The point is that it's acceptable to say he is considered one of the greatest baseball players of all time. BUT, we just have to reinforce it by other means besides statistics and polls...if we can't, then the statement doesn't deserve to be there. If we CAN reinforce it and cite reliable sources that do...then it shouldn't be a problem if we say that he is "widely considered one of the best hitters in baseball history" or something like that in the lead...we can show why he is with references. Hope that makes sense. -- transaspie 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of citations that call Cobb either the greatest or one of the greatest. Likewise for Ruth. Ruth usually wins out nowadays for the greatest, because his accomplishments overshadow Cobb's in several ways. In their crossover time of the early 1920s, it is a "given" that Ruth replaced Cobb as the guy that was considered to be the greatest in the game at that time. It is POV-pushing to say that either is the greatest. But to deny that they both are widely considered to be among the greatest is ridiculous; as well as being a weak lead, as the editor above notes, and which was my point to the unnamed editor that kept posting that "POV" claim for those statements. Baseball Bugs 01:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status as of ~14:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't heard responses to my responses above; if I don't, I'll assume there's no objection.
• I'm going to wait until transaspie figures out a plan, below, so I don't waste time on something that will change anyway.
• I'm going to wait because I don't have time do it now anyway
• I will change it to say 'historians and journalists', because it's quick, easy, preferred by some, probably unobjectionable to others, and fits WP:NPOV recommendations.

Guanxi 14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Burgess wants to prove Cobb is the greatest ever. His definite POV (among other things) makes him unsuitable as a Wikipedia source, but he's amassed an amazing amount of research that we could use. Guanxi 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of want to tune people into what editors been saying about this article in its GA review:

• "...looks like some very bad instability."
• "...currently not the same article [that] passed a few months ago."
• "...it's in shambles."
• "...the article's virtually destroyed now and is in need of a complete fix-up."

It has been suggested that the article should be reverted to the version that resembled the article that was given GA status in March.

Would it be okay if I reverted the article back to the way it was? The only necessary change is that the section on the Chalmers Award should be shortened since it has its own page. And, if it really has to come to it, the removal of any lines saying that he is considered one of baseball's greatest hitters or something. I don't want this article to get delisted... -- transaspie 02:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you determine precisely which version was the "good article"? And don't forget to retain the MLB.com stats, in case the so-called "good article" only includes the privately-researched stats. Baseball Bugs 03:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the top of the page, this is the version that was promoted to GA.
• Over three months, we improved it to this. We last saw this version last week. This would be the version I would want to revert to, while making minor alterations to account for the Chalmers Award data being sprung into its own page. -- transaspie 05:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. The stats contradict themselves in that article, so my re-working of them for the current version needs to also be taken into consideration. Baseball Bugs 05:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't immediately see where the contradiction was...but I will take your word for it. Was there anything else in that article that had been worked on in other versions but not in that one? -- transaspie 10:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply looking for ".366" vs. ".367", which is the starting point. Probably you would have to open 2 browser sessions (the GA version vs. the current version) and look at them side by side. Then open a third session to edit the GA version and apply appropriate changes. Then wait for you-know-who to revert the whole thing. Baseball Bugs 12:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As much as I prefer the old version and support your efforts to rescue the article, I don't think we should mass revert. The edits are already made; the only way to fix the article is to improve (or when necessary, undo) them -- even the worst edit probably includes something worth retaining. I know that's time-consuming, but nobody is in a position to revert many legitimate edits in order to save themselves time, effectively prioritizing their goals over everyone else's. Baseball Bugs objects to the loss of his edits -- wouldn't every other editor say the same thing? It's possible that that doing it properly won't be time-consuming because I suspect that only a few edits will need much attention. Guanxi 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then do it the reverse way: Put the two articles next to each other, and tweak the current article as needed. That should prevent the loss of good edits. Baseball Bugs 15:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were over 70 citations lost in the revert. It is time consuming to find them all. This is the quickest way I know how to restore them. I do not know how everyone else wants this article to be, I just want it to be back to something resembling what it was because I do not want this article to lose its status. Of course, if it really has to come down to it, I can fix them manually. -- transaspie 21:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then go ahead and revert to that date. I can always add my stuff back in. I had to do it once already after you-know-who F-ed it up. Baseball Bugs 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Look it over and change what needs to be changed. If I trimmed too much of the Chalmers section (to account for it being in its own article) you can do something about that. -- transaspie 00:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say, I do not know how everyone else wants this article to be, I just want it to be back to something resembling what it was because I do not want this article to lose its status -- I do prefer the old version, but I don't think we should revert everyone else's changes to achieve the objectives of a few of us. Guanxi 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Guanxi, the Good Article Reviewers were very negative at the state of this article. Three of them suggested that the article be delisted in its previous state. You may've been fine with the article, but you may well have been alone in that regard. I needed to go with popular opinion on this. Plus, as far as I've researched, much of the data we added to the shorter article had already been part of the longer version. -- transaspie 18:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • transaspie - I've said 3 or 4 times -- I personally prefer the version that you are advocating; I agree with you that's a better article. But two (or three) editors can't just decide to revert everyone else's work. Popular opinion = you and Baseball Bugs. I understand the GA reviews and agree with them, but the way to make it GA again is to improve it, not revert it. See Help:Reverting, esp. the "Do not" section. Guanxi 19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I misread your statement about the article...when you said "old article" I didn't know which one you meant, sorry 'bout that. Anyway there was more than me and Bugs, there were three Good Article Reviewers who weren't fond of the article, and reverting the article was suggested by two of them and accepted by a third. It wasn't just 2 people. But either way, let's just drop the situation and...apparently, only complain about dodgy sources. -- transaspie 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, I can see how that could have been confusing. In any case, I'm happy to be agreeable, but to what do you want to agree when you say let's just drop the situation? Do you mean, use the newer version (and presumably fix the mistakes)? If you want to stick with the older version, I'm afraid I disagree, but if we haven't agreed yet let's not waste more time on it and try some sort of arbitration. I think Wikipedia:Requests for comment is appropriate, but I've never used it. I'll support whatever the RfC concludes. Thanks for your efforts and for being so reasonable. If I had more time, I'd fix it myself, but I don't for the next few weeks. Guanxi 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I requested that an admin lock the page while we work this out (WP:RFP) -- otherwise we may end up merging the changes to two version which would take even more time ... Guanxi 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will also keep the Ron Liebman sockpuppet from screwing around with it, as he did again this morning. Baseball Bugs 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cobb's accepted figures among responsible historians are .366 average, 4189 hits, and 11 batting titles. (Some people amazingly find this painful to accept)! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellyabe (talk • contribs) 17:54, June 6, 2007.
    • Please provide at least 3 independent references for this please, preferably more. Include specific web addresses (if websites) or ISBN and page #s (if books). Thank you, from the one, the only, the original Ebyabe. Accept no substitutes. :) -Ebyabe 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our very good cite (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-514151_ITM - a scholarly journal) says he set 90 during his career and held 43 at retirement. Why does that keep getting changed? Is there a better source? Guanxi 16:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no good source for this. I did original research with the Sporting News baseball record book, and the name Ty Cobb appears on 37 regular season records and 2 World Series records, for 39 overall. The lead lists 5 of his records that have been broken since his retirement...which would claim that he now holds 38 records. 43 sounds more like the number he was holding at the time of the article was written...particularly since every other source is 90 and this is the only source claiming 43.

Unless I can get a list of records he held at the time of his retirement...I cannot say he held 43 records or 90 records...I can only say he's credited with 90 because that's the popular figure. -- transaspie 18:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I question the wisdom of perpetuating this 90 number which is starting to sound like an old wives tale. If you can find a source that lists the ones he currently holds, and casually reported that many sources say he held about 90 ML and AL records when he retired, that would be good. Or maybe it already says that. Baseball Bugs 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 90 is becoming a rather dubious total in my opinion, because of the inability of sources to back up the claim. But I don't know how else to do it properly without using original research or weasel words. This is just a widely cited figure like the 4,191 hits. That's really I can say about his records at the moment. -- transaspie 18:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it's better omitted. Why perpetuate something that seems suspicious? Baseball Bugs 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is everyone saying there's no good source? What's wrong with the citation in the article (which I linked to above)? Guanxi 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's cited. But I wonder if it's something that everyone keeps repeating without investigating. If he really held 90, then there has to be a list somewhere. The 90 is cited, so it could probably stand for now. I just don't think it should stop there. Baseball Bugs 19:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's some confusion: The citation says, A) He set 90 records during his career; and B) He still held 43 records when he retired. People keep changing it to say he held 90 records when he retired (which is a more common story, but possibly a rumor). I'm asking, why change it when the cite is very good? I agree both may be unfounded rumors, but I have some confidence in that cite because, 1) It's in a scholarly journal, and 2) the author is the only one (AFAIK) careful enough -- or knowledgeable enough -- to distinguish between Cobb setting 90 at one time or another, but only retaining 43 on retirement. Guanxi 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, it would just be nice, or ideal, to know what they actually were/are. We know what some of them are, of course, but by no means all. But someone had to have been keeping track. I just wonder where those "tracks" are. Baseball Bugs 00:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I actually purchased the article (the link is to an abstract), but our scholarly author (a full tenured economics prof. at a university) does not cite his source. I recommend the article, though. Where on Wikipedia do I expense my $5? Guanxi 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to say, let's delete the whole thing -- 43 or 90, since we lack a good source and it sounds like a rumor. But, someone will post it again if it's missing completely, so I think we're better off with the seemingly more accurate info from Professor Peach (the article cited). Guanxi 01:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started looking at various sources for records, and quickly gave up. It all depends on how you define a "record". There's MLB career stats, of course. There's single-season stats. There's game stats. Those are records. After that, you start getting into some dubious areas. Like "most years batted over .320" or some such. That's not a record, that's just an arbitrary dividing point. I could say "most years batted over .001" and maybe the winner would be Nolan Ryan or some such, I don't know. If a reliable source makes a claim, you could says "so-and-so says...", otherwise you could just fall back to the weaselly "many records". Baseball Bugs 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Sporting News record book is full of those stats. When I saw the 90 number for the first time, my first thought was "There's not even 90 stats!". But you can extrapolate stats in enough ways to create them...but even so 90's a bit much. (BTW, you're using some really silly examples :)) 43 is a little more arbitrary, but unless the professor told us the records he holds, then it's still just speculative and possible still full of all those stats. After all, there's only about a dozen-so positive stats and only a few ways you can skew them. I refuse to do "many records" because editors tag statements like that. An alternative is merely mentioning the records, the really really important ones, at more depth. The 90 record claim might be better suited for the Legacy section or something like that...even if it's just hearsay, it's a widely claimed figured that helps boost his legacy. But anyways...if you two want to try your hand at the lead to make it fit your style (much like I apparently have did with mine, based on comments)...go ahead. After all, it'd be great if I didn't have to do all of the fixing myself. -- transaspie 03:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC) (P.S., can we get more than 3 people to care about this article right now? *g*)[reply]
    • An idea popped into my mind...how bout a sub-article along the lines of Career acheivements of Ty Cobb or something like that. Several of these pages have been popping up for prominent basketball players, and certainly an article like that would work perfect for the Cobbs of the world. Those pages are very welcoming to those records that you criticized earlier, BB. Maybe it won't prove that he held 90 records when he retired or 43 records when he retired, but it would certainly be useful. -- transaspie 05:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If so, I'd like to see a similar one for Ruth, as he and Cobb were the subject of much comparison in their day... the ultimate "apples and oranges", maybe, although they did share one thing in common, which was the desire to win. Can you imagine them on the same team? The greatest "small ball" player matched up with the greatest "power" player? They'd be unbeatable. If they didn't kill each other. Baseball Bugs 08:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What a shock, you guys have gotten the page locked. This is very easy to resolve people. 1) you add a section that discusses the two different presentations of Cobb's statistics. In relevant portions of the article, you then point to that section. OR 2) You use the first opportunity to write a note (using the <ref></ref> tags). Then just cite that note where ever necessary. //Tecmobowl 06:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am very ashamed that you guys got this article locked. I told you guys that you could fix this article, and the only thing you can think of is preventing people from editing it for a week? I'm sorry, but that is stupid. INCREDIBLY stupid. Right now, I feel like I have wasted my time trying to save this article. -- transaspie 17:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• transaspie says, I told you guys that you could fix this article -- Where did you say that and what do you mean? Do you mean that you won't object to undoing the mass reversion? This post is my 3rd attempt to get this question answered (see above on the talk page). If it's not answered here, I'll assume you don't object. I value your input, but ... Guanxi 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In case nobody reads what's been posted to the discussion page (see above) since June 6th, it was locked as a practicality, to save us a massive amount of work. I'm not sure what the big deal is, unless you like doing unnecessary work (let me know -- I've got plenty for you!). However, if transaspie doesn't respond soon, we may be back where we started. Guanxi 14:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just revert the god damn thing back to where YOU want it. I'm through caring about this page anymore. You have no idea how psychologically draining this has been to me...I tried to do what's right for the article and I have one lone dissenter who believes we should have the article which an admin stated was destroyed and believes I fucked up, and the other user who supported the revert criticizing me for changing the lead to be more accurate. I do not want to talk about this anymore because this whole situation has honestly and seriously driven me to the point of insanity. I am through caring about this article. -- transaspie 17:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, we only disagree over one point. Even smart, well-intentioned people can disagree. I hope you will change your mind and continue to contribute to the article. Guanxi 00:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Okay, I'm willing to give it another shot. Seeing how I'm responsible for this article being protected (let us not talk anymore about whether anyone is to blame for it), I can responsible for unprotecting this article. Unlike some disputes, this one can be fixed logically and amicably.

I think you're incorrect about there being one point we're disagreeing about. What you've wanted to do is revert the article to its destroyed state. Part of my loss of sanity came because I simply could not understand why you would want an article that was destroyed. First off, can you agree to accept the article's length as it is now? If you've already done that...great, we're in business.

The main dispute you're thinking of involves the number of records he has. I will say this about the sources...I am pretty sure he didn't hold 43 records when he retired, and I'm even surer that he didn't hold 90 when he retired. I don't have the full text of James Peach's article, so I can't tell if he backs up his claim or if he only uses numbers that go so far over the casual readers heads that it makes even less sense than it did when it started. All the casual reader really needs to know is the important career stats, batting average, hits, runs, doubles, triples, stolen bases...the stats that an average reader, one that may not have baseball knowledge, can find reference to on most sites and can quickly understand. The esoteric records that Cobb has, the types that show up in the Sporting News record book for example, have no interest to such readers. As such, I would like to simply remove my claim about how many records he has from the lead.

I planned on moving the claim to legacy instead. Here, I need to stick with the 90 record claim. I am not going to say that he HOLDS 90 records, he's just CREDITED with 90. It's a widely cited stat which helps boost his legacy...fuck if I know if it's true. No other place besides that one source makes the 43 record claim that you want to support. The fact it's being made in an economics magazine partially makes me want to find other sources for such a claim...i.e., a source that specializes in sports.

I know you are intent on putting this outlying and, in my eyes, yet-to-be-verified claim in this article...how exactly do you want to do this? Tell me how you want to do this because it will make things a lot easier on us.

That is all I have for now. If we are able to co-operate, then I've got nothing against putting my time and energy into this article again.

Let's get this thing unlocked. -- transaspie 14:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You two can work out the general issues, and the question of how many records Cobb has and/or used to have. My main issue with this article has been with certain past editors who insisted that 4,189 is the "true" hits figure, and ignoring the official MLB figures. The current article lists both, and the explanation for that situation, and that's how it should be. I don't think it needs to be locked anymore, but I'm not doing much with it now, either. Baseball Bugs 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• transaspie - There's some misunderstanding: The only issue I'm concerned with, and the only disagreement we had (AFAIK) is that I believed we shouldn't mass revert other editors' changes. Anything else is a misunderstanding; I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I honestly think that if you read what I wrote with 'fresh' eyes -- forgetting any dispute we have -- you'll agree. In particular:
  • I don't object at all to the article length -- go to town -- but again, I strongly believe that needs to be achieved by improving on, not mass reverting, edits.
  • As we agreed in the section above, when the lock was removed I reverted to the 'non-GA' version (17:15, 5 June 2007). I then restored all subsequent edits (except the reversion, so from 03:41, 6 June 2007 to the present). Part of one edit changed a paragraph that no longer exists, so I omitted that, but noted it in the comments.
  • As for the number of records: I never felt one way or the other about it -- I was trying to get more input from you before making up my own mind. Your point -- that 43 is from only one source, which has little inherent expertise in the subject -- is an excellent one. Peach does not back up the number in the article. I agree we should remove the 43 unless we find more support.
  • For the number of records: I think we must include the 90 number -- if we don't, someone will add it later, so let's do it correctly. I think it should say he's widely rumored to have set 90 records (and maybe say that he definitely set a large number of records, including X, Y, Z, etc.). Credited sounds too official to me, but I could live with it. Whichever you use, I won't object.

Have fun. Guanxi 04:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not going to have fun. I asked you to accept the article's length as it is now and instead you got YOUR way.

This article will be delisted because you are the ONLY person who wanted the article in this state. I mean, even Tecmo was supportive of the revert. And I had to accept YOUR way just to get this reverted. You are responsible for this article losing it's good status. I should not be the only one responsible for getting it back.

When I am not screaming at the top of my lungs due to the anger I feel that I have to put up with this article again (I am sadly not kidding when I say this), I will be glad to help. I will NOT, however, do this on my own.

*sigh* You won. I can't believe I've frickin' let you win. -- transaspie 06:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I am in my current mental state, I honestly cannot edit this article. This is your responsibility for the time being. I hate myself too much for involving myself in fixing this article. I seriously just want to cry right now...or hospitalize myself. -- transaspie 08:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to try to organize this ... in case any one else wants to help (?). Guanxi 14:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where we are now

There's a general consensus that many edits between 03:30, 30 May 2007 and 17:15, 5 June 2007 removed valuable content and otherwise reduced the article's quality.

What to do? The Wikipedia way is,

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

That means we need to take each edit and improve on it -- keep the good parts, improve the less desirable parts, and when necessary, undo the destructive parts.

How to do it

It's simple:

1. Go to the History page
2. Find the next edit that needs review (see list below)
3. Next to it, click the last link; that will display the changes made for that entry.
4. Where undesired changes are made, simply copy the content from the previous version (the one of the left) into the current article. Again, let's respect others' work: Retain as much of the edit as possible; improve, don't revert.
5. On the list below, check off the edit you reviewed

Also, to save some effort, beware of text that is edited several times -- there's no need to relive history by repeating each revision.

Track what's done

I'll list the edits that need review below. If you do one, check it off, so we don't duplicate each other's efforts. I'll check off ones which were subsequently reverted (that I can easily identify).

x 03:55, 30 May 2007

04:39, 30 May 2007

05:10, 30 May 2007

05:11, 30 May 2007

05:14, 30 May 2007

06:22, 30 May 2007

x 21:09, 30 May 2007 206.15.237.60

x 21:09, 30 May 2007 MartinBot

02:48, 31 May 2007

15:35, 31 May 2007

21:12, 31 May 2007

21:17, 31 May 2007

01:57, 1 June 2007

19:36, 1 June 2007

x 01:46, 2 June 2007

01:51, 2 June 2007

x 03:44, 2 June 2007

x 05:07, 2 June 2007

x 05:55, 2 June 2007

15:28, 2 June 2007

17:37, 2 June 2007

21:13, 2 June 2007

00:00, 4 June 2007

04:31, 4 June 2007

04:32, 4 June 2007

04:38, 4 June 2007

08:29, 4 June 2007

22:40, 4 June 2007

23:19, 4 June 2007

23:36, 4 June 2007

23:37, 4 June 2007

14:12, 5 June 2007

x 16:12, 5 June 2007

x 16:25, 5 June 2007

x 16:43, 5 June 2007

x 16:51, 5 June 2007

x 17:15, 5 June 2007

Status - (essentially) done!

The article is now mostly fixed. It looks like most of the damage was in one edit, 03:55, 30 May 2007, which I just spent a few hours manually fixing. The subsequent edits may need review, but I think we might be able to ignore them and move on at last. :-)) ! Guanxi 16:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice! Great job. Mad props to you. You've saved us a lot of hassle and you've saved a GA-quality article. -- transaspie 21:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness. I still don't know what the heck happened with that edit of mine. I suspect that because I use firefox, i copied from the wrong "page" (blah...blah..blah..). In any event, a few things can still be done and then this baby is ready to rock. I think we should consider removing the records set from the introduction due to their "contentious" nature. Regardless, I'll let this sit for a few days before chiming in.//Tecmobowl 09:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a lot of WP:MOS cleanup work, but this article should be thoroughly cited to retain GA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]