Talk:Red Sox Nation

Wendell Kim

I'm not sure the nickname "wave 'em home wendell" is correct. I've always heard it as "Wave 'em in Kim", which would make more sense since it rhymes a bit better. Can anyone confirm this either way?

I've heard "wave 'em in Kim" more, but I don't have a link from a Boston paper to confirm this. Acefantastik

Does "Wendell Kim" really count as a cult figure? Honestly, if he's in there, Sveum should be there alongside his equally incompetent counterpart...(still mad about that Tampa game from 2004) InTheFlesh? 01:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I had some doubts about putting Kim in, but I decided to do it because he's unique and instantly recognizable: plenty of teams have bad third base coaches, but what other team has a hyperactive Korean third base coach whose name, years after he leaves, can still make a fan curse a blue streak? Sure, he doesn't inspire reverence like Tony C, but I think that if that's your sole criteria for "cult figure", you're using too narrow a definition. Stilgar135 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Serious Rivalry

Redacted

Re: Serious Rivalry

No, I am not anti-American - I am actually a baseball-watching Yank (ok maybe a bad choice of diction no pun intended). While I won't be immature and keep removing the "arguably one of the most serious in [rivalries] the world" bit, I would like to educate those apparently ignorant of the depths of seriousness found in some soccer rivalries. I will concede that Yanks-Sox is the fiercest rivalry in American sports, living at times in New England and in northern New Jersey and having seen the spectacle I should know. (I have also been to several Army-Navy games for perspective.) However, I venture that anyone who has seen some of the top soccer contests worldwide would agree that there is no comparison. Many have put it more eloquently than I ever could, but many of the rivalries include political undertones that pack much more edge then what is basically a competition between eastern port cities ever could. Teams can be iconic of entire movements, e.g. Barcelona for the Catalan separatists, or Boca for the Argentine underclass. Some even bring religion into the mix, for example take Celtic and Rangers of Scotland. Both based in Glasgow, allegiance is based almost wholly on religion (Catholics to Celtic and Protestants to Rangers). In Rome, leftist elements support AS Roma while the conservatives carry banners with fascist emblems in support of Lazio. In Russia, teams often retain their Soviet monikers (CSKA Moscow is quite literally the old Red Army team with new management). People are often devoted to their club for life, even if the team is forced to drop down a few leagues for whatever reason. Can you imagine the Sox getting support if they dropped to triple A? For example, Newcastle United of England is consistently near the bottom of the table and yet many of their supporters sport tattoos of the club crest proudly. You can just imagine what happens when elements supporting clubs with opposing viewpoints can mean. Violence. Sure, you love the 'Sox, but are you ready to get your lip split to maintain their honor? Will you hear racial, ethnic, or religious slurs echoing around Fenway directed at the Yankees? Never.

"Let’s go Red-Sox" *clap clap-clap clap clap* "F*** the Yankees" *clap clap-clap clap clap*

And that's about it. You will hear hate directed towards the "evil empire" but never against what they stand for (as in the case of Real Madrid (Francoism) or River Plate (class structure)), because ultimately they Yankees stand for the same thing as the Red Sox - America. They are both faces of a diverse society that will probably never get drawn into putting political significance into sports. The great soccer rivalries are great because of the meaning behind the game. You see many people wearing "B" or "NY" caps, and its not a big deal even if in the rival city. Wearing the wrong colors in South America or Europe could get you killed, not simply leered at. Soccer is a way of life for much of the globe, baseball is often a fashion statement.

BTW, people like you are the reason I don't want an account. It just every so often I see something so boneheaded that I feel compelled to correct it.

Re: Serious Rivalry

I do agree with the soccer fan. I happen to be a huge Red Sox fan, always have, and always will. I strongly believe that the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry is, without question, the biggest and most important sports rivalry in the United States. It is bigger than Michigan-Ohio State, Army-Navy, Giants-Cowboys, Packers-Vikings, Duke-North Carolina, and even Yale-Harvard (I have been to plenty of Yale-Harvard games, and they do get ugly.) I havent named all of the huge rivalries because I dont have the time or patience...you get my point. There are many, many quality rvalries in American sports. But on the World Stage.....people dont care about baseball like other sports.

Other sports like Rugby and soccer have much more leverage on the World Stage. Lets start with Rugby. I would say that the absolute biggest rivalry in Rugby is New Zealand-England. Another that is getting increasingly big is England-Wales. These games get international attention. People get very into this. IO dont know too much about Rugby, though I have seen how crazy the crowds get. The next thing I will get into is soccer.

The previous poster made good points about different club teams that are rivals because of religion and politics. You may not understand it, because it is not talked about much here in the States, but in Europe, and most of the world....Soccer is politics. People live and die by what happens to their team.

Lets go through some big rivalries in europe....because that is my area of expertise club team-wise:

England: Manchester United vs. Liverpool- Two of the juggernaughts of English soccer, both have won considerable amounts of titles, and they both, along with Arsenal are the top of the league most years. This rivalry is fueled because of both club's successes. The fans detest each other, the players play this game like it was the World Cup final.

Arsenal vs. Tottenham- North London rivals. They like each other about as much as the NYPD liked the mafia in the 1930s. It is the protestants vs. the jews. They arent the most friendly of rivals. Games are always spectacular, though.

Spain:Real Madrid vs Barcelona-Same reason as Manchester-Liverpool pretty much

Real Madrid vs. Atletico Madrid- Real Madrid represent Spanish Ultra-Conservativism, or facism, if you will. Atletico represents the Basqueland, they represent a free, independent state and people that hope to split from Spain. The Yanks and Sox dont have this politically driven influence.

Netherlands:PSV Eindhoven vs. Rotterdam-"if holland is the brazil of european soccer then rotterdam is sao paulo" they have a huge and rather violent rivalry.

Ajax vs. Feyenoord: the game was often seen to be an excuse for organized violence.

Belgium: Anderlecht vs. Brugge- The upper class vs. the farmers. The French speakers vs. the Flemish speakers. Politically, ethnically, and socially charged, this is one of the most intense and in-your-face rivalries in the world. It dosent get alot of press, but these people hate each other.

Scotland: Celtic vs. Rangers-You thought the Yankees had slot of titles? If im not mistaken, Rangers has won 51 league titles, and Celtic has won 39. The Yankees wouldnt even be close, so when you hear that commercial on YES that says "The winningest team in sports, they are lying, many teams are ahead of them.

Italy: Inter Milan vs AC Milan: Classes, politics, everything comes into play when these two play. Another huge rivalry, the teams arent very compassionate towards each other.

Yugoslavia: Red Star Belgrade vs. Hajduk Split-Serbs and Croatians. Must I explain?

Okay, that was enough of club rivalries, now its time for country rivalries.

Italy vs. France- If you have watched any of their games in the past 10 years, most of them have come in critical tournament matches, and the result is always close. These two neighbors have learned to not love.

Germany vs. England-Okay, a couple years ago they played in Wembly Stadium. The English chanted "Stand up, Stand up, Stand up if you won the war"......the Germans went silent. This was the cleanest chant I could put on here.

Greece vs. Turkey- They have hated each other since the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Their soccer matches are entertaining to say the least, and certainly not for the faint of heart.

Israel vs. Saudi Arabia- You would have to be brain dead to not understand this rivalry. It actually has been stopped. Saudi Arabia refuses to play the Israelis, and if they were to play each other in a major tournament, the Saudis would possibly forfeit.

Brazil vs. Argentina- The two South American big boys, they have very entertaining games, and their crowds are like a volcano about to erupt.

Argentina vs. England- Falkand Islands war anyone?

Any of the United Kingdom and Ireland teams playing each other- It is always loud, angry, and huge.

China vs. Japan-The countries detest each other. Its ugly.

New Zealand vs. Australia- The Oceania grudgematch. Its much like the games between UK teams.

There are so many. But this should do it. I think I have proved my point. Dont make me talk about Cricket.

The USA cares about the Sox and Yanks. I care about the Sox and Yanks. The rest of the world dosent. They think of it as a big rivalry OVER HERE. They dont think of it at all on the world stage. You dont have to like soccer, rugby, cricket, or anything like that to understand that someone sitting in Moscow watching CSKA Moskva vs. FC Moskva probably cares as much about the Red Sox-Yankees 2004 ALCS as they do if I get an A on the paper I handed in to my English Professor on Frday.

Fine tuning some of the trivia here

I'm not completely sure of the policy regarding citation here (or etiquette), so I didn't go ahead and just change this page, but I'd like to suggest some minute details. I'm sorry that I haven't properly linked the articles.

Regarding the curse: Dan Shaugnessy isn't the proper cite for the inventor of the concept. The talk of the curse during the 1986 Buckner series came due to the George Vecsey headline, "Babe Ruth Curse strikes again", written after fateful game six in a New York Newspaper. The wikipedia page regarding the curse says as much.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs2004/news/story?page=Curse041005

.

http://www.ajhs.org/publications/chapters/chapter.cfm?documentID=275

http://www.siu.edu/~siupress/titles/s03_titles/lieb_sox.htm

other information was used from the book "The Red Sox Fan Handbook", by Leigh Grossman. This book may be good as an external link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579401104/103-8526521-9490216?v=glance

Perhaps Remy should be duplicated in the

Acefantastik

The list of popular players to Sox nation seems pretty arbitrary. Wakefield and Nixon were on the 2004 team, I guess they are popular with the fans. But John Valentin? With no mention of, say a Dwight Evans, Mike Greenwell, Marty Barrett, or Bruce Hurst. I suppose hundreds of players could be listed. I remember him being more of a disappointment after a couple of promising seasons.

Ortiz and Ramirez are listed under this section and the "Cult Heroes" section. I wouldn't characterize either player as a "cult hero". They are perrenial all-stars and possible hall of famers.

The Famous fans section lists the usual New England celebrities, but I'd like to see documentation that Carrie Underwood from Oklahoma or Kenny Chesney from Tennessee, and even Robert Redford are Sox fans.

Ce2421 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)ce2421

Specious Comments Between Soccer and Baseball

To our British IP friend, I'd like to set the record straight on something. Needless to say Baseball and Soccer are apples and oranges, but there is a parallel to compare across the Atlantic: Cricket.

Baseball is seen in the United States much as Cricket is seen in the United Kingdom. A traditional bat and ball game founded in their respective countries that isn't as popular as it once was, but is still in the mainstream and has been spread to other countries where it is arguably more popular than in its homeland (Basball: Mexico, Dominican Republic, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. -- Cricket: India, Pakistan, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Australia, New Zealand, etc.)

Tell me something, when was the last time you heard of hatred at the Yankee/Red Sox level in Cricket? A more appropriate comparison with Soccer would be Football (or as the Brits call it, American Football), which still isn't perfect due to cultural differences(to fans, most games are more about gluttony and commercialistic entertainment value these days compared to Soccer, where there are often political and sociological overtones overlayed onto the games, such as Rangers/Celtic in Scotland) and the difference in league structure, which ironically almost reverses their countries' overall views (the NFL is nearly socialist in its parity, while English Association Football is brutally darwinian). Karmafist 01:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. I am the one you refer to. I am not British, but (as I said before) American. You'll find that having a basic knowledge of a non-American sport is not an indicator to one's nationality. The issue was not what baseball rivalries were comparable to in the same class of sport (ball-and-stick games), but rather where the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry stood in comparison to other sports rivalries worldwide. The original author made a broad categorical statement that I felt needed to be addressed.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at by pointing out the fundamentally socialist structure of American sports franchises, as it is common knowledge. By bringing attention to the iconic status of the two baseball clubs in American culture I meant to suggest just that - that organization of a league is an interesting topic, but bears little significance on anything else. These two legendary teams scream "Americana." My aim by bringing up the promotion/relegation structure in soccer was to display the "love of club" many soccer supporters have - in contrast to what I see as a "love of winning" among American fans. There have been instances of soccer clubs plummeting down a division or two and still retaining nearly all of their season ticket holders. How many NCAA Division 2 teams make it onto ESPN's Sports Center?

You are sorely misguided in your comparisons between sports. Baseball was/arguably is the national pastime of the US, whereas most would agree that association football holds that place in Britain. Cricket clubs, on the whole, draw miniscule crowds in comparison to major baseball clubs. However, Cricket DOES reach the importance of Yankees-Red Sox in international play where the Ashes tournament pits the England team against the Aussies. There are undertones of animosity due to the colonial past between the two, and both nations truly get rabid about it.

Neither baseball nor cricket have attained the level of international acceptance that association football has, and American football has remained very much a North American phenomenon (as evidenced by the failure of NFL Europe to expand beyond Germany). I don't claim that soccer is in some way fundamentally more conducive to rabid support or intense rivalries... just that more people play soccer on a global scale. With more individual games played by more people, the chances are increased that a certain match up will become special. There is nothing stopping the Yanks-Sox from becoming the most passionate rivalry in the world, but I could easily name at last 10 soccer rivalries that carry more weight.

Its just the difference between passion and a product. The NFL may be fun to watch, but essentially it is a money making venture. There is only one true cross-town "derby" (NY), and i challenge anyone to name an annual matchup that carries the importance of a Barcelona-Real Madrid. Fan loyalty is mostly to the league; I remember very well classmates in middle school owning the jerseys of several teams. Support for the sport is rabid in America, but as for rivalries between two teams, US sports are badly outclassed.

Johnny Damon

It'd be nice if someone could clean up the bit about Johnny Damon in "Topics of particular significance to Red Sox Nation" because I'm not feeling very eloquent right now... DrIdiot 21:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Johnny Damon, I wish someone could get it correct that Damon left the Red Sox for job security, as he wanted a fourth year on his contract. The Red Sox would not offer him a fourth year.

In Need Of Deletion

This article clearly does not nearly meet Wikipedia's standards as an article. It's filled with an abundance of opinions written by Red Sox fans.

Examples:

"The Boston Red Sox fan dedication is unparalleled."

"Boston Red Sox fans are willing to let their devotion to their team dictate decisions in their personal lives"

Utterly ridiculous. This is Wikipedia, not Urban Dictionary.

Neutrality

I have place a {{neutrality}} tag on the article. There are several instances of pro-Red Sox Nation bias contained in the article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please point out what you characterize as "pro-Red Sox nation" New England ^{Review Me!} 20:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, how about this?

"The Boston Red Sox fan dedication is unparalleled."

Stuff like that is Obviously "Pro-Red Sox Nation". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goodfellajohnny (talk • contribs) 10:57, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I just skimmed the article and I am pretty sure that the instances of bias have been removed. I'm going to remove the neutrality tag now. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other side of the coin, musings of Red Sox Nation being a "bandwagon fan" enterprise should be cited with empirical evidence of anyone worthy of citation saying those exact words on the record. parliamentlights 03:49, 2 December 2007

Famous Fans

This section is completely unreferenced. As such, I am removing it. If references can be provided to prove that the people on this list are actual Red Sox fans, it can be readded. IrishGuy ^talk 01:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Steve Carell
• Susie Castillo
• John Cena
• Dane Cook
• Peter Gammons
• Jake Gyllenhaal
• Emeril Lagasse
• Bill Simmons
• Mark Wahlberg
• Jay Leno
• Donnie Wahlberg
• Maria Menounos
• James Taylor
• Gisele Bundchen
• Kenny Chesney
• Eliza Dushku

I restored the ones I could find references for. The above are still unreferenced. IrishGuy ^talk 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted John Cena. He appeared at the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays rally in preperation for their ALCS series against the Sox. Was a fervant Rays fan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.46.90 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I crossed off the ones featured in the article with references. The rest are still unreferenced. -Zomic13 (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Devil Rays fair-weather fans??

How can a team that has never had a winning season, and only once finished in other than last place, have fair-weather fans? They've never seen fair weather once! I am eagerly awaiting someone's explanation of how this assertion came to be in the article. CoramVobis 04:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RSNation.png

Image:RSNation.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Grass roots fan organization or Commerical Ripoff?

This "nation" was invented by the Boston Globe, whose parent company New York Times is part owner of the Boston Red Sox. The Boston Red Sox charge fans to be "official" members of their fan "nation", in order to get minor perks and bogus rewards. It is an ingenious marketing scheme for bandwagon riders.Buffalohead (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

OR Tag

Removed the OR tag. There were 2 citation needed tags in the article. I sourced both & footnoted.--Lepeu1999 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cowboy up"

"Cowboy up" shouldn't be a redirect to this article if there is absolutely no mention of the term. What happened? It was here a few years ago, albeit under a section with a completely ridiculous title. Will an admin please delete the "cowboy up" redirect page, or will someone try to explain the use and history of the term here (i.e. in the article)? Fuzzform (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony Conigliaro

I removed Tony Conigliaro from the "Famous Fans" section. My reasoning is that he was a star player that played with the Sox for all but one season until he retired due to his serious injury. He also has a section of Fenway named after him. -Zomic13 (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Irony

The following is not meant to be opintion based, but is being written and spoken about in media outlets such as ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and the Philadelphia Daily News:

Red Sox fans at one time were viewed as a down trodden group suffering the plight of either losing seasons or the team taking them to the edge of a championship and letting them down in the end. However, recently views have changed. Now they are viewed by fans of other teams as surly, arrogant, and more obnoxious then New York Yankees fans. It is felt that their fans have forgotten the feeling of losing and lost touch with the likes of Philadelphia Phillies fans, who's team has one championship since 1883. There are also negative views due to the teams high payroll and it is felt they are buying championships just as this was felt about the Yankees during the late 1990's. In fact many feel the Red Sox are the new Yankees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.138.79 (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Good observation. Would be a good start towards a criticism section either in this article or the Red Sox article. 24.219.33.221 (talk) 07:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained redirect

Will someone please explain the use of the term "cowboy up"? It makes absolutely no sense to have a redirect that isn't explained or even mentioned in the article. Fuzzform (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It was the catchphrase of the 2003 Red Sox season. I believe it was first used by Kevin Millar. -Zomic13 (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling Sports Stations Long Distance

FTA: "Members of the Nation are even known to call sports-talk radio stations in Boston long distance during the season and remain on hold, merely to be able to talk about their beloved Sox." - with national calling plans and cheap long distance, how is this noteworthy? And a lot of other MLB teams have such fans. 24.219.33.221 (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)