Please refrain from making unconstructive edits. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MLB recognizes the streak as 14, because the 1994 season did not count that way. There were no championships to be had in 1994. The Braves division winning streak was not broken. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me an official source that says the streak is 11 rather than 14. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of getting into an edit war over this, or you'll find yourself blocked the same day you started. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were in second place when the season was truncated, but that did not snap the streak, because there were no championships awarded in 1994. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note this part of the Braves history time line, where they point out that the number is 14. [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By now you know that your claim the streak was broken is a false claim. Don't try it again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert again, you'll be blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The streak is 14. The 1994 season stats count, but the standings are just "where they were" on August 12th. There were no championships that year. The streak was not snapped. That's the official record. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are references all over the place that the streak is 14. You've been shown some of them. Find an authoritative reference that it's 11. If you want a comparison, a player with a hitting streak going might be walked every time in some game. He got no hits, but the streak remains intact. There were no championships in 1994, so the streak of championships was not broken because no one else got a championship in 1994. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that the only way their streak could be snapped in 1994 is if someone else won the title. But no one else did. So the streak remained intact. The standings on August 12 mean nothing. The player stats still count. The standings don't. They are simply a snapshot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will get blocked if you keep reverting to what is demonstrably not a correct version. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me an authoritative source that agrees with your view on this subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown me any source that claims the Braves streak was snapped. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now engaged in trolling behavior. We're done here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are applying your own personal spin on how the 1994 season should be treated. MLB and every other source tell you that the 1994 season did not break the streak. You think it did, but that is not relevant. What's relevant is what the sources say. Find me a source that says the 1994 season broke the streak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no division winner in 1994, how can you say that the Braves' streak of division winners was snapped? They won every division chammpionship there was to be had, during 1991-2005. That's 15 years, 14 championships, 1 year with no championships, hence not possible for the streak to be broken. You cannot find me a source that explicitly says "1994 broke the streak". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one's disputing that they "finished" second. But there was no championship to be had, so that "finish" did not snap the streak. Find me a source that explicitly states that the streak was snapped. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing your own logic, but you have yet to produce any source that states explicitly "1994 broke the streak". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what you have shown me are "final standings", and you're applying your interpretation to them. Show me a source that explicitly says that 1994 broke the streak. You won't find one on MLB.com, for sure, and they are the final authority in that matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The final standings cannot be used as a source to claim the streak was snapped, because there were no winners. The Braves portion of MLB.com states that the record is 14. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, someone else would have to have beaten them, and they didn't. A similar situation is with the 1916 Giants, who won 26 in a row. They did it over 27 games. There was a tie. There was no winner in that game. There was no winner in 1994. So the streak was not broken. Meanwhile, find an authoritative source that states explicitly that the streak was broken. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asking you to do the same thing. I have given you 4 different links from 3 different authoritative sources. You have provided one that actually contradicts itself. Please do not keep asking me to do this since it is now obvious no matter what I supply you with you will refuse to perceive it.MAL01159 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On treating others and interacting, please re-read Wikiquette, Civility, Assume good faith and the presence of a belly-button. Sure it's a two-way street, but it's gotta start somewhere. Put your best foot forward. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... is an example of a leading question - a question for which, because of its inherent assumptions, there is arguably no correct answer. "Was it the Atlanta Braves, or some other team, that won the MLB 1994 divisional title?" is a similarly flawed question, because no team won, because no title was awarded: essentially there was no 1994 title. Nevertheless, it is a question whose answer you seem to think affects the article Atlanta Braves.

The fact is, the consensus at Talk:Atlanta Braves is that the article should say that the team won 14 consecutive division titles. If you don't agree with the consensus, then you may suggest an alternative form of words which might be acceptable to everyone else. But you're unlikely to get much of a concession, given that the available sources do not support your position (see our policy on verifiability) which puts you on rather thin ice, skating close to being viewed as disruptive or tendentious.

Essentially, unless you find new sources (recommended) or new arguments (not recommended) backing up your position, posting further at Talk:Atlanta Braves is just going to take up even more of the time of editors who probably have more constructive things to do, and may resent your continued disputation. Often when this happens, the editor in question is either banned from the article(s) in question, or blocked from editing altogether for a while.

The best thing I think you can hope for is to get a mention put into a footnote of the Yankees' media source, as discussed by the NY Times, stating that the Yankees disputed the streak in 2004. Consider this a friendly warning: if your conduct doesn't change in this respect, I will seek further community input and this may result in sanctions being imposed against you. I strongly recommend that you find another article to edit, and that you find sources to support the edits you do make. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a loaded question and an accurate one. Perhaps it would work better if it was linked to other questions. "Was the 1994 season played?" Answer: Yes. "Who won the Eastern Division that year?" Answer: No one. "So, if no one won the East in 1994, but the season was indeed played and counted in all other respects, does it not follow then that the Braves didn't win it?" This is a yes or no question. Not loaded in any way. I think it blatantly obvious that a division winning streak cannot cannot continue when it includes a season that was played and concluded that was official in every way EXCEPT naming a division champion. If no one won, that means the Braves did not either. One can say 14 straight playoff appearances. One can say 14 recognized division titles. (provided there is an explanation) But it is misleading at best to say they won 14 in a row. The words "in a row" imply there was no interruption of any kind.

I have been trying to get alternative wording. No one is interested in it. Agreeable words were found last year. But they were changed back. Is there a record of that change and why it was made? The available sources DO support my position. There has been no evidence provided to show otherwise. All that has been presented is either contradictory or opinion not endorsed by MLB.

My sources are completely reliable and irrefutable. I would appreciate it if you stop telling me to come up with source material when in fact, I have provided more material than any one arguing 14 has. You keep referencing the verifiability page for me. I am aware of it. The side arguing for 14 needs to be aware of it as well. They have yet to produce something that is not contradicted on another one of its very own web pages.

All I am seeking is to clear the misleading comments. If you call the streak 14, then an explanation needs to be in place explaining how a streak can be 14 in a row over a 15 year span where the streak includes the front and tail end of those years. That is all I am looking for. The current explanation raises more questions than it answers. If you mention that no one won in 1994, a season that was played, it stands to reason that the streak ended right then and there. An explanation needs to be in place explaining how a winning streak could continue when a team did not win. Using the explanation in the article, one could argue that the Yankees have won 10 divisions in a row. As long as you place a footnote saying (not counting the 1997 season). Can you see how misleading such a comment is?

Your recommendation is noted, and I would hope that any edits to any other articles would not be met by someone, or a group of someones who have a so strong a personal connection to the article that they refuse to even entertain any attempt to clarify it. As was obviously the case with the Braves article.MAL01159 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, even when you're right, you're out numbered. I've been in your position before. It is better for the project and the community to accept the situation, and move forth. Kingturtle (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably the best thing said on this matter. It is frustrating to see an error and have the repair job shot down. Even more so when you try to work out wording that will present the real situation that all will sign off on but no one wants to even consider such a thing. But the fact remains... Just because 5 editors on Wikipedia say something is so does not mean it is. It could very well simply be the opinion or wishes of those 5 editors.MAL01159 (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "error" is in your own logic, or rather, in your inability to see that other people can look at the same data as you and come to different conclusions than you. Your position has consistently been that all sources other than the league results table, and all editors other than you, are wrong. Sometimes when one person disagrees with everyone else, that person is a great visionary, even a genius. Other times, they're just wrong. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like the word "error"? How about misleading? Saying 14 in a row implies consecutive. It was not. This is not an opinion. This is not a fringe or personal interpretation. You say "all sources". The only ones provided were one that was contradicted and another that was merely the opinion of a particular writer where MLB did not endorse anything in the article. You continue to repeat yourself. Please stop. New reasoning in favor of 14 or a new source would be welcome, but don't rehash things that have already been dealt with. I think such action can be interpreted as "disruptive".MAL01159 (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of whether we should say "14 in a row". It's not a question of attempting to use logic to argue about what really happened. It is a question of using the material found in reliable sources. Several sources have been found using the phrase "14 consecutive division titles" and that is why the consensus of editors supports that wording. The fact that your interpretation of a table of figures contradicts those reliable sources really doesn't matter one way or the other. Everyone else's interpretation of that table is that there is no contradiction. In other words, we do not deny that your quoted source is accurate. We dispute the interpretation that you have put on the data in your source. This interpretaion of yours constitutes original research and is absolutely opposed to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. I hope this helps explain why everyone disagrees with your position. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was one and only one source presented that actually called the streak 14. Not "several". And as was pointed out, it was contradicted elsewhere. There is no personal interpretation of the data. At least, not if you are aware of how standings work and what they mean. If one is not aware of this, then that person should excuse themselves from the discussion out of ignorance. You and others have used as your reasoning the fact that no one officially won the 1994 season. And therefore the streak continues. You have no solid source. Only your personal interpretation of what no team winning means. The fact that no team was officially recognized as division champion in 1994 doesn't matter one way or the other. The fact that the Braves did not win is what matters here. To say they won 14 consecutive is misleading. For reasons described above and elsewhere. So no. Your comments do not explain a thing.MAL01159 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question. A consensus has been reached on the issue. Anymore protesting about it constitutes nothing more than trolling. End of story. Kingturtle (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been protesting the issue. I have been trying to clarify the explanation of how a consecutive win streak could be possible with a gap. I proposed a change. No one is interested in clarifying.MAL01159 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that a Request for Comment is being opened on your conduct atWikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MAL01159. Although the RfC/U will not be validated until another editor certifies it, I thought I would provide notice to you at this early point. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing the "Statement of the dispute" section of the RfC. This is not a regular discussion page. Anything you want to say should go into the Reponse section. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After further thought, this statement: "The 1994 season was indeed a "like event" to the 1995 and 1993 season" now has me absolutely convinced that you are unreasonable on the issue. Claiming that something is a "like event" when it is "like" in some ways while being obviously "unlike" in other ways is not a position that can be held by someone attempting to make a reasoned argument. -Dewelar (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed ironic. You were claiming that the 1993 and 1995 season were "like events". One could make the case that 1995 was not "like" the 1993 season either. There were fewer games played in the season AND the divisional set up was completely different. If these events are "like", then it is completely reasonable to lump in the 1994 season as well. The one and only difference is that 1994 did not include a post season. The seasons themselves were still "like events". Especially in that they were all official and complete Major League Baseball seasons. Which is what matters in this case. This is all assuming you were using "Like" to mean "similar". Which is not the same as "exact". Or were you using "like" as in "same" or "exact"? When one is trying to make a reasoned argument, one needs to be aware of such subtle differences.MAL01159 (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, NOW we're getting somewhere. In fact, if you were to change your argument on how to count the division titles based on the fact that the National League Eastern Division was a different entity in 1995 than it was in 1993 due to the expansion of the National League to three divisions, I would support that.

However, since that is not currently under discussion, then the 1993 season was "like" the 1995 season in the only way that is pertinent: a division title was awarded. The "continuous series of like events" is not the seasons, but the awardings of division titles AS ENTITIES UNTO THEMSELVES. In 1994, there was no such award, therefore no break in continuity, therefore 14. -Dewelar (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are getting into what I was trying to work for. Altering the explanation of how a winning streak is possible when a team doesn't win. Over a week ago, after I accepted that the article was going to call the streak 14, my goal then became to clearly explain in the article how such a thing was possible. I presented what I thought was good wording and presented it on the talk page for discussion. No one chimed in one way or the other. What I suggested was changing the explanation from the existing one that says "(omitting the strike-shortened 1994 season in which there were no official division champions)." To "(Counting only seasons where MLB officially recognized a division champion.)". This then makes sense. Because if there were no official division champions, and since the 1994 season was deemed an official season and counted as one in every way possible, then since there were no winners the streak would end. But, if you say the streak was only counting seasons where MLB recognized division winners, THEN 14 becomes possible. I am personally not happy with saying the streak is 14. But this was my attempt at a compromise that no one seemed to want.MAL01159 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see what you're saying. By using the word "omitting", there's an implication that there's something being skipped, when in fact there isn't. There is indeed some logic to that. However, I don't think the new language rises to the level of removing the ambiguity, which it really must do in order to make the change a worthwhile one. I will ponder and see if I can come up with something more amenable to all. -Dewelar (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The original explanation says the reason the streak can be 14 is because there was no official title won by any team in 1994. This is confusing because if the season was indeed played and was official in every way excepting that there was no division winner recognized, then it would follow that the streak would end right then and there. The new wording explains that the streak is ONLY counting seasons where a division winner was officially crowned. In that event, one can correctly claim a streak of 14. With no argument from those who see the 1994 season as a gap in the streak. The new wording works for everyone.MAL01159 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, the wording obviously doesn't work for everyone. On that count, the consensus has already come down against you on this count. Using that wording would implicitly support your point of view, a point of view which is, apparently, not shared by anyone else involved in the discussion. It's still the 11 vs. 14 argument, just veiled by semantics. It smacks of attempting an end-around to get your interpretation into the article, which is unacceptable. If that's the basis for the change in the wording, then there's nothing within it worth considering, because it's already been considered and rejected. -Dewelar (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. That wording does not support my point of view at all. I'm saying the streak is 11. With no special circumstances. The original wording just says that no division titles were given. Leaving the reader to make an interpretation which may or may not be what MLB's position is on the matter. The new wording still calls the streak 14 and explains how it can be so. How does such wording endorse the streak being 11 rather than 14? All the new wording says is the streak is possible because it is not counting seasons where no division title was given. Seems to be a VERY neutral point of view. Is it factually inaccurate? It is verifiable if the originally stated idea that there were no division titles recognized in 1994 is verifiable.MAL01159 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't in the wording, which as I said is no more or less ambiguous than the original. The problem is in the rationale. Your statement above, "In that event, one can correctly claim a streak of 14", puts the reason for making the change into this light. What is it, exactly, that makes the original NOT neutral where your wording is?

Your stance seems to be that only your wording is acceptable, where that is obviously and demonstrably not the case. You are the only one objecting at this point, and wikipedia-consensus does not change because one person says it must. If you'd presented it in this way from the beginning, rather than just coming in and changing the article, folks might have been more willing to listen, but that's now water under the bridge. Basically, you've stomped on their turf, and now they're protecting it against someone they've decided, rightly or wrongly, is a threat. I wish you good luck fighting that uphill battle.

By the way, regarding my statement on the talk page about neither interpretation having a cite to back it up, I meant yours and mine, not yours and the consensus. Whether the consensus has one or not actually doesn't matter, because that's how consensus works -- if there's no definitive statment, the page will say what they say it will say. Like it or not, you now have to find a source that is accepted by those who established the consensus (or by enough other editors to outweigh existing consensus, if you can find them) in order for the change to be enacted. -Dewelar (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Earlier you said "Using that wording would implicitly support your point of view...". Then you later said, "The problem isn't in the wording, which as I said is no more or less ambiguous than the original."

You asked "What is it, exactly, that makes the original NOT neutral where your wording is?" Answer: The original wording simply says "omitting the strike-shortened 1994 season in which there were no official division champions". This does not explain why the 1994 season is being ignored with regards to the streak. All it says is there were no official division champions. Nothing about weather or not the streak can officially exist as the stated 14. The suggested change actually explains exactly how the streak of 14 can be so. (Counting only seasons where MLB officially recognized a division champion) Using only known facts. The only spin in my version is making the streak look better than it really is by calling it 14 (with a caveat) rather than 11. Neither version is really all that neutral. Both are making the Braves streak look better than it really is. But at least the suggested change explains how it could be deemed 14.

You are jumping to conclusions when you say "Your stance seems to be that only your wording is acceptable". There is nothing to support that comment. I opened up the alternative wording for discussion. I am by no means married to my suggestion. But it is obvious that some kind of alternative must be provided. About a year ago, before I had an account, this came up. We worked out wording that seemed to work for everyone. I do not know when, but at some point since then and the beginning of this issue, the wording got changed back. Agreement was arrived at before. But for some reason it is impossible today. I do not know why. I made the early changes before I was aware of exactly how things work here. You may be right in that some may have been more willing to listen had I somehow found out about things earlier, (I asked and asked my first contact who ignored my pleas and refused to answer me when I asked about procedure) however, my gut tells me that is not likely the case. There are people in that discussion who have been very stubborn about it and refused to accept anything to counter their own opinion of the matter. They have been extremely closed minded on the issue. One even questioned how a compromise could even be possible! So no. Perhaps if I wait for a while, I might encounter editors who are more willing to actually listen and who are willing to compromise. Like there were last year. Before my account.

You take IS the consensus. Therefore, yes, the consensus has nothing verifiable to back it up. Just as you said. Yes, I am aware of how consensus works. If in a group of 10 people, 7 of them say 2+2=5 then it becomes a fact (for them) that 2+2=5. Even though 2+2=4. That is why I gave up on the 11 vs 14 debate, and tried to focus on the explanation of how 14 can be possible if there is a gap in the streak.MAL01159 (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason your wording implicitly (as opposed to directly) supports your point-of-view is your explanation of why you want to change things to your wording. Sorry if I was unclear on that.

Neither version mentions 11 at all that I can see. The only difference is between the phrasing "omitting" and "counting only". Both are still ambiguous, therefore your version still appears no better than the current one.

I have no explanation as to why consensus is different now than it was a year ago. I can only assume it is because there are different editors involved. Have you tried contacting the people with whom you had this discussion at the time? That information should be contained in the talk page's edit history. Whatever the case, it should be blindingly obvious by now that it's not a good idea to make your first edit one on which there is disagreement as to the facts. There's a reason it took me nearly two years from the time I created my account until the time I became an active editor (and even now, most of my edits are minor ones).

My "take" was an attempt to explain a possible rationale to the consensus, based on a specific reading of the facts in a way that supports the consensus. I have not actually given my opinion as to whether the streak is 11, 14, or something else. In fact, your above example shows that you do not, in fact, know how consensus works. Perhaps I should suspend my participation in this discussion until you learn, because it's apparent that all attempts to teach have been for naught. -Dewelar (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way. The reason for the change in explanation is because the explanation as it stands is ambiguous and does not explain how the streak can be deemed 14. However, if the explanation is changed to say exactly what events it is counting as continuous, then the explanation loses much of its ambiguity.

The funny thing about the discussion from a year ago is that one of those involved was one of the people who chimed in on the recent discussion. And this person changed from being interested in working out wording that is acceptable to all, to one who was not interested in working out wording that would be acceptable by all. There were also fewer editors involved then. Perhaps because we arrived at agreeable terms fairly quickly. It was suggested I make other edits, but the fact is, I just don't spend a lot of time here. And to be perfectly honest, the cold reception I got here does not bode well for any future edits either. It seems to be a vicious cycle. Crucify the newbie because he has been defending his one edit, and thus create such an unfriendly environment that person will be less likely to make any other edits. Although, I did make one edit before I got an account. And last I checked, no one changed it back or questioned it.

Then it seems that I was making an educated guess on your "take" based on your comments on the various talk pages. With you not actually stating your take on the issue, I don't think my conclusion was unreasonable. My above example actually proves I DO know how consensus works. Consensus does not need to be correct or factual. It only requires a majority to agree. It is possible that the majority of a VERY small group to be wrong.MAL01159 (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could find the discussion thread from a year ago, that could be very helpful. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the Atlanta Braves talk page. I mentioned that on other pages. It is incomplete, however as when I was involved I did not speak directly on the talk page. Alternatives wording would be placed and I would then provide another alternative. This went on about 2 or three rounds before we came across one that worked for all.MAL01159 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, it appears to me that the things being counted are "official division champion(ship)s". If anything, the current wording is less ambiguous because it gives a reason for the lack of an award in 1994.

I will postulate no further on the nature of the current or the previous discussion. At this point, the only suggestion I would make would be that you point the previous one out to those involved -- something you have thus far failed to do despite repeated requests -- and seek out those who participated to back you up. You've been fighting on your word and your word alone, which theoretically you don't have to do. Surely you understand that claiming the existence of this previous discussion without actually producing it hurts your credibility. Without it, I do not believe there will be any progress on any front.

You know one piece of consensus -- specifically, consensus in the absence of facts undisputed by reliable sources. "2+2=4" has the advantage of being such a fact; until someone brings forward a source that offers a different opinion backed up by mathematical evidence, 4 will stand as the answer. The methodology here is similar, but more fluid. A group of people has accepted that the figure 14 has come from a reliable source. For whatever reason, they will no longer budge from that position. At this point, your only answer is to bring in someone from outside the debate to speak in favor of your position, which led to my advice in the preceding paragraph.

As for my position on the question, I have alluded to it above. As far as I'm concerned, the definition of "division title" changed with the 1994 realignment, thus rendering the entire discussion moot. -Dewelar (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the things being counted are "official division champion(ship)s" as well. But that is something that had to be guessed as there is nothing in the article that actually states it. The assumption is normally fine to make. But in this case, the 1994 season throws a wrench in that assumption. The wording does give a reason for a lack of award for the 1994 season. But it does not give a reason for how the streak could be allowed to continue, given that there was no winner and the season still counted in every other way. Herein lies the controversy. How does one interpret the lack of division titles in 1994 when the season counted in every other way? My alternative wording avoids such controversy by not getting into it at all, and plainly stating that the streak is only counting seasons where a division title was officially recognized by Major League Baseball.

The main person I was dealing with has changed his tune from being willing to create wording that works for all, to that of being completely unwilling to budge. I had no account then and do not recall the names of any other person involved. As I said, the discussion area when it happened is incomplete. I am open for suggestions on how to find others who were involved as I have no idea how to determine that. It is one thing to refuse to do something. It is another to not know how to do that something. (Something to consider before the next time you feel you need to accuse someone of "refusing" to do something.)I was not fighting on my word alone. I was fighting with facts and reliable sources. Much earlier in other discussions I brought up the old discussion. I even pointed out its location. If anyone bothered to scroll up and look at it, no one ever made mention of it. It is like the old adage... "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."

The consensus process here, based on the discussion on the Braves page, has little to do with reliable sources. A writer on a Braves web page? I don't think that can be reliable. Massive conflict of interest. Which is why there is a disclaimer on the bottom of those articles saying that MLB does not necessarily endorse anything said in that article. Seems to me the facts in tabular data (like the Braves history page) that appears exactly the same way on EVERY baseball page that shows such data everywhere is more reliable than any writer's opinion. None of that has mattered in the discussion. They had their opinion and nothing was going to change it. It has gotten to the point where if MLB prepared a press release this afternoon that said "the 1994 season officially put an end to any existing division title streak" I whole heartedly believe they still would not budge because some writer on the Braves web page is calling it 14. I also find it odd that Wikipedia does not consider individual Bolgs as reliable but professional writers opinions are. Why does drawing a paycheck make one opinion more reliable than another? In the end, they are both opinions.

Regarding your definition of division title, I do not see how realignment alters it. Smaller divisions make the feat slightly less impressive, but a first place finish still represents a division title (except when influenced by outside causes like the '81 and '94 strikes) no matter how many divisions there are or how many teams are in the division.MAL01159 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would still say your wording is ambiguous. Without providing an explanation of why a division title was not awarded (which is accomplished by mentioning the strike in the current wording), the reader is left wanting for information.

If the information is not still on the talk page, one thing you can do is check its Page history from around the time the discussion took place. If it's still there, just bring it forward and tack it at the end of the current discussion. It's not that difficult, really.

It's only partially the smaller divisions. It's also that the Braves were not competing against the same set of opponents for the titles each time. If the Braves had been in their old division in, for instance, 2000, their record would not have won the division, and their "streak" would have been broken then and there. I'm more impressed by the fact that they had the best record in the National League for five seasons in a row (1995-99), something only they have accomplished in the expansion era, and yet that isn't even mentioned anywhere on the page. -Dewelar (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my suggested wording is ambiguous, I am open to alternatives to help clarify. But, I don't feel the wording is ambiguous because WHY a division title was not awarded one season does not matter when the category is only seasons where a division title was officially recognized. It only implies there was at least one season where a division title was NOT recognized. I do not see what is wrong with implying a fact. I suppose the explanation could get long winded and explain the reason why the streak is only counting seasons where an official division title was recognized. But I was trying to keep the explanation short knowing the strike is referenced elsewhere. The current wording does indeed mention the strike, but it does not explain how the streak could be deemed 14. Mine does. In fact, the current wording actually provides reasons to call the streak 11.

Much of what I remember was still on the talk page last time I looked. But the alterations were done by just making changes to the article until a version appeared that each side was OK with. When I find the time (I have been very busy the last week or so) I will go back and look at the history as you suggested.

You brought up something I have heard before. I call it the fallacy of the predestined outcome. When one says team A would have finished first in Division X, that person is making the mistake of assuming team A's record would have been the same had they played in Division X. This is a complete unknown. Guesses can be made. Perhaps even very good and accurate guesses. But in the end, that is all they are. Guesses. In MLB, teams play unbalanced schedules that favor teams in their own division. To say a team would have performed at the same level in a different division would be an assumption. Yes, thanks to interleague play, even teams in the same divisions don't play the same schedules. But their schedules are far closer to each other than the schedules in other divisions. So while the '95-'99 achievement of the Braves is nice, it doesn't mean as much as it could if the league played balanced schedules. And of course, if there were balanced schedules, a playoff would be completely unnecessary. I completely understand where you are coming from with that thought, but I will have to respectfully disagree and say the 11 consecutive division titles is the far more impressive feat. Even in this era of smaller divisions.MAL01159 (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only two comments in response here. The rest will await the unearthing of the old discussion.

Perhaps this is my failing, but I do not see how your wording expresses the concept you are trying to express more clearly than does the current wording. Whether it is my failing or not, For all you say that it "explains" how it can be a streak of 14, I just don't see it. I doubt I would be the only one. Thus, to my mind, there is no need for the wording to be changed from the current to yours. As I said above, the only viable rationale for making the change is if you somehow object to the use of the word "omitting", which under the conditions I presented is a reasonable objection. I would still argue, however, that changing it to what I consider an equally ambiguous phrasing is unnecessary. You still need to find someone besides yourself that believes as you do to make this discussion more than you vs. (current) consensus.

On the topic of the division titles, you have a valid point. No one can know what the Braves would have done if the divisions would have remained the same in 1994, with the Marlins just added to the East and the Rockies to the West. If anything, my argument about '95-'99 is compromised by the fact that there were some pretty horrid teams (Expos, Marlins, Phillies) in their division, and thus the Braves likely padded their record in some of those seasons against two clubs -- which also spoils their division title string a bit. How would the Braves have stacked up against the Dodgers and Padres in '96, or the Astros and the Padres in '98? No one can say. Either way, though, both the smaller divisions and the change to the unbalanced schedule mean (to me, anyway) that division titles before and after 1994 are different animals. -Dewelar (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try and explain again. I will try to not repeat things that have been said before. The current wording only says that they are omitting the 1994 season with regards to the streak. This would be like on the Yankees page saying that the Yankees won 10 consecutive division titles. Then in parentheses saying, "Omitting the 1997 season when they finished in 2nd." This, like the Braves case, does not explain WHY it is acceptable to drop one officially played season with regards to a streak. Yes, it also says that no team won the division in 1994. While this is true, it still does not explain WHY it is acceptable to remove that season from the streak. Logic dictates that if the 1994 season was indeed played and is an 'official' season in the eyes of MLB, and that no team officially won, then any division title streak would be halted. However, if 14 MUST be used (as consensus among a few editors says it does) then it follows that a reason for omitting an entire officially played season from the record must be given. Hence, my suggestion to simply call it 14 out of 14 officially recognized division champions. You see, this is different than saying 14 in a row, but omitting an officially played season for an unstated reason. This version explains exactly what the requirements are. Seasons where a division title was officially recognized by MLB. Therefore, in this case, it is necessary to not include the officially played 1994 season where no division winner was officially recognized.

Your take on division titles is not without merit and has much going for it. That being said, I feel that while removing one or two teams from a division may tarnish future division winners a bit, it IS only a tiny bit in my mind. The post 1994 division winners, while they have a slightly easier path are just as valid division winners as those from the 7 or 6 team divisions that came before.MAL01159 (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, when I asked you if it was the "omitting" part to which you objected, you said it wasn't, so we went deeper into the briar patch unnecessarily. Anyway...perhaps something like "(the 1994 season is not counted due to the lack of official division winners resulting from the truncation of the season due to the players' strike)" that is an all-inclusive phrasing, but could probably be more artful.

I'm not saying they're not "valid" division winners, just that the division they won was not the same division, and it was not accomplished by the same means (unbalanced schedule, fewer teams, etc.), and thus they're not (to go back to the header of the section) "like events". Either way, both views are reasonable. -Dewelar (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as simple as objecting to the term "omitting". I was objecting to omitting an officially played season without giving a valid reason why it is acceptable to do so. My suggested change gives a reason why it is acceptable to drop the 1994 season. I think this settles the dispute perfectly. It keeps the 14 that consensus wants, AND it explains the conditions how the 14 can be possible. Unfortunately, no one wants to discuss this matter. And I fear if I made such a change that others would (unjustly) consider such an action as creating problems.MAL01159 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just to let to know that the RfC on you has been closed. The conclusion reached was: (also posted at the rfc under Conclusion) "After reading through the RfC and all the diffs and supporting opinions, I have come to the following conclusion. User:MAL01159, who may or may not be a single purpose account, is noted that while permitted, single purpose accounts are discouraged. MAL01159 is also warned about making edits contrary to consensus, and urged to read the policies on original research, consensus, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Furthermore, it is noted that further disruption of this nature will result in a block, possibly indef as a result of MAL01159's single-purpose account nature." Wizardman 15:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's the way I see it. It's a number. Edit warring, complaining, and unnecessary disruption concerning a number. If sources almost universally accept one number over the other, that's the one that is posted, regardless of whether said number is "right". Granted, I don't see how this one number was so important. I mean, there's lots of other things you can do to improve the encyclopedia. The Atlanta Braves were still a great team in the 90s no matter which way is right.

Note that I dealt with a similar situation in the past regarding Brett Favre, with the guy actually getting banned by the community, with a similar mentality. All I can say is that that's how Wikipedia works. Wizardman 00:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The change was made in the interest of keeping the page factual. I understand the consensus thing. Which is not the same thing as verifiable fact. Far from it, in fact. But as you said, that is the way things work here. And boy did I learn that the hard way. I had actually accepted that consensus wanted to keep the number at the unverifiable 14. My next step having lost that battle was to create an explanation for the 14 in a row that would explain why it was acceptable to drop an entire officially played season from the streak. I even started a discussion section presenting my alternative. No one chimed in on it. Since no one spoke on it, I would normally go ahead and make the change. But I fear at this point any change I make will be deemed (unjustly) as simply creating problems here. I am actually reluctant to make ANY change on any page because of my experience here.MAL01159 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]