Talk:Boston Red Sox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Boston Red Sox was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
Flag
Portal
 Boston Red Sox is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
edit 
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Boston; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Flag of Massachusetts Boston Red Sox is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
To-do list for Boston Red Sox: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Need to clean up citations
  • Cleanup: Nice information in the the seperate seasons but these may need their own page - page is getting too long
  • NPOV: Make sure that POV is modified

Contents

[edit] Significant missing material

A sentence could be added (should be added?) on each of the following: [reordered approx chronologically with little editing]

  • naming history of Boston baseball teams. Names used (by sports writers, not officially) for the Red Sox prior to Taylor settling on current name.
covered. Alkivar 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Influence of George Wright from the Reds, former use of Red Stockings by Boston teams, decision by JI Taylor to use Red Sox.
I created the Boston Red Stockings disambiguation page (formerly mis-redirected to the Red Sox). Covers the use of 'Red Stockings' by other Boston Teams. Econrad 22:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • the influence of the Royal Rooters: 'Nuf 'Ced McGreevey and the Third Base
Small note about royal rooters in paragraph on 1903 world series AlexKrolewski 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ought to find a PD image of HiHi breaking ground for the Huntingdon Avenue Grounds and put it in.
  • importance of Jimmy Collins to the founding of the team
four-year leadership of successful team, done (preseason 1901, not)
  • Some mention of Cy Young and the first perfect game in baseball
four-year achievement, mentioned
I added a few sentences about 1904 pennant race, dougherty trade, and chesbro's wild pitch AlexKrolewski 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

1905-1919, presently two or three lines

I rewrote 1900-1904 and Sale of Babe Ruth, leaving this practically untouched --P64 03:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I added several sentences on 1905-1919, including a short summary of the basement years 1905-1910s and a summary of the 1910s including speaker, ruth, and championship teams. AlexKrolewski 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • list of all the championship team players thrown away by JI Taylor when he owned the team as a plaything

1920(spring)-1938, presently one line on Tom Yawkey's acquistion and investment

Added summaries of 1925-1932 seasons, note of earl webb's doubles record, list of players yawkey acquired AlexKrolewski 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • a list of _all_ the players sold to NY by Frazee, reason why no trades/sales could be with the Loyal Five clubs. Leaving only NY and Chicago in the AL
  • a note about the loss of Pie Traynor due to Ban Johnson / Frazee feud
  • former banked field under the green monster (Duffy's Cliff)
this information is included in both the Green Monster and Fenway Park entries. --Alkivar 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Loyal NE fans, suffering each autumn and dreaming of victory during the hard winters over hot stoves -- the loooong tradition
Done in part but it may be sufficient. I rewrote the first sentence to highlight the 86-year wait, longer than any generation or two, which is the most important feature and belongs at the top until current MLB team pages are redesigned with different tone. --P64 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • the influence of Fenway (size, shape, age, ...)
  • the harassment of Williams by the Herald sports writers
  • the Kinder/Parnell years when they came soooo close
  • Malzone at third, one of the few lights in the darkest years
  • Rice's broken wrist before the greatest Series ever played
  • Larry Barnett's non interference call on Ed Armbruster during steal in that Series
belongs in some article on famously controversial calls by umpires
  • Dewey's throw from right in 75 series that has been called the best outfield play ever seen (Sparky Anderson)
  • loss of Fisk and Burleson because Sox mgmt (Sullivan/LeRoux) couldn't read a calendar
  • improbable history and nature of the LeRoux/Sullivan mgmt team
  • the Coup de LeRoux
  • the Bucky Dent thing
  • the Aaron Boone thing

and so on. The Sox deserve a better article than we now have. And we don't have to be NPOV to do it either. There IS a long tradition of suffering, and it's part of being a Red Sox fan. There IS (perhaps) more oddity in Red Sox history than for other teams. Not NPOV at all. And of course the Yankees are in league with the Devil. Just honest truth. ww 16:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a worthy list of items to be included, but as far as the "we don't have to be NPOV" lets not behave like yankees - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a gripe fest! :) so lets get to work people! Alkivar 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Pilgrims

I came to this article via a link in the Cy Young article. There is a lot of research going on at the moment that tends to show that the Boston Americans were never actually called the "Pilgrims" at the time -- that it was a name that baseball writers later stuck onto the team's history. I belong to the Sabremetric baseball research group and will research this issue a little, then, if necessary, make any changes. Hayford Peirce 03:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

there is mention of this now in the article. Lets cosider the issue closed Alkivar 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There are several highly respected sources (eg., Total Baseball, vol 6 1998; Total Ballclubs 2005) that still cite that the team was in deed referred to as the Pilgrims and the Puritans. If you are going to claim in the article they never were, please cite sources. Until then, I am going to chage it back with a disclaimer.--CrazyTalk 22:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted, and added the sources in order to clarify. Those "highly respected sources" merely parroted the same misinformation that has been out there for 50 or 60 years without bothering to research it. But a SABR member named Bill Nowlin actually went back to the newspapers from that time period and determined that the "Puritans"/"Pilgrims" stuff is bogus. Wahkeenah 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Take a deep breath, calm down, this needs to be civil. Please do not edit my comments; you can fix spelling in the article, but not on the talk page. I have reverted the misspelling in my above comment and please leave it be. Your edit to the article is still POV (Assume good faith}; you say "never" yet I have official publications of Major League Baseball stating otherwise, thereby nullifying the term "never" which is an inappropriate use of the word, and I believe John Thorn and Pete Palmer are also SABR members so they should know. If you can give me a SABR reference, then I will believe it. Until then, you cannot represent what is not yet fully accepted in baseball circles. Even the above comment by Hayford Peirce says he was going to do more research and edit as necessary - he never did state his findings nor make any edit to the page. I personally am not really interested in it, but "never" is an inappropriate stance. In the mean time, I have lessened the POV of the edit and combined it to show both sides. Once SABR fully embraces it, I think you have a point, but until then, it should be left open. What say you?--CrazyTalk 23:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You are in deed, or indeed, lacking a sense of humor. I'm not the one who put the emphasis on never, someone else did that. In fact, I'm not sure whether I even used the word "never", which I agree is a risky absolute. And the sources were listed earlier in the year, and someone excised them. Here's the deal: Bill Nowlin's writeup, copied on the Baseball Almanac page, first appeared in the SABR publication The National Pastime, No. 23, in the summer of 2003. Nowlin actually went back to the best source available, the newspapers of that time, researched the matter thoroughly, and found no evidence that the team was ever widely known as the Pilgrims or the Puritans, if at all. And near as I can tell, NO ONE besides Nowlin has bothered to do any actual research on the matter, they've all simply parroted this stuff for many years. What supposedly "credible sources" have to say about it now has no relevance when stacked up against what contemporary sources had to say (or not say) about it. Wahkeenah 00:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous in-deed. Why did you now remove Sommersets? "Conventional wisdom" is a weasel term. At least what the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum and SABR recognize is not totally removed from the article; although it is still POV. Even the article that was provided as a source is one man's opinion - if you can provide me a Bill James article, I will buy you dinner. No offense, but you seem to be heavily invested in the anti-Puritan camp and are presenting more emotion than fact. Can I ask you to step back for awhile and discuss it at a later time? Please leave the article as it is for now. Work toward agreement.--CrazyTalk 01:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC) (BTW, your statement "You are in deed, or indeed, lacking a sense of humor," appears to be atacking me, not the issue.)

I was tweaking you for going ballastic over my schoolmarm-like correction of "in deed" to "indeed", that's the only "personal" part about it. I could have thrown "Somersets" into the list, it just seemed less important. I doubt if Bill James has ever written about it, he's mostly a "figger filbert". You say it's one man's "opinion", but HE DID THE RESEARCH, and apparently not to discredit it, but to try to confirm it, only he couldn't because IT AIN'T TRUE. No one else has bothered to do any real research, they just repeat the same stuff over and over. You'd be surprised how many people still think Abner Doubleday invented baseball, which is false... or Alex Cartwright, which is not verifiably true either. I'm not emotionally invested in the Red Sox, I just like to see true facts presented (which is a SABR credo), rather than the usual hand-me-down "conventional wisdom", which if you can come up with a better term, feel free. Wahkeenah 02:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I softened down the supposed POV further, and included a reference to "Somersets". Wahkeenah 02:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone should mention how they blew a 5 game lead and the Yankees won the East again this year Maddux31holytrinity

Considering their injury problems, it's surprising the Beantowners held on as long as they did. However, let's not jump to any conclusions about anybody's chances. Don't forget that the Chicago White Sox (!) will hold the home field edge throughout the post-season, and since they seem to be getting back on track, there is always a chance they will be this year's Red Sox. Being a Chicago North Sider, though, it matters not to me. 0:) Wahkeenah 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Curse of the Bambino

I'm pretty sure that in the last month or so one or two New York Times sportswriters have written columns in which they trace the phrase back to about 1976, give or take a year. About the time of the Bucky Dent fiasco, I think. One of them, I recall, wrote that maybe he was the one who originated it. A little research with the NYT could probably take the date back about 10 years.... Hayford Peirce 02:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The earliest reference I can find using the keywords "Curse" and "Babe Ruth" is the Oct 28, 1986 edition of the NYT (page D33), a headline in the Sports of the Times section titled "Babe Ruth Curse Strikes Again", by George Vecsy, written after the Mets' victory that year. -khaosworks 03:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
this is an ongoing issue, lets see if we can dig some more info up on this. article has been modified to mention this. Alkivar 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As an update - I found an article in the previous day's paper, Oct 27, 1986, also by George Vecsy, titled "Why the Mets are still alive" (Page C3) which also mentiones the Curse of Babe Ruth. Another article the day after talks about Boston being haunted by the "curse" of old ghosts, i.e. the loss of previous World Series. I can find no other references to the Babe Ruth curse prior to 1986. -khaosworks 08:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I found articles written in 1979 about the Red Sox being cursed, but not until 1986 did it get explicitly linked to Babe Ruth and 1918. I think the Vescey attribution is right. Sympleko 15:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--Jonathancjudd 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC) The very last sentence in this section "The trade of Ruth led to a downfall in the Sox fortunes, which would not change until 1939." contradicts the first sentence of the section, which states Ruth was sold. In either case, the mention of the entire "curse" is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.

[edit] 2004 Playoff section

Alkivar, I really have problems with your reverting my last edits.

  • Why are you getting rid of the info on acquiring Schilling and Nomar for OCab, Minetkiewicz? This is important.
one i'm not, i said ADD not remove, this removal was just a byproduct of the revert. Alkivar 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Your info on the first three ALCS games is "Game _ (date) delivered a _-to-_ loss at _." Mine actually describes what happened in these games, and therefore is content.
  • Same with the rest of the series. I go into more detail, such as their comeback against Rivera. I don't delete any content.
again same reason.
Done.
  • The Red Sox aren't really hands-down favorites, so I removed that.
for the world series EVERY MAJOR SPORTSWRITER LISTED THEM AS THE FAVORITE! YES INCLUDING THE ST LOUIS RESIDENTS! Alkivar 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I said exactly how the lead, blowing the lead, and the win occured. This would be considered content.
again ADD THIS.
I did, you removed it, I just put it back.
  • The "content" I removed was who sang the national anthem, GBA, and the fact that Ben Affleck was in the stands. How is this relevant to an article about the franchise? Affleck's presence has questionable merit being mentioned in an article about the series, but it absolutely doesn't belong here!
this matters to some folks. but i'm sorry you dont find knowing that Hall of Fame members of the Red Sox were in attendance.Alkivar 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I didn't remove this, but I will repeat that this page is about the franchise. I'd damn well hope that famous former players would show up for their team in the World Series, but in terms of someone who had NOTHING to do with the game in any way, shape or form (like Affleck), it doesn't need to be here!
I agree, what is the point? Shall we list every minor celebrity in the crowd so that people can look back and say, "It's not important that the Sox won their first Series in nearly a century, because Ben Affleck and Tom Hanks were there and had a good time and that's what counts."
  • In the same way, a space for Game 2 play-by-play with the note "Game 2 data will go here." is useless.
not useless, its stops folks from modifying sections that dont need modification in order to put in the play-by-play which will get added whether we want it or not. Play by play data actually helps us to create the next paragraph because we can AFTER ITS ADDED remove the pointless content. Alkivar 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Two solutions: 1) Comment it out. People who come to the site don't need to see a work in progress. 2) Work off of the 2004 WS page, or any other play-by-play account. Doesn't have to be on this page.

Look at it this way: Someone who knows nothing about the team will learn more about the season by reading my version than by reading yours. I would thank you to not do a whole-scale revert of my page. If you still think the fact that Kelly Clarkson sang God Bless America is important enough to include, do that, but please go point-by-point and put in the useful information. Jonpin 00:26, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

theres an entire fucking page in wikipedia over who sang god bless america at what game. THEREFORE IT MATTERS. and SECOND ... ITS NOT YOUR FUCKING PAGE, ITS EVERYONES. Alkivar 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
not to mention the fact that you've been a Wiki member for uhm 2 weeks if that. i've been here for MONTHS. Alkivar 00:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Which means that you're breaking the rule about not biting the newcomers. But besides I have done a few things on here over the past few months, the fact that I'm taking a large interest in a page now doesn't mean I have any less opinion than you.
I agree that it's not my page. It's not yours either. You don't need to curse at me (here or in the edit summary), and I'm not arguing about whether who sang God Bless America matters. I'm not! I have my opinion on it, and it doesn't matter. What I'm saying is that it matters on the page about the series. That DOESN'T mean it has to appear on a page about the FRANCHISE. When this series is over, one way or the other, the page is going to be reviewed. Some stuff will stay, other stuff won't. I'm trying to write content that will remain relevant TO THE FRANCHISE. Jonpin 00:58, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Calm down

Calm down, guys. There is bound to be disagreement over an article dealing with breaking events ... when the Series is over (insert obligatory team-boosting comment here) and blood stops boiling, it will be much easier to examine this article dispasionaltely. Don't get too worked up or Wikipedia will kill you through high blood pressure. - DavidWBrooks 03:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (in N.H. and surrounded by Red Sox fanatics, incidentally)

My own opinion is that in order to avoid cluttering the Red Sox main page, which ought to be about the team itself rather than being a detailed account of its performance, I would be in favor of moving the 2004 postseason section to its own page. It makes little sense for a majority of this article to be devoted to a single postseason in the team's long history. However, I tend to think that a play-by-play is highly unnecessary, especially since it would be more appropriately placed in an article about the World Series itself. Perhaps just a scoring summary. Aerion 07:56, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (in Cambridge, MA, and surrounded by people who don't particularly care about baseball but root for the Red Sox by default, incidentally)

I agree with you Aerion, this is a page about the team and it's history not a performance record... that should seperated and we should focus more on the history-making events! Either that or just have people go the 2004 ALCS and World Series pages. So everyone let's just cool it, chill out and have fun editing becuase this the Sox's year... 86 years of waiting are gone! (Ok, maybe I'm premature but as a Sox fan, I can feel it...) --Saint-Paddy 17:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (in Lynn, MA, living right next door to the Item sports editor. My school is a diffrent story, it's out in Metro-West so it's a battleground for Sox-Yanks fans there.

I gotta say I agree with you. We should calm down and enjoy the Series. But damn is Alkivar pissing me off right now. Not only did he curse me out in the above conversation, he then deleted it, saying "we both looked like hotheaded idiots." I think I might look like an idiot now, but I figure I had every right to say what I said up there. Further, after a brief search through the rules, I see nothing about wholesale deletion of a substantiative conversation. Refactoring? Yes, after time has passed. Deleting personal attacks? Yes, so maybe the "it's not your fucking page!" should go. But deleting a useful conversation? That should not happen. And in any case, if any of it should be removed as irrelevant, that's not our job because we're clearly not impartial! [sarcasm]And clearly I can't do it because I've only been here for "two weeks if that" while you've been here for months![/sarcasm]
When I was saying that "Johnny Pesky was there, and Kelly Clarkson sang God Bless America during the seventh inning stretch" didn't belong, I didn't mean that it was entirely irrelevant. It fits in just fine on the 2004 WS page, as I said. However, does this article say who sang the national anthem at each game of the 1986 World Series? No, because it's a trivial detail that's not related to the franchise.
In short, the conversation you removed should stay, for the reasons Aerion mentioned below. It's a good way to avoid arguments from popping up if someone starts typing up how Pedro is doing in the second inning. [In reality, the entire two sections on 2004 will and probably should be reduced to a couple paragraphs, win or lose, sometime over the winter.] Jonpin 22:09, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, you are continuing to "look like an idiot." But good points nonetheless. Was the issue ever resolved, or should we all just let the page grow until the Series is concluded, and sort it out then? For now, I've just added links in the 2004 Postseason and 2004 World Series sections to the existing main articles. Aerion 00:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Postseason Riots

Do the riots that occured after this year's ALCS win deserve to be mentioned somewhere in the 2004 postseason section? (briefly - no need for too much detail, at least not in this article) Same with any riots that may erupt if the Sox win the World Series. In the wake of last week's student death, we've been given specific instructions to avoid Kenmore Square in the event the Sox do win, but I doubt many people will be deterred. Who can resist a huge party just 364.4 smoots (and 1 ear) away? Aerion 00:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the riots and the girl who was killed deserve mention, especially considering her entry page is VfD'd. With 1 very strong stipulation, IT HAS TO BE NEUTRAL, no negative angle about the Boston PD. Alkivar 01:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, NPOV needs no mention. As a side note, I don't think the deletion of the entire section above was a wise idea. The discussion can serve as a guide to future editors. But I'll let you and Jonpin make the call on that. Aerion 14:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I added the comment because the page for her was starting to turn into a rant about the Boston PD. Alkivar 23:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. Aerion 00:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 'Idiots'

I wasn't paying attention to MLB - could there be some explanation about the whole affectionate "Idiots" thing w.r.t. the Sox? Krupo 05:31, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think I saw it before then, but before the ALCS, Johnny Damon said "We're a lot of cowboys and a bunch of idiots and people like that. Kids like that." After that, it was pretty much a running joke about how they were playing like they had nothing to lose. Jonpin 08:59, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Post Season

Once the fervor and shock have settled down, the section about this years amazing feats will need to be extensively trimmed down. It's completely out of proportion with the rest of the article. There's still the 2004 Post Season article itself to link to ... -- GWO

I've taken a shot at trimming some of it, but it still needs to be shortened a lot more. I hope you folks can help out. --Modemac 12:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is very much needed, and has been (almost) discussed in the past few days. Hopefully, now that the postseason is complete, somebody will take the time to clean it up. There are already extensive articles on the topic, and I imagine there's not that much new material here. What little there is here that is not redundant should be merged into those articles, then a summary and a link to the main articles should be included on this page. Aerion 18:25, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have found three errors (actually, one is just a poorly communicated sentence) in the 2004 season entry. The Red Sox overcame a 5-run deficit in the July 24th game (down 9-4). Olerud's Yankees were already leading 1-0 in ALCS Game 2, though the entry currently implies that Olerud's team was trailing. Lastly, the 14 inning Game 5 was the longest by innings in American LCS history, but ranked behind the Mets/Astros in 1986 (16 innings) and the Mets/Braves in 1999 (15 innings) as the longest League Championship Series games, as the entry currently claims.

 (I have no reason to want to tout myself by putting my name on this page...I'd just like to see these 3 inaccuracies rectified.)

[edit] Game 4 eclipse

Perhaps whoever wrote that bit about the eclipse being "fitting" should explain their metaphor a little more, as it's not terribly obvious right now. I realize that my deletion of "total darkness" may have made it even less clear, but the fact is that it wasn't total darkness. The moon is still very much visible during a total eclipse, it's just somewhat darker and redder. Also, it was apparently cloudy in St. Louis that night, so the eclipse was only occasionally visible at the site of the game. (Nice view here in Boston, though.) Aerion 18:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i'm the one who originally added that statement. As the Sox blanked the cardinals 3-0 it sorta compares to the shadow of the earth blanking the moon does it not? And as it began well before the game was over it foreshadowed the outcome. On a seperate note this was a Category 3 Total eclipse ... 75% obstruction where I live, and from some planar angles in north america the moon reached almost a 90% black out. Alkivar 21:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Alright. Do you want to put that on the main article? Aerion 22:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It was added once ... i'm not wasting my time doing it again when its gonna get removed entirely. at this point i wash my hands of anything to do with world series/boston red sox. it seems everyone keeps either reverting or completely deleting my contributions. so F--k it. Alkivar 22:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Can I recommend adding it to 2004 World Series. -- GWO

[edit] let's not overdo game summaries

I just removed a couple paragraphs added to a game summary ... this isn't a play-by-play or color commentary - the article is very long as it is. - DavidWBrooks 00:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Main Rivals ?

Some well-meaning anonymous editor has been posting what he considers to be the primary rivals of each major league team. For example, for the Boston Red Sox he had the Cubs, New York Yankees, Giants and Cardinals. The only one of those that makes sense is the Yankees. It is not at all clear where he came up with the others, aside from the fact that they have played in the World Series at some point in the past, or possibly recently in interleague play.

In fact, it's effectively a "Point of View", is it not? Some rivalries are obvious because of the hype: Yankees-Red Sox, Cubs-Cardinals, Giants-Dodgers, and also any two teams in the same city or at least in close proximity, which were initially just financial rivals until interleague play came along: Yankees-Mets, Cubs-Sox, Dodgers-Angels, A's-Giants.

But to label other interleague competitors as "main" rivals is rather a stretch. To do it objectively, you would have to look at average attendance figures of a given team vs. any statistically significant increase vs. specific visiting teams. That could be hard to do at a place like Fenway or Wrigley, which generally sell out no matter what. A better approach would be to compare TV ratings, where available.

Does anyone have time to go through all that research, just to try and prove which teams are "main" rivals? I certainly do not. Maybe someone else would. Wahkeenah 4 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)

You are quite correct. I'm dumping it all but the Yankees. - DavidWBrooks 5 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look through the article (as I haven't done in a while) I'm throwing up my hands - what an amateurish, gushing load of fanboy crud it has become. I think wikipedia's sports articles have become worse than the anime articles, which I didn't think was possible. - DavidWBrooks 5 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

[edit] Not to be forgotten

Well... I think there are simply too many players without supporting pages. If this anonymous user think they are NTBF, how about creating a page for them first explaining why, then add them to this list? And what about some oscure players like Agbayani, Alcantara, Benzinger, Checo, Pemberton, and a long etcetera, joining distinguished ones such as Roger Clemens, Dick Radatz, Duffy Lewis, Lee Smith, Wes Ferrell, Jim Lonborg and Dwight Evans, between others? MusiCitizen 13:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this section is really supposed to be for notable players, not a comprehensive list. If a player doesn't even have a stub, it's unlikely they should be in this section. Carbonite | Talk 14:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I also agree, that latest list was rediculously long. It might even be better to simply list those with retired numbers and those in the RS HOF to prevent too much POV. See the Talk:Boston_Bruins page for some good reasoning. Pal 14:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like y'all need another section: "To be forgotten". Wahkeenah 17:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Fellas, get off your high horse for a second here. The additions of players like Alcantara, Benzinger and Pemberton were made as a goof. If this is such a sacred list, then why do you already have guys such as the immortal Randy Kutcher, Carlos Quintana, Rob Murphy and Chris Stynes on there? Not to mention the inclusion of Frank Tanana, who pitched all of 24 games for the Sox and went 4-10 in that short stint. Now while a lot of forgettable players were added, there were also several noteworthy guys put on the list that you had previously missed, and virtually every one has a stub. Also, positions were added as well. So open your mind and please stop changing everything that was created by someone outside the regular Boston Red Sox Wikipedia circle. Thanks.

  • —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.63.96.109 (talk • contribs) 11:38, August 3, 2005.

Indeed. Hence the need for a "To Be Forgotten" list. Pumpsie Green should be right near the top of it. Yet he has his own article. Where is the Justice, David? Wahkeenah 22:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup?

I've added the cleanup template to this article in the hopes that someone with more time can perhaps trim the accounts of recent seasons. As a Red Sox fan, I'm as excited about the team and their recent progress, but this article is poorly written for an encyclopedia. Rife with redundancy, clear bias, and unclear phrasing, this piece isn't quite in need of a total rewrite, but needs some serious structural reorganization near the end. Should I get some time soon, I'll try my hand at it myself. --Dsibilly 02:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've done some of this cleanup, but there still remains a lot of work - there is a noticeable gap in the team's history: the 1980s (Morgan's Magic, the 86 Series). Also the former players section probably needs to be cleaned up (see above comments). Pal 04:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine why the Sox fans wouldn't want to write about the 1986 World Series. Did something go wrong? Wahkeenah 04:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I think this article is sufficiently cleaned up to the point where it no longer needs the cleanup template, so it is now removed. - Pal 17:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 & tiebreaker

The statement "2005 could be considered the 6th division title" is patently false. MLB rules [1] state quite clearly that "the" division champion is the team with the best record, or if tied, the team that wins certain tiebreakers. There is no provision for a "shared" division title; in all scenarios, a single team is the division champion. The 2005 Red Sox can certainly claim their wild card berth, but there is no valid reason to state that 2005 is also a division title, whether it "should be" or "would be" historically. The statement at the beginning of the article seems fairly obvious POV. Simishag 16:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And of course, by the same logic, the Red Sox did not win a division title in 1979 either. Simishag 17:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
In 1979, the Baltimore Orioles won the division title. I assume you mean 1978. After 162 games, they were tied with the Yankees, and a 163rd game (a playoff game) was held to decide the winner, because only one of the two could go to the post-season. In 2005 (as with 2001 in the NL Central), there was no need for a playoff game because both teams already qualified for the post-season. Had the Indians swept the White Sox this past weekend, there would have to have been a playoff scenario. That's why the news reported after this past Saturday that the Yankees win along with the Indians' loss gave the Yankees the division championship. Red Sox Nation can rightly say they finished with the same record as the Yankees in 2005, but they are incorrect if they claim it to be a division co-champion. There is no such thing, not now, and not in 1978, either. Wahkeenah 17:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this shouldn't be included at this point. However, if the Red Sox organization claims to be 2005 AL East co-champs at some point in the future (like the Cardinals did in 2001) then we'll have to add a note similar to the one on the St. Louis page. - Pal 18:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Simishag, I guess this is why you are having a serious problem here. That is actually false, as Wahkeenah notes. This is NOT why the Sox did not win in 1978. The Yankees would have won a tiebreaker (having a better division record) in 1978, but there was no such thing: they had a playoff game. This is new, and as it has happened only once before, many people don't understand it -- including you, as you just showed by comparing it to 1979 [sic] -- and thus a note is worth having. -- http://pudge.net/
It is at best trivia and at worst fanboy BS, and at least 4 people over the past 2 days felt strongly enough about it to revert it. Your statement "this could be considered the 6th division title" implies some level of consensus. Yankees fans certainly wouldn't agree. Sports writers wouldn't agree. MLB wouldn't agree. If you wanted to say "Red Sox fans sentimentally claim this as a 6th division title", and put it in a place a little less obvious than the top of the page, that might be acceptable, but rules are rules, and the rules say the Yanks won it this year. There is simply no provision for a shared division title, not now and not then. The fact that they have the same record at the end of the year is interesting, but it does not mean they won the division, not now and not then. Whether they would have won it "historically" is irrelevant to 2005. Simishag 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
So when many Yankees fans are asking me to explain how the team with the best record didn't win the division -- something that has only happened once before in the major leagues -- they are being Red Sox fanboys? Stop being stupid. And so what if it is trivia; what about the page isn't? You really think this is less important than the fact that Sweet Caroline is played in the middle of the eighth inning? Stop being stupid. And "my statement" is not mine. Check your History. That was from the St. Louis Cardinals' page, and Jredmond put it in, not me; if you didn't like that, then you could have changed that one part. As to sports writers: did you take a poll? Stop being stupid. Really. And if you don't like my tone, you can stuff it: you're the one who is removing edits without even understanding what they were about, and then went on to get all self-righteous about it. -- http://pudge.net/
I don't get why any sports fan would be astute enough to look at the standings and yet be so ignorant as to not understand, in a one-sentence explanation if necessary, why the Yankees get the division title and the Red Sox get the wild card. Most MLB fans follow the NFL, I should think. And ties at the top of a division happen from time to time, it's no big deal. I think what's really afoot here is the erroneous assumption that winning a title still means something in a qualitative sense. Once the wild card was introduced, its meaning dropped significantly. As with the other major sports, winning a division is simply an automatic playoff berth and a degree of home field edge, and maybe some kind of dime-store trophy. That's all. Wahkeenah 23:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The Red Sox are obviously an emotional issue for you, as your link makes clear: "The MLB rules are retarded", "Screw it, I am declaring the Sox the champs", etc. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Also, you might want to stop making statements about "the team with the best record." The Sox did not, of course, have THE single best record, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. All you have to tell your Yankees friends (who are just having some fun with you, by the way; I'm sure THEY know the rules) is that MLB has tiebreaker rules for exactly this purpose. Your assertion that this is some sweeping new change that caught everyone by surprise is, of course, ridiculous; MLB implemented these rules when it went to its current playoff format in 1995(?), so it's not like people didn't know that this would be the exact mechanism for deciding the division winner. The fact that this is the first time it's ended up this way is interesting I suppose, but it is not "unfair" or "stupid" or anything else. As for trivia: personally I don't care either way whether the songs are mentioned, but it is a fact that they are played (well, actually, I don't know if they are, but no one has disputed it), and perhaps it is part of team lore and thus worthy of mention. But hey, that's why we have discussion pages like this, to hash this stuff out. Your assertion that the Sox are somehow entitled to claim a division title is disputable, is in fact disputed by others here, and you are therefore remiss if you fail to note the dispute (Wiki's rule, not mine).
Anyway, it's not about self-righteousness, it's about having a quality article. This is not my article, nor is it yours, so telling me to "stuff it" is childish. If you can't stand to see your copy edited, maybe you shouldn't be editing. I certainly wasn't the only person who thought it was a lousy edit. Pal's edit under "2005" is substantially better, and correctly frames the issue without making a bogus claim about a shared division title. Simishag 23:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I just checked the official Red Sox site [2], and so far it only says "Wild Card Winner 2005". Nothing about co-division titles. That could conceivably come later and, as someone above noted, that could be worth discussing in the article. The Cardinals didn't like being relegated to the wild card in 2005, but claiming to be co-champs don't make it so. The major leagues' governing body make the rules, not the individual teams, or the media, or the fans. Wahkeenah 23:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

IMO the section on the 2005 season and the 2005 post-season is far too long. The 2004 section is probably too long as well but because of winning the World Series and beating the Yankees in such dramatic fashion warrant some attention I can mainly understand that section's length.

If the 2002- 2003 section warrants 3 paragraphs and the championship season warrants 10 and the 2005 section warrants another 12 paragraphs - how many will the next season have ? Eventually you will have an article that is long on details of recent events and shorter on encyclopedic information.

I'm tempted to just wade in and start paring but I'd like some feedback from other users. No Guru 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Give it some time for the the emotion factor to dissipate. As the joy of 2004 and the disappointment of 2005 fade into memory, you can take your hedge trimmers to this article. Wahkeenah 02:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Go right ahead and trim! I did it after last season (which had featured practically an inning-by-inning account of the '04 playoffs -- and it's growin again!) and I have plans to do more this offseason. - Pal 20:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe later in the winter, when the Hot Stove League is in full swing. Wahkeenah 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Retired Numbers

"Wade Boggs is the only player who meets the criteria for his number to be retired."

Boggs ended his career with Tampa Bay; thus, he does NOT meet the necessary criteria. How do we go about changing this statement to better reflect what the actual situation is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FutureNJGov (talk • contribs) .

Good catch. I've made some changes. How's that? —Cleared as filed. 13:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not know where the retirement requirement came from. The Red Sox policy on retiring uniform numbers is based on the following criteria:

  • Election to the National Baseball Hall of Fame
  • At least 10 years played with the Red Sox
prior to fisk it was a requirement to have retired a Red Sox.--Kev62nesl 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

RedSox.com - Red Sox Retired Numbers

Wade Boggs will have a more difficult time having his number retired because he didn't retire with the Red Sox, among other reasons, but it isn't a requirement that he have done so. Assawyer 14:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I took the tour at Fenway Park earlier this year and one of the guides said there were three requirements (10+ seasons w/ Sox, in BOH, and retire as Sox). It could be he assumed that since all but Fisk ended their careers in Boston, he assumed that was a requirement when it is really coincidence. -User:IceDrake523

After Fisk got elected into the HOF, we was hired by the Sox as a "special assistant" or consultant or something. This allowed the Sox to apply their rules for retiring numbers because he was now working for the Sox again and technically "ending his career" with them. Doc502 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manny

This may not be a problem for long, if Manny is traded, but... Are the flags by the players names indicating the country they belong to, or the country they were born in? Ever since 2004, Manny has been an American citizen, so should the flag be changed from a Dominican Republic flag to an American one? --Thebends 00:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe Manny has dual citizenship between the Dominican Republic and the US. 146.115.74.116 03:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok... so should there be two flags in that case? --Thebends 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe this question has already been answered on Talk:Boston Red Sox roster. Apparently the flags represent country of origon, not nationality (which usually are one in the same). I think a small header of the top of the roster would prevent any confusion of casual readers of the page. I am going to look into what is on the WikiProject Baseball. Assawyer 03:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Designated Hitter

Shouldn't Ortiz be listed as an infielder on the 40 man roster? I didn't think there was any such thing as a DH roster spot, its just a line-up designation.

At first I thought you were crazy, but then I checked, and I didnt see and DH listed on the other AL teams. So I think he probably should be. (Opes 00:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

I reverted the DH to infielder header change to reflect how the Red Sox officially list their roster. You are correct that the DH is a line-up designation under MLB Rule 6.10, but I believe that it is still a roster spot as referenced in designated hitter. I suspect the reason most teams do not have a DH spot on their roster is because the rule is not manditory to have a DH. I do not think that we should change one teams official roster based on how other teams list their roster. Assawyer 01:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ehh. Ok. Thats justifable. (Opes 01:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

Also, I don't know how many teams' rosters you viewed, but there are nine players that are listed on the league's website with the DH designation. [3] Seven of those belonging to the follow teams (links go to rosters): Seattle Mariners, Boston Red Sox, Detroit Tigers (hasn't been receintly updated), Texas Rangers, Minnesota Twins and the Cleveland Indians. The remaining two players listed by the MLB as DH are: Erubiel Durazo, John Jaha.

[edit] Ugh

This infobox needs major shrinking. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Greatest Rivalry

The opening line read something to the effect that the Yankee/Sox rivalry is the greatest and most intense rivalry in [b]sport[/b].

I changed it to Baseball, as I can think of around ten sporting rivalries that are far, far more intense and have a lot more history than the Sox/Yankees.

Rangers/Celtic in Scotland's Premier League "soccer" is a rivalry based in religion that has been going since the 1800's, and regularly leads to violence.

River Plater/Boca Juniors in Argentina is even hotter!

Since the quotation has no citation, it can't be left there, especially since it is arguably hyperbole.

Well, since you mentioned two rivalries outside of the United States, one can still make a very valid arguement that the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry is the greatest in professional American sports. It might be a stretch to call it the greatest in all American sports, since the collegiate rivalries of Harvard/Yale (football), Army/Navy (football), Ohio State/Michigan (football), North Carolina/Duke (basketball) can stake claim in that title.

DaDoc540 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Which ESPN segment should we cite. Anything dubbed the greatest is without question subjective and cannot be objectified. How can one objectify the greatest rivalry, you can't. However can clearly confirm that it has been said about that rivalry. Can you make the case for others of course, have people said it about this rivalry yes. Have famous important sports figures said it, answer again is yes. --Kev62nesl 05:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
How many MLB rivalries in the last sixty years, post-WWII? Yankees-Red Sox, Dodgers-Giants, Cubs-Cardinals. Has anyone called any other the greatest? Suppose not. That is three in recent MLB history. What should Wikipedia say about greatest rivalries if MLB (objectively) has three in the last few generations? --P64 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duquette Info

I found an error in the section that talks about Dan Duquette. The article gives him credit for developing the minor league system and cites Nomar Garciaparra and Trot Nixon as examples of this. Actually, Trot Nixon was drafted by previous GM Lou Gorman and his name should not be listed here.

I am going to edit the page and remove it. I will replace Nixon with two good players that Duquette did actually draft - Carl Pavano and David Eckstein.

[edit] Current record

As I've stated in edit summaries, I don't think it is a good idea to include daily updated team records for sports teams: [4]. There are two key reasons:

  1. Wikipedia is not a news service, and providing current standings is not what an encyclopedia is for;
  2. MostlyRainy's caveat of "as long as I can update it" [5] admits the inherent problem that if an update is missed (which is a reasonable assumption), the information would immediately be inaccurate.

Other editors at other pages seem to agree [6]. --mtz206 (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note re: Duquette and Clemens

Because I'm sure someone will notice my edit and not get it...

Dan Duquette never said that Roger Clemens was "in the twilight of his career." His statement was that Red Sox management wanted to keep Clemens in a Boston uniform "during the twilight of his career," with the full implication of the statement in context indicating that to be sometime in the future. This is consistent with what is written elsewhere in Wikipedia (see Roger Clemens for instance), and is verifiable in the archives of the Boston Herald.

I have restructured the sentence regarding this statement to be factual and convey its controversial nature. -- Zakath 08:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Massive Cleanup

Just a little notice, I've done and will keep doing some massive cleanup on this article. If you want to help, jump right in. :) Yanksox 16:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it...just try to lean towards brevity. I think this article is way, way, way too long. Fumblebruschi 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, please feel free to look over my edits, and see how it is. Yanksox 03:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Considering the way the rest of the article is structured, at some point the last several years should be merged into something like a "current era" heading. If entire decades can be summed up in a single subsection, there probably doesn't need to be lengthy bits about every single one of the last few seasons. Make sense? Zakath
(After reworking the Nickname section) Yes, way too big.
One or two chunks of subject matter should be shipped out to other articles. Maybe everything on the 2006 team to one article, maybe all roster data to one article. Those are two extremely-overlapping suggestions that will ship out one chunk of subject matter. Of course, such strategies should be cover all MLB or all big-time team sports. To ship out a long history article, leaving only a short summary here, should or should not be implemented much more generally: for Astronomy or Copenhagen one might do the same export when the main article gets too big. --P64 01:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish

Why is the Spanish translation of the team's name relevant?

[edit] Roster

Can anyone confirm that the Red Sox have indeed aquired Javy Lopez from Baltimore? I saw it on ESPN.--Tigersfan1992 23:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, still just "in the works" [7] DrunkenSmurf 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes (Pilgrims), See also, . . .

What is the preferred order for Notes, See also, External links, References --in particular where, as here, there is a substantial footnote? Nothing looks right.

Information should probably be rearranged between Notes (newly relegated) and the Nickname section, Pilgrims? subsection. Bill Nowlin and some recent SABR publications were one third of Nickname, with too much detail. That material might be rewritten as a good paragraph focusing on 1901-1907 nicknames, and I hinted that by making subsections, but I didn't do the work. Instead I simply relegated to Notes the part about his 2006 followup article, which moderated his previous finding. --P64 01:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curse of the Crow

August 2nd, 2006 a crow landed and ran the bases in Fenway park. Since then the team has tanked.

A new curse is upon the Sox, the curse of the crow!

Picture of the Crow

"In Greek superstition crows are seen as a bad omen, often foretelling death." -- OldSuperstitions.com

That's not a crow, it's a blackbird. Fumblebruschi 18:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better description of 2004 late season turnaround

In 2004 the Sox were between 6 and 12 games over .500 from game 27 through game 110. Then they went on a 20-2 tear. This should be mentioned, and if someone can figure out the difference in the wild card standings this tear made, that info should be added as well.

[edit] GA Box

Can someone please get that GA box at h top of he article to align to the right? I never figured out how. Thanks, aido2002 03:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Red Sox}}

Hi. I created a template to go at the bottom of all Red Sox-related pages. But as of now, the links it has are not really great. So, if anyone can help improve the template, that would be really helpful. Don't put it on any pages, yet, because I want to make sure it's great before it is put anywhere. Thanks, aido2002 21:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Fans?

How does this matter at all? Can we get a consensus to remove this section entirely? Lionelxhutz 23:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

-I agree. Many entries are flawed.

I Agree too. A while back I tried to add citations but even with them the section seems irrelevant. Doc502 16:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's remove it. Doesn't help the article at all. -- No Guru 16:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not many votes, but it is unanimous. I just removed the section. Doc502 20:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting the page?

There's been something like 20 instances of vandalism on this page in the past week. Can the page be protected? Doc502 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of vandalism to this article but in my mind it is being managed. If the vandalism comes fast and furious and is difficult to stay on top of then I would semi-protect it. In any event you can request protection for a page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection -- No Guru 20:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname section

I hope that this doesn't come across too strongly against the person that wrote the majority of the section, but the Nickname section needs some serious work. The structure of the information that is there is confusing, unrefrenced, and most of it is only marginally related to the topic of the Red Sox name in my opinion. The other problem is that this section ought to be moved to become a part of the History section. As it is it's sitting on it own shoehorned in between "individual player-introduction music", and "Retired numbers", and is a bit lost. The structure of the overall page is confusing right now, and this section is one of the reasons why.

In my opinion this section should be reduced to a deacently sized paragraph of referenced materiel. Two short sub sections should have a link to Boston Pilgrims and Boston Americans as the respective main articles for each section.

I started looking at this as I was looking into editing the 1903 World Series article. Obviously, the Boston Pilgrims/Americans nickname problem is connected to the 1903 series. I was about to be bold and begin fixing this myself, but as I read the articles and looked at the problem itself I find myself realising what a large change this is. I am not a Red Sox fan, or even a particular expert at Red Sox history so the last thing I want to do is start an edit controversy on this page. The article needs work to fit into the encyclopedia, though. As it is, if you read/edit other parts of Wikipedia and come here this article as it stands is obviously not like the rest of the encyclopedia. --Ohms law 10:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

I failed this because of no refs, long history section, cleanup tag since august, fair use issues, etc, this article has so many problems. Jaranda wat's sup 19:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance issues

Roughly the same amount of space is devoted to pre-2002 as to post-2002 in this article. Granted, the last few years have been significant, but some effort should be made to achieve a more equal coverage of the earlier period, or to trim down the newer portion. Biruitorul 01:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times Company

Why is there no mention in this article that The New York Times Company, which owns The Boston Globe as well as obviously The New York Times is an owner of the team? It seems pretty relevant to me that the biggest home town newspaper of the team as well as the biggest home town news paper of the team's biggest rival are owned by the same company that owns the team. — Linnwood 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what happened

What happened, all the information is gone

[edit] Request for Protection

I put in a requrest to have this page semi-protected, but it was denied.
However, I have to respectfully disagree with this decision. If you look at the history for this page, nearly every single change of the last 250+ edits is either vandalism or a revision. Does anyone else think this is a little ridiculous? Zomic_13 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is now semi-protected. Thank you. Zomic_13 17:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retired numbers

If the encyclopedic content is strong, then it ought to be integrated into the already existing section, not just tacked onto the end. The section already discusses at least Jim Rice and Roger Clemens, so why not combine it together nicely instead of having it on the end? Sorry I reverted it, it just seemed to have been added without thought to how well the entire section read. -- Whereizben - Chat with me - My Contributions 12:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/s/Talk%7EBoston_Red_Sox_8a8a.html"