Talk:Yankees–Red Sox rivalry/Archive 1

NPOV issue - 2004 World Series in article summary

This text has been repeatedly reverted in the main article:

Notwithstanding the Yankees' historical dominance of the Red Sox, as of 2004 and to the present, the Red Sox are the World Series Champions after defeating the Yankees in the 2004 American League Championship Series.

I'm not sure why Brian Brockmeyer is so bound and determined to take this out of the first paragraph as it is both factually accurate and NPOV. Plus, it brings the rivalry current as the Red Sox championship undoubtedly changes the dynamic of the rivalry. I am going to revert this back, and before anyone deletes it, especially Mr. Brockmeyer, I'd like to have a reasonable discussion as to why. Thanks — Friejose 21:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• I would vote to remove that sentence. In the broad scope, the Red Sox' recent successes - and we are talking very recently - aren't important at this stage in the article. They are touched upon in the main body, but when one is summing up the entirety of the topic, that is to say, the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry over the past 90 years, the sentence becomes somewhat unimportant and seems to have a slight NPOV problem. RPIRED 04:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the input from RPIRED and I've tried to respect NPOV in the latest edit of the first paragraph. Unfortunately, I'm concerned that Brian Brockmeyer insists on reverting without a discussion of what would be most appropriate. The current version reflects that although the Red Sox victory was recent it is seminal and changes the dynamic of the rivalry. Friejose 14:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Couldn't have said it better, RPIRED. The first paragraph is supposed to be introductory and provide an overview of the subject. The Red Sox World Series victory is discussed within the body of the article, just like other classic moments in the Yankees-Red Sox (i.e. Bucky Dent's homerun and the 2003 ALCS) and is out-of-place in the opening paragraph. It reeks of POV and deserves to be removed. --Brian Brockmeyer 00:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a silly revert duel, so I won't change this back. Needless to say, I believe that the tone of the article and its focus is not NPOV, but is instead reflects the pro-Yankee bias of the editors of the piece. If you look at the user pages of some of the main contributors, i.e. Cleared as filed, they specifically state they are Yankee fans. If you look at the contributions made by some of the other writers, i.e. Brian Brockmeyer, Win777, or RPIRED, you'll see that they primarily edit Yankee-related pages when they edit baseball-themed articles (for instance, both Brian and RPIRED have repeatedly edited Derek Jeter's page). I am avowedly a Red Sox fan, so I admit I may struggle with NPOV here myself. That said, the Red Sox victory over the Yankees in last year's ALCS marked a sea change in this rivalry, not some mere data point to be referenced later on. It should be stated prominently in the introduction as it crucially informs the reader about the current status of the rivalry and is the most recent result of the rivalry. To simply say the Yankees have been historically dominant in the intro without providing the counterpoint that they lost the most recent playoff meeting between the two in humiliating fashion and that the Red Sox are ascendant (4.5 games in front of the AL East at this writing), so to obscure the contemporary truth of the rivalry. — Friejose 15:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• I can understand your feelings on the subject even if I don't totally agree with them. NPOV is not, as you put it in one of your revert notes, "demand[ing] equal acclaim." Over the course of over 90 years of the rivalry, it is clear to the objective observer that there has generally been a large degree of dominance by one side. It would be rather silly to revise history to ensure "equal acclaim." Now, that isn't to say that the other side should be completely ignored, and it isn't. When I set out to re-write the article, I tried to do it in a fair and even-handed fashion. I am a Yankee fan, I'll easily admit it, but you have to understand that I'm not seeking to glorify one team here, and I don't believe Brian Brockmeyer is either. I made painstaking efforts to make the re-write as neutral as possible, even giving an entire section to the recent dynamic which, in the short-term, has fluctuated drastically. I also made efforts to include favorable Red Sox moments in the "key moments" area (which I'm sure could be expanded), even adding several key moments from the MOST recent. But to say that the fluctuating events of less than a full calendar year compare to a 90-year trend? What I'm saying is that the Red Sox need more than a year to establish a "turnaround" of events that would warrant a solid mention in any grand overview of the rivalry, which is the purpose of the first paragraph. At any rate, Friejose, I did think your revised sentence was better and more fitting than the one you referenced on this user page. If we were going to include something along those lines, I think that would have been fine. The purpose of this article is not for ourselves - the five of us have a pretty good bead on the history and state of the rivalry. The purpose is for others - those who know nothing or very little about the rivalry. They should walk away from the article with a good sense of the history. Inserting that information into the opening summary instills the impression that the rivalry's one-sided nature has completely inverted, which isn't true. However, as the reader goes on to explore, there are some explosive and exciting events which have happened recently which, as the section hints, may be turning the rivalry on its ear. - RPIRED 12:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Friejose – Hey, before you bring my name into this, I might point out that I haven't been making any edits to the POV issue you guys have been working. I don't think I've brought my POV into any of my edits; if you disagree, please point out where. Just because the majority of my baseball knowledge is related to the Yankees doesn't mean I can't write in a neutral POV. (I also wouldn't call myself a "main contributor" to this page. My main contribution was to put the "cleanup" tag on the page a while back when it was a mess.) —Cleared as filed. 21:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• • Notwithstanding my desire to be cooperative, I would like to tweak you guys a bit and quote Tony Massarotti of the Boston Herald: "The more time that passes, the more you cannot help but wonder if last year's American League Championship Series forever altered the course of history. While the Red Sox were stripped of a century-old inferiority complex, the New York Yankees clearly have been obscured by a big pile of problems."^[1] Maybe the worm has turned. Friejose 15:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm easily the most diehard Red Sox fan I know (my friends at college have a video of my reaction to them winning the World Series, and it has brought many a viewer to tears), and I'll admit I see a Yankee bias to the article. Excluding 2004 from the summary is not only an insult to the rivalry, but to baseball itself. Over and over again I see Yankee fans try to downplay the fact the Sox did something no team had ever done in the history of the sport (and only twice in all of North American sports), and against (arguably) the most successful postseason team in sports. I can at least admit when the Sox were embarrassed in the past. By the logic of the people who want to remove the 2004 mention, we should remove mention of all the Yankees' postseason accolades, since the rivalry didn't figure into them. GreatGatsby

GreatGatsby, not trying to start anything, but maybe as "the most diehard Red Sox fan you know," your POV may be interfering with your assessment. When I rewrote the article (the basis for which is still intact for the most part) I made great pains to make several references to 2004 and the Red Sox victory. That was certainly an important point in the rivalry. However, I reiterate that when summing up 90 years of the rivalry, it's generally an unimportant point. This is a rivalry that has basically been defined by its lopsided nature. That nature isn't something that can simply be reversed in a single season - as we saw this year in an inconclusive result to the rivalry series. It is certainly worth mentioning in the main body - and indeed I think 2004 is mentioned more than any other single event in the main body - but when summing the rivalry in its entirety, I still feel that its inculsion takes away from the point that needs to be made to any neophyte who may come into this article about the very nature of the rivalry. I don't think it's a Yankee POV to say that this rivalry has historically been very one-sided. That said, I think another year or two of the kind of result we have seen this season and it may warrant a mention as a definitive turning point in the series. RPIRED 23:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that you can love a team without being blinded? I never said we should remove the Yankees' postseason accolades, I said using the logic of many of the users here we would have to remove it. I was referring to the ridiculousness of their position. And as to its lopsided nature, the Sox didn't figure into most of those World Series titles in any way, so why does that make it lopsided? It's about two teams, and the 2004 ALCS was not only an important point in the rivalry, but in baseball in general. I mean, sure, it wouldn't be a big deal had the Sox just defeated the Yankees, but it was the MANNER in which the Yankees were defeated that made it so momentous. GreatGatsby 01:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The Yankees' constant AL pennants and World Series victories didn't compound the rivalry at all for decades? That's basically what you're arguing. At any rate, I just reviewed the article summary yet again, and there's no overglorification of the Yankees nor any unnecessary opening points to be found. The gap in Championships and Pennants IS a key part of the rivalry.RPIRED 03:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you understand what directly means? Since the Sox weren't a part in the Yankees winning those, it wasn't a direct part of the rivalry, but indirect AND important. I don't think we should remove inclusion of the twenty-six championships, but your downplaying of what happened in last year's ALCS borders on the ignorant. The ALCS was a direct part of the rivalry, as the teams actually faced each other. What I'm saying isn't biased at all, the Sox (perrenial losers) defeated the nearly invincible Yankees in the most embarrassing and incredible upset in the history of baseball (remember, it had never happened in a century of the sport). GreatGatsby 20:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not downplaying anything. Period. It just doesn't belong in a summary. Period. I've never involved myself in a flame war on a talk page and I'm not about to be baited into one by being called "ignorant," but 26 instances of something over 80+ years is a historical trend. One victory is not. That's not being ignorant or downplaying. That's called saving that information for when it is important: i.e, the main body of the article, where it arguably recieves more attention than any other one event in the entire history of the rivalry. Is that what you call "downplaying?" I suggest you review the post by Brian Brockmeyer above, as he explains it perfectly. RPIRED 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

• Let's move on to something we can collaborate on together and make the article shine a bit more. I added an already existing picture of Ruth to the "early" section, but I think we could use a few more pictures, especially in the "key moments" section. Pictures that would be best, I think, are maybe pictures of Murderer's Row, Johnny Pesky in the 1946 World Series the Bucky Dent home run, the Aaron Boone home run, the picture of Jason Varitek with his glove in Alex Rodriguez' face, and the David Ortiz home run from either Game 4 or Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS. Also worthy, I think, would be the Red Sox on-field celebration from the 2004 World Series and maybe one from the Yankees' World Series wins between 1996 and 2000. I think adding these pictures (small size) will give the reader a better sense of some of the more historic moments. Anyone want to try and dig some of these up? - RPIRED 12:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks RPIRED, I appreciate you taking the time to respond and be thoughtful. I still wonder about some of the tone of the article, most especially the question mark after "Curse Reversed", but in deference to your view and the significant material on the 2004 season, I'm willing not to put up much of a stink. As to the topic at hand, I was at Game 3 of the ALDS and Game 7 of the ALCS last year, so let me see if I can dig up some worthwhile photos I took. In the meantime, I looked at the Commons and found that both Yankee Stadium and Fenway have images immediately available (see below), so they might be worthwhile to add, at least in the interim. What do you think? Friejose 14:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yankee Stadium

Fenway Park

Curse edits

I de-emphasized a lot the curse talk since the references seemed to point to it as fact instead of the urban legend that it was. Also, there's an entire article devoted to the curse, so this article should be more based on the rivalry itself rather than things on the periphery. Notice I didn't take all the references out, but put a little more emphasis on the teams. - Pal 20:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I can agree with that, but I would move that we at least maintain the section heading as "Curse Reversed?" as that is a popular saying among Red Sox fans following the 2004 World Series. I added the question mark because, as I previously pointed out, the long-term implications of the 2004 playoff series won't be known for sure for a couple of years. - RPIRED 03:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you said it best in "following the 2004 WS." There hasn't been much, if any, talk around Red Sox Nation of reversing the curse since the 2005 season began that I can remember, either from the club, media, or fans. But I'll defer to consensus. It may be in a couple years that all curse talk is completely forgotten unless strange things start happening to the Yankees! :) - Pal 15:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, though. The 2004 WS was such a major point for one side of the rivalry - arguably bigger than any single WS victory for the Yankees - that I feel the phrase is somewhat worthy of inclusion, even if we may not know for sure if it is going to be true in the long term. I understand what you're doing, but urban legend does play a fairly significant role in the whole rivalry on both sides. :) - RPIRED 13:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree to the title change, even though it might have to be revisited at some point. - Pal 13:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Updates

The "Both sides of the rivalry" section and Babe Ruth's picture need removal and/or updating. -- Win777 23:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the section (only Mike Myers currently on one roster who was previously on the other). Brought in a new Ruth picture. Removed the tag. --RPIRED 05:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheffield Hitting a Fan - 2005

As someone who watched the game in question, I recall that it was deemed inconclusive from video replays whether Sheffield actually hit the fan. Sheffield himself said that he was poised to hit the fan but then withdrew. He received a far lesser sanction from MLB than is normally given to players who hit other people.

I have been a Yankees fan since 1974 and may be reached at ajk1962f-wikipedia (at) yahoo.com.

If I remember the video correctly, the sequence was: Sheff fielding the ball, and while doing so, swiped by the fan, and having a beer seemingly thrown at him. He then shoved the fan, threw the ball back to the infield, and (this part I'm not to sure on) yelled at him just as security guards showed up. Gary was not punished in any way that I remember, and was somewhat praised for his restraint, especially with the NBA brawl in Detroit still fresh in people's minds, even after almost a year. In regards to this, I added the season ticket stripping for the fan in the Key Moments section, to keep it in line with the Fan Involvement section. Counterfit 05:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Counterfit is right, though the beer was after and in reaction to Sheffield shoving to first fan. He was praised for resisting further conflict, though I believe a short suspension would have been appropriate becuse although he composed himself afterwards, he still shoved and yelled at the fan.

Counterfit, thank you for mentioning the beer, which I had forgotten. -- ajk1962f

"Domination"

I was told the "Yankee Domination" headline refers to the Yankees dominating the American League, which is completely irrelevant to this. If the Yankees and Red Sox finished 1-2 so often, how is that "domination"? Isn't this word a little harsh and biased? If the Yankees really did dominate the Red Sox for 80+ years, how is that a rivalry? If the teams weren't constantly evenly matched, there wouldn't be a rivalry at all. Implying one team "dominated" means there was no rivalry at all! There HAS to be a better title for that section, not that it even needs a title because as I have shown, it fits fine without a title. However, since this article is maintained by two Yankee fans, nothing I say will matter.

Well, you certainly can have a lopsided rivalry, however, I agree that a more neutral term than "domination" would be more appropriate. --mtz206 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'm a baseball fan first and a Yankee fan second. I've actually done more work on Red Sox articles than Yankees articles. Half of the pictures on the Fenway Park article are by me.

As for the rest, as mtz206 said above, domination doesn't imply the lack of rivalry. It might imply a lopsided rivalry, where one team has more hostility than the other, but that is the case. New Yorkers didn't chant "Red Sox suck" when the Giants won the Superbowl, unlike Bostonians chanting "Yankees suck" when the Pats won. It spills into other sports, other aspects of life, because Boston was held down for a long time, and that's what fuels the intensity there. Aside from simple geographical proximity, that domination is the biggest reason for the rivalry. Boston's excitement at breaking the curse, at coming back from being 3 games down, at finally breaking the curse, is all cheapened if you claim they were never dominated in the first place. Domination is not, in and of itself, a POV word; it is a descriptive word, it is a strong word, but it only takes on a deeper meaning if you have the POV of thinking it's unfair. Kafziel 21:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how 26 world series wins from 1918 to 2003 vs. 0 wins over that same period is anything but domination? (since that time period is the period that the title of the section refers to)? Regardless of the teams or the sport, if any rival in the world won that many times compared to no wins at all it's called domination. It's not like the Canadiens vs. Maple Leafs rivalry where the Leafs have 14 titles, the Red Sox did not win a single championship, and their rival has the most in North American sports. I'm wondering how anyone but a Yankee hater or a Sox fan could classify it as anything else. Yankees76 22:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It's POV to say it wasn't domination. And I don't even know what weird kind of POV it is, because even diehard Sox fans have to admit it was. Kafziel 22:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems most of the stats provided simply indicate that the Yankees had better seasons that the BSox. They won more championships, had better records, etc. Short of stats indicating that the Yankees actually regularly beat the Sox themselves over that period (what was their overall head-to-head record during those years??), I would agree that the term "domination" could express a POV. Perhaps something more approprirate would be "Yankee success" or something conveying that they had greater overall success in those years. --mtz206 (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we change the title to "the yankees totally didn't dominate", just something more reasonable. There are a number of years the Yankees won the world series and lost the season series to the Red Sox (1922, 1939, etc.) If there was a wild card back then, the road to the championship would have led the Yankees through Boston, but it didn't. Those years are DEFINITELY not years the Yankees "dominated". I feel like in order to "dominate" a team you have to win way more than 50% of your games with them. But that's not the point. I agree with mtz206's last edit.

That's not really how baseball works. Championships are all that matter. Having the best record in the league means nothing if you don't win the World Series. Head to head stats aren't really useful in this case, because the rivalry is not about statistics. It's about wins. But, yes, between 1920 and 2003, the Yankees beat Boston head-to-head 57% of the time.[2] Which puts Boston a bit below the Detroit Tigers... not stellar. Over that many games (about 1500), most teams range around 50%. Much higher than that, over that long of a time period, translates to fairly consistent domination. Kafziel 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at those stats again, pal. The Tigers are the ONLY team to do better for teams who played a significant amount of games in that time! Against ALL teams the Yankees were .584 which means the Red Sox were BETTER than average!! How is that even remotely domination?!?! They played better against almost every team BUT the Red Sox and somehow that translates to "Yankees dominate Red Sox"? How?! You're arguing that the Yankees dominated the entire league (ML) in terms of championships and nothing else. That has NOTHING to do with a RIVALRY which is what this page is SUPPOSED to be about. Climb out of your Yankee fan mindset for a minute.

Championships, pennants, playoff games and series. The Yankees dominated the Sox from 1918 to 2003. Plain and simple, you can try to play with numbers and whine and cry all you want, but when it comes down to it, until 2004, the Sox had not won a world series since the sale of Babe Ruth and had not beaten the Yankees in a postseason series or 1 game playoff. With a 26-0 lead in World Series a 39-5 advantage in AL pennants, and 14-5 lead in AL East titles, there's really no way to argue around it, other than to use a softer word for domination so as not to "offend" anyone. I think you could bring in a child who's never heard of the Sox and Yankees and they'd still call it domination. Yankees76 03:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

YOU'RE A YANKEES FAN, OF COURSE YOU THINK IT WAS DOMINATION. No matter what you think, you're biased because you're a yankees fan (and very poor at hiding it). The Yankees had more championships than anybody, is this a page about the Yankees-Everybody Else rivalry? NO. It's Yankees-Red Sox, and you're a Yankees fan so you're arguing as a yankees fan, not an impartial person. If EVERYBODY agreed it was "domination" then it would be. If somebody disagrees (in this example, anybody who isn't a Yankees fan) then it clearly wasn't domination. In order to "dominate" it must be clearly understood as such. The Cubs didn't win a championship in that time either, did the Yankees dominate them as well? Did the Red Sox dominate the Cubs? It doesn't make any sense. You just want the page to say that the Yankees dominated the Red Sox when they obviously did not. You said the Sox hadn't beaten the Yankees in a postseason series since the sale of Babe Ruth. Newsflash: they didn't beat them BEFORE either, do you know why? There was NO WILD CARD! They couldn't possibly have PLAYED each other in the postseason!!! Mtz206 agreed with me, and two people who are clearly Yankee fans disagree. The argument isn't whether the Yankees dominated the Red Sox (which they didn't, if they did there would be no rivalry (See KC Royals rivalries)) By your arguments, the Yankees dominated EVERYBODY (except maybe the Cardinals), so how is that relevant to the rivalry? How is that different from their potential rivalries with other teams? There has to be SOMETHING different about the Yankees and Red Sox, otherwise EVERYBODY would have a rivalry and that doesn't belong on this page. How about "26 Rings Later" or "The Rivalry Continues" or just leave it under a section with the above part that says "The Rivalry" or "The History of the Rivalry" or something else, anything! Domination doesn't make sense, if it's so one sided there is no rivalry!! The reason there is a rivalry is because it's so evenly matched every year. Even when the Yankees were winning 26 championships they had problems with the Red Sox (yet somehow this is "domination"). It doesn't make sense no matter what you YANKEE FANS say. How do Yankee fans even have a say on this page? That doesn't make any sense.

So being a Yankees fan automatically rules out any (valid) opinions I might have about baseball? Wake up. Haven't you already admitted that you hate the Yankees? How then is your viewpoint neutral while mine isn't? The Yankees dominated the Red Sox for 86 years. You can argue about bias all you want but your arguement doesn't hold any water whatsoever. 26 rings to 0. That's called domination no matter how you spin it. Regular season records and head to head play are just a tiny factor, but to the casual fan or the general population it's all about championships, something that the Red Sox are sorely lacking in this rivalry. It's quite obvious you have ulterior motives for wasting a whole lot of people's time over one word - and a word that had been in the article for many months before you came along without any previous discussion as to choosing another.Yankees76 13:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stay cool, anonymous Boston Guy. There's no need for all the yelling.

You yourself said that "in order to 'dominate' a team you have to win way more than 50% of your games with them." I thought those stats were relevant because in my book, 57% over the course of 83 years is "way more" than 50%. It takes a lot of games - more than a hundred - to constitute 7% of 1500. Yes, the Yankees dominated everybody. They dominated baseball in a way no team has ever dominated an American sport. Why would Boston be exempt from that? I didn't choose the word for the heading, but it's been fine with everyone for quite a while.

All you've offered so far is a lot of shouting about how we're biased and shouldn't have a say. How does any of that help your case? Discuss the issue, not your perceived flaws of the others involved. Kafziel 13:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I never said I hated the Yankees. Actually, there is a Yankee fan sitting next to me who agrees with me that that title isn't very accurate. I brought it up civil, mtz agreed with me, but two yankee fans disagree. There is definitely a better title for the section, look at the table of contents, it doesn't make sense. Yankee domination is a part of the rivalry? I'm not telling you to change the article, just the title that could have a better name. Stop defending the Yankees (which you are doing, your argument has nothing to do with the article, it has to do with your OPINION about the Yankees) and think, "Could there be a better title?" YES!

After all I've said, you're just going to keep yelling and accusing me of bias? Really?

I really can't believe I'm saying this all again, but yes - of course Yankee domination is part of the rivalry. Would the "curse" have existed if the Sox had sold Ruth to the Yankees and then the Cubs won 26 World Series? Of course not. Would the "curse" have existed if the Sox had sold Ruth but continued to do well? Of course not. All the animosity, all the competitiveness, came from the fact that the Yankees did so well and Boston did so poorly. That domination is at the very heart of the rivalry. I really don't know how else to explain it, but I guess it doesn't matter anyway. Kafziel 13:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Dominate" is objective. It's as simple as that. AGAIN, I didn't say get rid of the section, I just said it needs a more appropriate name. To quote my mtz friend up there: "I would agree that the term "domination" could express a POV. Perhaps something more approprirate would be "Yankee success" or something conveying that they had greater overall success in those years." I'm sure there is a better title that glorifies YOUR team just as much, but is more appropriate.

I think you mean "subjective", and once again... it's not my team. I'm interested only in maintaining a good article. "Domination" does not "glorify" the Yankees. It accurately describes their record during that time, as has been shown here repeatedly with cites and statistics. If you can provide some references and stats that show how between 1920 and 2002 the Yankees were terrible and the Sox were awesome, then we may have more to discuss. If not... Kafziel 14:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So, 159.221.32.10 you say you've never said you hated the Yankees. I'm curious then as to why you vandalized the New York Yankees page on June 20, 2006 with the words, and I quote, "In 2006, the Yankees will fail to make the playoffs even though they have the highest payroll in baseball. Can you say Yankees Suck?"? Care to explain that? It looks like you've just thrown any validity you might have had in this debate out the window with that edit. You're just as biased as you're accusing any of us to be. Thanks for wasting everyones time. Yankees76 14:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A number of people share the same IP address here. That wasn't me. Notice half my messages on here are from a different IP (that is me at home). I also got a message about changing something on another article, which was also not me. And no, I meant to say "Dominate is NOT objective" and it should be replaced with something that is. Just stop arguing for five seconds and think of something that would be a better title. How about if we get someone who isn't a Yankee fan to give their opinion? Is that crazy of me to suggest?

I'm not buying that excuse. The rest of us took time to register. To me it looks like you're trolling. Yankees76 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what that means. Trust me, I'm not the only person on this IP address. mtz206 said: "I would agree that the term "domination" could express a POV. Perhaps something more approprirate would be "Yankee success" or something conveying that they had greater overall success in those years." And I still agree with that.

Trolls are people who wander around the internet, particularly in chat rooms and message boards, picking fights with others.

As for getting the opinion of non Yankee fans, we have. Every editor for the past year has seen no problem with it; Yankee fans, Sox fans, and neutral parties. The editor who originally used the word "dominate", here, is a Cubs fan. That was in March of 2005, and nobody has had a problem with it until now. Neutral point of view does not mean we need to sacrifice accuracy to avoid offending one or two random people with unreasonable and unfounded complaints. Kafziel 14:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So all non-Yankee fans agree that "Yankee success" would be more appropriate.

Anonymous, I thought maybe you didn't mean to post this weird one-line thing, so I was waiting to see if you were going to add an explanation or delete it, but you didn't. So I don't know what you mean there. It's been there for over a year, and all non-Yankee fans have agreed that "domination" is appropriate. Snappy comebacks aren't constructive, if that's what you're going for, and your record of vandalism doesn't help either. Take a moment, read what I wrote, look at the page history, and read the policy on npov I linked to. Short of that, I think we're done here. Kafziel 15:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Yankee success" would be less POV than "domination" I wouldn't argue they were successful, I would argue they were dominant. And the fact that you keep saying "dominant" refers not to individual games but to championships is confusing in and of itself. So wouldn't "Yankee success" be more appropriate?

Hold on, let me get this straight. You're telling us that on June 20, somebody with the same IP address as you vandalized the Yankees page 47 minutes after after you removed 'domination' from the title (for the second time in a day) on this page (coincidentally also a Yankees-related page), and less than an hour before you came back here to revert it for a third time, but it wasn't you? Riiiight. You have zero credibility here. I can't imagine why someone from Boston would want to word 'dominate' removed, can you? Especially one that vandalizes Yankees pages on Wikipedia. Go away troll. Yankees76 15:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we get back on point, and arrive at consensus as to an acceptable term to describe these years of the rivalry. Otherwise, I will just merge the two sections and call it "History". --mtz206 (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In essence we're arguing over a one-word edit that a Cubs fan (a neutral party) made more than a year ago, which until the other day was fine and acceptable to thousands of page viewers. I'm calling trolling on this one, trolling by an unregistered user with a suspect edit history who has vandalized articles - including related articles - in the past, and has not made any significant contributions to the current article. I vote to keep it as is, as the word accurately depicts the nature of the rivalry during the time frame that section covers. We may have to ask for an RfC on this. Yankees76`

Why would you say this after three of us agreed to put it all under one heading "History"? I have worked here since December and my history goes back way before that, how could I have made all those changes when I didn't even work here?! I'm not starting this for no reason, it's perfectly reasonable and 3 out of 4 of us agreed. Now you're the one who is trolling.

Actually, I posted that before anyone agreed to put it all under one heading, but thanks for trying to start something out of nothing again. I'm not going to get into this with you. It's obvious you're on here to simply create disputes that serve no purpose other than your own entertainment. Yankees76 17:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't. Look at the history. But can't you agree that it would be better under one heading? I mean it's one sentence and one paragraph under a title, it doesn't even look good. I'll assure you you'll never hear from me ever again, how's that?

Actually I did, it shows up 3 minutes after after because of an edit conflict (more than one user editing at the same time). I would go with Kafziel's suggestion that all three subtitles be removed simply to avoid furthering this time-wasting "debate". Is there any other history you want to re-write while we're at it? Yankees76 18:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is perfectly reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.221.32.10 (talk • contribs)

I wouldn't have a problem with merging (all three history sections, though, not just two - "rivalry begins", "Yankee domination", and "curse reversed"). The only change I've ever made to the article (before all this nonsense) was to simplify sections, and I have no problem doing more of that. Kafziel 15:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was weird that two paragraphs had a heading to begin with. I agree with the merge thing. Someday I'll register, not at work though! Is it reasonable for me to ask that all of that personal information that the Yankee guy put on here be deleted?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.221.32.10 (talk • contribs)

If you're on here at work, that's all the more reason for you to register a username. Much more private; your IP address won't be available to everyone. Kafziel 15:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Touche! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.221.32.10 (talk • contribs)

I only posted what is public knowledge through a search of your user name (which is also your IP address in this case). It's in a public forum - anyone can look it up. I have no problems with anyone removing it from this talk page though. I used it to merely illustrate your non-neutrality on this subject not to divulge personal info. Yankees76 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong, I was just asking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.221.32.10 (talk • contribs)

Done

I've merged the three sections together. I hope this settles the discussion. Thanks to all involved for keeping (moderately) cool heads during the debate. Considering the subject matter, it could have been worse. Kafziel 18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)