Talk:Steve Bartman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 9 August 2007. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] wow

great article. very well written. Cacophony

[edit] Bartman Scapegoat?

I found lots of references to Bartman being a scapegoat, but nothing that would be linkable. I guess someone with better resources will have to get the links for the Scapegoat factor section, or it will end up remaining in the circular file. CodeCarpenter 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I deleted the section is not the statement that Bartman was made a scapegoat, but rather the mini-essay that went along with it that provided no sources. For the record here it is below.
  • Bartman became a scapegoat for the Cubs' failure to advance to the World Series. Part of the intrigue of sports is the tendency among some fans and writers to ascribe supernatural characteristics to teams. Teams that seem to win frequently, such as the New York Yankees or the University of Notre Dame, are said to have a "mystique" or "aura" about them. Teams that seem to fall short frequently, such as the Cubs and the Boston Red Sox (until 2004) are said to be "cursed" or "jinxed." In specific cases, disappointed fans may look for a scapegoat. For instance, Red Sox fans often blame Bill Buckner or team owner Harry Frazee (who sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees); Cubs fans now often blame Bartman or an actual goat.
Maybe other editors could chime in about this ? -- No Guru 18:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I found this discussion by the originator of the text User_talk:Hadal#Bartman, giving some reasons for the section. Even they feel it was general, so if they have no desire to add citation or create a sports scapegoat page, I have no problem with it being gone. I will comment to User_talk:Hadal and User_talk:Wahkeenah regarding the deletion, just to be fair. CodeCarpenter 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I shortened it to keep it within the realm of the rigid standards enforced by this so-called encyclopedia-that-any-moron-can-edit. Wahkeenah 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Good job ! -- No Guru 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Everything I wrote originally was certifiably true. I could add back the part about Buckner, for example, as there are plenty of sources, including interviews with him in which he expresses his ongoing bitterness at being made a scapegoat for the Red Sox's entire-team ineptitude in 1986. However, I've had about enough of belaboring the obvious here. Wahkeenah 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem a little upset about this. That section had no sources and read like an opinion (Part of the intrigue of sports is the tendency among some fans and writers to ascribe supernatural characteristics to teams.). But it's sourced now and the article is all the better for it. Like I said. Good job. -- No Guru 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge of Bartman Ball into this article

I'm proposing a merge, but really, there isn't any info in Bartman Ball that isn't already here. The only additional information there is the names of the broadcasters who worked the explosion. Any objections to me adding those names to this article and turning Bartman Ball into a redirect? --Djrobgordon 22:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The first half of the Ball article was already included in greater detail on this page, and the second half had more to do with the "ending the curse of the billy goat" event, so I moved the information to that page.TheGreenFaerae 07:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various baseball "curses"

Being that wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I think the way this article referenced various baseball curses is just plain goofy. The article speaks about these curses, and the breaking of these curses, as if they were actual events that have happened. My edit of this content is not to dispute whether a "curse" has ended or not, but rather to rephrase them as the superstitious nonsense that they are.Helixweb (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Helixweb, thou dost protest too much. Few would say that there are actual "curses" in baseball which have some real otherworldly basis; it is a type of mythology that is prevalent in baseball. And part of this is that baseball has always had a number of superstitions tied up in it (don't step on the foul line, don't refer to an in progress "no hitter" in the dugout, etc.). I don't know whether there should be an article about Bartman, but if there is one, the Cubs "curse" bears mentioning, even has to be mentioned, because the reaction to him from makes no sense without it being mentioned. And there's no question that the idea of "curses", whether in baseball or other contexts, can have a psychological effect. Now, do I believe there's a real otherworldly connection between stepping on the foul line and something bad happening? Of course not. But there can possibly be a placebo effect? Maybe. And I'm probably not going to step on the foul line next chance I get.John ISEM (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely with you that it should be mentioned. I just didn't like the way it was spoken about in the article as if it was a real and tangible thing. For example, I changed the wording from "The curse still exists to this day" to "the curse is still referenced to this day". [1] Agreed that it is a notable and worthy piece of baseball culture that should be mentioned.

[edit] Correctness of ruling

There is no doubt that the correct call was made. The pitcher, Mark Prior, raised a question about it. But not only did the umpires remain firm in the ruling, every replay showed that the ball was on the spectator side of the wall. The complaint about Bartman was simply that he (and other fans who were also reaching for the ball) should have backed off and given Alou a better chance to catch it. To leave out the "correctly" adjective implies that there is doubt about the correctness of the ruling. There isn't any doubt. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)