Jump to content

Talk:Jim Bouton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 58.165.180.76 (talk) at 06:28, 29 August 2009 (→‎Alike: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconJournalism Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I believe that it's very bad to have the term "Ball Four" redirect to "Jim Bouton". Ball Four is enormously popular and absolutely deserves its own page. TheImpossibleMan 14:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I completely agree, Ball Four the book deserves its own place in history and Bouton his own, while related, these two are not the same thing. - Abisai
    • Here's a thing: Get a good article first, then worry about where it goes. -- GWO

I think this Jim Bouton article deserves a longer treatment of Ball Four, which I will try to provide.

Andrew Szanton 4/06

Not a terrible attempt, but the Ball Four section has some serious problems, most notably its tone; it's written more like a high school book report than an encyclopedia article. Too much opinion, too much non-factual clutter. I'm not even sure where to start, but it needs some serious work. —Cleared as filed. 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, I found that section very readable and it told me exactly what I wanted to know, i.e. what kind of book it is and why it made such a splash at the time. - Mcasey666 02:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"But Bouton and Shecter found a way to write a non-fiction baseball book that was weirdly and powerfully compelling..."
Sure, it's readable, but the tone is inappropriate. It's not the job of an encyclopedia to tell people that a book was "weirdly and powerfully compelling," whatever that means. Like I said, it sounds more like a high school book report. The article can explain why the book made such a splash without sounding like a cheerleading book review. —Cleared as filed. 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to clean this up a bit. Hope the tone is more appropriate. - BassPlyr23 10:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changed: ...who was renamed David at the boy's own request. to: ...who was renamed David at the boy's request.

"the boy's own request" is a tautology. Raphaelaarchon 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alike

When I describe my self to my children I tell them that as a Baseball Player

I was like Billy Martin.

Off the field I am like Jim Bouton.

Proud of both.


Keith Brain ~ Batemans Bay NSW Australia Aug 09 age 65