Talk:Owen Hargreaves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Copyvio?

  • Owen Hargreaves from [1] and subsequent biography pages. Versions before 217.110.29.82's edit of September 3 are not copyvio. This IP address belongs to a small block allocated to colt.de in Munich, so it could have been written by a Bayern Munich fan, or even the original author of the official site... -- Arwel 13:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

If the fact that him being a Welsh footballer incorrect, then him being a Canadian footballer is incorrect since he plays for England. And as far as him being a British footballer, I though England is from Britain. So that wouldn't be incorrect.

It is acceptable to call him a "Canadian footballer" because he is a footballer born in Canada and has Canadian citizenship.
It is correct to call him an "English footballer" because he plays for England by right of his father's nationality.
It is incorrect to call him a "Welsh footballer" even though his mother was Welsh, because he has now represented England internationally and is ineligible to represent any other country. We often categorise players under each major club they've played for (see Tomasz Radzinski, for instance), so multiple nationality is not inherently a problem, but we don't categorise them under what they've never been.
"English footallers" and "Welsh footballers" are subcategories of "British footballers". It is standard practice on Wikipedia to categorise articles at the lowest possible subcategory, and certainly not twice in the same set of subcategories, which is why I'm taking the "British footballers/athletes" categories out (again). -- Arwel 02:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe that it is playing for the senior team in a recognised A international that seals one's eligibility as far as FIFA regulations are concerned. Hargreaves thus lost any ambitions he may have harboured for representing Germany, Wales or Canada when he played in the match against Holland, not that against England. I am fairly confident of this, but I will not change it on the article for a few days lest anyone be able to contradict me authoritatively. Kevin McE 20:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
So is this in reference to the Canadian soccer players category? This is the debatable one. There shouldn't be any problem with anyone else. Kingjeff 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it more more accurate to say that he is an "England footballer" as opposed to "English footballer"? I suppose that he is a Welsh-Canadian England footballer. LewisR (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] non sequitur

It is not the correct terminolgy to say that the England v Portugal match at Euro 2004 ended 8-7. It ended 2-2 after 120 minutes of open play, and was then 6-5 to Portugal after the penalty shoot out. You do not combine the open play score withe the penalty kicks to make an aggregate.

The above comment inserted in the middle of previous discussion by 143.52.5.181 on 31 May 2006.

[edit] More on categories

I have removed the following categories, again, for the following reasons. Please do not put them back!

Category:British footballers - this category is only used as a supercategory for Category:English footballers,Category:Scottish footballers,Category:Welsh footballers, etc. Individual players are not put in this category.
Category:British athletes, Category:English athletes - these categories are reserved for track-and-field athletes, not footballers. -- Arwel 17:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Since when is a footballer not an athlete? They are more of an athelete then a track person will ever be.

In UK English, athlete is generallly reserved for practitioners of what in US English is called track and field. Kevin McE 14:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Career tables

I think the club career table should go under the club career table and the International career table should go under International career. What does everyone else think? 198.96.86.4 13:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

How about 1 section with 2 subsections? Kingjeff 14:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a standard table used for many footballers. Kevin McE 14:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

What on Earth is the thing about him converting to Islam? Whilst I can't speak with 100% certainty, it's not been reported anywhere and I can't find any reference to it via Google or Google News. -- Jason Knight 22:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not mentioned on his official website either.

Removed. If it's the only edit ever made by an anonymous editor, then you can be pretty sure it's a vandals' hoax. -- Arwel (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please will someone stop these muslims from saying everyone is muslim unless theres citation

It was probably edited by some BNP sympthazing fool, rather than a muslim -- Tocino
What makes you say this? Please keep such non-neutral statements out of Wikipedia! --Calzakk

I challenge the statement that Hargreaves played for Chingcousy Soccer Club. Chingcousy Soccer Club is based in Toronto, Ontario. Hargreaves never lived in Ontario; he lived in Calgary, Alberta.

The same thing has happened to the Kaká article several times late last year. This is somekind of joke. Kingjeff 05:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions about international appearances

I would normally suggest that perceptions of a players performances are not relevant to an encyclopedia, and that they border on POV. I think in Hargreave's case, because it is so much a feature of his perception and profile, that some reference should be made, but at present it lacks encyclopedic tone and citations. Kevin McE 14:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If perceptions of a players performance are included from reputable sources and cited appropriately, then there's no need to worry about POV. Batman2005 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football/soccer

It's widely called soccer in Canada. The point about the new mls team in Canada is, in theory, is incorrect. The reason why Toronto FC has the fc is because of marketing reasons by the owner. Kingjeff 05:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. You're correct about the FC in the name being for marketing purposes, but "Soccer" is called "Football" or "Futbol" in Canada as often as it's called Soccer. Additionally, the person who made the initial edit said that it is "never called football" in canada, which is wrong. Batman2005 20:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you back it up that "Soccer" is called "Football" or "Futbol" in Canada as often as it's called Soccer? Kingjeff 01:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Only from personal experiences. Remember, quite a few canadiens are of French descent, and Canada is very much like the USA with people from all over the world who live there. The prevailing term is soccer, but it is by no means correct to say that soccer is never called Football in Canada, which is the point I was making. It's immaterial though as I've not changed the page to say football or anything like that, i was simply pointing out that the user who said that it is "never, ever" called Football, was wrong. Batman2005 02:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Being a Canadian, I can firmly say that soccer is a much more predominant term. when football is used it is usually in the term european football to distinguish it from american/Canadian football. Using the term football as referring to soccer is most often used by minorities/immigrants. so, i guess u can say I agree with batman.

--Jadger 02:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Cup squad templates

Hargreaves is the only England player who does not have the World Cup squad template at the bottom of his page. I have put them on twice but they have subsequently been removed. The edit summary most recently described them as useless, however following the discussion herethere is no Wikipedia consensus to delete the templates, and I certainly feel they are useful and that it is odd for one player not to have them. Kelso21 22:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Much to the chagrin of myself and several other users, the templates have survived deletion, so they should stay whether we like them or not.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  22:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Regarding the following trivia:

Owen's older brother, Neil, lost the tip of a finger in an accident during a High School wood-cutting class & recieved approximately $50,000 in settlement.

This article is about Owen, not his brother. The trivia is at best tangentially related to the article's subject, and furthermore it's unsourced. Please find a reliable source and make the case for the trivia's relevance to this article before adding it to the article. --Muchness 01:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Muchness - even if it is verifiable, it surely has no place in this article. - fchd 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Munich

I put the template for WikiProject Munich here because he plays for Bayern Munich and he has lived in Munich for a decade. Kingjeff 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nickname

I have never heard the nickname "the only good Canadian" before, is there some news source that uses it to verify this? I am a fan of Bayern and have never heard this before. Being Canadian also I kind of find this mildly offensive.

--Jadger 06:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it from the article as I did a google search and "the only good Canadian" Hargreaves resulted in absolutely zero matches. when "the only good Canadian" is searched for, it comes up with blogs about beer.

--Jadger 06:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A growing amount of Manchester United supporters are now calling him Owen 'Cougar' Hargreaves, or simply The Cougar. Due to the fact that he is a Canadian native (like the Mountain Lion), and his footballing talents are akin to those of the big cat (both are athletic, adaptable to various habitats, elegant, and lethal (Owen lethal in front of goal). Evidence of this can be found in UK national newspaper websites comments secions (like The Sun and The Times), various internet message boards, facebook, and he even has his own video on YouTube, with a 5 star ranking amongst nearly 1000 viewers so far. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x_x-TMbgkc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teville (talk • contribs) 08:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Hargreaves Transfer

Neither team has comfirmed the transfer. We should wait till both teams have confirmed since both teams should know whether the deal is comfirmed. Kingjeff 13:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • BBC are saying that Bayern have confirmed it - see [2] - fchd 13:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but neither club has comfirmed it on their own websites. It definetly would be on there if it was comfirmed. Kingjeff 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I would say that it is confirmed. But waiting is probably the most reasonable thing to do.Hjorten 13:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to say is that what's more credible source then the two clubs' websites? Kingjeff 13:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, under Wikipedia's policies, a third-party source is seen as more reliable. Yet, I agree with you - until it has been properly confirmed it is still speculation and should be treated as such. Perhaps someone on de has seen the Becekenbauer interview referenced in the BBC article? - fchd 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Regardless of the two clubs apparently agreeing a fee, I believe the page should continue to say he is still a Bayern player until he signs a contract with United. As he's not actually signed with United yet, he's still very much a Bayern player. I know it's a formality, what with Owen wanting to go to United, but it's still a possibility that even though the clubs have agreed a fee, he might not sign for United(as was the case when injury prevented Ruud Van Nistelrooy from signing for United the first time around). Besides, the transfer window is still closed at the moment and so he can't sign yet. Aenimiac 15:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we wait till there is an announcement of the transfer by at least one club? Say that there is an reported agreement is a straightout lie. Kingjeff 00:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The protection is for 2 days or until there is a transfer. Kingjeff 04:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing that line? It is from a reliable source, the fee has been agreed. The line does not say that the transfer is complete (Hargreaves has had no medical, not agreed personal terms, etc)- Hargreaves is still a Bayern player - it just says the two clubs have agreed a fee. That is all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that line, all it says that Bayern and Manchester United have agreed a fee and is supported by a RS. In fact as fchd states, a BBC article (3rd party source) is more reliable by WP policy than an article from either club's official site. I am baffled as to why you keep removing it and insist it is speculation. It is confirmed a fee has been agreed (per a RS), so why do you keep removing it as speculation? Dave101→talk  07:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But the fact is that the 2 clubs haven't agreed on anything. That will come when the final agreement is settled. Kingjeff 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The clubs have agreed a fee, that's why I put in the article. But you insist on removing it as speculation when it's backed up with a reliable source! The BBC is a respected news broadcaster, if they say a fee has been agreed then we can safely say so in the article. Dave101→talk  15:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

As the transfer hasn't been confirmed it should be treated as speculation, regardless of the apparent certainty. In this particlar case it may seem unusual, but that is the wiki policy and if somebody sees the need to enforce it they're entitled to do so, source or no source. However the ongoing transfer saga really should be given a mention in the article. It's an undeniable fact that Manchester United have been persuing him, and equally undeniable that Bayern are aware of this. No mention needs to be made of an "impending move", but a reference surely must be made to United's persuit of him? I'm happy to provide multiple sources confirming their ongoing interest. BeL1EveR 09:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The protection has expired; the page is no longer protected. CMummert · talk 12:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory stats

At present, the career stats section credits him with 45 international appearances and the infobox with 39. Equally, the career stats table says he has 144 league appearances for Bayern, the infobox puts the figure at 1 higher. I am unclear as to how a Toyota cup match can be classified as an international. Kevin McE 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The table is headed: All-Time Club Performance. Clubs play international matches, such as the Champions league or the Toyota Cup.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Clubs do not play internationals: national teams play internationals. I have never heard or read any commentator or journalist to use the phrase in such a way as to make a phrase like "Daniel Agger played in an international match last week for Liverpool" correct. A match between clubs from different nations might be described as being part of an international club competition, but never as an international match. Is every match that Derry City play an international? Are lots of Dunfermline players going to become international players next season? Was the Champions league semi-final between Chelsea and Liverpool an international match? I'm afraid your contention does not stanbd up to scrutiny, nor is it evidenced by common usage. Kevin McE 13:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's more approriate to call it "International" since a Toyota Cup Match is not really a European Competition Match. Kingjeff 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the table as a neutral, I think the "international" section needs a change of name. How about a rename to "UEFA Club" and then an "Other section" in which the Toyota Cup would go into. For me "international section denotes appearances for England - regardless of the title of the table.--Mofs 11:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


It's not true that clubs don't play Internationals. I have heard UEFA Competitions been call International. Kingjeff 14:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Care to give an example? BeL1EveR 09:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clubs in info boxes

Only clubs that players have played for, or are currently contracted to, should be present in their info boxes.

God forbid, but should Hargreaves suffer a career ending injury between now and his United contract coming into effect (and note, he hasn't yet signed the contract, and won't until the end of the month) then he will not have ever been a Man Utd player. Darkson - BANG! 14:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't re-add Manchester United as one of his clubs - Wiki is not a crystal ball Darkson - BANG! 15:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war / article protection

I've requested full protection for this article, which has been granted, as the "edit war" seems to have got out of hand. To summarise what seems to be at dispute, there is no agreement on the following:

  1. How it should be stated that Hargreaves has now left Bayern Munich, even though his contract has yet to expire.
  2. How it should be stated that Hargreaves has signed a contract with Man Utd, with the contract set to commence on 1 July 2007.
  3. Whether a flag should be placed next to Hargreaves' place of birth.
  4. How the career stats table should be formatted.
  5. Whether {{persondata}} should be included in the article.

Please can we discuss here while the article is protected, so that once the protection is lifted, the article can be edited with consensus. I'll express my own opinions in a separate edit here, so that this summary can remain as a statement of the dispute, as opposed to a statement of my opinion. robwingfield «T•C» 09:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How can Manchester United be his current club, when he is still under contract to Munich, and hasn't even signed his contract with United yet? As I said above, (god forbid but) if he has a serious injury between now and the 1st July, and has to retire, he will not, and will never have been, a Manchester United player. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
By all means, have it in the main article that he is, subject to conteract signing, join Man Utd on the 1st July, but the info box should represent the facts as it stands, and at this precise moment, he is no more a Man Utd player than I am (oh, I wish!).
On the flag, I've no opinion either way, but a consensus needs to be made, not just here, but at Template_talk:Infobox_Football_biography#Place_of_birth_and_flag_icons so that all info boxes follow the same pattern. Darkson - BANG! 13:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, didn't have time to provide my own opinions on these matters during the day, so here goes:
  1. According to Bayern Munich's own web site, they have terminated his contract.[3] Therefore, the article should not state that he is still contracted to them, nor should it state that he is a part of their squad.
  2. I've actually come round to the idea that the article shouldn't state that he's currently with Man Utd. Most news sources are at pains to state that he will join Man Utd on 1 July 2007, so Wikipedia should be consistent with those sources.
  3. I agree that consensus should be reached on the flag icons, but consensus needs to be reached to ADD them, not remove them. Flag icons have only recently started appearing, so it's ADDING them that consensus needs to be reached on, not removing them.
  4. The stats table looks ugly with all grey colouring. The grey colouring is normally just used for headings, which is why I've changed the content cells to be white.
  5. There should be no debate on whether {{persondata}} should be included, so editors should stop removing it.
I think I've tried to be fair with this... happy to debate further if people don't agree with any or all of my points, though. robwingfield «T•C» 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The Bayern Site article to which you provide a reference says "Owen Hargreaves is to leave Bayern and officially join leading English club Manchester United on 1 July this summer." Therefore the Bayern site says that he leaves their employ on that date. By this evidence, I would contend that the version currently protected is erroneous. If Bayern cancel his contract before 1st July, he becomes a free agent, and Man U can sign him for nothing. I am confident that Hargreaves will receive a pay cheque for June, and that that will come from Bayern Munich: they remain his employers until 1st July. Kevin McE 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Read the second paragraph which states "Bayern have accordingly terminated Hargreaves’ contract in Munich, which still had three years to run. The transfer fee for the 26-year-old, described by FCB Chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge as “one of the best holding midfielders in the world,” will set a new record for the German Bundesliga." From that we can say for fact that Hargreaves is no longer contracted to Bayern. "Bayern have terminated"... the action is in the past indicated that the termination has already occurred. We can speculate that the transfer fee must therefore already have been paid by Man Utd to Bayern for them to be willing to terminate the contract, but we can't know that for sure. So as far as the article is concerned, we should state that Hargreaves is no longer contracted to Bayern for the first point in my summary above. robwingfield «T•C» 16:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


I think the best we can say is that the Bayern site article is unclear or self contradicting. Perhaps a German speaker could come to a clearer conclusion from an original of this text. Not that it says that the transfer fee will (future tense) be a record: if it has not been paid, and Hargreaves is no longer a Bayern player, there is no fee due. I would conclude that they have taken steps for the contract to be terminated upon completion of the transfer. You have not addressed the future tense in the quote that I made from the Bayern article. Alternatively, please draw Man Utd's attention to this miscalculation by Bayern, and save them £17 million! Kevin McE 18:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I must admit, I did find that a bit strange, but wasn't going to mention it. If his contract with Munich is cancelled, he'd be a free agent and United can buy him for nothing. If they've already paid the transfer fee (meaning that Munich terminated his contract due to him leaving their employ) then they would have had him sign on the dotted line by now. Darkson - BANG! 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The only reason why Munich cancelled his contract is because he'll be going to Man Utd. Kingjeff 13:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The only reason he hasn't "signed on the dotted line" yet, is because I believe he is on a family holiday abroad somewhere.Randomjack 08:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
But that hasn't changed the fact he hasn't signed. Kingjeff 13:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So would the correct thing be to write that he is currently unattached, according to the sources available? However Bayern and Man Utd want to arrange it between themselves to ensure the payment is made to Bayern and Man Utd receive the player in return, the press releases point to Hargreaves having left Bayern but not yet having joined Man Utd. robwingfield «T•C» 13:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think unattached is the best. As far as we know, the payment could already be made. Kingjeff 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
We can't list him as unattached - that would be very misleading. Dave101→talk  15:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. But we have three options... 1) list him as being with Bayern (but Bayern have confirmed he's left), 2) list him as being unattached, or 3) list him as being with Man Utd (but he doesn't "officially" join until 1st July). I would generally be in favour of option 3 as option 2 is misleading, as you say. But in the interest of compromise, I would be prepared to list him as being unattached in the infobox, and then a note in the article to indicate that he will join Man Utd on 1st July. robwingfield «T•C» 15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
(limiting depth of indent!) I would still be interested to see an analysis of the original German text of what is on the Bayern site, because I think our current confusion might be based on an unclear translation: I cannot believe that he has been released from his contract by Bayern ahead of signing for Man U: they would be totally at loss if he were to change his mind while on holiday (unlikely as that might be). Barring that, I guess the infobox being mute on the subject of his current club, and the current text of the introductory paragraph, is something I can happily consent to. Kevin McE 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is standard practice for players to sign pre-contract agreements prior to their move when the transfer window re-opens. So even if Hargreaves is a free agent, he is still tied to his argreement to sign with Manchester United. And, presumably, Bayern and Man U have some form of pre-contract agreement regarding the fee involved. Dave101→talk  19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article unlocks tomorrow. Are we any nearer to a consensus so that we do not have further revision wars? As I've said above, for my part I would be happy to let the current version stand: I would be happier still if the carrer stats table did not mention Man U yet, but I can live with it. Kevin McE 14:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that he's not a Bayern player because Bayern terminated his contract and he becomes a Man Utd player on July 1st when he signs for Man Utd. Kingjeff 17:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is at all clear. The article on the Bayern site says "Owen Hargreaves is to leave Bayern ... on 1 July this summer." I see no grounds to ignore that sentence, despite what the article says later: people preparing their press statements put the most important details first, and no satisfactory explanation has been given as to why Man U would pay £17 million for a freee agent. If the following paragraph is to be considered, we can only conclude that the whole website article is contradictory, and therefore best ignored, in which case we default to what can be known without that "information" from that source, which is that he transfers on 1st July, therefore is not a Man U player before 1st July, and given that he ios not a free agent, he must still be a player registered with Bayern Munich. Kevin McE 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree - no consensus. If he's not a BM player anymore, there would be no reason for United to pay Munich for his transfer. Has anyone managed to translate the original Germa article, or get a German-speaker to translate it? I ask, because I wonder wheter the sentence is meant to mean they've cancelled the 3 years that the contract should still have to run.Darkson - BANG! 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I know thats what it said. But it also said how they terminated his contract. He is technically unattached. Kingjeff 23:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
German version. [4] Doesn't look like a direct translation but the relevant passage seems to be:
"Der englische Nationalspieler bestand am Donnerstag den Medizincheck beim neuen englischen Meister und wird nach der Rückkehr aus seinem Urlaub einen Vierjahres-Vertrag unterschreiben. Gleichzeitig beendet der FCB den noch bis zum 30. Juni 2010 laufenden Vertrag mit Hargreaves vorzeitig."
Which with a lot of help from Google Translate I make as
"The english international completed his medical for his new english team on Thursday, and after the return from his holiday will sign a 4 year contract. At the same time Bayern terminates his contract prematurely, originally due to end 30 June 2010." (emphasis mine) Paulbrock 00:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that Paul. I would read that as meaning that Bayern's cancellation of his contract is as from the moment he signs at Man U, which is expected to be on 1st July. Any attempt to argue that he is unattached at present based on the Bayern website in English should include an explanation as to why the second paragraph is to be given greater creedence than the first. Kevin McE 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As regards what Rob has marked as item 4 for discussion in the box above, can I propose, to avoid confusion with his England career stats, that the column currently headed International be changed to either European (not strictly accurate, but the footnote explains that Toyota cup (which should probably be wikilinked) appearance is included) or to International Club Competitions (rendering the Toyota Cup footnote redundant). Kevin McE 23:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] +cat

While this is protected, could someone please add the category Bayern Munich II players. Thanks. ArtVandelay13 16:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

er... Y Done ArtVandelay13 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reputation in Canada

Being a Canadian football fan, and a diehard Bayern fan, I was wondering if his reputation in Canada warrants admission into the article, since he was born in Canada. Many fans of Team Canada think negatively of him, I have often heard him called a "whore" or a "traitor". just wondering if this is relevant to an article on him, as he was born here. this bigsoccer.com thread is relevant, as you can see, I post on there, and started that thread, not intending it to go the way it did, the thread was a real eye opener to what others think of him. [5]

--Jadger 08:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Just the fact he's Canadian born playing for England means this is warranted. Kingjeff 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hang On, I thought he was cut by Team Canada?

on that thread I linked to, he was cut by one of the junior teams, U-15 I think. but that doesnt mean that he was cut from the senior national team permanently. so ya, difficult issue that should be added into the article somehow.
--Jadger 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pic

can someone clean up the picture of hargreaves. its just in the middle of the page at the moment.

[edit] He is a United player, to say he's not is laughable

PeeJay, he's a United player. Period. Whether you like it or not, you don't make the rules here. WP:FOOTY has addressed this point, which was shown to you in an edit summary which you subsequently ignored. Being on the team means you play for that team. Whether or not Hargreaves EVER appears in a match for United doesn't matter as his status on the team is still as a player. I've been looking through your edits and you come very close to reverting everything that isn't exactly the same as your opinion or pov. This is something that was discussed long ago on the aforementioned page and decided upon. You don't get to change it on a whim. Batman2005 04:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to that discussion, as I couldn't find it (it's not that I don't believe you, I just can't find it). Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
See PJ's talk page and mine, for a discussion about this particular topic (which has been pretty much resolved), and for a link to the last WP:FOOTY discussion. ArtVandelay13 17:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with it. Kingjeff 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'd hardly say that there was a consensus reached one way or the other on that one, but although I think the current action (Hargreaves in the category) is incorrect, I'm not going to worry about it.
Perhaps the category needs to be reworded to something like "players who have been contracted to Man Utd"? Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 17:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"x players, past and present" is the usual header, I've changed it to that. Although 'played for' is technically correct as well, as it can be taken to mean ' was a player for'. However, it seems to confuse people, and create argument where it's not needed, so a less ambiguous phrase is probably better. ArtVandelay13 17:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not incorrect. If he NEVER plays for Manchester United, he will still have been a Manchester United player. Ronaldo still has a winners medal from the 1994 World Cup even though he didn't play a single minute of the tournament. He was a player at the 1994 world cup, won a medal and will always go down in history as being a player on the winning team from that cup. This is absolutely no different. He's not a part of the organization as a trainer, or as a physio, or a technical director, his specific JOB is a "PLAYER," ergo, he's a "Manchester United Player." I fail to see how this is so difficult to understand. He PLAYS for Mancester United, the category doesn't say "people who have played games for mancester united." Batman2005 20:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Erm, yes it did, ergo the confusion:
This page lists footballers who have played for Manchester United of Manchester, England.
That was the categories opening line, before Kingjeff and ArtVandelay13 changed it. As of now, when has OH ever "played" for MU?Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 22:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If you would look at the discussion you would understand this rather elementary concept. Owen Hargreaves - Football player. Manchester United - Football club. Owen Hargreaves is a member of the Manchester United Football club. Owen Hargreaves, a football player, plays football for Manchester United. Played = past tense form of play. Ergo, Manchester United is the team that Owen Hargreaves plays for. At the end of the day, Owen Hargreaves may say "today I played for Manchester United." See how simple it is? I sure do. Batman2005 01:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and as of this moment he hasn't "played" for United, so saying it's a list of players that have "played" for United, then adding OH is factually incorrect. It's an elementary concept - to have "played" for someone, you need to first "play" for someone. OH has yet to "play" for United, so he can't of have "played" for United. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 14:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well no, again, this isn't a difficult concept and you're making it much more difficult. I'm fairly certain that he has participated in trainings with United...is that not playing football for United? YES! And, you're being disingenuous, the category NEVER said that it was for people who had played games for United, it said people who have played for United. By your reasoning, at the 1994 World Cup, Ronaldo shouldn't have been given a winners medal because he didn't see time on the field...since FIFA states that all players from the winning team get a medal....he didn't step on the field during a match so he wasn't a player right? Wrong. Owen Hargreaves is a football player for Manchester United, which is exactly what those categories list, you and PeeJay are about the only two people dense enough not to realize that. Batman2005 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No. As far as I am concerned it's simple, until a player steps on to the field in a competitive match, he should not be listed in the category. No matter about your irrelevant comparisons with tournament regulations. And if that's not what the category is for, then in my opinion the category is worthless. Training with Manchester United is definitely, 100%, NOT playing for Manchester United. - fchd 18:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If I may offer a suggestion, if the debate is about whether OH should be in category "Manchester United F.C. players", then surely one way of construing the situation is: "OH is a football player"; "Manchester United pays OH's salary"; "therefore OH is a MUFC player". This is compatible with the current description of the category, "This page is a list of Manchester United players, past and present."; I acknowledge that that the previous description "This page lists footballers who have played for Manchester United of Manchester, England." would not currently accommodate OH, but I would point out that originally there was no definition for the category at all, and in my opinion the previous definition is rather over-restrictive. Regardless, within a few days or weeks OH will be a MUFC player according to whichever definition you use, so I would urge all concerned not to be overly concerned with recentism, and keep cool. Best regards, -- Arwel (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out, that this discussion has already taken place, and been resolved, on the Football project page. Enough said, OH stays in the category...if you don't like it, go start your own wiki site. Batman2005 23:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice attitude you have there.
I'd already conceded the point on OH being on the category, especially with the intro line being rewritten. And just because it was "resolved" on the football project page doesn't make it a) law - the football project have no more or no less importance or right to any article than anyone else, so if as an editor I disagree, I can change it (or try and get some consensus on the talk page), and b) doesn't make it "right" - saying he's a player because he's trained with the team is, imo, a ridiculous arguement - if you want the category to read "has played for" and to mean is payed by MU and has kicked a ball in training, then you'd have to include Ferguson, Busby and Atkinson (for example).
And Enough said, OH stays in the category...if you don't like it, go start your own wiki site. - Oh, I'm sorry - I missed the announcement on the frontpage that said you'd become the final word on what is correct or not on wiki. [[6]] Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 04:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well no, you wouldn't, because Ferguson, Busby and Atkinson weren't contracted as players. They were contracted to manage. Completely different thing as you're aware i'm sure. Hargreaves' contract doesn't say he's a phsyio or a manager or a ball boy, it says he's a football player. Ergo, he's a player for Manchester United. Honestly, how hard is that to figure out? I'm not the final word, but the consensus reached prior to you continuing this ridiculous defense of the losing side, IS the final word. Batman2005 11:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squad Number

Hargreaves is number 23, I saw him walk up the stairs at the end of the community shield win and he had 23 on his shorts, and with Kieran Richardson leaving and the number 23 shirt been his number at Bayern Munich, I believe it should be put on the squad page. Stew jones 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're going to have to wait to get a source. Until there is a source you can't list a squad number. Kingjeff 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Turns out that you were wrong. That's what happens when people want to make unsourced changes to pages. Batman2005 22:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at what you originally wrote and you'll see why he called you that. Kingjeff 00:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)