# Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)

At several points, the article falsely claims that Germany scored four goals within six minutes. However, Germany scored four goals within seven minutes, not within six minutes.
Citing the article: 
"Germany led 5–0 at half time, with four goals scored within six minutes, and subsequently brought the score up to 7–0 in the second half."
"All five of Germany's first half goals came within the first half-hour, with four of them coming in one six-minute period."
"The match also had the fastest four goals scored in World Cup history, with Germany scoring in the span of six minutes (from 23′ to 29′)"
The fact that the four goals were indeed scored within seven minutes and not within six minutes can be easily verified by just watching FIFA's official recording of the match on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW5jobEpkk4). 
Germany scored the 0:2 at minute 22:08 and scored the 0:5 at minute 28:48 (see timer in the upper left corner). 
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW5jobEpkk4
This means that the four goals were scored within 400 seconds, which is within seven minutes, but not within six minutes. By the way, the German language version of this article correctly states that Germany scored the four goals within seven minutes.
All references of "four goals within six minutes" should therefore be replaced by the correct statement of "four goals within seven minutes".
This also means that the following part of the article might be untrue:
"The match also had the fastest four goals scored in World Cup history, with Germany scoring in the span of six minutes (from 23′ to 29′); in 1954, Austria took seven minutes (25′ to 32′) and in 1982, Hungary also took seven minutes (69′ to 76′)[31] to score four goals."
There is no sufficient proof in the article that the "match also had the fastest four goals scored in World Cup history".
The fact that Germany scored four goals from 23′ to 29′ does not mean that this was faster than Austria scoring four goals from 25′ to 32′ or Hungary from 69′ to 76′.
As I have shown above, it took Germany 6 minutes and 40 seconds to score four goals. Now imagine Austria scoring its first goal at minute 24:50 (25′) and its fourth goal at minute 31:10 (32′). Austria would have scored in 6 minutes and 20 seconds, thereby scoring four goals faster than Germany. The same is true for Hungary.
Obviously, the mistake that was made was the belief that Germany scored "in the span of six minutes" (which I have shown to be wrong) combined with the mistaken belief that it must have taken Austria and Hungary "seven minutes" if they scored their four goals between minutes 25′ to 32′ and 69′ to 76′, respectively, which is equally wrong.
I did not find a full video of either the Austria or the Hungary match, so I could not verify whether one of them really scored four goals faster than Germany. In any event, I have shown this to be possible, which means that as of now there is not enough proof for the claim that the "match also had the fastest four goals scored in World Cup history". This claim should either be checked and confirmed with a source, or it should be removed.
VanilleEice (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Why the hell are you letting people upload links to pornography and quoting adult content on a football page that children can view?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.161.91 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC) 

Put your comments in a new section at the bottom of the page. And Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, how about responsible parents monitor their kids online or install software if they're that sensitive? The link is to The Independent. Not Pornhub itself. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
No links have been uploaded to pornography. The content has encyclopedic value as a societal reaction. Your removal of it is disruptive. I believe you have not been warned, so please read WP:3RR. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


### Avoiding unnecessary profanity
The sentence in question states the following:

"Meanwhile, pornographic website Pornhub had to ask its users to stop uploading video footage of the game to the website, after several videos with titles such as 'Young Brazilians get fucked by entire German Soccer Team' were uploaded."
I personally think the sentence is reliably reference and is of encyclopedic value. However, I find the second part of the sentence (providing an example of an explicit title used in Pornhub) unnecessarily detailed. Is there any way that this can be reworded to remove the unnecessary profanity from the section? Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 00:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this content needs to be reworded because it is faithful to the source and as you @The Almightey Drill: already said: Wikipedia is not censored. BananaLanguage (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
At no point have I mentioned WP:NOTCENSORED, and I disagree that unnecessary profanity should be in an article just because it can. There's no reason to use Wikipedia policy to justify what is simply poor academic writing.--MarshalN20 Talk 10:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
How else will we illustrate the jokey titles used by the Pornhub trolls? Our DYK hook includes "with sexually suggestive titles", but with a subject as bizarre as this, the reader will inevitably ask "Like what?" '''tAD''' (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The DYK hook is a pretty good way of presenting the information without resorting to profanity; I appreciate your mention of it. If the reader asks "like what?", then the reader should click on the reliable reference to read more on the topic. In its current form, the quoted title is also unnecessarily insulting Brazilians. I agree that censorship does not apply to Wikipedia, but I also consider that there is an academic standard that we as editors should maintain. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how (deliberately) offensive the title was, as this is quoting the source. On that logic we would change articles relating to The Prodigy because "Smack My Bitch Up" is offensive to women '''tAD''' (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, as I said to the IP, the Holocaust memes are just as offensive '''tAD''' (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's try to avoid creating straw men. This is not a song title we are questioning, and Pornhub isn't a band. The nature of WP:CENSOR is to protect material that is of academic relevance to a subject. Replacing "'Young Brazilians get fucked by entire German Soccer Team'" with "sexually suggestive titles" is an improvement.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
And are any of the Holocaust memes in the article?--MarshalN20 Talk 13:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The title of the video, albeit in the Independent's censored version, is in the title of the article. So are we going to remove the entire source then? '''tAD''' (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Russia Today ([1]) uses a more professional title.
In fact, The Independent also changed its title ([2]) to a more professional one ("PornHub begs users to stop uploading video clips of Brazil getting beaten 7-1").
Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea this was already talked over.  Anyway.  I removed the sentence and was reverted.  It seems the above conversations mostly center on profanity, but that isn't my complaint.  Who cares that this sentence is "reliably sourced?"  There's *tons* of things we can reliably source about this topic.  We don't throw them all in and create a monster article compiling everything anyone said about the game; there's editor's discretion.  Why not talk about videos uploaded to various pirating / torrent sites?  Why not include even more interviews with players / coaches / fans?
To be sure, some editors are too wet-blanket about including punchy, magaziney content.  The occasional "this got a mention in the media because it's funny" thing is harmless.  But this is just way too minor.  Wikipedia doesn't talk about unauthorized recordings of sports games being uploaded to websites in articles on the sports games; why should it matter here because it's a porn site?  Funny and sourced, but wholly inconsequential.  It's better removed. SnowFire (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, I replaced the sentence in question that you removed without anyone else discussing it. For the website to issue that statement because of the big victory shows something about the colossal defeat that it was. Certainly a good, although humorous fact, that shows the impact of the defeat. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions)  05:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Well let's discuss it here, that's why I made this section.  Plenty of edits to this article where nobody opened up a section!
I find this utterly baffling as to how this is even remotely noteworthy enough.  A website mentioned the defeat in passing.  But...  this must be true of thousands of other websites (excluding explicit news websites!).  Why not mention what ESPN or BBC Sport said about it?  Or, to pick a much more high-profile website, we don't normally mention in a subject's biography when they're a Google Doodle, and this is a reference that is probably seen by like 10000x more people than those who read Pornhub's frontpage.  There's a rather well-done YouTube video that mashes up the announcer's telecast for Game 6 of the 1986_World_Series#In_popular_culture with the Nintendo game "RBI Baseball" that probably got a bunch of views, yet it isn't mentioned in that article, which seems a comparable situation.
If Pornhub talking about this game was really so important, let's see some more and not tabloidy sources acknowledging this importance?  SnowFire (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Why this shitty comic from "polandball"? It´s not even funny. 89.204.137.153 (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me mate, but whether something is funny is not a reason to be included. The section is about memes made in the aftermath of the game, and that is about the only free one we have. '''tAD''' (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I´m not your "mate", and there is still no reason to include shit like this. 89.204.130.135 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
tAD is right that it's not important to evaluate why this comic is funny or not (comedy is subject to opinion). Nonetheless, the IP makes a valid point in that this is needlessly insulting to both countries: (1) "Anschluss" has a negative legacy from Nazi Germany's pre-war actions, and (2) "Brazil" gets hit by a stick (very infantile joke, but still an insult). Moreover, the image is not, after all, "vital" to the article. That is, unless there is a valid reason for its inclusion?--MarshalN20 Talk 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the IPs tone (please tone it down IP), I agree that shouldn't be included, because of the Anschluss term and since I fail to see how it improves the article in any way. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the IP was insulted by the word "Anschluss", as he accused me of being in "Shoah business" (a neo-Nazi term for an alleged Jewish plot to propagate the Holocaust). Compared to other memes described in the section, it is quite benign, and free. '''tAD''' (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
tAD, I'm glad that you were able to properly handle the IP's insults; thank you for keeping a cool-head. I agree that the meme is really very innocent in nature, but the term "Anschluss" is what ultimately makes it inappropriate for its inclusion in this article. Not only are Germans insulted by it, but it is also a bothersome term for Austrians. Ultimately, even though the meme tries to poke fun at Brazil, it actually just insults the Germans. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I accept "defeat" here, I knew it would become a subject of debate for its notability. I can now add secret agent of an International Jewish Cabal to the myriad of funny things IPs have called me. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 16:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

This seems to be almost without flaws. Just some minor things:

I'd say the lead is slightly too long. You might wanna consider cutting the last sentence. Maybe the sentence about the referee is also not necessary here?
You say it is only the second game between Brazil and Germany at a World Cup. There was however a game between the East Germany national football team and Brazil in 1974. You should probably add a sentence about that.
You should add an inline citation to the Kroos-caption, even though you are giving the reference later in the text.
That's about it. Thank you for a great article about a great game! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Cut some of the lead, added a note regarding East Germany and a ref to Kroos. See if anything else is needed. (and how appropriate, a Brazilian nominator - from the state where the game happened! - and a German reviewer) igordebraga ≠ 22:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a pass! Congratulations! This time, you win ;) Zwerg Nase (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

In the sentence The game was subsequently referred to by the Brazilian media as the Mineirazo" Mineirazo is wrong. Mineirazo is Spanish and not Portuguese, in Portuguese it is Mineiraço.

JoshDonaldson20 has been repeatedly adding unnecessary links into an article which was already passed for GA without it. There is already a media reaction section which treats this as the global spectacle it was, giving subjective mentions of what the German and Brazilian press thought of the result. The statistics subsection and records section give facts on the game. It does not need to include the objective and disproportionate opinion from the Daily Mail, one of Britain's shoddiest newspapers, and two English-language websites. That section just stands out. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
JoshDonaldson20 Again you have been refusing to engage in dialogue. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

None of the media reactions contains any pundit analysis whatsoever, and adding analysis actually improves rather than hurts the quality of the article. Indeed there is quite a lot of detailed reasons why Brazil lost, and the average reader perhaps doesn't want to see 20 different quotes from various coaches and politicians that really have nothing to do with tactics. The Daily Mail's assertion about the way Brazil played in earlier rounds leading to the semis isn't inappropriate, of course I am not using Daily Mail for rumours about a WAG or some other distraction.JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 21:3
The Daily Mail is not a reliable source at all, nor do we need the opinions of two low-profile websites on what happened, because those are just opinions. In the match section and the "records" there are actual facts on how the game was played. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
It is actually thoughtful analysis that can be added to the article, not merely opinions.JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with tAD here. At least the addition should be reworded, if they are to stay. Things like "observed that the Selecao was a flawed team" or " relying upon Neymar's heroics" aren't particularly helpful in WP:NPOV terms. CNN-News18 analysis which I've added recently gives a more impartial and objective opinion. Brandmeistertalk   20:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The CNN-New18 is good analysis, while outsideoftheboot.com and www.zonalmarking.net help to second-source it. I am looking for a second source to supplement/replace the Daily Mail, which suggested that Brazil didn't play that well in the games leading up to the semi-final. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
There are facts on how Brazil played in the match and records section. Agree with Brandmeister that it isn't written encyclopedically either '''tAD''' (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Requesting input from User:Igordebraga (GA nominator) and User:Zwerg Nase (GA reviewer). '''tAD''' (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe there can be a case for tactical analysis, specially if one doesn't mind Brazilian refs (probably not an issue, I improved up to GA level with those). The one year anniversary of that game even earned "autopsies" of "The Day We Were Ran Over". But yes, the prose needs to be a little better than what was attempted to include. igordebraga ≠ 03:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 
igordebraga ≠ 03:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I acknowledge that it isn't perfect as it is written, but at the same time, it doesn't need to be whitewashed either. That was my main beef with '''tAD''', as adding the tactical analysis from 2-3 concurring sources gives it more insight than just match records and stats.
So far Brazil's defeat boils down to several points; a mediocre defense that was exposed with Silva's suspension, bringing in Bernard instead of another midfielder which left Brazil's 2-man midfield overwhelmed, and the Brazil public expectations (i.e. undefeated at home for 39 years+) which caused a poor grasp of their weaknesses and German strengths. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The postmatch tactical analysis is definitely a stark contrast to the pre-match expectations, considering the edit request below "Even with the absences, analysts expected a close match, feeling the home crowd could provide an advantage."  JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the latest version by JoshDonaldson20, I believe some of the content could be retained. Maybe trim down a bit on the many direct quotations, making it a tighter narrative. However, I am not quite sure about the nature of CNN-News18 as a reliable source, since I know nothing about that network. Also, that internet blog (zonalmarking) is definitely not a RS, leave that out. As for The Daily Mail, I try to take articles from controversial sources like these at face value, and this one is not bad. Obviously though, the sources were horribly formatted. All in all, I would recommend that JoshDonaldson20 take another close look into Wikipedia's MOS to learn more on a) how to write good prose and b) doing the formatting properly. It is not that hard, you'll get your head around it fairly quickly. For citations, you can always use the quick citation template on the top of the edit toolbar (activate it under "preferences" if you haven't done so yet). Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I've resigned from this page now. Just look at the page history of Netherlands national football team to see what erudite reasoning I'm up against '''tAD''' (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

My request is to add a comma to the last sentence in the Background section, after the word "match":

 Even with the absences, analysts expected a close match, feeling the home crowd could provide an advantage.

Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140713013026/http://www.rcnradio.com/noticias/mineirazo-titulan-los-diarios-brasilenos-tras-derrota-contra-alemania-147497 to http://www.rcnradio.com/noticias/mineirazo-titulan-los-diarios-brasilenos-tras-derrota-contra-alemania-147497
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest to be a Featured articles canidates 2001:EE0:4141:19F3:9515:8C4A:2128:6561 (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Can it be a FAC? Nhatminh01 (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Agony of Mineirão would be appropriate for the title of this document. Like Disgrace of Gijón. RhapsoDJ (talk) 05:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)