Talk:List of countries with their first Major League Baseball player

Born in Country vs. Citizenship - Title Not Really Correct

Technically, this article is correct in that these were the first MLB players born in these countries (well, not really MLB since it didn't exist yet for most, but we won't get into that now). However, they might not be considered the country's first MLB player depending upon how you define that. First instance, many of these players would not be considered citizens of the country where they were born (and so the country would probably not claim them), since not all nations use a jus sole system like the U.S. I don't think substantial changes are needed, but I'm going to add a clarifying sentence. Let me know if you disagree. -Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.26.129.67 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Aruba and Curacao

Even though Aruba and Curacao are not independant countries, i feel the article should extend into areas like them. The Olympics, FIFA World Cup, and World Baseball Classic have a team from Puerto Rico which is part of the US, and there is also team from the Republic of China called Chinese Taipei. England and Wales should be listed because they are countries within the United Kingdom.Passedflatus (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

United States

The article says that Bobby Mathews was the first major league player born in the United States. But he was actually the first pitcher born in the United States according to the source cited. Presumably some of the other players who took the field with him in the first National Association game were also born in the United States. They should be shown as tied with him for first U.S.-born player. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In principle, all of the players who played the first MLB game (except any born outside the USA) would be tied for first MLB player born in the United States. It would be better to leave the cell empty with a note saying that many players are tied. BRMo (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I did something like that. Feel free to improve upon it. Before the page gets deleted. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

England and Wales

How does everyone feel about England and Wales, they are defined as countries. It even says it in the first sentence of their article. Does anyone object to them being included?Racingstripes (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess we need to decide for purposes of this list whether to define "country" as a sovereign state (for example, see List of sovereign states), which is a definition that would exclude subnational entities like England and Wales and territorial entities like Puerto Rico and Aruba, or to adopt a broader defintion that would include such entities. A concern is that if a broader definition is adopted, it would need to be sufficiently clear as to avoid POV battles, which are unfortunately common in articles having to do with disputed national identity. I guess my preference is to stick with the sovereign state definition in order to limit or reduce those kinds of disputes. BRMo (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In international sports competition Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England all compete separately to be in the Fifa World Cup because soccer is very popular in those individual countries. Since baseball is such a popular sport in Puerto Rico, and because of its relative autonomy it competes separately from for the Olympics, Fifa World Cup, and all the international baseball competitions. I think that we should include all US territories individually that are not included in 50 states, all parts of the UK individually, and the republic of china separate from the people's republic of china.Racingstripes (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I think the most important consideration is availability of reliable sources. Baseball-reference.com is a reliable source and it lists England, Scotland, Wales and Puerto Rico separately. Do other reliable sources treat them differently? BRMo (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change the United Kingdom entry to England. This issue hasn't been decided, but it's been awhile and there hasn't been more debate. Scotland is listed as an entry, so there should be England. Furthermore, Taiwan is listed. We definitely don't want to start the debate of whether it is a sovereign nation, etc (especially since the recent occurrence of Taiwanese MLB players is significant and shouldn't be obscured by an expat born in China in the 1800s). - Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.26.129.67 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Wales should definately be included - and I believe the first MLB player from here was Peter Morris from Rhuddlan and played just once for Washington Nationals (UA) in 1884 before being killed in a railroad accident. --Richardeast (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Canada and Cuba

I was thinking that the Canadian players George Wood, Pop Smith, and Arthur Irwin, and the Cuban Players Armando Marsans and Rafael Almeida should be in thier own cell. When you combine them in one cell it affects the sortable aspect of the article. I originally added a footnote on them to indicate that their major league debut was on the same day. If anyone does't object I would like to continue with that method.Racingstripes (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

First, the entry for Canada was wrong--Bill Phillips was the first Canadian to play in the National League. Second, we have the question of what to do with the Naional Association, which is not recognized as a major league by MLB, but is treated as a major league by many other sources. If we count the National Association, then the first Canadian player should be Tom Smith and the first Cuban player should be Steve Bellán.

Finally, we have the technicality that neither Cuba nor Canada were independent countries when these players were born. My preference is to leave that one alone and say that they were the first players born in what would later be Canada, etc. BRMo (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Native Americans?

What about Native American nations? Kingturtle (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Dilemma

The questions raised in the sections above illustrate the problem with a list like this. You start running into issues of definitions. "Native American" is basically a race, so it's fairly easy to find whoever the first one was, maybe Sockalexis though I'm not totally sure. Then you start getting into issues of "tribes" or "nations". But then you could argue about "states" and "provinces" - and current nations (or states) that were territories. Someone born in Cuba in 1900 could be argued to be "American". That's the dilemma - stating a simple premise, and trying to make the people fit the premise somehow. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is not about race, but about Nation. The Native Americans had nations. Who was the first Cherokee nation player, for example. Kingturtle (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand. That could make it more daunting to research, but maybe also more interesting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Going back to a point I raised above, we need to decide what definition of "country" to use for this article. I mentioned the List of sovereign states because it uses clearly articulated criteria for inclusion (based on the 1933 Montevideo Convention). Indian tribal nations don't fit under that definition. (Tribes in the United States have sovereignty rights, in the sense that they are considered to have an inherent right to organize tribal governments, but they do not have the authority to engage in international diplomacy, etc., which they would need to qualify for the list of sovereign nations.)

Of course, if we did expand our definition to include Native American tribal nations, we would run into a potential quagmire because of the differences between tribal membership and tribal ethnic identification. Articles such as Cherokee or Cherokee heritage groups describe some of the conflicts that have arisen about tribal membership. I suggest that we should be cautious about taking on that discussion; we would need to be sure that we have sufficient reliable sources to identify tribal membership. BRMo (talk) 04:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A slippery slope. There's also the dispute about "England" vs. "U.K." I would go with "England", since the article defines it as "a country within the U.K.", and typically a person from there will be said to have been born in England, not in the U.K. as such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We can't base it on a 1933 list because MLB started 60 years before that. There are a number of countries that existed between 1850 and 1930 that would not be included in a 1933 agreement (see Former countries in Europe after 1815 for example)l. We should simply base it on the following criteria: a country is a sovereignty at one time recognized by more than one other country. It is okay to have this article be as comprehensive as possible. Because the number of countries that existed between 1850 and the present is finite, this list will be finite. Kingturtle (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A misunderstanding - the criteria for what should be considered a sovereign state were developed in 1933 - the list itself wasn't developed in 1933. The criteria can certainly be applied to countries from any era, historical or modern. BRMo (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sorry for misunderstanding. Kingturtle (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Hawaii is listed. The best way to handle this is the way sports are already handled in international competition. If the "country" has (or had if it is no longer a country) its own olympic team, it should be listed. Arnabdas (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Confederate States of America

I've deleted an entry listing John Peltz for the Confederate States of America as unverified. It includes a reference to his bb-ref page that shows he was born in New Orleans in April 1861, during the time when the city was governed by the Confederacy. The cited reference does not, however, establish that he was the first player born in the CSA to play MLB. I don't know whether he is or isn't the first, but I did find at least one other player born in the CSA who debuted on the same day, so if he is first, he's tied for that distinction.

One question is whether the CSA qualifies as a country. In earlier discussions on this talk page, I mentioned the criteria used by the List of sovereign states as one possibility for defining country. It talks about states that are widely recognized to exercise de jure sovereignty as evidenced by formal diplomatic recognition, and about states that exercise de facto control of territory but lack wide recognition. The CSA never received diplomatic recognition, but it did exercise governmental control over at least part of its territory, so I believe it would meet the criteria for Wikipedia's list of sovereign states. Note, however, that the United States continued to regard the states in the Confederacy as legally part of the USA, so individuals born in areas under Confederate control could be considered to have been born in two countries, the USA (de jure) and the CSA (de facto).

In addition to John Peltz (who debuted on May 1, 1884), I found two other individuals born in Virginia during the Civil War who also debuted on that same day--Jack Beach and Charlie Ferguson. I haven't checked all possible candidates, so I don't know if there may be other players who debuted earlier. Beach, however, was born in Alexandria, Virginia in 1862 while the city was under Union control. Alexandria, which is located just across the Potomac from Washington, was governed by the Confederacy for exactly one day (Virginia voters ratified its secession on May 23, 1861 and Alexandria was occupied by Union soldiers on May 24). Therefore, I don't think it would be accurate to describe Beach as born in the CSA. Ferguson, on the other hand, was born in 1863 in Charlottesville, Virginia, which appears to have remained under Confederate control until early March 1865 (see the article Battle of Rio Hill). Therefore, if Peltz turns out to have been the first CSA-born player to play in the majors, Ferguson would be tied with him. (Peltz's birthplace, New Orleans, was controlled by the Confederacy from its formation on February 8, 1861 until it was occupied by Union forces on April 28, 1862, and thus was governed by the Confederacy at the time of Peltz's birth.)

A final comment is that, although interesting, this is starting to seem like original research. If a "first Confederate MLB player" can be identified, I hope that we can find a reliable source that says who he is, rather than us having to look at all of the possible candidates. BRMo (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any outside source confirming this claim. Kingturtle (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)