Talk:Curse of the Bambino

If we get another Boston POV edit or two (at this point, it's mostly the same bad edit repeated over and over again), I'm thinking of protecting this page for 24 hours. I'm tired of monitoring this page (what is it, posted on /. or something?). Any objections? Jwrosenzweig 19:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good idea - protect it. Please!!! DavidWBrooks 19:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

At this point, we may be reaching an uneasy compromise....the edits are changing, so I'm going to hold off as I think the anons are realizing NPOV, and I'm trying to keep as much of what they add as I can. If it returns to what it has been, I'll have to protect, I suppose, but I'd like to avoid it. I've protected more pages this week than in the 5 previous months, thanks to Wik, Anthony, et al. Time to take a backseat. :) Jwrosenzweig 19:54, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As the author of "Babe Ruth and the 1918 Red Sox," my facts about Lannin's sale to Frazee (date and dollar amount) and the date of the sale of Babe Ruth are accurate. If Frazee sold Ruth in 1918, how did Ruth set a single season HR record in 1919 for the Red Sox? ... Allan Wood

I agree, Allan. See the change I already made to the sale date in the article. Is Jan 3rd, 1920 wrong? Jwrosenzweig 20:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Assuming you agree the curse is laughable, then it doesn't make sense to require a NPOV. It seems that by definition, humor or over the top assessment would be suitable. Even so, it would seem reasonable to have some mention of his journalistic laziness (and that of his peers). Rather than edit the page and cause you have to re-edit, etc I would propose the following after the line "... focused on the so-called curse." -- "Shaughnessy and other media members frequently fall back on this 'curse' when referring to the Red Sox, often ignoring other more relevant topics which are germane to the moment." For what it is worth, what is resented by most Bostonians isn't the story of the curse (schlock is schlock after all) but the discussion of it at all times in all circumstances. And that is laziness on the part of the media -- which is perpetuated by your discussion here. Your attempt to be factual leaves the reader without the knowledge that the proponent of the myth uses every media opportunity to perpetuate it, and it has become headline material for every Red Sox event without a positive outcome. In the big picture, it isn't that big a deal, but at the same time your efforts (as a group) seem to be serious about the content, and as such, it wouldn't seem to be an accurate portrayal of the subject matter. Roof

Roof, it's not a matter of whether I agree. If you and I agreed that Ayn Rand was a god, we couldn't say that in an article. The point is that some people take this curse half-seriously, and some think it ludicrous, and some think it a total waste of time. We can't say "it's ludicrous" because we think that's the best answer. We can only report the facts. If we report opinions, we have to attribute them...i.e., "Boston Mayor Bob Jones says the curse is bunk." "ESPN reporter John Jenkins calls it 'an uncanny coincidence'." Am I making any kind of sense? Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Boy, let's hope we never write an article about the Sports Illustrated cover jinx!) How about something like this: "Mention of the curse has become so frequent in the Boston area that it has come to rub some people the wrong way." And maybe a sentence about why it bothers you, if you think enough people feel that way to merit mention. (I've lived near Boston for a decade and can't say I've encountered any sick-of-hearing-about-the-Curse feeling, but I'm not a native or more than a casual fan.)

Frankly, I'd like go back to much earlier and much *shorter* versions of this article without all the details about Ruth's career, details about the sale and the various post-Ruthian Red Sox horrorshows. So much detail implies a solemnity that the subject can't carry. DavidWBrooks 21:16, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An excellent point, David. Sadly stupid and pointless vandalism forced me (in my opinion, at least, I was forced) to protect this page. Yes, this article likely makes too much of the curse...all we really need to do here is explain what it is, to inform those who hear the phrase and wonder what it means. The additional detail is interesting, but perhaps too much. We can dicuss it here of course, so that necessary changes can be edited in tomorrow when it is unprotected. Jwrosenzweig 21:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you David. A short but sweet mention is harmless and marginally informative. But once one starts detailing the history and the actual failures in support of the curse (externally referencing the home run call by Dent???), then weight is given to the silliness. Once that weight is given, that is where I wish to identify the laziness of the media who perpetuate the thing, treating it as fact rather than mere childish amusement. From the outside this statement -- "Shaughnessy and other media members frequently fall back on this 'curse' when referring to the Red Sox, often ignoring other more relevant topics which are germane to the moment." -- seems like hyperbole, but it is actually accurate. So, I'm no expert on the intentions of the WikiPedia, but it seems that indeed, less is more on this subject. Aside to Jwrosenzweig... Boston's mayor would be one Mumbles Menino (local joke there) - and usually he isn't quoted! lol Roof

Thanks for being a good sport, Roof. Why don't we talk over possible fixes here? A larger question, I suppose, is whether this page should focus mostly on the Ruth aspect (emphasizing Bambino, hence a shorter article) or the Red Sox troubles aspect (emphasizing Curse). Or both? I'm open to it. What do we think? Let's not ask Mumbles. ;) Jwrosenzweig 21:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Guys, I'm no expert so I offer this shortened effort for your review. It mentions the history, it mentions the media thrust into todays lexicon, and mentions secondary musical offshoot (which might be relevant if someone is searching for the musical). I am not a wordsmith, so do what you will with it. If the content is to stay long, then I think there would be significant modification/games continued in the future -- this would seem to cut it off at the pass a bit. (Jwrosenzweig: I think it is neither about a curse or the bambino, but it's entirety.) Roof

You are most correct...I was trying to get at something but failed, and I don't think I really knew what I was saying. Should we move your proposed text to Talk:Curse of the Bambino/temp where we can edit and fiddle with it like a real article? Once the protection is lifted, we could just push the compromised article onto the actual page. Jwrosenzweig 22:04, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

The Curse of the Bambino is a tongue-in-cheek explanation for the failure of the Boston Red Sox baseball team to win the World Series since 1918 - a period coinciding with the sale of Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees in 1920. Ruth (known as the Bambino amongst other nicknames), considered by many to be the greatest player in baseball history, went on to achieve considerable success with the Yankees while his former team the Red Sox have not enjoyed World Series success since his sale.

While not commonly used prior to its printing, the phrase "Curse of the Bambino" is the title of a 1990 novel written by Boston Globe journalist Dan Shaughnessy. Shaughnessy and other media members frequently fall back on this 'curse' when referring to the Red Sox, often ignoring other more relevant topics which are germane to the moment. Media references to this so-called curse brought it to mainstream status, including the development of a musical play in 2001, starring famed Broadway director Spiro Veloudos.

Just double checking: You are saying that the phrase was NOT commonly used before Shaughnessy's book? Did it exist at all, do you know? Certainly lamentations existed about the Red Sox ill fortune vs. Yankee good fortune, but what about the phrase itself? DavidWBrooks 22:07, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Forgive my indentation style if it doesn't meet standards. To the best of my recollection... The phrase was used occasionally by media members, but it wasn't mainstream and it wasn't common -- certainly not by handwringing Red Sox fans. It wasn't regularly referred to as such on a national stage until the book was published. For instance when the Sox played the Reds in 1975 I don't recall mention of the phrase. I heard it a bit after 1986, but again, mostly by the Boston local media. Shaughnessy did NOT invent the phrase, but he certainly made his financial gain off of popularizing it. Again I am not a wordsmith, my only intent is to make it clear that this is a media perpetuation. It might sound petty, but to me that is an important distinction. Roof

My proposed text (only somewhat altered from Roof's suggestion

The Curse of the Bambino is a tongue-in-cheek explanation for the failure of the Boston Red Sox baseball team to win the World Series since 1918 - a period coinciding with the sale of Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees in 1920. Ruth (known as the Bambino amongst other nicknames), considered by many to be the greatest player in baseball history, went on to achieve considerable success with the Yankees while his former team the Red Sox have not won a World Series since Ruth left the team. The idea that the Red Sox were cursed has been enhanced off and on since 1920 by numerous occasions in which the Red Sox seemed poised to win the World Series, yet failed to do so.

While not commonly used prior to its printing, the phrase "Curse of the Bambino" is the title of a 1990 novel written by Boston Globe journalist Dan Shaughnessy. Shaughnessy and other media members frequently fall back on this 'curse' when referring to the Red Sox. The media often will bring up the idea of the curse when the Red Sox are doing notably well (or notably poorly), rather than focusing on the current team and its strengths and weaknesses. Media references to this so-called curse brought it to mainstream status, including the development of a musical play in 2001, starring famed Broadway director Spiro Veloudos.

These changes state what I was trying to say in an easier to read form, which is why I never became a writer :) The additions are valuable as well. Roof

Two quibbles - First I had certainly heard of "the Curse" before 1990, and I did not then live anywhere near the northeast US. In fact I don't recall hearing of the novel until now, so while the phrase may not have been overused 15-20 years ago, it wasn't uncommon either. So, yes, perhaps ESPN et al. lean on the phrase too much now as they look for ways to fill air time, but it's not all the media's fault.

The other quibble is the reference to "famed Broadway director". Google does suggest Veloudos has had a long, well-regarded career, but it appears that career has predominantly been in the Boston area. Famed? Possibly. Broadway? No. - Rbs 00:10, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

Rbs, good point. If we could find a documented use of the phrase pre-1990, that would be interesting, and it ought to be included. Re: the director, honestly, I hadn't heard of him, and assumed Roof had. Maybe it just got borrowed from the article, and isn't factual, in which case, let's scrap it. :) Thanks for the comments! Jwrosenzweig 00:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't start following baseball hevaily until about 1986 so I probably first heard of the Curse in regards to that year's World Series. Unfortunately, searching for its etymology through something like Google is a nightmare. By all means mention Veloudis and the musical, just drop the adjectives. - Rbs 00:18, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

The Ruth sale was completed in late December 1919, but was kept secret and not publicly announced until January 5, 1920. Also, he was NEVER known as the Bambino in Boston. Boston newspapers referred to him as the Colossus; also known as the Caveman and Tarzan. (Really.)

P.S. The first writer is actually allude to a curse was George Vescey of the New York Times. Shaughnessy stole the idea from him.

I'm unprotecting the article now. I believe we are agreed that some version of the shortened text above would be better than the current article. Once unprotected, I'll post what I see as the consensus, and then we can feel free to edit it as an article. I hope that works for everyone. Jwrosenzweig 19:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Correction, it was already unprotected. :) But I've done what I could. Edit away! :) Jwrosenzweig 19:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks nice to me ... I almost put in something about the Yanks signing A-Rod after he turned down the Sox, but figured that would start us down the path of excessive weightiness again! DavidWBrooks 19:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The shorter version seems to make sense to me because of the reasons stated above. No reason was given for re-including the excess data. Should be reverted to short version IMO.No Guru 22:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I'll give you fine reasons.

The examples such as Buckner and Dent are not "excess data;" they are part of the story. You can't tell the story without including these examples. To leave them out is to do a disservice to the article. The Bermuda Triangle and the Loch Ness Monster articles list evidence and confront the evidence. It is no sillier to have an external link to Dent's homerun than it is to have an external link to a list of Nessie Sightings. Yes, yes, I know...the Loch Ness Monster? The point is that Wikipedia provides information to its readers to educate them.

The Dent and Buckner accounts are written as NPOV as possible. Furthermore, the Dent and Buckner accounts were in the article for half a year before they were recently removed. Therefore, the examples should remain until someone can give solid reasons why they detract from the article. Do the examples harm the aricle? Not in the slightest. What they do is inform the reader more fully of the mythical curse. That is our job: to educate and to clarify and to be thorough. Readers should not have to go elsewhere to get their information. As much as possible should be contained within these wikipedia walls.

Furthermore...when reading the article without the evidence, the timing of Shaughnessy's book has no context. Kingturtle 23:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kt, you do make a good case. The reason they were pulled out was out of a desire to avoid the lengthy edit wars that plagued this article last week (wish you'd been here then) from Bostonians who felt we were shockingly overplaying the so-called curse and its effects. The article threatened to turn into a list of all the reasons why Boston should or shouldn't have won the World Series in every given year...which would of course incite Yankees fans, etc. Those of us trying to sort out this dispute felt that it might be best to avoid trying to explain Buckner, Dent, etc. and just state the facts as plainly as we could--what this phrase means and where it came from. I don't think any of us considered the idea that anyone believes there is a real "curse" with evidence for it that needs dispelling....but rather that we were identifying a minor cultural phenomenon. If you feel that strongly, you ought to put the sections back in in the "NPOV as possible" state. You're right that the phrasing surrounding the opening of the 2nd paragraph is weak. I was in too much of a rush to end the bizarre edit war. Thanks for your input. Jwrosenzweig 23:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Kingturtle, my point was that there seemed to be consensus on this talk page that the shorter version seemed more appropriate than the longer one. I was surprised that you had reverted to the old version without discussion.

My problem with the excess data is that it implies that the "curse" is responsible for the examples you give. Is the curse also responsible for every error that any Red Sox player made between 1919 and today ? Have the Red Sox been cursed or have years of bad play, mis-management and poor fortune take its toll ?

I contest that giving no examples would give Wikipedia readers all that they need to know about this "curse" but if you think that the longer version is more appropriate I'll say no more on this matter.No Guru 00:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)