Talk:United States men's national soccer team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States men's national soccer team article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on United States men's national soccer team is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the USA and Canada task force.


Contents

[edit] Recent Results

I think this should either be changed to 2007 Results and not include the 2008 Sweden match, or be left as recent results and include matches that took place in the last six months or are scheduled to take place in the next six months, thus following the six month rule for recent call ups. Thoughts? Grant.alpaugh 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter one way or the other? They're all recent results. I say leave it as it is. Batman2005 11:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the June 21st 2008 away match for WCQ? If the June 14th home match is listed shouldn't the away one also get listed? Gecko G (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

Stop the edit war, please. Discuss your opinion here. Che84 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Nats" as a nickname

The US National Team is sometimes referred to as the Nats. See:

Fine, more examples:
http://www.soccer365.com/us_national_teams/story_211007043142.php
http://www.revolutionsoccer.net/search/index.cfm?ac=searchdetail&pcid=115&pid=23181
http://thekinoffish.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_archive.html
http://www.americansoccerdaily.com/freekicks/bobbeginseuro.htm
http://www.footie.us/index.php?showtopic=57
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/06/benny_and_the_nats.html

Nats is a nickname for the US National Team. Stop reverting it. Che84 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I call them the Nats. Mohrflies (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My son calls them the Nats. Mohrflies (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sams Army, the national team fan club, calls them the Nats.[1] Mohrflies (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the point, every major U.S. soccer (versus general public) publication refers to the national team as the Nats. This included Sams-Army.com, Soccer365.com, SoccerTimes.com[2], and Yanks-Abroad.com[3]. I use the Soccer Archives extensively for my wikipedia articles, and they call the national team the Nats[4]. If it is such a common nickname, then how can it not be a nickname? Frankly, Nats is more of a nickname than the others listed on the page. I don't use them and I don't know anyone personally who does. Everyone I know who talks about the national team calls them the Nats, and I've never felt the need to check with the New York Times (aka mainstream media) to see if it's a permissible nickname. Keep it in the article. Mohrflies (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that ESPN's website www.soccernet.com, Sports Illustrated, Fox Soccer Channel's website www.foxsoccer.com, or any mainstream (aka reputable) American sports news organization not use that nickname? All of the websites you've listed are niche soccer websites I've never heard of. The sites I've listed are part of multi-million user, multi-billion dollar international sports news organizations. I think that should be the standard we hold this encyclopedia to. I could give a damn what you and your friends call them, as its not verifiable. Reputable sources wouldn't use a stupid nickname like "'Nats," it makes them sound like flies or something.Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Listen, after looking at some of the sources you've suggested, I must say I'm shocked. Soccer Times looks like a website my 12 year old cousin designed, and Uncle Sam's Army looks only slightly better (maybe my 14 year old cousin). I'm now more confident than ever that the sources I've put forward should be given more weight than the sites that use "'Nats." If this is what you and your friends use for soccer info, I'd suggest upgrading to actual news sites. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, calm down there Grant.alpaugh! Let's not lose our tempers over something so trivial. Wikipedia:Verifiability states:

The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.

This is often put, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." This is in no way an exceptional claim; in fact, it's quite a minor claim. And the sources show that those publications that focus solely on soccer have, and indeed do, refer to the team as the Nats. Personally, I agree with you that the name is pretty stupid, and you won't catch me using it. That being said, it's a fairly common nickname in American sports, used to refer to at least the Washington Nationals and Washington Senators (that's all I can think of offhand). A source doesn't have to be owned by Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner to be acceptable, especially when it comes to such an insignificant claim. Still, here are a few more reputable sources:[5], [6], [7], [8] (this one is referring to the women's national team), [9], I could go on.
So, is the USMNT commonly called the Nats? Sure, but the thing is, a lot of national teams are referred to as the Nats by their local publications. For instance, here is an article which refers to Canada's national team as the Nats. The question as I see it isn't, "Is the team called the Nats?" but rather, "Is it worth mentioning that the team is called the Nats?" faithless (speak) 06:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Grant.alpaugh, I fail to see how there isn't consensus on this issue. The only one disagreeing with its addition is you. Also, with regards to its importance, seeing as how it's the most commonly used nickname for the US National Team, from what I can see, I'd say it's important enough to be added to the entry. Che84 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe we're having this discussion. As Che84 points out, the only one who seems to have a problem with the nickname is Grant.alpaugh, and it's almost as if he's running some sort of logical fallacy joke here. His argument consists almost entirely of appeals to authority (only the mainstream media can give a team its nickname); non sequiturs (my 12 year old cousing can design a better website); an appeal to ridicule (If this is what your friends . . .); an appeal to wealth (multibillion dollar . . .); and ultimately an argument from personal incredulity (I could give a damn what you and your friends call them). Keep the nickname because it is the nickname most often used by the national team fan base, as was amply documented by myself and Che84 in the many links we provided.Mohrflies (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with inserting "Nat's" as a nickname. As was pointed out by Faithless, ALL national teams can be called "Nat's." Additionally, stating that it's the "most commonly used" is highly POV and OR. If we include "Nat's" do we then include 'selecao" since Brazilian-Americans likely call the National team that? Do we include all nicknames that we come across? No, we certainly don't. 208.40.242.41 (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's advocate, the difference here is that we have sources to prove that the national team is routinely referred to as the Nats. And with the possible exception of Yanks, it's the most widely used (I would guess Yanks is more widely used outside the US, Nats more common inside the US). I might be wrong, but isn't Seleção used to refer specifically to the Brazilian team? I've never heard, for instance, Portugal referred to with that name, nor any other Lusophone country. I'd have to think they'd be pretty insulted if they heard the US referred to with the same nickname. My personal take on the matter: I don't really care if it's listed or not (though it seems like consensus is building for including it); however, I do think we need to get rid of "Stars & Stripes" and "Red, White & Blue." Who calls the team that?! :-) faithless (speak) 10:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
First off, you're wrong about Lusophone countries not calling their national teams selecao, the Portuguese national teams are referred to that way. Secondly, pointing to even a dozen websites that use the term Nats, means little when you have yet to provide any sources from mainstream sports media sites (any one of which would have a regular readership that is 10 times all of the readerships of the sites you've provided). My point basically crystalizes into this: if several small town newspapers (say a dozen) started spelling America as Emerica, would we edit the United States of America page to include Emerica as an alternate spelling? There are sources that say anything and everything, but other factors like reliability and readership need to be taken into account when talking about how much they are representative of what the public does or does not think about something. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I copied this from the page after I searched ESPN soccernet for "Nats":
There are no articles about NATS in the SOCCERNET section.
The top result from Sports Illustrated's search?
Kill Fruit Flies & Gnats
Effective fruit fly & gnat control Low prices, Always free shipping
www.epestsupply.com
Trust Your Home to Orkin®
Leave It To The Gnat Experts Get $30 Off From The OrkinMan
www.Orkin.com
All of the sports stories were about the Washington Nationals.
Same thing with Fox Soccer, all the results were about Paul Lo Duca's contract with the Nationals.
I'm not saying that the only cites that should matter are the ones that come from multinational corporations, but when they entirely ignore a nickname that you allege is "sweeping the nation" or something, I find it a little odd. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Grant.alpaugh has now added two more fallacies to his argument. The first is ignoratio elenchi (Newspapers can't change the official name of a country, therefore fans can't decide on an unofficial name for their team). The second is ad nauseam, by repeating the same discredited arguments again and again a person wins an argument because everyone else gives up. Let's get back to the central, and undisputed fact: U.S. soccer fans call the team the Nats. This was documented in the first few posts of this string. Therefore, one of the team's main nicknames is the Nats. Mohrflies (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You do actually have to refute my arguments, rather than just brush them aside and declare that you're right. I'm not saying that the country name would officially be changed to the United States of Emerica, just as you're not saying the article's title should be changed to Nats. What I am saying is that it wouldn't merit inclusion anywhere in the article that a dozen low-circulation newspapers had gone with a different spelling of the country's name, while you're saying that it is notable that you, your friends, your family (not ad hominim here, you did actually make this argument), and a few low-traffic websites call the team the Nats. Second, if it is one of the main nicknames of the the US MNT then why would all of the biggest sports media organizations completely ignore the nickname? I'm afraid its your argumentation that is getting tedious. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
FYI, Steven Goff (Washington Post's Soccer Insider, the last link that Che84 provides) is one of the country's most respected soccer sportswriters, so for me that counts as an authoritative source. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This is getting a little tiring. Grant, please change your tone; you've been antagonistic from the start, and it's starting to get annoying. I haven't even disagreed with you, and you come at me with guns blazing. I said I might be wrong, so there's no reason to start your first correspondence with a person with, "First off, you're wrong..." Sources would also be nice. Now, the relevant stuff: the sources which I provided are from ESPN, ABC Sports, Sports Illustrated, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Press Enterprise. Sources don't get any more mainstream. This is ridiculous. I was neutral on the matter before, but your attitude has changed my mind. I'm reinserting it in the article. Please do not delete it without a legitimate reason (not simply "I don't like it") as sources have been amply provided. faithless (speak) 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Characterising my tone as being uncivil based on an out of context half-quote is a little much, don't you think? Its not like I was attacking you, simply one of the things you said in your comment. I also thought it was quite funny that the first thing that came up when I did a search for nats was Orkin and other pesticide companies. Maybe my attempt at humor wasn't very well recieved but please see WP:Assume good faith. Either way, my tone is not a valid reason for rejecting my argument and assuming consensus. Now, on to the actual point, all of the sources you cited are more than five years old. We seem to have reached a stalemate. You say that all of your friends and the soccer websites you go to call them the nats, while I say the exact opposite. To me the deciding factor is that no major sports media outlet is currently in the practice of calling the team the nats. I again point to my United States of Emerica example. Just because some people do something doesn't necessarily make it notable. I'll agree with you that consensus appears to be building, but building does not equal built, and so I'm going to revert this again, and wait for your response. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, about what the Portugal national football team is called, I just searched it on wikipedia and saw the nickname, so that's why I didn't source it. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I assumed good faith earlier, when you were using a condescending tone with another editor, and I tried to diffuse the situation by asking you to behave more politely. It doesn't matter - let's discuss the matter at hand. I have never said that "all of [my] friends" call the team the Nats - in fact, if you'll look back at what I have written, you will see that I agreed with you that the name is stupid, and I specifically said that I would never use it. Simply put, the date of the sources isn't relevant. The fact (I'm assuming you're correct, I don't feel like checking those dates myself right now) that the articles cited are five years old means they are no longer usable? Please explain the logic there. I am going to insert it again; you are the only one objecting to it being included, and the information is sourced by several reliable sources. Again, please don't remove it without a legitimate reason, as you have yet to give one. faithless (speak) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
First, I don't think I was being condescending, but whatever let's just move on from that. Yes, I am saying that the sources are no good because they are at least five years old. What I'm saying is that as soccernet and SI.com started to get more mainstream and popular, they began holding themselves to a higher standard and stopped using the nickname "'Nats." Things in sports change rapidly. The Cicinnati Reds used to be widely known as the Big Red Machine during the 70s, but since then that nickname has fallen out of use other then when referring to the team during that time period. Same with the 'Mazin Mets, the Steel Curtain, the Purple People Eaters, the Showtime Lakers, etc. The fact that the mainstream media is completely devoid of recent references to the team as the "'Nats" shows that this nickname either was never in wide use or is no longer in wide use. That's why I included all of those search results, not to be a dick, but to show that there really aren't any articles at those three sites that use the nickname. Be my guest and do a search through those websites. I was sure there would be one or two, but there were absolutely none. And really, I meant no disrespect to anyone earlier but I apologize if when read it came off that way. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for apologizing. But I'm afraid your argument just doesn't cut it. How recently does it have to be used in order to be acceptable? Is this a Wikipedia policy or guideline, or your personal feelings? ESPN and Sports Illustrated have long been the authority on sports in the United States, they haven't just gained respectability in the last five years. And speaking of which, of the sources I provided there is one from 2005 and one from 2006. So that argument's out. I get that you don't like the name, really I do - I don't like it either. But it's relevant and extensively sourced, and you have yet to cite a single policy or guideline to justify your repeated removal of it. On top of this, you have been reverted by several editors. If you still feel strongly about this, I would suggest you seek dispute resolution, but let's stop the back-and-forth. Cheers, faithless (speak) 01:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Squad Listing

I think there is a distinction between non-playing players who dressed with the matchday squad and guys who were in camp but didn't make the roster. First, I think it's more relevant to see if a player is being called up because there are some situations in which a player is consistently a backup but doesn't see much action (say, Brad Guzan when WC qualifying starts and Tim Howard plays every game). But still, I think it's good to list who else is in the picture. Secondly, since Bob Bradley's non-roster camp players are in different categories, I think they should be excluded. In this case, the non-gameday roster camp players were simply outplayed by the competition. But in the pre-Switzerland camp, BB also called in some guys simply for consideration for the U-23 team (such as Preston Zimmerman, Tally Hall, and Steve Purdy) and it would be misleading to list them as recent callups because while they are prospects for the US youth teams, all three of them are pretty far from getting time with the senior team. So in the interests of consistency, I think we should list all players who make a gameday roster and nobody else. --Balerion (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with that. Che84 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with that rule. So we include everyone who has been called in before the roster is named, but after that on the current roster and recent call ups we include those who were on the squad but not those only called into camp? If I understand it correctly, then I have no problem with it. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was proposing. Basically after the matchday squad was announced, I removed the eight guys who didn't make the matchday squad, but I was sure to re-insert those of them that had been called up to a different match in the last six months (like Califf and Johnson). --Balerion (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
To be clear though, only those players named in the matchday squad in the last six months will be included from now on, not just those called into this or similar camps, etc. Right? Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Although other than the annual January one, the USMNT typically doesn't have many camps in which there are "excess" players. I imagine the Recent Call-ups section will shrink as WCQ progresses and the Best XI are called in every time instead of Euro friendlies and MLS friendlies. --Balerion (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but sometimes before say the WC or GC, they hold a camp of like 30 guys before cutting down to the final travel squad, but I get your point. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with this. howcheng {chat} 23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] New Home Kit

The team has just recently been issued a new kit. I did, what I think to be, a decent job of drawing it, but I lack the know-how to change it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_kit.PNG

Omit the Nike swoosh and the crest (we don't put those in the templates), but otherwise it's a very good job. Bravo. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we are:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Us_kit.PNG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewishudson88 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll add this to the template but we need the sleeves to be done too. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] outdated kit

the away kit is outdated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelun88 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Captain

Who else besides Bocanegra has been captain in a game where Bocanegra was called up to the roster? Che84 (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's different from being officially declared the captain. When a country has a permanent captain they play as long as they are healthy. Bocanegra didn't go to the Copa America or play in some of the recent friendlies in the US. I see you're point, but we're not talking about the same thing. Find something that says Boca has been named the permanent captain and I'll take your word for it, but I do remember seeing something about how Bradley was going to rotate the captaincy when he took over in 2007 (at that time Mastroeni, or however you spell his name, Donovan, Howard, etc. have had the armband in addition to Carlos). -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the start of the 2007 Gold Cup, Carlos Bocanegra has been the captain for every match he has played in. You want us to provide proof that Bocanegra has been named the permanent captain, yet all you provide is your recollection that you saw "something" that Bradley was going to rotate the armband. It has been rotated off of Keller, Donovan, Howard, etc. It has NOT been rotated off Bocanegra as every time he has been available for an International he has worn the armband. He is the captain of the USA, I am editing it back in, you appear to be the only person who holds the view that his captaincy is anything but permanent. Until the armband rotates off of him when he is named to the match day roster he is the captain. Onebaseman (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago we listed the captaincy as rotating. Unless I missed something there has been no announcement or press release to prove your positive. If Carlos Bocanegra has been named the permanent captain then please provide proof of that. I can't prove that there isn't such a document. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the proof I've been talking about. Look down at the bottom of this article. It's on the website of the union for US Men's National Soccer Team Players. Here's the part I'm talking about:
Instead Donovan was concentrating on the midfield duties that Bradley placed upon him, linking team-mates and engineering chances. The question about whether he is better used as a forward or a midfielder, and whether he should play wide or central, will not have been settled by this game. But he provided an all-round contribution that justified Bradley’s decision to give him the captain’s armband.
“Throughout this camp, Landon has set a good tone,” Bradley said. “As we’ve gotten to know each other better, we’ve tried to challenge each other. He has a good understanding of what I expect from him.”
Bradley might also have hit upon the correct strategy to motivate Donovan by withholding the captaincy for a considerable amount of time, awarding the honor to various individuals on a rotating basis, and stating that it has to be earned.
“He’s very perceptive,” said Donovan. “I felt entitled to wearing the armband, because I have a lot of caps. Bob doesn’t care, and he shouldn’t care. His job is to get the most out of every player, every time. I want that too. I’ve worked hard at it. I hope it continues.”
This is from a couple of months ago, so there's a source showing that just before the Mexico game the captaincy was still rotating, so it should be relatively easy to find a source from the last few weeks or so saying that Bocanegra has been named the permanent captain. Please provide that source before reverting again. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that Bocanegra is the de facto captain, but since the US Soccer website never works for me, I can't check the more recent match reports to see how often he has been the captain. Che84 (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the captaincy is rotating, so rather than talk about who is most often captain, let's just describe what is happening, which is a rotating captaincy which Boca happens to hold now. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


The ONLY time that Bocanegra hasn't been captain since the first time he was given the armband, is when he hasn't been on the roster. EVERY other time that he has been on the roster, he he has been captain. He is the captain, period. Saying that it's rotating, yet the only time it rotates is when Boca isn't on the roster, is absurd. That's like claiming that it rotated when Beckham captained England, because when he was out through injury or suspension, somebody else wore the armband. Bocanegra is the captain, an official announcement need not be made, a press release need not be issued. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Show me a cite that has him named as permanent captain (i.e. refuting the article I cited above) and fine. Absent that, it is rotating. Beckham was officially named England captain at a press conference and in a million articles, etc. It has been rotating since Reyna retired after the 06 WC. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You're ignoring the facts to push your agenda. Show me a single instance where, since the first time Bocanegra was captain, that he has not been in a subsequent game that he was on the roster for...can't do it can you? Didn't think so. Beckham was named captain in a million articles because there ARE a million articles about English soccer. Reyna was never named captain in a large press conference, there was no front page story dedicated to it, ESPN didn't lead off sports center talking about it...so by your reasoning...it wasn't official. Reyna missed games through injury, or when he was not rostered, and the armband would go to a different player...usually Friedel, Keller or Donovan...so by your reasoning, it was a rotating captaincy. Not true at all Grant. Bocanegra has been captain for every game in which he has been rostered, for the past YEAR. Just because Bradley hasn't come out and said that Bocanegra is the captain doesn't mean anything. There are hundreds of articles on ESPN Soccernet, ussoccer.com, sams army website, etc, in which he is referred to as "captain" of the team, not "temporary captain" or "rotating captain." He is the captain. We have a consensus here, you are on the minority side of it, quite clearly by the way. Stop going against consensus. Also, you claim that Boca hasn't been called in for some matches, the only ones he hasn't been called in for were ones that were scheduled on non-international fixture dates (ergo, European based players were not released from their clubs to play) so that point is really....not a point at all, but rather a person who is clearly wrong grasping for any out of context tidbit to try to solidify a losing point. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
All of those articles refer to the fact that Bocanegra was captain for the game in question, except for the one about the 2010 draw, which is not as recent as the quote I pulled above where BB is talking about the rotating captaincy policy he's had in order to motivate Landon Donovan. I'm not asking SportsCenter to lead with the story, or a front page story. All I'm asking for is one measley article that is more recent than the one I pulled that names him permanent captain. My guess, however, is that this will be settled one way or another when England hosts the US, as the British Media will almost certainly refer to Bocanegra as "USA Captain" if he indeed is. At that point it will be settled. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Now you're assuming context in the articles and making it fit your point. Then you say that here in a couple weeks if the british media report that he's captain, you'll accept it. Yet you won't accept the fact that every major soccer publication refers to him as the captain. I see from the history of this talk page that you have a long tradition of editing against consensus and using various underhanded tactics to try to push your agenda. Bocanegra is the captain, the link you point to is dead and is no longer relevant. Every other source has been given to show that he's captain. Period. Keep it up and i'll be forced to report you for going against consensus time and time again. There are NUMEROUS editors here who have weighed in and a consensus has been reached, it's unfortunate that you were on the minority side, but that's how group editing works. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, I don't think I'm making any outlandish assumptions. I'm sure if you went to the quote sheets for the games Landon had the armband they would list him as captain. Second, I don't see links to "every major soccer publication," I see links to one website, most of which are older than the link I posted to, which is quoted at length despite the link going dead (I'm working on finding it again). As far as I'm concerned it's one cite to one cite, hardly consensus. The reason I'm saying the England friendly will settle it is because the English press takes the official captain thing more seriously than the American press, so if nothing else this will be settled conclusively in the build up to that game. Third, there were two people over a month ago who disagreed with me, I successfully argued against them, and it was settled fo 6 weeks. A few days ago you brought this up, I'm arguing against you now, I would hardly call that a consensus. Finally, I'm hardly "editing against consensus." I've been in five disagreements over the last few months and the two that are resolved, (MLS team infoboxes and Notable/Famous Player sections) I was on the side of the final consensus. Just because there are three still ongoing (including this one) doesn't make me some kind of vandal, which is what you're accusing me of. I think you're taking this way too personally. You seem to be making this much more about me than about the article, and doing so constitutes a personal attack. I'd appreciate a change in tone. Finally, and by far the least important issue, if you want to be taken seriously, create an account. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I fixed the link. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant, I don't give a shit what you'd appreciate me doing, so if my tone insults you...go to another page. There are FOUR users now who are against saying the captain is rotating and who have provided ample evidence that it is NOT rotating. Yet you are being petulant and you keep pushing YOUR agenda. Don't give me that bullshit that I need to have an account to be taken seriously, give me a fucking break...Wikipedia does not require one to maintain an account to have their opinions heard, nor does not having one mean my opinion is less relevant or important than any other, get off your high horse. If you want a change in tone, go somewhere else. You have been called out in not only this discussion, but the one just above it where you were one of two people (again, on the losing side of consensus) against including "Nats" as a nickname. You claim that this was resolved 6 weeks ago, yet it can clearly be seen through the discussion that everyone other than you is against saying the captain is rotating, what more than likely happened is that others lost interest or moved on, you apparently live your life by this page and did not do so. And it's not "one cite to one cite" i cited 5 articles, and searching google finds hundreds of others listing Bocanegra as the captain. You're clearly one of those people who ignore the obvious as the expense of your feelings. You are also apparently unable to admit that you're wrong, because you're STILL arguing this ridiculous point, and have coneceded that you're going to be wrong in two weeks time when some random English paper calls Bocanegra the captain....as if a podunk little newspaper in a random English town is more reputable than ESPN Soccernet, USSoccer.com, Sams Army, etc. Get serious. This conversation is a joke. The consensus is against you, get over it and move on. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, how bout you also admit that Donovan only wore the armband against Sweden because it wasn't an international fixture date and ZERO european based players were on the roster. Hahahahahahaha get serious Grant, you're absolutely wrong on every level here. Now you're grasping for any bit of crap you can twist and obfuscate to fit your dying argument. If Boca had been on the roster...he'd have been captain for that game too....just like all the rest for the past year, and you know it. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 06:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
http://usa.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2010/the-captain.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.177.162 (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
First, your repeated violations of WP:CIVIL are unacceptable, whether you have an account or not. I don't think I'm the one who "lives my life by this page," as you're the one who seems to be all hot and bothered by this discussion. Belittling someone is the lowest form of argument, and it is unacceptable on WP. If you continue making personal attacks, I will report you and have you banned. Second, blogs don't count as reputable sources on WP. If Google kicks back hundreds of other articles listing Bocanegra as the captain, why don't you provide some that don't deal with specific matches and are dated after my cite. This issue will be settled when the BBC or Sky Sports refers to Bocanegra as the USA captain or they don't. I never said anything about a "random English paper." Third, 2-1 hardly counts as a consensus, and if the other editors "lose interest" in the discussion, it goes as tacit agreement with the status quo. They didn't continue the discussion further. That's consensus. Finally, I never said you had to create an account in order for your opinion to matter. What I said was putting a name to your statements gives you more credibility and a track record. I view all anons as being the same, regardless of how many there are. Creating an account is easy, free, and adds a lot of functionality to WP. You'd understand how it's easy to keep track of article changes without "living your life by them" if you had a watchlist, and so on. If you don't want to create an account, that's fine, but don't be suprised if people are dismissive. Either way, improve the tone of your argument, or I will report you for the violations I've mentioned above, and this discussion will be over. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Gentleman (I'm guessing), a little civility on both of your parts is in order. Grant, you also don't have the power to "get somebody banned" an administator would look at the situation and judge accordingly, and given your demeanor in the earlier discussion and your dismissive attitude in the current one, your report would likely be ignored. From an outsides perspective, here are some questions. 1) Grant - you quote an article by Andrea Canales, an ESPN.com writer as a credible source of a rotating captaincy, yet you won't accept an ESPN.com source as credible showing that Bocanegra is the captain? 2) Grant - you claim that BBC or Sky Sports are more reputable sources of information about the US team than the webpage of the federation which governs the team. Why?

I was clearly referring to going through the process of getting an admin to look at the situation. To suggest I was implying otherwise is silly, especially as anon points out I've been in several disputes in the past so I'm familiar with the process. As for the Canales ESPN source, none was provided. All I asked was if Google kicks back "hundreds" of articles that show him as the permanent captain, simply provide a link to one. The reason I said we should just wait until the game in England is because the English media will cover the game to a far, far greater extent than any outlet in the US, and they also happen to obsess more than most nations about captaincy issues. The captaincy for the England national football, rugby, cricket, etc. teams are as well established as (or more than, sometimes) the managerial positions for those teams. When Beckham was captain, Sky would always list him as "England Captain." The fact that the English captaincy is itself rotating at present, means that if Michael Owen, for instance, is named captain for the game, but they don't list him as "England Captain" in the build up, but they do list Bocanegra (a player they are familiar with, I might add) as "USA Captain," then the issue is definitively settled. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, it appears to me that Bocanegra is the captain, and that it is no longer rotating. It rotated for several games between several players, and has landed on Bocanegra who has kept it for an entire year. The Copa America is irrelevant since it was a, by all accounts, third-tier team. That another player wore the armband during a game in which only domestically based players were utilized is also irrelevant. The context of Canales's article must also be looked at. Given the absence of the normal captain (Bocanegra), Donovan was given the captaincy as a result of his hard work in that camp. Surely you can see this? Go ahead and add my name to the roll call of people who think that it is appropriate to list Bocanegra as the captain, and not as a rotating captain. I would say 4-1 counts as a fairly good consensus given that as of now only 5 people have taken part in the discussion.

With all due respect, what part of, "Bradley might also have hit upon the correct strategy to motivate Donovan by withholding the captaincy for a considerable amount of time, awarding the honor to various individuals on a rotating basis, and stating that it has to be earned," don't you understand? This source is from only a few months ago. Show me something from February or later that is similar to the World Cup draw quote sheet with Bradley and Bocanegra, and you have won the argument. That's all I'm asking for. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My other option would be a request for comment or some other form of dispute resolution that doesn't involve using a british newspaper for news about USA soccer, that to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Especially given the availablity of sources from within the team that show that Bocanegra is referred to as the captain. The same sources which during the Sweden game (where Donovan temporarily wore the armband) did not refer to his as captain in the post-match interview transcripts the way Bocanegra was referred as captain.

For the IP editor, you are right, you need not create an account, but Grant made one or two valid points about edit history, etc. Being dismissive of an IP editor isn't acceptable, but it happens and one way to get around having the "IP" stigma, is to create an account. While it appears to me that you have been uncivil, I do not think it rises to the level of being banned. I would say that you, and grant alike, need to take a break from the discussion and seek alternate methods to mediate the dispute. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For clarity's sake I've interspersed my comments between yours. I appreciate the attempt to mediate the issue, and your calls for civility have, at least on my part, been heard loud and clear. Unfortunately I still disagree for the reasons I've outlined above, but in light of new evidence I can be convinced. The article has been this way for several weeks, and if nothing else we can figure it out after the England game in 2 weeks time. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article from the site that Grant has been using as his sole defense. http://ussoccerplayers.typepad.com/ussoccerplayers/2008/05/american-abro-4.html It refers to "US captain Carlos Bocanegra" It's also important to note that the article that Grant has been citing used the word "might" and was pure speculation on the part of reporter Andrea Canales. With Grant's only reference now referring to Bocanegra unequivocally as the US captain, I'm editing the article to reflect that. I hope Grant will respect the consensus that has clearly developed. Onebaseman (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya that's fine. Thanks for creating an account and for finding a reference. I appreciate it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the same user as the IP editor above. Onebaseman (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Citations has flowed forth on this topic for months, Grant just couldn't accept them and continued his petulance and pov editing. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Those statements are violations of WP:NPA, and if you don't strike them and/or apologize for them here or on my talk page I will take the actions necessary to get you blocked. I did not agree with you for legitimate reasons, until a citation was presented that was better than the one I had presented. I'd thank you to be more civil in the future. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack to say that you were pushing your pov, that's what you were doing. You were shown source after source after source and shot them each down with weak reasons. Many citations were presented that were better than the one you presented and the one that Onebaseman presented, you refused to accept that you could be wrong and instead BEGAN the uncivil behavior. You're not going to hold me hostage Grant, i'm not striking my comments or apologizing for them, I do not see them as violations of NPA. I believe we have BOTH violated CIVIL, so perhaps you should cut your losses and we'll both move on from here. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please attempt to refrain from personal attacks and maintain civility

The level of tension in this discussion is way too high. 98.220.177.162 has been the most egregious offender, but I think everyone here needs to step back and take a break. Failure to maintain civility and/or commenting on the editor rather than the edits will result in warnings with the possibility of an eventual block.

As an example of what I am talking about here, it is unacceptable for 98.220.177.162 to refer to Grant's "petulance." If you feel his edits are not acceptable, continue to discuss that in the talk page. If you feel has not been reasonable, start an RfC or a Wikiquette alert. Call someone petulant is not a recommended part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.

Please, everyone, try and tone it down. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Show me where, on the dispute resolution process page, it shows that the way to win a dispute is to ignore cite after cite after cite after cite and push your POV to the point of absurdity. If ANYONE can show me that, then I'll cede my point. Short of showing me that, I maintain that Grant continued his, rather alarming trend, of POV editing and he FIRST resorted to incivility when challenged on it. 98.220.177.162 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)