User talk:Cbl62

Question on All-Americans

Since you've done a huge amount of work on the All-American articles, I thought I'd ask your opinion on this. A couple months ago I posted a question at Talk:2008 College Football All-America Team; that article has a ton of players listed together from all sorts of different selectors (Rivals, Scout, CBS, ESPN, etc.). As far as I know, AFCA, Walter Camp, the AP, FWAA, and the Sporting News are the current consensus (which I would say means "NCAA-recognized") selectors. The 2008 article has five different selections listed at QB for instance... I think the other publications selections warrant inclusion, but the way the information is currently presented is, to me, confusing, if not deceptive. Strikehold (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

William H. Lewis

Nice work. This is in really good shape for such a recent article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Excellent job on William H. Lewis. I've been writing about Lewis for some 15 years, and I was overjoyed to see such a complete and well written article about this amazing man. You really gave him his due. Congratulations.CoyoteMan31 (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Forward Pass & Paul Veeder

Thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia.

Forward Pass

I edited Forward pass to reflect what primary references (numerous 1906 newspaper articles) show to be true, that SLU used the forward pass all that season. I cited one primary, contemporary reference for the SLU/KU game that was played three weeks before Yale/Harvard. With the contestants being St. Louis and Kansas, the setting Sportsman's Park and the crowd at 7,000, it would seem to meet any fair definition of "major."

The East-centric nature of most reporting of early football history is understandable and inescapable. It is informative to report what was going on in the East. But, Ms. Jenkins' research was demonstrably inadequate as any number of references reveal. Her opinion, therefore, is not instructive.

Paul Veeder

I have corrected a minor typo on Paul Veeder and leave to you the modifications that you deem appropriate based on the info available on SLU/KU.

Thanks again Ruedetocqueville (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. Frankly, the "first" status of St. Louis, while interesting in a Columbian sort of way, is relatively unimportant. If SLU happened to have the earliest opportunity to throw a pass by an accident of scheduling, who cares, really, who was first? I certainly did not mean to minimize the publications by calling them Eastern. I meant to identify them. They are, in fact, Eastern. I doubt if they had or have many readers in... or reporters assigned to... St. Louis. The opinions you cite that Harvard/Yale was the first "major" use of the pass must either 1)reflect an Eastern bias up to the time of the articles 2) or cede to the writers the right to define "major" to mean the games of the teams that interest them... or games with more than 12,000 attendees (SLU's top home attendance in 1906). So "major" really means the "major" population density in the vicinity of home fields. By that criterion, toss the Tampa Bay Rays from the "major" leagues. What is annoying is the implication that the invention of the pass wasn't really important until it was used in the East. The importance was, in fact, the invention itself. It was not formulated in some isolated gridiron lab... but envisioned, designed and refined... and the information disseminated across the country... by Cochems. Considering the contemporary, national understanding of what Cochems was doing at St. Louis, defining him down to sub-major does history a disservice. The importance of SLU's story to me is the degree to which the modern passing game was first envisioned and ultimately founded upon the collaborative creation of Eddie Cochems and Bradbury Robinson. This is the fascinating story and one that really had not been told until the source materials were brought together on Wikipedia. The contemporaneous documents are there... inportantly the account of Hackett (see Eddie Cochems) in 1906.... as well newspaper articles from the period and Ed Wray's columns from the 30s and 40s recounting the 1906 season... as well as the work of later historians. Ms. Jenkins' statement "one of the few significant forward passes" is simply incorrect, unless one cedes to her the right to define "significant" as the others have claimed the right to define "major". Cochems and SLU spent the whole season throwing significant passes... scores of them. But Ms. Jenskins has decided (de facto) that all but (at most) a handful of those were insignificant. This while Cochems was writing the book on the new passing game. Walter Camp recognized that... and published ten pages of "Cochems on passing" in his 1907 annual. More recently, Nelson and Watterson have come to profoundly different conclusions than Ms. Jenkins... and theirs have the benefit of being based upon more complete research. The Villanova reference added today proves the point... basketball passes in the East are the first "real" use... not the modern spiral throws to receivers in stride in St. Louis. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maryland Terrapins football honorees

I more or less finished List of Maryland Terrapins football honorees, and am planning to put it up for FLC at some point. Would you mind giving it a look if you've got the time? Thanks. Strikehold (talk) 02:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Have you seen List of Maryland Terrapins football honorees. Given your interests in Michigan football, you might want to take a shot at something like this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack Blott

Hi Cbl62.

I received a phone call at the Wikimedia office from this fellow's daughter letting us know his name wasn't "John", it was "Jack". Not sure if you have sources for the name, "John", but those sources may also be wrong.

I offered my sympathy; with her because my grandfather was given the name "Jack" at birth and people were always trying to make him "John" in articles and things (my grandfather held a world record once.) I'm letting you know, because while she won't be contributing (she's 80 and doesn't have internet), her cousin who sent her the article in the mail might be changing it or contacting us to figure out how to do it; but if you wanted to fix it yourself, you should feel free (especially if you have a source with the correct name!). Cary Bass. Bastique ^demandez 17:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on Jack Blott. If the lady you corresponded with or her cousin want to contact me on my talk page, I'd be glad to discuss. I would not have listed him as "John Leonard 'Jack' Blott" unless one of the sources identified him that way. I would not have simply inferred that someone named Jack was really a John. When I have a bit of free time, I'll see if I can go back to my sources on this. Cbl62 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I am sorry if it seemed I was suggesting you put the name in that way. I absolutely meant to imply it was the source that got it wrong! I'm not sure if her cousin will know enough to put something on your talk page to discuss it. Just to be on the lookout for it. Hopefully he/she will decide to email info@wikimedia. Bastique ^demandez 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Albert Pattengill

I just read over your new article on Albert Pattengill. I made a few small edits, but it's a great piece and an interesting topic. Excellent work! Jweiss11 (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Louis A. Merrilat

This was a wonderful article. You deserve lots of kudos. Merrilat was an incredibly fascinating individual of another era--thanks for sharing his story with the world. Thanks for all your hard increasing the world's knowledge via WP.--Dpr (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

See also sections

Good stuff with all your recent work on the 1901 Michigan team. To open up the discussion about see also sections, let's review WP:SEEALSO. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page for my reply to your comments from last night. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Cochems

Yes, I have followed your extensive additions and edits. I appreciate your additional research. It would be better for me to jump in again after you have finished your round of work. Exchanges of competing edits may be confusing to the process and counterproductive. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I continue to follow your progress. Again, I think it's better for me to remain an observer until you want to take a pause. As I watch your edits, you are polishing some of the same things I would have addressed, so I feel comfortable just watching for now. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Provenance: Robinson’s late daughter gave me the scrapbook in about 1980. I was a journalist at the time. She wanted me to preserve it and try to disseminate the info it contained. Because Robinson died suddenly and unexpectedly, the scrapbook (which was an ongoing project) was not “finished”. Most of the material was loose, much of it undated and unidentified as to specific publisher. I have dated the material where indicated in the book and have done some detective work to get dates on others. As more info becomes available on the Internet, we will be able to find electronic copies of the same pieces and get more info. The book contains his memoirs, letters among Robinson, Cochems and others in the 30s and 40s, photos, etc. Many of the key personalities were communicating with Wray, who served as something of an arbiter as the "official" history was laid out in a years-long series of articles in the pages of the Post Dispatch. Remember, Wray was a young journalist in STL in 1904-1906 and he covered these people and events. Wray interviewed Referee Hackett in what is (to me) the most important contemporaneous opinion available – that’s why I copied it and put it in the wiki article. Hackett is the best available authority in trying to decide who was doing what in 1906. Hackett’s opinion (with no axe to grind) is that nobody in the East or in Chicago (i.e., Stagg, whose game Hackett had just officiated the week before the SLU-Iowa game) was doing anything like SLU. I will take Hackett’s unbiased opinion one week after officiating Stagg’s game with Nebraska over Stagg trying to take credit (based on his own unsubstantiated recollections) some 40 years later. Stagg’s inescapably self-serving, unsupported claim cannot be given equal weight to Hackett’s unbiased, ultimately (if not uniquely, as an eyewitness in the East and Midwest) expert, contemporary observations. Giving Stagg and Hackett equal standing serves not to educate, in my opinion, but is more likely to confuse the reader. The same with Harold Claassen, who makes the demonstrably FALSE statement about the first spiral being thrown years after we have pictures and accounts of Robinson throwing spirals. Claassen’s opinion, in this case, is in no way enlightening, except to demonstrate the inadequacy of later reporting on these events and, possibly, the bias for the Eastern powers. Claassen is unequivocally WRONG. I give much more weight to David Nelson’s opinions over all other non-eyewitnesses. He was the unquestioned authority on college football history of his era. Just read his Wiki article. Again, a writer/reporter, as we are trying to be, needs to make judgments and weigh reported facts and opinions. To treat all opinions equally is not appropriate. Nelson had no axe to grind. He spent decades researching the history of college football. No other author can approach even a small percentage of the research and recognized expertise brought to the table by Coach Nelson. I understand your confusion as to Robinson’s apparent contradictory points of view. In reading the materials, Robinson clearly gives Cochems the credit for developing the offensive schemes, once Cochems was given the basic idea by Robinson and his former teammates at Wisconsin. What irritated Robinson was Cochems’ version of the story in which Cochems thought up everything to do with the pass. Cochems’ anecdote that Robinson told him at Lake Beulah with great surprise that “I can throw the dang thing 40 yards” really annoyed Robinson, according to his daughter. Remember, Robinson never took credit for thinking up the pass. Savage introduced him to the pass at Wisconsin in 1904. Once he saw how Savage threw the ball, Robinson says didn’t need any more convincing. Robinson knew that throwing the ball like a baseball could fundamentally change things. Plus, importantly, Robinson knew he could really throw a pass. Robinson contends that he gave the idea to Cochems at Wisconsin in 1904-05 (remember, Robinson continued to work out with the Badgers even after transferring to SLU). Robinson freely admits, Cochems began working on schemes in the 1906 preseason, after Robinson had gotten Cochems the job at SLU, specifically to work on developing the pass. A contemporary article confirms that Robinson was principally responsible for Cochems getting the SLU job. So: Robinson felt he took the idea of the pass to Cochems… and with some pushing from his SLU players (according to the SLU forward pass centennial piece)… Cochems used it at Carroll and it was Cochems who developed the inspired offensive scheme. My reading of the situation is that it was the Cochems/Robinson pair that led to the development of the first modern passing offense. Robinson had the vision, the drive and the pull at SLU to actually get a coach hired there who could run with the concept. On the On-Side kick, I have the 1907 Spalding book that has Cochems’ article on the Pass and On –Side Kick and, in that piece, he is an advocate of both plays. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional thoughtful and generous comments. Gregorian and the SID office at SLU have talked to me about doing such a book -- Gregorian wanted to co-author -- but so far, it's been just talk. It is a fascinating story... how the whole thing evolved at Wisconsin and SLU. The personalities are also interesting... not only Cochems and Robinson but several of the others. I put all that stuff in there (footnotes) about Acker and other teammates just because they provided info on more strange circumstances and interesting tidbits. I would love to know more about Schneider. He came to SLU with Cochems from Wisconsin. From reading the scrapbook, Schneider and Robinson were always working out together... with what were probably the first-ever modern passing drills... described, again, by more than one contemporary observer. Cochems comes off as a somewhat mysterious and maybe even a tragic figure in later life. Gregorian and I discussed this after we each finished our own research in 2006. Thanks to the Internet, we have found out a lot more since then, but in Robinson's correspondence, you get the impression that Cochems' former players regarded him as something of a failure later in life. I have not gone there with my reporting -- frankly, I haven't had the heart and it didn't relate to what he did accomplish at SLU. You should not interpret my comments about Stagg v Hackett as suggesting that Stagg be removed from the article. But, I think it is entirely appropriate to point out in the section quoting Stagg that Hackett had refereed his game a week before being quoted by Wray and Hackett failed to mention that Stagg was doing the same thing as SLU... in fact Hackett explicitly stated that SLU gave "the most perfect exhibition... of the new rules ... that I have seen all season." Hackett's statements, again, are from a leading authority of the period -- he was on the Rules Committee shortly thereafter. He may have been the only expert -- period -- to have personally seen the teams and the coaches who would later contend for the recognition as the earliest developer of the forward pass. His quote certainly should be attached to Stagg's argument, which it somewhat deflates. Wray would write about that interview even decades later, but I was thrilled to find the original sidebar and I resolved to get that on the Wiki site so that everyone could read the original language. Having a news background from the 70s/80s, I am fact-sensitive and balance-sensitive (that dates me!). So, I would never want to come down on any side except that of the truth. Claassen's statement can't be true, unless one concedes that St. Louis's repeated, spectacular use of the pass didn't constitute a "major weapon". How could it have been anything else? What is clear from my reading over the years is that this period was rife with overblown personalities, in many aspects of life, not just sports. Few seemed shy about blowing their own horn. That's why the scrapbook is so valuable, because it has observations by not just one or two... but many contemporary journalists. And, in response to your question, some of them came from outside StL, writers for the opposing teams, so they couldn't be suspected as "homers". I just wish Robinson had been better about noting exact dates and newspapers. As you know, the writers of that era got tons of space... many inches with tiny font. So, there is a lot of great stuff there. Again, with the Internet, these articles will become accessible sooner or later. I have searched and have found none of those for which I have clippings. I am excited each time I (or you) find something from the online archives. New stuff is being added all the time. When I found the story a few months ago giving a detailed account of Robinson's alleged 87-yard pass... from a nationally syndicated and highly regarded journalist/cartoonist (Robert W. Edgren)… it was quite a thrill. I had never heard of Edgren. I started to research him and created a Wiki article on him. He is another interesting character. I don't live in StL but my wife is going out of town to see family for several weeks late this summer and I thought about visiting friends in StL at that time to go through the archives of the old newspapers. I wish Wikipedia had a means for people to scan and post materials such as the scrapbook, so everyone would have access to the original materials. Although I have been out of the business for years, I have a few aged friends who still write for newspapers and journals. I discussed Robinson with a local sports columnist in the spring and he was interested, just because we were colleagues for many years. I still write occasional opinion pieces that get published regionally. Maybe a detailed enough piece can be written to get some of this info on the record and accessible. In the case of Robinson, the entire Wikipedia article (as it existed in mid-2009) was serialized and reprinted, essentially word for word, in the little paper in Bellevue, OH, where he was born. In seeing your edits, I admit that I have been trained as a storyteller rather than an encylopediaist. It is not natural for me to write chronologically but rather to try to tell a story with the goal being that, if the reader runs out of time or the editor runs out of space, when the end of the piece is not read or the end is cut off, what is read and what is published contains the most important information. Telling a story also leads me away from throwing in comments such as Claassen’s, which detract from the reader’s understanding of the fundamental things I want him to remember. This is less a defense as it is an explanation of my writing style. I actually wanted Claassen in the piece to demonstrate how the deck was increasingly stacked against Cochems in the years following his death. Another thing that struck me: I have the ballot from when Robinson was nominated for the NFF hall of fame in the 1960s. I got it from the NFF. It says something like, Bradbury Robinson, end, 1904-07, St. Louis. Nothing about the pass at all. How could anyone have been expected to vote for him for the HOF when, by that time, the story of Cochems and Robinson and the Pass was almost totally unknown? Ruedetocqueville (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the offending sections, since references cannot be given. (I also removed Claassen, as we discussed in the summer.) I must admit that I am not cut out for this medium. It is too difficult to be reading original copies of the correspondence among Robinson, Wray and Cochems from Robinson's scrapbook... and Robinson's thoughts in his own hand... but having to yield to interpretations of what they were all thinking based on selected Wray articles. But, that is the situation. You have made significant contributions to this article, for which I thank you. You're doing a better job based on publicly available sources. I will check in from time to time to follow your progress. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Stan Noskin

Cbl62, nice work on Stan Noskin. The father of one my good friends from high school graduated from Michigan with the class of 1959 and was Noskin's fraternity "big brother". I emailed him the article a few days ago and he passed it along to Noskin and all of their old fraternity brothers. They all got a kick of out it. Noskin wanted to let it be known that he's not that old though. He was born in 1938 (June, my friend's father thinks), not 1937. ;) As my friend's father regales, in the fall of '58 the underclassmen in their fraternity challenged the upperclassmen to a game of touch football. My friend's father pushed the game off until after the Ohio State game so that Noskin could play. The upperclassmen went up 36 to 0 (six TDs, no conversions in the game), before the underclassmen conceded. Good stuff. I told my friend's father he should write that up and submit it to the Michigan alumni mag so it can be published and then you can source it for the Wikipedia article. ;) Jweiss11 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

William Wilson Talcott / List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches

I just read your new article on William Wilson Talcott. Quite a story. Almost sounds like a side story out of Erik Larson's The Devil in the White City. I just made a few minor edits (endashes and some wikilinks) and added some categories. Nice job on that one.

On another note, I've expanded the lead for List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches. I'm working on getting that one promoted to Featured List and the short lead was a major criticism. Nothing too fancy there as I modeled it off of the lead for the analogous Oklahoma Sooners list, but if you get a chance, take a quick look. You should be happy with how I placed Rodriguez in historical context. I know what a big fan of his you are. ;) Jweiss11 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fred Green

Cbl, happy new year. When you get a chance, can you take a look at the merger proposal for Fred Green. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in here. I looked Warren up in the 1898 Michiganensian, thanks to your handy links from the Michigan football articles, and he is listed as "Class Athletic Manager". Jweiss11 (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice job

... on Arthur S. Herman.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ditto on Joseph McCulloch, which I see is eligible for DYK if you can find a hook in there. Maybe something about the 1918 base football team with All-America athletes from different schools (Weston was first-team in 1917, Reynolds was third-team in 1921); it might help if we could figure out who "Kofed" and "Mackall" were. cmadler (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Bemies

As a Geneva alumnus, I was quite excited to see your work on this article. I'm particulately impressed by the fact that you found my denomination's old magazine, citation 18, as well as one of the most important works by W.M. Glasgow, perhaps this denomination's most important historian. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've emailed a link to an acquaintance who's on Geneva's board; he uses Wikipedia frequently, and I'm sure he'll enjoy it. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

John Chase article

Nice job on the John Chase article, thank you. Richard Myers (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Great job on the Charles M. Robinson article!

Congrats on scooping me on architect Charles M. Robinson! I'd been plugging away with research on him for the past several years, and you zipped in before I could get all the sources assembled! Have you been studying him long, or was this fly-by-night research? Either way, I would be interested in discussing the subject. Morgan Riley (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD at Kyle Reed

I just wanted to say I respect your positions in this process, but I don't agree with the ephemeral notability, based on routine daily coverage. In my opinion, if a newspaper has a sports section, and it covers local and regional sports, and it's football season, then the paper will be cranking out routine QB stories twice a week. They got space to fill. I grew up in a college football town. All that said, I'm taking a liberty by discussing another AfD procedure with you, one I'm simultaneously following. In that procedure, I'm having trouble finding online sources for a man who spent fully 75 years as a sportswriter in the Minneapolis area writing for Baseball Digest, Sports Illustrated, The Sporting News, and most of the local papers covering Minnesota Golden Gophers and Olympic hockey, Twins baseball, and Vikings football, a career writing routine daily sports coverage leaving a vast body of stuff just like the works you're citing to assert the QB. So there's a sense of proportion for me in this. Between the two, the sportswriter is waaay more notable for an encyclopedia than the college quarterback. But because sportswriters rarely write about each other, I can't find the profiles and interviews which would put this past WP:CREATIVE. Different goalposts, so to speak. I thought I owed the pedia an explanation about why I feel so strongly in both these cases, as a contrast and comparison. BusterD (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding sources was a very nice thing to do. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for readjusting my sense of proportion related to news coverage of any type. A good point. BusterD (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Plaza Substation

Google gave me multiple images of the Plaza Substation (example), and from that I believe it's the building visible at the center of the Street View window here. That's the rear of the building; Olvera Street appears to be the pedestrian-only walkway that begins here. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK St. Peter (rugby ground)

I've replied to your comment at Template:Did you know nominations/St. Peter (rugby ground). The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Got a source for the issue and done a rename of the page so it ties in. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

There is now a source from the club website that mentions St. Peter in a ground context. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I've found and included what I could from searches. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi

At your Joe S. Jackson article, you listed his death occuring on May 19, 1936, but in the link under the death section, the link says June 1936. Which is it? B-Machine (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Joe Iacone

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		Incredible work on Joe Iacone to not only identify resources during the AfD, but adding them into the article with well written text to show that this isn't just some average-Joe who happened to get some coverage. I'll overlook that the earlier "two paragraph" source you mentioned was also only two sentences :-) Again, great job. —Bagumba (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sam Greene

Materialscientist (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Heinie Meine

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a NYT subscription?

If so, any chance you can check out [1] and pull a cause of death from it? I can only see as far as "he was stricken with..." from search. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I got the sentence I was looking for, but it doesn't specify anything - could you still look is there's a cause? Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As I suspected. Strange. Thanks for the help, though, I appreciate it. – Connormah (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fred Dunlap

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dummy Taylor

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kudos to you for greatly expanding this interesting person's biography. I enjoyed the article very much, thanks for contributing. Puchiko (Talk-email) 12:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)