Talk:United States men's national soccer team/Archive 3

This page 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.

vs. Sweden First Official Game?

The infobox lists the score as 3-2 in favor of the US. The article lists it as a 1-0 game in favor of the US. Which is it? -t.z0n3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.153.3 (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nickname?

Seriously? Yanks? I understand that the British and (maybe) others might know Americans as Yanks or Yankees, but this isn't really a nickname to the US National Soccer team. It seems like more of a general American Nicname, plus it is usually seen as a negative term (especially to Americans). Not sure if it is appropriate to be there.... -ryan

Although many Americans find the term "Yank" to be pejorative, Sam's Army the largest US supporter's group uses the term throughout many of its songs. See here: http://www.sams-army.com/?Mlist=song_list Onebaseman 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sam's Army also display a large banner at away games, especially World Cup which says "Sam's Army, the Yanks are here." Captainbeecher 09:08, 19 October 2007 {UTC} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.48.9 (talk)

Canada'a Flag in the Infobox

Just wanted to point out why Canada has a beside it instead of a next to the score of the U.S. team's first international match in the team infobox. The "Maple Leaf" wasn't even designed until 1964. As told here, the Union Jack was the official flag used on land prior to the official 1957 introduction of the Canadian Red Ensign. I'm putting this information here because it will be useful in case people change out the image in the future and others will know to replace the Union Jack flag in this instance. Uris 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my belief that Canada should have the "Maple Leaf" image next to it - even though that was not the flag at the time - the flag should represent the country. Such as that in an matches between the US and another country in 1920, we should still use a flag with 50 stars rather than 48 (or whatever number!!) - I know you cannot see the stars, but the idea is the same. We are representing the country, even if they have a different flag now - what the flag was like at that point in time is inconsequential (unless it was a completely different country then, which I do not believe it was... although I could be mistaken, my history is very shaky). - Nick K. —The preceding comment was added by 64.136.218.143 (talk • contribs) 21:27, June 16, 2006 (UTC).

On soccer (football) pages of Wikipedia, the historically correct flag is used for all matches. Please see the 1938 World Cup as an example page that has many flags no longer in use for those countries today (including

for Germany). Uris 21:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The official introduction of the Canadian Red Ensign was in 1957, true, but it was in use dating back to the 1860s if my research is correct. At any rate, the soccer (football) pages seem to indicate the use of the Red Ensign for dates prior to the the establishment of the Maple Leaf Flag. - RPIRED 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde

Panairjdde, you are really just being a troll here. If you think the string is "meaningless", kindly get them to remove the relevant numbers at Ranking of teams by number of appearances. They seem to think it is not "meaningless" how many consecutive qualifications each nation has made. When you've been successful in that, let us know and we will reconsider it at that time. Until then, please try to reach some consensus instead of starting these revert wars on the U.S. team's article. Uris 16:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

3rd Place or Semi-finalist?

FIFA says that USA finished in Third place in 1930, but that is not recognized in this article. I am told that the issue was brought up before... my question is, why do we want to disagree with FIFA here? I'll go through the archives and try to read up on it, but it seems a bit unusual to go against FIFA on this. Uris 21:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: Wow, that was actually very recent. How much I missed! I found it here pretty succinctly. Basically, FIFA did not award the USA third place in 1930, they have gone back and decided that after the fact. So I'm cool with it saying semi-finals instead of third place, but it should probably be mentioned in the article that FIFA now recognizes the U.S. as third place although they did not do so at the time. Uris 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Theres been some discussion in the past including a lot of posting of sources showing that the USA was 3rd, a lot showing that neither was third, I even saw one the other day where it says an informal match was held with Yugoslavia winning 3-2. That .pdf was actually the source of some discussion earlier, as well as the fact that the United States National Soccer Hall of Fame has a display specifically recognizing the "Third Place 1930 World Cup Team." Additionaly sources came from the fifaworldcup.com site and fifa.com itself. There seems to be no consensus at all about it, just that no official 3rd place match was held. I'm not getting involved in the debate this time, but suffice to say that posting the information at all will likely ruffle some feathers, mostly from Jooler and Joann Ellison (or Elison -- I'm not really sure and don't care enough to look). I think you'll find that sooner rather than later they'll be here up in arms about it. Good luck in that battle. Batman2005 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The US Soccer Hal of Fame is a small museum in upstate New York that has proven to be an unreliable, in both this case and the case about the hat-trick. Jooler 11:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and its not even a very interesting place to visit either! Batman2005 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

POV/Unencyclopedic Section Headings

Some of the section headings are, in my opinion, POV and unencyclopedic. "Back on the Scene", "A Shocking Victory", "Highly Competitive", these sound like they could be from a magazine not an encyclopedia (no offense to who ever put them up). I am going to remove them for more neutral headings. Please post here if you have any objections.--Jersey Devil 23:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They were my headings, and no objections or offense taken... I probably added slightly too much flavor with headings like "1990s: Back on the Scene" after being gone from the World Cup for 40 years, and so on. Your headings are more stringently neutral-worded, which is good. Uris 04:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other, i'd be ok with doing stuff like 1930-1940, 1990-2000, ect. Either or is fine with me. Batman2005 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio, but by who

I wasn't sure where to post this, so I'll put it here. This page is very close to mirroring http://www.bacidc.org/home/01pages/copa2006/usa_history.html ; however, as this one is cited and that one is not, I have a hunch the violation is on their end. Thoughts? What should be done? --SuperNova |T|C| 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

They got it from here (as I authored, on Wikipedia, quite a bit of what appears on both pages)... they haven't adhered to user rights and obligations. They need to acknowledge the authors and license it under GFDL instead of displaying their own "All Rights Reserved" copyright on the material. Who to tell at Wikipedia so that someone writes them a letter, I do not know. Uris 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Men's

Can I just point out, that as the US national football team is a member of FIFA, it is not exclusively for men. So whats with the article name? Philc _T^E_C^I 15:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that a woman could play in this team? Any reference?--Panairjdde 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well no FIFA rule prohibits it, so naturally I cannot provide a referencs, as the rule does not exist, which is my point. As a point a woman signed for a club a few years back, and FIFA looked into it finding there was no rule prohibiting it. I'm finding it difficult to find a source, as i don't know what to search for. But I found this Woman signs for Mexico men's team. Philc _T^E_C^I 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me count the ways ... first, the team is referred to as the "Men's National Team" or MNT consistently by U.S. Soccer Federation; FIFA refers to men's and women's sides as just that -- men's and women's. Second, FIFA actually did bar Maribel Dominguez from playing for Celaya after the signing you mention above, saying "there must be a clear separation between men's and women's football." [1]--Inonit 16:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well thats alright. But that is a complete U-turn on previous policy. And also they never make reference to mens sides, only senior national A-team and senior national womens team, though occasionaly mens may be used only to distinguish from the womens side when both are being discussed. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's used here to clearly distinguish that one team is the mens national team, and the other is the womens national team. If its a complete u-turn on previous policy, great...who cares really? There's no policy saying that the articles all should be the exact same in the way the name is represented. Why would we put "United States womens national soccer team" for the women but then put "United States national soccer team" for the men? There must be a clear distinction between mens and womens teams, as well as mens and womens articles. I'll also point out that the page has existed under this name for some two or three years and this is the first i've ever heard of anyone having a problem with the name. I think its fine and should stay as named. I imagine as womens soccer grows around the world and becomes more well known that we'll start to see other articles following suit to more clearly make the distinction. Batman2005 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably unlikely - the national football team of a country is taken as given to be the men's side. Yeah I know, unequal representation and all that, but that's the common usage, and most likely will be for ever. -- -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC).

That is probably true outside of the United States. But here, where the Mens and Womens teams are generally on equal footing, it is completely appropriate to distinguish between the two. As I said, I have no problem with the way the title stands now, and nobody else has for the past several years. Once the rest of the world catches up and realizes that womens sports can draw a crowd and be successful, then you'll see more focus put on womens teams. Batman2005 18:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, don't be so synical, I was just explaining why I raised the issue, not arguing for a change in title. And yeh, outside of the US no-one except fanatical followers really cares about womens sport, unless its the final of some important thing. Bit like "soccer" in the U.S. really. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, with the exception of tennis. -- -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

Group of death

"Unlike Group C, the Group E group of death lived up to its billing, as two teams ranked in the Top 5 of the FIFA World Rankings (#2 Czech Republic and #5 USA) were eliminated in group play, while #14 Italy and 50# Ghana advanced to the next round, each winning their final matches. " - What it really shows is not that the group lived up to the title of Group of Death, but that the FIFA rankings as they are currently calculated are a joke. Jooler 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the better two teams qualified. Though if the Czechs had been in place if Ghana, I wouldn't have been surprised either, however I would have been surprised to have seen US go through. Philc _T^E_C^I 16:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think adding the rankings is a bit extreme, but nobody can deny that the group lived up to its "group of death" billing, as it was one of maybe two groups where on the final day...all four teams could still advance in the tournament. Batman2005 17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, if you define it in that manner, but other groups were like that, for example the in the last day trinidad and tobago could have qualified from their group, but still they weren't expected too. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Same with the France, Switzerland, Korea, Togo group. You wouldn't exactly call that a group of death would you? More a group of crap teams. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

True, but when you combine the overall strength of the teams in Group E, the rakings of each, the performance in qualification of each, there was no other group that could have been called the group of death. Group C was a HUGE disappointment, I was expecting better. Batman2005 18:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But as we've already pointed out, the rankings are completely crap and should not be used to determine relative strength of teams. The term "Group of Death" means that it will be hard for any team to qualify through it because all the teams are so good, it doesn't mean that if a group was won concisely by two teams that it was not a group of death. It's worth noting that Group C had a far better class of football than Gp E. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 18:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

I know what "Group of Death" means. And I would argue that the class of play in Group C was fine...by Holland and Argentina, and the Ivory Coast vs. Serbia & Montenegro game was fine. But those two teams were clearly outclassed by Argentina and Holland. Certainly losing 0-6 isn't quality soccer. Batman2005 21:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

CIV put up a good fight, I wouldn't have called them outclassed. The group of death is a pre-tournament thing anyway, it's hard to decide in heinsight, as what could have been a close match on paper, one team could have had a bad day, or been unfit, or whatever, and just been over-run, despite the expectation. eg Spain Ukraine, no-one expected 4-0 but in heinsight, it seems about right, considering how well spain played, and how poorly Ukraine fought back. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman, the same way the US were outclassed by Czech Republic? Would you call that quality "soccer"? -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 10:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC).

Actually, the USA was more outclassed by the Czechs. When did I ever say the US played quality soccer? They played well for one game, unfortunately they only had 9 men for a lot of it. Batman2005 13:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

ELO Rankings

I understand that they're supposed to be more accurate, but where do we draw the line in including rankings? ELO? FIFA? There are many other places that rank teams, I say we should follow precedent on the other national team pages and include the FIFA World Rankings as its the most commonly known. Perhaps a more concerted effort should be made to include the ELO rankings into all the pages, but at present they mean nothing in terms of tournament play or seeding for any tournament. It's basically an organization that ranks teams, while FIFA...the world governing, has rankings that ultimately mean something (seeding for the world cup, etc.) Batman2005 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually took some more time to think about it and re-added the ELO bit, I think it would be advantageous to expand the standard international team information box to include current FIFA rankings, and perhaps ELO as well, but i certainly think that the more information we can provide the better. My personal thought is that you can take the FIFA ranking when it comes out and then take the ELO ranking when it comes out and the team is somewhere in the middle of the two. Batman2005 04:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

American Spellings?

Shouldn't the box on the top-left corner of the article show "Home colors" instead of "Home colours" and "Away colors" instead of "Away colours?" --Tennis Dynamite 15:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should- feel free to alter these. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 15:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the words are contained in Template_talk:Infobox_National_football_team, therefore cannot be changed without changing the box for all teams. I wouldn't do this, it might upset some folk, and because soccer/football is more influential sport in the non-AmE speaking world it would seem churlish to do so. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

But when you go to Houston Dynamo, it has American Spellings. ??? Tennis Dynamite 15:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Houston Dynamo article uses the Template:MLS team template, as it is not a national team but one in a particular league. Since MLS is currently composed entirely of U.S. teams, I assume the template was designed with that in mind. Agreed with Boothman that the international template (as used in this article) probably needs to stay the way it is.

One way to get around it would be to SUBST: the infobox onto this page, then edit that code to Americanize the spellings. However, there are a number of drawbacks to that, such as losing any future updates to the template (without repeating the entire process) and making it harder to add new things like future World Cup appearances. My suggestion is to leave things like they are. Sorry about that -- it sort of bothers me, too, but it's best left as is. --SuperNova |T|C| 22:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Another way would be to change the Template_talk:Infobox_National_football_team so it said "Home kit" rather than "Home colours". -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 09:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC).

Belgium

Belgium was just removed from this para.

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.

Firstly the USA didn't have to qualify in 1994 as they were the host, so this is a bit of a bogus factoid to start with. Secondly Belgium qualified in 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998 and 2002; and on each occasion they actually had to go through qualifying. As they were not the host or the winner. Jooler 08:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Belgium did not qualify in 2006, and this is clearly the *active* streak. Uris 01:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with including Belgium.--Panairjdde 11:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather the whole para was removed. It's not really very important if even tiny Belgium with a population of 10,000,000 people can do it. And again the fact that qualification was not needed for the Brazil, Agentina, Spain and Germany as well as the USA because they were either host. or holder kind of negates the value of this nugget of info. Jooler 12:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That was my position from the beginning. The reason being that a qualification for Belgium requires playing in UEFA qualif., while for US requires playing in CONCACAF qualif., so the relative records are not comparable.--Panairjdde 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just thought I'd check this out. Mexico qualified 1950, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1966 and 1970 (as hosts). England qualified in 1950, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1966 (as hosts) and 1970. I suppose whoever wrote the para is restricting this string of qualifying to 1990 and beyond. Seems a bit selective and arbitrary to me. Jooler

England qualified as hosts in '66 and holders in '70. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Of course, remiss of me not to indicate that. Jooler 09:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

NO, the factoid was selected because its the longest current active streaks, not all-times streaks of qualification, if Belgium had qualified in 2006 they would have been included, but they did not. Thus they're starting their qualification streak over again. Basically, as of now only those teams listed have a longer string of consecutive qualifications currently than the United States. It is not a bogus factoid, it serves to show that in recent years there has been some consistency in qualification. It was discussed above previously. That and Panairjdde continued insistence that qualfiying in different regions isn't a fair barometer for consistency is laughable. Batman2005 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's consider what is laughable, now that we have the results of Round of 16: you claim that the record of straight qualifications is a measure for overall team strength/grow (and yet you consider also automatic qualifications as hosts - laughable); I claim that this metric is without meaning, since the teams you cited qualify in different regions.

Now, let's look at the facts: the teams qualified at the Round of 16, where there is not a minimum number of slot reserved for teams from different regions, and whose access require each team to meet teams from other countries:

Qualifications based on continental federation:
- UEFA 10/14
- CONMEBOL 3/4
- OFC 1/1
- CONCACAF 1/4
- CAF 1/5
Qualifications (to Round of 16) based on straight qualifications to WC:
- Brasil 18 straight qualifications
- Germany 14 s.q.
- Italy 12 s.q.
- Argentina 9 s.q.
- Spain 8 s.q.
- Korea Republic 6 s.q. but not qualified for Round of 16
- USA 5 s.q. but not qualified for Round of 16
- Mexico 4 s.q.
- England and France 3 s.q.
- Ecuador, Portugal, and Sweden 2 s.q.
- Australia, Ghana, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Ukraine 1 s.q.

This shows an higher correlation of team strenght with confederation that with straight qualifications record, which is my point. Because the teams coming from "stronger" continents get through more easily, while there are 11 out of 16 Ro16 qualifiers that have a shorter record of straight qualifications than non-qualified Korea and USA.

Would you like to play with Ro16 results? Here they are:

Ro16 winners based on confederations:
- UEFA 6/10 (but 2/2 against teams from other confederations)
- CONMEBOL 2/3 (all against teams from other confederations)
- Others 0/3
Ro16 winners on straight qualification record:
- Teams with shorter straight qualification record that Korea (6) and USA (5): 4/8

Again, it looks like that teams advance on their confederation basis that on their s.q. record. Am I missing somtehing?

Seems that your ranking is a "laughable" "factoid".

Note that you forgot to add this to the article, that since 1990 CONCACAF saw an increase of reserved places to WC, and thus there is a higher probability to get qualified, while UEFA saw a decrease, and maybe this is a reason why Belgium and Netherlands are not in your (laughable, I can say now) ranking.

And another thing: I just noticed that your claim that your ranking is supported by "National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup" is false, since in that article there is only a ranking by total number of qualifications, not by straight qualifications-from-the-last-edition-backward.

--Panairjdde 20:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Look back at that page again, the green-highlighted numbers are the same streaks on this page exactly. Uris 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Loked back, and there is no ranking based on that data, so your ranking is an extrapolation not supported by that article. Which is my point.--Panairjdde 10:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts are on that page, not a ranking. For that matter, there is no ranking on this page either. Uris 13:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

We're not discussing performance in the world cup finals here, we're discussing straight qualifications. You'll notice that in 1998 when the field of finalists was increased from 24 to 32 is why CONCACAF was awarded more spots in the final tournament. You're also completely wrong about the "National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup" where it clearly shows teams qualifying in consecutive world cups. I don't know how you missed that, perhaps selective eye sight, or perhaps more your strong desire to put the USA national team in a poor light. (which given your history of the Turkish and South Korean team pages simply does not shock me). You'll notice, if you set aside your bias and selective view of fact, that nobody said that the USA performs better in the actual cup, but rather that the USA has, at current, the 8th longest streak of appearances in the World Cup finals. This is TRUE information, regardless of how you want to look at it. You can show me statistics on performance once the world cup starts, but that means nothing to this particular argument. Additionally, your claim that European teams were alloted less spaces is also categorically wrong. In the 1994 world cup 11 of 24 teams were from the UEFA region, in 1998 15 of 32 teams were from UEFA. Simply put, the information contained in the article right now is both true and verifiable, just because it doesn't fit what you want the article to say is no reason for its deletion. I'm sorry you can't understand this simple concept. Batman2005 21:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. from 1994 to 1998 UEFA gained four spots in the final tournament, CONCACAF had 3, so...it would appear that more spots were available to UEFA teams there, then in 2002 CONCACAF qualified 3 teams, and in 2006...4. Turns out you were totally wrong about that too. Batman2005 21:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point, here, since the reference to the record is not in the trivia section, but in the introduction, just before "Since its recent successes...". By the way it is formulated and the place it is located, that is a TRUE BUT UNIMPORTANT statement about quality of the team. This because I showed to you that your way of measuring the strenght/grow of a team by that metric is wrong, since there is no correlation between your metric and team performance.

As regards qualification spots, you are again missing the point. The number of spots for CONCACAF doubled since 1990, while it increased only by 27% for UEFA. If the same number of teams competes for the double of the spots, the probability of qualification doubles (and for selected teams increases even more). As per UEFA, the increase from 11 to 14 is balanced by the increase of teams (ex-Soviet Union), and this is (one of) the reason why Belgium and Netherlands missed their qualification. And you still claim that straight qualifications in different tournaments (counting hosts' wildcard in) is not a "laughable" "factoid"???

Please, point to the section of "National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup" where teams are ranked according to qualifications in consecutive world cups. And keep the personal attacks out, in order to tell what is my aim requires you to understand what I am saying, a thing you are constantly failing to do.

--Panairjdde 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We're through with this argument, I'm sick of your closed minded POV pushing, the way it is written is a 100% true, sourced, and independently verifiable statement, removing it because you don't like it is bias and POV and will be reverted back to the present, true, sourced and verifiable version. Batman2005 22:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As to your last point, to further show you that I am right and you are again wrong, when you look at "National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, you can see, clear as day, that there is a table showing qualification by year, and by simply looking through that table, you can again, quite clearly see, that the United States currently has the 8th longest qualification streak. You'll notice that Belgium, which qualified from 1982-2002, failed to qualify for 2006, making their streak inactive, while the teams listed in the article all have active streaks. Batman2005 22:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your extrapolation by another table, and this is exactly my point. You backed your POV claiming support by that article, and yet no one ever but you did a straight-qualification-record ranking.

The factoid is just a factoid, there is no consensus in keeping it, and will be removed.--Panairjdde 23:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde's description of "laughable" is very apt. It's an insignificant fact given undue prominence in order to make it look significant. There are a few hidden features of this "factoid". Firstly as already pointed out, the USA didn't actually need to qualify in 1994. Secondly the number of slots allocated to (CONCACAF) has been steadily increasing over the last few competitions and for the 2006 WC was up to 3.5 slots, in contrast the number of slots allocated for UEFA has actually decreased. Thirdly apart from Mexico and the USA virtually every team in CONCACAF are among the weakest in the world. Jooler 23:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, accurate, verifiable, and sourced. You say its insignificant, however, others (see above) have said that it is not, therefore, no consensus has been reached, the truth--being verifiable and sourced, will stay. Batman2005 23:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Again "accurate, verifiable and sourced" but without any meaning. Thus will be removed, since there is no consensus to keep it.--Panairjdde 23:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it won't be removed, because there is no consensus to remove it. Uris 13:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

NOPE, it has meaning, which has been clearly established above by multiple users, myself, uris. You say its without meaning, yet its true and verifiable, there needs to be consensus to DELETE this information, not to keep it. And really, after so many warnings for trolling and POV you think you'd stay away from these arguments Panairjdde, its obvious you're incapable of editing without pushing your pov. Batman2005 23:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I count other people (I did not call them as you did with Uris) such as Jooler and Boothman who raised the matter independently form my actions. You and Uris sealed the discussion claiming I had no support, now that other people share my same position, "you" should remove the text.

However, since the text is "accurate, verifiable and sourced" (but without any meaning, whatever you say), I justm moved it in trivia section.

About the personal attacks, I think I won't see the day in which you will stop your childish behaviour against me, will I?--Panairjdde 23:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black there Panairjdde, go ahead and act like you don't start every argument with your trolling and pov pushing if that's what helps you sleep at night, whatever kiddie, i'm through with you...if you think i'm personally attacking you then go cry to the admins, i'm sure they'll see that i have done no such thing and that you have lost all credibility due to your numerous blocks for the same thing. Batman2005 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The "factoid", as people keep calling it, is misleading and doesn't take into account certain factors. Because the US qualifies for X number of consecutive tournaments in their current streak this means they are the same quality as A, B and C who are also currently on a similar streak? No, it does not. The statement only serves to over-estimate the strength of the US team. If this statement is included, do we also include every other obscure, conditional factoid, not matter how little it really reflects on the relative quality of the US team? If the US were in European qualification they would not make it to the WC. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 12:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

My proposal is to remove the factoid from the article. Any support?--Panairjdde 12:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, keep it in. Also, you won't get a consensus to delete this verifiable fact (and a vote is not enough because Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy). Uris 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So, if 60%-40% is not consensus for removing, what is required to have it removed? And would you please show me the consensus to introduce it?--Panairjdde 13:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A consensus is near-unanimous agreement. 3 to 2, which only recently and mysteriously changed from 2 to 1 the other way, is certainly not that. The best thing would probably be to get a qualified opinion from an entirely neutral third party. Uris 13:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are requesting a third part opinion, whay are you neglecting two opinions by people who independently supported my view? Those are two third part opinions against your position, so why are you keeping the factoid in the article?--Panairjdde 13:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they aren't independent third parties. They are previous contributors to the article, and in Jooler's case, are at least as biased as you or I are, if not more. Uris 21:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is quite funny. Being a previous editor is a problem, now that it is 2:3 against your opinion. When it was 2:1 in your favour, you did not say anithing about you, me and Batman being previous editors.

However, I bet you think you will win this battle: you used the 2:1 consensus to insert the factoid, and are contesting the 2:3 consensus to remove it. Congratulations.--Panairjdde 21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthemore, 2:1 votes to introduce a text is a near-unanimous agreement? And if these two new opinion "mysteriously" appeared, what about the fact that you are here because called by Batman? Are you Robin?--Panairjdde 13:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement from the page. I had a look on the South Korea page and it didn't mention it in this form, and instead said "has reached X numbers of finals consecutively" which is a better way to put it. It was in the wrong place anyway. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 13:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a consensus to input verifiable, true and sourced information. You are very obviously a troll, as has been shown by you being blocked for trolling several other national team pages and removing other true and verifiable information in your persistent POV pushing. Thus why your opinion has been continuously ignored and disregarded. I posted a message to Uris because he was the one who initially placed the fact in the article, giving him a chance to come and defend it against a troll hell bent on deleting it is only fair. As to Boothman, you can't make that argument and say "if the USA was in UEFA qualifying they would not make the tournament" you have absolutely no way of knowing that, perhaps if Brazil were in CONCACAF then they would not make it? Or if England were in Africa they would not? Additionally by making that statement it's difficult to assume your intentions are good faith editing, rather than USA bashing. There is simply no way to know if the USA would make the world cup in other qualifying regions, and to make that your argument is illogical for that reason. You contend that the statement serves to over-estimate that strength of the USA, but again...you're inputting your POV. How does a simple fact over-estimate anything? The fact as it is now says only that such a streak exists, you are free to formulate your own opinion on the matter, it makes no conclusions for you, nor does it even remotely come close to saying "this means the USA are as good as Spain." If anything the footnote at the bottom serves to explain that the fact is based on different regions of qualification. The fact here is that what is in the article is true, sourced and verifiable. It is obviously of encyclopedic nature as the page that lists the rankings in the first place highlights straight qualifications. Removing it is simply pushing different editors pov of only showing the USA as a bad soccer team. If we start removing facts from articles what's next? Batman2005 13:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I admire your civility far more than your opponents', but I grudgingly agree with the "factoid" criticism, a bit. On the other hand, I think the footnote that attempts to appease the anti-USers is much less encyclopedic than the original factoid. I think the trend established by the factoid is important; I'm thinking of alternative wording that might still satisfy you (and, if I guardedly assume good faith, might satisfy them as well). I'd put the focus on CONCACAF qualifying (indeed, this would be the first mention of CONCACAF in the article, except for passing references to the Gold Cup). Like "Beginning in 1954, the United States failed to qualify for nine consecutive World Cup final tournaments. Since 1990, the U.S. has established itself as one of the strongest teams in the CONCACAF (North and Central American) tournament used to qualify for the World Cup, and has now participated in five consecutive World Cup finals." What do you think about that?--Inonit 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You attack me, and I am the troll? You keep talking about truth of your statement, when the problem is its meaning and I am a troll? You keep on calling me troll when I show the weakings of your position, and you call me trolling? You should consider growing an adult, before talking with other people. This is the end of our "relationship": I shall ignore you for the future, because I do not consider you able of arguing as an adult.--Panairjdde 14:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't call you a troll, the several people who have blocked you for it do. Growing an adult? I would grow an adult, i just don't know how much to water and feed them. And if you ever showed the "weakings" (whatever that is) of an argument i'd be so shocked and amazed that I'd probably die, seeing as how all you ever do is repost the same thing. Batman2005 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There's lies, damn lies and statistics, Batman. I'm not denying that that bit of info is fact, I am arguing that it is unrepresentative of the quality of the US team. We do not include every little bit of information that is fact, just the ones which give the best overall view of the team. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

So, by your own admission you're saying that we should delete fact from the article? Hmmm, interesting. I always thought that we should leave fact in. You're not arguing that its unrepresentative of the quality of the US team, your argument is that it shows that during qualifying, that the US is one of the most consistent teams in the world. It's difficult to assume good faith when your reasonings all seem to center around an anti-usa pov. Batman2005 18:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying we should not include every little detail. If we wrote down every statistic about the US team we'd have a page that was unreadable, miles too long, and most of it would be fluff. Same goes for every article. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

There is a phrase that applies to this "factoid". "It flatters to deceive." - The implication is that the USA team are really good and up there with the best of them (like the Superb South Korea Team [that's irony in case you didn't know]) because they have qualified with AMAZING consistency over the last few competitions. It is mere childish boasting. Jooler 23:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that serves to show that the United States is one of the most consistent teams in the world in terms of appearing in world cups. Additionally, calling uris's inclusion of the information "childish boasting" could be construed as a personal attack, I would suggest finding a different way to word that, lest he gets upset and reports iit. Batman2005 23:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No it is not a persoanl attack. It is the wording used that is is childish boasting e.g. "My Dad's bigger than your Dad." Jooler 23:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, i was just telling you that it could be construed as such, remember, saying that somebodies edits is childish boasting is basically saying that the editor is childish. I'm sorry you feel its childish though. Batman2005 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad this conversation is a year old, and the verified fact is still there (take this as a STRONG SUPPORT). I hope it remains there. Under Assume Good Faith WP:AGF I can't call this argument pointless and silly. Continued American qualification for World Cups is vitally important for them financially and in terms of profile both for the national team and domestically - critics who see this purely as whether such and such a team are good at football really need to understand how the highly expensive real world works. These are likely to be similar people who want certain other people to spend millions of their own money on a 'new defender'. The underlying reasons why the US qualified whether hosts, or whether Mexico was banned from 1990 (not mentioned by the cognoscenti here), are immaterial.Stevebritgimp 13:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd contend that it's a fairly meaningless stat. The length of the active streak has nothing to do with a current team's financial position and everything to do with participation in increasingly-irrelevant past tournaments, and I doubt very much that qualifying for the finals in 1990 - the start of the active streak - had any great impact on US soccer "financially and in terms of profile", or in any other way. Plus, you seem to be assuming that the US is a special case where non-qualification would have a disproportionately large impact compared to (say) Belgium missing out on the finals, when I'm really not convinced that's the case; while there's no doubt a lot of financial loss from sponsors, TV etc, I can't imagine non-qualification would be a complete catastrophe "in terms of profile". Consider: The US tends to do pretty badly when it gets to the finals, and I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that the American general public's level of interest in a minority sport is largely dependent on how likely the US is to win. I'd wager the actual hosting of the 1994 World Cup was of far greater importance than the US national team's participation in it, and I'd further argue that the progress of the women's team, the expansion of the MLS, the arrival of David Beckham etc all outweigh the team qualifying for, and then failing to progress in, the finals. Finally, none of your arguments address why the active streak is more important, for reasons of prestige or finance, than either the total number of participations or whether the team qualified for the last World Cup or not.

Even if you think it's an important stat to mention in spite of all that, though, it's still pretty flawed for a few reasons. Firstly, as has already been argued countless times, the fact that the USA didn't have to go through any qualifying games for 1994 makes the boast of "consecutive qualifications" pretty meaningless. Secondly, and sort of following on from that, the wording is a little misleading ("an active string that is surpassed only by..."), and has an air of self-aggrandizement to it; a more accurate description would be "an active string which ranks seventh in the world". (Or "7th out of 32", if that doesn't sound impressive enough). Thirdly, it's comparing apples with oranges; regardless of the probable differences in strength between the various confederations, the qualification procedure for CONCACAF (playoffs followed by playoffs followed by weak group followed by big final group) is so different from those used by UEFA and CONMEBOL, and even CAF and the AFC, that the only direct comparison that's really relevant is between the US and other CONCACAF nations, and since the confederation now gets three and a half places at every finals, I'd be very surprised if either the US or Mexico ever failed to qualify ever again, which means the US active streak will always be longer than Mexico's, forever, and there surely must come a point when Mexico's ban in 1990 and the US qualifying as hosts in 1994 ceases to have any kind of relevance to the current team. 90.198.51.73 03:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that self-aggrandisement becomes POV, but consecutiveness does matter, because it becomes a matter of attention span for the US public - you don't qualify for a World Cup that's an 8 year gap with no World Cup, and no press conferences, no player bios, no interviews and so on. Also how they get there isn't the issue, in that a tournament has participants, if you're at a tournament 8 times, you are a participant 8 times. Maybe this is the main flaw in how it is phrased, that the process of qualification is portrayed as the achievement, rather than the fact of qualification and participation, which is what matters in my personal opinion. Building the US MNT practically from scratch in the early 1980s is a building process, and any football related publicity will have an impact on future players and fans. Stevebritgimp 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

State Flags on Roster

Hello all. I put the home state flags next to each member of the World Cup team as an indicator of where in the country they are from. This is generally in line with American teams from other sports (see also American national men's hockey team) and with some other soccer teams (see also Canada men's national soccer team, which includes provincial flags).

I am definitely open to opinions on this but I request that if you don't like them or don't think they should be there, that you say so here or drop a message on my talk page before you revert them so I know your rationale for doing so. Thanks! - RPIRED 01:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like them. There's no context. Do the places represent where they were born, where they grew up, where they live? People move around all the time. Military families move around all the time. A U.S. citizen can be born and raised in a foreign country and be an American (by citizenship of his father) without having lived in the U.S. Besides, the flags can create confusion, as only a relatively small number of people will actually know the places that they represent, unlike national flags, and what it represents. Only (a small number of) Americans will find the information useful (if the basis of location is properly stated). I'm guessing most users will think it's a not-so-useful collection of information. Just my two cents. - Slo-mo 02:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am totally against this. The flags bear no informaton (who cares which part of the country they are from, aren't they all entitled to be nationals?), and clutter the page.--Panairjdde 10:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I humbly disagree with both assertions. "Who cares which part of the country they are from" seems a bit POV (for one, I care, and find it interesting), and I don't believe the flags overly clutter the page. I've seen page clutter. A small flag next to someone's name isn't page clutter. I am more apt to understand Slo-mo's objection; there's not as much context, and the other examples I mentioned also lack the same context. Bocanegra and Mastroeni are both foreign born and naturalized Americans, I have them listed under the state of their hometown, as are the remainder of them. Interesting patterns - for example, 2 of the 3 GKs are from Washington State, but no others. It also kinds shows where a lot of the soccer talent in the country is actually eminating from. I still think it's worthy. - RPIRED 13:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it. It adds a bit of information and color to the article. Without it, I'd probably not have known that two of the players are from my home town. I say keep the flags. --Coemgenus 14:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's irrelevant information and clutter and completely lost on anyone outside of the USA; look up the player if you want to know whether his father was born/he was raised/or currently lives. Agree with disputed context, why California for Carlos Bocanegra when he lives in England? No national football team has this kind of information for good reason. Jooler 14:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Being as how there is only so much I can actually care about without going completely insane, some of you might be shocked to know that these flags are something I have no opinion on whatsoever, keep em or lose em, doesn't matter in the slightest to me. I will point out that the canada national team page has this feature though, but certainly it isn't standard practice, but then again, i don't particularly care for having all pages look the exact same either. So alas, no opinion from me, do what you want. Batman2005 17:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So why don't you add also their astrological signs? Or their favourite foods? Did you know, for example, that traditionally the top scorer of the WC is a Capricornus?--Panairjdde 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

^^that's just ridiculous. Batman2005 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, and that's my point. Adding the state flags in order to discover "that two of the players are from my home town", or that "2 of the 3 GKs are from Washington State" has the same meaning that adding the astrological signs to discover that most of the players are Aries (or whatever).

--Panairjdde 22:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC) side note: we just qualified for the WC final, defeating Germany and playing with three forwards and Totti!

Well, I would think that adding the flags of their home states is slightly more encyclopedic than their astrological signs, or their favorite food. However, it is a rather trivial thing, but interesting and helpful to anyone who wants to know...which is why my opinion for the first time on this page...remains neutral. Batman2005 03:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

One thing I do think is that maybe they could be a bit smaller - perhaps about the size of the flags next to the club teams. But is that too small? I don't know. - RPIRED 02:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Question - Would the flags work if they were smaller? I think Template:Flagicon would make them smaller. - RPIRED 22:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You did not gather consensus on adding flags because they are "irrelevant information and clutter", not because they are too big.--Panairjdde 22:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at no consensus one way or another. That isn't grounds for a reversion. - RPIRED 22:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand. Would you please reword your statements?--Panairjdde 22:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As there is no consensus whether to keep the flags or remove the flags, they should not have been removed with the reason being "no consensus." The point is that there were several who thought they were a good idea, not an overwhelming number against. In such a situation it is not uncommon to work and try to find a better solution (smaller flags, for instance). - RPIRED 22:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not work in this way. Look this Wikipedia policy: WP:BRD. You were bold and added it, I reverted, now discuss and gain consensus to add. This is a fair compromise between giving users liberty to edit, avoid edit wars, and finding a solution to the dispute.--Panairjdde 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I will not be adding the flags back at any time given the takeover of the process by Panairjdde, who apparently runs the article. However, I would like to outline exactly why I feel the state flags add useful information and, as amended, were not clutter.

1. As seen in the two examples I gave above, it would not be considered precedent for these flags to exist on the roster - this isn't groundbreaking.

2. Like Canada, the United States is made up of several political divisions that are very distinct from one another, even when it comes to local, regional, and national pride. A Texan is different from a New Yorker is different from a Floridian is different from a Californian. However, all of these different locales come together under a single banner. The flags are a visual representation of how widespread and diverse the talent pool is in the United States, just as the flags on Canada men's national soccer team.

3. For the curious - the flags represent the state of the player's hometown as listed on ussoccer.com. While some of the players do indeed live in Europe (Kasey Keller lives in a freakin' castle), they all have hometowns in the United States.

4. For those concerned about clutter - I tried using the Flagicon template, and it really looked very nice compared to the way I initially tried doing it. Looked very orderly and the flags were still recognizable.

Bottom line as I see it, the flags provide both useful and desired information, considering the size and diversity of the United States. I encourage further discussion on the issue and encourage someone else to be bold, as my boldness was only met with a smackdown and a scolding. - RPIRED 23:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My point is that they are not important and clutter the article.

And I do not run the article, I just checked if you had consensus, and you had not.--Panairjdde 23:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning behind your point? If you don't run the article, you're certainly giving that impression. - RPIRED 23:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

According to me, it is not interesting knowing the place they were born/live more than knowing their astrological sign. According to me the flags clutter the article. However, my reasoning is in this same talk page, take time and read it.

Furthremore, your "impression" is not important, as far as I apply the rules.--Panairjdde 23:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that my impression is not important since it conflicts with yours. You didn't add any reasoning - their astrological sign is a poor comparison since that can be discerned from their birth date. You may be missing the differences in the states since you aren't an American, I'm guessing. American states are different beasts than Italian regioni. While the regioni are indeed quite different from one another (even just considering the splintered history), American states often act with regards to each other as independent nations do on the global stage. That's just one of the differences which make the state flags (and the provincial flags on the Canadian page, which you are strangely silent on) informational, unique, and appropriate. - RPIRED 00:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The day in which the article United States shows the State Flags next to George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney, I shall believe the differences between US states are so huge to make this information important. Up until then, I still believe that knowing in which state they live is not so important to require introduction in this article.--Panairjdde 14:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

With that line of reasoning, why should we have flags discerning where their club team plays. I mean... who cares? - RPIRED 15:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That is an info prominently reported in each player's article, because it is important, even if you do not care. Being a goalkeeper based in Louisiana rather than in Montanta makes no difference, being a goalkeeper in US Samoa league rather than in Spanish Liga is quite different.--Panairjdde 17:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's OK... [b]I[/b] don't think it makes an awful lot of difference. And isn't that really what it's all about? - RPIRED 00:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

after careful consideration, i still don't give a shit one way or the other if they're in, but I'm gonna lean towards supplying more information and putting them (back) in the article. And now i'm actually gonna sign my post...Batman2005 00:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's my opinion that these flags clutter/cluttered up the page, and shouldn't be included. The differences in states' culture are just as large as any region in China, or Russia, or in fact any large country. The ones on Canada should be removed too. What will you do when Freddy Adu gets on the US team? Put a Ghana flag??? -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 08:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

Freddy Adu lives in Maryland. He may have been born in Ghana, but his home is in Maryland. Common sense. - RPIRED 13:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My biggest concern is that Freddy Adu may actually become a member of the team, I hate that guy. Batman2005 14:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Freddy Adu may live in Maryland now, but he may move to Europe. Adu may not consider Maryland to be his hometown. Hometown isn't precisely defined. Many people, like children of military personnel were born in foreign countries, and have moved around to various states in the U.S. due to their family's military connection. The MVP of this year's Super Bowl was born in Korea because his father was stationed there. If someone moves from state to state, base to base, what makes one state more important than others? Also, see my statement below on context, once again. - Slo-mo 09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Further: Literally every single other national team page pertaining to Americans with rosters includes state flags. See also USA Baseball (national baseball team), American national men's hockey team and American national women's hockey team. No problems there. - RPIRED 15:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be moved to American national men's ice hockey team and American national women's ice hockey team - Only joking. Jooler 15:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe flags should be removed from other articles, rather than added here. Have you got no other reason to add the flags?--Panairjdde 23:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No other reason? Did you not read my reasons listed above? Sigh. Oh, yes, all the other pages are wrong, and you're right. The pinnicle of hubris. Have you yet considered that it may be a cultural misunderstanding? - RPIRED 01:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant, no other reason apart "knowing player's hometown" or copying other articles? Why the flags were added to baseball and hockey articles? (Side question, is it so important for a US citizen to know were their players live? What if they decide to change team, going to live in another US state?)--Panairjdde 09:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The state flags may be listed on the other teams' articles. But back to the concept of context, take a look at USA Baseball. Under 2006 World Baseball Classic roster, Brian Schneider has a flag of Michigan next to his wikilink. But if you read the article about him, you find that he was born in Florida, but no mention of Michigan. Is this a case of vandalism, a mistake, or does the man actually have a connection with Michigan (and if so, what)? It's more complicated than you think. The "flagging" is unneccesary and inappropriate. A person's locational background can't be described with a simple flag, but a person's nationality(-ies) and a team's location are definitive. (I posted a hypothetical question above also.) - Slo-mo 09:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the question is one of deciding to which format this page should conform. Should it be in line with other "American" sports, or with other national football teams? Jooler 09:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in a football article. "Home state" seems close to OR to me; as pointed out above, what if a player moves? It does not have the same legality and relatively permanent and verifiable status that nationalit has. State flags are fascinating, but they are not recognised by most Americans, let alone people outside the US, another reason they are less useful than national ones. Sorry; they did look nice! --Guinnog 09:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What if a player moves their hometown? Gee, I wish there was a way that we would be able to change the flag somehow... ;) - RPIRED 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. Even if we decide to stick to conformity with other nft articles, we have room for changes specifical to US team. The problem is the reason for adding flags: why there are flags into baseball article? Is it just for decoration or they are there for some specific reason? For example, if a rule was to oblige Arena to take single player from each state, it would be important to know where the players are from. But why you should add the flags to this team members? And why to depict their hometown?--Panairjdde 09:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could keep repeating myself to answer your questions, but you seem unwilling to refute what I say and just keep saying the same thing over and over again. Like I said, whatever, and like I said, siete re. - RPIRED 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Arena is STILL the Head Coach

His contract, which runs out on December 31, 2006 will not be renewed. At that point he will no longer be coach of the team. At this point, he is still the coach of the team unless he decides and announces to step down immediately. That has not happened, thus..he is still the Present coach. Batman2005 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Having reverted twice to this I won't do it again; maybe you can if it's necessary, though it shouldn't be. As the note says,

--Guinnog 12:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, i'm on it. Batman2005 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I messed that up at first. I will double check things further in the future. Sorry guys. michfan2123 19:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

^^^^ It's all good buddy, no need for apologies! Batman2005 21:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Question: Now that Arena has been hired by Red Bull New York, is he officially not the coach anymore? It's a logistical question, I guess, since the next nat game will be coached by someone else anyway, but is he still being paid to be coach of the US team through the end of 2006 while he coaches Red Bull New York? - RPIRED 19:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that either he continues in his role as coach of the USA team as there aren't really any big tournaments, OR an interim coach will be named until a full search for a new coach (Klinsmann) occurs. As of now there has been no announcement that Arena is not still going to coach the team. Batman2005 02:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the reverting for Bruce Arena, but I do think that it is reasonable for a notation of "-2006". I do agree that it should not say that he is the former coach. Yes, he is still the manager until he is replaced, but the federation has issued a release on their website that he will not be retained past the end of the year. Putting the 2006 does not take away from the fact that he is still the current coach, but does acknowledge that he will no longer be the coach past that time. --Brian G 15:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your point is valid, however, "Present" indicates that a person is still the head coach. Putting "2006" indicates that the persona is no longer the head coach. The way we have it now, where it says "Present" and then there is a notation going to a footnote with a linked source saying that his tenure will come to a close when his contract runs out is the most clear way to do represent the information. Batman2005 04:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Allowed

I don't want to get into an edit war over a single word, but I have changed "allowed" for "conceded" for a second time. I will paste the comments here that I originally posted on User_talk:SuperNova#Allowed along with responsed from my talk page, in case that page becomes archived. Jooler 11:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Allowed - Pasted from User talk:SuperNova and User talk:Jooler

comment regarding the following edit summary

1:35, 30 June 2006 Jooler (Talk | contribs) (→2006 FIFA World Cup - Allowed? - conceded - English please.)

I don't usually comment on edit summaries, but seriously: allowed AND conceded both make sense in that context, and as a native speaker of (American) English, either word sounds fine. I have no problem with you changing it, but please at least be civil when you do. Thanks for your edits, though! --SuperNova |T|C| 13:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence read :-

"..., while Ghana (#50) had allowed only 4 goals in all of their World Cup qualification matches combined."

To me this does not make grammatical sense. It is a nonsense statement. So I was somewhat suprised by your objection. So I looked up allowed on Google and on [3] - we find;

Chiefly Southern & Midland U.S. - To admit; concede: "I allowed he was right".

To my ears I allowed he was right is again ungrammatical nonsense. It appears that this is an uncommon dialectical usage of the word. It is most definitely one people in Britain are unaware of. Good Day to you. Jooler 21:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. As an international encyclopedia, we should be clear to all English speakers, which your revision is. I just never realized that meaning of "allow" wasn't common elsewhere! I am from the Southern US, so that may be part of it, but even outside my region, national sports (maybe I should say "sport" ;-) broadcasts often use allow in that sense. We don't hear much about (association) football here, but it's not uncommon to hear "The pitcher allowed seven runs" or "The Giants have allowed 20 points or more in the last 5 games". That's probably the frame of reference the original writer was coming from, though as I ... allowed? ... earlier, the more widespread usage should prevail. Thanks for improving the article and helping me learn something new! --SuperNova |T|C| 22:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The three "Chiefly Southern & Midland U.S." dialectical usages listed there - i.e.

To admit; concede: I allowed he was right.

To think; suppose: We allow he's straight (American Speech).

To assert; declare: Mother allowed that we'd better come in for dinner.

are all completely unknwon to me, and probably most people in Britain and elsewhere. Jooler 21:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the word with conceded which must surely understandable on both sides of the pond as SuperNova implies. Jooler 11:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This should certainly be put on WP:LAME. Batman2005 15:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kits

The shorts of the away kit are white. This is "official", since Nike designed the kits, and they call the blue shorts "home" and the white ones "away".

The fact that the team used the blue shorts with blue jersey does not mean that they changed the composition. And official sanctioned colours should prevail over random combinations.--Kwame Nkrumah 09:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The white shorts are the away shorts, the blue ones are the home shorts. Just because they had to change one time because of a clash doesn't change this. See the top banner on this page. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 11:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

It does not matter what the website lists as the "official shorts" the last time the team wore their away colors they wore all blue. Until they wear their blue and white again, the "official away colors" as you're calling them....are all blue. Clash or not, perhaps the decision was made that wearing all blue was a better look. My personal thought is that the kit should represent fact, not what some website lists as "official" on their online store. Fact is that the all blue strip is the latest to be used. If in the next match they're wearing a blue shirt with red shorts, or green shorts, or black shorts, then it should change to represent that. As is though, the current kit on this page, based on the last time it was worn...is wrong. Batman2005 12:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The official away kit is blue-white-blue. If their laundry messes it all and next game they are forced to play pink-yellow-red, the official colours are still blue-white-blue. It is called "away colours", and official "away colours" are blue-white-blue. What is the point of having them different?

Furthermore, Brazil, France and Italy used jersey/shorts combinations not "official", and yet their pages show the official kits. At least we should use this kit for consistency.--Kwame Nkrumah 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You really don't understand do you, Batman? The decision to wear different shorts was one of necessity. For instance, look at Manchester United. Their home shorts are white, but when faced with another team with white shorts they wear the alternative black shorts. The "official" shorts are whatever ones the team wears out of preference. The US team wear white shorts for away games, unless the home team also has white shorts, in which case they change. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 12:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

Firstly boothman, don't f-ing tell me I don't understand. I know EXACTLY why the USA wore blue against the Czech Republic, so don't presume that you know more than I do, that's insulting. Secondly, i'm not the one who changed it the first time around, so why don't you go back and find out who that was and tell him he doesn't understand. Thirdly, you'll notice that I didn't revert it back to the blue after discussion on here was started, because, as i'm sure you know, these pages are about consensus and at the moment, the consensus is to put the white shorts. Now, we can consider this matter closed, i'm fine with the way the page is, I simply input my two cents on what I thought the page should represent, others did the same, so on and we've got the page as it is now. But don't presume to know more than me simply because your opinion on something is different, it's insulting. Batman2005 15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

We can pander around all the time, respecting everyone's opinion no matter how ill-informed, saying "Oh yes, User X has an interesting point, blah di blah di blah", or we can just cut the crap and just say someone is just wrong. It baffles me that you knew the reason for the short change, yet still argued a completely wrong side of the argument. I will presume in good faith that you are an intelligent person. Please don't prove me wrong. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC).

Boothman, I find your tone insulting. "Ill-informed" and "completely wrong side" are both incivil and uncool. My thoughts on it are just that...thoughts. Opinions. Two cents. In my opinion it's more important to show current reality, rather than what the online store says is the "official kit" As we've said, half the teams in the world cup didn't wear an "official kit" there was mixing and matching going on all over the place. Which is why I favored using the most recently used kit, not some arbitrary color combination. As is though Boothman, I find your entire tone during this conversation insulting, and will not respond further to you if you continue your insulting antics. If you can't be more civil and less condescending, which I'm assuming you cannot from the looks of your tone throughout most of your edits on wikipedia, then we'll consider this conversation over. Batman2005 22:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a bedside manner, Batman. I say things as I see it. While this does not always work in tandem with Wikipedia bureaucracy, I find that it gets things done correctly. Please see WP:LAME; this are situations I wish not to happen, and by forcing my point through, even if someone thinks it's insulting, is how to avoid this. I really don't care if some bloke over the other side of the world isn't impressed by my lack of respect. While you may not care for my respect anyway, it must be earnt somehow. Anyway, there's no real point carrying on like this on this particular talkpage, so like Brian said, I consider this argument over. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 11:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

You're right, because the more you carry on and with every response, you sound more and more like an asshole, so it's probably best that you just stop. Batman2005 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

From a bystander who watched this one from the sidelines.... It looks like this is settled now and that both sides have had a final comment. From here on out, let's please remember to stay cool and civil. Thanks all. --Brian G (Talk) 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

warning

To all involved:

I've been watching the unnecessary use of expletives in this page. The next time I see an editor "talk" to another in an abusive, debasing, aggresive or inappropriate tone I will hand out WP:NPA 24-Hour blocks. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, nasty. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

It was worth it. Batman2005 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 World Cup Roster

While some of the players are at new clubs, I have changed the club listings back to the clubs the players were at during the World Cup.

Since the 2006 World Cup squad is archived on its own page under the 2006 FIFA World Cup entry, should we change this to the '07 training camp roster and update it for whatever major tournaments (Gold Cup, Copa America) come along? That would be more productive, IMO, than leaving up last year's roster with a number of inaccuracies and national team retirements. What do people think? Jyardley 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the world cup roster is fine until the next roster is named for an official competition. Unsanctioned friendlies with only domestic players don't represent a realistic picture of the U.S. National Team. We should at least wait until a full compliment of players, both domestic and european based are in camp and then post the final roster chosen from them as our starting point for a new National team roster. I believe that the Gold Cup will be the first opportunity to do that, but perhaps they'll play friendlies on actual FIFA match days in which european team players can return for the game. 74.132.172.179 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not the rosters reflect the current clubs or the clubs at the time of the World Cup, but the constant changes and reverts are getting annoying. It's getting obvious that some users are making changes to the clubs as a hobby. Let's decide how this page is going to look, then stick with it. (Mohrflies 06:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

I've been involved in the reverts, trusting that the rosters were supposed to be for the last time the team was stable "per tradition on wikipedia", as 74.132.172.179 stated in this edit summary. However, I just checked the pages for a number of other national teams: France, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Mexico, Argentina... all of them have the team sheet from the most recent friendly, with an additional list of recent call-ups (England is the only major exception, but even then they don't have it as it was in the WC). So from what I can tell there is no such "tradition". I wouldn't mind going with the flow on this. At the very least, it will stop these constant club reverts. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is though, the roster that the team is putting out there right now, is not one that is indicitive of the actual team. The players being called in are, domestic. The European teams have all played in actual competition matches since the World Cup, EURO qualifiers and such. I think once the USA calls in a squad of players, for a tournament, where they call in ALL of their european players who will feature in competitions, then we can change it. Until then, changing and putting in the new domestic players who are at best fringe or B team players is a misrepresentation. 74.132.172.179 20:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree with that to a certain extent, but look at the examples I gave. All of them say, "The following were named in the roster for the February 7, 2007 international friendly vs. so-and-so." Then a separate section for others who have been called up within, say, the preceding year. Anyone who knows anything about international football understands that there is no such thing as a fixed national team roster. This method gives a good overview of all players who are in the "pool" so to speak. howcheng {chat} 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out the roster for the World Cup is available at 2006 FIFA World Cup squads#United States so there's not much point in repeating the information here. I'm going to change it to match the other national team articles when I get a little more time (tomorrow, probably), unless there are any objections? howcheng {chat} 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Restoring Image:USA Mens National Team.jpg

I have restored this image to the article. This image was already determined to be fair use by 2 admins in the last few months as can be seen here and here. If it is going to be removed, I believe you should have consensus first. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, keep the image on the page. 74.132.172.179 17:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. While I concede that it is may not be possible to find a free alternative, I will still argue that the image violates WP:FUC #8 -- it serves only a decorative purpose. Is there some reason we need to see the starting XI against Italy? I mean, we already have the team roster. We could identify the starters for each match with footnotes. This image doesn't improve readers' understanding of the article in any particular way -- thus, it's decorative. Contrast this with Billy Ripken which shows his baseball card and the article specifically discusses the card. See the difference? howcheng {chat} 18:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No. You choose only to highlight ONE article. How about the millions of articles with what you deem to be "merely decorative images." Is there a glaring need to delete the image? I could see removing it if it violated a copyright law or something, but it does not. I'm a fan of inclusion rather than exclusion. Wikipedia should not simply be a collection of text. Nonetheless, two admins have determined that the image does not violate fair use, and until overwhelming consensus to remove is found, I believe it should stay. 74.132.172.179 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

FUC#8 states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." I believe that this meets the standard of "identify the subject of an article" as well as "illustrate relevant points or sections within the text". Note that FUC#8 does not read "The article could not exist or be understood without the image in question", so the issue isn't if the image is needed, but rather, does it make a significant contribution. I don't believe that the use of this image is frivolous. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unfortunately, policy trumps consensus every time. 74.132.172.179's argument is of the "if everyone jumps off a bridge we should do it too" variety. This is in fact a copyright violation: we are using this image without the knowledge of US Soccer, we do not pay any royalties, and we cannot really claim a fair use exemption because it's not really necessary to the article. I also think the claim of "two admins" isn't quite right: User:Quadell, whose opinion I usually respect when it comes to fair use policy, made the original judgement. User:Proto simply removed the deletion tag based on Quadell's statement. Yes, there are a ton of copyrighted images improperly being used on Wikipedia now. That doesn't mean we don't clean them up when we find them. I am not arguing for a text-only Wikipedia; I've uploaded a number of images, including photos of individual members of the USMNT, but there's just no reason why we need this image. Look at any of the club team articles -- none of them have photos of the starting XI because it would violate FUC#8, why should the USMNT article be an exception? howcheng {chat} 20:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note, I am not subscribing to the bridge jumping, I am only focusing on needed vs significant.--After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 20:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is significant to the image of the article. It is in the section that specifically talks about the United States team at the world cup, so how is it frivolous to show a picture of the team? It's not. 74.132.172.179 03:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was "frivolous", just "decorative". It does not exactly "identify the subject of an article" because it's only the starting XI against Italy, not a picture of the entire USMNT. Nor does it really "illustrate relevant points or sections within the text" because the nowhere in the text is the starting XI against Italy mentioned. Look, I appreciate your wanting the article to look nice, but this image really isn't necessary. At the end of the criteria at WP:FUC, it says:

As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above and should not be used.

Yes, we can replace this image with the starting XI against Ghana or the Czech Republic, or a team pose during training and the article wouldn't be any different. Thus, it's not proper usage and needs to be removed. The Billy Ripken article on the other hand needs that baseball card image. The Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima article needs the photo. See the difference? howcheng {chat} 07:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you are getting back into replaceable fair use. Back in November, I specifically made a case that this was not replaceable which was supported on the image talk page by User:Quadell. You tagged this under FUC#8. It has already been tested under replaceable fair use and passed that criterion.--After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me like this isn't getting anywhere. I would suggest that if you (Howcheng) feel that you want to pursue this further that outside opinions be solicited. I am happy to go with whatever the consensus is, but I think that we have exhausted our arguments and don't think that you or I will convince the other. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I judged that the image passed FUC#1, and I still think it does -- assuming that this particular starting line-up is important in the article. I don't know whether the image passes FUC#8 or not. Is it important to show what this line-up looked like? If you had access to the current team and a good camera, and could take all the photos you wanted, would you still feel the need to use this photo in the article? That's the real relevant question in my book. If I followed soccer, I could perhaps comment further, but I just don't. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Fair use has to be judged in context -- you can't judge an image to be fair use or not just by looking at the image; it depends on how it's used. Since the article makes no specific points about the starting XI against Italy, there's no need for this photo, and this is the point of it being "replaceable". Right now, as its used in the article, it's totally replaceable, thus it's decorative, and thus it shouldn't be here. But I will do as you ask and list this on Wikipedia:Fair use review for further input. howcheng {chat} 17:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevant question: Could this image be replaced by an image taken today, in 2007? Or could it only be replaced by an image taken in 2006? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In that sense, no, but it could be replaced by a photo of the starting lineup in some other match, or perhaps of team members training in preparation for the World Cup, or even an action shot during a game. howcheng {chat} 21:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. It seems to me that, since no further replacements could be made, the situation is analogous to a deceased celebrity. If a free photo is known to exist, then it should be used instead. But if not, no new photo could be created to convey the same info. If a band has broken up, or a person has died, it's generally okay to use a fair-use image of the subject. Why is this situation different? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the photo doesn't specifically illustrate points in the text. Anyway, the point is moot because User:Jkelly deleted it outright as a blatant copyvio since it came from a stock photo agency in the first place (thus being in violation of FUC #2). howcheng {chat} 00:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming schedule and recent results

I have added a section for the upcoming schedule and recent results. I used a similar format as that used on the England national football team page. I think this section adds some valuable content for those looking to follow and find information about the team. Please feel free to make any formatting changes to improve aesthetics. --Cougs2000 23:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent call-ups

I just went through and edited the roster to reflect the squad for today's match against Ecuador, and it became painfully evident that the recent call-up section needs to be cleaned up. At a quick count, there are...22 players on that list, in addition to the 18 who were part of the Ecuador match. That's far too many, and it could certainly be cleaned up. I'd be willing to do that, if someone were to suggest guidelines to follow when doing so.

Also, another alternative would be to set up the roster like the Canadian national team, which doesn't look cluttered in any way. In any case, input would be appreciated. Che84 00:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an indication of how large the pool of US players is. If it's getting a bit unmanageable, perhaps we can cut out anyone who hasn't been called up since the World Cup? howcheng {chat} 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my thought - Make the roster like the Canadian one, and any player who has been a part of the squad for the last...I don't know, year, can be included on that. If that year elapses without the player making another appearance for the national team, they're removed from the list. Che84 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that's essentially how it is now. No players are on the list from before the World Cup, which is less than one year ago. I think there's more people on the US list than on France, Portugal, etc (the teams that use the layout I copied for this page). howcheng {chat} 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Very true. The one year suggestion was just a guideline for future editing. Perhaps 6 months would be more appropriate? Che84 02:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New Uniforms

I dont know much about Wiki and editing, but can/should someone make a new kit for the alternate uniforms used against Ecuador (3.25.07)? bvolt3000 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A few things...

Hi everyone, I just wanted to put some things up for consideration:

A box on the edit page says this article is getting too long. Let's debate on which articles to separate.
Recent Call Ups: I would do this myself, but its kind of late, and I have to go to school tomorrow. Whoever does this, please try to reflect the recent call-ups to the Guatemala game (tonight), which brings me to my next thought...
Roster organization: I like the way the Canadian National Team roster is set up, by position, club, etc. In regards to state flags, I am on the fence. I like the idea, showing the diversity of the talent pool. My only worry is that it might end up too busy. Not that the Canadian roster is, but ours could end up like that.
New kits: I would make a new jersey design myself, but my concern is that it will suck. ANYONE is welcome to make one. Just don't be offended if we replace it for one that might be a little better.

Bardiak 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd do the current squad and recent callups if I could find a reliable source for the entire roster for the match against Guatemala. I went to ESPN, which looked good for a second, but it was all messed up. It had Beasley starting, Ricardo Clark starting, and zero mention of Feilhaber, DeMerit, Simek, etc. Also, regarding the roster, I was thinking that we could have it so only players called up in the last 6 months appear in the article. And state flags are pointless, because honestly, how many people can distinguish between state flags? New York's, for example, in a small image looks nearly identical to 5 or 6 other states. Plus, some players on the US were born out of the country, and it's very hard to establish what a "hometown" is. Che84 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind on the current squad. I just updated it. Che84 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was gonna say, I always go to ussoccer.com to get that stuff. howcheng {chat} 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked ussoccer.com before I checked ESPN, but it hadn't been updated. No matter now, in any case. Che84 04:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever changed my box thing to bullets. I must have been half asleep when I wrote that. If someone does make the new jersey, what will we call it? A 3rd Kit? Does any other team's article have a third kit??? Bardiak 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned as being the "third jersey" on ussoccer.com currently. On a personal note, it's horrendous.Onebaseman 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for having a short summary of the national team history on the main page with a link to a longer history. I noticed the page on the England national team has that set up. Mohrflies 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Denmark game a full international?

I edited the recent history section a bit concerning the match against Denmark in early 2007. The match was an unofficial match against the "league national team" (Danish ligalandshold), a national team composed exclusively of players from the Danish league. It is comparable to a B team in most respects. Sakkura 04:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately Sakkura is correct, FIFA does not recognize the Denmark game as an official game. Here's the FIFA list of official U.S. games in 2007: Official 2007 U.S. games.Mohrflies 14:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I swear that I read from multiple sources that the US-Denmark game was classified as an "A" international, despite Denmark playing a lot of their lesser players. I'll see if I can find where I read that. Che84 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ADDED: I have found nowhere that says it was an A international. However, I haven't found anywhere that has said it was a B international either. And also, if it were a B international, then the match wouldn't count towards a player's national team caps, correct? It did for every player who stepped on the field that day. So, if the first premise is correct, then it was an A international, and should be counted as such. The FIFA website could very easily have made a mistake. Che84 19:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

While FIFA and the Danish football federation don't recognize the game as a full international, USSF does.^[4] In fact, USSF uses that game in compiling player statistics (notice Landon Donovan's goals total).^[5] This is one of the frustrating things about international soccer. A nation will get an invite to a tournament or for a friendly, send what it bills as its national team, then refuse to recognize the match later because, "it didn't send its true senior team." Denmark pulled the same stunt at the 1997 U.S. Cup and Mexico did it at the 2000 Nike U.S. Cup. Even the U.S. did the same thing at the 1976 Bicentennial Cup. Of the four teams at that tournament only Italy and Brazil consider the games with the U.S. as full internationals.^[6] Regardless, USSF invited the Danish national team, if Denmark agreed, then whatever team it sent, even if it was a bunch of twelve year old girls, then to USSF that's what Denmark considers as its national team. So here's my take. Since this is the U.S., not Danish, national team site and the U.S. considers the game a full international, the site should reflect that. However, there should be a note that FIFA and Denmark disagree. Mohrflies 04:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the Danish national team has a routine schedule of playing B team matches in the domestic offseason (like january), while the players from eg. the English premier league aren't available. You could say Denmark implicitly accepted it as an official match by agreeing to a match in the first place, but you could also say the US implicitly accepted it as an unofficial match by scheduling it at that date, where Denmark (and many other nations) always field B teams in order to have a look at the secondary material that might be called up to the A squad, as well as giving some international experience to domestic players. In any case, the article now notes that it wasn't the "real" Danish team present, so people can attach what significance they prefer to the result. Sakkura 06:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

1995 Copa America

No details on 1995 Copa America which I would have thought was important for development through the 1990s, given that it got Steve Sampson the coach job (oops), and involved a successful campaign away from home, defeating a complacent Argentina side - just a thought, it's a pretty long article, like this is a long sentence, but teams are not built on World Cups alone. Anyway, I'm too idle to add it. Stevebritgimp 13:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Title of article?

Can anyone explain why this article - and the one for Canada - aren't called "United States national football team", in line with the equivalent articles for (as far as I can tell) every single other country in the world? I can understand Australia needing the qualification "(soccer)" in the title, because there are other "Australian national football teams" which might cause confusion, but that can't apply here because there is no US national American football team (or Canada national [[Canadian football] team) to get mixed up with. I saw the discussion at the very start of the first talk page archive, but it doesn't really answer the key question as to *why* it's different. It might be because the US women's team has a greater international standing than the "men's" team, but there are other countries where the women's team is far stronger than the "men's" (e.g. China, Norway) and they still keep the same structure. Can anyone explain? Please note I'm not campaigning to change it or anything, just curious about the anomaly. 84.92.8.222 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't jump to conclusions about whether or not there is a United States national American football team. - RPIRED 13:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay, but it's hardly the most notable outfit going, is it? Hard to say without jumping to conclusions, but I'd be willing to bet you could pull fifty random NFL fans off the street right now and 49 of them wouldn't have heard of that team. Anyway, that just muddies the waters even more - if the "men's" and the "soccer" in *this* article are to reflect gender equality and popular US usage respectively, why is *that* article called what it is, and not "United States men's national football team"? 90.198.51.135 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC) (that was me asking the initial question btw, this is me at a different PC... hello.)

Don't know why it's this title. But it should be changed to be inline with the other national teams. Kingjeff 13:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree completely. The use of "football" to describe soccer in the United States is practically unheard of due to the heavy influence of American football. Just as Wikipedia should not be Americanized, it should also not necessarily be de-Americanized either. See WP:NC for more information on this type of thing. - RPIRED 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more about adding the word mens to the mens team. No other male national team other then Canada has the word mens in it. The proper title is the United States national soccer team. Kingjeff 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as mentioned in the first entry, if you talk about the national football team of most countries, you're easily talking about the men's team and not the women's team. That simply isn't the case in the United States, because the women's team is on equal if not a higher footing than the men's team in the eyes of the public due to the former's success. - RPIRED 14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the same in Germany. But it's still the way I mentioned it. When you talk about the national soccer teams of every nation, people tend to think of the mens team. Kingjeff 14:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same in Germany. The men's team is still on a much higher footing in the eyes of the public there despite the success of their women's team. It simply isn't true in the United States that people automatically think of the men's team (or even soccer as a male sport, to be perfectly honest) when you speak of the national soccer team. - RPIRED 14:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can garantee you it is the same in Germany. Kingjeff 14:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If X then Y does not apply here. - RPIRED 15:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can ganrantee you with any sport the national team refers to the mens' team. Kingjeff 15:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Kingjeff, it seems like you are dangerously close to implying that the "real" national team is tne men's national team, while the women's team is something inferior. I know that's not the exact wording you used, but how can you "guarantee" that the national team refers to the men's team. There is a men's national team and a women's national team. They are different. To suggest that the men's national team has a monopoly on being referred to as "the national team" seems incredibly sexist. It seems more appropriate that articles should be titled either "men's national team..." or "women's nation team..." --Cougs2000 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Eventhough I do believe women were meant to be cooking and cleaning, I do think that it's the womens team that should not be just called the national team. It should be the national womens' team. Kingjeff 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate to refer to a women's team as the women's national team. Similarly, I think it is most appropriate for this article about a men's team to have the title "United States men's national soccer team." --Cougs2000 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is very inconsistant with Wikipedia. Kingjeff 17:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can guarantee that this is not the case in the United States. Bottom line. - RPIRED 15:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can ganrantee that it is in the United States. Kingjeff 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In what way can you "ganrantee" that it is in the United States? I mean, it's just the way it is here - when you watch ESPN and they start talking about American international soccer teams, it's always starting with "men's team" or "women's team." - RPIRED 16:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

3rd paragraph in this section of the Landon Donovan article, it states the national team. This would have to be the male team since Landon is male. If you take a look Mia Hamm, it doesn't just have national team. Kingjeff 16:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If that's what's bothering you, I'll fix it. - RPIRED 16:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't. It's correct on those 2 articles. Kingjeff 16:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And why's that? Why does Hamm need to be recognized as playing for the women's team but Donovan does not? That's not equal treatment either, is it? - RPIRED 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm right and you're wrong. Kingjeff 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I got told. You're certainly a convincing individual. - RPIRED 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I've never made a mistake in my entire life. Kingjeff 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The men's team is always referred to as the USMNT -- U.S. men's national team. Show me any cited references in U.S. major sports publications that it's any different and then we'll talk. howcheng {chat} 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason, as said before, is that soccer has a unique standing in America, in that it's seen as a "women's sport", so it needs the qualifier. This is not the case in the rest of the world (barring maybe Canada). It is definitely not the case in Germany, I'm sure many Germans will be upset that you said that, Kingjeff. -- Boothman _/tɔːk/ 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

I, er, um. Wow. Well, I was just asking. Anyway, the only reason I'm curious is because it doesn't follow the standard "Madeupcountryland national football team" naming convention for most of the other 200-odd national teams on Wikipedia, which is a very minor pain in the backside - a very minor one - for articles about international team competitions and qualifying tournaments, or articles about teams who have played the USA team, and I wondered why it's turned out like it has - both in terms of the "men's" and the "soccer". The equivalent Australian article has all manner of unpleasant fights over the "soccer" issue on its talk page, and has arrived at a totally different solution, with a disambig page for "Australian national football team", something which doesn't happen here. With reference to the qualifier "men's", having a look at what pages link to "United States national soccer team" and "United States national football team", none of them look like they're articles about female players? Once again, I'm not trying to start a fight (though I seem to have managed to do that anyway), I'm just curious. 90.198.51.135 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

United States national football team exists as a redirect to this article, so the format "XXX national football team" still works for anyone using the search box or making links. howcheng {chat} 16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not any more it doesn't, apparently. 90.198.51.135 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That just proves that I'm absolutely right and anyone who disagrees with me is absolutely wrong. Kingjeff 16:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that "football" in America means "American football", USNFT should disambig to here and [[7]].

Dlong 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained my thoughts on that issue. Kingjeff 18:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't care; you're wrong, get over it. Dlong 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You think you're a know it all. I've never been wrong in my entire life. Kingjeff 18:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, you might want to add this to your user page. Dlong 19:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you've made a mistake, dlong. The only pages that link to United States national American football team are articles for other United States national teams which have a link in the template, and a couple of IFAF articles. I can't see any reason at all for making United States national football team a disambig, since looking at "What Links Here" (which, if I understand correctly, is the main tool for deciding what should be a disambig and what shouldn't) for that page, it seems *exclusively* to be linked to from men's soccer articles. You seem to have ignored everything discussed above and taken it upon yourself to change it anyway. Why? 90.198.51.135 20:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Kasey Keller status

It makes sense to me that Keller be listed as "Unattached" as he is currently not under contract with any club. However, his club status on the current squad is frequently changed back to Borussia Monchengladbach. What should it be? Che84 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that technically he's still under contract with Gladbach until the end of June. Since after that, his stint there is most assuredly over with, leaving his status as "Unattached" seems perfectly fine. Onebaseman 15:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Borussia Monchengladbach current squad says that, as of June 4, Keller no longer plays for the club. Che84 16:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is true to say that he no longer plays for BM, because they have no more matches between 4th June (or earlier) and the expiry of his contract on 30th June: it is for the same reason true to say that he is still under contrac to them until the end of the current month. Kevin McE 17:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Keller has recently joined Fulham FC (UK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.66.154 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent results show...

I'm going to try and avoid an edit war here, but I have to say that I feel the information being added at the end of the introduction is both false and unencyclopedic. Though the US has come in last in the group stage of 2 of the last 3 tournaments, they still won the Gold Cup, and until Copa America, had been 10-0-1 in 2007, and they only lost as badly as they did in Copa America because it was a second rate squad. I'm going to delete the entry again, but if someone feels it should be restored, please explain why here. Che84 18:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, the US has skyrocketed through the FIFA rankings of late, which put a heavy emphasis on recent performances, so the information is still wrong. Che84 18:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that it's necessary in any way. The World Cup was a disappointment, but I would consider the results of 2007 much more recent than that, and while the Copa America squad was a failure, it was not the A-squad, so the results, though they count just the same, shouldn't be considered in the same way. The US is its own continental champion, and that was the goal of the National Team for the summer. Bob Bradley said the Gold Cup was the first priority, with Copa America a distant second. When a nation is a continental champion, and that was their primary goal for the year, it's absurd to say that recent results are either disappointing, or a decline in performance. Che84 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: It's also Wikipedia procedure to remove the statement in question if there is a debate over the validity of such a statement. Consensus should be achieved before the information is changed permanently. Che84 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Che84's assertions. It is painfully obvious just by looking at the rosters for the Gold Cup and Copa America that the team was more focused and concerned with winning the Gold Cup, a continental championship, than they were with the Copa, even if the Copa is internationally considered more prestigious than the Gold Cup. - RPIRED 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Che84, you have nothing to worry about. The user who you almost started an edit war with is a sock of a user banned from WP--his edits are to be reverted on sight and admins are to be notified. --Palffy 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

US v Mexico friendly

The only place I've seen this is a Mexican newspaper. Neither FIFA nor US Soccer have confirmed it yet, so I feel it shouldn't be listed on the schedule. Che84 04:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Its official

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news;_ylt=AlQZ9nS4melrSmE0Erc4eSMmw7YF?slug=ap-us-mexico&prov=ap&type=lgns

Gethomas3 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And now it has been canceled. http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_1998855.html The US will play Brazil instead at Soldier Field. --Scottmsg 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Josh Wolff

Should he be listed under recent call-ups, even though he was removed from the squad for "personal reasons"? Ching replaces... Che84 15:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User: Getthomas3

Can we get an editor here to stop him from making his unnecessary edits? He keeps adding the competitive record, which is already there, he changes the captain to Landon Donovan, which he's not, and he changes "Notable former players" to "Famous past players". Please, an editor's help would be greatly appreciated. Che84 03:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kit Changed???

Why have the two kit been changed?? Did I miss something where Nike unveiled a new home and away kit or something? The home kit has a red and blue stripe running vertically through the crest of the USSF over the heart, and the away kit has a red stripe with white borders running horizontally through the midsection. Can someone who is better at editing please change it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.204.177 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how to change this, but the kits are completely wrong right now, the away kit is less wrong than the home one, but their still both not even close to correct. Grant.alpaugh 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The home kit is now fixed, and the away kit is better, but the away kit needs to have the middle stripe added. Grant.alpaugh 04:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Milk Cup, is it a sign of distinction?

Hello, i was surfing the wikipedia looking for information about american soccer and i found this article. I find a little bit strange to consider the milk cup as a sign of distinction in youth soccer: i have to remember that this competition is a simple youth tournement like many others around the world and has been won over the years by fair teams like Paraguay, Turkey and Israel. Moreover the win in milk cup is neither cited in turkey's and israel's articles. Then the question is: is it appropriate to include this honour in the starting lines of the article, as it was a great result? in my opinion, is not. I'm sorry for my english, but i'm italian. 81.208.106.78 05:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)