Talk:United States men's national soccer team/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Qualification

"After failing to qualify for nine straight tournaments beginning in 1954, the team has now qualified for five consecutive FIFA World Cup finals since 1990, a string that is surpassed only by Brazil, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Spain, and South Korea.[1]"

Is this really true considering that they didn't really qualify for the 1994 world cup, they hosted it so their qualification was booked.. Thnom 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes even if qualifying by being the host nation, you still qualified, just not through the process that everyone else did. Batman2005 16:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Disputed Facts"

Nothing in this article is currently under dispute. Jooler disputes whether Partenaude scored the first World Cup hat-trick, and whether FIFA states that he did. But these disputed facts are not stated as such in the article either. Currently the article has only neutral wording regarding the materials FIFA has released stating that Partenaude did accomplish this feat, as well as those FIFA has released stating that he did not. Uris 00:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Jooler and/or Ellison do still want to dispute something... so we've all got to be willing to give and take, and to include the relevant facts about what FIFA has written about the subject at different times. If either of you are willing to work on this article, let's move forward with it. Uris 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have removed the whole-article disputed tag, as it was incorrectly used by Jooler and Elisson. It should only be used if 5 or more sentences are disputed throughout the article. I have inserted the sentence-specific "dubious" tag for the disputed wording, which specifies for readers exactly what is under dispute within the article and welcomes their input on this Talk page. Also, still welcoming contributions by either Jooler or Elisson to collaborate on the article, so please speak up about how you would like to see the FIFA confusion worded. Uris 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

First Hat Trick in a World Cup...

I have changed that sentence a bit to reflect that FIFA's official view is that Patenaude only scored 2 goals in the game he is said to have scored 3 in, and that FIFA only credits him with two. Thus making the first World Cup Hat Trick achieved by Guillermo Stabile of Argentina. [1] Here is my sourcing material. My bad on that one, here i'll sign it now Batman2005 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone (anon IP) has changed this to say that FIFA have changed their mind on this, quoting the Soccer Hall of Fame. Now FIFA seems to contradict itself on this. That DYK panel doesn't read like FIFA suddenly changed its mind on the subject and the match report that links off of that very same page (along with all other FIFA documents) still credits Florie. The US Soccer Hall of Fame says that FIFA have changed their minds, but if that is the case then surely there will be a press release somewhere, or a media report, or indeed a mention on RSSSF. I've made a Google news search, a web search and a newsgroup search using lots of different possibilities and I've found nothing. The US Soccer Hall of Fame (which is a small museum in Upstate New York) has made mistakes about other things, so I don't think we can trust this single source, so i'm reverting back. Jooler 05:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The official 2006 FIFA World Cup site in association with Yahoo lists Patenaude with the first hat-trick. This was cited, so read sources before you revert. Also you reverted far more than that. Bad Jooler. Uris♥ 13:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Quote from the 2006 FIFA World Cup site: FIFA and a number of other sources give America's Bertram Patenaude the honour of having scored the first World Cup hat trick (17 July 1930, against Paraguay)
Duh! - Read the reference in the text and read what I wrote above before reverting. From a link on the very same page - the official match report [2] - Like I said it contracdicts the DYK panel. But reading the DYK panel it doesn't read like FIFA changed thier minds, which makes me think that its is misreporting. Show me a press release or a media report about the change. Jooler 15:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
We also have list of hattricks too. Jooler
Okay guys look at this. The DYK seems to have been taken from this article in the FIFA Magazette - World Cup edition published on (FIFA.com) 17 Nov 1999 - see here - Now the hatrick pdf file post dates it. So the former info must be incorrect. Jooler 16:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the "FIFA changing its mind" wording, but do not revert info that is not included in your edit summary. You keep reverting several more edits claiming you are reverting just the hat-trick info. That is a no-no on Wikipedia. Uris♥ 16:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting stuff that cannot be substantiated. The article currently says "The Argentine newspaper La Prensa recently did extensive research into the matter" This is claimed by the US Scocer Hall of Fame page, which had already proved unreliable. Searching the newspaper's website reveals nothing. Extensive research my eye; all they have to do is look at the back issues. RSSSF say - "Even the game report in the Argentina daily La Prensa supports the US claim". I would hazard a guess that the people at the US Soccer Hall of Fame have seen the incorrect info I highlighted above, read the RSSF stuff and tried to put two and two together. Please add only substantiated NPOV information and not erroneous factoids. Jooler 18:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. You reverted more than what you are currently discussing... reverting all the edits by the IP instead of just the one (about this hat-trick) that you had disagreed with. Not a big deal though, all is fixed now. Uris 19:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Uris please don't knee-jerk revert the references. Please discuss the following if you want to re-insert them. I have already shown that the Hall of Fame is an unreliable source, as it claims that FIFA recently changed it's position and yet no reliable press relase or media statement confirms this. The DYK panel from FIFA is a copy of the link shown above that was originally published in 1999. This predates the hattrick page because that page includes hattricks from the 2002 World Cup. All other FIFA links apart from the DYK panel and the original publication do not credit the hattrick. Jooler 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the article to accurately the fact that FIFA has "generally maintained" that Partenaude scored two goals in the game, but at least twice in its official materials has stated that he scored the first hat-trick. Thanks for your help, Jooler. Uris 23:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You're basically using a misprint to misrepresent FIFA's position. This is to say the least disengenous. Those two sources , the first of which I found for you are cut and paste jobs. The oldest of those sources has already proven to be incorrect. Jooler 23:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It was not a "misprint", unless you can prove otherwise. FIFA has released materials that are not consistent. The facts about this are accurately stated as best as we know. Uris 23:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The official FIFA list of hattricks published in 2002 does not show the Patenaude hattrick. The official match report does not show the Patenaude hattrick. You base your position, on a piece of trivia that disagrees with the hat trick document and ALL other FIFA documents regarding the matter Do you not think that is disengenous? Jooler 23:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you not assuming good faith? You have mentioned exactly TWO materials from FIFA disagreeing and TWO agreeing. Do you have a list of "all other" FIFA documents here? Put some effort into this and make a list. Also you keep tagging "disputed facts" without specifying which fact you dispute. The article does not state Partenaude scored the first hat-trick, or even that FIFA says he did. The article states, factually, that they have released two materials saying that he did, and others saying he did not. That is the absolute fact, and I haven't seen a disagreement about these facts from you or anyone else. Uris 23:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I bet Jooler would like it if I got involved in this argument, i'm pretty hostile. Actually, I don't really care, although I think if Jooler inserts the dispute tag then he's disputing something in the article and it really oughta be left in until the dispute is resolved. Batman2005 01:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reported both users for breaking 3RR, and I think that a short break from editing Wikipedia would be the best way to cool this discussion down a bit. And let us keep the disputed tag until the dispute actually is over. And saying "there is no disupute" is not a reason good enough when removing the tag... – Elisson • Talk 01:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If you think there is a dispute, insert the tag if you like, and then list your dispute here. I didn't break the 3RR and looking back at it I don't actually think Jooler did either as the first time consecutively was not a revert. I do think it's a bit silly to say there is a "dispute" here of the article as currently written, but maybe I'm biased towards neutral wording and facts. Uris 01:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is about the US Soccer team and not about how a FIFA web page designer might have messed up by cutting and pasting an error. The article currently says "In at least two instances, FIFA itself has referred to Patenaude as scoring the first hat-trick in World Cup history[6][7], but it has been inconsistent with this view in other materials." - The two instances (one of which I myself pointed out) are carbon copies of each other. The first instance having been written in 1999 and pre-dates the list of hattricks i.e. the second appears to have been cut and pasted from the first. The two instances are from a "Did You Know" panel on a webpage. The wording disengenous, distorting the facts and pushing a POV and you know it, but I'm not interested in arguing this any more. Let the dispute tag stand and the matter can be discussed by others. Jooler 08:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Uris' comment on my talk page: Uris, just read above. If you do not see any dispute in the above discussion, I'm afraid I'll never be able to explain it to you. IMO, there is no doubt that FIFA still maintains that there was no hat trick scored by Patenaude (as shown by Jooler's message above), and that should be clarifyed in the article, but I've got no problem with a mention in the article that there has been some debate over who really scored that second goal. – Elisson • Talk 11:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've got no problem saying that FIFA still maintains that, and it does seem to be clarified in the article. If you can clarify further, let's do it. The only thing I have a problem with is ignoring altogether that FIFA has at least twice acknowledged Patenaude with the hat-trick in their official materials. Jooler seems to want to delete/omit that fact. So.. let's work together on this, shall we? Uris 15:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Clearly either when they acknowledged it, it was a mistake, or it was a mistake every other time. Occams razor points to the former being the most likely. Philc TECI 16:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Either way, it would be incorrect to state that FIFA has always maintained that Patenaude did not score 3 goals. I'm not even convinced it was a mistake, because how many times has it NOT acknowledged the hat-trick? I've seen only 2 FIFA links for, and 2 FIFA links against. Or was it only one that did not acknowledge it (the box score)? Either way, it's interesting that FIFA has been inconsistent with their view in their various publications. I'd be interested in what you and others feel would be better wording about the confusion and inconsistency. Uris 16:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You're talking about "2 FIFA links against", but as Jooler has already pointed out, these two are carbon copies of each other, and nothing has been found that supports that "FIFA and a number of other sources give America's Bertram Patenaude the honour of having scored the first World Cup hat trick". Where has FIFA given Patenaude this honour? The DYK is not an official statement for Patenaude having notched three, it is just telling that somewhere, FIFA has said this, like several other pages has said that FIFA somewhere credits him with three goals, but the "somewhere" has not been found. It is merely a rumour, and not a verifiable fact. Especially not when we have FIFA sources dating the DYK that does not recognize the hat trick. – Elisson • Talk 17:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the wording to: In at least two instances, FIFA itself has referred to Patenaude as scoring the first hat-trick in World Cup history[7][8] but many attribute this to repetitive mistakes or misprints. In the official boxscore and list of World Cup hat-tricks, FIFA has failed to recognized Patenaude's 1930 game against Paraguay. Let me know what you think and/or edit the page. Uris 17:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reworded slightly, and removed the carbon copy reference, as said above, it is an out-of-the-box copy, and shouldn't be considered "two separate instances". – Elisson • Talk 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with the current wording, how about you Uris? – Elisson • Talk 21:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Elisson, as of your last edit, I don't see how we can improve on it further. Looks accurate and neutral, unbiased. Nice job! Uris 22:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've emailed FIFA and the website host, in order to confirm FIFA's position on this, and received a reply from the website host to say that they are invesitgating and that thay will make any appropriate corrections as soon as possible. Jooler 22:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1994 World Cup

This part troubles me "The United States struggled in international soccer for the next 40 years. In 1988 the United States was controversially awarded the 1994 World Cup, even though it had not qualified for a World Cup since 1950" Now how were they awarded the Cup 4 years early? -- mando 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me if I have misunderstood what you are asking, but I think the confusion lies in the use of the word "awarded". The USA were not awarded the Cup itself as if they had won it, they were awarded the rights to stage the Cup tournament in 1994 ChrisTheDude 07:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
mando I'd say that part needs a rewrite, without a source talking about how the selection was controversially received it sounds like original research. For all intents and purposes the 1994 World Cup is still regarded as one of the most finely run, I know FIFA was suprised about how it was received, much the same as they were in 2002 when Japan/South Korea did so well, I think 1994 definitely set the ground work for places like South Africa and Japan/South Korea to host even though they're not seen as "traditional powerhouses." So...my opinion is remove the part about it being controversial until we have a source and just mention when it was awarded. Batman2005 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Arena Photo

Here is the photo that used to be in the article, the original uploader left a LOT of trapped white space that made the article look REALLY bad, If someone can readd it and see to it that it makes everything line up real nice it would be great. Batman2005 01:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The uploader had zero whitespace. The image was 200px, someone unexplicably changed it to 95px. Uris♥ 13:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

URIS, look at the photo of Bruce Arena...see all that white space...that's what I'm talking about, it needs to go, it looks AWFUL! I tried altering the size to shrink it down, it didn't work so I moved it to the talk page...if we can put the photo there without all the white space next to it then great. Otherwise remove it as its looks terrible.Batman2005 15:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no white space in the photo. Perhaps check it on another monitor? Uris♥ 15:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


When I'm looking at the Head Coaches section there's the photo all the way to the right and then way down the page is where the listing starts. Thats not happening on yours? weird. Batman2005 15:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I just checked in Internet Explorer 6.0 and you're right. It's an IE-specific problem, but 80% of users still use that. I'll work on it... just a sec, I'll report back. Uris♥ 15:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey its cool, no worries..i don't really care actually. Batman2005 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Batman, I just moved it a little and it looks better... but not perfect. I'll work on it a little more during the England-Paraguay game since we know that's going to be a yawner. Uris♥ 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Games over man, wanna know who won? Batman2005 15:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Still had England-Paraguay on my mind... meant Sweden-Trinidad, but that doesn't seem to be such a yawner afterall, at least not yet. 0-0 at the halfway point. Uris♥ 16:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Nike Logo"

There's a logo (shield) on the page, captioned "Nike's 2006 World Cup "Don't Tread on Me" logo for the men's national team." . Does this mean that different commercial companies created different logos and somebody has chosen to promote the Nike one? or that Nike was commissioned to create the official team logo? (I'm guessing they provided the team's shirts?) If the latter then surely the caption should be changed to something like "Official 2006 World Cup men's national team logo, "Don't Tread on Me" created by Nike". Not sure why there's a blatent Nike promotion on the page.... --mgaved 10:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nike is the official apparel sponsor to the United States Soccer Federation. The "Don't Tread On Me" promotional material is only used in conjunction with the United States Mens National Team. Additionally, it has been taken up as the rallying cry/motto/cheer of "Sams Army" the official fan club of US Soccer. It's not blatant promotion of Nike, its an important part of the national team picture and warrants inclusion, as long as it doesn't become promotional. I'll try to word it a little more delicately to focus on the actual logo, rather than on who created it and such. Batman2005 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the use of this logo?--Panairjdde 09:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The logo isn't really a "team logo" per se, the best way to descibe it is that its the logo of the world cup campaign for the United States. I dunno the exact context, it doesn't appear on jerseys or official "team" gear, but it does appear on official fan merchandise and thelike. I wouldn't be opposed to removing it or sending it over to the Nike page. Batman2005 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand it is just a promotional material. If no-one is against, I'll remove it. Even if it is a really nice logo!--Panairjdde 10:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Official promotional logos found on official team merchandise should find a place on sports teams pages. I don't see a reason to remove it without consensus. Uris 03:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is that there is an official team logo (displayed on the team shirts) and official merchandise is moving into the area of secondary promotion on wikipedia of the commercial sponsors of the team. US Soccer has several sponsors ( http://www.ussoccer.com/sponsors/index.jsp.html ) and I don't see them all represented in this wiki article. This logo is not on the official team shirt, and it's not on the Sam's army shirts. "Sam's Army is the unofficial supporters club for the United States National Soccer Team." (http://www.sams-army.com/)
However there is a link from http://www.ussoccer.com/ with this logo as the graphic, and the US Soccer official site has it as an option for purchasing as well as team shirts without the logo. The store page's html title tag is "U.S. Soccer Store offers officially licensed U.S. Men's and Women's National Team Nike soccer jerseys, Nike soccer watches, Nike soccer t-shirts, Nike soccer apparel, Nike soccer headwear, Nike soccer balls, soccer equipment, soccer books, soccer accessories and soccer gift items." (page: http://ussoccerstore.stores.yahoo.net/) ... So that would be NIKE as an important link ;-) Personally I think this is a shameless commercial plug for Nike but maybe that's how things work in the US Soccer? My opinion remains that we should put the official logo of the team on each World Cup team page and leave it at that. Other opinions? --mgaved 12:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think this is a shameless commercial plug but maybe that's how things work in the US Soccer?
Yes, because we're all capitalist pigs in the US who ruin the world for everybody else. Uris 23:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
...on a more serious note, it wasn't a "shameless plug for Nike" because it did not have the company's name or mark on the logo nor in the description before Panairjdde removed it and it appears on some, though not all official US Team merchandise. If I'm the only one who thinks it should stay, then I'm obviously not going to insert it back though. Uris 04:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
hey eveel capitaleest pig-dog! we still beat you at the beautiful game when we meet with our superior socialist tactics!!!  :-) jokes aside... I'm relaxed, I guess it's up to the US Soccer fans to decide how their team page is portrayed... --mgaved 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"I guess it's up to the US Soccer fans to decide how their team page is portrayed..." Wrong.--Panairjdde 23:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Terrorist lover! Just kidding, you're right... this and every article's content is up to Wikipedians of all stripes. Uris 16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous statement

The section in the introduction "the team has now qualified for five consecutive FIFA World Cup finals, a longer string than more traditional powers in the sport such as England, France, and Mexico" is, according to me, ambiguous.

The problem is that it implies that USnft has a better performance in terms of WC qualifications than England, France, and Mexico, while these performance are not comparable, being obtained in different tournaments.

Furthermore, since Wikipedia:Lead section requires the most important fact to be put in introduction and later developed, just a "the team has now qualified for five consecutive FIFA World Cup finals" will suffice, with the remaining part moved in the body.--Panairjdde 09:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I am rewording the sentence about Escobar: since he was killed because of that own goal, it is unrespectful to say that it was his "courtesy" to let US win.--Panairjdde 09:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The Escobar change stands, but the "longer string than more traditional powers in the sport such as England, France, and Mexico" has been discussed at length, is very important to the team and article, and should stay in the introduction as previously worked on between Battman and others. Uris 12:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please point to the discussion?--Panairjdde 13:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The courtesy locution is properly removed because it is unencyclopedic (as exorbitantly informal or breathless), not because it is unrespectful (sic, which qualifier I use not in the descriptive, not the pejorative, sense); where a formulation is neutral and verifiable, we're not particularly concerned with disrespect, and surely not when write apropos of a non-living person (even as he/she has living relatives). Joe 23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
So, if you find a way to be encyclopedic, you could be unrespectful because there is no rule against?--Panairjdde 00:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a way to be respectful of a sensitive issue, as long as doing so isn't at the expense of the facts. As a general rule I think in most situations we could find a way to show respect for the dead while still being encyclopedic, which I think its good Panairjdde that you caught the bit about "courtesy" from the own goal by a guy who was murdered for it later on. I think if we can provide the infromation in a non offensive way then great, but if the only way to do so is going to cause some hurt feelings by from the family members...then they'll have to deal with it. I'd say its highly unlikely that Escobars family has read this article anyway, who knows though...they could contribute regularly. Batman2005 02:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
It is well settled that in situations such as these, whether we offend a subject or the family thereof, provided we comply with other relevant policies and guidelines, is altogether irrelevant. In response to Panair, we of course maintain an NPOV, but if a phrasing is encyclopedic, its offensiveness is altogether immaterial to our project. Wikipedia is not censored, after all... Joe 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Success of football in the US and USmnst

The current introduction has the following paragraph:

"In recent years, USA has become known for producing world-class goalkeepers;[1] three U.S. keepers started in the English Premier League in the 2003-04 season. Two of the three combined to win back-to-back Goalkeeper of the Year awards, as voted by the players, with Brad Friedel in 2002-03 and Tim Howard in 2003-04. More Americans than ever now have successful careers in European leagues,[2] and the country's youth team is strong, as shown by the under-19s winning the 2005 Milk Cup."

While it can be important to mark the development of the game in the country, I feel this information (apart the bit about the under-19) should be moved from here (maybe United States Soccer Federation is a more appropriate place?), and replaced with a general statement about the fact that USmnst players consistently have succesfull careers abroad.--Panairjdde 09:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because it's the goalkeepers in particular who are winning Player of the Year abroad for their position. Not all the positions in general. Uris 12:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Actually you're right... Friedel is no longer on the national team, and that info probably belongs in the United States Soccer Federation article. I've moved it there. Uris 12:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed modifications

I propose the following modifications.

  1. In the lead section, "a longer string than more traditional powers in the sport such as England, France, and Mexico" should be removed for verbosity reasons, and text moved to history section. I feel that also the note on the unreliability of this record as a measure of team strenght should be reduced in verbosity.
  2. I am not sure a 2-1 victory over Colombia, obtained with an own goal, can be considered stunning. Could this word be removed?
  3. The text about the record hold by WC 1994 in average attendance is not in the proper place, since it is not directly related to USmnst, and the reference to the success of the WC is already there.

I'll wait for comments.--Panairjdde 13:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. In doesn't seem too verbose to me. Perhaps the note should be reduced in verbosity, it seems very thorough. I'm not sure why you feel it should be put in the History section, being that it reflects the current status of the team more thant its historical standing.
  2. Yes, you're right there.
  3. That's probably the leading indicator of the success of the WC. Without it, there is no justification for the success. I'll try to reduce the verbosity of it, putting it all in a single sentence. Uris 14:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The victory over Colombia wasn't stunning in the actual sense of the gameplay. It was stunning in the whole story of the game. Colombia was favored to advance out of their group, Pele even picked them to challenge for the whole tournament. The United States was tabbed by nearly everyone to be the first host nation to fail to advance from their group. The own goal was the first goal of the match, not the eventual game winner. Additionally, the other stunning part about it was the grave seriousness with which the goal was treated in Colombia, the shooting of Escobar. Many colombians feel that their country and their passion for soccer has never been the same after the shooting. The bit about the success of the World Cup is fine, the attendance figure is fine too as it acts as a verifying point for the fact that soccer achieved center stage in America for the cup, after people were skeptical about whether or not it would be successful. There may be a better place for it, but it certainly warrants inclusion here, as we're talking about the team and the cups successes in 94. The note about the string of consecutive apperances is verbose because the original poster, Panairjdde, loaded it with his POV. Stuff like "so it isn't really comparable" or whatever the exact text was is not NPOV. Saying what it says now, that teams play only teams from their own region and that the qualifying is set up that way to ensure total global participation is neutral and allows the reader to deduce conculsions about strength of team. I think the message is fine, but maybe we can punch up the wording a little to be more concise. Batman2005 18:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It is always a pleasure to answer to Mr. Batman, because he is so civil and measured in all of his posts to me.
My points:
  1. The victory of an underdog is not so rare in World Cup, on the contrary, it is expected that some favourites will fail. And while the last place in 2002 qualifications of World Cup and European Cup winner French team can be defined "stunning", a 2-1 defeat of Colombia against home team, moreover with an own goal, is not exactly "stunning" (which, by the way, means "causing astonishment or disbelief" and "strikingly impressive especially in beauty or excellence"), but more appropriately "unexpected". As regards the murder of Escobar, I agree it is "stunning", but note that in the article this adjective is used to refer to the game, not to the murder.
  2. Uris gave me a good reason for keeping the reference to the record attendance.
  3. Mr. Batman, you are "stunning" (in the sense of "causing astonishment or disbelief")! If the text says that "a longer string than more traditional powers in the sport such as England, France, and Mexico" is NPOV, while explaining that these strings are referring to completely different competitions is POV! Notice, moreover, that my version of the note was less verbose than yours. Furthermore, you are claiming that saying that the tournaments are not comparable is POV: are seriously saying that UEFA and CONCACAF qualifications are of the same difficulty?
I'll wait for answers, before editing. But I'd prefer to speak with people showing a bit of respect for other people's work.--Panairjdde 23:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Where in my last post did I show ANY disrespect? If there is any disrespect you just showed it. I simply said that your adding of "so the tournaments aren't really comparable" or whatever it was, was POV. Which it was. I also agreed that my version was wordy, and suggested a rewrite, without any POV. And, by the way, thank you for telling me the definition of "stunning" as if I were a child without education (again, disrespectful and offensive, bordering on personal attacks). You'll notice that I did not revert the change calling the victory over Colombia "stunning" because I too thought that it wasn't appropriate, I was simply stating what the person who posted it MIGHT have been using as justification. In my opinion, the game as well as the fallout was stunning, yet I don't add MY opinions to these articles. You'll also notice that I never said that the qualifying tournaments were of the same difficulty, I will say that Europeans teams and CONCACAF teams both have a fair chance at making the tournament, you'll notice only four CONCACAF teams make the tournament, and how many European? Again, immaterial. I simply supported leaving out POV, which saying "so the tournaments aren't really comparable" is POV. Saying that the "qualifications are done by region so its possible that a higher regarded team could fail to qualify from one region while a lower regarded team from another region can successfully qualify" is not my POV, its the truth, its verifiable as we've seen with Nigeria not qualifying, but Trinidad and Tobago making it. However, you did not simply say that they're referring to different tournaments you added some commentary and colorful language "so they're not really comparable." I say this...who's got an easier road to the tournament? Sweden or Trinidad and Tobago? Nigeria or Trinidad and Tobago? You can't comare, there's parity in the sport, there are powerhouses who should qualify every year, when they don't its a disappointment, the Dutch, English, French, Germans, etc. Saying that the United States has qualified more consecutive times than some of these powerhouses is verifiable and provides the reader with a sense of the growth of soccer in the country...which is what the article was talking about. Adding a footnote about how qualification is done (void of any persons POV) is a natural step. You did that, I removed what I took as POV. You couldn't handle that so you came on here, disrespected me, essentially called me dumb and then said you'd prefer to speak to someone respectful of other peoples work. Well so would I! Batman2005 00:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: I reworded it a bit to try to make it less wordy. Batman2005 00:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to highlight this: "[Batman2005] never said that the qualifying tournaments were of the same difficulty", but if I add that "they're not really comparable", this is "commentary and colorful language"! This is what I mean when I talk about respect, my dear Batman.--Panairjdde 08:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it is impossible to reach a mediation with Mr. Batman, I ask to a thid part to reword the note about the record of qualifiations. In this moment it is not at Wikipedia standards, in my opinion.--Panairjdde 08:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There, I completely changed it, now it doesn't mention that they've qualified for more than any specific team, it simply shows where the USA rank in consecutive appearances. No more mention of qualifying, strength of qualifying, no more of Panairjdde's POV. Next time you ask for comments Panairjdde don't get pissy when someone comments that you don't want to comment just because their opinion may differ from yours. You could use a lesson in civility and maturity. Batman2005 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Either I do not explain myself well, or you do not understand. I'll repeat.
The whole matter of ranking according to number of qualifications is meaningless, because it is a comparison over different competitions. The only meaningful information is that USmnst has more straight qualifications that Mexico, since Maxico and US play in the same competition.
A comparison between WC qualifications between teams from different continental federations is like saying that Al-Ittihad is better of Arsenal F.C. because Al-Ittihad won the last two finals of Champions league, while Arsenal lost the last final, forgetting to add that Al-Ittihad plays AFC Champions League, while Arsenal plays UEFA Champions League.
As regards maturity, civility, and capability to write NPOV text, I really think I do not need lessons from you.--Panairjdde 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The text as it is now is the most basic, anti-pov way to put the information in the article. I'm through with you, as of now i'm not feeding the troll. Batman2005 14:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Now it is "After failing to qualify for nine straight tournaments beginning in 1954, the team has qualified for five consecutive FIFA World Cup finals since 1990", which is "the most basic, anti-pov way to put the information in the article". I agree with you as regards the troll, as I was the first avoiding feeding it (ok, I did, a little).--Panairjdde 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely NO point of view in stating that the United States has the 8th longest consecutive qualification streak in the world, none whatsoever. Batman2005 15:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Again??? It is is meaningless, are you going to understand this, or not?--Panairjdde 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said, i'm done feeding you troll, I'm requesting admin intervention to show that the way I have worded it shows absolutely no pov, if you revert again you'll be in violation of 3RR, which after you've been blocked for it previously, you'd think you would have learned about by now. Batman2005 16:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have reported you now for POV vandalism and violation of 3RR, as well as requested mediation on this. Batman2005 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Apart the fact that you did not understand the 3RR, the end is a really ugly portion of article. Congratulations.--Panairjdde 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Panairjdde, please see sour grapes. Batman2005 00:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Now the note reads "[...] a string that is shorter only than Brazil, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Spain, and Korea Republic ones." Someone (Uris himself) pointed the existence of a "Ranking of teams by number of appearances", but it was my understanding (User talk:Uris#Perhaps you can come help...) that there was no ranking involved in supporting this sentence. So why there is a list of teams performing better, if there is no ranking?--Panairjdde 00:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde, call it a ranking or not a ranking if you want. It doesn't really matter. The information is accurate, reliable, pertinent, informative, and found to be useful at Wikipedia (as it obiviously has found a place on the page you linked to). Uris 03:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Your comment about the fact that it is a comparison between different competitions? Do you really think that such a comparison is "informative"?--Panairjdde 20:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I Do! Batman2005 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course it's informative. Uris 00:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
And what kind of information it gives? That Brazil is better that US, but Czech does not? They play in different competitions, how do they compare? Consider that according to your idea of "informative", and since United States women's national soccer team won two WC titles while men's won none, you should also add that US women national team has better results that US men's. Are you going to write this?--Panairjdde 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You assertion that the bit about the US women being in the article is ridiculous, almost on the side of hilarious. World Cup qualification is a leg of the world cup final tournament, it is not its own separate tournament, it is a portion of the world cup final tournament. The teams who advance from "World Cup Qualifying" to the "World Cup Final" didn't do so from a different tournament, they did so from the world cup tournament's qualification stages. The information it provides is that the United States has qualified 5 times consecutively, a mark of consistency that only 7 other teams in the world can claim as well. You refuse to compare the two because it places the United States (who you apparently detest, along with South Korea and Turkey apparently as you've also been trolling those pages and been blocked for it there) above whatever national team you support. Batman2005 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The teams who advance from "World Cup Qualifying" to the "World Cup Final" didn't do so from a different tournament, they did so from the world cup tournament's qualification stages. This is wrong. The qualifications are different tournaments. US will never play in AFC qualification tournament and meet Ghana, Turkey never in CONCACAF against US, South Korea never in UEFA against Netherlands, and so on. So why are you comparing them? It is like comparing US men's and women's teams, they are both competing in a World Cup, it is just that they will never play one against the other. Is it so difficult to understand.
As regards my edits, you often get personal. Stick to your reasons for supporting your positions, and end your suppositions on other's opinions.--Panairjdde 01:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You were blocked for trolling the Turkey and South Korea national team pages? Why don't you cool down a little while and leave be the pages of national teams you dislike. For the Nth time, this page merely provides a one-sentence summary and links to the same, more detailed, information deemed pertinent on the World Cup pages of Wikipedia. If you were to get the many World Cup editors to take down the offending statistic from there, with their substantial knowledge of the subject, we would better consider your POV here. Uris 01:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
All you have to say is a personal attack and a reference to another WP article? Should I remind you that another WP article is not a good reference for an unsustainable claim?--Panairjdde 01:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The "claim" is verifiable, informative, and accurate... yes, sustainable. It isn't even presented as the team's ranking in the world soccer ranks, as its official FIFA ranking of #5 is referenced almost immediately after the mention of consecutive World Cup finals played in. There seems little rational basis for you to keep arguing this here, and to no end in sight. As for the "personal attack", where was that? I merely suggested you consider cooling it down a bit after being blocked for similar behavior on those other national teams' pages in the recent past. The world isn't going to end for you because some national team has been to 5 straight World Cup finals, is it? Uris 01:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Arguing with him is like arguing with a brick wall, only the brick wall makes more sense. They are NOT different tournaments, its the CONCACAF Group of World Cup Qualifying, or the UEFA Group of World Cup Qualifying, whether or not they ever meet in qualifying is irrelevant, different tournaments are Euro 2008 and the Gold Cup, different stages of the same tournament is what we have with World Cup qualifying. We have a consensus thus far to go with the wording of the article as written before you started trolling and changing it. Continue to change it and i'll continue to rever it and continue reporting you for vandalism and trolling. Batman2005 02:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)