Talk:Curse of the Black Sox

Untitled

The White Sox were never cursed. The Red Sox and Cubs called their droughts curses, the White Sox, we just didn't win for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.135.24.25 (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like it should be deleted

Seriously, this article sounds like WP:OR .... the term "curse" got applied to the White Sox just because the team had taken so long to win (like the Cubs and Red Sox) ... the difference being the Cubs and Red Sox seemingly had no reason while the generally poor performance of the ownership to put a consistent contender on the field was the reason for the White Sox losing ways (1950s-early 60s excluded). LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How does that make it original research? It was invented by sportswriters (and there's several articles given in the reference section) - not first posted here on Wikipedia. PaulGS (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR by any means. That tag is frivolous and should be removed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the articles, you will see that this term:
1. disreagarded by many of the relevant people (ie. Ozzie Guillen) 2. is only brought up in reference to the actual "curses in baseball" (Bambino and Billy Goat). A simple search for "curse" in the articles even shows that it is virtually never used to refer to this "Curse of the Black Sox" that seems to have been recently "invented". 3. I also note that every reference is short term (all references were from 2005, despite this supposed "curse" having been in existence for 86 years) .... which to me shows that the term was of short term importance; a neologism invented by the press to shorten a title for an article. No one that I have known in the baseball community of the past 30 years has ever referred to this as a "curse". It just sounds rather suspicious.

I could see that people who follow the Red Sox and/or Cubs would think that it is a "curse" in the sense that their long term woes were. However, aside from blogs and the 2005 articles noted here, there are virtually no references to this curse (there are plenty referring to the Cubs/Red Sox curses).

I think the nature of the article is wholly WP:OR. There is nothing in the references that supports the content of the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The last time I checked, Ozzie Guillen is not a noted baseball historian. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ozzie Guillen's opinion of the "curse" is irrelevant, just as it doesn't matter whether the Curse of the Bambino really existed or whether Dan Shaughnessey made the whole thing up to sell books. I agree the true explanation is likely mismanagement, probably combined with the loss of the banned players (at least in the early years following 1919). If it was invented recently, to tie in the White Sox's long drought to that of the Red Sox ending in 2005, that can (and should) be in the article, but that doesn't make it original research, since if the sportswriters made it up and it's been published in reputable sources (and the links are reputable newspapers and sports magazines) that, by definition, means it's not original research. I'm not the original author of this article, which was originally part of the Black Sox article, but I doubt that person made up the "curse", which is the only way this would be OR. PaulGS (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that the so-called "Curse of the Bambino" didn't have much currency until after the Bosox lost the 1986 World Series; in fact, I think that's when it was written. So that was essentially a media invention also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Kennesaw Mountain Landis or the baseball gods?

I think you should include the differing views on this curse.

1. Baseball commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis cursed the White Sox franchise when he banned the White Sox players for life. The actions of said players angered Landis so much, he cursed the White Sox franchise.

2. The baseball gods were angered by the actions of the players involved in the Black Sox scandal. Thus, these "gods" cursed the White Sox franchise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.222.190 (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curse of the Black Sox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014021502/http://concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20051021%2FREPOSITORY%2F510210307%2F1007%2FSPORTS to http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20051021%2FREPOSITORY%2F510210307%2F1007%2FSPORTS

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curse of the Black Sox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929134338/http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=367662 to http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=367662

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)