Talk:Yankees–Red Sox rivalry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This article is completely biased

The whole article uses weasle words and is clearly biased against New York City!

Name some examples. Baseball Bugs 01:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

New York was often looked down upon as the upstart, over-populated, dirty cousin to aristocratic and clean Boston

Thats one! There's a million more, I bet you that any article on Africa or the Middle East won't refer to them as "dirty". People would be crying bigotry. It might even end up on the nightly news with Al Sharpton saying he wants an apology from Wikipedia or he'll boycott the internet. That's obviously a weasel word. The article sets precedent that Boston was; key word WAS a better city. Even things like being overpopulated; though better than "dirty", have nothing to do with the rivalry. If I have a crowded block how would that would cause me to hate the Red Sox? This is so silly. It is comepletely ridiculous!

Why does everybody hate New York? Leave us alone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.159.143 (talk • contribs)

Comments on the "History" Section

I am admittedly a devout Yankee fan, and harbor some dislike for the Red Sox. That's probably the single greatest reason I don't plan to edit this article at all. But I do have some suggestions I'd like to make.

The opening section. It's almost comical. It serves little purpose for the sake of the article, and it was very clear to me that it intended to portay all of New York as British-Loyalists and all of Boston as Patriots. This was obviously not the case, and if there is truth to the statements, they should be changed to sound less like a gross generalization and more like an actual observation.

Thanks.
Blaiseball 22:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As I outlined above, I disagree with the removal of this section. I was initially against its inclusion when it first was added but it does establish some background as to the city element of the rivalry. - RPIRED 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that someone removed it. IrishGuy ^talk 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's why I spoke up. Initially I was just going to let my initial comments stand and if anyone else had a comment wanted to hear some more. What say you? - RPIRED 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the way it is written it does have a certain bias against New York which should be rectified. That being said, I don't think wholesale removal is necessary, simply a rewrite to maintain neutrality. IrishGuy ^talk 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be neutral as it was, though. The assumption that Loyalist is a negative connotation and Patriot is a positive connotation is in and of itself POV. Perhaps we could leave it as is but source the assertion? - RPIRED 01:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If consensus believes it should stay as is, I have no problems with it. IrishGuy ^talk 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but as a Yankees fan, New Yorker, and graduate student in American history, I have no problem with this section, or the assertion that Boston was primarily Patriot and New York primarily Loyalist. And I think a historical case can be made for rivalry between the cities that extends beyond baseball. My vote is to keep it. Merkinmuffly 18:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But it has nothing to do with baseball, and there also needs to be a source proving that the two cities were rivalrys before the Yankees and Red Sox starter. Until that concern is met, this is original research and there is no point in keeping it Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

None of it is original research though. I'm willing to source it, I am reverting it back for the time being until it is sourced. - RPIRED 00:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, non of the sources indicate that the two cities were rivals back in the 18th and 19th centuries though. It's still violates original research, as there is no proof that they were rivals and the article is adding some facts that doesn't convince a reader that they were. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

None? Did you look at them? One specifically mentions a rivalry between the two cities that far back. - RPIRED 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes the first two sources has nothing to do, and the last one is the author comparing the two cities, not rivalries Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a reference which should end this debate, or at least I hope. Malone and Zieminski, writing for Reuters on March 30, 2007 - "The baseball antagonism also reflects an historic rivalry between the two cities. In the early years of the United States, Boston was the nation's third-largest city, close behind New York. But Boston has been unable to match the growth of New York, which is now a world financial capital and home to more than ten times as many people." At the very least this offers rationale for leaving the entire section. - RPIRED 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That reference would explain a rivarly only by population and financial capital; this reference mentions nothing on colonial alliances between the two cities in the form of a rivalry. Do you actually believe that a baseball rivalry stemmed from colonial alliances? The estimated amount of tories/neutrals/revolutionaries during the colonial times belong in their respective state history articles and not here. Yes, the two cities were and still are different in many ways. However, the first reference(the only one that actually has any relevance with baseball) suggests a historic rivalry based on population and financial capital. If you're going to mention their colonial alliances (in fact, Tory poplulation was strong in practically every colony outside of Virginia and New England -- as explained in Teddy Roosevelt's work detailing the history of New York)then we might as well add on every little thing that is different between the two cities. This is supposed to be a baseball article on the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry; not a list of comparisons between New York and Boston. The fact is: We are not sure, with the references provided, that their colonial representation caused any sort of baseball rivalry between the two teams. Divinekeen 07:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of putting in all the recentism in this section. That's what the key moments section of 2004 and onwards is for. Any references to 2005 and 2006 are given undue weight to be put in this section IMO.Arnabdas (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one (all emphasis mine) -- "For more than a century afterwards, Boston was arguably the educational, cultural, artistic, and economic power in the United States," referring to the Revolutionary period. "Boston's location as the closest American port to Europe and its concentration of elite schools and manufacturing hubs helped maintain this image for several decades. During this time period, New York was often looked down upon as the upstart, over-populated, dirty cousin to aristocratic and clean Boston. New York's economic power soon outpaced Boston's in the 1800s..."

More than a century? Really? Not in my estimation. And even the following sentences (and the reference) seem to go on to contradict this. If someone who better understands the intent of this first line than I do can clarify it, please do. 96.225.80.53 (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous page move

Excuse me, but who decided that Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry should be renamed Red Sox-Yankees Rivalry? I don't remember it coming up on the talk page AT ALL! Furthermore, when the rivalry is referenced in the media, it is almost ALWAYS as the Yankees-Red Sox or Yanks & Sox, and NOT the other way around. Djdickmutt 16:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As a lifelong Red Sox fan, I have to agree with the above user. its always been Yankees-Red Sox. BH (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 00:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm scratching my head on this one. Not that I really have a preference either way (even as an admitted Yankee fan), but I do tend to hear "Yankees-Red Sox" in that order almost always when someone is referring to this rivalry. Should it be moved back? - RPIRED 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm going to move it now. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 21:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if the logic was to make it alphabetical (which it technically is) or to show a Red Sox preference. Either way, it is more commonly considered "Yankees-Red Sox" and should be titled accordingly. IrishGuy ^talk 21:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Just moved it Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Had to move it back again this morning. This time the rationale was alphabetical - which as Irishguy mentioned, it is - but there is still no consensus for actually doing so in light of the usual order of reference being "Yankees-Red Sox." - RPIRED 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

When there is a situation like this, it is best to use alphabetical order because some Yankees fans will want it to be listed Yankees-Red Sox rivalry and Red Sox fans will want it to be listed Red Sox-Yankees rivalry; each fan would want their team to be listed first. I am an Angels fan, so I hate the Boston Red Sox a lot more than I do the Yankees, so I wouldn't want to list the Red Sox first. But alphabetically listing the names avoids any possible bias. --Ksy92003(talk) 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As an Indians fan, I hate both of these teams but the order should be Yankees-Red Sox as that is what it is referred as at least 95% of the timeFrank Anchor 22:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your rationale, Ksy92003, but we do have a current consensus here (and I concur even though I am not really hot about it either way) that Yankees-Red Sox, being the most common reference to the rivalry, is most appropriate. I agree that it's not necessarily fair and that under normal circumstances we'd want to revert to a neutral alphabetical order but this is by far the most common reference on both sides to the rivalry. - RPIRED 23:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Boston-New York

A few random thoughts:

1. The article suffers from "recentism". While it's true that it has really heated up in the last 3 decades and especially in the last few years, entire books have been written about the 1949 season, which is dismissed with a few sentences here. And what about the little-explored fact that the Yankees were considered the underdogs in 1949 against the "tough guys" from Boston? (Little did anyone know.)
2. The broad and sweeping generalizations about the rivalry of the cities themselves could be expanded to point out the third prong of that rivalry that once existed, including Philadelphia. It could also be broadened to other New York and Boston encounters, such as the 1912 World Series. And going farther back, what about the "New York" game of baseball winning out over the "Massachusetts game", which was more like rounders?
3. It could be pointed out that despite the loss of Ruth, there were no hard feelings after the sale. Ruth had no power to stop it. And Ruth continued to like the city and the people of Boston, and they liked him back.
4. The largest crowd in the history of Fenway Park occurred on September 22, 1935, in a doubleheader vs. the Yankees: 47,627. A lot of standees behind ropes, I would guess. The single night game attendance record was also once a Yankees game, 36,228, on June 28, 1949 (there's that 1949 year again) although it could have been broken since. --> Which it has. Night game record through 2006 (as per The Sporting News record book) is 36,920, vs. Texas of all things, on June 10, 2006.
5. The 1904 race has a direct connection to the World Series as we know it today. If it had been between, say, Cleveland and Detroit, would the Giants still have refused to play the Series? Would it have taken the shape it has now? Or if they had refused, would such an outcry have been raised if it was some western team instead of Boston?
6. A chart showing their year-by-year comparative records might be a useful reference.
7. Doris Kearns Goodwin, writing about the Brooklyn Dodgers, talked about evolving towards an interest in the Red Sox, for similar reasons. In fact, the Yankees and Red Sox typically play each other 19 teams a year, and the old Dodgers and Giants used to face each other 22 times a year, so this one has essentially replaced that one as the fiercest rivalry in baseball.

Baseball Bugs 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Another point worth mentioning is how Frazee's Red Sox became somewhat of a "farm team" for the Yankees, a la the Kansas City A's of the late 1950s, as Frazee's $300 K loan "payback" apparently also included a few players, as pointed out in Creamer's book on Ruth. Among others, Wally Schang, Everett Scott, Carl Mays and Waite Hoyt went from the Sox to the Yanks in short order. That kind of thing came to an end when Frazee finally became successful in 1925 with No No Nannette and sold the team. By then it was too late, and took a couple of decades to undo the damage. 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, thank you very much for your input, it is most definitely appreciated. Point by point...

1. I agree completely that recentism is an issue in this article although as you mention part of that is due to the heating up that you've mentioned, especially in the last decade or so (all those NY/Boston 1-2 finishes, intense playoff matchups, etc.) We could definitely use more focus on the pre-1999 part of the rivalry.

2. I disagree on this point - this article is focused on the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, adding Philadelphia would be a distraction from that even though you're absolutely right that it existed.

3. On the other side of the coin, the article doesn't try to point out anything to the contrary of that. Perhaps it could be mentioned somewhere, though I'm not sure exactly where it would fit.

4. That's definitely notable enough to be added if you'd like to put it in there.

5. Could you elaborate some more on this? I understand that the 1904 World Series never happened because the Giants didn't want to face their cross-town rivals, but even if it had an effect on the World Series, what does that specifically have to do with this rivalry?

6. I agree, although it shouldn't be too unsightly or gangly.

7. Again, this is focused on the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, so there's not much need to mention the Dodgers-Giants rivalry (which rightfully has its own page. I understand the Yankee dislike caused some former Dodgers and Giants fans in New York to gravitate toward the Red Sox but they also eventually gravitated toward the New York Mets once they opened up shop. I guess if you can source it and find an appropriate place for it, it would probably work.

8. With a source, that kind of information would be good to add.

But overall, thank you for taking an interest in this article - I'm in the process of recruiting some editors to help polish it and make it pretty and your ideas are definitely a step in that direction. I'd like to see what others think of them. - RPIRED 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Here are my responses to your responses:

1. I'll see what I can do about adding to the pre-1999 stuff. Trimming the recent stuff gets trickier.
2. Yes, Philadelphia a possible distraction from the focus of the article. But what about other New York - Boston stuff outside of the Red Sox and Yankees, being as how the article brought up the more general topic?
3. In the discussion about Ruth, somewhere. I don't think anybody blames Ruth for the "Curse of the Bambino", since he had no power to either approve or veto the trade (other than by retiring forever).
4. Will do, once I confirm it. [Done]
5. Maybe a stretch, just something I find interesting.
6. I'm not too good with tables, so someone else could do that if they want. Just an idea. [N/A]
7. I'll find exactly what D.K.G. had to say about it and see if I can work it in appropriately.
8. Creamer made the claim, and a look at player rosters tends to support it. He didn't call them a "farm team", though, that's my term. I would be inclined to post his exact words, for the sake of clarity. [Done]

Baseball Bugs 01:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Eric Gagne?

Should the Eric Gagne deal be mentioned? He was courted by the Yankees. Maybe not mention it now, but if he does (and should) have an impact on Boston's success in 2007, I think it is worth mentioning don't you think?Arnabdas 16:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it probably isn't worthy just yet but if we wait and see what the ultimate impact is, if it's really anything at all it definitely would be worth mentioning. It's like the A-Rod situation in reverse almost, except that the A-Rod drama definitely ratcheted things up right away, whereas we're going to probably have to view what Gagne does first to see if it's a good comparison. - RPIRED 00:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chant Sections

I'm sorry, but those chant sections have to go, really badly. Are you kidding me? 4 paragraph essays on the topic of a couple drunks who like to yell out "Yankees suck!". Please, it barely deserves a passing mention in the article, let alone FOUR paragraphs. Every fan of any team, ever yells out "_______ sucks" at the opposing team at a game. It's not a four paragraph essay topic, guys. Is this some stupid joke I'm not in on?President David Palmer 00:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I mean, it's not like the sox and yanks invented "you suck" chants. I don't have the time to fix it up right now, but someone should definitely get on that ASAP.

--Goodfellajohnny 17:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people just have so much time on their hands... 5 paragraphs detailing the "Yankees suck" chant yet barely one under the "Red Sox suck" section. Bias, anyone? For instance, this statement: "Variations of the phrase have also been created specifically for certain players like Derek Jeter ("Jeter Swallows")," There are countless offensive and crude phrases designated to every player on either team; this is totally unnecessary. I also agree on the removal of these sections. Divinekeen 07:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted the entire "suck chant" sections. If anyone feels that some of the sentences are significant enough for the article, then by all means restore parts of it.

--Goodfellajohnny 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The June 1st game of 2007

I really think something should be mentioned about the June first game. Things really heated up in that game. It was the first true sign of Yankee-Red Sox hatred between the team(s) itself in quite a while. Youkilis got hit in the head (nearly). Torre and Proctor were thrown out. In addition to the head shot by Proctor, other batters were hit throughout the game by both teams, totaling 5 hit batters. The following night, Mike Lowell tackled Cano at 2nd and gave Doug Meintkiewicz a concussion, injuring him for nearly the rest of the season. I feel something should be mentioned under the "2005 - present: The Rivalry Continues" section.

--Goodfellajohnny 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the June 1st game, but didnt include the Menky concussion. I dont think that is really notable with regards to the rivalry. Menky is liked in Boston as he was apart of the 2004 team and injuries like that happen all the time out of chance. So do throws to the head, but reason to include the Youkilis situation is because the guy kept whining about it. I doubt the Yankees would purposely hit him, but he feels that they are picking on him. They really should pick on him tho, purely from a baseball POV...he crowds the plate all the time and then whines about getting buzzed. How retarded, but that is besides the point. Arnabdas 15:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• This section needs to be considered in the wider scope of the rivalry - more than 100 years of history. Recent events such as the Daisuke Matzusaka signing and the Chase Wright episode are relevant because they both included historic events (record posting fee offered by both teams, and four straight HRs), but it absolutely remains to be seen whether the June 1 game will be historically relevant, as well as a few other of this season's flashpoints, including Joba Chamberlain's ejection, Alex Rodriguez' homer off of Jonathan Papelbon, and the Yankee comeback in the first game last weekend. In the case of the June 1 game and Chamberlain, neither set off a major incident which would have been immediately noteworthy (a la the A-Rod/Varitek fight). Also, neither Roger Clemens or Chien-Ming Wang came close enough to no-hitters to be mentioned in the same vein that Mike Mussina and Billy Rohr are referenced otherwise. The "key moments" section has generally been considered a listing of major flashpoints in the history of the rivalry. Time may tell on some of these, especially if they become related to important events in the future, but for now there is no reason to list them. - RPIRED 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The June 1 game totally turned the season around for the Yankees though. I can understand rephrasing it to take the bigger picture, but to say it is not notable is kind of a stretch. Very few people expected the Yankees to be contenders this year and look what happened since that game. Arnabdas 18:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

We still need to wait, though. If the Yankees a) don't win the division and b) don't advance in the playoffs, the turnaround is historically meaningless. It's not like we need to add it right away. Like I said, it COULD become significant if future events unfold pointing back to that game. It's similar to the lingering effects of the A-Rod/Varitek game in 2004 in that no one knew until September and October what the real significance was. Perhaps another term for this whole section is simply "lore." The June 1st game isn't lore yet. - RPIRED 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your logic, but don't see how the Chase Wright game is notable and the others aren't. The Sox swept the Yankees at Fenway for the first time in a while yes. So if that is your basis on notability, how can you not include the Yankees sweep of the Sox at Yankee Stadium? That was the first time that happened in several years as well. We need to be consistent here. Either both are in or neither are. Arnabdas 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wright's dubious accomplishment, or perhaps more accurately the accomplishment of the four Sox hitters, is definitely in line with what would be considered "lore," right there with Rohr and Mussina. If not for that, the entire game would be non-notable, even with the first Sox sweep at Fenway in some time. That extra fact is just a throw-in, really, on the four HRs. - RPIRED 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see your logic. I guess we can wait given the entire time frame of everything we are looking at. It's splitting hairs though IMO, so we should be careful. Arnabdas 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

1st Playoff Mtg?

Wasn't the 1978 game the 1st playoff mtg between the two teams technically? I propose we get around this by changing it to something along the lines of "post-season play in the WC era" or something like that. Arnabdas 18:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a regular-season playoff game to decided who would qualify for the "playoffs", i.e. the post-season tournament. Not the same thing. Which is one reason baseball itself does not refer to its post-season tournament as "playoffs". Rather, they are the Divison and League Championship Series', and the World Series. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Overall Series Leader

I assume that the Yankees lead the all-time (win/loss) series? Can the overall series record between these two great rivals be factored into this article as well as things like biggest win/loss &c?

What's stopping you? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike Mussina's Almost Perfect Game

This used to be in the article, but it was taken out. I don't see how the whole 4HRs off Chase Wright is not considered lore while removing Mussina's accomplishment is? He flirted with history here. It deserves mention with a line. Arnabdas 15:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The four homers was history. Flirting with history isn't quite the same thing. IrishGuy ^talk 17:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Being within a single strike of a piece of history the magnitude of a perfect game, in a rivalry like this, is worthy of note. If not, Billy Rohr's achievement is definitely not worthy of inclusion either. I believe both are. - RPIRED 17:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

back-to-back-to-back-to-back homers against a single pitcher...that has only been done twice. Almost having a no-no...that happens much more often. Schilling almost pulled it off earlier this season. IrishGuy ^talk 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what we're missing here is that whether or not the 4 homers is noteworthy isn't really of issue... what's of issue is whether or not Mussina's almost throwing a perfecto for the Yankees against their arch-rival Red Sox is worth mentioning in an article specifically about said rivalry! I think the answer is pretty clearly "YES." Djdickmutt 15:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I also put in the fact that Cone started the game for the Sox. Cone, being a former Yankee from their last dynasty and the last Yankee to throw a perfect game makes Mussina's mention that much more noteworthy. Arnabdas (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Bostons return to glory?

Are you kidding me? Am I the only one who feels that section should be changed back to "2005-present"?

I mean, they won in 2004 as the wild card and 2007 was the first time they actually won the division in over a decade. The Sox were terrible in 2006 and weren't much better in 2005. Whoever made the section is obviously biased, because they make it seem like the Red Sox have dominated since 2004. I would hardly call this "era" the "glory days". Can we at least wait and see what the Red Sox do the next couple seasons before titling the section "Bostons return to glory"?

My point, someone should work on that section and fix it back up to how it use to be. So many changes have been made, I can't even figure out what goes where anymore. Help Please. --Goodfellajohnny 01:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• The section title seems appropriate especially since its been so long before 2004 that Boston didn't win a championship. This title does not make it seem like the Red Sox have dominated since 2004. It just makes it seem like the beginning of a possible return to the glory days. The title should stay as it is and if Boston does not stay strong, then the title should be changed <Baseballfan789 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's somewhat apples and oranges, in more than one way. In some ways it's like a return to the 1910s, with the Red Sox "expected to win" as Lowell said. But the extra playoff layers make the post-season much more of a challenge. From 2001-2007, the Yankees are post-season chokers. The Red Sox have 2 of the last 4 championships, and Sports Illustrated thinks they are going to be tough for years to come. The two clubs have, in some sense, switched places. But every year is different. Supposedly only 8 players from 2004 were on this team. I don't think that much turnover had occurred in the Red Sox during 1912-15-16-18, but it would be interesting to investigate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I changed it to "Red Sox championships, Yankee struggles", which seems fair and somewhat less POV-pushing. If the Red Sox win again next year and/or the next, we can talk about "glory" and "dynasty" and such stuff as that. With changing of the guard in New York, there's every possibility that the Yanks will win the whole thing next year. Too early to talk about glory yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New Section-Rivalry Outside of Baseball

Hey all, I added the comments about Guliani's support of the Sox during the WS and the whole tet-a-tet with him and Romney. I will leave it in for now, but was thinking that since it isn't really related to the rivalry between the two teams themselves, what are everyone's thoughts about a new section called "The Rivalry Outside of Baseball" as a title? We can include any references outside the playing of the two teams themselves such as these incidents and any pop culture references. Arnabdas (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I created the section and put in the Mitt and Rudy mentions. I was looking for the Patriots cheering Yankees Suck to it, but couldnt find it in the article. It can be placed in this section. Arnabdas (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Players of the Teams Talking About the Rivalry in a non-MLB Sense

What are people's thoughts about actual players from the teams citing the rivalry in pop-culture as opposed to sports interviews or actual actions on the field? For example, Mattingly referenced the rivalry on Spike TV and Jeter referenced the rivalry on The Late Show with David Letterman when Jeter did a Top 10 list. Should those be included here, or up in the "era" articles? As for now, I will put them in here, but am open to moving them. Arnabdas (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Celebrity Fans of Both Teams Section

What if we have a section that shows all the celebrity fans of each team? Billy Crystal, Ben Affleck, etc? Arnabdas (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reassessed

I went through this article today fixing some punctuation errors and such, and there are a lot of glaring problems that should likely be fixed. I know there are enough Yankee and Red Sox fans (of which I am not one) out there that can fix the problems so much better than I; however, because it fails the criteria, I've demoted this article from B-class to C-class. It fails criteria 1 and 6 (The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary, and the article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way). The breadth of the article is quite narrow, and the amount of citations on an article this size is quite small. If there are questions about what should be done, I suggest submitting the article to Peer review. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Rivalry outside of baseball

I've deleted a couple of entries describing the extreme actions of particularly idiotic fans. I don't think it adds anything of value to the article, and the miscreants should not be given more notoriety than they already have. As a life-long Red Sox fan living in New York City, I can vouch for the fact that the rivalry is indeed intense, but with the exception of a few beer-swilling morons in the bleachers of both ballparks, most fans -- after observing the formalities of mutual verbal abuse -- are surprisingly decent to one another. 66.108.184.224 (talk) 04:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)J Demers

Template:Infobox Sports rivalry

I've ripped off the infobox used here and made it a part of the Template:Infobox Sports rivalry. –Howard the Duck 11:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:RedSoxPrimary HangingSocks.svg

The image File:RedSoxPrimary HangingSocks.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

2004-2007: Red Sox championships, Yankee struggles

The part about Red Sox championships to describe the era is 100% on the money, but why 'Yankee struggles'? What's the standard for that? I mean, if it's based upon the lofty expectations of Yankees fans and the New York media and the Steinbrenners, then okay, but if we're being a bit more level-headed and realistic about the expectations for the Yankees, making the playoffs every season probably falls short of 'struggle'. This isn't the NBA--half the league doesn't make the playoffs. Just 8 of the 30 MLB teams--4 of the 14 in the AL--make the playoffs, meaning however ridiculously high the expectations for a team, making the playoffs counts as a successful year.

I'm aware that one can point to incidents or issues during that period in support of such a characterization, but I just find it weird to read to the entire era referred to as 'Yankee struggles'.

And yes, I am a fan of the Bronx Bombers, but that's not why I'm writing this--I'm not even sure I care whether the heading changes--it's just that I remember a simpler era of sports when everything in sports didn't seem so hyped and overblown and overexposed, and that heading just weirdly reads to me like something the Steinbrenners would allude to (no WS championship = unsuccesful season) or something I'd read in the Post or see on SportsCenter (the sports equivalent of the local news whose journalistic standards have evolved [devolved] in roughly the same fashion as the local news the last couple decades--obviously not a compliment here).

No, scratch that. Actually it reads any of the above people/organizations I mentioned, but it also reads like a Yankee fan. Well, not a Yankee fan, but rather a Yankee fan who is probably like 50%-75% of all fans in all sports--people who follow their teams only when they are playing well, and generally lack any sort of aesthetic appreciation of the sport outside of their own team's successes. I have had to remind myself the last few years upon their playoffs defeats that they aren't going to win every year, regardless of whether or not public opinion has them favored to win their division or league or the championship. In short, I have to step back and be objective--be a baseball fan rather than a 'homer'--and make a more objective assessment of their season. And in stepping back I find 'Yankee struggles' to be strangely lacking in objective analysis. Are they supposed to win every year just because they have the highest payroll? I mean, I know here in New York disappointment in anything less than a championship is practically endemic to 'Yankee Universe', but seriously, is that the standard by which we author encyclopedic articles? According to the whims of trendwhore assholes who will forget where The House That Ruth/Tax Dollars/Deferred Revenue Sharing Revenue Built is when the Yankees are not one of the better teams in the league for an extended period of time (although I suspect that so long as most television revenues come from local TV contracts the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Mets, etc. of the MLB will always afford to field a team that should be in the hunt for a playoff spot)? Anyway...

Wikipedians show me some love.

Also, go Rays. Nice to see the East being more than a two horse race for once. Also, what happens when the Canadian dollar is trading at like $0.50 CAD to $1.00 USD? Will the Jays become an AL East powerhouse? I guess not. Like the Sox, they were dumb enough to get rid of Frank Thomas, and then they released Reed Johnson. 24.44.135.148 (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking I might have written that headline, or at least tinkered with it, and I'm not especially a fan of either club. But I do know that every year, the Yankees management expects to win the World Series. Anything short of that is considered failure to the Steinbrenners. This expectation has been there most of the time since the days of Ruppert and Huston, and Topping and Webb. By contrast, teams like the Cubs figure it's a successful season if they finish above .500 and especially if, wonder of wonders, make the playoffs. That's why 2001-to-date have been a "struggle" for the Yankees. There may be no greater curse than high expectations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What if this section were changed to something like, "Role Reversal: Red Sox Success, Yankee's Disappointment" --65.96.67.105 (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not just state the fact and leave out the opinion...leave it as "Rex Sox Championships." 161.185.151.150 (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this change. Arnabdas (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)