Talk:1968 Intercontinental Cup

Football: Argentina / England / Manchester United Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Argentine football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Manchester United task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Second leg summary

The entire summary of the second leg is horribly POV. Some of the statements in the summary are clearly intended to make Estudiantes look like shining pillars of virtue and Manchester United like vicious thugs. This may have been the case, or the case may have been completely the opposite, but it is not our place to imply anything like that. We report the facts of what actually happened, and let the readers make their own interpretations. Saying things like 'Sadler gave away a free kick in the middle of the pitch after a wild and violent foul on an Argentine player' without an adequate source just don't wash here. Another example of the author's personal commentary, 'Naturally, only the home side, desperate to win, found it "unfair"', is equally inappropriate. – Pee Jay 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a partial cleanup, which has hopefully sorted out some of the problems. Whether I did too little, too much or about the right amount is a matter for debate. Alzarian16 (talk)

That part at the end needs to be left alone. Disgraceful and disgusting to say the least! If being a "gentleman" involves being one from that animalistic crowd, I would rather be an animal. Too bad the English killed what could have been a great competition today. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The equalizer was surprising by very definition; Manchester started out great but that goal from Veron definetly was a hard blow and the team got sloppier as the match went on. The equalizer was more of sheer-will and hard effort rather than skill or tecnique. And the crowd was still quiet after Veron's foul. They only started responding near the end of the first half when Manchester was practically parked in Estudiantes' half of the field.

There was nothing cynical about their style of play during the 2nd part of the first half; Estudiantes limited themselves to kicking every ball out of the sidelines whenever it ventured close to the penalty area. And they weren't conceding free kicks; Estudiantes stood firm as they blocked, with their own bodies, every single long-range kick (a sign that Manchester were running out of ideas WAY early in the match. Jamen Somasu (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And those references can back up every single piece of information on the summary. There is not a place in wiki that says I need 6000 references...simply, everything needs to have some sort of reference. The entire summary comes from the sources I have put forward. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed tags

I firmly believe the following statements need sources:

"Before the whistle, the home fans threw food, coins and drinks at the field as a form of intimidation against the visitors, while chanting "Animals!", recalling Alf Ramsey's controversial comments about the Argentine team after the polemic quater-final between England and Argentina at the 1966 FIFA World Cup."

"The Estudiantes team attempted to run a lap of honour, but the home fans continued to throw objects onto the pitch, cutting the lap of honour short."

This is why I added "citation needed" tags. In the case of the second statement, I appreciate there is already a source given, but (and I'm admittedly not fluent) the source (in spanish) mentions nothing of the sort. Jamen, since Spanish seems to be your native tongue, perhaps you could isolate the passage which supports the statement for me?

Wikipedia policy (WP:CITE), states: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." The two statements above clearly fall into the first category, and therefore they need sources.

It is good that you know the citing policy. Good thing everything on the summary is verificable, no least thanks to the newspaper article from El Tiempo. Happy reading! Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamen, I don't doubt that the information is wrong, but it is likely to be challenged. Therefore, the statements need inline citations; it is not sufficient to simply have the newspaper article listed at the end of the article. Also, for my benefit, would you might pointing me in the direction of the exact passage that mentions the food throwing etc.? Thanks, Tom (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole tone of that Olé article is so partisan that I do not believe that it can be said to even try to maintain any standard of journalistic balance, and as such I don't think it can be claimed as a RS. The best way to avoid tinted lenses and the incursion of anecdote into truth would be to identify that which is common to both UK and Argentine sources contemporary with the event. Kevin McE (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try in muddling the word "censorship" but no; Juan Ramon Veron's interview is a primary source. Jamen Somasu (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read WP:PRIMARY properly. It says that primary sources are not appropriate, and that we should avoid making original analysis of primary sources as that would constitute original research. – Pee Jay 09:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.

”

This more than qualifies it as a primary source, seeing that it comes from a player that PLAYED that match: Juan Ramon Veron. Cheers! Jamen Somasu (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamen, I think everyone agrees that it is a primary source, but that DOESN'T make it reliable. Please read WP:PRIMARY. Anyway, can you please point out the passage that mentions food or coin throwing, because I can't find it. Tom (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does make it reliable. It is just an inconvinient truth to some around here. As far as the coin throwing, it is right there in the article itself. This has got to be 1000th time I mentioned that. Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Jamen for those of us that don't speak fluent Spanish, could you please point out where in the article it mentions coin throwing, because I have read it several times and can't see it anywhere. Tom (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe how obtuse you are, Jamen. WP:PRIMARY says that primary sources ARE NOT RELIABLE. Understand? – Pee Jay 15:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you simply read what is convenient to you; the passage clearly states that secondary sources are required for primary sources that needs interpretation (which, clearly, histocial documents, videos, etc. does not fall upon).

Besides, there are plenty of secondary sources to point out that the match did indeed happen. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! So why not use a secondary source? You are interpreting the primary source in a way that suits you, and that is not allowed. You must use SECONDARY sources. – Pee Jay 16:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I could interpret the video is if I were the commentator (and I wasn't alive back then). The video qualifies as a historical document, which in turn, qualifies itself to be a primary source that does not need a secondary source. And the great touch is that the historical document is in English. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are interpreting the primary source simply by writing about it here! Are you being intentionally dense or are you naturally like this? – Pee Jay 16:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't interprate something that actually happen. Everything on the summary did happen. Don't let your envy and resentness blind you. I am merely disproving a huge and contrasting lie that has been around for 42 years. The Estudiantes team played tactically and fair; the Manchester players, on the other hand, thought they were in a boxing match as the video clearly demonstrates two British players punching two Estudiantes players. How can you interpret a neanderthal punching a human being? A punch is a punch, period.

The British claim they don't care about the IC...your attitude and relentful but fruitless effort to prevent the truth from being seen definetily matches what was seen from that crowd: seeing a team, other than Manchester, lift a title in that very field against the home team. Your anger and anguish is blinding you. Manchester cared about the IC but they met a better team, period. Get over it! Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V, WP:EL and WP:REF Jamen. This page at the moment only cites two inline citations. I've no idea what is sourced to what. It needs better referencing. Until then, please stop removing the tags. 91.106.96.171 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video footage

Jamen has now been indefinitely blocked; after uploading all that copyrighted material to "his" YouTube account, someone noticed that there's a WP user with that login who happens to have been indef blocked last year, surprise surprise. Anyway, as the footage in question is evidently still under international copyright, we really shouldn't be linking to 90 minutes of footage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is copyrighted material which I bought quite a while back. YouTube allows video uploads of anything you have already own as long as you use it under fair-usage. Too bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.79.206 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own the rights to that footage. – Pee Jay 15:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First leg summary

I know there are a lot of ManU fans in this project. So, can someone please add the first leg summary in an acceptable manner? I know there has to be some source that can be used to fill that section. Both legs should have prose summarizing the events of the match, not just the second. Thanks in advance. Digirami (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much prose are you thinking about? To be honest, my sources don't mention the 1968 Intercontinental Cup in that much detail. All I've got is a description of the Estudiantes goal and a comment about how violent the games were, including Nobby Stiles' sending-off. – Pee Jay 21:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could possibly expand it a little bit using this from the FIFA website, but it doesn't have that much detail. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something is better than nothing. It just seems very incomplete to have a match summary of one leg and not the other. I would add, but I don't know of any sources that have a summary of that leg. Digirami (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Play-off in Amsterdam

Hi everybody: I think that, in case of a hypothetical draw (for example: 2-1 for Manchester United in the second leg after the victory of Estudiantes 1-0 over the first leg), the play-off would have been played in Amsterdam. I consulted those sources which I think that are very reliable:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/ITV/European.html

http://hemeroteca.elmundodeportivo.es/preview/1968/10/16/pagina-3/953191/pdf.html?search=estudiantes%20manchester%20amsterdam

http://www.linguasport.com/futbol/internacional/clubes/intercontinental/inter68.htm --VAN ZANT (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes those sites reliable? The fact that they all agree, I admit, is convincing, but not a guarantee of reliability. – Pee Jay 16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original page of the famous newspaper El Mundo Deportivo published on 16-10-1968 could clarify any doubt. Anyway, I am going to search further informations in WikiProject Football ;-) --VAN ZANT (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have found another source which confirms Amsterdam: it's an Argentine article published by Olé:

http://edant.ole.com.ar/notas/2009/12/18/futbolinternacional/02103612.html --VAN ZANT (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Videos

To the person/people adding videos: to clarify, this has nothing to do with whether or not the videos are notable, and everything to do with copyright. Have a look at WP:COPYVIO and WP:EL--the problem is something called contributory copyright. That means that if a site links to another site which they know has or likely has violations of copyright, the linking site may also be violating copyright. I'm not a lawyer, but the official policy makes it clear that we can't link to video hosting sites unless we know for sure that the target page was posted by the person who owns the copyright. In the case of the videos you added, that did not seem to be the case. Should those videos be available officially from the copyright holder, then it may (although not certainly) be possible to link to them. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

The most recent series of reverts do not appear related to the video additions. While I appreciate that there is IP sockpuppetry going on that is a problem in itself (could result in longer-term semi-protection or other steps taken), I would like to see a discussion on the non-video related changes. The page is currently protected to encourage discussion instead of continued edit-warring over the content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Within minutes of the prior protection expiring, the reverts restarted. However, during the prior protection, NEITHER party took the time to participate in a discussion here. This time, the protection has been extended longer. I STRONGLY encourage all involved or with an interest to begin talking about the changes. Should it (the reverts) begin again after this protection expires, blocks for edit warring will be made. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would like to invite the IP user (who is obviously Jamen Somasu/Supersonicx1986/[insert other sockpuppet's name here]) to explain why he thinks that the summary I wrote of the first leg is POV. The statement about United expecting a frosty reception from the Argentines because of the previous season's Intercontinental Cup is sourced to a book I own, so it is not irrelevant, and none of the other statements are POV in the slightest. Benfica manager Otto Gloria did describe Nobby Stiles as an assassin, and the fact that Busby was not impressed by this comment is sourced to the aforementioned book. The same book also mentions that a smoke bomb was set off in the stadium before kick-off; it is claimed that it was actually a red flare, but that's not what my source says. Everything I have written has been in a neutral style, based on the material I have to work with. The same cannot be said for the review of the second leg, which is largely unsourced; for example, no source is provided for the claim that the match generated £50,000 of income, nor that the tickets were priced at £3. The summary of the match itself even relied on the Youtube videos, which we have established are not appropriate as references. I hope we can work this out amicably, but I'm afraid - given the other user's track record - that this will not be likely. – Pee Jay 00:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that (at least from a neutrality point of view) both sections are almost OK now. The second leg summary needs more sources, certainly, but since the edit war seems not to involve that section that clearly isn't the issue. The section about Nobby Stile's red card would benefit from being toned down a bit, but certainly not to the extent that the IP is suggesting. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can take the protection off. I will not mess with it. You have my word on it.

A few things, though. One, a lot about what this book says is speculation. How does one man attest to what 35 million Argentines are thinking and feeling? Unless he is psychic, the first sentence on the first paragraph should be ommitted.

Two, come on, PeeJay! Even you should know what that "Red bomb" is (in Europe, your teams does not get welcomed by its fans that way). Take a look at this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7NO8dK55WA&translated=1

Really, it doesn't take much to figure out that the "red bomb" was simply smoke and fireworks (completely harmless). The sentence, especially containing the word "bomb" (a wild exageration), gives any reader the feeling that the fans were planning to blow up the opposition (literally).

Besides those two points, I have no problems with the rest. As for the YouTube videos, I do not see why it should not be allowed to be used as references but I will let it go.

How about that? 68.215.155.80 (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your track record, I'm afraid your word isn't worth much around here any more. – Pee Jay 19:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can't say I didn't try. 68.215.155.90 (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, haha, very funny. What makes you think anyone wants to trust you any more? You've gone against the community consensus countless times, and evaded your blocks even more times than that. We have no reason to allow you any lee-way around here. – Pee Jay 09:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys are going to keep playing his game, why don't you just unblock him? If he was blocked then we should just give him the cold shoulder. --MicroX (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I shouldn't wade into this, but those "red bombs" go off in stadia everywhere in the world but Britain, at just about every match. They're known as smoke bombs and are completely harmless in every way. It seems this page is a battle between Argentinian and English fans, from someone neutral, this page is chock-full of the stereotypes that both nationalities have about each other. The British think they're gentlemen and have a spirit of fair play ingrained into their very souls, and Argentinians only have passion and no brains. Argentinians laugh and point to incidents like the one in the second leg of this final, where their players were assaulted. Can we please leave the jingoistic, tabloid rag tone OUT of articles like these? Wannabe rockstar (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estudiantes colours

Having just watched a monochrome video recording of the second leg, Estudiantes played that night in a white strip with two (presumably red) stripes on the right-hand side of the shirt and a (presumably) red collar. Those who can do such things can correct the appropriate details on the main page. 90.7.231.28 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to this video recording? Unfortunately, your say-so is not considered a reliable source. – Pee Jay 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult this interesting website http://www.xenen.com.ar/estudiantes_1968.html where you can find the original Estudiantes kit from that night. --VAN ZANT (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1968 Intercontinental Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121222221144/http://www.rsssf.com/ to http://www.rsssf.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Club Championship

Is not the title of this competition the 'World Club Championship'?

That was an alternative name for the competition at various times in its history, but I believe the whole thing has been retconned to be called the Intercontinental Cup. Thanks. – Pee Jay 07:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]