Talk:Chicago White Sox/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Chicago White Sox. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Some stuff to add

Someone needs to add the regular season won / lost records like they have on the Twins wiki site!

I'd like to add a couple things. Ozzie Guillen was hired as the White Sox's new manager, replacing Jerry Manuel. I'll try to add entries for those guys if they don't exist.
1. Important managers(years and records, minimum 750 games). Kid Gleason(1919-1923, 392-364), Jimmy Dykes(1935-1946, 899-940), Paul Richards(1951-1954 1976, 406-392)Al Lopez(1957-1965 1968-1969,840-650), Tony LaRussa(1979-1986, 522-510), Jerry Manuel(1998-2003, 500-471). Source: http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/history/managers.jsp
2. List of owners. Charles Comiskey(1893-1931), J. Louis Comiskey(1931-1939), Grace Comiskey(1939-1956),Dorothy Comiskey(1956-1958), Bill Veeck (1958-1961, 1975-1981), John Allyn(1961-1975), Jerry Reinsdorf (1981-present). Source: http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/history/owners.jsp
PS Go Go WHITE SOX!

I'd like to add an external link for a great source of Chicago White Sox team Stats, Injuries and Match ups. It lists up to the date White Sox news and records. Source: http://www.atsh2h.com/mlb/teams/chicago-white-sox/

Uniform missing

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under the info box I noticed that they are missing a uniform, also they include "home, away, alt2" it dose not even say alt 1. The one missing is the selvless white with pinstripes and a black shirt underneith. If any one knows how to add this I think some one should. 131.230.146.135 (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)10/25/08

Main Rivals?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not a White Sox fan, but could the Toronto Blue Jays really be considered a rival? Would any Chicagoan care to comment/edit? --Chick Bowen

i would not consider the Jays a main rival, the did play the Sox in the 1993 ALCS, but other than that, there hasn't been anything

No sleight to the Blue Jays, but as a Sox fan for 30+ years, I would not list the Blue Jays as a prime rival. I think the '93 playoffs did not really cement itself heavily in most Sox fans minds as a transcendant moment in team history .... the blue Jays were the defending champs and they won ( I was at Game 1 of that Series ... the Jays were a team to be proud of at that time!) TeganX7 07:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive been a Sox fan my whole life and for the most part the blue jays are not given a second thought. They are not main rivals nor do they really qualify as rivals other than the sense that all teams in the AL and NL are rivals with each other. They are not in the same division, Chicago and Toronto are relatively far apart, and they have few meetings in the post season. They really have no factors that would constitute a rivalry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.146.135 (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's a bigger rivalary from the Minnesota POV, but the Twins-White Sox rivalry probably deserves more than one line. One of these two teams has been AL Central Division Champs nearly every year since 2000 and while that certainly doesn't match the seemingly ages-old Cubs-Sox rivalry or the rivalry with the Indians, it has some fun points worth mentioning (i.e. A.J. Pierzynski). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.72.186.65 (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pedro Lopez

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is pointing to the apocryphal murderer. Needs a page for Pedro Lopez (baseball). Rich Farmbrough 16:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixed!!

Dermokichwa 20:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

1994?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm surprised there's no mention of the 1994 team that many thought would have won the World Series were it not for the strike that year. Sachmet 20:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

I removed the sentence 'perhaps ESPN found new evidence that the bribes were forced on the players at gunpoint' as it was NPOV and just plain ignorant. For circumstances surrounding the Black Sox, please read the book or see the film Eight Men Out and don't edit unless you know something about baseball history.

And I removed the reference to ESPN because what their apologists and revisionists may think is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. I do know something about baseball history, I have read the book "Eight Men Out", and the stark reality is that 8 members of the White Sox, including 2 of their key pitchers, conspired to throw the Series upon the receipt and/or promise of bribes. They did it to get even with their stingy owner, and were too dumb to realize the likely consequences of it to themselves. The three games they played honestly, they won. If they had played all the games honestly, they would have won the Series, possibly even a 5-game sweep. As much as I enjoyed the fantasy film "Field of Dreams", these guys were both crooked and stupid, and they got what they deserved. Wahkeenah 02:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't trust 8 Men Out. Many of the "facts" in that book have been disproven. If you are relying on that piece of fiction, you really shouldn't be editting this page.

Such as what, Mr. A-NONE? Wahkeenah 03:38, 16 February 2006
- Such as Shoeless Joe Jackson maintaining to his death that he never conspired to fix the game as his own performance in that Series would indicateUnseemlyWeasel 03:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  - So, do you think he did, or didn't? Your comment is unclear. Wahkeenah 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Jackson admited that he took money but he claimed that he didn't do his part to throw the games. His stats seem to agree. Buck Weaver claimed to know about the deal but did not take money nor did he play poorly on purpose and again, his stats back him up. Step off that high horse Wahkeenah.

Neigh. Jackson took money, and I don't agree about his stats proving he didn't throw games. Buck Weaver merely knew about it and didn't squeal, which is why he was banned. The Commish decided he had to send a message. Wahkeenah 06:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The comish also banned a guy for stealing a car. He had enough on Ty Cobb to ban him for betting but he didn't. The problem was it was getting out of control and instead of dealing with it the right way he waited until it was too far gone and had to send a message. That doesn't mean that Jackson and Weaver got what they deserved.WhiteSoxTrav 23:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Cobb never took money in furtherance of throwing a World Series, as far as we know. Landis came close to banning him (along with a couple of others) but declined due to insufficient evidence (i.e. one other player made allegations of an incident several years earlier, with little or no substantiation). Meanwhile, if you look in the section called Jackson in 1919, you'll see that while Shoeless Joe led both teams in hits, his true offensive impact wasn't much. I won't disagree that Cicotte and Williams were big prizes for the fixers. But keeping the best hitter on the team from doing damage was also important. I've heard Bill James, who knows more about this stuff than you and I do, say that Jackson does not belong in the Hall of Fame, due to his part in all this. I would leave the door open a little bit. But not much. Wahkeenah 23:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to claim to be an expert but just because one guy doesn't think Jackson deserves the hall doesn't mean it is so. What more did you want Jackson to do? The stats show no significant drop off in the World Series so how can you say he lied about fixing it? Why wouldn't he admit that he took a dive when he admitted he took the money? As for Cobb, you are saying that he was accused of doing the same thing that Rose was banned for. Not enough proof against Cobb is a cop out. Cobb was a guy that escaped a suspension for beating a paralized fan (I think for that) because his teammates wouldn't play without him. Landis took the easy rode in suspending or expelling guys that he knew would be easier than others. Besides all that, players who play great should be in the Hall. What they did off the field shouldn't be a factor. But then again, the HOF has become a joke over the years.WhiteSoxTrav 23:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In 1912 (long before Landis) Cobb attacked a fan in the stands and was suspended. The fan was indeed handicapped, but he was also hurling vile words at Cobb, who wouldn't put up with it. His teammates went on a one-day strike, then came back when told they would be banned from baseball if they didn't. Cobb did not escape suspension, he served it. The allegations against Cobb and Speaker in the mid-1920s came from another ballplayer, about a game several years earlier. It was that one player's word against theirs, hence insufficient evidence. Landis didn't hesitate to punch out the big stars (like Ruth) when it seemed warranted. The stats for Jackson in the '19 Series don't suggest he did anything much to help his team win. I don't know that he denied throwing the Series, some sources claim that. But did he keep the money? Far as I know, he did. There is a rule that banned players can't be in the Hall, because their actions are ON THE FIELD, and are a stain on the game. Wahkeenah 00:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand it was before Landis; that isn't the point. I think that Landis knew who he could put the screws on and who he coudln't. As for post season success, many players don't do much to help their team win. That isn't the case with Jackson, however. He hit .375 with 6 RBIs against the Reds in that World Series, much better than he did in the 1917 Series. Maybe he was trying to throw that one too... And as for the issue with Jackson keeping the money, I have heard different things. He kept it, he paid it back, he didn't get paid at all,ect... Either way the HOF shouldn't be interested in what the players did off the field.

Taking money for the purpose of throwing the game's premier event, no matter what his batting average, is ON THE FIELD. Wahkeenah 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It is funny you would mention 1917, though. After Zimmerman chased Collins across the plate with the big run in the final game, the first question out of everyone's mouth was whether the game was on the level. It's not like 1919 was a big surprise to anyone. I think Smokey Joe Wood was also implicated in the Cobb-Speaker story. I read someplace that when he was asked about it, decades later, all he would say was, "Things were so different then." It's like the steroids thing. A lot of guys were "taking" and no one wanted to talk about it. Which would also account for Joe's unwillingness to own up to it. It's got to do with pride. He owned up to taking the money, because, deep down inside, he still felt justified in "sticking it" to Comiskey. The line in "Field of Dreams" where he said, "We'd have played for nothing", hurts the credibility of that story, since their "low pay" is the very reason they took the bribes. Wahkeenah 01:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

But he didn't throw the games. He put up great stats. He had no reason to lie about throwing the games after coming clean about taking the money. (I put that in the wrong place earlier) That is interesting about 1917. I knew that bribes were all over baseball back then and that is why we both think that Landis was out to send a message. You mentioned yourself that "Fields of Dreams" was total fiction. With all the different reports and the credibility issues of the time it is doubtfull that the complete truth will ever be known. In my mind, it makes more sense that Jackson took money but didn't throw a game because of his stats. I understand how you and others could think a million different things about the situation. I keep forgetting to hit the squigly lines...WhiteSoxTrav 02:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just not convinced that Jackson really did much to help the team in 1919, and thus remain unconvinced that he was not an active participant. But I also think the big fish were the pitchers, and Jackson was more like insurance. He may have been illiterate, but he knew there would be hell to pay if he defied the gamblers. So he got plenty of hits, but most of them at times when it didn't matter. Wahkeenah 02:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of stats would you want? He had 6 RBIs! That is plenty enough RBIs, even in an extended series.

And Gandil, another fixer, had 5 RBI's in the Series. Look at Jackson's 6, and you'll see that all of them came late in the Series: 3 of them in games the Sox were trying to win, and 3 of them when the Sox were way behind in the final game. I think he picked his spots, and looked good in the accumulation, but did little to help the Sox win except when the games were "honest" or too far out of reach to matter. Wahkeenah 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Were they bribed to throw the series in a certain number of games? WhiteSoxTrav 22:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The pitchers who took the bribes were supposed to lose. With one exception, they did. The gamblers had reneged on their payments, and the fixers decided to play to win in Game 7 (in the best-of-9 Series), and Cicotte handled the Reds with ease, which suggests how the Series might have gone if it had been played honestly. The word came down that they had better lose Game 8 and finish the Series, "or else", and they tanked it. Wahkeenah 23:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

But he didn't throw the games. He put up great stats. He had no reason to lie about throwing the games after coming clean about taking the money.

I'm not an expert on the but I am just throwing in some food for thought, Some things I have read although specific names fail me seem to have a recurring detail. Players involved in the conspiracy testified that Jackson never showed up to any meetings and that his name was only included on the list to entice other players onto joining the fix, also that by him taking the money another player dumped it in front of his hotel room (how ever he still did end up taking it), and he said that he tried to warn Comiskey but he refused to meet with Jackson. He was the only player to hit a home run in the series and he hit over .370 during the dead ball era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.146.135 (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheating in Modern Baseball

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

During the 1993 and part of the 1994 season, the White Sox used a cheat light in the outfield of then Comiskey park to signal batters what pitch was coming.

It was mounted just to the left of the scoreboard and only visible in the batters box.

It was not used by all players on the team, in fact some players probably didn't even know it existed, only the "trusted" players used it.

Hawk Harrelson would look at a tv that had a shot of the pitcher and catcher, steal the sign and push a button that would activate the light. Getting a light signaled an offspeed pitch of some kind, not getting a light meant fastball.

I do not know if they are still using any devices or technology to steal signs. Does anyone else know?

How can I prove my self? I am being honest, I saw it happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.115.117 (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're stupid and you don't know how to sign your comments. So you saw it happen and then what? You just guessed that Hawk was giving signals? You saw a light come on and you just assumed it was giving away signals? And if only the "trusted" players knew about it then why does some schmuck like you know about it?--MrPhillinois (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

- If it was "only visible in the batters box", the big question is, at what point during those seasons was the IP address standing in the batters box? Also, they must have stopped using it in the 1993 ALCS, because the Jays stymied them. Alternate theory: The Sox were a good team, the Jays were a better team. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I was bold and removed the information that was in the intro/lead section, incorporating most of it into an infobox.

I didn't include the following which was in the intro before, for the following reasons:

Formerly known as - this is more of a historical fact about the team. While it is something that should remain the article, it is not important enough to be in the infobox.
Extra info about home ballpark - Keeping it to the point. This too is discussed later on in the article; we want just the quick facts in the infobox.
Logo design: the logo is in the infobox... isn't this self-explanitory?
ALDS - Isn't this redundant? If you've won the AL division title after '95... didn't you win that division? (An honest question)

wut u say is true, but the ALDS is different from winnin the division

ALCS - Isn't this redundant? If you've won the AL penant after '69... didn't you win the ALCS? (An honest question)

here is where u are correct

All-time regular season record - I don't know if this type of statistic is something we should have in wikipedia, as it is so dynamic. Also, is it encyclopedic?

Please discuss this or work to make the infobox more agreeable rather than reverting it altogether. The list of facts that were in the introduction/lead section before should not really be in the introduction as it was, but rather in an infobox of some sort. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You are going to hate this, but through the baseball Wikiproject, we are implementing new infoboxes for all 30 teams this weekend (we were waiting for the Series to wrap up). They were worked on for about a 6 weeks. If you wanted to discuss changing the infobox, please join the discussion on the talk page or on my talk page. Sorry!--CrazyTalk 19:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Just don't get knocked out of the box. d:) Wahkeenah 19:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I saw those templates, but no discussion on when or whether they were going to be implemented, so understandbly I did this as a temporary fix. The new boxes look good... although, my only issue is with the "categories" at the bottom. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 20:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Mentioning 2005 World Series win in the opening paragraph

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I removed the mention that they won the World Series in the opening paragraph for a couple of reasons. It totally neglects the fact that they also won in 1906 and 1917 for one thing. And how awkward would it be if the same thing occured in the articles for the last two World Series winners, the Boston Red Sox (who won it a few other times), and the Florida Marlins (who also won it all in 1997)? Plus, what if it same thing happened for teams such as the Philadelphia Phillies and Kansas City Royals, who both only one it once? Sorry to ramble on, but it just seems awkward considering the White Sox' history. ErikNY 12:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

You have allow for the Giddiness Factor, which will subside in the coming weeks and months. Wahkeenah 13:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I actually checked back with previous versions of the Red Sox page, and it was listed in their opeining for a while that they were the defending champs, so that could be alright. ErikNY 13:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I just did some minor reworking on the 2005 World Series. I altered the wording which I felt had some very long sentences at points, and broke them up into shorter sentences (I don't think I deleted any content). I also corrected the part about Uribe earning the put out on the final out. He earned an assist with the throw to Konerko who actually is credited with the put out. If people think this is more of a mess, they can feel free to revert.TeganX7 14:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

local fan bases between cubs and sox

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

"the local fan bases of the two teams may be similar in size." um no, and it's not close. 66.28.14.123 16:46, 29 November 2005

The author of the 1977 book, "Stuck on the Cubs", made the comment that "Cubs fans can be found all over the world, and occasionally even on the south side of Chicago." The reverse situation is rather less likely on both counts. If someone made the assertion that the fan bases are similar, feel free to modify or delete. I think they would have a tough time trying to prove it. Wahkeenah 17:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the same comment could be made regarding any team, and given the title of the book I'd suspect some reverse bias. Personally, I've met very few Cubs fan from south of the river (and virtually none among adult men). Given that even that author suggested a scarcity of Cub fans on the south side (which is about equal in population), the line is reasonable. MisfitToys 23:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if more people like the cubs, we all know the sox own the cubs any day.

as for the statement that it's not even close when comparing the local fan base of the two teams, it's erroneous. i personally have traveled out of the country and have seen a ton of Sox stuff (particularly in Latin America, and it's not just because of Ozzie, as I have not left the country since he became the manager, and i have seen no cubs stuff out of the country, so all that must be somewhere else). it was everywhere in Mexico and Costa Rica.homerman9

Just a note from a White Sox/Cubs fan from the south suburbs of Chicago: fans are pretty evenly split around here between Cubs and White Sox, no matter which team is doing better.

If you are going to discuss fans like this, you need to keep in mind that perceptions change with time. As recently as the early 1980s, it was very common to see nearly empty bleachers at Wrigley Field .... unheard of today. When I moved to the north side ten years ago, White Sox fans were rare. Today they are far more common, and Cubs fans are far less common on the South Side. Should the Cubs win the World Series, this trend will reverse. I think there are only general trends you can show, such as blue collar/white collar, the greater ethnic angle of the White Sox, etc that have held up over time.

The whole issue is just to hard to track its not like you can take a census and any survey for many reasons would be bound to have several variable factors that could influence the out come. Also how does one account for a fan who says they like one team but actually know nothing about it or baseball and just support the team. then there are fair weather fans and you ca take into account the reason the Cubs have more national fame is because of more broadcasts by WGN and there is really just no way you can make a good call on the subject. Besides for the most part any one who would care enough to actually make a survey is probably biased towards one of the teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.146.135 (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Growing up on the north side in the 60's, Sox fans were actually PREVELANT throughout all Chicago before 1967. In 66, I saw the Cubs play Pittsburgh before only 1,000 or so fans, on a nice day! I attended the Cub-Sox midseason 'Boys Benefit Game' in 64, before an oversized crowd, where late arriving fans actually were roped off on the right field warning track. The Sox were by far the favorites. Only old timers from the 30's and 40's and little kids were Cub fans in the early to mid 60's. Of course from 1967 on, the suburban hippie "scene" completely adopted the Cubs and there lies the Cub fan base, to this day! We had a saying back then. Businessmen and REAL baseball fans were Sox fans. Hippies, teenage girls looking for a safe place to smoke cigerettes, and young guys looking for chicks were the Cub fans. Whether they knew anything about baseball was irrevelant. Still is. And in the 70's, one of the top semi-pro ballclubs in town, was a northside team called the Irving Park White Sox! We northside Sox fans have always been around. I think it's pretty evened out now. However Wrigley always gets the out of town sightseers. It doesn't matter if those people know anything about baseball or not. In that respect, nothing has changed. 216.78.60.196 (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The biggest thing of course is that the Sox play in a neighborhood perceived as dangerous while the Cubs play on the attractive north side. I remember when King was killed in 68. Opening Day was a day or so later and only 7,800 fans showed up. For Opening Day! And it wasn't because they were in mourning.De percy (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

2005 Offseason Moves

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't really think this should be a "section" within the article. I'm a huge Sox fan but this just seems a little tacky and superfluous for an Encyclopedic entry. Couldn't this just be stripped down a bit and part of the "Win or Die Trying" section? Thoughts? AlanzoB 23:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

yeah that's prolly a good idea.

WhiteSoxInteractive: should there be a link?

Latest comment: 18 years ago31 comments9 people in discussion

This article seems to be the target of vandalism by some rival fans removing external links to Internet fan communities. In particular, the link to the largest fan community, White Sox Interactive, keeps getting removed, along with the addition of some profanity. If you notice this, please see Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version. Thank you. Mr. Zarniwoop 14:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems the vandalism is by a user that was banned from that fan community that was doing this as retaliation. Bit funny that a White Sox fan is vandalising the White Sox page. Mr. Zarniwoop 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevant and hearsay at best. We both know you obtained this information from someone at WhiteSoxInteractive using priveledged information, violating their own code of conduct ("We do not link IP addresses to anything personally identifiable") by associating an IP address (Admin revealing info) with registered information. Regardless of all of this is the fact that I don't beleive this site should be linked to this article. James Roberts 04:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As you can seeI have not added any profanity, just deleted this link. For one I'm not a "rival" fan, I'm a ticket plan holder for the Sox and have been a fan my whole life. Just because a web site has a lot of people doesn't mean its good. It is extremely biased with a lot of inaccurate information and you are unable to speak freely. If you disagree with a subject and voice your opinion on it, you will be banned/not taken serously. This is not what Wikipedia needs on the site. If someone wants to learn about the White Sox, they should look at sites with an objective, unbiased point of view. There are plently of good White Sox sites listed, there is no need for a bad one. ChiWhiteSox7

Thanks for not adding profanity, as others have recently. I now understand that you are censoring Wikipedia because you disagree with the practices of White Sox Interactive. That's not ok, because your blanking of the link is violating NPOV.

Your argument around needing to remove the link because you feel White Sox Interactive is not objective or unbiased is also flawed. It was specifically noted as a fan site following the Wikipedia guide on external links, and as such, no one expects objective or unbiased views. By your logic, we'd need to remove all of the fan forum links because most are run by non-objective fans, the Chicago Tribune link because they own the rival team, and even the Chicago White Sox official site because it's unabashedly biased towards the team. White Sox Interactive is the largest Internet community of White Sox fans, and as such, belongs on a list of external independent/fan sites.

Come on, a link to White Sox Interactive is "not what Wikipedia needs"? That sounds a lot like you have an axe to grind. This is not the place to grind it. Mr. Zarniwoop 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a good editorial policy for external links/fan sites for baseball entries on the WikiProject Baseball talk page. The suggested criteria: if the site seems informational and tells more than what the "average" fan would know, the link should be kept. Seems to me White Sox Interactive easily fits that criteria. Mr. Zarniwoop 02:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that WhiteSoxInteractive seems to have some negative elements contributed to it. Whether this be due to the more controlling atmosphere or not, I don't know if it's advisable to send people to a website that causes so much distress to some people that they would seek to "vandalize" this WikiPage by removing the link. I also agree that having a large base of users does not automatically make the site valid. I have visited this site on a few occasions and seen a lot of new users given a hard time simply for the fact that they are new users. Those reading about the Chicago White Sox for the first time most definitely need not visit this site, therefore. Just because you are a member of the site doesn't make the site appropriate for listing, does it? Answer me this: why do so many people have a problem (note the many users who have "vandalized" this page to make a statement) with WhiteSoxInteractive and not a similar site, like "SoxTalk"?James Roberts 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment that you're not a sock puppet. Are you serious? NPOV! It doesn't matter if you think it's a good site, or the Chicago Cubs batboy thinks it's a bad site. I never expressed any opinion about the site at all, only that it deserves to stay. Maybe it's the worst White Sox site on the planet, what difference does that make? This is Wikipedia, it represents all sites of any issue. It doesn't pick sides, it doesn't remove information, it doesn't pick and choose. It does not censor.

White Sox Interactive is a top result on Yahoo! and Google. It gets mentioned in news stories. It's real. It fits all editorial criteria I can find. It actually seems to fit the criteria better than the other links on Chicago White Sox! Is there any Wikipedia policy or guideline that you can find where you'd justify removing it? Or is this purely about your own point of view? If it is, take it to one of the fan forums. Mr. Zarniwoop 03:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia is not simply a bin where all possible links to related content are posted. Please review the definition of NPOV and the policy on linking to external websites, not just what someone else said on a baseball discussion page. At the current state, there are far too many external links to begin with. I DO recommend weeding these down to the "best" sites to avoid overwhelming those casually viewing this article. I would take this to a vote but it seems you made a point to raise this to your cohorts at WhiteSoxInteractive, viewable here, where it appears I've been called a "Junoir High No-Neck". Because I'm representing the interest of the general public who don't want to be referred to an ultra-controlled, limited viewpoint website whose administrator thinks so highly of the Wikipedia as to call it "for the most part, useless.", I beleive WhiteSoxInteractive should be removed from the external links of this article. James Roberts 03:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Um... what? Mr. Zarniwoop 03:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone brought up NPOV, exactly!!! Which is... NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. NPOV doesn't mean just any website, regardless if its a good site. It means sites quality sites with out bias. Whitesoxinteractive.com is very biased, they even proclaim themselves as "Totally Biased". Also none of my or my friends edits have been vandalism. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. I see it as the "good-fath" effort to improve the encyclopedia and even you think my decision is "misguided" or "ill-sidered" (though I think it is not) does not mean its vandalism. ChiWhiteSox7

Thank you for your good faith effort. Will you please stop censoring Wikipedia now? Mr. Zarniwoop 04:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Censorship is not: Deleting text or images because of *LEGITIMATE EDITORIAL CONCERNS*, such as irrelevance, lack of information content, or redundancy." Please read your own link before posting it, you're wasting my time. James Roberts 04:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And can you cite those editorial concerns? Mr. Zarniwoop 04:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see above. James Roberts 04:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As a Cubs fan, I am enjoying watching the White Sox fans slug it out. It's like the old days at the old Comiskey Park. d;) Wahkeenah 03:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

at least we actually watch the games, unlike cubs fans with a cell phone in one hand, a beer in the other, and their back to the field.homerman9

For the record, I'm actually a Phillies phan. :P Mr. Zarniwoop 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ChiWhiteSox7, you need to stop this. Daver has already figured out you are Jake27/Antitwins13. You were banned for trolling and flaming on numerous occasions. You obviously have an axe to grind here. You saying you have an NPOV is the pot calling the kettle black.

Please note that this is not WhiteSoxInteractive and that "Daver" is not a moderator here. James Roberts 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am Jake27 I told a mod/admin myself, I have no idea who anti-twins was just for the record. I don't want to get into why I was banned, but if you must know send me a message. Personal attacks and talking about personal problems is not for Wikipedia. I am mearly stating that Wikipedia, as stated above, doesn't want biased point of views, which WSI is, and is even self proclaimed as biased. I'm doing what I think is best for the Wikipedia community and fellow White Sox fans. ChiWhiteSox7

WSI is one of the largest Chicago White Sox fans site. There is no Wikipedia policy agaisnt external links to "biased point of views." It is appropriate to have a link to WSI under the 'Independent and fan sites' section. A fan site, by definition, is biased. — Linnwood 06:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So because something has a large following means its good? That whole logic is flawed and makes no sense. I explained the NPOV above if you care to scroll up a tad and read it, it's in italics. What definition are you going by, if you could post a link that would be helpful. I think that by your phrase "A fan site, by definition, is biased." you mean thats your personal definition.ChiWhiteSox7

- That's remarkably misconstrued. You've bobbled the concept of NPOV. White Sox Interactive is notable (and its inclusion valid) precisely because it's so popular. That it is biased (as is the inherent condition of many sites to which Wikipedia articles link, moreso for sports club articles, unless you're suggesting that Wikipedia should only link to sites that take no stance whatsoever) is irrelevant. Read the definition of NPOV again. As you've noted, the NPOV principle states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. That is, the actual article must be neutral, and as White Sox Interactive isn't on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if they're biased. They're not held to NPOV. The only thing that is is the Wikipedia article. According to your reasoning, we should get rid of all of the blogs, Soxtalk.net and SouthSiders.net, any messageboard, and probably anything that portrays the team in any way. According to that reasoning, we should probably get on over to every political party's page and delete all links to their websites (as they are biased, afterall) and probably most any site that isn't straight statistics. Wikipedia pages can not be held hostage because you've evidently got some grudge with some website.Murphyr 07:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, if WSI was being submitted as "fact", then it would be alright to delete it. However, it's not. It is being submitted as a fan website. All fan websites of anything are biased. On Bill Clinton's wiki entry, there is a link to the Clinton Presidential Library. Do you think that CPL is biased towards Bill Clinton? Of course. Maybe we should just delete all political entrys on wikipedia because there is inherently some sort of bias in them. Those of you who are deleting this are doing it for personal reasons and you need to grow up.

You click on the article tab at the top to view the article. Are the links not in that tab , at the bottom titled "article"? A fan site is always biased because they are fans of a particular team (or political group as above). But that doesn't mean the content, information, etc. inside the website has to be biased. Wikipedia should have website sites listed that are objective and unbiased (as much as possible), as NVOP states above. There is no reason WSI should be listed for members of the Wikipedia community to view, there are many better sites already listed. ChiWhiteSox7

So I assume in the discussion of gun control, the NRA warrants no mention at all?

Indeed, it does say article. You're using the the widest possible definition, and it's still falling short, as the biased content isn't here. From the NPOV article:

'The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted.

The purpose of NPOV is to ensure that opposing viewpoints are fairly represented without asserting which view is the correct one. That's the neutral bit. There's nothing about the phrase "White Sox Interactive" that's biased. The NPOV violation you're alleging takes place on a different site, and is not subject to Wikipedia's guidelines. What you're arguing is that, for example, we should not link to [GOP.org], because they probably say nice things about Republicans (being the United States Republican Party website, and so are not objective. Actually, you recognize that, and then go on to completely ignore what you've said. Finally, I can't think of a reason that White Sox Interactive should be covered up from the members of the Wikipedia community (and not, say, Exile in Wrigleyville). Which is what you're doing. Attempting to censor an article and holding it hostage because you seem to have some issue with White Sox Interactive. It's a fan site. Arguably one of the most notable. Whether or not you and Roberts (presuming, once again, that Roberts isn't your [puppet]) dig on it, whether or not they exist entirely to bash Wikipedia and call specific persons "Junior High no-necks" (though that doesn't appear to be the case in the link posted), White Sox Interactive would seem to be one of the larger Sox fan sites out there. Whittling the fan site section down to the "best" is meaningless, as that involves a judgement call as to what's the best and, surprise, constitutes a POV violation. If anything, a judgement call should be made to trim it to the most notable, not "whichever sites don't get you all worked up." Why are you so intent on censoring it when it appears to be a standard fan site? Murphyr 07:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It is possible that more than one person in the world doesn't think WSI is the greatest site evar. Assuming I'm a sock puppet simply because I'm someone else who finds the site disgusting and Draconian to the point of dangerous with its moderation is pathetic. I beleive we can whittle down the list of links while still maintaining a NPOV. Do you think all other articles have every single possible external link posted within their article to maintain NPOV? No, of course not. I personally don't think WhiteSoxInteractive should be on the list UNLESS there is a note attached to it that describes how administrators of WhiteSoxInteractive can and will exploit your personal details (this is a fine example of a large amount of users berating the hell of a 14 year old after he was banned from the site) in an extremely humiliating way. I've already addressed how the administration of the website traces people's IPs and reveals personal information (e.g. here, where a mod is "praised" for being able to quickly identify someone via an IP address and then posting information about the person). I don't beleive this is a safe link for people casually reading about the White Sox to visit. Having people from WhiteSoxInteractive jump over here and defend their favorite website is pointless; I'm respresenting/trying to protect the largely unaware general public from a potentially very hazardous website.
- I appreciate that you think it's a bad site. Clearly, however, you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia doesn't take stands on what's good or bad. Remember, this is a site with a page on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, including images of the cartoons and external links to them. Yes, the cartoons that sparked protests and death. And, the main debate is how big or prominent the cartoons should be on the page, not if they belong here. Your beef with a baseball fan website where they banned you is silly beyond anything rational, and is getting irritating. Mr. Zarniwoop 17:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)-
- In addition, I'd like to note that it doesn't matter who thinks it's a good site or a bad site (though you refuse to explain what on earth you mean by 'disgusting and draconian' apart from the fact that you think that sometimes big bad people on the internet can be sort of mean on a forum, by which logic we should delete most links to forums on wikipedia, all of Usenet and every article about anyone that's ever been unkind to everyone ever. I don't see any privacy notices at White Sox Interactive, and though the post you've linked that "posts personal information" about said wikipedian appears to be utilizing the IP information available from an anonymous edit on Wikipedia, not White Sox Interactive, though another poster (who I'm presuming is a mod) does identify the IP as one that has been active on White Sox Interactive. I don't think it's an issue about defending anyone's favorite website (as I posted earlier on the talk page, I'm a Pirates fan), but rather Wikipedians attempting to protect against vindictive censorship of what is a notable site, if nothing else than for size. I'd be fine with a short warning, I suppose.Murphyr 19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  - Falsly jumping to the conclusion that I have a "beef with a baseball fan website" that "banned me" is a fantastic way to participate in a calm debate. If the wikipedia has a page on something that is inherently controversial, such as the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, then I would not at all be surprised to see a link to further controversy. However, the Chicago White Sox are not inherently controversial, nor are they inherently good or bad. I don't understand why we should ruin the experience of the casual encyclopedia reader by sending them to a link that some have posted distressing concerns about, especially regarding privacy and safety on the internet. James Roberts 18:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    - You're right. The Chicago White Sox are not inherently controversial, nor inherently good or bad. But they are a large, notable fan website and it would be irresponsible of Wikipedia to avoid including them. We could reach a consensus, perhaps, on whether it is appropriate to include a warning, but to pretend they don't exist is contrary to the function of an encyclopedia. As of now, the only concern that has been raised about privacy and safety on the internet appears to be that one of the members looked at the IP address listed for an anonymous edit, used an internet service to figure out where they were the IP was, and then someone (I presume a moderator) identified it as being affiliated with the pseudonym of someone who, I have gathered, was banned. If anything, that would seem to be a concern about Wikipedia than antyhing else. Murphyr 19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      - I've been checking the site out too. Seems like a baseball fan forum website, albeit one with quite a bit of original content. The privacy/security concerns that have been brought up would apply equally to any site with a message forum, or even Wikipedia itself--as you pointed out. Or pretty much anything on the Internet. Posting a "warning" about it just seems like he's got an axe to grind here. If he has a real policy suggestion on external links, let's discuss elsewhere. Mr. Zarniwoop 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    - Please stop vandalising the page. If you want to talk about how Wikipedia handles external links, let's find a better place than the White Sox page. How about Wikipedia_talk:External_links? You can start a discussion there suggesting a general policy about sites where some people have objections to the sites. If you get consensus there on a policy, you'll see lots of people supporting you here, although the process of determining what is objectionable is going to be tricky within NPOV. Mr. Zarniwoop 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: What precisely are they biased 'toward' that you think they're not NPOV?24.148.8.14 09:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Even though the moderators are a kind of sensitive (read: dicks), WSI is definitely a top-notch message board. AlanzoB 20:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

From WP:3o

WP:NPOV applies to the article, not external links, as noted above. If you can find something POV in the URL or the text used as the link, that's one thing. Otherwise, it doesn't apply. Just label it a fansite and be done with it.
Just because it's large doesn't mean it's good, but it does mean it's notable, and hence should be included. Fagstein 19:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable doesn't mean it should be a link though. From the "What Wikipedia is not" page, under "Internet"... Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable. That is what this is. ChiWhiteSox7

I agree in part with you, and it's why I specifically noted a question in some recent edits: should Scout.com be listed? Specifically, if a site is purely message boards, it does seem like that might not be a good candidate for an encyclopedic entry. However, if there is something notable, such as original information, articles being citied by other sites, or perhaps the size or nature of the community being noteworthy, then the external link is probably noteworthy. The case of White Sox Interactive seems pretty clear: it's got quite a bit of original content, shows up linked from other sites, and is notable if only because it's the largest fan community. Like I said before, of all of the external links except the team's official site, it seems to fit editorial criteria for inclusion best.

Regarding blogs, I'm a little torn. Looking through the blogs listed, it does seem like the team's blog is notable, in that it seems widely read and a great source of primary information. However, with some of the others, I could see a case being made that perhaps they don't rise to notable. May be worth a discussion? Mr. Zarniwoop 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet, Wikipedia does have full articles on messageboards like Something Awful forums, 4chan and the like, which are notable by virtue of being more than a standard messageboard. As such, I would believe that, say, MLB's messageboards do not qualify as notable, but that White Sox Interactive, with the additional content and large userbase would qualify as notable. The key word in the bit you quoted (which I couldn't find on the "What wikipedia is not" page. Would you mind linking?) is "generally". That does not mean "without exception".129.105.52.143 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:External links seems on point here. From what I understand from it, the link should only be included if it's a leading site in some way. As for the blogs, they shouldn't be included unless they were important and notable in some way. Fagstein 06:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:3o

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This is a response to the third opinion requested on WP:3o. This is the second 3o requested on a seperate topic than the previous 3o.

Including a warning about Wikipedia, or mentioning the editing of Wikipedia on Wikipedia is a violation of WP:ASR, and is not acceptable. A disclaimer that an external link may not be reliable is a violation of Wikipedia:No_disclaimer_templates. If the external link is a matter of notable contravercy, the appropriate thing to do is find someone who has stated that the external link is not reliable, and quote them saying such.

As a final opinion, I believe the appropriate resolution to this conflict is to leave the disputed link in the article without special note or comment. It's buried in a massively overblown list of far too many links already. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I removed all of the non-White Sox-specific news sites, like ESPN, Yahoo, etc? FutureSox would stay, as it's White Sox-specific, as would the White Sox-specific blogs and fan sites. Mr. Zarniwoop 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Mr. Zarniwoop 23:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sports news sites that cover the White Sox

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

CBS SportsLine.com - team news
ChicagoSports.com - team news
Chicago Sun-Times - team news
Chicago Tribune - team news
ESPN.com - team news
FOXSports.com/MSN - team news
SI.com (CNN/Sports Illustrated) - team news
The Sporting News - team news
Yahoo! Sports - team news

I moved these from the main page to here, they're general sports sites with Chicago White Sox news content. Mr. Zarniwoop 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Issue with {{Chicago White Sox roster}}

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've moved the roster to the correct namespace (i.e. Template:Chicago White Sox roster instead of Chicago White Sox roster). There is sill some sort of formating issue that indenting everything after the template. — Linnwood 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed! Someone forgot an ending bracket for their table! — Linnwood 02:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This breaks the consistency with the other MLB team rosters. I think they should all be the same - Template or Article. Major League Baseball rosters -- Win777 16:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I didn't realize that. I agree they should all be the same. I am also under the impression that the policy is that they should be templates if they are going to be used in that manner. I'll have to check. — Linnwood 20:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Long 2005 postseason section

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the long section on the 2005 postseason really necessary? It's better to have it covered in the articles for the separate series, with a paragraph or two on the main page; play-by-play accounts don't belong here. (Certainly you won't find complete accounts of all the Yankees' playoff appearances in that article, and a fairly standard approach to similar articles is useful.) The main article here should give only a brief overview of major events like this. MisfitToys 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Rowand

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm sure this is the wrong place to ask this but does anybody have any idea how I might be able to find out what number Aaron Rowand wore on his jersey when he played at Cal State Fullerton??

Thanks Dermokichwa 20:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

he wore 33 in college just like most of his career in the pros, here is a web site where i found a pic homerman9

[1]

Pov Section

Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

All of these lines needed to be made npov or removed

Something like a civic religion
But where the "vanquished" teams left for greener pastures in the 1950's in the other cities
Chicago's ancient rivalry is ongoing, dating from the old "baseball wars" of 1901, and no doubt now intensified by the recent White Sox triumph.
Current popular perception is that the Cubs are, and always have been, the local favorites;
The Cubs' attendance advantage in the last two decades can largely be attributed to the fact that their games began being broadcast nationally on WGN in 1978, creating a national following for the team and establishing Wrigley Field as a tourist destination, while the White Sox only returned to WGN in 1990 after a 22-year absence.
which has alienated the team's following with a long series of unpopular moves
firing of beloved announcers Jimmy Piersall and Harry Caray for being too critical of the team
also contributed to fan hostility, as did the introduction of a new ballpark which many observers found cold, unappealing and antiseptic.

(Gnevin 23:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Oh, come on. This is a sports page, not holy scripture. You can call those statements "embellished" or "hyped", but they all have the kernel of truth. Wahkeenah 23:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

some idiot said that Sox fans are fair weather fans. not true, if anyone could be called fair weather fans it would be cubs fans. most ppl only go to their games bc of the "atmosphere", and most of my cubs fan friends agree with that statement. take away that crumbling building they have and they would be playing in front of a half full stadium bc ppl obviously don't go for the product on the field homerman9

I think that if you were to study the ebb and flow of annual attendance, you would find that almost every team has an upsurge after a winning season, and a downsurge after a losing season. With maybe a few exceptions, *every* team has its "fair weather fans". Wahkeenah 13:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

i get wut ya say, but wut i didn't like was that whoever wrote that said that all Sox fans are fair weather fans homerman9 15:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, written by an unknown user, gratuitous, catty, and obviously delete-worthy. I can recall times when *both* the Cubs and Sox hardly drew flies, so neither team can make that claim against the other one. Wahkeenah 15:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

yup, well said homerman9

Embellished or hyped or what ever you want to call it these are just a other way of saying something isnt npov . They many have a kernel of truth but wiki doest want kernels it wants facts and the above highlight lines are far from npov (Gnevin 21:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

OK, so you want painstaking research proving what every Chicagoan already knows is true... such as year-by-year comparisons of the respective attendance figures. OK, fine, I'll do what I can when I get the time. Wahkeenah 00:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok i've just spent 5 minutes are removed most of the npov their is no need to be getting defensive or to spend hours researching stuff removeing a misguided word or line here or their can greatly improve the pov of an articial (Gnevin 16:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Did you move it to the Cubs-Sox rivalry page? It could belong there. Wahkeenah 23:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No was nothing too move too cubs-sox page . You can seen my changes here [[2]] (Gnevin 15:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Jackson in 1919

Here's how it went for Shoeless Joe in the 1919 Series. He led the Series in hitting, but how much impact did he really have?

Game 1 - Reds 9, Sox 1 - Cicotte (fixer) pitching for Sox

2 - safe on error, later scored.
4 - grounded out.
6 - grounded out.
9 - flied out. 0 for 4.

Game 2 - Reds 4, Sox 2 - Williams (fixer) pitching for Sox

2 - doubled.
4 - singled.
6 - struck out.
8 - singled. 3 for 4.

Game 3 - Sox 3, Reds 0 - Kerr (honest) pitching for Sox

2 - singled.
3 - popped out on sacrifice attempt.
6 - singled. 2 for 3.

Game 4 - Reds 2, Sox 0 - Cicotte (fixer) pitching for Sox

2 - doubled to right on misjudged fly.
3 - safe on error.
6 - grounded out.
8 - struck out. 1 for 4.

Game 5 - Reds 5, Sox 0 - Williams (fixer) pitching for Sox

1 - popped out.
4 - grounded out.
7 - grounded out.
9 - grounded out. 0 for 4.

Game 6 - Sox 5, Reds 4 - Kerr (honest) pitching for Sox

1 - popped out.
4 - fouled out.
6 - singled, driving in a run.
8 - walked, later out at second failing to get back after fly out.
10 - bunt singled. 2 for 4.

Game 7 - Sox 4, Reds 1 - Cicotte (defiant fixer) pitching for Sox

1 - singled, driving in a run; nearly caught in rundown, got back safely.
3 - singled, driving in a run.
5 - safe on error.
7 - grounded out. 2 for 4.

Game 8 - Reds 10, Sox 5 - Williams (fixer) pitching for Sox

1 - popped out.
3 - homered. (Reds led 5-0 prior to that)
6 - flied out.
8 - doubled, drove in 2, later scored. (Reds led 9-1 before he batted)
9 - grounded out to end the game and the Series. 2 for 5.

Overall - 12 for 32. Got most hits of any batter.

José Contreras on the disabled list?

On July 8, 2006, José Contreras was put on the designated list in the article, despite pitching against Detroit the before. Can someone please check if he should be taken off?

Pale Hose

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Sox nickname "Pale Hose" is used a couple times through this article without an explanation. Quite frankly, I've never known where this nickname came from and it should either be explained on this page and/or on it's own wikipage. User:209.117.148.2 21:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a tag used by various sportswriters and headline writers for many years. It's simply a semi-creative synonym of "White Sox". Wahkeenah 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The headings in this article are non encyclopedic: "Going somewhere?" "The lean years" etc. Further, unless "Win Or Die Trying" or "Good Guys Wear Black" etc were some kind of official slogan for the team during those years, they should be changed as well. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Well isn't it great then that "Win or Die Trying" and "Good Guys Where Black" have both been official slogans for the team during those years.Bridgetlowery 00:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In short, they're not boring enough. Wahkeenah 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So it claims. >:) Wahkeenah 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Songs

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So someone keeps putting up in songs that the song "Bad Day" by Daniel Powter is played when the Sox lose. I've been at 5 losing games this season and have not heard once. Is there anyway to get that permanently removed?

Is it being entered by a registered user? If so, post a message about it on his talk page. FYI, maybe you should become a registered user also. Wahkeenah 19:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And if it's not being edited by a registered user? And FYI, I am a registered user. ;-P Bridgetlowery 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Socks

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I notice the White Sox have black socks. Looking at an old picture of Shoeless Joe, it seems this goes back to at least 1911. Did they ever wear white socks? How has this changed over the years? --Mike Schiraldi 20:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

They have worn socks that were white, black, red, navy blue, you name it. Well, maybe not orange or purple. Wahkeenah 20:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

...worst scandal in sporting history?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This claim had to go. Match fixing just doesn't compare to, say, Uday Hussein's time as head of the Iraqi Olympic committee. A Geek Tragedy 17:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

False

the sox page is filled with false info supporting the sox

Garters? Wahkeenah 02:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Logo

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I've uploaded a SVG version of the alternate logo (sock on a baseball diamond). If someone can find a way to in incorporate it in the the article I would be grateful. — Linnwood 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We should put it where the "Cap insigna" is in the table. i would but dont know how to--Arusnak 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that spot is reserved in the template for the cap logo. I have added it to the article under the "Good Guys Wear Black" section, which mentions the redesign. What do you think? --Chancemichaels 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

but our cap logo is the same thing, just in a different color, unlike the cubs for example, who's logo is cubs, but hat is just a C. It would make sense to me to not have the same thing twice.--64.107.62.162 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, that's the template. We should strive for consistency. The Los Angeles Angels have the same thing, by the way. --Chancemichaels 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Cubs POV vandalism

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been tracking edits by a user id'd as 204.152.235.216, who has been making pro-Cubs POV edits to the Cubs page, the Sox page, and the Sox-Cubs rivalry page. On the Chicago White Sox page, for example, he deleted a sentence stating that the White Sox had surpassed the Cubs in popularity and TV ratings, which is documented. He attaches notes such as "neutrality concerns" or "pro-Sox POV resolved." So watch for this guy. He's dirty.Patrick Sheehan 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Home Alts - the Vest

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

can we somehow get that in the uniform image. I love those --64.107.62.162 18:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

History page

Latest comment: 17 years ago28 comments6 people in discussion

I propose a history page be made. And this is because irishguy is deleting every time I start it. Vote here: Soxrock 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to remove this history section (which is the bulk of the article) and move it elsewhere. People come to this article to learn about the organization...current and history. IrishGuy ^talk 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But I mean generalize. I wouldn't remove the ENTIRE section. Just parts and patches Soxrock 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you don't do that. Make that new article. I believe there is a method call cut-and-paste? Yeah, you might wanna do that. Then I believe you link them. You'd be an idiot to call it a bad idea. You don't lose shit from the article, because you just move it. So do it, I've got your back... even though I hate the damn White Sox. Go BoSox. Sarah Goldberg 21:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, that's 2 yes, and what do you think irishguy. That woman seems to have nailed my idea. Copy-and-pasting the article. I've done this before, it's not like I'm some new person, I've been here for close to 15 months Soxrock 21:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Cutting and pasting removes the entire history of that section. And Sarah should probably read WP:CIV before calling people "idiots". IrishGuy ^talk 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

She has a history of that by the way. Anyway, Ksy92003 says that if every team has one (although a message is pending on saying that due to recent expansion teams) then it's ok. So that 3 with 1 pending and 1 no.

First, it takes more than an hour to gain consensus. Second, other teams don't have them: Texas Rangers (baseball), Cleveland Indians, etc. IrishGuy ^talk 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but they can have articles created. It only takes about 30 minutes or so to create history pages for multiple teams and cut out some information that isn't nearly as important. My next project Soxrock 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, you will lost the page history by doing a simple cut and past fork. It isn't up to you what is or isn't "important". Without consensus, it most assuredly will not be your next project. Wikipedia isn't your personal playground. IrishGuy ^talk 22:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since its my idea, I'm announcing that a consensus will be reached at 7:00 AM ET tomorrow. The poll is closed then. Just trying to dodge controversy by announcing closing time. Soxrock 22:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't quite work that way. Consensus requires numerous editors to weigh in on the topic. You cannot expect other editors to know about this thread within the next day. Patience is a virtue. IrishGuy ^talk 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I want this done quickly. I don't want this to drag on forever and ever and ever Soxrock 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is an encyclopedia, not your personal website. It will take as long as it takes. Patience. IrishGuy ^talk 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I'll drop the end time, but it can't last too long. I'm busy enough, I don't need this burden hanging over me. Thanks for your time. Soxrock 22:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you find yourself too busy, maybe you should find something else to do with your spare time. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is required that edits are factual and necessary...not that they are done quickly. IrishGuy ^talk 22:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Soxrock, I'm rescinding my recent statement. I don't think an article for each team's history is necessary. After all, and I'm sure Irishguy will back me up on this, what's the point of having an article for the team in the first place? Isn't the purpose of having a Chicago White Sox article to talk about the history of the franchise? Like in an encyclopedia, you'll have a section like "Cold War." But you're not gonna have a section called "History of the Cold War," would you? No, because the "History..." is already included in "Cold War."

I think the same thing applies here. The purpose of having an article titled Chicago White Sox is to talk about the "History of the Chicago White Sox." It makes no sense to have the information on a page like "History of the Chicago White Sox" because it should be explained in Chicago White Sox. All this would do is take good information away from one article and moving it to another article. In my opinion, the information should belong on "Chicago White Sox," not any other site.

Therefore, the vote is now 2-2. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe how people always message me over to these places when I'm uninterested. Either way, I would say yes, and make a history article. I used to work on numerous articles with branches, so this can be branched off as well.

Using the scoring system right now, it's 3-2 in favor of yes. FoxSportsRadio 12:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you guys really need to read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Arguments aren't settled on voting. They're settled on compromise and discussion. Either way, there will be an issue. What's happening now is the article is very long and goes into unnecessary detail about the history. If it is pasted into its own article, or even parts of it, the article will have gaps and not be complete. What should happen is A. The detailed history is placed in its own article B. The history in the main article is rewritten with less content and less details, but still cover a broad area of the history of the White Sox. See featured articles Chicago Bears and New England Patriots. This is the best way to do things and we should learn from these featured articles. Even see History of the New York Giants which is a Good Article.++aviper2k7++ 22:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's a featured article or good article, that doesn't mean that's the best way to do things. Especially if the current format for the White Sox' article hasn't been nominated. It hasn't been considered. This way might be better but was never considered for a GA or FA. Featured articles aren't the best way to do things. Most likely there is an article out there that is much better than Chicago Bears or NE Patriots that isn't an FA. It just hasn't been nominated for FA consideration. An article isn't [necesarily] better than another because of FA status if the other article hasn't ben nominated for consideration.

And what does it matter how long the article is? If some info can be removed, then okay. If some info can be moved to another article, then yeah. But what we shouldn't do is create a brand new article simply for the purpose of copying-pasting just so an article won't be as long. The "2005 World Series win" by the White Sox is important information. But is it important information about the Chicago White Sox? Or is it important information about the History of the Chicago White Sox? The purpose of an article is to give information and the history of the information. A separate article isn't necessary. --Ksy92003 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SIZE. It does matter how long an article is. Right now the article is way too large and goes into unnecessary detail. Honestly tell me that "Even more controversial was the December 23 deal that sent highly-touted starter Brandon McCarthy, along with outfield prospect David Paisano, to the Texas Rangers for pitching prospects John Danks, Nick Masset, and Jacob Rasner. To some, it seemed as if Williams was sacrificing the present for the future in these deals." is important and should be included in this article? Are you saying we don't need a rewrite anyways? You made it seem like this article is better than Chicago Bears. It's not. At all. The history section desperately needs a rewrite. It is POV, unsourced, and original research. If we'd get together and start to rewrite and condense the article, it would be much better, and we'd have it sourced anyways. Then we could work on the general detailed history article and clean that up. The history is not (and should not) be the only thing to write about. See Wikipedia. It covers a broad area about the subject and the history, yet it doesn't focus all of its attention on the history.

I'm not sure why you guys are pushing for everything to be the same as it is now. Right now it's unsourced and POV. We have an administrator breaking the 3 revert rule and telling a user that he's going to be banned for vandalism when the user is just being bold. This behavior is unacceptable regardless of how bad a user's argument is or may seem.++aviper2k7++ 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The user was warned repeatedly to stop deleting content. He continued. He was warned he needed to discuss wide-scale changes...he ignored it and continued. Please read Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves and see that simply cut-and-paste moves screw up the page history which is bad. This particular user has a history of simply up and doing whatever he wants regardless of how many admins ask him not to. IrishGuy ^talk 01:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A better avenue to take would be to remove all the unnecessary information from Chicago White Sox. Either that or drastically shortening the history sections in the article. I'm not saying this page is better than Chicago Bears. But the example you gave, aviper, is a good example of the kind of information that doesn't need to be included.

Either way, I still believe a separate page for the history of a team is unnecessary, as that information would be better located on the team's article itself. If anybody has any confusion with what I said, as I don't think I said it clearly enough, tell me and I'll clarify. --Ksy92003 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea to have an entire article on the history of something so you can go into details the main article doesn't. The entire article is in need of a rewrite.++aviper2k7++ 00:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is... the copy/pasting that Soxrock did is just that; he only moved the info. On that history page, there was no additional information besides what was originally included on the main page. The main article is drastically long, indeed. There's no debate against that. The best thing to do would be to rewrite the article, making it shorter and removing unnecessary information. Another article isn't necessary to include the information, as the info would be the same whether it's in the main article or a separate article. Why not keep it together?

Can't we all agree that the purpose of the Chicago White Sox article is to explain the team's history? Then why does a separate history article need to be created? Please answer that for me. --Ksy92003 (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles aren't meant just to explain the history. A featured article will broadly cover the article. Again, see Chicago Bears. It covers uniforms, logos, their stadium, pop culture... it's not all the history of the team. A second article would be a good idea that may go into details the main article shouldn't go.++aviper2k7++ 06:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It kinda defeats the purpose of having an article about a sports team in the first place if you aren't gonna explain the history of said sports team. Not trying to say that the uniforms, logos, etc. aren't important and shouldn't be included in the article, but what's the point of having an article about the Chicago Bears if you don't explain the history of the Chicago Bears in the article? --Ksy92003 (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about not having the team's history in the page? How bout you start focusing on editing articles instead of talking about them all the time.++aviper2k7++ 18:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll stop talking and change all the articles as I see fit. Of course I'm not gonna do that, aviper. I don't get this... first, you yell at me for changing things because [in your opinion] I want to do things "my way." Now, you're yelling at me because I'm trying to take part in a discussion about a disagreement. My opinion is just as valuable as yours is, aviper. Why don't you take your own advice and try to edit an article rather than scold another user who's trying to resolve a conflict? --Ksy92003 (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BetacommandBot 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BetacommandBot 01:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BetacommandBot 00:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

BetacommandBot 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Culture

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I just reverted an edit by User: Speciate. The edit removed a category tag on Chicago Culture. At first, that seemed ammenable, as culture to me is usually art, music, food, etc, but a scan of the page showed that sport is mentioned prominently, and the White Sox in particular. Given that, I don't think that having this tag is entirely inappropriate, but I would be interested in hearing reasoning to the contrary. LonelyBeacon 12:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that everything and anything can be categorized as Category:Chicago culture and Category:History of Chicago. Such categories then become meaningless. Just as is not appropriate to put the Category:Chicago, Illinois at the bottom of every page dealing with Chicago when we have subcategories, it is also not appropriate to put Category:Chicago culture on the bottom of sports pages. I have included categories like Category:Sports in Chicago and Category:Museums in Chicago as subcategories of Category:Chicago culture. I have pared down the Chicago Culture category to things like Inland Northern American English and Lithuanians in Chicago which is are anthropological topics, "folk" topics like Curse of the Billy Goat and White Sox-Cubs rivalry, and "high culture" topics like Steppenwolf Theatre Company. Speciate 01:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading the Chicago White Sox page, I see nothing that suggests that this sports team has impacted the culture of Chicago in a way that is unique to Chicago. What I do see is a section on rivalries that has somehow lost the link to the White Sox-Cubs rivalry article, so I will fix that now. The whole article has an appalling shortage of citations, too, which I will not fix. Speciate 01:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and reverted the deletion. I for one think that "culture" is not so much "sports" as it is artistic. While I do think that the Cubs-Sox rivalry is a part of the encompassing landscape of Chicago, I'm not sure if "culture" is what I would term it. Thanks for the explanation ... it makes great sense now. LonelyBeacon 02:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hall of Famers

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An anonymous editor deleted all of the players from the "Hall-of-Fame" list that were not wearing White Sox caps. I reverted this. As long as the ilst denotes how long their tenure is, I think it is important to keep this list. Some plaques in the Hall-of-Fame have no caps at all, yet by the reasoning given, they would belong on no team's list. It is a judgement to decide this arbitrarily. I would agree that it is presumptuous to just have a list of such players without regard to how long they were with the team. By this logic, Carlton Fisk would not be considered a Chicago White Sox Hall-of-Famer despite earning over 50% of his career stats with the team. He chose a Red Sox hat because of his long standing love of the team; a practice which today would not be permitted under the so-called "Wade Boggs Rule". I think based on this, the list needs to stay. Cy Young is depicted with a Cleveland Naps cap, but spent only two years of his 21 seasons there, spending most of his career with the Cleveland Spiders and Boston Red Sox. Yogi Berra, Three Finger Brown, Charlie Gehringer, Honus Wagner, and Rogers Hornsby (among others) are shown with no discernable logo, can no one claim them? LonelyBeacon 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

British or American spellings?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 In the opening section the word afterwards is used.

Technically this is not a misspelling, since that's the spelling used in GB English. However, in America we would say "afterward." Since the rest of the article doesn't

use orthography like "colour" I would assume it's an

American entry. However, this brings up the question of whether these articles have a standardized spelling in that situation. If the authors are from all over the world, and the spelling from each nation is different, do we leave them alone, or decide which spelling is the "Wikipedia Standard"?

Parmadil 12:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. How do I get this to return at the end of each line? I see no formatting in the previous articles that would do that.

Time to take out the trash?!

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a White Sox fan, I am dismayed at this article. It is in bad shape. I'm not sure how this got a "B" status other than it got so long that "start" or "stub" seemed to out of place. Someone needs to take a chainsaw to this thing. It seems that too many people want to just keep adding and adding and addin and adding and adding and adding and adding (point made, I hope). The section on rivalries and fan base is four paragraphs long and only mentions rivarlies in one of them, and never mentions the fan base (it looks like a Cub fan and Sox fan have been trading barbs back and forth by adding the other three paragraphs).

Is it necessary to have a section-per-year? At this rate, the article will be longer than Hamlet by 2010.

For all that it does have, there is nothing on team records. This is something that would be useful.

I would be perfectly willing to do this, but I also don't want to come along with a flame thrower and touch off an edit war. I promise to stay away from this article for a few weeks, but in late December, I will have some time, and if things don't look better (like citations, and some focus), I'm going to pull out the axe and get me some fire wood. I would like to see a trimmed down article in time for Opening Day (by which time, no doubt) there will be a new impetus to write a section about Jermaine Dye's stubbed toe and another section about what Joe Crede had for lunch byefore the third day of training camp. Long may the spirit of naught-five live! LonelyBeacon 03:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Major League II?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The movie stinks and it had no bearing on the Sox-Indians rivalry. The main catalyst was Albert Belle with batgate, and it just kind of took off as a division rivalry from there. I'm editing in the Belle stuff and removing the Major League II stuff. 75.21.92.64 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ownership

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There needs to be some discussion of who owned and ran the White Sox between Veeck's first and second terms, from the early Sixties to mid Seventies.Hanksummers (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Allyn, Jr. (1961-69), then his brother John Allyn (1969-75). MisfitToys (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Milwaukee 1968-1969

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the old days, they used to have this concept called "doubleheaders", where they would play 2 games for the price of 1. The attendance was counted only once, so you have to take the average by date, not by game. There were 10 teams in the league in 1968, and the Sox played each opponent once in Milwaukee. With the 1969 expansion to 12 teams, they played 11 games in Milwaukee instead of 9. At Comiskey, there were 72 home games but only 58 home dates in 1968; and 70 home games but only 59 home dates in 1969. A quick review of the games logs shows that they had 14 doubleheaders in 1968 [3] and 11 doubleheaders in 1969. [4] That accounts for the differences in the game counts vs. the date counts. All the Milwaukee games were single games. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sox?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is it Sox and not Socks? did the english language rules change somewhere between the team's foundation and today?

--216.110.236.243 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sox" has long been an alternate spelling of "socks". The New York Mutuals of 1872 wore dark brown hosiery and were called the "Chocolate Sox" by the newspapers. The media went through this wave where they were trying to "simplify" English spelling. That's where we get ersatz words like "nite" for "night" and "thru" for "through". Team nicknames were originally media-driven. The south siders started out as the "White Stockings" hence potentially "White Socks" for short (although one could argue that "stockings" and "socks" are not precisely the same thing) but the papers said "White Sox" instead, saving 2 letters, and before very long the team was wearing the word "SOX" on their uniforms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Establishment date

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe the team itself recognizes 1901 as the founding of the franchise, not 1894 when the minor league club started. Since no one was alive then, and 2001 was the 100 year celebration, 1901 should be the year used here.

thoughts?

--Arusnak (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We should definitely go with what the team (or reliable sources in general) uses as its establishment date. They could have gone with 1900 also, since that was the first year for the White Sox, but that was still a minor league team. They tend to go with an "established" date that equates to their first year as a major league club. I've got a hunch this is not the only article with this problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

split article - History of the Chicago White Sox

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I propose a separate history page. Anyone else second me on this?--Levineps (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I will ... the organization has a 100+ year history, and even trimming it (I think there is too much weight given to the last five-ten years, good years they have been) leaves a history section that really eats up the article. Reading and editing have become cumbersome activities. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1900 Pennant shouldn't be counted where it is

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It says "Major league titles" which the 1900 AL Pennant is not. It doesn't make sense to have that listed there. For that matter, neither should the Western League pennant. Not trying to be a jerk; I just don't think it's very accurate. Richjenkin (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Retired Numbers Section

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Those colors and stylization makes it difficult to read, and the colors are far from the team colors. Any reasoning to this? I'll check back on this discussion and if no one else opines, then I'll change it to a more neutral palette and style.--75.34.183.204 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

White Socks in the the 70s.

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was surprised that the section of the Sox uniforms did not include the fact that Bill Veeck brought back the white socks for a few seasons. I though this merited inclusion. [5].--Factchk (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Alternate shirts, 2010 season

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It seems like they have been wearing their alternate shirts a lot more often this year than either their home or away shirts. Anybody know why? Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they've done that this year. It begs the question whether black road pants are far behind!--Factchk (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason was that under Ozzie Guillen the starting pitcher got to select the jersey. You'll notice that Mark Buehrle always picked the black, and I believe Danks as well. I think that is over now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.66.236 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Western League

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Do any other teams have Western League pennants listed in the infoboxes? It seems kind of out of place. And if it's going to be there, it should at least be accurate. According to the article, Western League (original), the White Stockings won the Western League pennant in 1900, as well. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Western League was a minor league; it did not become major until Ban Johnson reorganized it. So, those pennants shouldn't be listed in the infobox, only leagues considered "major" should be listed there. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In 1900, it was called the American League, but was still a minor league; the Sox won the pennant; it broke with the establishment in 1901 and declared itself major; and the Sox won the pennant that year too. Whether those pre-1901 championships should be listed is questionable. Maybe this is a question for the baseball project page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Chicago White Sox/Archive 1

Some stuff to add

Uniform missing

Main Rivals?

Pedro Lopez

1994?

NPOV

Cheating in Modern Baseball

Other article problems

Infobox

Mentioning 2005 World Series win in the opening paragraph

local fan bases between cubs and sox

2005 Offseason Moves

WhiteSoxInteractive: should there be a link?

From WP:3o

WP:3o

Sports news sites that cover the White Sox

Issue with {{Chicago White Sox roster}}

Long 2005 postseason section

Aaron Rowand

Pov Section

Other Article Problems

Jackson in 1919

José Contreras on the disabled list?

Pale Hose

Headings

Songs

Socks

...worst scandal in sporting history?

False

Alternate Logo

Cubs POV vandalism

Home Alts - the Vest

History page

Fair use rationale for Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg

Fair use rationale for Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg

Fair use rationale for Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg

Fair use rationale for Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg

Fair use rationale for Image:White Sox Alt Logo.svg

Chicago Culture

Hall of Famers

British or American spellings?

Time to take out the trash?!

Major League II?

Ownership

Milwaukee 1968-1969

Sox?

Establishment date

split article - History of the Chicago White Sox

1900 Pennant shouldn't be counted where it is

Retired Numbers Section

White Socks in the the 70s.

Alternate shirts, 2010 season

Western League