Talk:New York Mutuals

message: Here between two horizontal lines are two paragraphs cut from the article, leaving it merely poor rather than one of Wikipedia's worst. This is a hodgepodge of themes that should be covered somehow. I believe the {dispute} tag was meant for the name (and "historical revisionists") but it truly belongs on all of this. As I wrote a month ago before deciding on this export to Talk, the article should touch on all the contemporary controversies "so I have inserted hasty allusions to shamateurism and gambling. P64 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 1868 and 1869? I know of controversial 1870 claims, at least from MBBC vintage base ball players, so I revised to 1870 for now. Who says 1868 and 1869? --P64 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: championship claims

message: :Is there a New York City sports history (sub)project? I do know that project baseball is about the major leagues. 
:Just now I am adding "Further reading: Wright (2000)" to the articles on league clubs established before 1871. This article in contrast to the ones on shorter-lived teams, is daunting. Twenty years is three of four lifetimes when it reaches from pre-Civil War to National League. --P64 17:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprawling subject 

message: Awiseman, will you be more specific? For example, let's focus on the green stockings line in the second of two paragraphs I have exported to this talk, which concerns team or club names or nicknames (and seems to be the point of your original dispute). What should be the role of the "Green Stockings" example nickname in this article?
In the ProQuest historical newspapers database, searching for "green stockings" thru 1876, there are 12 hits 1869-1872 in reference to baseball. Namely: 1869 (1) Oliver Optic's Magazine, Boston, Aug 21; 1870 (2) Chicago Tribune, Jun 19 and Jun 21; 1871 (8) Chicago Tribune (2) New York Times (6), latest Aug 8; 1872 (1) New York Times. That is ten in the two daily newspapers Jun 1870-Aug 1871. The headlines alone reveal that most of these articles (nine, see next par) concern the famous Mutual club, whose team is called Mutuals, Mutes, and Green Stockings in those headlines (usually Mutuals). 
Here is the "green stockings" usage in the twelve articles, in chronological order.
*the new uniforms of the famous Mutuals include green stockings
*junior team of the Active club, Chicago
*junior team of the Active club, Chicago - also once called "the young green legs"
*"the Green Stockings of the Mutual Club" in prose, meaning the famous Mutuals
*"the Green Stockings nine of the Mutual Club" in prose
*"the Green Stockings" in prose
*"the Green Stockings" in subtitle
*"the Green Stocking 'Champions'" in prose
*"the New-York Green Stockings beating the Brooklyn Orange-hose players" in prose (Mutual beating Eckford)
*"the Green Stockings made a new departure, and, hoisting their old war-worn flag, instead of their new green stocking emblem, they went in ..."
*"the programme for the second Eastern tour of the 'Green Stockings'" - the Forest Citys of Rockford IL
*"the 'Green Stockings'" in subtitle
In the nine articles covered in full size text, the hit for "green stockings" concerns the famous Mutual club.
What points related to this data should be in the article?
Here is a complete account of what the teams or clubs are called in the 1872 article, which is a game story with box score and note on upcoming games. 
*In the headline and story, the two sides are identified thus:
**the Baltimores (6 times) - always with both definite article and plural s, the visitors 1, their opponents 1
**the "Green Stockings" 1, the Mutuals 4, the New Yorkers 1, their own 1
*In the box score, the two sides and the umpire's affiliation are identified thus:
**Baltimore 3
**New York 3 
**the Atlantic 1 - with definite article but without plural s
*In the notes on four upcoming games, the eight participants are identified thus: the Baltimores, the Eckfords, Atlantic, Athletic, Mutual, Athletic, Mutual, Boston.
What points related to this data should be in the article?
-P64 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I think you're missing the point here. I am asking, why did you remove those paragraphs? Were they wrong? What was the reason? They seem to fit in fine, and what a little tweaking (like removing "historical revisionists") I think they work fine in the article. But I want to know your reasons for taking them out. And I have no idea what connection your research has to do with that. --Awiseman 13:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Stockings