Talk:Doubleday myth

The "myth" is actually a legend

..."Mythbusters [sic] to the contrary notwithstanding: compare "urban legend".--Wetman (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources I've seen refer to it variously as a myth, legend, and numerous other terms. A few of the sources actually include myth in their titles, so there is a reasonable basis for leaving the article at its current title, even if "legend" may be a more accurate description. I did go and change a few of the "myth"s to "legend" in-text, for prose variety as much as anything else. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doubleday myth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140926001539/http://baseballhall.org/museum/experience/history to http://baseballhall.org/museum/experience/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Doubleday myth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sportsfan77777 (talk · contribs) 07:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• rounders ===>> the British game rounders
• and sought evidence ===>>> to seek out evidence
• in which claimed that Doubleday ===>>> claiming that Doubleday

Background

• Can you put one or two sentences in to explain some of the similarities between baseball and rounders? (e.g. four bases)
• a crowd of about 300 people responding ===>>> a crowd of about 300 people responded
• baseball Guide <<<=== something seems off about this
• Should point out that Doubleday had died by this point

Letter

• His report gave Doubleday credit for originating baseball <<<=== I don't think "originating" is the right word here. Maybe "inventing the game of"?

Creation of HOF

• Did the "Cartwright Day" happen?

Contemporary

• A story in The New York Times called his work <<<=== specify who is "his" (Henderson's?)

Modern

• Okay.

Legacy

• Chadwick biography Andrew Schiff ===>>> Chadwick biographer Andrew Schiff
• A local motel is also named after Doubleday <<<=== not clear where "local" is

Overall

• No dab links.
• All the links work.
• No plagiarism concerns.
• Citations have proper formatting.

This article is well-done. I don't have much to say. The most major comment is probably to explain what rounders is. Placing on hold, and I presume I'll see this at FAC. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: I think all of your concerns should be addressed now. The typos and such are all fixed (shame on me for not seeing them before!), a couple of sentences on similarities/differences between baseball and rounders have been added, and some more content related to Cartwright Day has been incorporated. Hopefully that's everything. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Passing. You can decide if you want to add back any of the recent changes from today. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't get it

This whole article is saying that baseball is not an American sport because it is too similar to cricket and rounders, but baseball is still a different sport from cricket or rounders. Even if it relies heavily on British sports it still originated here, right? Or am I wrong?

This article is so confusing because it says "a dispute arose about the origins of baseball and whether it had been invented in the United States or developed as a variation of rounders", but even even if it were developed as a variation of rounders, the variation was developed in the United States, wasn't it? I just don't understand why that does not make it at least somewhat American. 199.120.30.207 (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You missed a key word. The sentence reads: "In response to a dispute over whether baseball originated in the United States or was a variation of the British game rounders,"

And a British game would have been played in... Britain. Right?

And if you keep reading, you find: "In the late 19th century and early 20th century, a dispute arose about the origins of baseball and whether it had been invented in the United States or developed as a variation of rounders, a game played in Great Britain and Ireland."

Where was rounders played? Great Britain and Ireland. Right?

Continuing to read, we find: "The rounders theory was supported by prominent sportswriter Henry Chadwick, a native of Britain who noted common factors between rounders and baseball in a 1903 article." "There is no doubt whatever as to base ball having originated from the two-centuries-old English game of rounders."

A two hundred year old English game would have been played in... England. Right?

The whole point of the debate is that the "no rounders" crowd was determined to promote baseball as a solely American invention as a matter of national pride, and were willing to ignore or explain away any evidence to the contrary.

Billmckern (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

No one said that rounders was not a British sport. No one is talking about rounders. We are talking about baseball. If baseball is a variation of rounders then it is not the same thing as rounders. So far I see no evidence that the variation of rounders that we call baseball (and not rounders) was invented outside the United States. 199.120.30.207 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Come on! No one is saying baseball was invented outside the United States. The idea is that rounders, which originated in England, was known to the British colonists in what became the United States, and the descendants of those colonists developed baseball as a variation of the older game of rounders. That was one theory. The other theory was that baseball was invented in the United States completely independent of rounders. The debate in the early 1900s was a discussion of whether baseball was a U.S. descendant of the British rounders or was wholly created in the United States.

Billmckern (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

To expand upon what Bill said above, we don't really know how baseball was invented, as a quote late in the article says. It's certainly possible that it was a U.S. invention; as the article says, at least one reference to a sport called baseball predates the topic in question. However, we have no way of knowing for sure, despite the presence of information that those engaged in the debate in question didn't have access to back then. The article isn't meant to take sides on where the sport truly originated, as even today baseball historians are still having debates over these matters, and I don't believe that it does. It is about this particular story that received great attention over the years, and its details. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)