Talk:White Flag Trade

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on White Flag Trade. 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/20110807123008/http://www.usatoday.com/sports/bbw/2001-03-21/2001-03-21-minors.htm to https://www.usatoday.com/sports/bbw/2001-03-21/2001-03-21-minors.htm

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) 10:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"Infamous"

I rather disagree with this edit summary by Dennis Osmosis, given that one source literally uses the word "infamous" and the other source is calling it the White Sox "worst-ever move". As it is, the tone of the sentence suggests that the trade was actually a good one and proved Reinsdorf wrong, which is certainly not supported by sources. I hesitate to call the trade objectively bad according to the sourcing we have, which is why I settled on "infamous", a word that relates more to fan perception than actual on-the-field success. If "more" "most" is the problem Dennis has then I'm fine to chose something else, but as it is the tone of lede is completely not backed up by sources. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's two opinions from two different sources, and one says "infamous", while another says "worst-ever" (hard to take that one seriously when the Sox won the division after the trade), so I don't think "most infamous" is supported. If you're saying that you can combine "worst" from one opinion piece with "infamous" from another opinion piece to say "most infamous" in Wikipedia's voice, well, I think we both know that's absurd. An encyclopedia should stay away from hyperbole like that anyway; it's not like there's an objective measurement for what's "infamous" and what isn't. The paragraph is fine as is. I apologize if my edits that affected your thoughtful prose in this edit have been hurtful to you. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the White Sox won the division in 2000, not 1997, getting help from 2 of the players they received in that trade. It was worded poorly from the beginning, when whoever added that info wrote it, before either of our edits. I tried to correct it just now. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Osmosis, as I said in my initial comment (albeit with a typo), if your issue was with the adverb "most", then I can agree. However, if you think that calling the trade "infamous" is not backed by reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's standards, then I rather disagree. I'm not saying the on-the-field result of the trade is objectively good or bad--that's not what infamous means. You still seem to be making a personal judgement on the quality of the trade, or thinking that we as editors decide what is or isn't infamous. We don't do that, we write what can be verified by sources. Here, "infamous" is an easily verifiable descriptor (and one that speaks to the lasting notability of the trade). And no worries, I couldn't care less about other editors improving my garbage prose--please do. But the tone of the lede as of this edit was inconsistent with the sources we have that covered fan/pundit reaction to the trade. I'd likely argue it still is.

As for your recent edits, notice that now the statement about Keith Foulke and Bob Howry contributing to the Central Division title in 2000 is supported by the two sources I added, which do not say that at all. I'm sure you can find a source for that statement, but right now those sources appear to verify something they don't actually verify. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I've re-added the word with more clarification that the reason for the trade's notability has more to do with fan reaction at the time then they on-field result of the swap, which is more disputed. How's that? Alyo (chat·edits) 02:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok so no, apparently not. Dennis Osmosis you gotta help me out here, because I'm starting to get the impression that you just don't want to describe this trade in any sort of negative light. You removed any negative description of the trade as duplicative of the first paragraph just two minutes after you were the one who changed it to that language. Once again, you left all of the sources I added, which were intended to verify the "infamous" descriptor and not a statement about the Sox getting contributions from Foulke and Howry. In case it's unclear, I'm trying to include this language because that's the reason this trade is notable. The "white flag trade" is not remembered because it eventually worked out for everyone. It's infamous because it was a high profile instance of a team apparently giving up despite being in striking distance of their division leader. What about that do you disagree with? Once again, this version of the opening paragraph does not have any information about the lasting reaction to the trade, and is thus inconsistent with the sources we have in the article. If you have better suggestions on how to say that, please suggest them instead of removing my additions wholesale. I've reworded that sentence again to keep out any duplicative content. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you're so attached to the word "infamous". I don't care how the trade is portrayed - negative light, positive light, whatever. The word "infamous" is an opinion. It's not something that should be used in an encyclopedia's voice. That last phrase adds nothing of value to the article. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm re-reading it now. The third sentence makes it ABUNDANTLY clear that White Sox fans saw this trade negatively, and explains the reasons why. Again, I don't care either way, but it's a fact that fans were down on the trade, and that is well-sourced, so that's a good solid sentence in the article. Searching Google for the word "infamous" in association with this trade is not a valid reason for making the lead worse. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Osmosis, a couple points:

1. Maligned (with the qualifier "at the time") and infamous simply don't mean the same thing. "Infamous" speaks to the long-lasting notability of the trade in a way that "maligned" doesn't. Every trade is criticized, that's what baseball fans do. But this trade is notable precisely because it gained lasting infamy in a unique way. That is the value it adds to the article. Upon reading the lede, the reader would likely get the impression that the trade was criticized at the time but actually worked out well for the team. I was unfamiliar with this trade until reading this, and that's how the article read to me--very distinctly clashing with all the sources available. If your description of the trade was accurate, it would not be worth having an article about at all. EDIT: If you want a different word--that's fine by me. I don't need that word--I just thought it would be more acceptable since it's literally what multiple sources say. But the article needs to have some description of the long-lasting infamy of the trade, not just the short term reaction.
2. You keep saying that "infamous" is an opinion, as if that disqualifies it from being in the article. You know that movie reviews are also opinions right? And those are presented in the articles about the respective film? Granted, if it were my opinion that certainly would be meaningless. But this isn't my opinion. I've presented reliable sources, the descriptor is verifiable--it can go in the article. The statement that it's "not something that should be used in an encyclopedia's voice" is just wrong, unless you have a policy to back that up?
3. I'm happy to bring in a third opinion if you like. I'm not going to edit war with you further but we're going to have to get some consensus on this issue. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The existence of the article speaks to the long-lasting notability of the trade. The opinion-laden word "infamous" isn't necessary for that. If the trade didn't have long-lasting notability, the article wouldn't exist. Movie reviews are opinions, but those are generally quoted, and attributed to the reviewer that stated that opinion. You wouldn't have the phrase "an unqualified disaster" in the lead of Heaven's Gate (film), but that's in the article, in the Reviews section, properly attributed to the critic that said it. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

To your note about "the article needs to have some description of the long-lasting infamy of the trade, not just the short term reaction" - I literally added a legacy section and another source. That's probably the best place for colorful descriptors, as long as their in quotes and attributed to the people that said them. Much like movie reviews. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You seem to misunderstand how our notability policies operate. The existence of the article does not prove notability. Verifiable sources do. If you want to use a different word to describe the lasting importance of this trade, please do. I may disagree on whether "infamous" is a non-neutral word (I think of it more in the genre of phrase like "famous for" and "known for" which are often used in lead sections), but that's a reasonable argument if we can agree that the concept needs to be discussed in the article. At present, the majority of the content in the article portrays the trade in a positive light, which I still believe clashes with the sources available to us. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Please tone down the condescending tone. My point was that if we didn't have verifiable sources proving long-term notability, the article would be nominated for deletion and deleted. It's obvious, though, that this trade has long-term notability from the existence of sources, some of them published well after the trade, indicating long-term notability. I didn't feel it was necessary to spell that out in detail because you're an experienced editor, but I didn't count on the fact that you would take my brevity as a sign that i don't have any idea what I'm doing. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as "If you want to use a different word to describe the lasting importance of this trade, please do" - I literally added a Legacy section where editors can (and should) expound on the lasting significance of the trade. There's already a template at the top that states the lead has a bunch of crap in it that isn't in the body (which is true, and unfortunately, both of us added to that). Let's start with the Legacy section and add a sentence to the lead based on the body after that's done, how does that sound? Then we can remove that ugly template from the top. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure how I was meant to gather all that from your comment, which quite literally reads like WP:LONGTIME, but sure, my apologies if that came off condescending. With regards to future edits, you're still ignoring my primary point: that the tone of the lede clashes with the sources used to verify the content. So far you have reverted nearly every single word I've added to the article (excepting the sources and, ironically, that template), so you'll forgive me if I want to hash some of this out on the talk page before I waste more of my time drafting. How would you describe the legacy of the trade, given the sources we have? Alyo (chat·edits) 00:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok this edit genuinely got a laugh out of me, inviting me to work on the Legacy section with you and then expanding it with the single positive thing that a source says about the trade. I'm going to invite some third parties to join us because you and I clearly have very different ideas of how sources look back on this trade. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I literally just did a Google News search for "white flag trade" to find contemporary sources. Reading them, I see that writers today have two main opinions: (1) fans then hated the trade. (2) that type of trade is made all the time now.

What's wrong with adding some of the substance that I did find? Also, you haven't added anything to the Legacy section yet, just slagged me for my addition. What the hell?

I seriously wasn't looking for anything positive or negative. I have no problem with fan reaction being characterized as negative (and it is, in the lead). I have a problem with Wikipedia using an opinion-based word like "infamous." I take it you're a White Sox fan and you still hate the trade? Dennis Osmosis (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

This may be the first White Sox-related article I've ever edited, so I'll suggest that accusations of that sort of bias won't be particularly helpful. Re: "you haven't added anything to the Legacy section", please see my comment above--so far you've reverted every addition I've made to the article, so I'm gonna focus my efforts on the talk page for now.

It is helpful to know where you stand on the Legacy section. I don't disagree with either of those points. I disagree with you on the suitability of the word "infamous", which seems to be used pretty commonly on Wikipedia and is clearly backed by sources that describe the trade as such. We have numerous sources that use the word, and I'm now asking for another opinion on whether its inclusion would be appropriate for the article. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Section break

Third opinion as solicited at the baseball wikiproject talk page. Plainly put, "infamous" is a form of editorial language, and should not appear in Wikipedia's voice in keeping with WP:NPOV. It is used in sources, but its use in the article should be attributed to the author of the source. In other words, the article shouldn't say "the trade is infamous", but can say "the trade has been described as "infamous" by XYZ" or some similar wording. oknazevad (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Oknazevad, thank you for commenting here, that makes sense. I know this is a slightly different issue from what was asked on the wikiproject talk page, but do you then have any thoughts on the second question here--whether there is value in adding that language ("the trade has been described as 'infamous'...") to the lede or if that is duplicative of the line about fans maligning the trade at the time? Alyo (chat·edits) 01:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I think there's value in describing reaction to the trade both in contemporary and retrospective perspectives. The word "infamous" itself is used in the title of a retrospective piece (and inherently the term has a connotation of retrospection), so I'd use it in that fashion. oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Dennis Osmosis, I've expanded the legacy section (and restructured the article), so let me know what you think and we can work on the balance of the lede. Alyo (chat·edits) 03:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)