Talk:Arsenal F.C./Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Merida & G. Hoyte

I've unwikified Fran Merida and Gavin Hoyte as they were previously nominated for deletion and successfully deleted - if they are recreated they will only get {{db-repost}} added to them and will be speedily deleted. I may take them to deletion review but only if there is consensus here to restore their articles - comments are welcome. In the meantime, until they are restored please do not wikify them. Thank you. Qwghlm 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can they be created when they appear in a match day squad? BobbyAFC 08:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of simply creating an article - the problem is that Fran Merida has been protected from recreation and so must go through deletion review if it is to be unlocked. Until there has been a proper review then the article can be justifiably deleted by an admin under the criteria for speedy deletion. Qwghlm 11:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm an admin, so if Merida ever gets a first-team appearance and thus earns the right to have an article about him, I'll unprotect it for you. CSD G4 only applies when the re-creation is essentially the same as the deleted version. howcheng {chat} 07:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Merida has now become a professional player, is he allowed a page? GiantSnowman 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal Squad Numbers

For a full list of squad names and numbers please see:http://www.arsenal.com/squad.asp?thisNav=Reserves+and+Youth&lid=Reserves+Coaching+Staff&clid=4436

Can these be included on the Arsenal FC page?

Bo (Glasnevin, Dublin) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eoinfleming (talk • contribs) 17:38, November 20, 2006 (UTC).

I have put the reserves players names & squad numbers in Arsenal F.C. Reserves as I thought that was the best place for them. Qwghlm 17:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ after your message. Thanks!

Just so you know, an English player called Henri Lansbury has become Arsenal's number 40. http://www.arsenal.com/player.asp?thisNav=first+team&plid=67405&clid=4421&cpid=703 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.46.225 (talk • contribs) 14:10, January 9, 2007.

I've added him in for now, although if he doesn't play and gets dropped from the first-team squad later on, I will delete his article in due course. Qwghlm 15:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you can updated the squad numbers on this page again and on the current squad template. I'd do it but last time I tried I messed up the whole thing. Yonatanh 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Stand Name

This is only minor, but the piture of the North Stand is mis-identified as the "North Bank." To be 100% accurate, the North Bank was the terrace that had stood in the same spot before the Taylor Report. The recently vacated stand is in fact, the North Stand. A similar, but not identical situation is ManU fans calling Old Trafford's west Stand the Stretford End. USArsnl 03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The stand's full name was in fact the North Bank Stand [1] [2]. You are right we should differentiate between the two, so I capitalised the word "Stand" so as to make it part of its name. Qwghlm 09:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gooner News

Any reason Gooner News is missing from the external links?

Yes - unfortunately not a good one--British210 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fan of Arsenal Userbox

I've created a user box if anyone wants to use it to say they are an Arsenal fan {{Template:Arsenal}} . {{Arsenal}} Asics^Talk 18:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already an Arsenal fans' userbox at {{User:BlueSquadronRaven/Userboxes/Arsenal}}. Your version is an unnecessary duplicate and breaks the Userbox Policy on using fair use images, so unfortunately I have had to nominate it for deletion. Sorry. Qwghlm 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent news (clues?) on Baptista for Reyes swap

Just because the whole thing still seems a bit mysterious, (yeah, we're seeing it called a loan everywhere, but it seems to be accompanied by a wink, and the Arsenal club site never listed it as a loan) I thought you might find this interesting (if you haven't read/heard it already) I found it while surfing around the web this evening... it's a few weeks old, but it's Fabio Capello's press conference on 17 January, taken from the Real Madrid official site:

• Q: Are you contemplating bringing Baptista back?
• Capello: We are happy with Reyes and Arsenal are happy with Baptista.

Here's the link: http://www.realmadrid.com//articulo/rma36342.htm

Looking more and more like Reyes is not coming back. Ryecatcher773 05:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal.com itself has actually stated that Julio Baptista is currently on a loan, as evidenced by the following recent Arsenal.com news items: Van Persie's injury gives Baptista his chance as well as Almunia leads the plaudits for Baptista (both of which I've currently added to the foonotes), where it is stated quite clearly in the former: "It is important to remember Baptista is only on loan to Arsenal for the season. Wenger admitted the decision over whether to take him permanently could rest on how he replaces his Dutch colleague, who will be sidelined for at least six weeks." and "Baptista, like most foreign imports, needed time to adapt to his new surroundings following a summer loan switch from Real Madrid." in the latter, so I think it is quite certain that it is indeed a loan deal. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 04:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good spot. Since the official site has mentioned it twice I dropped the BBC reference as it was redundant. Qwghlm 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The mirror ran a story the other day about Reyes not getting into the team recently and Real warned there was no certainty he would be bought; its definately a loan. TheMongoose 15:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ah... so the media was actually correct afterall! I remember a certain archived argument we had about this... aLii 22:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Those pictures of Gilberto and Lehmann have ruined the article. I think they should be removed, but don't want to mess with thing without checking, so if some has a good reason for them staying please discuss here. 82.163.157.251 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lehmann one is fine, the Gilberto one less so. I don't think they ruin the article at all, but am willing to defer to consensus here. Qwghlm 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My question is, in what way are you deeming them to be "ruining" the article? Perhaps different images of the two could be used, but I wouldn't say that the actual presence of players images in the article "ruins" anything. That is, however, just my opinion of course...Ryecatcher773 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters on smaller screens they squash the squad list and make it almost unreadable. Plus I have come across many occasions on here where people have stated somethings don't have a place on the team article and people will find them on the relevent article eg you'll find a picture of Gilberto on his page no need for one on the main Arsenal page.Jimmmmmmmmm 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jim here. If we had a free-license team photo (if someone was lucky enough to get the starting XI before a game, for example) that would be good here. Photos of individuals are better used on their respective articles. howcheng {chat} 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As more people here seem to want to get rid of the pictures, I've removed them. But I've added in a pic of Wenger as that is (I think) appropriate, is of reasonable quality and doesn't impinge on the list of managers as much as the player photos did on the squad list. Qwghlm 10:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Style of play

I wonder if someone could add a small bit about Arsenal's play style, possibly contrasting it with that of other FCs? Markp93 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably better to put it in the article about Arsène Wenger, since it seems to be his style of play rather than the club's as a whole - to cover the club's would be to cover it over history, and it has changed many times over the years. Qwghlm 19:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good deal,Markp93 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Section heading "Stadiums"

Surely that should read "Stadia" for an article in British English? --Dweller 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "stadiums" as English plurals should be used wherever possible over Latin (we don't talk about insurance premia or child genii, for instance). And some British English style manuals (e.g. the Guardian's) recommend following English rules. But I don't really care, to be totally honest. Qwghlm 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Emirates first defeat

Shouldn't last Saturdays defeat at the hands of West Ham be included somehow? as the team that finally ended Arsenal's home undefeated streak at the new stadium, just seems like something worth adding Adzer 08:40, 08 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a point of trivia more than it is historically important. Having said that, it would be nice to have it noted somewhere on Wikipedia. aLii 10:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's noted both in Emirates Stadium and Arsenal F.C. records right now so no point in having it here too. Remember that Wikipedia is not a news service. Qwghlm 11:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal LFC

Is there a reason we have two paragraphs about Arsenal LFC in this page? I have no objection to women's football, but it seems a bit gratuitous considering that another page exists for them. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to condense it into one - it came up during the FAC and I expanded it then, but I have no objection if the two paragraphs are merged & trimmed. Qwghlm 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

David Dein

David Dein has just left Arsenal so I'm sure some stuff would have to be changed now.80.43.115.244 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

French Team

In the opening paragraph It states that Arsenal is a french football team, NO its a British football team, with a french manager and some french players this needs to be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Si-steel (talk • contribs) 13:06, April 22, 2007.

sorry to say but .... Arsenal has 4 English players in their main squad which consists of about 22 players, 4 out of 22 think about that. Also, none of these players regularly make it to the starting XI AND the team has 7-8 French players and a French manager, which I would consider a majority in the team. Therefore, Arsenal is a French football club, based in England. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Papongza (talk • contribs) 16:45, April 22, 2007.

Chairman (at the moment)is English, stadium in England, fans in England, founded in England, whole England teams have been made up of Arsenal players and also 9 is not a majority in the squad, it may possibly be the largest group but that a majority does not make —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.174.225 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 April 2007.

Should we still consider Arsenal an "English club ?

Given the fact that the team consists mainly of French players, and with only 4 British players I strongly oppose that they should still be consider an English football club. Their starting XI, as always seen, rarely sees an English player on that list. For what reason, should The Gunners still be considered an English team ? English fans ? English Boards ? a Stadium located in England ? these are minor aspects of what makes a club, I admit supporters take huge influence too but they're not playing, and the players who are actually playing are not English, they are foreigners just trying to make a living in England. So no, I would not consider Arsenal an '"English" club, hope to see some reasonable comments soon :) (Papongza 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC))

For one thing, they play in the English league and represent the English FA in European competition - usually regarded as the criteria for a club's nationality. By the above logic, very few of the world's major teams would be of the nationality they are generally conceived to be. If it ain't broke... WATP 

I agree. Look at Hearts and Liverpool. A vast majority of their staring eleven/first team are/were Lithuanian and Spanish respectively. Are they classed as either of those nationalities? No, so Arsenal should stay as English until such times as they are relocated to a different country and/or playing in a different league. Killswitch2k7 17:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a repository for original thought. A club located in England's capital playing in the domestic English league is clearly English, regardless of who plays for or manages them. Please stop vandalising this article just to push your POV. Qwghlm 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ask this question about Blackburn Rovers or Bolton Wanderers. No didn't think you would. Look at their squads you'll see what I mean. Totally agree with the above message, don't edit articles no matter how strongly you think something should be a certain way when in reality it clearly isn't! Jimmmmmmmmm 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

THE UNIQUE CONTRIBUTION OF ARSENAL

I would like to suggest an extension to the main article which incorporates the unique contribution of Arsenal during the Wenger reign. In effect Wenger introduced several new dimensions to UK football, which have been further developed by other teams. This is interesting because a previous manager (Chapman)likewise revolutionised English football, introducing numbering for players, the white ball, and a new approach to defence.

Wenger's (and thus Arsenal's) contribution has been

a) a new approach to training, incorporating such things as a changed focus on the food intake of players, on training methodologies, and a review of player's lifestyles.

b) the introduction of world-wide scouting, which has resulted in the arrival at Arsenal of a range of unknown, sometimes very young, players from around the world. This has proven contraversial as players such as Anelka and Fabregas have left their clubs aged around 15 or 16, amidst much protest from their clubs.

c) Imaculate football - Wenger has produced a new style of playing, extremely quick one touch football which reached its height during the unbeaten season, and which is now to be seen in several clubs.

d) A new style of stadium - the Emirates is not just a new stadium, but represents a new model of stadium, in which supporters are encouraged to arrival early, eat and drink in the ground, and stay afterwards. The seating arrangements in the upper tiers are considered by many to be superior to that of any other football ground in Europe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by InsiderInformation (talk • contribs).

The first three points are already fully addressed in the article Arsène Wenger. The fourth was arguable more to do with David Dein and Ken Friar than Wenger, and would be better covered in the Emirates Stadium article. Qwghlm 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)#

Sorry for putting this here but I can't start a new thread and this is the most relevant I suppose (forgive my ignorance).

I think that the fact Arsenal surpassed the record of most consecutive games without conceeding a goal in Champions League history, is all the more poignant when you consider it was achieved by a back four that cost just under £5m pounds to assemble. If the feat itself is worth mentioning then surely this just as applaudable fact should be mentioned alongside it... It is testament to the ethos and vision Arsenal have consistently shown under Arsene Wenger and should not be allowed to go unnoticed and drown in the innumerable other plaudits Arsenal have ammounted since the 1997-98 season.

Just as an example, and truly not wishing to sound blunt, but if another top European club were to have accomplished the same feat it would be widely known and praised. However under Wenger such managerial coups are now to be routinely expected and as such become diluted by his own consistent brilliance.

That may be laying it on a bit thick but you get the picture... let's not let facts like these be unknown to the wikipublic - they are part of the essence and charm Arsenal bring to the pitch and as should have mention in the main article for the club. Djt99 11:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OTHER WEB SITE TO REFER TO

http://www.emiratesstadium.info contains historical information on issues such as how Arsenal managed to secure a promotion to the top division despite coming only sixth in the league, and why the club moved from Woolwich to Highbury, despite there being two other clubs very close by. These and similar articles do not appear on other sites
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by InsiderInformation (talk • contribs).

That website is highly unsourced and speculative - for a controversial story more reliable sources such as researched & published books, with authors' names and credentiasl, are more valuable. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and an anonymously-published website does not fulfil that criterion. Qwghlm 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles on the www.emiratesstadium.info are indeed highly speculative, I would not argue with that. But the fact is that none of the offical texts on Arsenal's history give any clear explanation for either the move to Highbury, nor for the promotion after coming just 6th in the league. Yet these are interesting topics which deserve contemplation - for otherwise one just says "no one knows why Arsenal moved to Highbury, and no one knows why the club gained promotion in the way it did." When there is no theory, then perhaps one theory is better than nothing.

I would also refer to the Wiki reference to this matter on the Tottenham Hotspur page where it says (and I copy exactly) "There were shenanigans in 1919 when Arsenal - who had finished only fifth in Division 2 the previous season - were elected to the First Division in Spurs' place. Their relocation into Tottenham's hinterland and this duplicity triggered the derision Spurs fans feel for the Gunners." Surely it is poor form for a volume as comprenehsive as this to record an event as "shenanigans" but make no attempt at all to explain matters. Tony Attwood

WP doesn't do speculation, because WP doesn't allow original research or synthesis. MSJapan 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

2007-08 away colours

I think that I have seen the new colors for the 07 08 away kits. They are white with red sleeves and gold trims. They look like the home kit, save that they are reversed in color, and the red thing at the bottom of the sleeve is gold. Go to this website to see what I am talking about. http://soccerlens.com/arsenal-07-08-away-kit/13421729.html I would put it in myself, but I think that one of you guys should do it because you are probably better and my stuff would not sound as good.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.176.186.40 (talk • contribs) 20:00, May 20, 2007 (UTC).

There has been lots of speculation on the new kit. Until it is officially confirmed by the club or Nike I think it is best to leave the article as it is. The moment it is confirmed, I assure you the article will be updated accurately. Qwghlm 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. The pic shouldn't be trusted, especially as there's an alternative on the same site.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal Football Club have officially unveiled the new away strip for the forthcoming season. Images of which can now be seen on the official website and the news article here. I have already modified the kit information on the main page now that the kit is official. Jonzi9 09:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Arsenal 3rd kit (Europe away) The colours are way out. Should be horizontal stripes in dark blue and dark red. See Arsenal.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.252.130 (talk) 07:18, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Runners-up spots in Honours section

Should runners-up spots be allowed in the Honours section? I don't think so as an honour is something a team wins, but it's evident other editors think differently so I'm willing to discuss. Qwghlm 09:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. Runner-up spots should not be allowed nor included in the honours section, since honours, as you rightly said, are correctly defined by what a team wins, not something for which they've been defeated by another team. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 10:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Runners up win medals, but that's just the players. If it were a player's honours section, I'd recommend the inclusion of RU details, but for a club, I'm slightly less convinced.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think discretion is the order of the day. For a club like Arsenal, which has enjoyed vast success, I don't see being a runner up as being particularly noteworthy. For a small club that has only ever reached one final, or whose best league position is third, you would consider noting a runner's up spot, but not for decorated club.BeL1EveR 11:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Approach to game

Surely this article should refer to the well-established fact that Arsenal cheat. Their cynical approach to the game (diving, off the ball incidents, headbutts, pretending to be injured to get honest professionals sent off, elbows, stamping, Keown on Ruud) sickens neutral fans. It should be properly reflected. The culture that Wenger has let flourish at Arsenal depraves a game that, in case you forget, was once graced by the gallant likes of the Corinthians. Arsenal are a disgrace. But it seems that Wikipedia is only too willing to join the broadcasters' conspiracy of silence. What a sad indictment of our "independent" encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.247.163 (talk • contribs) 04:42, May 28, 2007.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your opinions, and judging by your other edits you clearly hold some sort of major unexplained grudge against Keown, which I recommend you keep to yourself rather than use Wikipedia as your personal soapbox. Qwghlm 09:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I accept this up to a point.

But at the very least the Keown page needs to reflect that he used physcial violence against Van Nistelrooy. To say he "confronted"(?!) Van Nistelrooy is simply an evasion and contradicts Wikipedia's editorial policy which calls for text that "is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths". Indeed the use of such euphemisms as "confront" for "hit" goes as far, I would suggest, as to transgress another central wikipedia edict, which calls for text that is "completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized". To call hitting someone "confronting" is simply an attempt to conceal a plainly known fact (watch it here for example: http://youtube.com/watch?v=PWXq_-LdxHk) and which is clearly the central issue here. It had consequences as the subsequent rancour between the teams and individuals shows, so I think deserves, as a "factual view" to be "emphasised".

This isn't relevant only to Keown. It should be documented in all cases. But Keown's abuse was sufficiently egregious for the Wikipedia editors to include it in his biography. But then why use "generalities and half-truths" to hide the core of the point? I have edited the page accordingly. Do go and look.

Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum, so I won't go into my thoughts on Keown in detail. Nothing particularly personal. But it essentially stems from the episode above which, while not necessarily the worst of its kind, typifies an approach to football that in my view has no place in any game attended by families. Arsenal should be setting an example. They don't. But I emphasise that my points about article content above stand irrespective of any animus I may or may not hold towards Keown and his team.

Greek Support

I've been asked to provide a citation for Greek Cypriot support for Arsenal. I'm unable to do this, but am I right in thinking that sometimes their supporters are (or were) referred to as "bubble and squeaks" (the Cockney rhyming slang for Greek)? Millbanks 09:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely. If it's not citable then it should not go in. Personally I do not like making claims that certain clubs have support along certain ethnic lines, particularly when reality Spurs have plenty of Greek and Cypriot fans (just as Arsenal have many Jewish fans), and other clubs such as QPR have plenty of support in London's Irish community; it paints a distorted picture of how and why people support particular clubs; football support in London is not divided along the lines of other cities and it's divisive to say so. Qwghlm 11:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree - mostly. Yes, I've met Cypriots who support Tottenham and Jews who support Arsenal. I'm also against "ethnic" divisiveness and labelling. But we should not disregard the Irish contribution to Arsenal. I've seen Irish links mentioned in their programme, and we shouldn't ignore or discount people like Liam Brady, David O'Leary and Frank Stapleton, to name but three. Also, of course, the proximity of Highbury to Kilburn is surely significant when it comes to the Irish link.

Talking about "divisiveness" it is refreshing that Arsenal, according to the main article, seem to be freeing themselves from the class stereotypes which have so blighted football (as they have so many aspects of English life). Millbanks 08:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Early kit colours

In article says that kit were dark red (redcurrant) until 1933. but here http://www.kitclassics.co.uk/kits/arsenal.gif shows that then they were brighter (exept 1913/14). That would make sense, beacuse Nottingham Forsest were always brighter red.

So, how what it is true? DlxEU 13:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that reliable a source if you ask me - it was definitely not the case that the kit was bright red before 1913 as Sparta Prague borrowed Arsenal's colours in 1906 and they remain dark red to this day. Qwghlm 12:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)