Talk:Yankees–Red Sox rivalry/Archive 2

message: An entire section has been voted to Fan involvement, which claims (among other things) that "Red Sox fans, known as Red Sox Nation, tend to have a more intense dislike of the Yankees than Yankees fans have for the Red Sox" and "It was not uncommon to hear the "Yankees Suck" chant at Fenway Park even when the Yankees were not in town."
Where is this coming from? Where are the references? What is the source of this information? This is original reseacrh in its most blatant form. This needs to go.--Pac 04:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your pick. Boston Magazine The Daily CollegianThe Harvard Crimson Kafziel 11:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should add these references to the article as footnotes. --Pac 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *I see they're all pre-2004 World Series articles. It seems that the rivalry is much more of a two-way street since the 3-0 comeback. I've heard the "Yankees Suck" chant at exactly one non-Yankee game this season, and that was when the Mets were in town. I'm going to change the tense in the paragraph in question to bring it up to date. Comments are welcome. - Pal 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Yankee hating is still pretty strong for a lot of Red Sox fans, and it's still extremely lopsided (1 vs. 26) so I don't think Yankee fans feel like the situation is much different either, but I have no particular problem with any of the changes you made. It's not important enough a subject to me to sift through google for more recent articles, and I haven't seen anything lately that would make me think you're wrong. The links I cited were just to show that it wasn't original research. Your changes look okay to me. Kafziel 22:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Of these three proposed sources, none of them address the assertion that Red Sox fans hate the Yankees more than Yankees fans hate the Red Sox -- an assertion that I don't think can ever actually be verified.  Until someone comes up with a source that confirms this statement, I think the first two sentences in the "Fan Involvement" section (up to the part about the "Yankees Suck" chant, which certainly is verifiable) should be deleted.  Also, I'm not thoroughly versed in Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, but do the two opinion columns (one by a Red Sox fan and one by a Yankees fan) count as appropriate sources for this?  I think they may be usable as primary sources regarding the opinion that Red Sox fans have a "fiery hatred" for the Yankees, but not that their hatred is any more fiery than Yankees fans' hatred for the Sox. Schi 20:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the word "hate" being used in the article anywhere. - RPIRED 22:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia article uses the word "dislike", the proposed sources use the word "hatred" and "despise" (that is where the "fiery hatred" phrase comes from), and the discussion on this talk page uses the word "hate" or "hating" several times.  But we don't need to use the word "hate" in either the article or discussion, we could use "dislike" for the same purposes.  In terms of splitting hairs over diction, I don't see the word "dislike" in any of the proposed sources either.  To rephrase for the purpose of clarity and specificity, I don't see any evidence that Red Sox fans have a more "intense dislike" for the Yankees than the Yankees' fans have for the Red Sox.  Schi 23:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do what you will. I'm tired of arguing it - I feel very strongly that mention of the fan dynamic as it exists (and it isn't equilibrium by any stretch of the imagination) is important in conveying to readers a very important part of the rivalry itself. There's got to be something somewhere on it. (POV alert) I'm further perplexed by the reaction of what appear to be Red Sox fans - as a Yankee fan I can only wish that my fellow fans were into it on the same level as Red Sox fans. POV for sure, but it's really a very enjoyable rivalry. - RPIRED 23:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to make my edits as NPOV as possible and that's what I'm concerned about in this article - making it live up to Wikipedia standards, particularly WP:VERIFY.  I personally don't contest that Red Sox fans are more into the rivalry than Yankees fans, but I just haven't seen any sources that back that up yet. As it is, and including my own most recent edit, the section seems pretty rife with weasel words. Schi 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be accurate, it's not 1 to 26, it's 6 to 26 (1903, 1912, 1915, 1916, 1918, 2004)... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.136.192.1 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you're talking about Red Sox-Yankees games, then you're certainly right that the chant has not diminished. But if you're talking about non-Yankees game then you're completely wrong; the chant is almost non-existent. The way it's written now isn't accurate, and could be labelled POV. I have no problem with the changes you made to the first part, though it would be nice if you cited post-2004 sources. However, I'll attempt a re-write of the second part once again. - Pal 13:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about Red Sox-Yankees games. The fact that I still hear it at Celtics games is the first clue, the fact that I heard it at the recent Tampa Bay-Boston series is further evidence (on TV no less), and I do hear it from time to time at Fenway Park on TV when the Yankees are not in town. I don't know how you're coming to your conclusion and I'm further scratching my head at why you think it was a problem as written - I'd think that kind of passion for a rivalry would be something to be proud of in Boston - but if you're adamant about it I'm more than willing to work through it. I just finished a touch-up that should be fair to all sides if you're that concerned about it. That segment doesn't work without conveying just how much more involved Red Sox fans are in the rivalry than Yankee fans are. That's a key element in the entire rivalry. - RPIRED 14:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with your last edit. As for my explanation, prior to 2004 you would hear the chant at almost every game. It was rare that you could watch a game without hearing the chant. Now that's certainly not the case. Sure you may hear it here and there, but it's not nearly as prevalent these days. That was the reason for the re-write. And I certainly don't find the chant to enhance the rivalry. It's unoriginal, boring, and makes it look like Sox fans have an inferiority complex. - Pal 14:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way that Red Sox fans hate Yankees fans more than the vice versa. This is coming from a diehard Yankee fan, who sits with other diehard fans at over 50 games a year. That "fan involvement" paragraph needs to be edited, but apparently it's just going to be reversed if I try to. - Sportskido8 16:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  acccounts from an overzealous yankee fan 

message: We've had more than one occassion of someone trying to add Melky Cabrera's catch which robbed Manny Ramírez of a home run at Yankee Stadium in June. While it was a nice catch that ultimately decided the ball game, we're pretty much all in agreement that it's not notable in the context of a significant "rivalry" moment. If there aren't any objections, I'm going to add a small note on this at the bottom of that section that will be visible to anyone who tries to add it - and we can leave it in there until the end of the season or so. - RPIRED 05:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objection, and since it has been added again recently, I will add the note. Is there any argument that this moment was in any way notable? - RPIRED 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. I agree with you completely. Kafziel 19:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabrera's catch in early June - not notable 

message: I doubt that we'll be able to shape this one around to being a featured article someday, but I think we could at least turn it into a good article. We're going to need to work on weasel words as noted by Schi and start sourcing, well, everything, and we're probably going to want to find a few more pictures, but does anyone else have any interest on breaking out the polish and working to make this article shine? - RPIRED 19:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Go for Good Article? 

message: Had two different (anonymous) users post last night's doubleheader, the second of which was the longest 9-inning game in MLB history? It might be significant enough to post but there was some dissent last night. I reverted it the second time so it could be discussed first. Anyone? - RPIRED 18:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is the current record holder for the longest 9-inning game , we probably should mention it in the article.  InTheFlesh? 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubleheader - longest game 

message: Is this really relevant to the scope of the article?  This part is clearly attempting to show the supremacy of Boston by villifying New York.  I don't even think it's notable with regards to the Yankees Red Sox rivalry.  "Since before the start of the American Revolution, Boston and New York had shared a rivalry. When the Sons of Liberty stirred up the flames of revolution in Boston, Tories (loyalists) in New York argued that America should stay loyal to the crown. When Boston was liberated from the English the citizens of Boston celebrated wildly. When George Washington faced defeat in New York, the people there welcomed the British troops with open arms." Deputydog23 17:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had similar thoughts when I first saw it, but it does establish a historical difference and rivalry between Boston and New York that assisted in the genesis of the rivalry between the two teams. Boston *was* a cauldron of Patriot fervor prior to and during the Revolution, and New York *was* a bastion of Loyalist sympathy. To me, it's a least a decent illustration of how the two cities have been largely diametrically opposed to each other for centuries. - RPIRED 20:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant? 

message: I have twice reverted the inclusion of the 1941 feats of Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams. They had outstanding individual feats, but in the context of the rivalry, these are not worthy of inclusion unless DiMaggio ended his streak against the Red Sox or unless Williams did something against the Yankees that guaranteed his hitting .400. I also mention that I was referred to as a "moron" by the individual who insists on adding it. Despite WP:NPA, I am choosing to adhere to WP:NEWBIES in this case, however, I ask tht the individual not attack again. However I did want to put something on this talk page to see if there was anyone that felt that I was misguided in removing this reference as it was A) not a reference to a direct and significant Red Sox/Yankees event and B) not an event which signified a "milestone," like mentioning World Series results despite the two teams never being able to meet in the World Series. DiMaggio and Williams had great seasons, but that's what they were - great seasons. It's not notable in the context of the rivalry. - RPIRED 11:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Kafziel 11:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The players had a rivalry (DiMaggio and the whole 'Williams runs like a duck' jab), but it was like the Ruth/Cobb rivalry - they were the best players in the league. I actually thought the Bucker deletion would get more attention because of the 'Curse of the Bambino' phrase that was coined shortly after. Yankees76 13:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did kinda hesitate on that one. Obviously it's a famous moment of Red Sox heartache and it did give real rise to the whole "Curse of the Bambino" talk. Ultimately I classified it as nn in the same way that the Red Sox 2004 World Series win was nn for mentioning in a Sox-Yanks rivalry sense. I had initially had that as part of the chronology, but someone, rightly, moved it to being a corollary of the ALCS Game 7 entry. The Yanks, if I recall correctly were horrible in 1986. :) Still, we have some mentions of other Yankee and Red Sox World Series, especially in the first part of the 20th century. There could be some validity to having the Buckner error in the chronology inasmuch as it brought "Curse of the Bambino" into the mainstream. - RPIRED 23:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Yankees won 90 games in '86 (5.5 games back, 3rd best record in the AL).Yankees76 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DiMaggio and Williams Feats 

message: I've completed the merge from Yankees Suck to Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry.  Please review, and make sure it's up to standards.  Thanks! Djdickmutt 19:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Albeit I am a yankees Fan, i do not like how much importance is placed on the catch in the article. Yes it was a great catch, but no one should say that one catch can put someone into the hall of fame. I believe that it does causes this article to no longer be neutral.
ChrisArnold 02:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melky's Catch 

message: This article is very bias towards the Red Sox. Please delete.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.27.90 (talk • contribs).
:Can you point out anything specifically that should be changed/deleted? schi talk 19:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Sox Bias 

message: Very nice job all involved!  A very balanced article on a subject I expected to see some real flaming on!  Well done from this Sox fan.--Lepeu1999 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice Job!

message: Noticing that the "key moments" section is getting very cluttered with stuff, some of it not as noteworthy as others. My recommendations are below.
*1901-1920: As is
*1921-1940: Cleanup 1921 entry  (Done)
*1941-1960: As is
*1961-1980: Cleanup Boston Massacre, nix Thurman Munson's death  (Done)
*1981-2000: Possibly nix 1991 and 1997 entries, possibly nix one or both of the first two 1999 ALCS entries
*2001-2004: Nix Alex Rodriguez debut or merge with signing, nix "Who's Your Daddy" game, nix or heavily cleanup 2004 ALCS Game 6
*2005-present: Nix or cleanup Red Sox ring ceremony, nix twin 16-run wins, nix 2005 AL East clincher, merge back-to-back Johnny Damon entries, cleanup Boston Massacre.
Let me know what you think. RPIRED 21:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Moments cleanup 

message: I restored the reference to twin victories in the "1918" and "Boston Sucks" chants section. One victory was over NY, the other was for the series so both relevant. IrishGuy talk 00:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to open this up for discussion since IrishGuy and I are getting absolutely nowhere with our discussions, since we're both too stubborn to budge an iota on this. My contention is that the "1918" chant disappeared due to the 2004 World Series win. His is that it was both the 2004 ALCS and the Series combined. This is my premise - the only major element in "1918" in the first place was the World Series victory drought. I contend that, without the '04 series win, we'd still hear "1918" today regardless of the Sox' victory over the Yankees. I further contend that even if the Sox hadn't beaten the Yanks on their way to the WS win, that the chant still would have disappeared. Thus, the 2004 ALCS, as it relates to the chant, is about as relevant as the 2004 ALDS was - just another stepping stone to the WS. He claims as a source some obscure quote from Terry Francona that he claims references the chant, but makes no reference to the ALCS, just the Yankees as an organization and fan base. Outside input is much appreciated on this matter. - RPIRED 14:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The source listed in that section clearly states They would loose a profane chant about the Yankees, too. "If Dave Roberts can't steal second base," Terry Francona said of that Game 4 theft on Mariano Rivera's watch, "I'm home watching this (celebration) on television.". That shows that the chant of "1918" was lost because of the World Series win and the ALCS win over NY. IrishGuy talk 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My contention is that it doesn't. Francona is very clearly referencing that if they did not win the ALCS, they could not have gone to the World Series - that it was against the Yankees is irrelevant. Also note the preceeding portion that was eliminated directly before, regarding the post-WS Game 4 celebration: A few thousand Red Sox fans would stay into the small hours of night, surrounding the visitors' dugout and calling for Pesky and Pedro and all the curse-conquering players to return to the field. "Thank you Red Sox," they would chant. Thus, the word "loose" (not "lose") pertains to "another chant directed by Red Sox fans." This quote does not even reference the "1918" chant in any manner. Again, all outside input is welcome and desired. - RPIRED 16:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Francona is refering to the importance of the win against NY. Even the first sentence of the article states: The Yankees created a monster bigger than the green wall in Boston, the one that used to rise 37 feet above a field of dashed baseball dreams. The Yankees created a moment 86 years in the making, a season for the ages that will forever include the 2004 Red Sox among the greatest stories in the history of American sport. If the ALCS win over NY is irrelevant, why did USA Today feel the need to begin the article with it? IrishGuy talk 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a helluva stretch to say that he's referring to the importance of the win over a specific team. Certainly sounds to me like he's referring to the importance of the win in the ALCS regardless of the opponent. Same situation, only against the Twins, is stealing that base still important to making the WS? In either case, he still isn't referencing ANY chants whatsoever. I didn't say the win over NY was irrelevant period, I said it was irrelevant to the continuation or cessation of the "1918" chant. The only relevant part to that chant was the 86 year inability of the Red Sox to win the World Series coming to an end. Did the "1918" chant continue after the Red Sox won the 1986 ALCS? Why or why not? I don't feel this is a difficult concept to grasp - that the Yankee chant of "1918" was solely based in that record of futility in the World Series, not in the ALCS. The ALCS victory alone couldn't have stopped it, and mentioning the ALCS victory along with the Series may as well include the ALDS, since they couldn't have done it without winning that round either. They couldn't have made the Series without earning a playoff berth, shall we mention that too? Bottom line, the World Series win eliminated the chant, nothing else. The fact that the ALCS victory was historic because it came over NY is well documented elsewhere and is irrelevant here. USA Today led with the Yankees because of the rivalry and the historic nature of the ALCS that year (especially in contrast to the anticlimatic and dominated Series). There's still no reference to the chant and there isn't because there can't be. - RPIRED 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boston didn't play New York in 1986. What does that have to do with anything? The source routinely mentions Boston beating New York en route to winning the World Series. The two are linked as they not only finally won the series, but they beat NY. IrishGuy talk 00:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont see how the above comment relates in any way, shape, or form to the chant. Winning the series and beating NY were two separate things that happened to be in the same year. If the chant had anything at all to do with the Sox beating the Yankees, it would have been "1904," right? "1918" had nothing to do with beating the Yankees, so why would beating the Yankees change anything? Again I ask - why would the chant possibly persist if they had beaten someone other than the Yankees? It's clearly just the WS victory. - RPIRED 00:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1918 chant 

message: For the key moments section - is this weekend's sweep notable? As noted already, it is the first Red Sox sweep at Fenway against the Yankees since 1990, and in tonight's game, there was a historic element as Manny Ramírez, J.D. Drew, Mike Lowell, and Jason Varitek hit back-to-back-to-back-to-back dingers. Wanted to open discussion to adding it so quickly - I suspect that at the very least, the 4 straight homers is notable as it is a historic event more unusual than a perfect game. So tonight's game at least should probably be mentioned. The sweep? I'm not as sure but I'm open to leaving it since it hasn't happened in so long, kinda similar to last September's "Boston Massacre." Thoughts? - RPIRED 03:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sweep IS notable.  17 years IS a long time for two teams in the same division under the present format due the the sheer number of games they play against one another.  Also, that it was a part of the four consecutive home run event that clearly IS historic as it is the first time in BoSox history that this has happened and only the 5th in MLB history certainly merits this a position in the article, at least for the time being.  ludahai 魯大海 09:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The series itself is not notable (and it goes both ways, had the Yankees swept, it would not be notable either). How is a 3 game series this early in the season notable? The sweep from last season was a 5 game sweep in August during a playoff race and by a number of very lopsided scores. You simply can't compare the two series. The 4 straight home runs however, is definitely worthy of mention in my opinion, and should be incorporated into the article. Yankees76 16:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it hadn't been a sweep, only the single game would be notable because of the fourth inning (four consecutive home runs). Since it was the first Sox sweep at Fenway against the Yankees since 1990, the series is notable. Obviously it wouldn't be notable if NY had won...because they do it quite a lot. IrishGuy talk 00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since 1990? Barely a footnote considering the long history of these two teams. Was the series sweep in 1990 in the article before this past weekend? Yankees76 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April sweep - Notable? 

message: I noticed that while most of the prose of the article is written in the past tense, the Key moments timeline-esque section is written in the present.  I would rather see it in the past tense.  Is there any style guidance on this?  Opinions? schi talk 16:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask around. I'm biased since I created the section in the first place, so I won't chime in with a preference other than to say that I think the way it's currently structured, present tense works (since each entry describes events occuring on that day, kind of like the lists on entries ON days, like April 25 for instance). - RPIRED 01:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Found this... Wikipedia:Proseline, AFAICT, suggests that present tense is appropriate for this, but the section may still need to be reworked. - RPIRED 02:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Past/present tense

message: I removed the hockey reference about the 2004 series. I fail to see the relevance to this article. IrishGuy talk 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the historical reference - 3-0 teams essentially never come back in any sport - but whatever. - RPIRED 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed like it was appended on to an existing sentence. This was the first time in baseball history that a team had come back from a 0-3 deficit in a best of seven series, though it had been accomplished twice in the National Hockey League. That wording makes no sense. If it was the first time in baseball history and that is the point of the sentence, why add the two hockey accomplishments? What does that have to do with a baseball accomplishment? IrishGuy talk 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you failing to recognize an acquiesence to the point? - RPIRED 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was explaining my thought on the subject as my initial post didn't really do so. Why be so incivil? IrishGuy talk 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Could ask you the same. Like I originally said - whatever. - RPIRED 03:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments didn't lack civility. IrishGuy talk 15:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto. So maybe we should just drop it since A) we're in agreement and B) there's nothing more to be said. - RPIRED 16:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I would say that Are you failing to recognize an acquiesence to the point? is quite snide.  IrishGuy talk 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh. If you say so. - RPIRED 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The reference to other sports is not required and not relevant in my opinion. -- No Guru 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hockey reference 

message: I find the author's account of the Zimmer/Ramirez incident highly biased. Please describe ALL of the details.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.190.152.194 (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Highly biased" is an overstatement, to me, but I admit I think you can't completely understand the incident without knowing that "Yankee bench coach Don Zimmer" was 72 years old at the time of the brawl.  I have a feeling Red Sox fans may view such an insertion as unnecessarily inflammatory, however.  Anyone else have an opinion on this? Merkinmuffly 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An anti-Yankee undertone 

message: Found out something relatively interesting today while working on the 1901 Baltimore Orioles season page. The first game in the history of both of these franchises came against each other, albeit with the Yankees in their original incarnation as the Baltimore Orioles. The game was played at Oriole Park on April 26, 1901, and the Orioles won, 10-6. The first game between the Highlanders and Americans is included in the history section, does this game matter enough to be added, considering that it was the first game ever for both teams? - RPIRED 19:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Game 

message: "A 13-inning comeback win for the Yankees on July 1 was punctuated by a gaudy catch by Derek Jeter, who ran and dove into the stands at full speed and came out with facial lacerations." calling this catch "gaudy" is clearly an anti-yankee opinion and should be removed.
:Moot point now, since the offending text has been revised, but I disagree.  "Gaudy" is probably not the ideal adjective, but is not necessarily pejorative in this context. Merkinmuffly 18:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias in history section 

message: *June 3, 2007: The Yankees had entered the weekend series against Boston being 14.5 games back in the AL East, the most out of first place the Yankees have been during the Joe Torre era. They take 2 out of 3 games in the series. Boston set-up man Hideki Okajima blew his first save of the year when the Yankees tied it off a Robinson Cano triple. Alex Rodriguez hit the go-ahead homerun off of closer Jonathan Papelbon, propelling the Yankees to victory while handing Pappelbon his first loss of the season. Yankees closer Mariano Rivera, arguably the best in history, recorded his first save in nearly a month due to his struggles during the early part of the 2007 season. This propelled the Yankees to their biggest winning streak of the season up until that time.
It started a Yankee winning streak ? Okajima who is not a closer blew a save ? A closer gets his first loss of the season ? Rivera gets his first save in a month ? None of these things are rare events. What is the historical significance of this game ? Smacks of recentism and does not merit inclusion as a "key moment" in the rivalry.-- No Guru 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable. I guess we have to wait and see if it does wind up doing anything significant, but that will only be told by season's end. We have the text on the talk, so we can not include it now and include it later if it is warranted.Arnabdas 20:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this game historically significant ?