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

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

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

message: FIFA says that USA finished in Third place in 1930, but that is not recognized in this article.  I am told that the issue was brought up before... my question is, why do we want to disagree with FIFA here?  I'll go through the archives and try to read up on it, but it seems a bit unusual to go against FIFA on this.  Uris 21:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Wow, that was actually very recent. How much I missed! I found it here pretty succinctly.  Basically, FIFA did not award the USA third place in 1930, they have gone back and decided that after the fact.  So I'm cool with it saying semi-finals instead of third place, but it should probably be mentioned in the article that FIFA now recognizes the U.S. as third place although they did not do so at the time. Uris 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres been some discussion in the past including a lot of posting of sources showing that the USA was 3rd, a lot showing that neither was third, I even saw one the other day where it says an informal match was held with Yugoslavia winning 3-2.  That .pdf was actually the source of some discussion earlier, as well as the fact that the United States National Soccer Hall of Fame has a display specifically recognizing the "Third Place 1930 World Cup Team."  Additionaly sources came from the fifaworldcup.com site and fifa.com itself.  There seems to be no consensus at all about it, just that no official 3rd place match was held.  I'm not getting involved in the debate this time, but suffice to say that posting the information at all will likely ruffle some feathers, mostly from Jooler and Joann Ellison (or Elison -- I'm not really sure and don't care enough to look).  I think you'll find that sooner rather than later they'll be here up in arms about it.  Good luck in that battle. Batman2005 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The US Soccer Hal of Fame is a small museum in upstate New York that has proven to be an unreliable, in both this case and the case about the hat-trick. Jooler 11:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and its not even a very interesting place to visit either! Batman2005 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd Place or Semi-finalist?

message: Some of the section headings are, in my opinion, POV and unencyclopedic. "Back on the Scene", "A Shocking Victory", "Highly Competitive", these sound like they could be from a magazine not an encyclopedia (no offense to who ever put them up). I am going to remove them for more neutral headings. Please post here if you have any objections.--Jersey Devil 23:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were my headings, and no objections or offense taken... I probably added slightly too much flavor with headings like "1990s: Back on the Scene" after being gone from the World Cup for 40 years, and so on. Your headings are more stringently neutral-worded, which is good. Uris 04:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No objections here. Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care one way or the other, i'd be ok with doing stuff like 1930-1940, 1990-2000, ect.  Either or is fine with me. Batman2005 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV/Unencyclopedic Section Headings

message: I wasn't sure where to post this, so I'll put it here. This page is very close to mirroring http://www.bacidc.org/home/01pages/copa2006/usa_history.html ; however, as this one is cited and that one is not, I have a hunch the violation is on their end. Thoughts? What should be done? --SuperNova |T|C| 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They got it from here (as I authored, on Wikipedia, quite a bit of what appears on both pages)... they haven't adhered to user rights and obligations.  They need to acknowledge the authors and license it under GFDL instead of displaying their own "All Rights Reserved" copyright on the material.  Who to tell at Wikipedia so that someone writes them a letter, I do not know. Uris 19:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio, but by who 

message: Can I just point out, that as the US national football team is a member of FIFA, it is not exclusively for men. So whats with the article name? Philc TECI 15:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that a woman could play in this team? Any reference?--Panairjdde 16:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no FIFA rule prohibits it, so naturally I cannot provide a referencs, as the rule does not exist, which is my point. As a point a woman signed for a club a few years back, and FIFA looked into it finding there was no rule prohibiting it. I'm finding it difficult to find a source, as i don't know what to search for. But I found this Woman signs for Mexico men's team. Philc TECI 16:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me count the ways ... first, the team is referred to as the "Men's National Team" or MNT consistently by U.S. Soccer Federation; FIFA refers to men's and women's sides as just that -- men's and women's.  Second, FIFA actually did bar Maribel Dominguez from playing for Celaya after the signing you mention above, saying "there must be a clear separation between men's and women's football." --Inonit 16:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, well thats alright. But that is a complete U-turn on previous policy. And also they never make reference to mens sides, only senior national A-team and senior national womens team, though occasionaly mens may be used only to distinguish from the womens side when both are being discussed. Philc TECI 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's used here to clearly distinguish that one team is the mens national team, and the other is the womens national team.  If its a complete u-turn on previous policy, great...who cares really?  There's no policy saying that the articles all should be the exact same in the way the name is represented.  Why would we put "United States womens national soccer team" for the women but then put "United States national soccer team" for the men?  There must be a clear distinction between mens and womens teams, as well as mens and womens articles.  I'll also point out that the page has existed under this name for some two or three years and this is the first i've ever heard of anyone having a problem with the name.  I think its fine and should stay as named.  I imagine as womens soccer grows around the world and becomes more well known that we'll start to see other articles following suit to more clearly make the distinction. Batman2005 18:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably unlikely - the national football team of a country is taken as given to be the men's side. Yeah I know, unequal representation and all that, but that's the common usage, and most likely will be for ever. -- -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is probably true outside of the United States.  But here, where the Mens and Womens teams are generally on equal footing, it is completely appropriate to distinguish between the two.  As I said, I have no problem with the way the title stands now, and nobody else has for the past several years.  Once the rest of the world catches up and realizes that womens sports can draw a crowd and be successful, then you'll see more focus put on womens teams. Batman2005 18:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, don't be so synical, I was just explaining why I raised the issue, not arguing for a change in title. And yeh, outside of the US no-one except fanatical followers really cares about womens sport, unless its the final of some important thing. Bit like "soccer" in the U.S. really. Philc TECI 23:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, with the exception of tennis. -- -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 16:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Men's

message: "Unlike Group C, the Group E group of death lived up to its billing, as two teams ranked in the Top 5 of the FIFA World Rankings (#2 Czech Republic and #5 USA) were eliminated in group play, while #14 Italy and 50# Ghana advanced to the next round, each winning their final matches. " - What it really shows is not that the group lived up to the title of Group of Death, but that the FIFA rankings as they are currently calculated are a joke. Jooler 13:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the better two teams qualified. Though if the Czechs had been in place if Ghana, I wouldn't have been surprised either, however I would have been surprised to have seen US go through. Philc TECI 16:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding the rankings is a bit extreme, but nobody can deny that the group lived up to its "group of death" billing, as it was one of maybe two groups where on the final day...all four teams could still advance in the tournament. Batman2005 17:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, if you define it in that manner, but other groups were like that, for example the in the last day trinidad and tobago could have qualified from their group, but still they weren't expected too. Philc TECI 17:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same with the France, Switzerland, Korea, Togo group. You wouldn't exactly call that a group of death would you? More a group of crap teams. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 17:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But as we've already pointed out, the rankings are completely crap and should not be used to determine relative strength of teams. The term "Group of Death" means that it will be hard for any team to qualify through it because all the teams are so good, it doesn't mean that if a group was won concisely by two teams that it was not a group of death. It's worth noting that Group C had a far better class of football than Gp E. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 18:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know what "Group of Death" means.  And I would argue that the class of play in Group C was fine...by Holland and Argentina, and the Ivory Coast vs. Serbia & Montenegro game was fine.  But those two teams were clearly outclassed by Argentina and Holland.  Certainly losing 0-6 isn't quality soccer. Batman2005 21:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  CIV put up a good fight, I wouldn't have called them outclassed. The group of death is a pre-tournament thing anyway, it's hard to decide in heinsight, as what could have been a close match on paper, one team could have had a bad day, or been unfit, or whatever, and just been over-run, despite the expectation. eg Spain Ukraine, no-one expected 4-0 but in heinsight, it seems about right, considering how well spain played, and how poorly Ukraine fought back. Philc TECI 22:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Batman, the same way the US were outclassed by Czech Republic? Would you call that quality "soccer"? -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 10:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the USA was more outclassed by the Czechs.  When did I ever say the US played quality soccer?  They played well for one game, unfortunately they only had 9 men for a lot of it. Batman2005 13:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Group of death

message: I understand that they're supposed to be more accurate, but where do we draw the line in including rankings?  ELO?  FIFA?  There are many other places that rank teams, I say we should follow precedent on the other national team pages and include the FIFA World Rankings as its the most commonly known.  Perhaps a more concerted effort should be made to include the ELO rankings into all the pages, but at present they mean nothing in terms of tournament play or seeding for any tournament.  It's basically an organization that ranks teams, while FIFA...the world governing, has rankings that ultimately mean something (seeding for the world cup, etc.) Batman2005 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually took some more time to think about it and re-added the ELO bit, I think it would be advantageous to expand the standard international team information box to include current FIFA rankings, and perhaps ELO as well, but i certainly think that the more information we can provide the better.  My personal thought is that you can take the FIFA ranking when it comes out and then take the ELO ranking when it comes out and the team is somewhere in the middle of the two. Batman2005 04:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELO Rankings 

message: Straight from the page...
See also WP:NOT
Please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so see also sections should only include links directly pertaining to the topic of an article and not large general pieces of information loosely connected (or not at all connected) to the subject.
The teams that the user keeps adding are in NO way connected to the United States national soccer team, they are their own separate confederations, that run their own separate teams and participate as independent nations in tournaments.  Players for those teams are NOT eligible to play for the United States team.  The see also section on this page would be for articles such as United States Soccer Federation or the United States women's national soccer team article.  Not articles about whole other countries regardless of political affiliation. The England national football team article does not link to their various colonies or politically affiliated places...the United States article should be no different. Batman2005 21:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The US territories are related to the US. If they do not send their own teams, and having FIFA and/or regional federation memberships, they're represented by the US federation and their players would play as part of the US team. — Instantnood 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But they DO send their own teams, they DO have their own federations and their players ARE NOT able to play for the United States.  The teams you list have NOTHING to do with the United States national soccer teams.  The see also section would be for things that directly relate....USSF, the women's national team, any youth national teams, etc.  Not unrelated national teams from other federations. Batman2005 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do/did all US territories, in modern times and in the past, send/sent their own teams and have/had their own football federations? If they don't/didn't, why cannot/couldn't their players, who are/were US citizens, play for the US team? Please don't take something for granted. If they're not related to the US national team, how would you suggest to have them linked from this article? Bear in mind they are not teams from some other countries. These countries are US territories. — Instantnood 20:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They shouldn't!  The see also section, again, is for things that directly relate to this team.  Those teams are from different federations that compete independently of the USA national team.  Their teams do not directly relate to this team.  Like I said, the things in the see also section would be the USSF article, the womens team article, or youth national team articles.  Just because the territories those teams come from are politically affiliated with the USA as a country does not mean that their teams are related to the USA team.  See also should contain only those things that relate directly in the scope of the USA team, not the USA country.  You'll see here  that there is no mention of policitally affiliated territories on the England team page.  Simply put, the teams you highlight are their own team, and warrant their own articles (which they've got) but they do not relate to the USA team in any way. Batman2005 20:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also section is NOT a useless collection of information.... 

message: His contract, which runs out on December 31, 2006 will not be renewed.  At that point he will no longer be coach of the team.  At this point, he is still the coach of the team unless he decides and announces to step down immediately. That has not happened, thus..he is still the Present coach. Batman2005 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree. Having reverted twice to this I won't do it again; maybe you can if it's necessary, though it shouldn't be. As the note says,  

--Guinnog 12:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, i'm on it. Batman2005 13:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I messed that up at first.  I will double check things further in the future.  Sorry guys. michfan2123 19:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ^^^^ It's all good buddy, no need for apologies! Batman2005 21:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I haven't been involved in the reverting for Bruce Arena, but I do think that it is reasonable for a notation of "-2006".  I do agree that it should not say that he is the former coach.  Yes, he is still the manager until he is replaced, but the federation has issued a release on their website that he will not be retained past the end of the year.  Putting the 2006 does not take away from the fact that he is still the current coach, but does acknowledge that he will no longer be the coach past that time.  --Brian G 15:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is valid, however, "Present" indicates that a person is still the head coach.  Putting "2006" indicates that the persona is no longer the head coach.  The way we have it now, where it says "Present" and then there is a notation going to a footnote with a linked source saying that his tenure will come to a close when his contract runs out is the most clear way to do represent the information. Batman2005 04:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce Arena is STILL the Head Coach 

message: To all involved:
I've been watching the unnecessary use of expletives in this page. The next time I see an editor "talk" to another in an abusive, debasing, aggresive or inappropriate tone I will hand out WP:NPA 24-Hour blocks. Sebastian Kessel Talk 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, nasty. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was worth it. Batman2005 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  warning 

message: While some of the players are at new clubs, I have changed the club listings back to the clubs the players were at during the World Cup.
Since the 2006 World Cup squad is archived on its own page under the 2006 FIFA World Cup entry, should we change this to the '07 training camp roster and update it for whatever major tournaments (Gold Cup, Copa America) come along? That would be more productive, IMO, than leaving up last year's roster with a number of inaccuracies and national team retirements. What do people think? Jyardley 16:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been involved in the reverts, trusting that the rosters were supposed to be for the last time the team was stable "per tradition on wikipedia", as 74.132.172.179 stated in this edit summary. However, I just checked the pages for a number of other national teams: France, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Mexico, Argentina... all of them have the team sheet from the most recent friendly, with an additional list of recent call-ups (England is the only major exception, but even then they don't have it as it was in the WC). So from what I can tell there is no such "tradition". I wouldn't mind going with the flow on this. At the very least, it will stop these constant club reverts. howcheng  {chat} 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand and agree with that to a certain extent, but look at the examples I gave. All of them say, "The following were named in the roster for the February 7, 2007 international friendly vs. so-and-so." Then a separate section for others who have been called up within, say, the preceding year. Anyone who knows anything about international football understands that there is no such thing as a fixed national team roster. This method gives a good overview of all players who are in the "pool" so to speak. howcheng  {chat} 21:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it turns out the roster for the World Cup is available at 2006 FIFA World Cup squads#United States so there's not much point in repeating the information here. I'm going to change it to match the other national team articles when I get a little more time (tomorrow, probably), unless there are any objections? howcheng  {chat} 03:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 World Cup Roster 

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

message: I just went through and edited the roster to reflect the squad for today's match against Ecuador, and it became painfully evident that the recent call-up section needs to be cleaned up.  At a quick count, there are...22 players on that list, in addition to the 18 who were part of the Ecuador match.  That's far too many, and it could certainly be cleaned up.  I'd be willing to do that, if someone were to suggest guidelines to follow when doing so.
Also, another alternative would be to set up the roster like the Canadian national team, which doesn't look cluttered in any way.  In any case, input would be appreciated. Che84 00:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an indication of how large the pool of US players is. If it's getting a bit unmanageable, perhaps we can cut out anyone who hasn't been called up since the World Cup? howcheng  {chat} 06:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my thought - Make the roster like the Canadian one, and any player who has been a part of the squad for the last...I don't know, year, can be included on that.  If that year elapses without the player making another appearance for the national team, they're removed from the list. Che84 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's essentially how it is now. No players are on the list from before the World Cup, which is less than one year ago. I think there's more people on the US list than on France, Portugal, etc (the teams that use the layout I copied for this page). howcheng  {chat} 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true.  The one year suggestion was just a guideline for future editing.  Perhaps 6 months would be more appropriate? Che84 02:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent call-ups

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

message: Hi everyone,
I just wanted to put some things up for consideration:
* A box on the edit page says this article is getting too long. Let's debate on which articles to separate.
* Recent Call Ups: I would do this myself, but its kind of late, and I have to go to school tomorrow. Whoever does this, please try to reflect the recent call-ups to the Guatemala game (tonight), which brings me to my next thought...
* Roster organization: I like the way the Canadian National Team roster is set up, by position, club, etc. In regards to state flags, I am on the fence. I like the idea, showing the diversity of the talent pool. My only worry is that it might end up too busy. Not that the Canadian roster is, but ours could end up like that.
* New kits: I would make a new jersey design myself, but my concern is that it will suck. ANYONE is welcome to make one. Just don't be offended if we replace it for one that might be a little better. 
Bardiak 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind on the current squad.  I just updated it. Che84 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was gonna say, I always go to ussoccer.com to get that stuff. howcheng  {chat} 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked ussoccer.com before I checked ESPN, but it hadn't been updated.  No matter now, in any case. Che84 04:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks to whoever changed my  box thing to bullets. I must have been half asleep when I wrote that. If someone does make the new jersey, what will we call it? A 3rd Kit? Does any other team's article have a third kit??? Bardiak 21:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned as being the "third jersey" on ussoccer.com currently. On a personal note, it's horrendous.Onebaseman 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things... 

message: I edited the recent history section a bit concerning the match against Denmark in early 2007. The match was an unofficial match against the "league national team" (Danish ligalandshold), a national team composed exclusively of players from the Danish league. It is comparable to a B team in most respects. Sakkura 04:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ADDED: I have found nowhere that says it was an A international.  However, I haven't found anywhere that has said it was a B international either.  And also, if it were a B international, then the match wouldn't count towards a player's national team caps, correct?  It did for every player who stepped on the field that day.  So, if the first premise is correct, then it was an A international, and should be counted as such.  The FIFA website could very easily have made a mistake. Che84 19:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Denmark game a full international? 

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

message: Can anyone explain why this article - and the one for Canada - aren't called "United States national football team", in line with the equivalent articles for (as far as I can tell) every single other country in the world? I can understand Australia needing the qualification "(soccer)" in the title, because there are other "Australian national football teams" which might cause confusion, but that can't apply here because there is no US national American football team (or Canada national [[Canadian football] team) to get mixed up with. I saw the discussion at the very start of the first talk page archive, but it doesn't really answer the key question as to *why* it's different. It might be because the US women's team has a greater international standing than the "men's" team, but there are other countries where the women's team is far stronger than the "men's" (e.g. China, Norway) and they still keep the same structure. Can anyone explain? Please note I'm not campaigning to change it or anything, just curious about the anomaly. 84.92.8.222 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't jump to conclusions about whether or not there is a United States national American football team. - RPIRED 13:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, okay, but it's hardly the most notable outfit going, is it? Hard to say without jumping to conclusions, but I'd be willing to bet you could pull fifty random NFL fans off the street right now and 49 of them wouldn't have heard of that team. Anyway, that just muddies the waters even more - if the "men's" and the "soccer" in *this* article are to reflect gender equality and popular US usage respectively, why is *that* article called what it is, and not "United States men's national football team"? 90.198.51.135 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't know why it's this title. But it should be changed to be inline with the other national teams. Kingjeff 13:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree completely. The use of "football" to describe soccer in the United States is practically unheard of due to the heavy influence of American football. Just as Wikipedia should not be Americanized, it should also not necessarily be de-Americanized either. See WP:NC for more information on this type of thing. - RPIRED 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this is more about adding the word mens to the mens team. No other male national team other then Canada has the word mens in it. The proper title is the United States national soccer team. Kingjeff 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as mentioned in the first entry, if you talk about the national football team of most countries, you're easily talking about the men's team and not the women's team. That simply isn't the case in the United States, because the women's team is on equal if not a higher footing than the men's team in the eyes of the public due to the former's success. - RPIRED 14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Kingjeff, it seems like you are dangerously close to implying that the "real" national team is tne men's national team, while the women's team is something inferior.  I know that's not the exact wording you used, but how can you "guarantee" that the national team refers to the men's team.  There is a men's national team and a women's national team.  They are different.  To suggest that the men's national team has a monopoly on being referred to as "the national team" seems incredibly sexist.  It seems more appropriate that articles should be titled either "men's national team..." or "women's nation team..." --Cougs2000 16:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventhough I do believe women were meant to be cooking and cleaning, I do think that it's the womens team that should not be just called the national team. It should be the national womens' team. Kingjeff 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is appropriate to refer to a women's team as the women's national team. Similarly, I think it is most appropriate for this article about a men's team to have the title "United States men's national soccer team." --Cougs2000 17:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

text: This is ridiculous. The men's team is always referred to as the USMNT -- U.S. men's national team. Show me any cited references in U.S. major sports publications that it's any different and then we'll talk. howcheng  {chat} 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason, as said before, is that soccer has a unique standing in America, in that it's seen as a "women's sport", so it needs the qualifier. This is not the case in the rest of the world (barring maybe Canada). It is definitely not the case in Germany, I'm sure many Germans will be upset that you said that, Kingjeff. -- Boothman /tɔːk/ 20:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: United States national football team exists as a redirect to this article, so the format "XXX national football team" still works for anyone using the search box or making links. howcheng  {chat} 16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not any more it doesn't, apparently. 90.198.51.135 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering that "football" in America means "American football", USNFT should disambig to here and [].
Dlong 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: It makes sense to me that Keller be listed as "Unattached" as he is currently not under contract with any club.  However, his club status on the current squad is frequently changed back to Borussia Monchengladbach.  What should it be? Che84 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that technically he's still under contract with Gladbach until the end of June. Since after that, his stint there is most assuredly over with, leaving his status as "Unattached" seems perfectly fine. Onebaseman 15:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Borussia Monchengladbach current squad says that, as of June 4, Keller no longer plays for the club.  Che84 16:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true to say that he no longer plays for BM, because they have no more matches between 4th June (or earlier) and the expiry of his contract on 30th June: it is for the same reason true to say that he is still under contrac to them until the end of the current month. Kevin McE 17:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kasey Keller status

message: I'm going to try and avoid an edit war here, but I have to say that I feel the information being added at the end of the introduction is both false and unencyclopedic.  Though the US has come in last in the group stage of 2 of the last 3 tournaments, they still won the Gold Cup, and until Copa America, had been 10-0-1 in 2007, and they only lost as badly as they did in Copa America because it was a second rate squad.  I'm going to delete the entry again, but if someone feels it should be restored, please explain why here. Che84 18:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that it's necessary in any way.  The World Cup was a disappointment, but I would consider the results of 2007 much more recent than that, and while the Copa America squad was a failure, it was not the A-squad, so the results, though they count just the same, shouldn't be considered in the same way.  The US is its own continental champion, and that was the goal of the National Team for the summer.  Bob Bradley said the Gold Cup was the first priority, with Copa America a distant second.  When a nation is a continental champion, and that was their primary goal for the year, it's absurd to say that recent results are either disappointing, or a decline in performance. Che84 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT:  It's also Wikipedia procedure to remove the statement in question if there is a debate over the validity of such a statement.  Consensus should be achieved before the information is changed permanently. Che84 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with Che84's assertions. It is painfully obvious just by looking at the rosters for the Gold Cup and Copa America that the team was more focused and concerned with winning the Gold Cup, a continental championship, than they were with the Copa, even if the Copa is internationally considered more prestigious than the Gold Cup. - RPIRED 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Che84, you have nothing to worry about. The user who you almost started an edit war with is a sock of a user banned from WP--his edits are to be reverted on sight and admins are to be notified. --Palffy 19:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent results show...

message: The only place I've seen this is a Mexican newspaper.  Neither FIFA nor US Soccer have confirmed it yet, so I feel it shouldn't be listed on the schedule. Che84 04:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it has been canceled. http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_1998855.html The US will play Brazil instead at Soldier Field. --Scottmsg 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US v Mexico friendly

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

message: Can we get an editor here to stop him from making his unnecessary edits?  He keeps adding the competitive record, which is already there, he changes the captain to Landon Donovan, which he's not, and he changes "Notable former players" to "Famous past players".  Please, an editor's help would be greatly appreciated. Che84 03:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User: Getthomas3

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

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