Talk:Dodgers–Giants rivalry

August 25, 2005 edits

re: Aug 25 revert by JamesMadison

C'mon Wahkeenah that wasn't an addition, it was a sermon. Your points are good and well written (if somewhat turgid) but you deleted other contributor's works in the process. Yes, the Giants and Dodgers started in New York, but they have been in California for over half a century. And New York is not the "cradle of baseball." That's not neutral, and it's not true either. You can write better than this, and you have.

ADD to this article, okay? (And I hate reverting). I'll leave it to you to add your otherwise valid contribution appropriately.

Cheers dude (and all other contributors). JamesMadison 07:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you clobbered everything I wrote. I don't have a clue what you have a problem with. Maybe you're trying the keep the article short. Whatever. Wahkeenah 13:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence that organized baseball springs from New York City. And reviewing the history of this article, I don't see where I deleted what anyone else wrote. And not knowing what parts you liked and didn't like, I dare not add anything back. >:( Wahkeenah 14:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It was a good contribution, Wahkeenah. It just lacked neutralness. It would be a great addition to an article explicitly about New York baseball (and maybe you should write one - it was well written). But it just had too many "odes" in there; try giving the exact same info in a more neutral tone. But don't mistake me, the New York era is crucial to understanding the whole history of the Giants/Dodgers. Do recontribute this section, and share your knowledge of the NY years of these teams.

The deleted material I cited was from "Pennant Race Drama," but I can believe that you might have done that accidentally. I've done it too.

And don't take it personally, either. We're all sportswriters in need of editors here. Go for it dude.

Cheers to all

JamesMadison 07:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If you bother to look closely at the history, you will see that I did not delete anything, I just created a new section for some of it called "Spoilers", to distinguish head-to-head "Pennant Race Drama" (such as 1951 and 1962) from situations where one team, out of the race itself, knocked the other team out of the race (1934, 1982, 1991, etc.) Maybe the early history portion sounded a little too gushy. Maybe you're not interested in anything historical prior to the Clinton administration. I've got news for you... I don't even like New York City or its teams, especially the f'ing Mets. But I know a thing or two about the game's history, and the 1880s are "alive" to me. Evidently that's a minority report. So how about if you put back whatever you think is worthy, if anything. Meanwhile, I'll look around for another hobby. >:( Wahkeenah 12:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Here, as a neutral 3rd party I'm going to don my fire suppression gear and attempt to reintegrate some of the the contributions. To me at least, article flows better and someone who is from Japan stumbling on it may actually get the rivalry. Tempted to compare it to the Yankees-Red Sox but not in the mood to plagarize Caple after he and I have traded nice emails. Old64mb 00:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Bless you, my son, for thou hast done good. d:) Wahkeenah 00:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, great content adds on your part, just needed a wee bit of integration. I tried to streamline the article to focus on Giants-Dodgers specifically (e.g., we know there are other teams in the NL West, but does their short history have anything to do with Giants v Dodgers?). If there's any content I cut that seems essential to the rivalry and flows with the article, go for it. Probably someone should add something to the rivals section about the boos Lasorda/Bonds and former-Dodgers/Giants (Kent anyone?) get in their opposing stadiums, as well as one reason the O'Malleys moved the Dodgers out West was to continue the rivalry (and how in 1992 they were adamant against the Giants moving to Tampa for the same reason). I may do so myself if I can find the sources for all of this. Old64mb 02:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, you were right and I was wrong. I see now that you didn't delete, you moved it. An apology is given where an apology is due. You don't have to tell anyone here that you know baseball history; anybody who has read your other works already knows that. And Old64mb, that was great re-edit for flow. Your fire suppression gear has served you well. JamesMadison 04:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Giants v Dodgers

I moved this section from its root on both the Dodgers and Giants pages.

Sorry, BlueMoonlet, I didn't mean to leave out your excellent additions from the original Dodgers' page version. Good to see you added them back; I was merely a victim of technology. My bad there.

I'm doing some cleanup now that this is a brand new page (linking, etc.) as I see others have done as well.

Let's all make this a great page about a great rivalry in a great game.

JamesMadison 05:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Page and Merging with a (smaller) Existing Page

Seems to me like it would be good to rename this to simply "Giants-Dodgers rivalry", in keeping with other articles such as Red Sox-Yankees Rivalry and White Sox-Cubs rivalry. Wahkeenah 05:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and it should be Giants-Dodgers Rivalry (or Dodgers-Giants Rivalry) since the rivalry was carried over from the New York-Brooklyn days. Zoe 06:07, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hm, looks like we have duplicate articles. We need a merge and redirect somewhere. Zoe 06:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

A Google search reveals that, though D comes first in the alphabet, "Giants-Dodgers rivalry" is the more common phrasing. —Wiki Wikardo 16:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. This page evolved from the team's pages. It should stand against "Yankees-Red Sox", etc. JamesMadison 06:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you on the name change. --BlueMoonlet 03:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

So, who wants to make the "move"? And is it Giants-Dodgers or Dodgers-Giants? It probably doesn't matter, as long as a redirect is set up from one to the other. Wahkeenah 14:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's already a Giants-Dodgers Rivalry page (should the R really be capitalized?), and if that's consistent with Red Sox-Yankees Rivalry and White Sox-Cubs rivalry, might as well move this page's stuff over to it, merging inf0z where redundant. Yeah?

Don't come any closer... I'll do it, man... I'm crazy like that!

um, Yeah. —Wiki Wikardo 16:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I would say that, in keeping with other wiki conventions, the R should be an "r". Actually, I don't agree with that. But that's the wiki convention. And if there is already a rivalry page, it should all be merged. As far as the name order, I would speculate that "Giants-Dodgers" rolls off the tongue easier than "Dodgers-Giants". However, on the Dodgers page, you would say "Dodgers-Giants" and then redirect to "Giants-Dodgers". Wahkeenah 16:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm necroing this part of the discussion, since when I was fixing an edit it struck me that I couldn't find a professional journalist who refers to this as the "Dodgers-Giants" rivalry; rather, they use "Giants-Dodgers". There is one book that has that title, and one website, but beyond that the professionals seem to use the latter phrasing; in fact, this article shows up as one of the few unique ones with this phrase. It may be that we're all imitating Vin Scully, who I can't recall ever saying the "Dodgers and the Giants" when referring to the rivalry - it's always reversed, and I ain't smart enough to go against Vin. Not sure if this needs to go up for a vote or not. Thoughts? 21:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old64mb (talk • contribs)

"https://www.google.com/search?q=%22giants-dodgers+rivalry%22+-wikipedia" shows 5240 results. "https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dodgers-giants+rivalry%22+-wikipedia" shows 4980 results. Wikipedia influenced the results in the other direction. Anecdotally, I never hear "Dodgers-Giants" and it is unusual and jarring to refer to this article by its current name, so I would support changing it a la Yankees-Red Sox.73.170.127.191 (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Add History Section

Add a history of the Giants v Dodgers (or vice-versa) to this page to put all the numbers and anecdotes currently contained into perspective. How would someone from England or Estonia (or Japan or Niger) read about this rivalry? Would they get it?

JamesMadison 06:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Somebody from Japan probably would, but the=at's off the subject. ςפקιДИτς 21:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sox vs. Yankees vs. Giants vs. Dodgers

I took out a rather non-NPOV add by 72.78.41.101 regarding how this rivalry is better than the Sox-Yankees one. Part of it was simply in error as Yankees fans do in fact hate Sox fans - witness the old 1918 chants let alone the attendance at Yankee stadium for the games - but more importantly the evidence presented to support the argument wasn't effective, making it a strongly POV addition. Jim Caple's article is probably the best of the bunch comparing the two, and even he admits there's no real way to validate either claim. If someone wants to add more substantial facts arguing how one rivalry is better than the other to that section, be my guest! - Old64mb 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well taken. However, for the most part, Yankee fans have little of the directed anti-Red Sox sentiment that comes from the other direction. Furthermore, during some historical eras, the Red Sox were virtually irrelevant to the Yankees in competition. In the 1950s, the main rivals were the Cleveland Indians and then the Chicago White Sox. I myself attended a Red Sox-Yankee game at Yankee Stadium during the late '50s, with Ted Williams in fact playing in the game, and the stands were still pretty much empty (maybe 12-15,000 of the 60,000+ seats filled!). In addition, during the past several decades, it is very apparent to me that the venom of Boston fans towards the Yankees is in no way matched by New York fans towards the Red Sox. I live in the northeast and know hundreds of Yankee fans and hundreds of Red Sox fans. The quality of Yankee fan involvement in the rivalry is more like haughty contempt, really. The problem with Sox fans, and Sox management, is that they focus all their wrath on one rival, and in doing so, merely become second-rate emulators. Note that the two highest payrolls in baseball are these two franchises, but of course Boston still fall short. Meanwhile, despite the comeuppance of 2004, the Yankees remain the dominant (and I hate to say this because I do despise the Yankees) and classier franchise. And Yankees fans can claim to be elite even while they act boorish because there is always the symbolism of the pinstripes. But Red Sox fans degenerate into pathetic behaviour on a regular basis. The Sheffield incident is but one example of that but there are other forms as well. Finally, the Red Sox ownership is utterly without class in its dealings with such players as Manny Ramirez, Nomar Garciaparra, Mark Belhorn, and Johnny Damon. The real rivalry is between the Red Sox top brass and the crass George Steinbrenner! It is telling that the Sox management acts more despicably towards the hired hands than does the ex-con!

My own opinion is that the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry is nowadays an intense one overall--this is obvious--but very skewed, and in a lot of ways, uninteresting because not only does it emanate predominantly from one camp, but it has taken on a media-concocted quality and I don't much care for that unspontaneous artificiality. Moreover, I find the culture of both teams rather insipid at best and contemptible at worst, because these were two of the most racist franchises during earlier eras. Check into the history of Elston Howard other Yankees, and numerous racial problems on the Red Sox.

By contrast, the Dodgers and Giants were at the forefront of furthering opportunity for African-Americans and foreign-born players, not only in recent years, but throughout the second half of the 20th century. (Jackie Robinson led the way for the Dodgers, of course. Monte Irvin, Hank Thompson, Willie Mays formed the first all-black outfield in ML history. This is not coincidence.

In any case, I find no comparison in the rivalries. One is earnest, in its way quite dignified, and deeply-rooted in urban and regional cultures. The other is partially fake, hysterical, and an imitative construct. I know my words manifest a heavy POV, but some more dispassionate writer may be able to come up with the requisite NPOV language to express the reality better than I can. TrueC 16:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I also happen to now live in the Northeast and have been to many games at both Fenway and Yankee Stadium, hence have been experiencing the rivalry close up. As much as I'm more than tired of experiencing the world revolving around the nuclear arms race that is those two teams - and go to Norwich to watch the Giants minor leaguers instead to give myself a break from it - I'm not sure I'd agree with you on the Yankee fans. Nevertheless, it's going to be very near impossible to make a good hard comparison of the rivalries on feelings like that regardless and maintain NPOV, although I look forward to the effort! Old64mb 01:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no knowledge firsthand of Yankees-Sox. Like others feel, the whole "sports/baseball-revolves-around NY-BOS" attitude prevalent on ESPN and other media revolts me, but I am otherwise not exposed to them and don't care. I don't think either rivalry merits ANY mention whatsoever in the other's article (i.e. keep the Yankees out of Giants-Dodgers and the Giants out of Yankees-Bosox, period.) As a Giant fan since 1959 who lives in Ohio but thru the miracle of the internet listens to every Giant broadcast, I can say the intensity of the rivalry from a Giant perspective is very real and very strong. I have a grown son who has never been to California yet loathes Dodger blue more than me! (Wonder where he picked that up?) Needless to say i lack the objectivity to contribute to these particular articles unless I find a factual error, which is rare. You guys are good.--Buckboard 22:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just a lack of info on my part, but it seem as though a lot of sports wtiters tend to build up the yanks-sox rivalry as the biggest in baseball. I always here them gabbin' about that on ESPN. But, it's not true. The Dodger-Giant rivalry has lasted longer and is just as heated as any other rivalry. I doubt that the Yanks and Sox want to beat one another any more badly than the Dodgers and Giants.

Possible Bias(?)

I think that there might be some Giants bias on the page. If you look it over, every time it lists the two teams as having done something, it puts it as "the giants and dodgers". The dodgers never come first. (Which, alphebitically speaking, that dosen't make sense.) Also, in the Pennant Race Drama section, it only list Giant victories. So, I am currently doing my best to switch some the names around and get rid of as much bias as possible.

New York Section

Their have been a lot of edits over the past two days on a brand new 'yew york' section. To the writer, I must say this: the idea in itself is fine, but I don't beleive that it's really been implemented correctly. For example, the same paragraph had been put in twice. The one about 'For four years...'. That was in the first section and the New York section. Also, there was too much on the Yankees. This page is a Dodgers and Giants rivaly page, and any other team info would disrupte the flow of the page. I still think a New York section would work, but only if it deals with the rivalry between those two teams. Thanks.

"Are they still in the league?"

I was always taught that that statement really started the rivalry. If this is the case shouldn't it be categorized on its own.--Seventy-one 06:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New York Giants logo.png

Image:New York Giants logo.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 05:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brooklyn Dodgers logo.png

Image:Brooklyn Dodgers logo.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 09:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NLW-LAD-Insignia.png

Image:NLW-LAD-Insignia.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 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NLW-LAD-Insignia.png

Image:NLW-LAD-Insignia.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) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

BEAT LA!

Is there actual evidence of "Beat L.A." being coined by fans of the Giants, or is this just a dubious claim?Redsox00002 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It is definently used in San Francisco, however it was coined by San Diego. The Padres hate the Dodgers much more than the Giants do. 119.73.244.190 (talk) 04:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:NLW-LAD-Logo.png

The image Image:NLW-LAD-Logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:New York Giants Cap (1948 - 1957).png
• Image:NLW-SF-Logo.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Images

For those who continue to re-add the Dodgers and Giants logos: Please read and understand WP:NFCC. The dueling logos may be a typical image you'd find on a sports web page describing the rivalry, but they fail criteria 8 (the logos do not substantially increase the reader's understanding of the Dodgers-Giants rivalry) and 10{c} (the image description pages lack a fair use rationale for this article). A user who wants to see the logos can easily click on the article's helpful links to Los Angeles Dodgers or San Francisco Giants. szyslak (t) 19:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with this assessment of free use. The Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals, and Cubs all have their logos displayed for their respective rivalry pages. If they can use their logos, why can't the Dodgers or the Giants?--Jkfp2004 (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Szyslak is misinterpreting the rationale and JKFP is 110% right Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 09:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt Williams

Wasn't there an incident that made Matt Williams angrily tell TV reporters, "They'll [the Dodgers] be lucky to ever win here ever again!!!". JAF1970 (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

1965 brawl info

My recollection of this brawl from seeing it on video tape contradicts several of the claims. Additionally, the cite used for most of this information does not back up almost any of it that purports to. If no one cleans it up/provides more valid cite, I'll remove the unsourced stuff. "Marichal Hits Roseboro With Bat and Starts Brawl as Giants Top Dodgers" is the repeated cited article that does not verify any of the material it claims to.Whatzinaname (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

First Meeting

Does someone have a source for the first meeting in 1883? I've also seen it posited as the same date (April 18), but in 1884. Bchaosf (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dodgers–Giants rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110913095553/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/09/12/national/a183357D65.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/09/12/national/a183357D65.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dodgers–Giants rivalry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927143601/http://www.baseballrace.com/races/MLB-1959-NL-Normal.asp to http://www.baseballrace.com/races/MLB-1959-NL-Normal.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2011%2F09%2F12%2Fnational%2Fa183357D65.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Subcategories

Both the "Bryan Stow beating" and the "Death of Jonathan Denver" were fan violence incidents, so they're "Fan Violence" subcategories in addition to "Notorious Incidents" subcategories. Categorizing the incidents as 8.3.1 and 8.3.2 would have a consistent logic to it. I'm not sure how to do that.

Also, man, these people are extreme. It's really not important.

Liberty5651 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)