Talk:Kenesaw Mountain Landis

POV

This article seems to have a slight POV-slant in favor of Landis. Also some statements present POV's as fact such as "Instead, Landis established a fiercly independent Commissioner's Office that would go on to make both players and owners generally miserable with decisions that were, generally, in the best interests of the game." Maybe his decisions where indeed mostly in the best interest of the game but it is still nonetheless POV. Such a POV needs to be attributed to someone(s) who claims this to be the case. --Cab88 10:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted edits by 12.75.199.199. Made major changes to the article that I feel were unwarranted, and several that were inaccurate. Also eliminated accurate facts, and changed link to his HOF plaque so it no longer worked. Therefore I reverted everything. If you think some changes were warranted, discuss them here. Novastarj 01:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Change needed: Include color line in introduction

I believe the article as it relates to Landis's involvement in maintaining baseball's unofficial color line seems tilted in the subject's favor. The introduction does not mention the color line at all, despite this being -- good or bad -- arguably the greatest in magnitude effect the Judge had on the game. The discussion on the color line, I offer as as general observation having read much on the subject, is near the extreme in Landis's defense. The most damning point of evidence (see the Ken Burns documentary or Daniel Okrent's Baseball Anecdotes) -- that the death of Landis and appointment of a new commissioner was the most important trigger event for Branch Rickey's signing of Jackie Robinson -- is not mentioned. The section on the color line argues against, but never succinctly states the case for Landis's greater culpability for that tragedy.Misopogon (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not as straightforward an issue as revisionists would like to think it is. Landis himself said that there was no rule prohibiting the hiring of black players. He was employed by the owners, remember. It took the right set of circumstances, including the post-war climate, to integrate baseball - and there was opposition even then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that it is not so straightforward, but we must be careful not to confuse the day's media spin for fact. It was Burns' conclusion that Landis's public statements on the matter, like those of many other de facto segregated institutions that operated in the North, were clearly rhetorical cover to avoid alienating the strong anti-segregation sentiments of many customers. It is generally accepted that baseball's color line was protected by a clandestine "Gentlemen's Agreement," therefore public statements, ie most of the evidence that Landis was pro-integration, are irrelevant. That most (all except Rickey according to an alleged January 1947 vote at winter meetings) owners were co-conspirators should not absolve Landis for at least complicity; unlike Chandler Landis enjoyed a lifetime appointment and thus could not have feared the same retribution from the owners that Happy received in '51. The evidence suggests that Landis was at the very least happy to play Queen Elizabeth -- staunchly supporting the status quo decades past the point it became ludicrous -- and that reformers understood any change would have to come after his death. I think the current language of this article goes too far toward absolving Landis based on public statements rendered hypocritical by events. However I have not changed the article yet as I am not yet sure of a consensus opinion toward this.Misopogon (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The question of race is not hidden from the reader, it is raised in the lede. I do not think the color line discussion is POV, it simply sets forth the facts. It gives a sampling of opinion, yes, but also makes it clear that those giving opinions haven't always bothered to get their facts straight.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Landis never had a contract longer than seven years. It is a myth that he had a lifetime contract. The article alludes to this twice. And Landis had no rulemaking power, although he could break ties between the leagues on a proposed rule. As he often said, his job was to interpret and enforce the rules of baseball.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

An editor has added that writers have assumed Landis to be a Southerner. I don't feel like using a revert on it, but I've massaged the text to make it fit in. I really think it is too much detail for a lede though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole matter is one of misunderstandings and distrust. Landis was a liberal, but a hard-ass. He is a classic represntative of that class of liberal leaders who went after Socialists and others to their left to prevent liberals being tarred as Bolsheviks by the right. As for his alleged opposition to integration, there is no direct evidence that he had racist views, and quite a bit of evidence that he was not. His job was to build consensus and keep baseball clean. Speciate (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Kenesaw Mountain Landis was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Federal League case

From Leonard Koppett's "The New Thinking Fan's Guide to Baseball" (1991 ed., p. 252): "[N]ow that federal antitrust laws did exist and the Federal League was challenging the old leagues under them, the baseball establishment had found a friendly judge in Chicago named Kenesaw Mountain Landis. He immobilized the case until the Federal League backers gave up and sold their teams and their ballparks as best they could." Surely, this is a fact worth mentioning (and elaborating on) if someone has the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.149.46 (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That year-old comment errs by understatement. So that this point is a little less likely to be lost, I have inserted the section heading "Federal League case". Here are some related wikipedia entries.

• Baltimore Terrapins
• Federal League
• Federal Baseball Club v. National League

These articles do not adequately cover Judge Landis' role in the dispute. --P64 (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Now all have followed in rating this a C. A gentleman's C for Landis? --P64 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Was this info about the Federal League case ever added? I can't find any mention or edits related to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.1.211.1 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Baseball commissioner

(or baseball Commissioner) Which job did he accept November 1920, noted just above this section, the job as one-man Commissioner or the job described here, as head of a new National Commission? When did his tenure as one-man Commissioner begin? Under all the circumstances that seems at least as important as when he accepted that job offer, or the preceding one. --P64 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Misspelling of Kennesaw Mountain

I had always heard that the original spelling of Kennesaw was Kenesaw. At the time of the civil war, both spellings would have been considered correct. In publications from around the same time, Kennesaw is routinely spelled with one 'n' so to say that Kenesaw Mountain Landis' name comes from a misspelling of Kennesaw Mountain does not give his educated, physician father much credit.

See below for examples.

Photographic Archive using the one 'N' spelling of Kennesaw

Example from Marrietta.com

"Alternate spelling" would probably be the better way to say it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you run a search on Commons for "Kenesaw" you will see a map excerpt I had in this article at one stage with "Kenesaw Mountain" on it. I wound up dumping it when I got two fine shots of the Landis brothers.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Aged

Could we call it age instead of aged? I don't think aged is correct.Longinus876 (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Aged" is the correct tense if you are referring to the death age. "Age" is for present tense. Connormah (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

To the editors of this page

To editors one and all, I found this a thouroughly informative and enjoyable read. I knew of the subject's name in relation to the Black Sox (amazing for a Brit you may say), so my curiosity was picqued, but I knew nothing of the rest. I do now. WillE (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

On behalf of everyone who worked on it, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Policies section

Two subjects worth covering with some research: First, one of his main criticisms of the farm system was that it deprived minor-league teams of an equal chance that the parent clubs had to compete for league titles, as the parent club might call up crucial players that were needed for the minor league team's stretch run. His position was that the size of the city and popularity of the league were ireelevant, as fans of a minor league team were just as deserving of a good, competitive team as fans of a major league one; when he confronted Rickey on this issue, Rickey suggested that it was a small issue, with Landis notably replying along the lines that it was not, but rather that it was as "big as a house". Second, given his background as a federal judge, it would be useful to look into how the constitutional doctrine of "separate but equal", then in effect, may have influenced his approach. MisfitToys (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and the edits I see you have made. I'll take a second look after TFA day at the minor league situation. As for the "separate but equal" thing, I doubt it. No one thought the Negro Leagues were equal. The real problem was how to deal with the question of how to end segregation. No one wanted the Yankees buying up all the stars, well, except the Yankees. And of course if there are bidding wars for black stars that has an effect on what you pay the white ones. Yet the answer was not to admit the teams into the major leagues, for one thing many Negro League owners had gambling interests and that wouldn't do for Landis. Excepting the players, everyone's interests were in maintaining the status quo.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Robeson and December 4, 1943

I am very active in the Paul Robeson article. One of the problems with it is authors (even modern day ones) ascribe him as being widely known for being pro-Communist before that was the case. Case in point, the FBI in internal memos had him, according to sources (Duberman), in August 1943 as labeled as 'a leading figure in the Communist party'. This however is not consistent with any contemporary source. Duberman is considered favorable to Robeson and his treatment of the December 4, 1943 meeting with MLB is erroneous and based on a terrible source. The latest source I have is ISBN 978-0-415-97938-2 pp. 128-129 and it basically states that Landis invited Robeson because he was a known pro-Communist and that would not sit well with the owners. All contemporary newspaper sources of that meeting show nothing but respect for Robeson and there is no mention whatsoever of his growing pro-Communist ties (the definitive sources on that meeting are the Pittsburgh Courier, and to a much lesser extent, the Chicago Defender).

Simple question: You folks are using: Pietrusza, David. Judge and Jury: The Life and Times of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis. South Bend, Indiana: Diamond Communications, 1998 as a source for that meeting, will that show me information that Landis knew of Hoover's view of Robeson's political leanings?

Due to the unbelievable overwhelming support for good old Uncle Joe (Stalin) during the war, I have to take into consideration that authors are jumping the gun on Robeson's pro-Communist, pro-Stalinist, and eventually Marxist leanings.

In this article I believe this: "[Robeson] was a controversial figure" is extremely poorly worded (if not unequivocally false if interpreted incorrectly due to the negative connotations associated with "controversial figures").

In this article I believe "due to his [known] affiliation with the Communist Party" needs to be further investigated by me.

In this article I suggest: In November 1943, Landis agreed after some persuasion that black sportswriter Sam Lacy should make a case for integration of organized baseball before the owners' annual meeting. Instead of Lacy attending the meeting, actor Paul Robeson did. Robeson, though a noted black actor and advocate of civil rights, was a controversial figure due to his affiliation with the Communist Party. The owners heard Robeson out, but at Landis's suggestion, did not ask him any questions or begin any discussion with him.

should be reevaluated w respect to ISBN 978-0-415-97938-2 pp. 128-129 and the Pittsburgh Courier and the Chicago Defender (and if you get a chance the New York Herald Tribune of that era is always a go to source)

I do not care what you folks due with this article, all I want to know is what did Landis know about Robeson and when did he know it. Thanks in advance. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

IOW, I want an author's name and a book title to research if possible please. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can substantiate, I would suggest that the aforementioned paragraph should/must include a introductory sentence that says: Due to Landis intimate knowledge of Robeson's political leanings and pro-labor blah blah blah, he biased the meeting to include Robeson...blah blah blah...and forewarned the owners ...blah blah blah reserve clause...etc...labor problems etc. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to my aforementioned ISBN, Robeson was personally (out of nowhere) invited to the meeting (!) - which just confuses the heck out of me. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Also "Sam Lacy should make a case for integration of organized baseball before the owners' annual meeting. Instead of Lacy attending the meeting, actor Paul Robeson did." this needs to reevaluated w respect to ISBN 978-0-415-97938-2 pp. 128-129. I honestly can not figure out what's going on with that either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not see your comments at the time. I am currently away from home, I will review Pietruzsa when I return and answer your various questions. I do not have access to those periodicals unless they are on google news archive.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Interests of baseball

Specifically regarding the point of being able to act in the interest of the sport: MLB's web site says the following:

Under the Major League Agreement, the new Commission was broadly empowered to "investigate, either upon complaint or upon his own initiative, an act, transaction or practice, charged, alleged or suspected to be detrimental to the best interest of the national game of baseball, (and to determine and take) any remedial, preventive or punitive action (he deemed appropriate)." The Agreement also expressly provided that the Commissioner's decisions would be final and could not be challenged by the clubs in court.

Following Landis' death in November 1944, the Major League Agreement was modified, limiting the powers of the Commissioner by giving clubs the right to challenge the Commissioner's decisions in court, and providing that no conduct which conformed with all major league rules and regulations could be deemed by the Commissioner to be "detrimental to the best interests of baseball."

(Note the bit about Landis writing his own contract is not covered in this source.) isaacl (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Yes, that seems a fair statement of the matter. I'd prefer to leave in the bit about Landis writing the contract. Of course he would.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And can I ask that the article's referencing style be imitated? We are using sfn, not cite templates. They have many advantages.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me about the article's referencing style. However in the case where a web page is being referred to, using sfn seems like overkill, since one reference can easily be reused. Personally, without a source, I wouldn't include the statement about Landis writing his own contract. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is sourced. The reference at the end of the paragraph is good for the entire paragraph. I was actually hoping the other editor, who made the change, would do so.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Powell incident misquote

This article, referencing Pietrusza's biography (p. 415), reads:

[Powell] stated that he was a police officer in southern Illinois "and I get a lot of pleasure beating up n****** and then throwing them in jail".

The book itself reads:

[Powell] responded, "I'm a cop in southern Illinois and I get a lot of pleasure beating up n****** and then throwing them in jail".

However, Pietrusza's reference to southern Illinois is clearly incorrect. Later on the same page he quotes Powell as saying "I certainly would never mean to say anything offensive to the Negroes of Dayton, Chicago, or anything else. I have some good friends among the Negroes of Dayton."

Wikipedia's article on Jake Powell reads:

Powell replied to Elson that he was a policeman in his hometown of Dayton, Ohio (in reality he had only applied), and that he "beat n-----s over the head with my blackjack."

The Chicago Tribune of the next day (July 31, 1938, part 2, p. 2) does not give Powell's direct quote but mentions that he said "he worked as a policeman in Ohio, adding, in a jocular vein, that he used his 'club' on Negroes."

A similar report found in the Jacksonville (IL) Daily Journal the next day has the same paragraph, with the added information:

"To the best of my knowledge," Powell said, "I said I was a member of the police force in Dayton during the winter months, and simply explained that my beat was in the negro section of town."

Several other digitized newspapers also refer to Dayton. It appears that the author simply flubbed this quote. I'll leave it up to the editors how to change it. FullnessOfTime (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made it vaguer and deleted the place name. Thank you for your research and thoughtful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenesaw Mountain Landis. 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/20071019000636/http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Kenesaw_Mountain_Landis to http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Kenesaw_Mountain_Landis

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) 07:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenesaw Mountain Landis. 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/20061208001107/http://www.getnet.com/~ksup/landis.html to http://www.getnet.com/~ksup/landis.html

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) 10:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo dates

The 1923 and 1924 photos were clearly taken a the same game, likely within minutes of each others.

Mukogodo (talk) 01:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If you can find definitive information, feel free to make any corrections needed, with sources of course ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Landis, Kennesaw, Mountain.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

The current infobox photo has visible halftone markings and blurs at the edges. It looks like many of the photos of him are low quality, or have his face in an unusual expression. But I've found a few alternatives that seem worth considering.

• 
  Current photo (1922)
• 
  Alt1: c. 1907
• 
  Alt2: 1923
• 
  Alt3: 1923 tight crop

I think Alt1 is he highest quality image. My two concerns are 1) I somewhat doubt the 1907 date, as that does not look like a 41 year-old to me. It's also of unknown origin, which might prevent a meaningful caption. 2) The spectacles obscure his face somewhat, and didn't seem to be a natural part of his appearance. Nonetheless, these don't seem to be a big deal, and I would vote for this as a replacement.

Alt2/Alt3 Have a bit of motion blur, and compared to the status quo probably show less detail in the center of the face, but more at the edges.

What do other think? Would Alt1 be an improvement on the status quo? MarginalCost (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd favor one from the era he was commissioner.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

"ever play professional baseball" again

Angelgreat, can you set out where you see that Landis said "ever play professional baseball again"? I'm looking at The New York Times, August 4, 1921, page 1, "BASEBALL LEADERS WON'T LET WHITE SOX RETURN TO THE GAME; Judge Landis, Ban Johnson and Comiskey Not Moved by Jury Verdict." And Landis's statement is quoted, all three sentences, without the word "again" That's in addition to Cottrell, to whose book the statement is attributed. You mention that the Black Sox Scandal article contains "again", but the underlying source, this, does not say "again". The word "again" was added without substantiation or edit summary by an IP editor here. Not to mention this Google Books search. Even Eight Men Out, that I've just looked at a copy of, has it properly, though they add an exclamation mark. Under the circumstances, I'm restoring the previous version.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Please watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7ME7WkPyC8 Angelgreat (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

A movie clip is not a reliable source. WP:RS. The film "Eight Men Out" is a work of fiction based on a real-life episode and it is not evidence that what was said in the film happened in real life. What books say he said "again"?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Good Point. I'll stop adding the word to the article. Angelgreat (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)