Talk:Black Sox Scandal

message: Is there a reason to have separate pages for the story of the fix and the story of the series?  Aren't they the same story? Vidor 08:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, the Scandal and the series are note one in the same.  The article about the 1919 World Series is to communicate the events of the series.  The article about the scandal is to communicate the events and experiences surrounding the series.  While there is some over lap, these are two separate issues. Similarly, there is an article for The Catch and another article for the 1954 World Series. // Tecmobowl 09:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "the Scandal and the series are note one in the same!"--Yes they are.  "The article about the 1919 World Series is to communicate the events of the series.  The article about the scandal is to communicate the events and experiences surrounding the series."--Forgive me for not seeing any distinction whatsoever in those two hairs being split.  "Similarly, there is an article for The Catch and another article for the 1954 World Series."--Holy cow, really?  I'll have to propose merging those two articles today.  There's an entire ARTICLE about Willie Mays's catch?  About one play?  Madness.  Anyway...the story of the fix IS the story of the 1919 World Series.  There's no distinction and no need whatsoever for separate articles.  The two articles should be merged under "1919 World Series", with a redirect when people enter "Black Sox" or "Black Sox Scandal". Vidor 19:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not following your logic.  It sounds to me more like you want to focus on arguing and berating people, rather than the facts.  It is just by circumstance that I live within close proximity to one of the experts on the events of the Black Sox Scandal.  Per the notes on the talk page for the 1919 World Series, it seems people are inclined to disagree with you.  You might also want to review WP:NPA before continuing with your behavior.  // Tecmobowl 01:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Logic?  The logic is that there's no reason to have two redundant articles on the same event.  Vidor 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Per Talk:1919 World Series, it would appear more people at this time agree with my perspective.  I do not think it is beneficial to carry on this discussion at two places, please direct any further comments to the other talk page. // Tecmobowl 04:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I see Gedeon was deleted from the list of banned players, despite the fact that he was a major league baseball player at the time, and he was in fact banned as a result of the scandal.  I will attempt to include this information again. Vidor 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joe Gedeon

message: The section on the origin of the "Black Sox" name should be removed. Besides its multiple qualifiers and weasel wording, it's still completely unsourced. A year old discussion on the Freakonomics blog tried to find a mention of the "Black Sox" name before the scandal, but all the evidence they found pointed to the conclusion that the origin of the name was the scandal. Nathanm mn 09:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That discussion listed several primary sources they found, all of which support the name based solely on the scandal. None could be found supporting the dirty socks theory. Nathanm mn 20:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe Freakonomics should be included in this discussion.  I'm not sure how a site on economics is counted as a reliable and respected source on the topic of baseball history.  That being said, the topic of the term does have a place in the article.  Even if that means it sticks to the approach that there is no confirmed origin.  A mention could be then made that a seemingly popular theory is the dirty unifrom etc...etc... The FAQ's on Black Betsy could be used as the source. // Tecmobowl 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't about Freakonomics, that's just the blog where it was talked about. Did you even read the discussion I linked to? Several people in the discussion did online and real world searches in newspapers, magazines, etc. to determine if the dirty socks theory had any support. Every article they found mentions the Black Sox name resulting from the scandal. Nathanm mn 02:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I absolutely read the blog.  I will repeat what i said previously.  That site should not be referenced.  The section has a place in the article.  The approach at this point is that it is not confirmed and there are several popular theories. // Tecmobowl 03:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of "Black Sox" section 

message: One of the causes of the scandal was the incentive of players to consort with gamblers. Gamblers paid better than did the owners. It is worth noting that during the 1920s the super-stars of baseball began earning what were then astronomical salaries. The game had to be kept honest, and it could be kept honest if the likes of Babe Ruth had more cause to avoid gamblers. Any myth that baseball players were a sort of sports nobility who would play entirely for the sake of the game was shattered.
That no scandal of any similarity to the Black Sox scandal has appeared in big-money sports reflects in part the recognition that people need incentives for integrity and loyalty, much as in any entertainment.--Paul from Michigan 00:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Players' Salaries 

message: This article is very contradictory regarding Shoeless Joe Jackson. There are sections that have "damning evidence" that he was a part of the fix; others say that his role or part in the fixing is "doubtful." Come to a conclusion please. - Sfrostee 5/13/2008
:The evidence itself is contradictory, and it is not up to wikipedians to make a conclusion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, Jackson actually confessed to being involved in the fix.97.73.64.169 (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he did. As I recall, the varous signed confessions conveniently disappeared some time before the trial, and conveniently reappeared sometime after the "not guilty" verdict had been rendered. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoeless Joe Jackson 

message: I like to call an intentional loss "cheating collect".  —  Rickyrab | Talk 03:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fittingly, when an athlete, artist, etc. does not seem to be putting out much effort, they are said to have "phoned it in". →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Throwing a game?

message: When reading this article in passing, I noticed the writing style was very off from typical Wikipedia affair. Indeed, when running a search for the phrase "motivated by a dislike of tightwad club owner Charles Comiskey" I found the sentence directly lifted from this website. If one believes the copyright, wouldn't this be in direct violation of standards, seeing as it is not even sourced? Again, I just took a passing fancy to this aberration so please ignore if I am talking out of line. Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.104.115.196 (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. If anything, that guy plagiarized off of us.It was I who changed the wording in this article to "tightwad," and I had never seen that actual description in print before. (Now when I check the revision history, it shows that I made the edit on June 6, 2009.) And of course, my writing style is not typical on this site ;) - PM800 (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, the word seems like a colloquialism to me.  Why not use "miser"? 206.83.81.178 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Plagiarism? 

message: Shouldn't "scandal" be lowercase? --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I removed these entries as too trivial: RJFJR (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: After all, he was the guy whose "agents" allegedly payed the players, see Arnold_Rothstein#1919_World_Series
--Maarten1963 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - see my comment below on the money men.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ileanadu (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Ignore this. Still think we need more about the gambler(s)' roles in the fix.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ileanadu (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't Arnold Rothstein be mentioned in the article? 

message: Why is there a citation needed flag for the statement: "baseball's decision to revert to a best of seven Series in 1922 significantly reduced the opportunity for a pitcher to obtain three decisions in a Series"? It's simply a mathematical fact. Why would a mathematical fact need to be cited? Do we really need a source to tell us that something is more likely to happen in nine attempts than in seven attempts?  Kdb1965 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed? 

message: Footnotes 1 & 8 are to the same source. I believe footnote 8 uses the correct format and footnote 1 does not, which is why it may not appear they are the same.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ileanadu (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote correction needed 

message: One of the bullets in the "Popular culture" section reads: "Bernard Malamud's 1952 novel The Natural and its 1984 filmed dramatization of the same name were inspired significantly by the events of the scandal." I believe this should be removed. There is no reference to the Black Sox in Wikipedia's own article on this novel, and anyone familiar with the novel will be hard pressed to find any connection between the scandal and the events in the novel (Roy Hobbs shot by girlfriend, displays hubris, attempts a come-back, fails.) Although there are a few other places on the Web where this connection is also made, none of these, so far as I can tell, give any specific reason why the writer believes the novel and the scandal are related. Roricka (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture reference not supported 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Black Sox Scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090726131515/http://www.1919blacksox.com:80/whitesox.htm to http://www.1919blacksox.com/whitesox.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To quote, "In the era of the reserve clause, gamblers could find players on many teams looking for extra cash—and they did."
This is nonsense. The reserve clause remained in effect in MLB for 52 years after the Black Sox scandal, with no further gambling scandals.Erniecohen (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "era of the reserve clause"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Black Sox Scandal. 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/20140815042229/http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox.html to http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140815042229/http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox.html to http://www.chicagohs.org/history/blacksox.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified