Jump to content

Talk:Moe Berg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMoe Berg is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 27, 2008.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 30, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
April 3, 2007Featured article reviewKept
June 27, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
Current status: Featured article

Jewish

[edit]

Berg wasn't particularly observant, so I'm considering deleting Jewish from the page, or at least moving it out of the first paragraph. Any comments?

SeanO 12:58 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Was he Jew of religion or race? Thats the question. If he was Jew of race then the word Jewish should not be removed.

Antonio Jews are Hot Martin

According to his most recent biography, he was not religiously observant, but there were a few times when being Jewish affected people's reactions to him, and a few times when he commented on how it helped him maintain the sense of being an outsider in mid-20th-century America. DavidWBrooks 13:55, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

SeanO

[edit]

SeanO, Thanks for catching the Powers, not Harris mistake. I was confusing Thomases. ww 17:26, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My pleasure. When I see something cool added to pages on my Watchlist, I look it up too. Sometimes it results in finding new stuff... Collaboration, eh? --SeanO 01:10, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed your comment. Yup. WP is fascinating... when it's not maddening! I'm just about to add a comment about ALSOS and Berg in it, particularly in Italy. Hope you approve. ww 18:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

White Sox

[edit]

From The Catcher Was a Spy - "... the International League had ever done that. The Chicago Cubs offered Reading $25,000 for him. Chicago's South Side franchise, the White Sox, however, had earlier contracted with Reading for a $6,000 option on Berg, which they exercised. Berg finished the season with ..." Gorrister 22:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rejected

[edit]

Information needs to be added on why he rejected the medal of freedom (if known) Nil Einne 16:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doolittle raid

[edit]

During the summer of 1942, Berg screened the footage he shot of Tokyo Bay for intelligence officers of the United States military. The film may or may not have helped Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy Doolittle plan his famous Doolittle Raid. Regarding this entry, The Doolittle raid was in April of 1942, so if Berg really didn't show it until the summer, it could have had no effect on the raid. If the summer date is certain, this part should be removed from the article. --Blainster 03:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As currently written, the article even contradicts itself on this. The section Second trip to Japan says "This provided American intelligence with rare photos of the city. He never did see the ambassador's daughter. Berg's films were an important part of the planning by Jimmy Doolittle for the surprise air raid on Tokyo in 1942."
but later in Spying for the US government: "(At one time it was thought his film may have helped Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy Doolittle plan his famous Doolittle Raid, but the raid was conducted well before the summer, on April 18, 1942.)"
So this needs to be resolved one way or another. Cicero225 (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sox Coach

[edit]

Needs to be straightened out. The article has, After retiring as a player, Berg spent one year as the bullpen coach for the Red Sox in 1940.[citation needed]

This source differs: http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Berg_Moe.html

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cut this for now, as it was the last issue on the FAR.
" After retiring as a player, Berg spent one year as the bullpen coach for the Red Sox in 1940.[citation needed]" Marskell 09:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert?

[edit]

Anyone know why the last version was reverted Long levi 06:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is my reversion of Tecmo, that was done because he had deleted good links. He has just been banned from Wiki indefinitely for that activity here and elsewhere.--Epeefleche 16:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those links were not in the version that was reviewed during the FA process. I have to think that they should be removed again. Why do they belong? Long levi 23:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles, FA or not, are certainly not static on Wikipedia, so their prior absence is not a reason for removal. There is discussion on the Wikiproject baseball page of some such ELs, such as Fangraphs. Which do you think do not belong, and why?--Epeefleche 02:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long levi Banned. FYI, Longlevi has just been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned user named Tecmobowl, who has used socks in the past. Accordingly, he has also been banned indefinitely. See [1]--Epeefleche 00:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible. so much for honesty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.77.212 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing

[edit]

Cool subject, but article seems sourced almost entirely from one book. Seems marginal as a featured article for that reason. 207.241.238.217 (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, futhermore several sections are poorly written, how did it ever get FA status? For example there are several references to him being Jew, and that somehow he didn't relate to being Jewish. Apparently his father had an issue with Jews, but it is not at all clear what it is or even why it is important. Since this is all from basically one source I get the feeling that I am being given the POV of just a few people and probably one author (the book) which may not really reflect on Moe Berg. Arzel (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the References section being full of a single source is surprising. Tempshill (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me you guys need to know a little more about the historiography of a subject before being so hard on the sourcing of an article. Moe Berg is a third-string catcher who is primarily remembered today for being so darned odd. In the grand scheme of baseball and the OSS both, he was not that important, so there is little scholarly literature on him. The Catcher Who Was a Spy is the only monograph about the guy that exists, and that is supplemented by a few biographical entries in baseball encyclopedias and the like. FA requires comprehensiveness and sourcing, which this article provides. There is no requirement that X number of sources are used, only that "the relevant body of published knowledge" is represented. Because there are so few sources on Berg, this is the best you get, and the FA criteria are satisfied. Indrian (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I've got no dog in this hunt, but thought I should point out that there are a few books on Berg, in addition to the 1995 The Catcher Was a Spy. There's 1996's Moe Berg: The Spy Behind Home Plate (ISBN 0827606206), 1975's Moe Berg: Athlete, Scholar, Spy (ISBN 0316483486), 1996's The Amazing Life of Moe Berg (ISBN 1562946102), 1991's The Strange Story of Moe Berg, Athlete, Scholar, Spy (ASIN B0006DDIBY), 1976's My Brother, Morris Berg: The Real Moe (ASIN B0006EATBK). Some of these are hard to find, and one or more may be a juvenile, but nonetheless, there are certainly more than one book on Berg. And it does seem that some additional sourcing was certainly possible. I know there are differences in opinion or interpretation between The Catcher Was a Spy and Moe Berg: Athlete, Scholar, Spy, as I've read both carefully. Anyway, as I say, FYI. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seems to me I need to know a little more about the historiography of a subject before commenting. I would agree that more sourcing is in order based on the above. This article was promoted before the souricng requirements were in place, which is how it was promoted in the first place. Now, it may need to be reviewed. Indrian (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death

[edit]

In the "Death" section, it says:

"A nurse at the Newark, New Jersey hospital where he died recalled his final words as, "How did the Mets do today?" (They won.)"

It then cites the fact that the Mets won, but it doesn't cite that his final words as "How did the Mets do today?". 68.193.130.33 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I could speak American English...

[edit]

...until I saw this in an FA:

His Jewish heritage and modest finances combined to keep him on the fringes of Princeton society, where he never quite fit in.

Is "fit" really the past participle (or whatever its called) for "fit"? Sounds real hick to my ears. But then, what do I know? almost-instinct 22:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never noticed before you brought this up that we have two different simple pasts for fit, I think depending on whether it's used transitively or--as is the case above--intransitively. Here's the AHD definition. -Eric talk 13:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Fit in" is an idiom and quite correct in that sentence. Indrian (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know "fit in" is an idiom and I know that it is quite apposite in that context, I was merely raising an eyebrow at the inflexion (sorry, we're AE here aren't we?) inflection, or rather, the seeming lack of one. Eric's link kindly pointed me in the right direction. In BE—as far as I can tell from my dictionary—the past participle of "fit" is always "fitted". But doubtless I'll turn out to be wrong about that too ;-) almost-instinct 21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After World War II

[edit]

I've gone in and cleaned up the writing in the first two paragraphs. Stuff like "Berg did not apply for a teaching position, join a law firm". Almostfm (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Moe Berg/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations --plange 20:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 00:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moe Berg. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Moe Berg. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over-reliance

[edit]

Fully 41 of the 54 footnotes in this article refer to just one work: Dawidoff. The dominance is even more pronounced when one considers the whole paragraphs so sourced to the footnotes that support a single statistic. There are other books, etc., about Moe Berg out there; these should be used, too. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
I changed the "Bibliography sub-section to "References cited" (some use Works cited) per MOS:NOTES: "Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications"). This is a minor correction but is in line with the MOS and does remove confusion. Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

[edit]

I am reviewing this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review and improve older featured articles. In looking at this article, I noticed that lots of the citations is to one source, and this concern has been brought up before. Is this article comprehensive? Here are some additional sources that I found on WP:LIBRARY that might be added to the article:

  • Baseball's Odd Man Out. Bradner, Liesl. MHQ: Quarterly Journal of Military History. Autumn2020, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p70-76.
  • Major League Espionage Hind, Andrew. History Magazine. Oct/Nov2014, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p24-26.
  • Experience as a physician to the Major League Baseball All-Stars series against Japan. Davis Cantwell, John Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Apr2015; 28(2): 250-253.

I also notice bullet points in the Legacy and Media sections, which should probably be prose, and some uncited paragraphs. Is anyone willing to improve this article, or should it go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Representation in Other Media

[edit]

I changed this sentence:

  • Berg is a major character in science writer Sam Kean's book The Bastard Brigade.

I rewrote it as this:

  • Berg is a major figure in science writer Sam Kean's historical book The Bastard Brigade.

Calling him a "character" in a "book" made him sound like a character in a historical novel. MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moe_Berg&oldid=1237948039"