# Talk:Battle of Old Trafford

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Old Trafford (2003)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrias (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This article passes the quick pass/fail criteria, and I will look at in more detail section by section. Harrias (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


### Lead
First issue for me is the title, and the opening statement.  "The "Battle of Old Trafford" is a name used by the British press..." which you then cite to The Times.  For this name to be used, I'd expect at least one more area of the British press to be cited here to show it is a commonly used name for the match, and not just something The Times alone coined it.
This is now sourced to three different UK newspapers: the Times, the Sun and the Independent.
"0-0" and other instances throughout the article, per WP:DASH should be replaced with an En-dash.
Done.
"...something that had only been achieved once before in English football, by Preston North End in 1888-89."  I would prefer if this were cited, as it is an important claim, and per WP:LEAD, information should not be present in the lead that isn't also in the main article content.
Sourced, and I've slotted the fact into the "Aftermath" section.
"The match is memorable for the sending-off of Arsenal captain..." In your opinion, it is memorable for that; try to find another way to describe the key events in the match without using the term memorable.
Re-worded.
Wikilink "second bookable offence" to something that would let a non-football fan know what it means.
Linked to Misconduct (association football)#Sending-off offences (red card.
"...controversial decision..." Provide a source that describes it as controversial, otherwise it just seems to be controversial in your opinion, a United fan might not agree it is!
Still looking for one that specifically describes the penalty as controversial. The BBC source describes Keown's challenge that led to the penalty as "innocuous", but if I can't find a better source, I'll re-word the statement.
Wikilink "penalty", an ice hockey fan might think someone is going to the penalty box!
Linked to penalty kick.
As you use "FA" later in the article, it might be best to put "...by The Football Association (FA) for their..."
Done.
"...and Arsenal were forced to pay fines." As I read it in the Aftermath section, Arsenal paid a £175,000 fine, while their players paid a variety, as did two United players.  So I would say that Arsenal paid a fine, not fines.  Maybe just say that Arsenal and x number of playes were forced to pay fines?
Done.
I'll have a look through the rest of the article later this evening (UK). Harrias (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Replied above. Hope you enjoy the rest of the article. – PeeJay 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to be able to get to the rest of the article tonight unfortunately, but I will give it my priority.  Good work on your changes so far! Harrias (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


### Background
"However, he rivalry" should be "However, the rivalry"
Done.
"McClair got his revenge" how did McClair get his revenge?
Added info based on the source already provided.
Viera and Keane should be linked in the first usage (end of the first paragraph) and not in the third paragraph.
Fixed.
"Martin Keown received a £5,000 fine for an incident with Ruud van Nistelrooy." As well as requiring a citation, this could do with expanding upon; what was the incident, would it lead to the possibility of vN trying to 'get back' at Keown?
Apparently this never actually happened, or at least I can't find any mention of a previous incident between RvN and Keown.


### Match
#### Summary
No citations at all; would like to see at least one for the section, and ideally more.  Particularly for phrases such as that starting the second paragraph, "The match was characterised by petty fouls and yellow cards handed out by referee Steve Bennett." Call me touchy, as I'm a referee myself; but 'petty' seems an opinion, and as such I want to see a source saying it, not an encyclopedia alone.
I'll see what I can do, give me a couple of days.
I can't find a source which explicity states the nature of the fouls. Can you think of a better way of putting the point across? I have utilised a source from the Independent used elsewhere in the article for that section. 03md 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The source you provide is about a match played in 2006, and although it references the 2003 match, it certainly doesn't provide sources for a match summary.  PeeJay said he was working on something with regards to this section, I don't know how much or how relevant it is, but I'm willing to wait a few days to see. Harrias (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The first two sentences: "As several matches involving Manchester United and Arsenal in recent years had been, this match was competitive. Arsenal came into the match at the top of the Premier League, holding an unbeaten record that stretched back to the end of the previous season. Manchester United were in second place in the table, but they had already lost one match that season, against Southampton." This sounds more like background to me; should it possibly be in the previous section?
Moved.
40 yards, per WP:MOSNUM requires a non-breaking space between the number and the measurement.
Done.
"13th-minute", "90th minute" be consistent, I would prefer it without the hyphen personally.
In the context it is written in, "a 13th-minute free-kick" is correct grammar, just as "in the 90th minute" is also correct.
"... goalkeeper Jens Lehmann received a yellow card for his protests."  There isn't a yellow card symbol beside his name in the details section below.
The BBC report states "Van Nistelrooy and Arsenal keeper Jens Lehmann were also shown yellow cards as players squared up to each other", but they don't list the Lehmann booking at the bottom of the page. Since no other sources record Lehmann as having been booked, I've removed the statement.
If possible, in addition to some more citations, I think this section could be expanded somewhat; though my review won't depend upon it.
I'll try to expand on the review based on the print sources I have here, but the only video source I have focuses on the Giggs free-kick that hit the post, the Vieira sending-off and the Van Nistelrooy penalty, so I don't have much more to go on.
If the review does not depend on expansion I will leave it and possibly expand this section if I decided to go for Featured Article status. 03md 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry it's taken so long, and I hope it's not too late, but I've finally managed to expand the match summary to the best of my ability. Good luck, guys. – PeeJay 00:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


#### Details
Minutes are supplied for substitutions, and the cautions given to Keane, van Nistelrooy, and Viera; but none are given for the other cautions, are those times not recorded anywhere?
I can only find times for the Keane, Vieira and Van Nistelrooy yellows. I think the Fortune, Ronaldo and Keown ones were shown after the final whistle, but I can't be sure.
Edu links to a disambiguation page; pipe it accordingly.
Done.
Again, while the review doesn't depend on it, it might be nice to make the image an image map, and be able to get to the players article by clicking on the relevant place on the image.  Just a thought.
I don't know how to do that, but since all other pages use SVG formation images, I don't think it's much of a problem.


### Aftermath
First section needs citations.
Done.
"Lauren, Martin Keown, Patrick Vieira and Ray Parlour were all suspended for between one and four matches, much less than had been originally anticipated." Would it be worth discussing the original speculation regarding suspensions?
Re-jigged the passage. Only Lauren escaped his maximum potential ban by a significant amount (he got four games when he could have got eight), while Ray Parlour got three games fewer than he could have, but had to pay a £10,000 fine.
There aren't inline citations for Lehmann and Cole's charges/fine.
Done.
"Van Nistelrooy's penalty, therefore," Might it be worth reiterating, and saying "missed penalty"?
Done.
It might also be an idea to add the result of the other league game between them that season, and clarify whether there was any trouble in that match.
Done.
"dubbed the Battle of the Buffet." If it was dubbed Battle of the Buffet, why is the article called Battle of Old Trafford (2004)?  Maybe something like "variously dubbed the Battle of the Buffet, the second Battle of Old Trafford, and simply The Battle of Old Trafford"?  (I don't know if there are sources for all three, but I have heard it referred to by them all.
Done.


### References
On the whole pretty good, but some inconsistencies I'd like to see fixed:

"BBC Sport (British Broadcasting Corporation)" is linked in 5, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18 & 19, but not in 4 & 10.
Linked only the first usage.
6 has "The Observer (Guardian News and Media)", while 9 just has "The Guardian"
Done.
Right, that's the rest of the article.  I'll place the nomination on hold to give you some time to get them done.  It is for the most part a good article though. Feel free to strike-through any of my original points that you fix. Harrias (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, mate. I've acted on most of them, and I'm too tired to do the rest right now. Give me a couple of days and I'll get it sorted! – PeeJay 20:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I have responded above. 03md 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits to this article have introduced unnecessarily flowery language. I will address each problem I have with it below, point by point: – PeeJay 22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC) 

"Arsenal's attacking play lacked its usual ambition and flair" – The original statement only mentions their ambition, which was specifically mentioned by the source provided. The source mentioned nothing about flair, so to add that now would either count as original research or we require another source.
You can use words which go beyond the source provided the facts are not distorted by consequence. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
But who says Arsenal ever attacked with flair? Not that I disagree, but you can't say it unless you have a source to back it up. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is a journalist's judgement (the most probable source) anymore reliable than our own?! Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Because they are experts in the field they write on. You and I (but mostly you) are just amateur Wikipedians whose opinions count for exactly... erm, let me think... fuck all. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You can't generalise like that! Not all journalists are 'experts in the field they write on'. To name a famous one, Jeremy Paxman was an English graduate and yet the BBC deemed it appropriate that he report on politics. There are many journalists who are not qualified experts. Most of the journalists who report on CERN, for example have no degrees in the respective field. Anyway, THIS IS A FOOTBALL MATCH, not the discovery of the Higg's boson. You don't need an expert. Oh and your opinion is that I'm worse than you??! That really surprises the bejesus out of me, it really fucking does!!!!!!!!! It may have eluded you, but I really don't value anything you say in any kind of regard, not to mention the evident disregard other Wikipedians associated with this page have for your opinions in this particular episode, so please keep your irrelevant opinions to yourself. It would be greatly appreciated. Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
And yet Jeremy Paxman (who is a lovely man, by the way; met him when I was on University Challenge) is now considered one of the foremost journalists of politics in the country. You might even call him an expert. And no, you don't need a degree in a subject to be an expert on it, but you might at least have to have some background. – PeeJay 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
When I read in newspapers 'experts have said', you'll find most of those experts have got serious qualifications in their field and it inherently shows the journalist who writes those words to not be an expert. However, you seldom read in match reports of any paper that 'experts have said...' which shows that expertise knowledge in analysing football matches is non-existent. Journalists report their own original research based on what they saw and just because they HAVE TO WATCH FOOTBALL MATCHES(I know right, how tortuous!!!!!) for free and get paid hamdsomely for it, doesn't mean that their opinion is any more accurate or valuable than our own. Journalists are well known for writing tripe just to help the paper sell. Jeremy Paxman, who I can also describe as a nice man having met him at my dad's St Catharine’s College, Cambridge reunions, is not an expert. He couldn't lecture in politics at university and indeed when he was invited by my school's politics society to give a speech to us as sixth formers, he spent most of the hour speaking about Newsnight and what he did as a journalist so low was his confidence in speaking intellectually on politics. He is an expert of English lang and lit but of nothing else. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"their best opportunity coming late on in the match, in the 75th minute," – This is a tautology.
This is EMPHATIC! Deliberate hyperbole to stress the point being made. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
What point? Let the facts speak for themselves. The incident happened in the 75th minute, let the reader decide whether that's late on in the match. 15 minutes is an eternity in football. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, whatever. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
How magnanimous of you. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, actually, something you won't understand, but I actually have a life to get back to. The less points of debate in this very needless debate the sooner this'll finish and the sooner I can get back to my life. Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, you're assuming all people know a match is 90 mins. With my edit, people who don't know may be prompted to go find out. After all, Wikipedia exists to educate people. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"The match was characterised by a large number of fouls; 13 were committed by United, 18 by Arsenal" – This is less concise than the original version.
Writing articles in good English is I would say more important than being succinct. I've simply made it flow better. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with the writing as it was. It flowed just fine. But as this is a matter of opinion, we really need a third voice to come in on the matter. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
... and it flows just fine with my edit. This is just plain petulance. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
No, this is a content dispute based on the opinions of two editors, one of whom made a substantial contribution to getting this article to GA status (no, it's not you). This is why I'm asking for a third opinion. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Well fucking done! What do you want??? A medal?! In fact, take that back, I don't care about what you want as what you want and what you may or may not have done is irrelavant to this particular edit. It flows just fine with my edit and you're just being plain petulant. Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"causing the startled Manchester United centre-forward to  recoil in surprise" – How do we know Van Nistelrooy was startled? Even if he were startled, why do we need to say that in addition to the fact that he "recoiled in surprise"?
How do we know? Well, his facial expression was pretty good evidence of this. I can provide a link to a picture of it to avoid POV issues if needed. Wouldn't you be startled if someone spontaneously kicked out at you? I was the one who added the words 'recoiled' and 'surprise'; you haven't deprecated their inclusion so you must have no objection to them I assume. It does no harm to have both. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You can't use a person's facial expression as a source. That's original research. Interpretations of Van Nistelrooy's actions require a source. And actually, I replaced "recoil in surprise" with "jump backwards to avoid being kicked". – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You replaced it after you said this and after I invoked it. Who you trying to fool? Petulance again! Require a source? What type of source? If we go with your method, then the only person who knows how RVN felt is RVN himself. Stop being ludicrous! I've just made a rational judgement based in decent logic. If someone lashes out abruptly because of an ordinary foul, one will be startled. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I replaced it afterwards, once I'd had a chance to re-examine the language of the article. I examined both options, decided neither was preferable and came up with a third one. It's called copyediting. You've heard of interviews, haven't you? If RVN had done an interview about the game and mentioned why he jumped back, then we would have a reliable source. All we can say is that he jumped back. After all, some people say he did it intentionally and exaggerated his reaction to get Vieira sent off! – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You used MY WORDS; to quote you verbatim, "Even if he were startled, why do we need to say that in addition to the fact that he recoiled in surprise?" You can't deny it, you condoned it and then on my declaration that they were inputted courtesy of me, you then finally decide to attack the choice of words. Petulant. Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"although Vieira's retaliatory kick failed to connect with van Nistelrooy" – It was clearly retaliatory, judging by the previous couple of sentences. We don't need to say it again just for the sake of saying it.
It's actually not clear. Don't assume all reader's have the same level of comprehension skills as yourself. There's nothing like clarity. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If people reading this article had problems with comprehension, I would tell them to go read the Simple English Wikipedia. It was obviously a retaliation as we have a clear instigating factor, i.e. Van Nistelrooy's jump. Besides, if we must say outright that it was a retaliation, there are better places to do it. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's elitist and facetious. My edit adds clarity and removes any lingerings of doubt. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you should try reading the current version. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Guess what, I have! I deemed my edit appropriate and no one else thus far but you has rejected it. Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"Arsenal goalkeeper Lehmann applied distraction and intimidation techniques to put off the centre-forward" – What the hell does this even mean? I don't think there was any intimidation involved. It's also redundant to the bit about putting Van Nistelrooy off.
Be courteous and at least attempt to understand it; it's not that unintelligible. Intimidation alludes to how he made himself look bigger. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
No, this is just verbosity for verbosity's sake. You make it sound like Lehmann had studied "distraction and intimidation techniques" at university or something. It's better just to say he tried to put Van Nistelrooy off. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Fine, be obstinate. I don't know why that which you decree to be 'better' should be taken as gospel; who the hell are you in the scheme of things? Why are YOU tinkering with MY non-vandalistic edit? I did rounds today with a survey at my university (Queen Mary) and asked people what they made of this particular sentence. None seem to have drawn the conclusion you have and bear in mind the average IQ of students at Russell Group univeristies is fairly above the general average. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Bear in mind that your "survey" is hardly representative of Wikipedia's overall audience. You should also bear in mind that I am a professional journalist and I have several years of experience writing and editing text for public consumption. That's who the hell I am. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It didn't matter that it wasn't representative. All that mattered was that on asking numerous people of their drawn conclusions, after having read my added sentence, they didn't draw the same ludicrous conclusions that you have drawn. You received a BA in journalism, a non vocational qualification! Most pukka journalists complete undergraduate courses in proper subjects and then go on to do an MA in journalism. They then as professionals have expertise knowledge in a chosen field and the necessary journalistic training. i.e. more than you have. Please don't make yourself out to be more than you are. Who the hell you are is actually not that much! A lot of journalists don't even have qualifications in journalism. Take Nick Robinson and Boris Johnson for example; they completed their respected subjects' undergraduate degree courses and then went straight in to their respective careers as journalists. Also, there's nothing special about journalists. You don't think lawyers for example publish writing in the public domain or a lot of other professions for that matter. Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
How little you know. Yes, I have a BA in journalism. I'm also a few months away from having an MA in it too. Furthermore, I have been paid for my writing on numerous occasions, and by reputable publications no less, which some might say would make me a professional journalist. – PeeJay 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The adversarial nature of this discussion is gonna get us nowhere. I will apologise for my demeaning behaviour even if you don't. I'm a law student who studied the Leveson inquiry and by consequence I just don't like journalists. I'm not gonna take it out on you any further as you are a sports journalist and are after all sports mad like myself. I hope you get your MA. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"as it transpired" – This is way too flowery for an encyclopaedia.
I've seen much more 'flowery' language used on other Wikipedia articles and I've merely put this article in to better English! I'm not compromising its GA status! You'll find as many people who agree with this assertion as you will people who disagree with it. It's just a slightly not so commonplace word. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You may have seen more flowery language elsewhere on Wikipedia, but what you've read on other articles is no justification for doing it here. Please see WP:OSE. Put plainly, you don't need to say "as it transpired". Just say, "Lehmann tried to put him off by strafing along the goal line, and it appeared to work". – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You're not qualified to be an arbiter in this matter. Do you not think I've read WP:OSE?! I'm fully aware of its contents and I don't see how my edit doesn't abide by its guidelines and so far, nor does anyone else but you. Also, your proposal is insufficient as he did more than strafe along the goal line. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand WP:OSE as you're trying to justify your flowery language by saying you've seen it in other articles. That is not a valid argument. And no, he didn't just strafe across his line, he waved his hands around a bit too. I'd say that all comes under the relatively simple handle of "putting Van Nistelrooy off". – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, your weak comprehension skills are being exhibited again. That wasn't my argument. My argument was that genuinely flowerey language has been severely deprecated on other articles and this particular edit of mine so far has had only one objection; from you! Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You keep using this word 'deprecated'. I do not think it means what you think it means. – PeeJay 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm merely using it to mean exactly what the OED says it means which is 'to express disapproval of'.  Obvious exuberant language is removed from most articles but with respect to mildly 'flowery' language, no-one is qualified to arbitrate on the matter and by consequence mildly 'flowery' language stays. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
"van Nistelrooy's shot dazzled Lehman but not the crossbar" – Apparently this is a quote a commentator used during the 1998 World Cup to describe an entirely different incident. Regardless, it's inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.
If only I could find the clip with that commentary. It's a turn of phrase; don't read in to it literally. The ENGLISH SPEAKING commentator used it in the WC 98 2nd round match between Yugoslavia and Holland when Predrag Mijatović missed in the same way RVN did in this match. It's a vividly descriptive phrase, more accurately conveying and outlining the penalty miss so the reader can envisage it more easily and vividly. It wasn't an 'entirely different incident'; it was an identical incident with a penalty missed in EXACTLY the same way. Go watch it if you don't recall it. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You're ignoring the fact that the language a commentator uses on television is not the same type of language we should be using on Wikipedia. Commentators have to be more colourful with their words to keep the viewers interested. We do not have that same concern, we are simply concerned with the facts. The shot didn't "dazzle" anyone. It hit the bar and rebounded back into play. The only element of your edit I would retain is the comment about the crossbar still shaking, but we'd need a source for that. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I've said, and I'll say it again, STOP READING IN TO THE TURN OF PHRASE LITERALLY! I didn't use it because a commentator used it; I repeat, it's a vividly descriptive phrase which more accurately conveys and outlines the penalty miss so the reader can envisage it more easily and vividly. Again, I asked 2 professors of English at my university with whom I have had no previous contact and both said my wording was preferable as a description. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not taking it literally at all. I know exactly what you mean by the word "dazzled", it just doesn't apply here. If Lehmann had been "dazzled" by the shot, he'd have stood stock still and watched as the ball crashed against the crossbar. But he didn't. He dived (the wrong way) in an attempt to save it. I still don't understand the point about the shot not "dazzling" the crossbar though; under what circumstances could Van Nistelrooy's shot have "dazzled" the crossbar, I'm intrigued to know? – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
You're intrigued to understand an idiom in a literal way! Well, that's not something most people concern themsleves with so you'll have to overcome that particular obstacle on your own I'm afraid. Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"the Nike Geo Merlin II football rebounded back into play" – Why do we need to mention the brand name of the ball being used?
The PL's ball design and engineering changes each season and players are endlessly commenting on how it affects play. The ball design is a factor and this was a particularly controversial game and by consequence I should think it appropriate to mention all possible game influencing factors and so yes, that includes the ball!!! Do you not remember the players' qualms with the Jabulani?1 The penalty wasn't the only event which involved the ball but its description allows for the invocation of the ball's name and thereby its design. It may have had an influence, it may not have, one cannot conclusively say. Its inclusion however I believe invokes in the reader's mind the potential influence ball engineering has in games! They've done studies on championships which have used different balls and observed how the stats vary as well as analyse how they correlate to the used ball's design. My edit is not vandalistic, this is an encyclopaedic fact and no actual harm to the article is induced as a result! Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't comprehend why you're so intent on adding the name of the ball. There were no incidents in this game that were blamed on the ball's design. As far as this encyclopaedia is concerned, it could have been a plain black and white ball, it would have made no difference. You admit yourself that we don't know whether the design of the ball had an impact on the game; you need a source to back up a claim like that. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
What you can and can't comprehend is irrelevant! I never said colour was an influence; I specifically said 'engineering' and 'design'. Nothing about 'black and white'! The whole world is dependent on engineering and physics! Why is this match an exception!? Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Because there's no evidence that this specific design of ball had any bearing on the match. If you can prove otherwise, then it deserves a fuller scientific analysis, but at the moment it sounds like you're just taking an opportunity to advertise a Nike product. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The ball changes every season and like all other things, it is identified in a unique way. Its name is a label. Of course, whenever you cite the name of anything, you are inherently 'advertising' it. You don't need proof to show that engineering and physics determines, how structures don't fall down, how planes fly, how your shoes don't collapse and fit perfectly, how cars move and support people on seats and not least how the trajectory of objects and contact with them is affected by design. Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
And yet you've still not provided any evidence that the ball actually had any specific impact on the events of this game. – PeeJay 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
There was nothing special about THIS game. In any game of any sport, the kinematics of the ball will have an influence. The trajectory of the ball is important in any ball game and the ball's engineering and design is instrumental in that. It's called maths and physics, both subjects I have an A in at A-level and which govern a lot of things in this universe. Without the major developments in maths and physics for instance, we wouldn't have the internet and wouldn't be having this debate hence. Do you want proof for that or do you think that's erroneous? Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"The Dutchman was immediately confronted and roared at by Arsenal centre-back Keown" – Why do we need to say "roared at"? Is it not enough to say he was confronted?
No, it isn't as he did actually ROAR at him. The word 'confront' does not adequately and accurately convey this. Keown's 'roar' is actually quite famous. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you hear him roar? I don't remember seeing him roar. I saw him shout in Van Nistelrooy's ear as he clouted him over the back of the head with his outstretched arms, but I never saw a roar. Perhaps Keown's reaction isn't conveyed 100% adequately by the original phrasing, but you can't fix this just by adding "and roared at". – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02727/martin-keown_2727196k.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/08/article-2492557-003F41F41000044C-926_634x489.jpg
In these .jpg links you can see that that's a roar, not a mere confrontation. I have multiple prominent sources which describe it as 'a roar' as well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/picturegalleries/10433387/Arsenal-vs-Manchester-United-the-top-10-games.html?frame=2727196
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2492557/Arsenal-v-Manchester-United--Gunners-terrible-record-Old-Trafford.html
This is but two quality sources which describe it as 'a roar'. I've found 16 more sources and I'm sure there are numerous more. I just don't have time to cite them here to prove the obvious just because of your petulance. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should add those sources then. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know you can't add content without a source. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The concession is appreciated and no, like most things in life, a balance has to be struck. Not every flaming word on Wikipedia is there because of a source. Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Moving the opening part of the "Aftermath" section into the "Match summary" section is inappropriate as it happened after the final whistle and therefore wasn't part of the match itself.
Actually, the altercations started just before the match finished and CARRIED ON after the final whistle. They didn't actually commence after the whistle. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? There was a scuffle after the Vieira–Van Nistelrooy incident, a little bit of afters as soon as Van Nistelrooy missed the penalty in stoppage time, and then he was fouled again just before the final whistle, but the real fight didn't start until Steve Bennett blew the final whistle. See this highlights package from Man Utd's end-of-season DVD. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I've watched that video on more than one occasion and I have a personal recording of the entire match on VHS. Actually, what happened after the match is just an escalated continuation of the scuffles which occured subsequent to the pen. miss! The 'real fight' as you describe it is an escalation of an altercation which commenced before the final whistle which play briefly interrupted. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
So you're agreeing that the altercation described in the "Aftermath" section did indeed happen after the final whistle? There's nothing in that section that happened before the final whistle, so it would be inappropriate to include it with content that did. Thanks for proving my point. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Your comprehension skills are obviously deficient and are in need of tightening up. In the law, which I can talk about with some authority as a second year law student at a Russell Group university with a first in my criminal law module, we talk about the aftermath of events as having no factual AND legal causation to the actual event. Were this event being discussed in court, the altercation which CONTINUED after the whistle would have been seen as legally and factually linked to the initial events which started just before the blowing of the whistle and thereby the link of causation had not yet been broken. Chris Tomic (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There's clearly a causal link between the two events, no one is denying that. But one happened before the final whistle, about 10 minutes before, and the other happened after the final whistle. They're clearly separate events, but one was a retaliation for the other. – PeeJay 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
And I'm telling you, in a court, that causal link is pivotal to the labelling of events. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Calm down.
Thank you Cliftonian for your intervention. I really do appreciate it but I have some responses to your assertions and proposals. Chris Tomic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The addition of "and flair" should be either sourced or omitted. It doesn't add that much to the prose in my opinion anyway.
It doesn't detract from it either and were my edit to be redone, I believe it would fit in nicely. Chris Tomic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Put a source for it then and it can stay. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, if a source describes Arsenal's play on that day as lacking its usual flair, that might make the addition more acceptable, but none has so far been provided. – PeeJay 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll put in my source then but I might add the original source is a biased source which is worse than no source. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's not a reliable source then you'll have to find one that is reliable. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Chris Tomic (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
"late on in the match, in the 75th minute" is tautology, as PeeJay says. Just saying the 75th minute is enough.
This issue was finalised and shouldn't have been invoked again. Chris Tomic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry for misinterpreting the conversation above. I just went through and commented on everything. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to apologise for. Third opinions are always welcome. – PeeJay 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for an apology just stating that any further opinions after a finalisation are immaterial. However, to reopen the debate, you're assuming all people know a match is 90 mins. Were my edit to be re-done, people who don't know may be prompted to go find out. After all, Wikipedia exists to educate people. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You just said this issue was finalised. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I know, but due to your intervention, I'm reopening it. Chris Tomic (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The original wording ("The match was characterised by a large number of fouls – 13 by United, 18 by Arsenal") is better prose and should be retained.
Professors of English always say it is preferable to keep hyphens out of prose and this writer amongst others on the web concurs. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2011/05/the_caseplease_hear_me_outagainst_the_em_dash.html Chris Tomic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
So far as I know it is preferred not to use them "habitually", but the occasional one here and there is fine. According to this they are "used more every year" and are "very helpful, but traditionalists tend to hate them". The article you've linked to actually uses them incorrectly to make its point as you're certainly not supposed to put more than a pair of them in a sentence (or even a paragraph). Perhaps the writer did this deliberately? I see no reason to add redundant extra words. This page has helped me develop my prose a lot, particularly the "Eliminating redundancy" section. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, User:Tony1's page is a pretty good guide to better writing. – PeeJay 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
None of us have any formal qualifications which give us authority to decree that which is and isn't 'good prose' but I do however have an A* in English language A-level and we were always told in class by our teachers to avoid the hyphen when writing prose. It flows just fine with my edit and it's not vandalistic so why is it being met with such criticism?! Just leave it, PLEASE! I want my name stamped on this excellent page. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Because the prose version you prefer is inferior to the version you wish to replace. Our respective school days are not germane to the conversation. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with our school days. It's to do with qualified people stipulating that which should be used and avoided in good prose. I only graduated from school 2 years ago and so those stipulations are pretty fresh in my head. I also quizzed two English lecturers at my university today and they said if you write the sentence without a hyphen, then do so. Chris Tomic (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
As I said before that is a guideline and not a cast-iron rule. I agree that using hyphens a lot is a sign of poor prose, but the occasional one can add variety and and actually improve it. As I said before I see no reason why these shouldn't stay, but if you really feel that strongly about it perhaps we can just simply replace these two em-dashes with commas? The sentence would still make sense that way. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
...or we can just use my rephrased version with some commas which also makes sense. Chris Tomic (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
We've already said in the previous line that Vieira "kicked out at Van Nistelrooy in retaliation" so it isn't necessary to say "retaliatory" again.
My edit rephrases this part completely and by consequence the word 'retaliatory' becomes necessary. Chris Tomic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was reading old revisions and I must have missed that. If the implication of retaliation was removed previously then there's no problem adding it again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I added "in retaliation" later as I realised it was a better place to mention the retaliatory aspect of Vieira's actions. Cliftonian, would you care to comment on the pros and cons of each version? – PeeJay 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The present version reads:
"In challenging for a high ball outside the Arsenal penalty area, Van Nistelrooy jumped up onto Vieira's back. Vieira fell to the ground and kicked out at Van Nistelrooy in retaliation, causing the Manchester United striker to jump backwards. Van Nistelrooy was booked for the original foul, and although Vieira's boot failed to connect with the Dutchman, the referee believed that the intent was there and booked Vieira for the second time, resulting in his dismissal."
Chris Tomic's preferred version (as seen here) is:
"In challenging for a high ball, Van Nistelrooy jumped up onto Vieira's back outside the Arsenal penalty area. Vieira fell to the ground and kicked out at Van Nistelrooy, causing the startled Manchester United centre-forward to recoil in surprise. Van Nistelrooy was booked for the original foul and although Vieira's retaliatory kick failed to connect with van Nistelrooy, the referee believed that the intent was there and booked Vieira for the second time resulting in his dismissal."
The present version is in my opinion superior for the following reasons:
Better to say the high ball was outside the Arsenal penalty area than the other way around, in my view.
I think you're being picky; it doesn't really make a difference either way. Actually, my writing shows the location of both events. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you didn't get such impressive A-levels by not being picky. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but being picky here doesn't make a difference either way. Chris Tomic (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Touché. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I made a fairly inert edit here and the amount of opposition to it is totally disproportionate. Chris Tomic (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Better in my opinion to say straight off the kick was in retaliation.
How do we know it was in retaliation? The source does not once mention anything of the sort!!!!! In my view, it looked more like RVN wanted to help him up but Vieira told him to fuck off. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I hadn't read the source material itself and had presumed this was sourced. If there is nothing saying it was retaliation then it should be removed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It actually says more to say simply what Van Nistelrooy did (jump backwards) rather than something vague like "recoil in surprise" which could mean any one of many things.
He for sure didn't jump. It was more of a waddle than a jump. The source uses 'recoil' too. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Then perhaps "recoil backwards"? —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Fine, good compromise. Perhaps 'recoiled away from Vieira' as that is a clearer description. Chris Tomic (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Great. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
"recoil backwards" is fine. In fact, we might even get away with just saying "recoil". It's not like people ever recoil towards the thing that caused them to recoil. – PeeJay 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't need to say "retaliatory" again if we are keeping the original instance.
Don't need the word retaliatory at all. It isn't sourced. The only credible source is Vieira as only he knows whether it was retaliatory or not. In my view, it looked more like RVN wanted to help him up but Vieira told him to fuck off. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
See above —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Sentence reads better with the comma near the end. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I can make it so it doesn't need a comma at all. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
But why? Why would that be an improvement? The comma improves the flow. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
All right then, it can be kept. Chris Tomic (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Lekker. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
"Arsenal goalkeeper Lehmann applied distraction and intimidation techniques to put off the centre-forward"—I agree with PeeJay's comments above. Better just to say what he did, which was shuttle back and forth along the line. "Distraction and intimidation techniques" sounds like something out of Apocalypse Now.
The fact is he did more than that. 'Distraction and intimidation techniques' illustrates that Lehman used the full repertoire. I think the conclusions being drawn from this edit are severely hyperbole. Chris Tomic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems severely hyperbole to me to say he used "the full repertoire". What is "the full repertoire" anyway? Have you a source for that? What did he do more than strafe up and down the line? —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
He lifted his hands up above his head to make himself look bigger. For a brief moment. Twice. Most of the time he had his hands in a ready position as he moved up and down the line. – PeeJay 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's certainly clearer and more descriptive than "distraction and intimidation techniques" or "full repertoire". Now I know what Lehmann actually did. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
So do you think "Lehmann tried to put him off by moving from side to side along the goal line" is sufficient? Or is the minimal movement of his hands worth mentioning? – PeeJay 18:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
How do the sources describe it? Is the movement of the hands mentioned prominently or just the movement on the line?—  Cliftonian (talk)  18:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure most sources even went so far as to describe Lehmann's lateral movement, just this one from The Guardian. None of them mentioned his hands. – PeeJay 18:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Please please please, take some time to try to understand what I'm saying before putting words in my mouth. I never said use 'the full repetoire'. The fact is, like a lot of keepers in penalties, he did use distraction and intimidation techniques and I think by citing this and what they were we become a more accurate source on this than anything else on the web as we cite his actions and explain what they were for. Double whammy Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
That's original research. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Not if it's sourced from original footage of the match. Chris Tomic (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be sourcing to your own interpretation of the original match footage, not the match footage itself. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I mean, state what he did, state the reason why most keepers do this and source it to original match footage.
This still makes no sense. You don't need to say "he applied distraction and intimidation techniques such as X and Y" when you can just say "he did X and Y". Who refers to them as "distraction and intimidation techniques" anyway? – PeeJay 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I've heard it used and just because YOU haven't heard it used doesn't mean it ISN'T used. My edit adds explanation. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Your edit adds a phrase barely anyone uses to describe events that can be (and are being) explained far more simply. – PeeJay 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I've heard it used on multiple occasions, it does no harm to have it so please leave it. Chris Tomic (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"as it transpired"—have looked at the old version of the page including this; it adds no meaning, just clogs up the prose.
Again, with my edit, I deemed it an appropriate fit. Chris Tomic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
See my above post on tightening up prose. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed. – PeeJay 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here; it doesn't compromise the page or its GA status and in using a slightly non commonplace word, it further shows that people took the writing of this article seriously. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The burden is on you to show how it's an improvement. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just explained how it doesn't detract from the article and the truth of the matter is whether it's there or not, it makes no actual difference. Chris Tomic (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
But you haven't explained anything... It detracts from the article in that it makes the writing less tight. We should always be aiming for tight prose, and adding extra, unnecessary words does the opposite of that. – PeeJay 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It's three fucking words. Just get over it. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It's cute that you're getting so stressed over this. It doesn't matter if it's one word, three words or an essay; if it doesn't add to the article, it shouldn't be used. – PeeJay 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm getting stressed?! I'm not getting stressed, I'm just fighting my corner. You're the one getting stressed by not letting a fairly minor and inert edit be. Chris Tomic (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"van Nistelrooy's shot dazzled Lehman but not the crossbar" per Manual of Style more literal wordings should be preferred to stuff like this. I can imagine someone not so football-savvy might have trouble understanding this in any case.
You don't need to be football-savvy; it merely conveys the idea that Lehman was beaten but the crossbar wasn't. The crossbar would've 'been beaten' had the ball hit the crossbar and gone in or if it had simply gone in. One famous GK described the crossbar as an aid to his hand implying that the crossbar's function is to keep the ball out of the goal in addition to supporting the goal structure. Chris Tomic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Why not just say it hit the bar and rebounded back out? The crossbar also has the function of occasionally deflecting shots in. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed. – PeeJay 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Errrr, no. I said the crossbar 'would've been beaten had the ball hit the crossbar and gone in' but I did not say this was the function of the crossbar. So, according to your logic, the GK's glove's function is to allow the ball to slip out of his hand and in to the goal. Nonsensical I'm afraid. In almost cases where the ball goes in off the crossbar or slips out of the GK's glove, it is a bit of fortune and not an intended flight path. It is an example of the crossbar and glove only just failing to fulfill their functions but it is almost always never their actual function. This is a nice idiom which accurately depicts the penalty miss. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps say it "dazzled Lehmann but hit the crossbar and bounced back out" or something? Nice compromise.  —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer 'smashed' to 'hit' but okay, I'll accept that compromise. Chris Tomic (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, "smashed" is good too, more descriptive. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me for being literal, but the ball didn't "smash" the crossbar. The bar remained intact. The ball could be said to have "smacked" against the crossbar, but it's better just to say it "hit" the crossbar as that doesn't assign any emotive language to the events as they happened. – PeeJay 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say it 'smashed' the bar. Please read my edits before reverting them. I said 'it smashed into the bar' which is perfectly satisfactory English. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe so, but we have a perfectly decent alternative already in place. You've already said yourself that you're only editing this article because you want your name associated with it. Well guess what? Your name is now associated with this article, just not for a good reason. – PeeJay 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth, it's really rather insolent. Go back and reread our discussion if you would. I never said it was the 'only reason'. Another reason is I think this page could do with some improvement. Literally only you believes that my association is bad. Chris Tomic (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"the Nike Geo Merlin II football rebounded back into play" I understand Chris Tomic's point above about specific match ball brands and models being commented on in recent years, but so far as I'm aware the exact kind of ball used in this specific match has never been made the focus of discussion. If reliable sources consider the exact model of ball relevant specifically in the context of this match then perhaps there is a case for including it; otherwise, as PeeJay says above, it's just irrelevant. It would be like going to the article on the US Declaration of Independence and adding the brand of pen it was signed with, or what the air humidity was that day.
The pen (or quill) used and the air humidity at the signing of the US Declaration of Independence were not as instrumental in that event as the ball and weather conditions were in this match. As I've stated above, its addition merely invokes in the reader's mind the possibility that the engineering and design of the match ball MAY have influenced the game's events. It is regardless of this, still a fact and a permanent fixture of any PL match which took place in the 2003/2004 season. Given that this was a match of that season, the ball type I think is a fact which is inert when stated. Chris Tomic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What evidence have you that the engineering and design of the match ball may have influenced the events of this match? The controversy here is about the players fighting, not a goal that should or shouldn't have gone in. Or are you implying that the use of this model of ball may have been a factor in Van Nistelrooy missing the penalty? If so, have you a source for that, or is it original research? —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly my point. There's no evidence that the specific ball being used that day had any substantial effect on how the game was played, no different from any other design of ball. If evidence can be found, that might be worth investigating, but it's certainly not worth mentioning that the "Nike Geo Merlin II ball with its distinctive patterning and unmistakeable Nike swoosh made everyone gasp as it ricocheted off the crossbar in its inimitable style". That would be silly. – PeeJay 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
There was nothing special about THIS game. In any game of any sport, the kinematics of the ball will have an influence. The trajectory of the ball is important in any ball game and the ball's engineering and design(and no, not their pattern PeeJay, I haven't mentioned pattern once, that's only you) is instrumental in that. It's called maths and physics, both subjects I have an A in at A-level and which govern a lot of things in this universe. Without the major developments in maths and physics for instance, we wouldn't have the internet and wouldn't be having this debate hence. Do you want proof for that or do you think that's erroneous? Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This isn't relevant. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The kinematics and the trajectory of the ball in ball games isn't relevant? Chris Tomic (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You've said yourself that "there was nothing special about this game" insofar as the ball was concerned. Speculation about the impact the specific model may have had on specific shots' trajectory, etc is therefore not relevant here, in addition to being original research. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not speculating. The penalty wasn't the only event which involved the ball but its description allows for the invocation of the ball's name and thereby triggers thoughts in the reader's mind about its technical design. It may have had an influence, it may not have, one cannot conclusively say. We should be at least open to the possibilty and let the reader also be contemplate that possibilty. Its inclusion I believe invokes in the reader's mind the potential influence ball engineering has in games! They've done studies on championships which have used different balls and observed how the stats vary as well as analyse how they correlate to the used ball's design and I can source this. My edit is not vandalistic, the ball type liked or not is an encyclopaedic fact and no actual harm to the article is induced as a result of its inclusion! Chris Tomic (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
But you are speculating. You're assuming the design of this particular model of ball had an effect on any specific incident in this game. Sure, the design of a ball can affect its aerodynamics, but there's no evidence this game was affected by any such factors. Mentioning the ball for the express purpose of "triggering thoughts in the reader's mind" is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. – PeeJay 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
'CAN affect its aerodynamics'?! I can tell you're not a scientist. The ball design DOES and ALWAYS DOES affect the ball's movement. It's called kinematics and I can link you to the peer reviewed equation which proves it if you don't believe it. Triggering thoughts is a good thing to do when enlighteniong people. I can't be bothered arguing this point any further and if you'd bothered to check my latest edits you'd've noticed that and not invoked this again. Chris Tomic (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So where's your evidence that the design of this ball made it move differently from any other design? You're triggering thoughts that have no reason to be triggered. – PeeJay 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thoughts about possible influences shouldn't be triggered?! I just don't get you full stop.
I can go get the relevant dimensions of the ball and apply the equation I learnt at physics A-level to outline to you all the trajectory details but as I've said before, CBA! Chris Tomic (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
If information like Keown roaring at Van Nistelrooy, etc is added it should be with sources, which Chris Tomic asserts above exist in great numbers but concurrently does not wish to add. It is not necessary to say both that Van Nistelrooy was startled and that he recoiled in surprise—this is tautology. Just one is enough (the latter is better in my opinion).
I am waiting for this debate to wrap up before I make any further edits and 'recoiled in surprise' was my contribution so I thank you for your preference. In order to shorten this debate, I will no longer argue this point any further. Chris Tomic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I deleted all mentions of the emotions Van Nistelrooy might have been feeling at the time as we can't prove what he was feeling. All we can prove is that Vieira kicked out and Van Nistelrooy jumped back with a shocked look on his face. Whether or not he was shocked, surprised or anything else is unprovable without Van Nistelrooy's own words (or a reliable commentator's – and by commentator, I don't mean a football commentator, I merely mean someone who comments. Gotta be careful around lawyers.) And by the way, User:Chris Tomic changed the original wording from "causing the Manchester United striker to jump backwards in surprise" to "causing the startled Manchester United centre-forward to recoil in surprise" with this edit, so all of the unnecessary words are his anyway. As for Keown's "roaring", the facts (per this video) are thus: immediately after Van Nistelrooy fouled Vieira, Keown stepped in to separate them (I read somewhere that Keown had appointed him as Vieira's personal protector in case things boiled over); Keown then conceded the penalty by fouling Forlan; Van Nistelrooy took the penalty, it struck the bar and Keown got up in his face, clearly saying some strong words; as the ball came back towards the penalty area, Van Nistelrooy was fouled on the edge of the area but the referee used it as an opportunity to blow for full time; Keown then jumps up in the air with both arms raised and brings them down hard on Van Nistelrooy's head and neck while shouting with a truly ugly expression on his face. After that, I don't see any further interaction between the two, but at no point do I see a "roar". If the journalists are describing Keown's shouts as "roars", then either we put the word "roar" in quote marks as I have done because it is someone else's colourful opinion of what happened or we avoid using it altogether and say exactly what did happen, which is that Keown shouted. – PeeJay 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Why are you taking ownership of the page and making the edits? I'm perfectly capable of adding my own edits thank you, especially those which came about as a reult of my own insight. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
He isn't taking ownership of the page. He just finds most of your additions aren't improvements and I don't totally disagree with him. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Crucially however, were all my original edits retained, not one of them would be classed as vandalistic and some though not all would prefer my version to the previous version of the page. Chris Tomic (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
While I know your edits were reverted I am not aware of any of them being classed as vandalism. If that is the case I apologise; I did not class them as such. Please remain patient with me as I think we are making progress with this conversation. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No one is accusing anyone of vandalism based on the content of the edits themselves, but making edits that do not respect the outcome of this discussion might very well be described as vandalism. – PeeJay 21:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at my latest edit which you reverted. It honoured everything said in this discussion thus far.
Not even close, dude. – PeeJay 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Bar a couple of things which due to your long silence, I assumed you'd tacitly approved. Chris Tomic (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The match ends at the final whistle. Anything after that is something else.
As I've explained above, I don't think this is factually correct. The event started before the match. You can't split the event in to half of it being beforehand and the latter half being the aftermath. Chris Tomic (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
How about renaming the "Match" section to "Match day" or something like that, then the brawl after the game can go in that section, and the "Aftermath" section can start with the accusation that Van Nistelrooy dived to get Vieira sent off, and the FA charges of improper conduct? —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The accusations against Van Nistelrooy were given in a post-match interview on the same day as the game, so your suggestion would mean that would have to go in too. I'd be happier to just move the entire passage to the "Match summary" section as none of the players had left the pitch by that point, so they were all technically still under the jurisdiction of the referee. Of course, I'm only agreeing to avoid any more dummy-spitting, and I would still argue that the fight after the final whistle was part of the aftermath of the game, since the game itself was over and the fight was a separate incident, albeit related to the earlier altercations as a matter of retaliation by Arsenal. – PeeJay 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that sounds like a good compromise. What do you think Chris Tomic? —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll accept that compromise. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Great. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope this helps. Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Chris Tomic: Thank you for your responses. I hope you don't mind that I have reformatted them slightly to make the conversation easier to read. @PeeJay2K3: thoughts? —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with the reformatting as the format of discussions is not something which concerns me and I haven't instigated any of these discussions on my edits as I didn't deem one necessary. Format is down to anyone who creates the discussion. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Late in March 2015, a request was made at the dispute resolution noticeboard for moderated discussion with regard to edits to this article.  Two of the editors are dissatisfied with the edits being made by User:Chris Tomic.  I requested input at the dispute resolution, and had to close the thread as failed due to lack of input.  I have now been asked what can be done.  I see only three possibilities.  First, there can be constructive discussion on this talk page.  I see that there has been unconstructive discussion here for two months.  The threaded discussion all has the too long, didn't read quality and seems to be WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Can we try to talk with respect to the objective of improving an encyclopedia?  Second, one of the editors can publish a Request for Comments.  If, as it appears, the issue is that one of the editors is introducing flowery unencyclopedic language, the RFC would ask whether to roll back those edits to the last stable version of the article.  Unfortunately, that requires another 30 days, and would require willingness by the editors here to abide by the consensus.  Third, one of the editors can file a report at WP:ANI, with diffs and explanation, a reasonable length of report, not too short, not too long, and can ask for administrative action.  The administrative action might be a block for one of the editors, or, more likely, a topic-ban, either from this article, or more generally from association football in England.  ~~
Are the editors here willing to discuss the issues (as they weren't a month ago), or is it really necessary to take this to WP:ANI?  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss the changes and I will itemise each of the differences between User:Chris Tomic's last version and mine.
The Oxford comma in the final paragraph of the lede is necessary to identify that the incident involving Van Nistelrooy and Vieira is separate from the awarding of the penalty in the final minute.
NO issues here, please add that comma. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
In paragraph 2 of the match summary: Jens Lehmann should be linked at his first mention, and it should also be mentioned that he is a goalkeeper as we shouldn't assume that readers of the article would know that implicitly.
There's nothing quite like clarity. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
In the same paragraph: We can't say for certain that Arsenal's attacking play lacked flair just because two players identified as "flair players" by the BBC weren't playing. It is still possible to play with flair without two individuals. If the word "flair" must be mentioned, it should be in the context of the fact that Pires and Wiltord (the two "flair players" in question) were unavailable for the game, but we can't say Arsenal lacked flair in their attacking play just because they weren't there.
They were instrumental in adding flair to Arsenal's attacking play which as a team they were renowned for that season. Without those players, flair tactics were not opted for that season. I have sources to back up these claims too. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
If you have the sources, add them. You can't assume everyone is reading from the same sources as you, so you have to identify them in the article. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Match summary, paragraph 3: The wording is better when we say "In challenging for a high ball outside the Arsenal penalty area, Van Nistelrooy jumped up onto Vieira's back" rather than "In challenging for a high ball, van Nistelrooy jumped up high onto Vieira's back outside the Arsenal penalty area". It makes more sense to put the location of the incident at the start, because that's where the high ball was. Otherwise you have two locations next to each other (i.e. "Vieira's back" and "outside the Arsenal penalty area"). Furthermore, the "Van" in "Van Nistelrooy" should be capitalised when written without his first name.
As long as the meaning IS conveyed, it doesn't actually matter HOW it is conveyed. 'Van' is only capitalised if it is at the beginning of the sentence. I have a source which explains why. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the first part, I just happen to believe the wording is better the original way. Since we have opposing and equally valid views on this, we need a third opinion. As for the capitalisation of "Van", you should probably read Tussenvoegsel. The V is capitalised in all cases where it starts a sentence or isn't preceded by a first name or initial. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"Vieira fell to the ground and kicked out at Van Nistelrooy in retaliation". It is better to put "in retaliation" earlier in the summary than to bury it in a phrase like "Vieira's retaliatory kick".
Again, as long as the meaning IS conveyed, it doesn't actually matter HOW it is conveyed. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Third opinion required. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"causing the Manchester United striker to jump backwards" – I'm not sure why Chris Tomic is arguing over whether Van Nistelrooy is a striker or a centre-forward, but since they're pretty much interchangeable, it's probably best to stick with the original wording. Saying Van Nistelrooy "jumped backwards" is probably a better description than saying he "recoiled" as the latter is more emotive, and we don't have a source for how Van Nistelrooy was feeling.
It's more emotive in your opinion, which need I remind you has no bearing on what is factual. CF and ST are different. Why put the wrong label when it's so easy to just put the correct one. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
So "recoiled" and "jumped backwards" are much of a muchness. However, I disagree that Van Nistelrooy is a centre-forward, assuming there is a difference between the two. He was always more of a finisher than a creator, and that marks him out as more of a striker than a centre-forward, hence we should go with "striker" as his descriptor. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"Van Nistelrooy was booked for the original foul and although Vieira's retaliatory kick failed to connect with van Nistelrooy" is the wording that Chris Tomic suggested. This is bad wording because it uses Van Nistelrooy's name twice in the same sentence. The original wording replaced the second "Van Nistelrooy" (which should be capitalised) with "the Dutchman"; I believe this is better as it avoids using his name twice in quick succession and it provides more information about him. I recognise, however, that his nationality is irrelevant to Vieira's inability to kick him, but it's a better solution than anything else we have.
Referring to him using his nationality helps avoid issues of repetition. It's bad wording IN YOUR OPINION! Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
So you agree we should refer to him as "the Dutchman" in the second instance? – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"Despite Arsenal being reduced to ten men, the scores remained level and the game tight." Who says the game was "tight"? All we can say is that the scores were level. Also, the number 10 should be written in numerals per WP:MOSNUM.
'Tight' is a perfectly legitimate adjective. The National Curriculum teaches that numerals up to ten are written in letters. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The National Curriculum doesn't dictate our Manual of Style. I've already linked to WP:MOSNUM, but there's no harm in doing it again, so I reiterate that WP:MOSNUM says numerals are preferred for numbers greater than nine. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Saying "however" when you talk about the foul on Forlan and the resulting penalty just after saying the scores were level makes it sound like the scores are about to not be level. Since we know that's not the case, we should simply say what happened without imparting any foreknowledge or erroneous statements.
Remove it then. Chris Tomic (talk)
Agreed. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"although he had missed his previous two penalties for Manchester United, he would not be deterred from taking this one" – Why say that? We're not a sports journalism site.
It sets the scene adequately. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
What scene? It's obvious he wouldn't be deterred by the fact that he took it. It's redundant. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yet again, "distraction and intimidation techniques" is awful. Who says that in real life? Just say Lehmann tried to put him off.
Fine, get rid of it then. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"Van Nistelrooy's shot dazzled Lehman but smashed into the crossbar and with the bar still visibly shaking, the ball rebounded back into play" – Where does this word "dazzled" come from? It didn't dazzle him in any way, shape or form. Lehmann dived to his left and Van Nistelrooy kicked the ball the opposite way. Lehmann wasn't dazzled. And why say the bar was "visibly shaking"? Who even says it was? You can't see that on the video and it's not mentioned in the match reports. Just say it hit the bar and came back into play.
It's perfectly good English and Cliftonian and I agreed on it. You're the only one who has been soured by it. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps Cliftonian should take another look, because as I've described, saying Lehmann was dazzled by the shot implies that he stood stock still as the ball crashed against the bar, when in fact he made an attempt to save it by making a dive (the wrong way). There was no dazzling involved whatsoever, whether literal or otherwise. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"The Dutchman was immediately confronted and roared at by Arsenal centre-back Keown" – No, he wasn't. The roaring happened after the final whistle, which was the best part of a minute later.
He went straight up to him after he missed. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not when the roar happened. Watch the video again. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"Further altercations on the field were to follow on and post the blowing of the whistle, involving the further victimisation of van Nistelrooy by Keown and fellow Arsenal players and numerous players from both sides, including Keown, engaging in acrimonious and violent activity" – This whole sentence is redundant. You don't need to say some stuff happened and then detail the stuff, just detail the stuff outright. And as for the phrase "acrimonious and violent activity", this is again not something anyone would say in normal speech. I know Chris Tomic is a law student, and perhaps this is how he would write a summary of the events in a case report, but it's not how we write an encyclopaedia.
That's a matter of taste. It serves as an outline of the events and it does it proficiently well. Chris Tomic (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, it's redundant. – PeeJay 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that's pretty much it, so if anyone would care to address these comments and point out if I'm going wrong somewhere, feel free. – PeeJay 21:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The last part of the sentence below is contradicted by the infobox/match details section, according to which there was only one yellow card shown in the 90th minute (to Quinton Fortune).
"The match was characterised by a large number of fouls – 13 by United, 18 by Arsenal – and referee Steve Bennett showed four yellow cards to each team, although most of those came as a result of the fracas at the end of the game."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC) 

Are you looking at the wrong part of the article? The details section clearly shows four yellow cards for each team, one of which was a second yellow card for Patrick Vieira, leading to his sending-off. – PeeJay 14:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, you are right - for some reason I initially assumed that the fracas mentioned concern the incident between Keown and Van Nistelrooy as well as its aftermath, but now I realize that they refer to Vieira's dismissal for a second yellow card and the subsequent confrontation involving a number of players.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)