Talk:World Series/world title

WBC vs. World Series

The World Baseball Classic is an exhibition series staged by major league baseball. The World Series is the championship of the top level of professional baseball, namely the major leagues. This has been discussed many times here already. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's as may be, but a championship limited to the member clubs of a professional sports league (or leagues) operated as a private business with self limited membership and located in a single country or geographical area (the United States and a single city in Canada) is no more a "world" championship of baseball than the NHL's Stanley Cup represents the "world" championship of ice hockey or the winners of the NBA playoffs are the "world" champions of basketball. (Neither the NHL or NBA make such a claim.) Baseball, ice hockey, and basketball are played professionally -- and at very high levels -- in many other countries around the world. Their world championship tournaments, however, are neither operated by -- or limited to -- any of these sports' privately owned and operated professional leagues.

While the World Baseball Classic is co-sponsored by MLB (as you noted), the tournament is also sanctioned by the International Baseball Federation and includes teams from sixteen countries. The winners of this tournament certainly have a far more legitimate claim to the title "world champions of baseball" than do the playoff champions of any privately operated and administered professional league(s) with self limited membership, no matter how good they may be. This difference may be generally (but not universally) well understood in the United States, but that is not necessarily the case in the rest of the world. As Wikipedia is meant to be read (and edited) by a world wide audience, it is especially incumbent to make it clear in this article that the word "World" in "World Series" is not meant to imply that its winners are in anyway also the "World" champions of baseball. That title (as are the world titles in all other sports) can only logically be competed for in an international tournament that is both sanctioned by the sport's recognized international governing body (IBAF) and is open to worldwide competition. The World Baseball Classic is not only such an international tournament, but it also includes a large number of players from the major baseball leagues of North America and Asia. (Centpacrr (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

It is not your place, as a wikipedia editor, to decide that this is not a "world" championship and to use a wikipedia article to try to editorialize on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball to get some other opinions on the matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me, then, just exactly how a competition for a "world" championship of baseball can possibly exclude every team from 110 of the 112 countries that belong to the IBAF as well every team in the other two countries (the United States and Canada) that are not owned by the self limited membership of a private co-operative business enterprise (MLB). Read my argument above. I have not "decided" that the World Series is not a "world" championship -- by its own parameters in relation to the definition of the word "world" it cannot possibly be. I am only clarifying that for those who may be misled by the word "World" in the title "World Series." If you are claiming that the MLB "World Series" actually does constitute the "world championship of baseball" then I am constrained to observe that it is not your place -- or anyone else's -- to so do because there is simply no factual basis upon which to base such a claim. (Centpacrr (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Major League Baseball itself calls the World Series champions "the world champions". Those are words straight from Bud Selig's mouth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That is nothing more than a self serving PR statement made by the head of Major League Baseball, the self limited private business enterprise that operates the two professional baseball leagues in the United States that promote the "World Series." What possible authority or basis would he (or anyone else) have to be speaking for the the rest of the "baseball world," for any other baseball organization not owned by MLB, or for that matter the "world" in general? To be a world champion of anything requires that the competition to decide any such internationally recognized title must be open to all qualified challengers from anywhere on the globe. (The "World Series" is, of course, only open to the 30 member clubs of MLB.) If it is indeed the position of MLB that World Series champions are automatically also to be considered the "world champions" of baseball without having to compete further to prove it, then that would seem to constitute both unbridled arrogance and monumental self delusion. (If you can prove that he is correct, however, then I think I would accept it as an actual "miracle.")(Centpacrr (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Anyone has an idea how the IBAF views things? –Howard the Duck 08:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally reviewed the edits; in combination with the comments here, it surely looks like editorializing. That said, it may be entirely appropriate to have a neutral note indicating the Series is limited to teams in the MLB (i.e., North America). An international reader or even domestic one could easily be confused by the naming. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why there's an entire paragraph explaining the situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. In which case (bluntly), the above is purely editorializing and not appropriate. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

¶ I'm not in favour (at least here) of rewriting reality or common usage to what people think they ought to be. However, I certainly think there's room for a few words in a far less editorial or adversarial style to convey a rather essential point, as I have added two words to Major League Baseball to indicate that it's the highest professional level in North America.

It's not a matter of deciding which event is the "real" world championship; just of indicating or implying the limits of each. My impression is that baseball is only one of several sports where a national or regional championship is or was far more important than one that's more truly international. (Possible examples might be The Ashes which for decades was the only important championship in cricket, the Five Nations in rugby football, the Stanley Cup in ice hockey, or various Asian martial arts championships like those in judo, karate and sumo wrestling. England didn't join the FIFA World Cup until 1950 because it considered the FA Cup and the England-Scotland game the only important contests in Association Football.) —— Shakescene (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't we just say that the World Series is the de facto world club championship of baseball, and the WBC is the world championship for national teams? (I dunno which is higher, the Baseball World Cup or the WBC). The WBC isn't played in a best-of-x series so... –Howard the Duck 08:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know, for instance, that the playoff champions of MLB would always win a best-of-seven series against the playoff champions of the top league in Japan, Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, or any other country without actually playing it? It seems to me that establishing de facto championships it antithetical to the whole reason play the games to start with. I have worked in professional sports (ice hockey) for more than forty years and have never heard of any team or athlete (and I have known thousands) that would willing to be known as the "de facto" champion of anything. If anything, they would be embarrassed to be called that. (What kind of ring would a "de facto" champion wear, I wonder?) You are either a champion of something, or you are not. "De facto" championships are just illusory. (Centpacrr (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

I'm failing to see where this discussion is headed, or what is supposed to happen in the article. The facts are these:

• MLB calls their champs "world champions" or "World Series champions"
• I dunno the status of the WBC champs. Perhaps world champions among national teams, depending on which among the WBC and BWC is ranked higher.
• The IBAF has no position on the status for the World Series.
• I dunno of an event where all champions of the different "serieses" met each other to settle the "issue": note that only MLB's championship series has the unqualified "World Series" name; others go by the name of the Caribbean Series, Japan Series, etc., not Japanese World Series. Does that mean something? I don't know.

I suppose the explanation can add a line or two about the MLB's claim on baseball's world championship, deriving from... perhaps they are the oldest baseball top-level league in the world? Or by Bud Selig's proclamation? –Howard the Duck 09:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, I have worked in professional sports (ice hockey) for forty years. Nobody in my game would ever think of simply "declaring" that they are automatically "world champions" just because they won the Stanley Cup. The NHL may be the "best" league in the world, but it does not claim its Cup champions are automatically "world" champions as well. I am perfectly willing to accept that baseball has no universally accepted international tournament to determine a "world champion" club, but certainly not that any club can simply declare themselves as "world champions" to fill the the vacuum without competing for it on the field against all qualified worldwide comers. Championships in any sport can only be won on the field, court, rink, track, pitch, pool, or whatever other venue in which the sport is played, but never by simply saying that "I declare our league to be the best in the world and so our champion must, de facto, also be considered the world champion." That's just not the way it works in sports -- or life. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps you can't apply the standards of hockey at this sport? It seems that hockey has several club competitions that the Stanley Cup winners participate in as qualifiers, or something to that effect? Basketball has the same issue, too. And even if the different champs do play in a tournament to decide this, are they in their best fitness, or would they this seriously? (See UEFA Super Cup and more importantly the FIFA Club World Cup for assoc. football's main example for this situation).

Nevertheless, there has to be sourced explanation for this, not just the editorializing even before this discussion happened. Like, 1) There should be a citation MLB uses "World Champions" for the World Series winners (excluding Selig's statements), 2) They are the only league that claim the "World Championship", 3) perhaps consensus among the baseball-playing world that WS champs really are "world champs" (a non-American news outlet may do the trick), 4) some rebuttals from influential people in baseball objecting to the "world champs" tag for WS champs (I'd recommend someone from outside the MLB), plus 5) an optional counterexample/s from other sports. –Howard the Duck 10:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a complaint about Centpacrr's consensus-defying behavior at WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Despite the block, it is still highly recommended that the "International impact and explanation of the term "World" Series" section has to be properly referenced since it is still editorializing, this time with the pro-MLB slant. –Howard the Duck 15:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That section is intended as an explanation, not a justification. MLB itself calls the World Series champion the world champion. The WBC was merely a nice little exhibition, which players who value their careers would like to avoid, because it doesn't matter, and it could jeopardize their real careers - in MLB. If you can make it read less editorially, go ahead. However, the cold hard fact is that MLB is not just the highest level in North America, it's the highest level in the world - and not because it's in America, but because that's where the money is. The players with the highest level of talent want to come to the USA because they can get the big bucks. HUGE bucks. This is a profession. It's about money. Japanese stars come to MLB because that's where the money is. Washed-up MLB veterans go to Japan because they can extend their careers, like an aging veteran who manages to hang on in the Pacific Coast League for a little while. The various leagues around the world serve as part of the MLB player development system, either officially or unofficially. That's just how it is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Still it could use some nice little refs, plus some people (journalists, baseball "gods", etc.) countering that the WS isn't "World Championship" or anything, because if there isn't no objection from knowledgeable people then it can't satisfy WP:NN and the section may be removed... –Howard the Duck 15:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand. The purpose of that section is to explain why it's called the World Series. That explanation is needed, otherwise we're right back to the constant defense of that article against this kind of editorializing. What would be the point of that? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Even forgetting the editorializing problem, it's important to understand where the term came from, to counter the false urban legend that it had something to do with the New York World. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, if there's no one "important" objecting to the World Series as a "world championship" (one can simply say it was called "World Series" before there were other baseball leagues, and the name stuck) then it can be argued that the part "defending" why it is a world championship shouldn't even be there. But the NY World blurb has to stay since it has been an urban legend, and has even made it to some print encyclopedias. –Howard the Duck 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to encourage edit wars on this page? Don't we have enough edit warring in wikipedia as it is? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I presumed it's pretty easy to find a cite saying the World Series is not the world championship.

Plus, if it hasn't been at the article page, it could be good worth noting that the other championship "Series" in baseball don't have the word "World" or has a modifier before it, such as the College World Series, Caribbean Series, Japan Series and so forth. –Howard the Duck 16:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds easy to you, because you haven't been defending this page against these editorial writers for the last year or two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it may be easier for you guys since you know where to look... –Howard the Duck 16:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to claim any flashes of editorial genius (or even intuition), but if you look with a relatively-detached eye (poor metaphor) at the introduction as it's written now, it makes no claims at all about the relative primacy or importance of the World Series in relation to baseball on other continents, apart from giving the official name of the event. It just says it's the championship series of the top level of professional baseball in North America.

Are articles about the (Roman) Catholic Church biased towards the Vatican because the Church is not (and hasn't been for a millennium) truly catholic in the sense of embracing all Christian believers? Are articles about the United Nations biased because the nations have never truly united? Wikipedia just uses the most commonly-used and easily-found name for a subject.

And the introduction isn't really the place to argue whether the World Series is "really" the world championship or not. That's why there's a whole section to explain that further down. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• According to this writeup [1] the Phillies own announcer, Harry Kalas, called the Phillies the "world champions" last fall. That's standard practice. The World Series winner is also the world champion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • And a more direct source is the Phillies own official website[2] with the banner "2008 World Champions". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Meanwhile, on the WBC home page [3] initially I don't see anything that claims Japan is the "world champions of baseball", but merely that they are the champions of this tournament called the world baseball classic. Notice, "classic" not "championship" in its title. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Centpacrr (World Series) where I have more fully addressed the
issues raised here by Baseball Bugs and others. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

The basic question is, "Which team, if any, is the world champion of professional baseball?" The answer, in wikipedia terms, depends on valid sources. So far, I'm not seeing anything claiming the Japanese national team is the world champion. The only sources I've seen so far appear to be answering the question by saying, "The Phillies are the world champions." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are still missing the point. Neither MLB nor any of its member clubs is authorized by the IBAF, the sport's internationally recognized world governing body, to self anoint themselves as the "world champions of baseball" which is the exclusive purview of the IBF. That does not mean that the IBF has to sanction a champion, only that it is the only organization internationally recognized as being authorized to do so. MLB can only award a title to which is has control, i.e, "World Series" champions of MLB. Lots of companies and other organizations make marketing and PR "claims" all the time to be the "world's greatest" this (ENRON comes to mind) or the "world's champion" that. These self serving claims, however, do not make it true or verifiable that they are actually that, only that they "claim" to be. For such a title to be valid, it must be sanctioned by whatever organization is, by international "consensus" (remember that term?)), authorized to do so which in the case of baseball is the IBAF. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

This is not our problem already, what we can do is to say MLB recognizes their champ as the world champ, and IBAF has no position on the matter. –Howard the Duck 03:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. Meanwhile, I would still like to know who appointed IBAF as the "governing" body. My guess is they appointed themselves. Sound familiar? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if USA Baseball was a charter member. 119.95.31.228 (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC) –Howard the Duck

Statements by the Phillies or MLB cannot be considered to be a neutral source for the official title of world champion. Of course, marketing is a separate concern; this article should make it clear that in today's environment, using the term "world champion" for the World Series winner is a convenient marketing phrase. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Adopting Baseball Bugs' and Howard the Duck's logic then, I assume then that it would be perfectly acceptable to them to declare in Wikipedia that Andrew "A.J." Johnson, an automobile salesman from Davison, Michigan, is the undisputed "world champion of golf" simply because he is the reigning champion of the "World Series of Golf."

As for "who appointed" the IBAF as the international governing body of baseball, according to Wikipedia it is the world's 112 national baseball federations (such as USA Baseball), five regional baseball confederations (the African Baseball & Softball Association with 16 member countries; the Baseball Confederation of Oceania with 15 member countries; the Baseball Federation of Asia with 20 member countries; the Confederation of European Baseball (Confédération Européenne de Baseball) with 40 member countries; and the Pan American Baseball Confederation (Confederación Panamericana de Béisbol) with 26 member countries), and the International Olympic Committee. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

That might be true, if the PGA so claimed, but it doesn't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point I'm trying to figure out what the issue is. The article says the Series is played between the champions of the AL and the NL, which is a true statement. So where's the problem? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the first sentence now reads, "The World Series is the championship series of Major League Baseball (the highest professional level in North America) and the culmination of the sport's postseason each October." The rest of the introduction makes no statements of any kind about who might or might not be transcontinental or global champions. Perhaps the disambiguating hatnote could add "in North America" to "championship series of Major League Baseball", but otherwise it's hard to see how someone could be misled. Those interested in who's champion of the world can read the WBC vs World Series section. 21:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be argued that "World Series" is a trademark since the times no one else played baseball outside the U.S., and the name stuck... –Howard the Duck 10:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Look closely at the 2008 logo File:2008 World Series.svg and it appears there is a registered trade mark symbol on "World Series". There is also a lot more discussion on the baseball project page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, that's the easiest way out of this mess. –Howard the Duck 10:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He's going to talk to his Phillies pal on Sunday and get this all straightened out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1

As promised, I spoke at length about this issue with my high school classmate, Philadelphia Phillies' General Partner and President Dave Montgomery, at our 45th High School Class Runion dinner tonight after the Phillies game against New York at Citizens Bank Park. I told him that this question was a matter of considerable disagreement among Wikipedia editors in the World Series article, and asked him to explain to me the position of the Phillies (as the current World Series champions) on whether that title also made them the official, internationally sanctioned "world champions of baseball" as well.

Dave told me that the ONLY title to which the Philadelphia Phillies Baseball Club has a legitimate claim as the 2008 playoff champions of the 30 teams in the American and National Leagues (i.e., Major League Baseball) is "World Series Champions." When I asked him about the slogan "world champions of baseball" which appears on the club's website, he told me that while this has long been a promotional and marketing phrase in "common" use, it is not meant to imply that any MLB "World Series Champion" is also entitled to claim any internationally sanctioned "world" championship title as well. No MLB club has ever also been sanctioned as a "National" team representing the United States, Canada, or any other country. He also did not disagree with the view that to win a "world championship" (as opposed to a "World Series Championship") would require both qualification for, and participation in, an appropriate international tournament which was sanctioned by the IBAF and was open to qualified national teams from other countries.

I also (as promised) specifically asked him about the only three reasons that so far have been advanced by Baseball Bugs in support of his contention that a "World Series Champion" could also officially proclaim themselves to be the "world champions of baseball" (i.e. "Bud Selig says so."; "That's where the money is."; and "It is what it is."). He did not see merit in any of these contentions as support for this editor's position.

In a word, therefore, it would seem that unless a verifiable and disinterested third party source can be provided here that states that the MLB playoff champions have ever also been sanctioned and authorized to officially claim the additional title of the "world champions of baseball", the answer to that quesion clearly appears to be an unequivocal "No."(Centpacrr (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for your original research on the matter, which as I said before has no bearing on the wording of the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your comment immediately above then mean that you are still clinging to your position that the MLB playoff champions are now (or have ever been) officially sanctioned and authorized by any recognized international body to claim theadditional title of the "world champions of baseball"? If that is still the case, then please provide a verifiable, disinterested third party source that affirmatively supports your claim. If not, then please so acknowledge. (Centpacrr (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Does your comment immediately above then mean that you are still clinging to your position No, it means that you are engaging in original research, your comment above has no bearing on the article, and nobody cares what someone said to you at a dinner. Vidor (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Phillies are the world champs until someone with some authority in the matter says otherwise. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it then that you are still both unwilling and unable to provide any source that affirmatively supports your position. Making unsupported claims, and then insisting that they must be blindly accepted as true unless some other editor can "prove a negative" is just not the way it works in Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia. It is the obligation of the editor making the statement to independently support and verify it, not the other way around. Neither you nor any other editor have yet to provide a single verifiable and disinterested third party source that states that the MLB playoff champions have ever also been sanctioned and authorized to officially claim the additional title of the "world champions of baseball."

You stated above that "He's going to talk to his Phillies pal on Sunday and get this all straightened out." which is exactly what I did. (My "Phillies pal" is the President and General Partner of the club.) As promised, I posed your position to him and he told me that it is both incorrect and unsupported by the facts. Just because that does not conform to your personal, still unverified view on the matter does not prove your position. It is your obligation to affirmatively prove your claim, not any other editor's to disprove it. And to quote you one more time, "That's just the way it is." (Centpacrr (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Your alleged conversation with a Phillies employee has no bearing on this article. Meanwhile, MLB and non-MLB sources declare the Phillies to be the world champion, and you have yet to cite anything to contradict that claim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

MLB is not a disinterested party in the matter, and even if it were, you have still not verifiably demonstrated with an independent third-party source that MLB has the "authority" to award any titles other than the playoff championships of its two leagues (AL and NL), and of the overall MLB playoff crown (the annual "World Series Championship"). If you truly believe that it has the authority to also officially designate the internationally recognized "world champions of baseball" then it is your obligation as an editor to prove your claim before it is acceptable in Wikipedia, not my or any other editor's to disprove it irrespective of my conversation about the matter with the President of the Phillies last night. Unless and until you do, you have not made your case. (If, by the way, my "alleged conversation with a Phillies employee" -- who happens to be the President, General Partner, and co-owner of the team -- had supported your position instead of the other way around, would you have then be willing to adopt it as having "bearing on the article"? I am also wondering why you still identify yourself in your user page as being "only 13 1/2" and in "junior high school" when that apparently also false.) (Centpacrr (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

whether you reject the statements of the Phillies' club President as being "irrelevant" only because they do not conform with your still unsourced personal view on the matter What part of "original research" is unclear to you? Vidor (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sports Illustrated is a source independent from MLB. I provide sources, you provide original research. The Phillies label themselves as world champions. The alleged conversation you had with them contradicts their own website. If it was supportive, that would of course square with their website. But either way, that conversation has no relevance to this article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please indicate where "Sports Illustrated" (or any other publication or independent source) states that "MLB is the internationally recognized body with the authority to designate" the "world" champions (as opposed to "World Series Champions," which is different) of anything. That is the real issue here. Unless and until you can do that, you have still not made your case.

The Phillies' website includes the expression in its banner, as I told you above, for marketing and PR reasons. The only official title that the club claims, however, is "World Series Champions" which is the title that they won and is what is in their logo for this season. The website does not speak, however, to the formal issue relating to international recognition as "world" champions. (For many decades, for instance, the Chicago Tribune also self styled itself as the "World's Greatest Newspaper". Did that, in you view, make it so?)

You have also failed to answer the two other questions that I posed above as to whether you reject the statements of the Phillies' club President as being "irrelevant" only because they do not conform with your still unsourced personal view on the matter, and why you continue to represent yourself on your Wikipedia user page as being "13 1/2" and in "Jr. High School" if both of these are false. (Centpacrr (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

When S.I. has a cover story with the World Series champions and titles it "WORLD CHAMPIONS!" then I assume they mean what they say. Meanwhile, if the Phillies president wants to post a notice on the Phillies official website disclaiming the world championship, then that would presumably be a usable source. Your personal conversation with him is not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the personal stuff, you may have missed the banner that points out that my user page may contain satirical elements. Keep in mind that 13 1/2 is in rabbit years. Also, it's not "Jr. High School" it's "JR High School". That's an important distinction. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

An editor's personal "assumption" (... "I assume they mean what they say." supra) is not, I'm sure you would agree, an acceptable standard in Wikipedia as proof of anything. (Did it ever occur to you that perhaps this headline may in fact be nothing more than that dreadful "editorializing" about which you so bitterly complain?) And it also does not in any way address or indicate where "Sports Illustrated" (or any other publication or independent source) states that "MLB is the internationally recognized body with the authority to designate" the "world" champions (as opposed to "World Series Champions" which is different) of anything as well. Again, sir or madam (I do not know and am therefore making no assumptions as to your gender), that is the one and only real issue here, not SI's editorial views. Unless and until you (or another editor) can do that, your case has still not been made.

Also a great many of the comments of a wide variety of other editors posted in your recent unsuccessful RfA clearly indicate that your "satirical" representations about yourself misled most if not all of them as well and appear to be among the reasons that so many of them opposed your being trusted by the community to become a Wikipedia Administrator.

As you appear to continue to be adamant in your views no matter what I say, however, perhaps it is time for some other editors to comment on this in an attempt to achieve "consensus" on the underlying question which is:

*Is Major League Baseball, a private business enterprise which operates two professional leagues (AL and NL) with a self limited membership of 29 franchises located within in the United States and one franchise in Canada, the internationally recognized and accepted authority (i.e. formally acknowledged as such by all of the world's National Baseball Federations and five International Confederations) to exclusively sanction and conduct competition for, be the custodian of, and authorized to award the title "World Champions of Baseball"?

If you (or any other editor) is able to provide a single verifiable and disinterested third-party source that answers that specific question (and no other) in the affirmative then your case will have made. Absent that, it hasn't.

My position on this (see above) is clear so I will make no further comments in here until the all the other editors who care to have addressed this specific question either by providing such a source, or indicating that they are unable to find one. The ball in now completely in the court of the other editors to either support or reject your position. Until then I will remain silent. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

The "bottom line" is that MLB and other sources claim the Phillies as the world champ, and you have presented no evidence to contradict it. And the claim of MLB being "limited" is a red herring. MLB attracts the best professional players from around the world. While the clubs are in North American cities, the rosters are international. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The limitation as to "membership" relates the organization's 30 franchises which is what constitutes MLB's membership, not the players which do not. (They are contracted employees of MLB's member clubs, not the clubs themselves.) The "bottom line" is the question I have posed (supra) all along, and to which no editor has yet provided any verifiable third party source to support an affirmative answer. As a predicate for MLB (or any other baseball organization) to be able to officially designate a team as the "world champions of baseball" it must first be internationally recognized as having the authority to do so. Absent such recognition, whether or not "... MLB and other sources claim the Phillies as the world champ ..." is moot. Please confine your comments exclusively to the the question that is being asked. Nothing else is relevant. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

I do not intend to "answer" a question that you've specifically framed to match your personal assumptions and arguments. The problem is that you're asking the wrong questions. The right question is, "What do the reliable sources say?" And the answer is, "That the Phillies are world champions." I provide sources, you provide your personal opinion. Guess which one is permitted in articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The question you want to answer is necessarily premature until an underlying predicate as to the existence of a recognized authority for MLB to be able do what you claim they can has been established, i.e., a reliable source that supports your contention that MLB actually has the authority to designate a "world championship of baseball" is necessary. (I hope that you would at least agree that "self proclaimed" authority is not sufficient, but I am not making the assumption that this is your position.) Nevertheless your "question" is moot and irrelevant unless and until the necessary predicate of MLB being in a position to designate anything other then the champions of its own organization has been established and reliably sourced.

You have made it quite clear here that you do not have such a source, nor do you intend to address the issue that I have raised. That, of course, is your right. With that clearly being the case, I do not see that there is any need for you to respond further to my question above as I know your position on the matter. I am therefore now posing it exclusively to the other editors here interested in this issue in order to see if we can achieve the consensus necessary to resolve it. (Centpacrr (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

The ball in now completely in the court of the other editors to either support or reject your position. OK. Baseball Bugs is right, and you are wrong. Vidor (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources referring to the World Series winner as "World Champions": Baseball Almanac (which also notes that the practice dates back to 1884), the Philadelphia Examiner, the New York Times (from 1920), the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Monthly, Pepsi Cola, I could go on and on...maybe later I will. Vidor (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

None of these "sources" address the actual question that I asked. They only say (or are derived from) the fact that in 1884 (when baseball was largely unregulated and was played almost exclusively in the United States) that "Several newspapers penned the Grays as "World Champions" and the new title stuck."

Baseball in now played worldwide on both a professional and amateur basis, however, and since 1938 it has been governed internationally by the International Baseball Federation. None of the sources you cite, however, speaks to the underlying issue, to-wit: whether or not MLB is the internationally recognized and accepted authority (i.e. formally acknowledged as such by all of the world's National Baseball Federations and five International Confederations) to exclusively sanction and conduct competition for, be the custodian of, and authorized to award the title "World Champions of Baseball". Please provide me a reliable source that supports that it is, and you will have made your case. Otherwise you haven't yet proved it.

The World Series Trophy (aka "Commissioner's Trophy") presented annually by MLB to the winning club, by the way, is only inscribed "World Series Champions", not "world champions of baseball." Why do you suppose that is the case? (Centpacrr (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

The IBF does not govern Major League Baseball, or the World Series. Nobody cares what it thinks about the World Series. There is no reason to bring up the IBF in an article about the World Series, unless one wants to be a tiresome pedant. MLB certainly is the "internationally recognized" body to name, regulate, and maintain its own championship. As such, MLB can call its championship whatever it damn well wants. It can call the WS the World Championship of Venus. There is no formal, internationally recognized "World Champion of Baseball", as anyone with the IQ of a chimp knows. Indeed even the World Baseball Classic does not call its champion the "world champion". Your question is meaningless and irrelevant, as indeed is everything you've written in this section. (I particularly enjoyed the original research presented in the form of some conversation at a dinner). Vidor (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You have (albeit I expect inadvertently) exactly made my point. I certainly agree that the IBAF does not regulate MLB or other professional baseball leagues throughout the world, and that MLB is the exclusive authority to name, regulate, and maintain its own championship which it can call anything it wants that does not conflict with or imply that it represents something that it not. (Would you think it would be acceptable, for instance, if MLB decided to called its playoff champions the "World Champions of All Professional and Amateur Team Sports"? Adopting your logic, that would be seem to be perfectly acceptable to you as well.)

I am also perfectly willing to accept that there may be no official "world champions of baseball." I have made all of these points many times above. World championships in teams sports, however, are competed for and won in internationally sanctioned tournaments by national teams sponsored by their respective countries' national federations in the various sports, not by privately owned, for profit teams from organizations with self limited memberships. Just because it is not currently being awarded in a particular sport does not make it appropriate, however, for it to be unilaterally assumed by some other organization just because it wants it. (I, for instance, registered the domain name http://WorldChampionsOfBaseball.com five minutes ago not because I am a world baseball champion, but because nobody else had. See what I mean?)

The title that MLB bestows on the winners of its playoff championship is "World Series Champions" and that's what is says on the trophy. It does not, however, also say the "world champions of baseball." Wouldn't one expect that if MLB really believed that it had a legitimate and official claim to the latter title it would have put that one on it's trophy instead?

As for "original research" such material is only inappropriate if is otherwise unpublished and placed in articles. It is perfectly acceptable, however, if disclosed for what it is when used in comments made in talk pages. That being said, I think that, with respect, I will choose to give greater deference on the matter to someone whom I have both known personally for more than half a century and who also happens to be the co-owner, General Partner, and President of the current "World Series Champions" of MLB, then I will to otherwise anonymous Wikipedia editors. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

One missing piece throughout this megillah is the question of what the IBAF itself might think about the World Series champion being the "world champion". Maybe someone could pose that question to them and see if they know, or care, that the Series winner is often styled the "world champion". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems like perfectly reasonable original research to me. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

I'd also be curious to know what level of professional baseball you think is equal to or higher than the major leagues. Certainly not Japan. Their stars come here and our washed-up veterans go there. The Japanese Leagues essentially serve as farm teams to the majors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I would expect that the reason players from Japan and other countries come here is because this is a country with a much bigger economy and therefore the money is better. Payrolls are easily measurable "on paper." With respect, however, the only way to objectively determine what teams are better on the field is to do so on the field. MLB may well be the world's highest level of baseball in the world (and probably is), but I can't prove that one way of the other -- that would be up to the players by their performance in competition against each other just the way it is in all sports.

With respect to the intro, I had edited it earlier to indicate that the World Series was the culmination of the post season of MLB ("...the organization's...") which had been reverted back the "the sport's" which would encompass all baseball championships, not just MLB. Your changing it to Major League Baseball cures that. That was the only point I was making and your's is a completely acceptable solution. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC))

Yes, like I said, a week or two ago, it's all about money. If Japan had the highest salaries, they would probably be the baseball capital of the world. Ichiro plays in the WBC for the Japanese national team, and where does he go afterward? To Japan? No, to the Mariners. The best players in the world want to come to the major leagues, if at all possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The money available to baseball players here probably has more to do with the relative size of the economies and markets between Japan and the United States, much greater broadcasting revenues here, and the wealth of the teams' individual and/or corporate owners. Financial differences and payrolls are something that is measurable without playing any games. To prove which league is better on the field, however, still requires on field competition to prove because that's how success it is measured in sports. For instance in professional ice hockey a significant number of the NHL's stars and world class players such a Jaromir Jagr abandoned the circuit this year to play in the upstart first year KHL in Russia not because that league was better, but because it was being backed financially by a group billionaire Russian oligarchs and oil barons there who were willing to pay them more than NHL owners could under that league's salary cap to get them. (I fully expect that with the world collapse in crude oil, prices, that many of those players will be looking to return to the NHL next season.) (Centpacrr (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

I am also perfectly willing to accept that there may be no official "world champions of baseball." Whether you're willing to accept it or not, it remains true. It is perfectly acceptable, however, if disclosed for what it is when used in comments made in talk pages. This is completely false. Original research is original research, and a private conversation has zero relevance at Wikipedia. If you want to quote your friend in this article, at least in a way that makes it relevant for editing the article, I recommend you get a job in the media, arrange an interview, and have it published. Vidor (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I regret that you seem to misunderstand virtually everything that I have had to say on this matter. My position re: the title "world champions of baseball" is not whether there is or is not one, only the nobody has been able to provide a reliable source to support the claim that the MLB "World Series Champions" are de facto the "world" champions of baseball as well.

It is you sir, not I, who is claiming that my discussion on the instant subject with the President of the Philadelphia Phillies is "original research" and that I had it for the purpose of putting what he said to me in the World Series article. That is not true either. What I did was promise Baseball Bugs that I would raise his contentions about this issue when I had dinner with him and would report back in this Talk page what he told me which is exactly what I did. I have not, nor do I intend to use this material in any Wikipedia article. That was not the purpose of my discussion. If you are not interested in what he had to say, you are of course perfectly free to ignore it. But as I pointed out above, on this particular topic I will give far greater deference to someone whom I have known personally for more half a century and who also happens to be the President of the current MLB World Series Champion than an anonymous Wikipedia editor about whom I know absolutely nothing.

As for "getting a job in the media" I have worked as a professional journalist, book author, broadcaster, and in sports administration for more than four decades mostly in professional sports. I am the author of four published books (three on ice hockey, one on 19th century railroad history) and several thousand published articles most of which relate to professional sports, sports history, and railroad history. I have also taught writing, research, and history at both the high school and college levels, all of which you would have known if you had bothered to read my Wikipedia user page which reveals a great deal more about me, my background, and bono fides than your page tells me about you. (You like baseball and might live in or near St. Louis.)

I must admit that I am puzzled about why you seem to be taking all of this so personally. My only interest in contributing to Wikipedia is be sure that information is adequately sourced, and presented dispassionately and objectively. Perhaps your apparent passion about baseball blinds you to such objectivity, and you would be less distressed by contributing in some other area of the Wikipedia project in which you are not so personally involved. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Using your logic, I could argue that MLB is not even the top level in the USA. The Pacific Coast League and the International League, the two AAA-level leagues, don't play major league teams very often, but when they do, sometimes they win. Maybe the Phillies should have to play against the winners of those leagues, to determine who the "real" champions of North America are? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2

The Philadelphia Phillies are the 2008 playoff champions of the 30 teams that comprise Major League Baseball because that is the title ("2008 World Series Champions") that the club competed for and won. I am not aware of another tournament to determine an annual "baseball championship North America" for which an MLB championship club would be eligible, but if there were then that club would need to participate in and win it in order to earn that additional title as well, just like any other title in any other sport. If there is no such tournament, however, then presumably there is also no such "North American" championship title in baseball either. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

The Major League Baseball website (MLB.com) includes the following legal notice regarding its registered service and trademarks:

"The following are trademarks or service marks of Major League Baseball entities and may be used only with permission of Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. or the relevant Major League Baseball entity:

• Major League

• Major League Baseball

• MLB

• MLB logo (silhouetted batter)

• World Series

• National League

• American League

• Division Series

• League Championship Series,

• All-Star Game

• and the names, nicknames, logos, uniform designs, color combinations, and slogans designating the Major League Baseball clubs and entities, and their respective mascots, events and exhibitions"

MLB makes no legal notice or claim, however, to:

• World Championship of Baseball

• World Champions of Baseball

• or any variants thereof

Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., the wholly owned subsidiary of Major League Baseball which is its internet and interactive branch, owns and operates the domains "MLB.com" (registered 1994) and "WorldSeries.com" (registered 1998), but has never registered (and does not own) the domain "WorldChampionsOfBaseball.com."

The World Baseball Classic website (WorldBaseballClassic.com), which is owned and operated by Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., contains the following statements:

"World Baseball Classic, Inc. is a company created at the direction of Major League Baseball (MLB) and the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) to operate the World Baseball Classic tournament. The tournament, which is sanctioned by the International Baseball Federation (IBAF), is supported by MLB, the MLBPA, Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB), the Korea Baseball Organization (KBO), their respective players associations and other leagues and players from around the world.

"The World Baseball Classic is the premier international baseball tournament, sanctioned by the International Baseball Federation, and features the best players in the world competing for their home countries and territories. In March 2006, 486 players - 235 of them from MLB organizations - representing 16 teams from across the globe competed in the inaugural event. More than 740,000 fans from 48 states and 15 countries attended games - 16 of which sold out - and millions more watched on TV as Team Japan was crowned the first-ever World Baseball Classic Champion. Broadcast by 48 media outlets in 10 languages to 205 countries and territories around the world, the inaugural tournament had 50 official sponsors and 21 official licensees. Media members representing 25 different nations attended the 39 games in seven host venues across three countries/territories. The next tournament will be held in March 2009 and will again feature 16 of the greatest baseball-playing nations in the world. The tournament will be held every four years thereafter, with plans in place to expand the participant field beginning in 2013."

It would seem from the above, therefore, that:

• All of the most reliable, verifiable sources which speak directly to this matter fully support the position that the only official and sanctioned title that MLB formally claims for its annual playoff champions is "World Series Champions" (which is also the only title engraved on the Commissioner's Trophy), and that this title currently belongs to the Philadelphia Phillies.

• These same sources also support that the only team (if any) with a legitimate claim to the title "World Champions of Baseball" (whether or not they choose to formally adopt the title) would seem to be the current "World Baseball Classic Champions." That title currently belongs to the national team that represented Japan in and won the 2009 WBC, the tournament which both MLB and the IBAF support, describe, and accept as the world's "premier international baseball tournament, sanctioned by the International Baseball Federation," and featuring the "best players in the world competing for their home countries and territories." (Centpacrr (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC))
  
• In the absence of a demurrer to the above, I will presume that there are no more comments on this issue. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

A point made most eloquoently Centpaccr --OffiMcSpin (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't rule out that the audience was merely put to sleep by these essays. The Phils are the true world champs. There are no other world champs, nor anyone who claims to be. The WBC was merely a nice, little, meaningless exhibition series by players who prayed they wouldn't get injured and irreparably harm their real careers - the only part of their careers that count for anything - in Major League Baseball. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

While presumably these are sincerely held personal beliefs on your part, in the absence of any verifiable and reliable sourcing they hardly qualify as being either objective or encyclopedic. (The only "citations" that have been offered anywhere above to support any portion of your contentions appear to be based exclusively on quoting the similarly unsourced, often excitedly uttered, editorial opinions of others.) The citations to the contrary stated immediately above, however, are taken verbatim from two websites owned and operated by MLB through its subsidiaries, Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., and Major League Baseball Properties, Inc.. (These statements are also fully consistent with what the President of the current World Series champion Philadelphia Phillies told me when I raised these same issues with him personally as well.)

Editors are, of course, perfectly free to personally believe whatever they want, but as has been pointed out frequently by many, it is inconsistent with the Project's policy to include such unverified personal beliefs in Wikipedia articles as statements of fact as doing so constitutes the prohibited practice of editorializing. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

The only world champion identified as such by any sources are the Phillies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See citations immediately above and Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Sports Illustrated is a reliable source, and so is Bud Selig. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The first set of citations neither do not say anything about whether or not MLB considers the Phillies world champions. All it says it that MLB doesn't own the trademarks. It's a legal disclaimer, not a statement of policy. The second set of citations can't be used for claims that the WBC winners are world champions, if for no other reason that by no means did all of the "best players" participate -- many turned it down so as to not disturb their spring training or because of the risk of injury. Also, any statement from the WBC to the contrary, or that the WBC champions were world champions, would have to be thrown out due to self-interested puffery. (That argument cuts both ways.) The Philadelphia Phillies won the strongest championship tournament in the world, and whether or not they claim themselves world champions or not, the general consensus is that they're the closest to "world champions" for 2008 as we're going to find. Should the World Series article say that the Phillies are world champions? Probably not, except in the sense of, if citations are found, that "Such-and-Such stated that, in their expert evaluation, the Phillies are world champions". But, the IBF doesn't have the recognized authority to declare a world championship (trying to compare the IBF with a widely-accepted powerhouse such as FIFA is ridiculous), especially when the WBC was a glorified exhibition, and the WBC winning Japan team isn't "world champions" either. (BTW, Let's Go Red Sox!) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A great many National Hockey League and National Basketball Association players also either decline or are unable (owing to commitments to their professional teams) to participate in the IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship and FIBA World Championship tournaments as well, and yet the winners of these competitions are internationally recognized as the world championship teams in these sports. If, as you contend, that baseball is unique among all the world's team sports in that its internationally recognized "world championship" is instead determined by "general consensus" as opposed to being competed for in a tournament for which teams from all nations are eligible to attempt to qualify and win through competition on the field, then I would be keen to know what verifiable and reliable sources you have to support this most amazing claim. (Centpacrr (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't have any sources right now for that claim. I'm not worried about it, because that's not my claim, and I don't have to support it. I contend (and said above) that baseball doesn't have a 'internationally recognized "world championship"' at all. There is no tournament, inside or outside the IBF or MLB, that officially awards any title of "world champion". At that point, if you want to see what is the strongest team in the world, one either relies on one's one judgment or the judgement of experts. From what I've seen myself and from what experts say, the Phillies, by winning the MLB playoffs and the World Series, demonstrated themselves to be the strongest baseball team in the world. And no, I'm not going to hunt for sources at 7 am in the morning to support a posting on a talk page, and I'm not going to put that in an article UNLESS I have strong sourcing. (Which, if I thought that I might put a statement to the effect that the Phillies were the best team, I would endeavor to obtain before I inserted it.) Similarly, I would expect that you wouldn't put your claims in an article either, because they're only supported, so far, by synthesis and original research. The only supportable and sourced claim on this that could be put into an article is some variation of "Both Sports Illustrated[1] and the Phillies themselves2 state that the Phillies, by winning the World Series, are the world champions", sourced respectively to SI's article and the Phillies' website. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As of right now the Phillies website [4] still says "2008 World Champions", so I guess his little talk with the Phillies official was listened to politely and that was about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments have now become completely circular and repetitive. If you read above what he said to me, you will find the following:

• "Dave told me that the ONLY title to which the Philadelphia Phillies Baseball Club has a legitimate claim as the 2008 playoff champions of the 30 teams in the American and National Leagues (i.e., Major League Baseball) is "World Series Champions." When I asked him about the slogan "world champions of baseball" which appears on the club's website, he told me that while this has long been a promotional and marketing phrase in "common" use, it is not meant to imply that any MLB "World Series Champion" is also entitled to claim any internationally sanctioned "world" championship title as well. No MLB club has ever also been sanctioned as a "National" team representing the United States, Canada, or any other country."

If, however, you are still so convinced that you are correct that the playoff champions of Major League Baseball are de facto also the "world champions of baseball" in the face of the evidence cited above to the contrary, then perhaps you should also modify the Wikipedia articles "World Championships" and "List of world cups and world championships" to reflect your personal view citing specifically whatever verifiable and reliable sourcing you think supports that change. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

What he allegedly told you is original research and is irrelevant to the article. Their own website says "2008 World Champions", with no qualifications or conditions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What he told me is not in the article, it is only included in here (Talk) as a part of the discussion. I will withhold further comment now until I see the changes (and sourcing) that you make to "World Championships," "List of world cups and world championships," and "Baseball" to make them conform to your views. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

• I note that no changes to the sections in "World Championships," "List of world cups and world championships," and "Baseball" relating this issue of "world champions" of baseball per above have been made and therefore will assume that the information presently there has now been accepted as correct by the editors previously disputing it. (Centpacrr (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

• And then what? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Res ipsa loquitur. (Centpacrr (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

• IMHOTEP. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Please be specific as to which definition (if any) of the above I am to understand that you mean. Also please advise whether or not you intend to edit the "World Championships," "List of world cups and world championships," and "Baseball" articles so that they conform to your previously stated views on this issue of "world champions of baseball." (If your answer is "no" then, as noted above, I will assume that you accept them as being correct as they are and we can end this debate.) Thanks. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't know about Bugs, and I won't speak for him, but I plan to do some research and decide if those articles need changing. While I would not add the World Series as a world championship, it's unclear about the Baseball World Cup, which appears to be an amateur world championship and should probably be marked as such, and the World Baseball Classic's status as a world championship is questionable, since it seems to be more of an exhibition than a world championship. Do not fear, unless I am armed with sources and references, I wouldn't do it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That is all I have ever asked for. (Centpacrr (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

I should edit those pages? Like I need more pedantic arguments on this subject? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response from which I understand that:

• 1) You have elected to remain silent as to what you mean by "IMHOTEP"; and

• 2) You have elected to not edit the three Wikipedia articles noted above to conform to your often advanced, apparently sincerely held position that any MLB team currently holding the title of "World Series Champions" is de facto also internationally recognized as the official and only "world champions of baseball" as well.

NOTE: If you were to change your mind and elect to make such changes, I will not personally modify or revert any of your edits but would leave that to other editors as consensus evolves and is reached as to whether or not your position is supported by the community and can be independently verified by objective, disinterested, and reliable third-party sources. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

At this time, I choose not to edit those articles. That does not preclude future editing of those articles. As far as IMHOTEP is concerned... well, I typically respond to gibberish with more gibberish. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your position that you have chosen to not edit the three articles "at this time" even though, I gather, you still apparently believe that they contain statements which are fundamentally incorrect. As for the expression "Res ipsa loquitur", it is not "gibberish" but a common expression (used mostly in law) which means "it speaks for itself" and was used to refer back to the points I had made in my earlier postings as speaking for themselves (i.e. meaning exactly what they said). (Centpacrr (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

It's gibberish if I don't speak Latin. :) OK, thanks for the explanation. In my humble opinion, that explains perfectly. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I had tried to avoid that potential confusion when I first posted it by wikilinking the expression to its definition, but I agree that the link doesn't stand out very well. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Arbitrary break #3

There's this sentence :

Early in 2006, Major League Baseball co-sponsored the inaugural World Baseball Classic, to establish a "true" world's championship in the way the term is normally used for other international sports.

Does anybody have a reference stating that the WBC was intended as a world championship? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

That would Centpacrr's spin on it. He's try to equate that little exhibition series with the Soccer or Cricket World Cups, which is silly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My "spin" has never been that the World Baseball Classic is the official "world's championship of baseball," only that the "World Series" is not a "world's championship." It is the Wikipedia articles "World Championships," and "List of world cups and world championships," (neither of which I have ever edited) which identify the WBC as baseball's "world championship" and which I have urged you now several times (Supra) to modify as they relate to baseball if you believe this information was incorrect, but you have specifically declined to do so. It is with these (and their editors) that your disagreement lies, not with me. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

No Christian church has been truly Catholic since the Great Schism (between Catholicism and Orthodoxy) of the 11th century, but the correct way of referring to the Church of Rome is (and has always been) the Roman Catholic Church. The American League-National League championship is the World Series. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the American League-National League championship is the World Series, and that the name "World Series" as it relates to professional baseball in the United States is owned and controlled by Major League Baseball. That has never been in dispute as far as I am concerned. I am just saying that the MLB's World Series championship it is not de facto also a "world championship" as all such titles in team sports are exclusively competed for and won by teams representing nation states ("national" teams) as opposed to professional or club teams representing privately owned and operated leagues with self limited memberships. (Centpacrr (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

Sigh. The Wikipedia articles World championship and List of world cups and world championships, with regard to baseball, are neither referenced, nor can they be references. Just because they haven't been changed doesn't mean they're right. I can pull up a large number of references where the winners of the World Series are referred to as the World Champions, some even by MLB themselves. I can pull up a small set of references denying that. I can pull up a few references to the WBC winners as world champions, some by MLB.com, and just about as many saying they aren't. To say that MLB (and other sources) are inconsistent on this is a offense against inconsistency. I'm about at the point where I'm going to add the World Series to the two articles, and footnote and source all three entries with an explanation that, at some point, the winners of each of the three have been considered World Champions of baseball.
Centpacrr, I do think you mean de jure instead of de facto, btw. There doesn't seem to be an official (de jure) designation of a World Championship in baseball which carries any legitimacy, so we are left with (de facto) claims, which should be documented. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points. Just point to the Phillies own official website, where they call themselves "World Champions", and Sports Illustrated calling them the World Champions. And Centpacrr keeps omitting that "World Series" is short for "WORLD'S CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES". De facto. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, there's this from the WBC website by a MLB.com writer : Classic an international celebration : Team Japan opens and closes as worldwide champions of baseball, demonstrating MLB's famous love of consistency. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. I wonder what the subtle distinction is between "world champions" (the Phillies) and "worldwide champions" (Japan). I also note that "worldwide champions" is used only in the headline and nowhere in the article. Go figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The basis of my fundamental position (i.e., that MLB's "World Series" tournament does not also determine the "world's championship of baseball") has always been one based on consistency and logic as this relates to the universe of internationally recognized "world's championships" in team sports. In all of the tournaments for the many such team titles contained in the two Wikipedia listings (with the exception of one each in Bandy and Football/Soccer which are specifically designated as being for international "club" championships), the "competing entities" in the tournaments are all limited to national teams representing and sanctioned by each country's (or larger region's) national federation (or multinational confederation) in their respective sports. To be an internationally recognized "world's" championship, in other words, by definition competition for the title must be open to qualification by teams representing nations from around the world. The "World Series" is, of course, demonstrably not such an international tournament as qualification to participate in it is limited exclusively to the thirty privately owned and operated club teams that comprise the National and American Leagues of Major League Baseball in the United States and Canada (Toronto, ON), anymore than the NHL's annual Stanley Cup championship also determines the World's Championship of Ice Hockey which is currently Russia.

As for the origin of "World Series" being a contraction of "World's Championship Series," the Wikipedia article itself indicates that this claim only applied to the period from 1882 to 1891, to wit:

• "Although these series were promoted and referred to as the "The Championship of the United States," "World's Championship Series," or "World's Series" for short, they are not officially recognized as part of World Series history by Major League Baseball which, in general, regards 19th century events as a prologue to the Modern Era of baseball as it is defined by the two current major leagues."

Any claims or self-styling of "World Series" winning teams also being the "World Champions of Baseball" made in any form by or on behalf of MLB itself (including its member clubs), or derived therefrom, by definition cannot qualify as being either objective or "third party" sources under WP:IS because these are neither independent nor disinterested entities. (Other examples of this lack of objectivity would be the similar self made claims of the Chicago Tribune as being the "World's Greatest Newspaper," the now defunct ENRON Corporation as being "The World's Best Company," and of the pages of the New York Times containing "All The News That's Fit To Print.") (Centpacrr (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

The early 1900s Series' were also styled as "World's Championship Series" or "World's Championship Games" by the newspapers. That was soon shortened to "World's Series" and the "'s" was eventually dropped from the expression. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a New York Times article from February of 1905, in which the term "world's championship" is used rather matter-of-factly. [5] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Following up on that, here's a Times report on the eve of the 1905 Series: [6] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise for 1906, even though it was an all-Chicago Series, so there was no bragging on New York going on: [7] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And likewise for 1907. [8] Shall I keep going? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And for 1908, which had to hurt, given how that season ended for the Jints: [9][10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

By 1909 they were calling it both the world championship and the "World's Series". [11] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's from 1911, which also had to hurt, as the A's beat the Jints: [12] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's from 1927, with the phrase "world's championship" appearing in the article, though not in the headline. [13] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jumping ahead a bit, here's a random NYT article from 1981, of which only the first paragraph is free, but refers to the world champion Phillies (of 1980). [14] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There are endless media references to the 2008 Phils as "world champions", including the headlines of articles about their recent visit to the White House. It is unclear whether Obama himself used that term or not. Anyway, the point being that the media have been calling this the world championship for a long time, and continuously, not just in the 1880s when they first started to use that term. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it be your position, then, that the election by an unidentified writer at the New York Times more than a century ago to use the uncapitalized term "world's championship" in a page 10 story about a one day off season organizational meeting between the representatives of the National and American Leagues in February, 1905, is somehow perpetually determinative of whether or not MLB is both the official and undisputed custodian, as well as the exclusively authorized agent to bestow among its own membership, of the title "World's Champions of Baseball" -- and has been for more than a one hundred years? As for all the subsequent media references your cite to the expression, these all appear to be based on MLB's own long standing self-styling use as well which makes them not independent but instead derivative sources. While this term may also currently appear as a promotional banner on the Philadelphia Phillies website, it does not on their tickets, memorabilia, or in the club's official 2008 logo all of which use the wording "World Series Champions 2008" and not "World Champions of Baseball 2008."

Raising these citations are all straw men, however, as the real basis of my argument is as I stated it above, to-wit:

• "The basis of my fundamental position (i.e., that MLB's "World Series" tournament does not also determine the "world's championship of baseball") has always been one based on consistency and logic as this relates to the universe of internationally recognized "world's championships" in team sports. In all of the tournaments for the many such team titles contained in the two Wikipedia listings (with the exception of one each in Bandy and Football/Soccer which are specifically designated as being for international "club" championships), the "competing entities" in the tournaments are all limited to national teams representing and sanctioned by each country's (or larger region's) national federation (or multinational confederation) in their respective sports. To be an internationally recognized "world's" championship, in other words, by definition competition for the title must be open to qualification by teams representing nations from around the world. The "World Series" is, of course, demonstrably not such an international tournament as qualification to participate in it is limited exclusively to the thirty privately owned and operated club teams that comprise the National and American Leagues of Major League Baseball in the United States and Canada (Toronto, ON), anymore than theNHL's annual Stanley Cup championship also determines the World's Championship of Ice Hockey which is currentlyRussia."

If you believe that there is reliable, independently verifiable third-party evidence that supports your apparent contention that the procedure to determine a "world's championship of baseball" (if there actually is one) is completely different than it is for every other internationally played team sport in the world, then please provide your source(s) for that. Unless and until you are able to do so, however, all other citations to the secondary issues and straw men would seem to be irrelevant by definition. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

The reason I posted those citations was simply to let you (or any other interested party) know that calling the Series winner the world champions is a long standing media tradition, from the 1880s onward to the present day. There was a misunderstanding that somehow only 1884-1890 was called the world's championship, and that is not the case. As for upper vs. lower case, the rules were a little less clear in those days. The ballpark known as the Polo Grounds was originally called the "polo grounds" in the Times, for example. And I say again that your implied claim that MLB excludes other nations is not true. The best players from around the world play in MLB, hence the best players in the world all start the season with a theoretical chance of being on the world champion team at season's end. Meanwhile, I note that the Phillies as of right now still call themselves the 2008 world champions. [15] It's always good to find out how much influence one really has in the world. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I must admit this straw man is by far the most novel view of determining championships in competitive sports I have ever heard of! If I understand your new position correctly, you believe (presumably) that while "world's championships" in all organized team sports except baseball are determined by internationally sanctioned tournaments for which national teams must first qualify and then compete against each other in order to win their respective sports' World's titles, in baseball that championship is instead uniquely determined by "long standing media tradition" without the need to compete for it at all on the world stage. (I presume also that you limit this "media tradition" to the United States as all ten of the citations you list above are all from a single publication, the New York Times.)

You also seem to fundamentally still misunderstand that "world's championships" in team sports are competed for only by the national teams of many different countries, and on which the players on each team must all be of the same national origin. Privately owned professional teams, teams all located in one country, and teams with international rosters, on the other hand, are all by definition ineligible to compete in World's Championship tournaments.

As for your "best players in the world" argument, since its formation in 1917 the National Hockey League, for instance, has had players on its clubs' rosters born in 44 different countries. While NHL players as a group also arguably represent the "best players in the world," no Stanley Cup winning clubs have ever claimed that by winning that championship they are also automatically the "World Champions of Hockey." (I have worked in professional hockey for forty years and can say without reservation that any NHL team making such a wild and unsupportable claim would be considered to be guilty of the ultimate height of arrogance. It would absolutely never happen.) The annual World's Championship of Ice Hockey is instead determined each spring by an international tournament sanctioned by the International Ice Hockey Federation and for which NHL and all other professional league teams are ineligible. (The current World's Champion in men's ice hockey is Russia.)

That being said, I repeat that if you believe that there is reliable, independently verifiable third-party evidence (other than the alleged "long standing media tradition" of a single country which is, with all due respect, a truly specious argument) that supports your apparent contention that the procedure to determine a "world's championship of baseball" (if there actually is such a title) is completely different than it is for every other internationally played team sport in the world, then please provide your source(s) for that. (Centpacrr (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

This discussion appears to be a in a bit of a rut, as the same viewpoints are being repeated over and over. Perhaps if anyone has a specific proposal for new wording for a section, you can put it forth, so work on improving the article can proceed? Isaac Lin (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. (Centpacrr (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

Done. (Centpacrr (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

Hey, can we hear more about the talk with the Phillies official? Vidor (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)