Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MAL01159

moving discussion from "Outside View"

For Dewelar, it would be nice to know where I actually accused someone of misquoting sources. I can assure you that if one looked through the talk page, no evidence of that action will be found. Nor is it clear that I fail to grasp the concept of Wikipedia:Consensus. Consensus was arrived at and I adhered to it.MAL01159 (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be this statement to Baseball Bugs: "True. Elias is. But at this point, all we have is your "word" for what Elias claims. With all due respect, your "word" is not enough to blindly accept with nothing else behind it." As for the point of consensus, if you understand, why are you still arguing the point? -Dewelar (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. OK. While that is a very harsh and negative way to put it, I can see you point now. However, in my defense, I was under the impression that sources needed to be verifiable. This is something that only he was claiming. With no links. Nothing to suggest what he was claiming was the case. If I came on there and claimed that I had a source from Elias with no link and no one else saw, I doubt my word would be good enough for any of the other editors. With good reason, too.

Who else? Your comment was plural. As if I was doing such things all the time.

It is not just me. Since I have abandoned the 11 vs 14 debate, others have continued to chime in as if the issue was not settled. I am guilty of responding, yes. But others have been the catalyst. My goal for the last week was to work out alternative wording explaining how the streak could be 14 when there was a seasonal gap. I came up with an alternative and placed it on the discussion page. No one has chimed in on it. Instead, they focused the attention back on the dead 11 vs 14 issue.MAL01159 (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First, publications, especially books, I would expect are certainly better sources than a web page. Bugs' disinclination to scan copyrighted material is understandable, as doing so would be illegal. However, the material is, as he noted, readily available from the public library, and thus verifiable.

Second, I did mention that the accusation was a new tactic, thus not something you've done "all the time". Your stance over the course of this debate has been quite combative -- certainly more combative than the others within this discussion with the possible exception of Bugs himself -- especially considering you got off on the wrong foot by engaging in an edit war as one of your first actions here (at least under this name). No one has made such an accusation of you, only that you have interpreted data based on your own skewed POV, so this accusation was something I saw as "upping the ante". In any case, using the plural was perhaps in error, or at best premature.

Third, I'm not sure "others have been the catalyst" and "(your) goal for the last week was to work out alternative wording" are compatible in this instance.

Fourth and finally, I have added a note to the Talk:Atlanta Braves page that addresses some of the issues you've raised, if not all. I'm certainly willing to be convinced that your take is one that should be included on the page, but at the moment I don't believe it to be the case. -Dewelar (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Published books are much better than web pages for sources. However, Buggs was claiming the Elias book made the claim the streak was 14. I would be inclined to accept this sight unseen if his other sources presented were of some kind of value as well. Even if his behavior in this entire affair had been more civil and less arrogant. Therefore, his comment can hardly be considered valid without confirmation. And thus far, he is the only person to make that claim.

I do not see how I have been "combative". I have displayed incredible patience when dealing with people who accused me of trolling, were not helpful when I asked questions and who completely ignored attempts to compromise. Any quick look at the discussion page would verify that. In fact, one could make the case that others have been combative when the issue was closed and they continued to bring it back. The "edit war" were done back before I had any idea how things worked here. No one bothered to explain it to me. Once I figured out what the process was, the edit wars ceased. They would have ceased much sooner if certain editors had actually explained the situation and answered questions I had. It is unreasonable to crucify me for actions made before I knew about the process. Take a look through the discussion. I have been accused of manipulating data, trolling, not being seriously interested in editing... I have taken much abuse from other editors. And I have dished out none.

The proof that I was not the catalyst is the order of the comments. Others kept bringing it up. Way above is a section I started about alternative wording for explaining the 14. As of this writing, no one has chimed in. I take that to mean that no one is interested in compromise or even clarifying how the streak of 14 could be possible with a gap.

I have since given up on the 11 vs 14 thing anyway. I will provide reasons for it if someone wants to discuss it, but I have no hopes whatsoever that it will ever be changed. Which is why I am only interested now in alternative wording for the article to explain how a team can have a 14 season win streak over 15 seasons when the beginning and end are both included in that streak. Finally, if someone can cite some kind of source that proves what MLB's official stance is regarding the 1994 season as it pertains the the Braves division title streak, I will go with that of course.MAL01159 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, just the thought of trying to read through that mess of a discussion again gives me a headache, so I will concede the point and say it's possible that I misread things, or that I read them out of order, leading to an erroneous conclusion. I do, however, stand by my statement on the RfC as my initial interpretation of the issue.

Personally, I see the current wording of the article as acceptable, if slightly imprecise. From the wording, it is evident that (1) there were 14 consecutive division titles because (2) no division titles were awarded in 1994, and that there were no titles awarded because (3) a strike shortened the season. All of this is true. I do not own the Elias book, but on baseball-reference there is no "DIV" listed next to the 1994 Expos team (see [1]). That implies that no title was awarded.

I found your comment, which contains the following statement: "My choice would be to call it the appropriate 11 and get rid of the strike reference. However, there are some who think the number is 14." Were I not doing my best to assume good faith, I could easily infer from this statement that you're still hung up on 11 vs. 14, and certainly anyone who's closer to the issue would be even more inclined to see it that way. I also don't see how your proposed alternative ("14 out of 14 seasons where MLB officially recognized a division champion. (MLB did not officially recognize division champions for the 1994 strike season.)") expresses this any more clearly. -Dewelar (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said the Elias book claims 14 over 11; in fact it is silent on the subject of "division titles". I cited Elias because they state, without qualification, that the record for consecutive wins is 26, which was over 27 games due to an embedded tie. Your continual complaint is that "a streak requires a win", and the 26 consecutive wins situation demonstrates that your premise is false. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. I went by a bookstore last night. Looked it up. It confirms that the record is 21. The unbeaten streak record is 26. Which matches what is said on wikipedia's own article regarding winning streaks (sports). Winning streaks require wins. End of story.MAL01159 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Note to other interested parties: The Elias book is only available online. It is not sold in bookstores. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to Baseball Bugs and other interested parties: There are such things as USED book stores. Where people buy and sell books they had in their possession. (Regardless of how they obtained them to begin with) Which Is where I saw said reference.MAL01159 (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Banned from editing page

I do not know where to suggest this. But I propose that if I am banned from editing the page due to the disagreement in question, then it is only fair that all others who kept the disagreement alive through continual contribution to the discussion after the issue was closed be banned from editing the page as well. It does "take two to tango" after all.MAL01159 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)