This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The whole "banned players" thing is really not well explained here. Technically, none of the players were banned from baseball. They were banned from playing professional baseball. You seem like an interested party, so perhaps you could work out some of the information. [1] is a site for you to use as a reference for information on Gedeon. I agree Gedeon needs some mention in the article. However, it is not appropriate to list banned players from other teams or anything of the sort. I'm in a bit of a hurry so for now, i have removed that section, but added a see also tag. // Tecmobowl 21:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1: Why did you twice remove Gedeon from the article, if you believe he needs mention? Question 2: On what basis do you say that it's inappropriate to list banned players from other teams, and how does that correlate with your assertion above that Gedeon deserves mention in the article? Question 3: Are you aware that in another Wikipedia article, Joe Gedeon is listed as a player who was banned for life by Major League Baseball, specifically for his connection to the Black Sox scandal? I am indeed an interested party, which is why I would like to include Joe Gedeon, a player banned for his involvement in the Black Sox scandal, in this article. I will try for a third time to include Gedeon in the article. I will also make clear the distinction between being banned from baseball and banned from MLB that you draw. Vidor 21:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Gedeon again, under a separate heading, and for consistency's sake I added Hal Chase, who was also banned by Landis and is also listed in the "banned players" article. Upon further review, I believe the article does expain "banned players" sufficiently well, as it specifies they were banned for life from Major League Baseball by Landis. Vidor 22:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have obviously encouraged you to add information, but do not add him to this list, even though you have done a poor job of communicating the information, i do not care to get into any more of an edit war. It would appear you are not familiar with the actual events of the series, and judging by the fact that you believe the Scandal and the Series to be one in the same, perhaps we can leave this alone. I would love to add content to this article, but I frankly don't have the time because i'm working on a bunch of other ones. If someone has not taken the time to update this information in a manner that is indicative of what happened, i will be glad to help out. Please add sources for this material so that it can be left for now. In the meantime, i'll add facts. After that, i would ask that you leave this article alone until you have familiarized yourself with the topic to the point where you are able to edit this article. Nothing personal, it just needs to be correct. // Tecmobowl 23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see. I am familiar with the information. I have read "Eight Men Out". Regarding sources, I see no need to add further sources, because the fact that Joe Gedeon was banned by Landis for betting on the Series was a matter of public record and adequately covered by the sources already in the article. See here, or here, or, for that matter, the Gedeon bio that you provided me, here. Or read the book "Eight Men Out". So your statement that I am not familiar with the events of the scandal is false. You have not offered any reasoning why Joe Gedeon should not be added to this article. He was an active major league baseball player who was banned from the game for knowledge of the fix, as were seven of the Eight Men Out (Gandil not being "active", since he played semi-pro ball in 1920). I will not leave this article alone, as I'm confident I know enough about the subject to participate. You have made an allusion to mentioning Gedeon in the article, but you did not state how you wanted Gedeon mentioned, and you did not mention him yourself, but removed him from the article completely. If you care to explain how you would like to see Gedeon mentioned in the article--any way that mentioned that he existed, that he was active as a second baseman for the Browns, and that he was banned by MLB--I'd be happy to change the article to make it as you prefer. Otherwise, we can possibly refer the "should Joe Gedeon be mentioned in the Black Sox Scandal" article to others, as I will not be leaving the article alone as you suggest. Vidor 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Gedeon and Chase--Most websites I've been looking at today say that Chase was banned for life, as does the Wikipedia Hal Chase entry, but I found one site that said he was never officially banned. I have been looking and have not been able to find an OFFICIAL list of all players on baseball's ineligible list. Thus I have removed Chase from the page. As for Gedeon, I embedded an external link to the article that User:Tecmobowl provided, the SABR bio page that specifically states that Gedeon was banned for life by Landis from MLB. Removed the "citation needed" tag from that item. Vidor 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be taking this personally and that is not of consequence. Who you are has nothing to do with it. The information is what is important, as i have said to everyone else, get the information correct, nothing else matters. Landis did not ban any of the players for life, or any other person for that matter. What he did was bar them from playing the game of baseball. There is much more to say about this, but you can find the short of this on black betsy (www.blackbetsy.com). Also, you might want to change the format for the Gedeon statement you included. Instead of using a wikipedia link format, it would be better suited to cite the information. This can be done with the <ref> and </ref> tags. I usually try the a variation of the {{citeweb}} template, but including the link itself would suffice. Again, i am working on some other articles, but will be happy to provide a well sourced reworking when i have the moment.// Tecmobowl 03:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree 100% that it needs to be sourced and rewritten. It does not need to be removed. Here is one secondary source (i believe that is the correct terminology): [2]. A primary source needs to be recovered at some point. Freakonomics discussion, while interesting doesn't prove anything one way or the other. // Tecmobowl 19:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have removed the 'dirty-clothes' references as they are unsupported. Reference 2 is not accessable as www.entlaw.org no longer exists. Reference 1 points to a page which references Nelson Algren. The only text he authored which mentions the Black Sox scandal in was 'Chicago: City on the Make', which itself makes no assertions as to the name 'Black Sox' being used prior to the 1919 scandal. The Black Betsy FAQ's mentioned above are also unreferenced...maybe the author had this wikipedia article in mind? 87.194.48.225 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Curse of the Black Sox be mentioned?[edit]
The curse does not belong in the article about the world series or the scandal. This page is to discuss the facts and circumstances regarding the scandal. The article on the 1919 World Series is to discuss the series of games that constituted the series. While I various opinions regarding the "effect" of the scandal on the white sox franchise, the scandal impacted the immediate future of the team and not their 2005 world series...etc..etc. I would further stress, that creating an article using the expunged information would not be a good idea either. That information is lacking in sources and is full of circumstance. // Tecmobowl 20:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should similarly hatchet the Curse of the Bambino and the Curse of the Billy Goat, because they are both "full of circumstances" and are also media inventions. And you've got it backwards: The Black Sox "curse" had no effect on the 2005 Series - the 2005 Series had an "effect" on the supposed "curse", i.e. it ended it. Baseball Bugs 20:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few side notes before we move on with the issue at hand. First, please stop posting to my user talk page about this. People who are interested in this discussion most likely do not have my talk page marked for watching. Second, typos are far from Freudian slips. Let's move away from the grammatical aspects of this conversation, they are counter productive. If you would like more information on affect vs effect, you should be able to find the information on google.
The effects of a scandal would not be the same as the effects of a curse. They are at best, two separate issues. I certainly understand why you pointed to those other examples; however, my standards for their inclusion would be the same. I have made an in depth review of those articles, so I hesitate to make too many claims here. That being said, I do believe each article includes references. Lastly, there is a decent chance that casual fans of the sport have heard of the Curse of the Bambino and such. I doubt the same can be said for the Curse of the Black Sox. Please refrain from making further edits to my talk page and keep the discussion here. //Tecmobowl 20:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I gave sources, and you rejected them. The real issue is simply that you don't want the information here, for reasons best known to yourself. Baseball Bugs 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided any citations that i can see. In the meantime, here is an article that would seem to support my claim that the "Curse of the Black Sox" does not have a place on wikipedia: [3]. // Tecmobowl 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the article, as the citation of the supposed "curse" by MSNBC shows that the idea of a curse does exist, and is compared with the Curses of the Bambino and Billy Goat. Whether fans of the White Sox or other teams think it's nonsense isn't the point - silly superstitions like this have always been part of sports, whether it's the Curse of the Bambino or the fan who wears the same socks every time he watches the game on TV. Of course that fan's clothing has nothing to do with how the teams perform on the field, but that doesn't mean the phenomenon isn't real or encyclopedic. It also appears that you're the only one who doesn't want this information here, and at least three others (myself, Baseball Bugs, and whoever originally wrote the section over in the 1919 World Series article) think it belongs. PaulGS 19:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the article, I do not agree with your assessment. It clearly shows that most people do not regard the "Curse of the Black Sox" as a viable explanation. Baseball bugs is unfortunately another editor in disguise whose opinions seem misguided at best and clearly hasa a problem with me on a personal level. I'm not going to elaborate on it. Again, if you can provide that information based on reliable sources, you are welcome to create an article on it. That being said, the information does not belong in this article or the article on the 1919 World Series. You might try the See Also approach if you find it imperative that readers of the two pages know of a new article. I will state again that if you provide well documented information from reliable sources to back up that article, I will not have a problem with it. Based on the various wiki guidlines, I am still reluctant to have an article like this in the wiki namespace. That being said, I will you a chance to prove otherwise. // Tecmobowl 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"It clearly shows that most people do not regard the 'Curse of the Black Sox' as a viable explanation." That's completely irrelevant. Very few baseball fans seriously believe that selling Babe Ruth to the Yankees is the reason why the Red Sox failed to win for 86 years - but it's something fans and the media play with, whether to just have something to talk about, a few White Sox fans looking for something to blame other than management ineptness, or fans of other teams using it to taunt White Sox fans. "Curses" and superstitions are part of sports just as much as Babe Ruth's supposed called shot is. If there were no such topic as the "Curse of the Black Sox", then why would the MSNBC article discuss it, and why would White Sox fans deny it? You don't see Devil Ray fans talking about curses, because that sort of thing hasn't come up with their team - but it has with the Red Sox, White Sox, and Cubs, and there's been discussion of it. A quick Yahoo search turned up several articles discussing the supposed Curse, including ones from the Boston Globe, Miami Herald, the Concord (New Hampshire) Monitor, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and even Sports Illustrated, not to mention various blogs and fan sites. That's plenty of sources to show that there's discussion of a supposed curse. Whether the curse truly exists or not doesn't matter, and isn't the point of the section. PaulGS 23:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tecmobowl's argument is that there is plenty of documentation about the "Curse of the Bambino" and the "Curse of the Billy Goat", but insufficient documentation about the "Black Sox Curse." And I think you've proven that argument to be wrong. If Ozzie Guillen acknowledged the so-called "Black Sox Curse" in the summer of 2005, as noted in that Boston Globe article, then it was clearly for real. By that, I don't mean that the curse itself was for real, but the story was. And the two are related, but not quite in the way the media like to portray it. The "curse" is the damage the actions of Red Sox's owner, and the White Sox players, respectively, caused to their franchises. Sometimes teams can bounce back from such shenanigans. The 1914 Athletics were crushed by the Braves, Connie Mack sold all his stars, and the A's sank like a rock... but they came back and became big winners, albeit 15 years later, thus dispelling any "Connie Mack Curse" notions, even though he did the very same thing in the early 1930s and it was nearly 40 years before the A's were any good again. The Red Sox fans had to wait nearly three decades, 1918-1946, for another pennant winner (ironically, a shorter wait than the Braves fans did, 1914-1948), and the White Sox fans sat for four decades (1919-1959) before winning their next pennant. The Red Sox curse was caused by Harry Frazee, not Babe Ruth. As for the Cubs, it's more than six decades of front office incompetence. The Billy Goat just made a good scape... you know. :) Baseball Bugs 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... this topic DOES NOT go in this article. Feel free to start another article, but I will reiterate a point from earlier: Make the article encyclopedicly verifiable. //Tecmobowl 00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're OK with a separate article on the Black Sox "Curse"? Baseball Bugs 00:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for a separate article. The "curse" wasn't as popular as the Curses of the Bambino or the Billy Goat, and since it comes directly from this, a couple paragraphs on the curse belong here. If the section becomes too large, it can be separated out into its own article later. PaulGS 02:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... this topic DOES NOT go in this article. Feel free to start another article, but I will reiterate a point from earlier: Make the article encyclopedicly verifiable. I am not obligated to create another article, so i'm not going to be the one to do it. If you want that, put it in it's own article... the scandal itself and any purported curse as a result of that scandal are two entirely different things. // Tecmobowl 02:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do not own the article. Article ownership is against the rules. Baseball Bugs 03:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. That being said, this content DOES NOT belong in this article. // Tecmobowl 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion. I'm not convinced it's big enough to produce a separate article. However, in the interest of avoiding another pointless revert cycle, it might be better to try to write a separate article, and see if it has enough independent information, or if it's just a content fork from this one. Then the baseball writers here (not just you by yourself) can be solicited to render a decision on the matter. Baseball Bugs 03:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's possibly instructive to review the Curse of the Bambino and the Curse of the Billy Goat articles. There is a lot of stuff in the first, less in the second. Ironically, the Black Sox Scandal was more of a true "curse" than either of the other two, in that it was a direct result of players' actions, as opposed to front office incompetence (whose curses would be better named for Harry Frazee and P.K. Wrigley). But the Black Sox Curse can be summed up as the fatal blow dealt to the Sox by the scandal; the subsequent fall to the second division; the operation on a shoestring; the return to competence in the 1950s and 1960s, with the one lone pennant in 1959 and the rest of that time spent looking uphill at the Yankees. In short, it's the history of the White Sox from 1920 through 2005, and we already have an article on that. So it really belongs as just a paragraph or two in the "legacy" section of this article. But since you won't permit that, I think a separate article is called for, at least temporarily. Baseball Bugs 03:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying this content doesn't belong here doesn't make it so. By your argument, the "Fallout" section doesn't belong, as what happened on the field (the throwing of the games) and MLB and the grand jury's subsequent investigation are two (three?) separate things. Should the statement "The White Sox would not win another league championship until 1959 (a then-record forty-year gap) nor another World Series until 2005" be removed, too? I think the better argument is that the "Fallout" section should be even broader, including a mention of Pete Rose and possibly other incidents, as the fallout of the Black Sox scandal isn't just the banning of the eight players, but baseball's strict ban on gambling or anything associated with gambling, as well the extensive "best interests of baseball" powers given to the Commissioner. Of course, with those topics, there's plenty of material for other articles, while "Curse of the Black Sox" is still limited. But I suppose we'll try things your way for now, and create a new page, and wait for you to request deletion of it.
The article has potential. It has references, and it's important to dispel some myths about the curse (we should only focus on the "reality" of the curse). One is that the Sox were in command and fell apart when their players were suspended. In fact, they were in a virtual tie with the Indians, and the players were suspended after the games of the 27th, with only 3 games to go. Take about gonfalon interuptus. More needs to be written about the Sox horrific crash the following season, and the effect the scandal had on the franchise. Veeck as in Wreck spoke about this matter, I think. I also need to watch the DVD again and get some more specifics about just what they were saying about the 1919 and 2005 situations. Baseball Bugs 06:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tecmo Banned Indefinitely. FYI--Tecmo has been banned indefinitely for repeated violations of Wiki policy.--Epeefleche 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Curses" of course have no logical explanation. How can one account for the long failure of the Washington Senators/Texas Rangers to reach the World Series? Or the Expos/Nationals? Or the St. Louis Browns, who had only one World Series appearance during their time in St. Louis?--Paul from Michigan 00:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc? 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Jackson actually confessed to being involved in the fix.97.73.64.169 (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like to call an intentional loss "cheating collect". — Rickyrab | Talk 03:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) The idea is that the cheating is on behalf of the other side, so the other side gets the win, much like the called party has to pay for the call instead of the caller. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fittingly, when an athlete, artist, etc. does not seem to be putting out much effort, they are said to have "phoned it in". →Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 03:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I removed these entries as too trivial: RJFJR (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A strip in the Wondermarkwebcomic speculates that the currency earned by the banned players could be forever tainted by its involvement in the scandal, referencing a running joke in the series.
Friday the 13th: The Series was a syndicated TV series about a collection of cursed objects and the efforts of the new owners of the antique store from which they were sold to recover them. In the second-season episode "The Mephisto Ring", the cursed object being sought is a 1919 World Series ring originally commissioned for the White Sox on the assumption that they would win the Series; instead of being destroyed, the ring eventually fell into the hands of the original shop owner, Lewis Vendredi, who had a curse placed on it as part of his deal with the Devil. The ring grants good luck to whomever places a wager while wearing it, provided the wearer uses it to murder someone first. The ring is identified in the episode as the first cursed object Vendredi sold.
Shouldn't Arnold Rothstein be mentioned in the article?[edit]
Agree - see my comment below on the money men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ileanadu (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have just added archive links to one external link on Black Sox Scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
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)[reply]
(Note that it is even in effect today, but an arbitrator dramatically reinterpreted its meaning in 1972.) Erniecohen (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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.
