Talk:Boston Red Sox/Archive 5

History needs to be downsized
Well we have a whole article on the history so the sub-history page shouldn't be that long--Levineps (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not only size that's an issue, but the risk of divergence. The less detail you have here, the less likely it is to contradict something in the history article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Uniforms Box
The Red Sox will be using the new alternate cap with the hanging sox with both their alternate away and alternate home jerseys. But the box on this page has them using the primary "B" logo cap with the alternate away jersey. This needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.55.246 (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While we're at it, what's the justification for asserting that the Red Sox will be wearing blue socks on the road?  SixFourThree (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree


 * Both of the above points are well taken. I let the creator of the uniform image know that there appear to be some inaccuracies in it and I think that until we have an accurate image of the 2009 uniforms, the image should be removed all together.Nsfreeman (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Better to have no graphic than an inaccurate one.  Shall we work on a consensus?  SixFourThree (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

Once again, unfortunately, the uniform box needs to be changed (or removed). Earlier this week, members of the Sox' management said that the blue socks are not officially part of the away unifrom. In fact, he stated that the socks in all four uni designs aren't standardized. Proving this point, in last night's game on the road in Cleveland, they wore the road grays with red socks. Since the socks may be changing colors on a whim throughout the year, maybe it's best to take the current image on this page and crop it at the knee. Nsfreeman (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If there are any issues or changes that need to be made to the uniforms, please, come to me and it will be sorted out. The Blue Sox arguement has been spoken on in a few discussion pages already, so I suppose I'll update everyone here.  Of course, in showing off the new uniforms, the socks were not revealed to us in photos.  As the new away uniform seemed to me to be patterned after the uniforms worn during the 80's, I figured that the socks would match.  I'd seen these uniforms a million times while watching the finaly of Game 6 against the Mets, but due to the poor quality of the video usually, the stirrups worn were dark and their color indistinguishable.  I'd always thought they were a navy, but I found myself to be mistaken when this issue came up.  When this was brought to my attention, it was mentioned that a video game had depicted them in blue socks, so I figured I'd just wait until their first away series, where I discovered that they were wearing blue, much to my surprise.  Now, it seems that sock colors are arbitrary.  This can be handled in a variety of ways, but losing the image or cutting the socks is a bit radical.  We could keep it the way it is, as the image displays both sock colors, and it's not as if the blue is not used with the uniforms it's depicted with.  We could change the away to red and keep blue with the alternate away to show that the blue is used at times.  Of course, if it makes everyone feel better, they could just all be depicted with red socks.  To be honest, I think the front office recieved backlash over the blue socks, and they're just trying to cover their tracks, and will slowly fade them out until they completely disappear next year.  Fixes to these images are extremely easy for me, especially with just a recoloring.  Why don't we let consensus decide what color to make the socks?--The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response and for the help. I think you're right: The team probably came up with their arbitrary socks decision because of fan pressure and it's likely that they won't wear the blue much more, if at all. From that point of view, if people want to show the socks in the uni box, it probably makes sense to just make them all red. However, I don't think it's radical to not show the socks. If other people disagree, that's fine, but it just seems to me that if the team doesn't have a policy on when to wear which color, Wikipedia shouldn't show a graphic that implies they do.Nsfreeman (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering that the uproar from Sox fans ("We look like the Yankees") was sufficient for the club to issue a statement about the Sox, the whole controversy might be notable enough to include in the Logos and Uniforms article. SixFourThree (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

The Red Sox wear red socks on all their jerseys. Just look at the footage on any of the highlights at MLB.com. The blue socks on the alternate away jersey needs to be changed to red and anybody who saw their opening game against the Phillies last week can testify to that. JediShemL (talk) 19:52, 20 Jun 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo? No.
I'm removing all references to Buffalo from this sentence in the second paragraph: "One of the American League's eight charter franchises, the club was founded in Buffalo, New York in 1901.[2] After the move from Buffalo to Boston, they became a dominant team" Clicking on the source link takes you to a page which requires registration to view a 12/10/2001 article from Business First of Buffalo. I registered, to read the article. Reproducing the first several paragraphs here solely for the light they shed on the origins of the Red Sox and its relationship to Buffalo COPYRIGHT 2001 Business First-Buffalo Regardless of the outcome of Jeremy Jacobs' bid to own a majority of the Boston Red Sox, there will always be a tie between the Bosox and Buffalo. Just go back about 100 years. The newly christened American League, formerly the Western League, was just setting its course. In its fledgling season, the Buffalo Bisons -- one of the league's charter members, finished a dismal seventh with a 61-78 record. But Buffalo's biggest loss didn't come until just after the 1900 season. During the winter of 1900-01, the American League, under President Ban Johnson, broke away from organized baseball and formed its own self-described second league. According to Buffalo baseball historian Joe Overfield's book, "The 100 Seasons of Buffalo Baseball," Buffalo was a lock for an American League team as late as Jan. 29, 1901. Johnson was quoted as telling Bisons' owner/manager Jim Franklin that "Buffalo was in and not to worry". Buffalo should have worried. In a surprise move, Johnson dropped Buffalo and replaced it with a new team in Boston called the Red Sox. According to Overfield's book, Johnson had been secretly negotiating with Boston for several months and had also invested money in the franchise. So. Nothing here indicating that the Red Sox were founded in Buffalo. Quite the opposite, actually - the article makes clear that they were two separate teams. The Red Sox took the Bisons' potential place in the American League. That clears it up, and that's why I'm removing the reference to the City of Good Neighbors. I'm also going to tweak the History section to reflect. SixFourThree (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree

1904 "no World Series played" note
Just a general thought--On the sidebar which lists the years the Red Sox won the pennant, a note after "1904" adds that no world series was played that year. Besides not being aesthetically pleasing, noting such a case does not seem to be a practice used on other MLB teams' pages. The Cubs'page, for example, list the multiple pennants the team won before the World Series began in 1903 but no remarks are made. More notably, the Giants' page does not include a note after "1904", when the team was set to play the Red Sox in the World Series. For both aesthetic and consistency purposes(between all of the MLB team pages, I suggest removing the "no World Series played" note, or, at the very least, changing it into a footnote (while doing the same to the Giants' page).

Best,

BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.28.114 (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Important Figures section of the team's template
So I was looking at the important figures list and i thought maybe some players that were there didn't deserve to be there so I wanted another fans opinion. The players in question are: Daisuke Matsuzaka, Jonathan Papelbon, Clay Buchholz, Jon Lester, Kevin Youkilis and Dustin Pedroia. They all have considerable reasons to be there, except for maybe Buchholz, but, in my opinion, their lack of serious tenure raises such questions. -- Cpharding618 (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Buchholz threw a no hitter in one of his first games in his career.

Americans vs. Pilgrims
The "Pilgrims" story has been discredited, but the Red Sox still show that info on their site. It's important to keep in mind that while their official page is a verifiable source, it's also a primary source. It's also important to keep in mind that teams are not always their own best historians. Secondary sources win out over primary sources in this case. Retrosheet, for example, calls them the "Americans", probably based on the desire to call them something. They actually had no official nickname until 1908 when they adopted "Red Sox". Prior to that they were called various things by the media (i.e. the newspapers), but "Americans" was much more common than "Pilgrims". According to Nowlin's research, "Pilgrims" was actually almost never used. Fred Lieb is thought to have spread the myth that that was their nickname. It wasn't. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, and because they didn't have an official nickname prior to "Red Sox," I'm going to remove "Boston Americans (1901-1907)" from the Name section of the Infobox. Putting it there unjustly elevates it above all the other casual nicknames.  SixFourThree (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree

Integration
The Sox were the last MLB team to integrate. Is that notable enough to stick into their history section? Pardon me if I missed it.

Red Sox retiring Jim Rice's number
Red Sox are retiring Jim Rice's number before the July 28th game against the Oakland Athletics at Fenway Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.171.112 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a mock-up of what the 14 will look like and ready to add it to the rest of the retired numbers within the article File:Bosret14.png Pharos04 (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Steroids
There needs to be mention in the Team History about Manny, and Ortiz testing Positive, in 2003, especially given the fact Ortiz confirmed the positive test. --Subman758 (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Please also mention Bronson Arroyo's admission of Steroid use. one can also assume that they wouldn't have beaten the Yankees that year, due to the small margin of victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchtom (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the article was likely written by Red Sox fans and has left it slightly bias. It happened, and its verifiable, so it should be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.24.111 (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Arroyo did not admit steroid use. He only admitted to taking substances that are not on the MLB-approved list. Taking unapproved substances is inadvisable, but not always performance-enhancing. He has never failed a steroid test despite his continued presence in the league since testing was implemented. Claiming that the Red Sox victory over the Yankees in 2004 is illegitimate because of Arroyo is ridiculous. By your standards, must we also mention all of the 2004 Yankees (Rodriguez, Williams, Giambi, Pettitte) who were actually implicated in steroid use, which Arroyo was not? 10blaken (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying further proves the point that this article is bias and written by fans, this article isn't about the Yankees so your argument is futile, not to mention inaccurate. And its not just Arroyo. There was Ortiz and Ramirez who arguably were the Sox two best players and used steriods. The foundation of the winning Sox teams had used these substances so there is no question that it needs to be mentioned here. If your a fan you need to leave the editing to the rest of us and read wiki's neutrality policy.

Bull?
The caption of the picture in the section "2005–2006 off-season" claims the decorated animal is a bull. This amazing bull has an udder! Perhaps the caption needs adjustment? Or is there more to the story? Snezzy (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Graestan, for fixing it. Snezzy (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As with the Tom Swifty line, "That's no bull!" he uddered. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Music

 * Sweet Caroline by Neil Diamond, is played in the middle of the eighth inning at Fenway Park during all Red Sox home games.
 * Dirty Water written by Ed Cobb, performed by The Standells, is played after every Red Sox home victory at Fenway Park.
 * Tessie from the 1902 Broadway musical The Silver Slipper and written by Will R. Anderson, was a rallying cry for The Royal Rooters during the 1903 World Series.
 * Tessie (2004) written by Boston sportswriter Jeff Horrigan, performed by the Dropkick Murphys, was adapted from the 1902 version at the request of the Boston Red Sox front office, to celebrate The Royal Rooters. This cover gained notoriety due to the Red Sox World Series victory in 2004, when the song was introduced as an "official anthem" for the team. It is now played after Dirty Water following Red Sox victories at Fenway Park.
 * I'm Shipping Up To Boston written by Woody Guthrie, performed by the Dropkick Murphys, became associated with the Red Sox during the 2007 season when Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon danced a jig to the song when the Red Sox clinched the American League East title. He would go on to repeat the ritual throughout the 2007 MLB Playoffs, dancing to it when they clinched a World Series birth by defeating the Cleveland Indians in Game 7 of the American League Championship Series, and when they won the World Series title after sweeping the Colorado Rockies. Papelbon would go on to repeat the dance during the 2007 "Rolling Rally" Victory Parade, in which the Dropkick Murphys performed. The song is now used as Jonathan Papelbon's entrance music at Fenway Park.
 * Charlie on the MTA written by Jacqueline Steiner and Bess Lomax Hawes, was a campaign anthem for Walter A. O'Brien's run for Mayor of Boston in 1948. A recording of the song by the Kingston Trio is now played before Red Sox games at Fenway Park as fans file into the park.

--10blaken (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary facts
why is there a current list of seemingly random recent statistical and situational achievements at the end of the article? Surely the franchise has equally or more impressive facts from their previous 100 years, or over the course of so many years, it would seem that mention of these things is pointless.

and why in the second paragraph are the red sox "arguably the most successful team of the last decade"? maybe the most improved considering their 80+ year run without a series win, but most successful of the last decade? the yankees have won 2 series in the last 10 years as well, and have also won 3 additional penants in 01, 03 and this year (09). to say that a team with stats which have been equaled or surpassed by other teams just sounds like conjecture to me. and i know using the yankees as an example might be kind of inflammatory when we're talking about the red sox, but its just a convenient team to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.196.72 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the Yankees win this Series, that obviously O.R. comment in the article will be rendered moot and can be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's still there. I would remove it, but the article is locked.  I'm a Sox fan, and even I can admit the sentence makes zero sense.   Basically says "They're arguably the most successful, even though this other team had a much higher success rate".   Complete nonsense. 162.136.193.1 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson
played his entire career for the Brooklyn Dodgers -- why is he listed here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.228.88 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see Robinson mentioned twice in the article. The first is in reference to a workout with the team, which, obviously, did not lead to a contract.  Also, he is placed in the retired numbers section because his number is retired throughout professional baseball.  It is on the wall at Fenway Park and is therefore included in the article. Does that answer your question? Kithira  (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)