Talk:United States men's national soccer team/Archive 2

message: "After failing to qualify for nine straight tournaments beginning in 1954, the team has now qualified for five consecutive FIFA World Cup finals since 1990, a string that is surpassed only by Brazil, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Spain, and South Korea.[1]"
Is this really true considering that they didn't really qualify for the 1994 world cup, they hosted it so their qualification was booked.. Thnom 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes even if qualifying by being the host nation, you still qualified, just not through the process that everyone else did. Batman2005 16:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualification 

message: Nothing in this article is currently under dispute.  Jooler disputes whether Partenaude scored the first World Cup hat-trick, and whether FIFA states that he did.  But these disputed facts are not stated as such in the article either.  Currently the article has only neutral wording regarding the materials FIFA has released stating that Partenaude did accomplish this feat, as well as those FIFA has released stating that he did not. Uris 00:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UPDATE: I have removed the whole-article disputed tag, as it was incorrectly used by Jooler and Elisson. It should only be used if 5 or more sentences are disputed throughout the article.  I have inserted the sentence-specific "dubious" tag for the disputed wording, which specifies for readers exactly what is under dispute within the article and welcomes their input on this Talk page. Also, still welcoming contributions by either Jooler or Elisson to collaborate on the article, so please speak up about how you would like to see the FIFA confusion worded. Uris 15:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disputed Facts" 

message: This part troubles me
"The United States struggled in international soccer for the next 40 years. In 1988 the United States was controversially awarded the 1994 World Cup, even though it had not qualified for a World Cup since 1950"
Now how were they awarded the Cup 4 years early? -- mando 17:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me if I have misunderstood what you are asking, but I think the confusion lies in the use of the word "awarded".  The USA were not awarded the Cup itself as if they had won it, they were awarded the rights to stage the Cup tournament in 1994 ChrisTheDude 07:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  mando I'd say that part needs a rewrite, without a source talking about how the selection was controversially received it sounds like original research.  For all intents and purposes the 1994 World Cup is still regarded as one of the most finely run, I know FIFA was suprised about how it was received, much the same as they were in 2002 when Japan/South Korea did so well, I think 1994 definitely set the ground work for places like South Africa and Japan/South Korea to host even though they're not seen as "traditional powerhouses."  So...my opinion is remove the part about it being controversial until we have a source and just mention when it was awarded. Batman2005 18:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1994 World Cup 

message: Here is the photo that used to be in the article, the original uploader left a LOT of trapped white space that made the article look REALLY bad, If someone can readd it and see to it that it makes everything line up real nice it would be great. Batman2005 01:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The uploader had zero whitespace.  The image was 200px, someone unexplicably changed it to 95px. Uris♥ 13:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no white space in the photo. Perhaps check it on another monitor? Uris♥ 15:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry I just checked in Internet Explorer 6.0 and you're right.  It's an IE-specific problem, but 80% of users still use that. I'll work on it... just a sec, I'll report back. Uris♥ 15:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Batman, I just moved it a little and it looks better... but not perfect.  I'll work on it a little more during the England-Paraguay game since we know that's going to be a yawner. Uris♥ 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoops!  Still had England-Paraguay on my mind... meant Sweden-Trinidad, but that doesn't seem to be such a yawner afterall, at least not yet. 0-0 at the halfway point. Uris♥ 16:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Arena Photo 

message: The section in the introduction "the team has now qualified for five consecutive FIFA World Cup finals, a longer string than more traditional powers in the sport such as England, France, and Mexico" is, according to me, ambiguous.
The problem is that it implies that USnft has a better performance in terms of WC qualifications than England, France, and Mexico, while these performance are not comparable, being obtained in different tournaments.
Furthermore, since Wikipedia:Lead section requires the most important fact to be put in introduction and later developed, just a "the team has now qualified for five consecutive FIFA World Cup finals" will suffice, with the remaining part moved in the body.--Panairjdde 09:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a side note, I am rewording the sentence about Escobar: since he was killed because of that own goal, it is unrespectful to say that it was his "courtesy" to let US win.--Panairjdde 09:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Escobar change stands, but the "longer string than more traditional powers in the sport such as England, France, and Mexico" has been discussed at length, is very important to the team and article, and should stay in the introduction as previously worked on between Battman and others. Uris 12:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please point to the discussion?--Panairjdde 13:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The courtesy locution is properly removed because it is unencyclopedic (as exorbitantly informal or breathless), not because it is unrespectful (sic, which qualifier I use not in the descriptive, not the pejorative, sense); where a formulation is neutral and verifiable, we're not particularly concerned with disrespect, and surely not when write apropos of a non-living person (even as he/she has living relatives).  Joe 23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if you find a way to be encyclopedic, you could be unrespectful because there is no rule against?--Panairjdde 00:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a way to be respectful of a sensitive issue, as long as doing so isn't at the expense of the facts.  As a general rule I think in most situations we could find a way to show respect for the dead while still being encyclopedic, which I think its good Panairjdde that you caught the bit about "courtesy" from the own goal by a guy who was murdered for it later on.  I think if we can provide the infromation in a non offensive way then great, but if the only way to do so is going to cause some hurt feelings by from the family members...then they'll have to deal with it.  I'd say its highly unlikely that Escobars family has read this article anyway, who knows though...they could contribute regularly. Batman2005 02:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is well settled that in situations such as these, whether we offend a subject or the family thereof, provided we comply with other relevant policies and guidelines, is altogether irrelevant.  In response to Panair, we of course maintain an NPOV, but if a phrasing is encyclopedic, its offensiveness is altogether immaterial to our project.  Wikipedia is not censored, after all...  Joe 03:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous statement 

message: The current introduction has the following paragraph:
:"In recent years, USA has become known for producing world-class goalkeepers;[1] three U.S. keepers started in the English Premier League in the 2003-04 season. Two of the three combined to win back-to-back Goalkeeper of the Year awards, as voted by the players, with Brad Friedel in 2002-03 and Tim Howard in 2003-04. More Americans than ever now have successful careers in European leagues,[2] and the country's youth team is strong, as shown by the under-19s winning the 2005 Milk Cup."
While it can be important to mark the development of the game in the country, I feel this information (apart the bit about the under-19) should be moved from here (maybe United States Soccer Federation is a more appropriate place?), and replaced with a general statement about the fact that USmnst players consistently have succesfull careers abroad.--Panairjdde 09:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because it's the goalkeepers in particular who are winning Player of the Year abroad for their position. Not all the positions in general. Uris 12:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Success of football in the US and USmnst