Talk:Arsenal F.C./Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

"Parade cancelled " photos

These add nothing to the quality of the article whatsoever. Every club plans a victory parade long before a cup final (e.g. West Ham and Liverpool for the FA Cup) in order for the roads to be closed, notices to be published and safety measures arranged. Of course if the team then loses the final, it has to be cancelled. Pointing it out with not just one, but two photos is little more than obnoxious gloating. Qwghlm 14:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

article is highly pov towards pro-arsenal bias. removal of images shows editors cannot be neutral. i suggest to not remove them, to show the article can be balanced. censorship of these (relevant) images is not acceptable, as per precedent set at muhammad cartoons article. Zzzzz 15:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone who deletes other people's comments from talk pages [1] you're a pretty fine one to talk about censorship. In any case, it's not a question of censorship, it's a question of relevance; a picture of a temporary roadsign (the erection of which is a legal obligation) and a website screenshot have very little relevance, compared to what happens on the pitch. Qwghlm 16:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you spot anything in the article which shows a pro-Arsenal bias, point it out, or edit it to make it NPOV. Putting on irrelevant pictures to "balance" the article is not the way to address POVs elsewhere in the article. And removal of irrelevant pictures can't be said to be "censorship"; you have to first assert the pictures' own merits first. --Pkchan 16:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

and as expected no editors were able to give a decent reason for the censorship but just anonymously reverted the images. as such, its clear the page is just a rabid arsenal fanpage with little or no neutrality. i will nominate it as WP:FARC unless some npov is introduced into the article. how is a picture of arsenal's 2006 celebrations and an image of the arsenal website irrelevant? article is about arsenal is it not?

here are the relevant, interesting and valid images that were censored from the page, in direct violation of precedent set at muhammad cartoons. (Images removed as this is a talk page, and we can see in the history what you're trying to insert)

The images are not relevent to an article on Arsenal Football Club. They in no way symbolise the club or its achievements, unlike the other images. Feel free to start an Arsenal Football Club Parade Planning And Associated Traffic Management article, if you wish. You'll note this article was awared featured status with the old images and not with yours. Go away you vandalising troll.--BadWolf42 16:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not about being bias towards Arsenal, but it's plain to see that these images say nothing about Arsenal the football club which is what the article should be about. Yes a victory parade was cancelled; but it had to be planned in advance as Arsenal had reached the final. Putting up two images regarding a cancelled victory parade just isn't relevant enough to warrant a place on the page. The picture of the sign is put up by Islington council because they have to give advance warning in case it did take place. The Muhammad cartoons have nothing to do with this, as it's just a simple case of these images just not deserving a place in the article. The article is no-more pro-Arsenal than any other article on any other football team on Wikipedia. Anyway, why do you care so much, what have you got against Arsenal I am wondering? ichiuk 17:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C

Moved from Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C.:

File:Jumpingthegun.jpg

i made this edit [2] which added 2 perfectly valid images to the Arsenal F.C article. however, some biased Arsenal fans keep reverting it. i hope some editors can help restore neutrality to the article by ensuring those images keep their rightful place in the article. Zzzzz 15:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

fyi, these are the images: Image:jumpingthegun2.jpg

The second image can not be used here in the talk page since it's copyright infringement, so I changed it into a link.

Did you photograph the first image? If not why did you upload it here as public domain?

Also why did you post this in the Tottenham Hotspur F.C. talk page? ⌠Yellow up⌡ 09:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The photos do nothing to make the article more neutral. They say so little about the club that why should they be there? Where exactly do you think the article is bias towards Arsenal? The point is to give a concise and objective overview of Arsenal F.C. and those images simply show one point of one night in the clubs history. If Arsenal had won the European Cup it would only be worth a mention in the article, let alone two photos. Also as the screen-grab infringes copyright, where did you take the photo? If you didn't take it then the copyright to use it doesn't belong to you, so it can't be used on Wikipedia. That photo was emailed around yesterday with the same file name, so it's not yours to use is it? You really do seem to care far too much that these images are shown on the page. --ichiuk 13:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Arsenal Staff & The reverting of my transfers subheading

Would it be possible to add coaching staff etc like on the Man Utd and Chelsea FC pages? Pat Rice etc I tuhink should be mentioned for their invaluable contribution towards the club.

and how comes the chelsea FC page can have a transfers list mine is reverted? i never said it was to be a news page, i ust want people to know recent ins and outs!Toge1988 19:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "staff". Pat Rice is OK for inclusion, but it gets ridiculous when obscure people like the U14 reserves coach and the club masseur are included as well, as other club articles have included.

As for recent transfers, sorry for deleting it but I'll repeat again - Wikipedia is not a news service, nor a page for the latest "ins and outs" - there are plenty of other places to find transfer news and gossip. This is meant to be a page about the club as a whole, not what just happened in the last week. Players who have joined the club are already included in "Current squad"; to mention them again "recent transfers" straight afterwards is a total waste of space and clutters up the article. Qwghlm 23:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

so how comes the chavski page can have a transfers bit and we can't? Toge 12:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Chelsea page shouldn't have it either for the same reasons. But I don't care about the Chelsea page, so I don't edit it. Plus, I don't see any reason why this page should mimic the Chelsea page - after all, it is this page that is a featured article, not Chelsea.

If you really want to keep Wikipedia up-to-date about transfer information, then edit 2006-07 in English football, which is the page about this specific point in time. The Arsenal article is about the club in general, not just what happened in the last week. Qwghlm 12:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How about making a * next to recently joined players or something of the sort and then further explaining at the bottom of the page? 84.109.54.126 23:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Better to only contribute static text to the article. 'Recently' is not static. It would be more appropriate to list each players joining date if you really must know who's moved in in this article rather than in 2006-07 in English football, then this would seem the least-dynamic way of doing it.--BadWolf42 10:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

I have removed all the external links to blogs since WP:EL states that "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to." I've retained other links to establish news sources, and fansites like Arseweb & Arsenal-World since they contain detailed info on fixtures, statistics and historical information about the club and are thus useful resources. Qwghlm 11:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with you on that one since WP:EL states that "Blogs . . . should generally not be linked to." I believe that a website such as Arseblog is notable enough to make the exception to this rule. Yonatanh 22:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't give any reasons saying why Arseblog is any more notable than any other blog. The rule on blogs makes clear when a blog should be included:

"...there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard."

But Arseblog doesn't satisfy any of those exceptions. All it is some bloke offering his opinions on the day's news. It would be different if he was an insider or had some unique perspective on the club, but he doesn't even go to matches (he lives in Spain). It's just some guy with a blog, it's no more special than every other of the hundreds of Arsenal blogs out there. Qwghlm 15:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You obviously don't like the blog too much but I don't see how you can say it isn't of high standard. Seeing how it's the most popular Arsenal blog, it must be "good", right? I don't see how not going to games has anything to do with it but if ANR is in the article, I don't see why Arseblog shouldn't be (Myles Palmer telling you how he went with his friend to the pub doesn't have much to do with Arsenal and makes his website a sort of blog as well). Yonatanh 01:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do read Arseblog on a daily basis; in my (subjective) opinion it's a good blog, but it's still only a blog, and it does not have any novel perspective on the club. As for ANR, you're right, it is a blog, which is a good reason for removing it from the list (which I have done). Qwghlm 09:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why was this link deleted from external links? arsenalwwerulz 07:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, as it's generally bad practice to hotlink to images directly on someone else's site. Qwghlm 08:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually having just checked that site more thoroughly, I've realised that all the images are displayed directly, rather than within an HTML page. So maybe the site owner won't mind a link direct to the image - but I'm not totally sure. Qwghlm 09:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Honours

Shouldn't the fact that Arsenal FC reached a European Champions Club Cup/Champions League final be included in their honours?. I appreciate they haven't yet "Conquered Europe" but being runners up should in my opinion be considered an honour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.182.222 (talk • contribs) 11:40, May 29, 2006.

It's not an "Honour" in the footballing sense of the term: an Honour is something you win. The Champions League run is already mentioned at least twice in this article, and in History of Arsenal F.C. and Arsenal F.C. seasons as well, it doesn't need a further gratuitous mention in a section it doesn't really belong to. Qwghlm 11:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a case for runners-up medals being "honours", at least, there is on Newcastle United's website. --JamesTheNumberless 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

One-nil to the Arsenal I feel, however...

Despite being a Spurs fan I'm surprised and pleased at the generally good quality of this article. Much better than the Tottenham one. However, all too frequently the grammatically incorrect or ambiguous clichés of sports journalism continue to crop up, as they do in most football articles, especially towards the end. I wonder if anyone else feels that this will be a never-ending problem as long as the sort of people who are enthusiastic about writing on football are typically the sort of people whose exposure to academic writing rarely goes deeper than the back page of The Sun or who regard Ian Wright as an eloquent public speaker. And the writer of that section about the Harry Enfield sketch needs a bit of severe thumping on the head with a manual of style or two. --JamesTheNumberless 19:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the latter stages of the article tend to wander. I've trimmed the "popular culture" section down and fixed some style issues (active voice rather than passive). Simple pop-culture references to the team should be kept down, in favour of ones where the team proved integral to the work (e.g. Fever Pitch) or it helps shed light on popular opinion of the club (e.g. Eric Morecambe/Full Monty). And I got rid of the John Lydon para in its entirety - the article doesn't need a whole paragraph that says little more than Lydon is an Arsenal fan (so what? Plenty of other people are too). Qwghlm 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Alexandre Song

They've made the deal permanent: 4 million euros. Cyril Washbrook 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Famous Fans

Would it be possible to add a paragraph on famous Arsenal fans? arsenalwwerulz 09:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it probably would more be a list than a paragraph. I don't think it's a good idea - it is listcruft and becomes a honeypot for vandalism or vanity entries. General consensus on the matter has been a no - see previous discussions here and here, and a separate article listing Arsenal fans was voted for deletion. So I would say no; if a person is an Arsenal supporter then it should be mentioned in their own article. Qwghlm 08:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you desperately need a list, there's a celeb list over at arseweb. Kynen 00:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I see someone's been trying to add in the fact that Osama Bin Laden has been banned from the ground. I disagree that it's insulting (He's hiding near Kabul/He Loves the Arsenal/Osama! Oh-oh-oh-oh was from the North Bank, after all), but it is, at the end of the day, just another famous fan, and no reason to give him special treatment in the main article, IMO. --BadWolf42 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed not because it was insulting, but as it was unverifiable (it's never been confirmed he's been to London, let alone Highbury) and as you say, irrelevant "famous fan" trivia. Qwghlm 15:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Legends"

I looked all over Arsenal.com (and did a Google News search as well) but could not find anything where the club officially nominated ten "legends". I´ve removed it - if it is added back in again can it please have a proper reference given? Qwghlm 10:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Kit Colours

Should we not revert back to the usual Red and white instead of Redcurrant now?

TheMongoose 14:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think people are waiting to see exactly what the new kit will look like before adding it. Any changes before then can only be a rough estimate or prediction.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  15:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I would hold off for now. No word yet on when the new kit is out but I imagine it will be quite soon (though perhaps not until after the World Cup?). Qwghlm 08:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this image on tinternet, which appears to be an artist's impression based upon the latest Nike range. http://quick.imgfree.net/5608. This of course is completely unofficial.
 SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  14:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's well-known that Arsenal will play in a red and white kit next season. I don't have a quote but I'm quite sure when it was announced we will change to the redcurrant kit it was said to be for one year. Also, I have seen a picture of the new kit (which was removed by the threat of a lawsuit of Nike) and it is red and white. Either way, for the majority of seasons that arsenal have existed the kit was red and white and therefore a page describing the club as a whole should have a red and white kit. I'll try looking for that photo of the Nike kit. Yonatanh 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

A rather blurry picture is now available on the official website; the kit will be officially launched on July 18, though. Qwghlm 13:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

ooo i like it, Behind the veil

Don't you just love being told what to do? Fly Emirates. No other clubs have to put up with this kind of crap. Why should Arsenal become whores all of a sudden? The shirt design, retro in style, also includes an Emirates Stadium label to commemorate the Club’s first season at our magnificent new home. more advertising than usual --  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  14:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The guess wasn't far off [3]. ed g2s • talk 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Beveren "case"

As per WP:NOT, "is not an indiscriminate collection of information." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yonatanh (talk • contribs) 02:31, June 13, 2006.

Well, it's quite relevant to the club and this article, though I would perhaps put it in the "Ownership" section rather than "History", something I have been meaning to do once the news had cooled off. Qwghlm 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant to the club, although it's obviously bullshit as has been stated by many BUT as you very well know, wikipedia is not a source for news and I don't see how this is relevant as it's not a big deal and it's not a major enough even to merit a place on the club's entry in an encyclopedia. Yonatanh 23:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Arsenal have admitted making the payment, it's hardly bullshit (although its legality is still not a settled matter). While I agree the article should not be a running news commentary on the team, I would rather have a short paragraph - in the appropriate section - mentioning it, stating the established facts neutrally, with verifiable references. If there was nothing at all on it, various anonymous editors will only add in their own version with their own POV instead. Qwghlm 08:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why it should be there in the first place. You are entitled to your opinion but as you might've seen my opinion is that it's bullshit (as is the opinion of many people as well as officials). However, my POV is irrelevant because this "story" is not of great significance and I still don't understand how it's such a big thing that it merits getting a place in the Arsenal history. Yonatanh 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, if you feel that strongly about it then remove it; I won't revert it (I don't care that much, to be honest), unless others start adding their own POV/unreferenced comments in its place. Qwghlm 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you won't have any qualms with me removing it now as we've been vindicated by the FA. Yonatanh 21:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

even though it has been cleared, it still is quite an accusation, and it should be noted in a small paragraph atleast, detailing the case. Behind the veil 12:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It definitely warrants mention, and I have done so on the History of Arsenal F.C. page. Given that the club was cleared, I don't think it is needed on the main page. - Pal 14:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I see so from now on every time someone makes a baseless accusation it's worth a mention? The Newsnight editor is apparently a Tottenham Hotspur fan and a fellow journalist who was interviewed for the "investigation" criticised newsnight quite a bit in the newspaper. Besides, even if Arsenal did own Beveren it still wouldn't be a breach of any FA or FIFA rules as the two clubs wouldn't be competing in the same competitions (Arsenal is in the premier league, FA cup, carling cup and champions league while Beveren is in the Belgian league, belgian cup and maybe another belgian cup if there is one, no european competition and no english league). 84.109.55.5 00:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a fair standard for inclusion would be anytime FIFA demands an investigation, as they did in this case. - Pal 01:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the reason why it has to stay is not whether the accusation is true or not (after all, we are not here to hold inquisition on every fact in the world) but whether it has made an impact to the club's reputation and history. As of this moment this case still does, despite the recent clearance, so it's here to stay. As and when time proves that this is but an insignificant event over the course of the club's long history, this can be safely removed at that time. --Pkchan 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

--

Case closed.

Arsenal have been vindicated for their financial dealings with Belgian side Beveren, by The Football Association.

The Gunners were made the subject of an inquiry after revelations that they made an anonymous £1 million payment to the feeder club.

The world's governing body Fifa then handed responsibility for investigations to the domestic FAs of both teams, and the regulators of the English game have found no evidence of a breach of the Premiership's rules.

"As a result of those inquiries, we can confirm that we have not identified any evidence to suggest Arsenal have breached any rules of The FA or The FA Premier League in relation to their dealings with Beveren and specifically any breaches of the FA and FAPL rules concerning dual interests or associations between clubs," an FA statement read.

Ivory Coast defender Emmanuel Eboue is the highest profile current Arsenal player to have had a successful spell in Belgium and the North Londoners have always denied any accusations of wrongdoing.

They insist the relationship is purely football-based and that they loaned the money to Beveren on a short-term basis.

"In order to protect the integrity of matches and competitions, these rules prohibit clubs in the same competition from being owned, influenced or controlled by the same person or entity," the FA statement continued.

"In this case, the relevant competitions are the FA Cup and the FA Premier League. The rules also prevent a Premier League club from owning or controlling another Premier League or Football League club.

"The FA has provided all the material obtained during its inquiry to Fifa for its consideration."

TheMongoose 11:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been for a few days and I posted this earlier but some still it as notable enough to be included in the history, which I disagree with. The media conduct their own "investigation" and then FIFA has to ask the FA to investigate to satisfy the media otherwise it'll get crucified and then it becomes notable because FIFA requested for an investigation to be started so it must have been for something. Still not notable IMHO and an unncessary addition to the history article. Yonatanh 04:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Not case closed at all. The FA have ruled Arsenal haven't broken any of their rules and have passed their findings back to FIFA for their consideration. As far as I can see FIFA have not cleared Arsenal yet. I think the current two-line summary of the incident is both necessary and fair, especially given the likely link between this and the subsequent loss of Dein's position on the FA board to that lad from Man U.--BadWolf42 12:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You're obviously not updated. FIFA has cleared Arsenal as well as the FA, also I don't see why it's notable if the investigation is ongoing and nothing has come of it and it isn't notable once Arsenal have been cleared. I think it's just not notable period, unless they aren't cleared like they were now and further proceedings take place. Yonatanh 13:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire, I actually think it's notable whether cleared or otherwise. Giving another club a secret one million pound loan, repeatedly denying it, having it unearthed by the police and then being investigated for it is clearly relevent to the club's relationship with Beveren.--BadWolf42 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Players released

Three youngsters have been released, although only one is on the squad list, can someone edit the squad template? [4] arsenalwwerulz 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and do this yourself at Arsenal F.C.#Current squad and Template:Arsenal F.C. Squad! --Pkchan 17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Pogues mention

I don't think the song the Pogues namechecked in is that notable - it was only one line of an album track that was never released as a single. Anyone mind me removing it? Qwghlm 14:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As no-one objected, I've removed it. Qwghlm 09:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll object, with this defense: Some of the other references mentioned -- particularly the ones which mention Hitchhiker's Guide and Ocean's Twelve -- amount to nothing more than passing background noise in otherwise completely unrelated-to-football subjects. Furthermore, in The Full Monty, few if anyone outside of the UK (and then it would still likely require that the viewer have at least some understanding of the football reference); it is brief instance. Regardless of what informs your particular interests in pop-culture, The Pogues are quite well known musically. Regardless of whether a single was made of the song, it appears on what is arguably their top album -- and Pogues fans know that the reference is there. Besides the fact, it is an Arsenal in popular culture reference; my contribution -- whether or not it is of interest to you -- fits appropriately under that heading.

Look, Wikipedia is for everyone -- the Arsenal F.C. article included. Pardon me if this sounds like a personal attack, but judging by the history of your own edits as they appear in the article, it often appears as though you feel as though you are free to have appropriated it as your own personal property. I am willing to concede you efforts in maintaining the article in British English; but in the name of the democractic priniciple of Wikipedia, I am not giving up an inch of turf.

Inasmuch, I have replaced the reference to which I am referring. Ryecatcher773

I think the Full Monty reference is quite relevant, as it illustrates some of the popular attitudes to Arsenal's performances on the pitch. On the other hand, I'm not particularly keen on either the Ocean's Twelve or the Hitchhiker's Guide references, as neither relates to how the club are depicted, but I'm willing to concede as both were highly successful in their own right. On the other hand, "Billy's Bones" is quite a minor song - it was never released as a single in its own right, and the mention is only one line. If Arsenal had been referenced in, say, "Fairytale of New York", then I'd be more sympathetic to its inclusion. But as you say, Wikipedia relies on consensus (though it is not a democracy), not just my opinion; so I'll wait for wider consensus from any other editors who have an opinion before any further action.

Incidentally, I will be removing the Lydon reference as it isn't a pop culture reference. All that sentence basically says "John Lydon is an Arsenal fan", and consensus previously reached here and here is that such mentions are too trivial for inclusion. In addition, Lydon has stated that he doesn't really support Arsenal any more, anyway. [5] Qwghlm 11:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Squad numbers change

it's toge here, can't remember my pass for the login! anyways i read from somewhere quite official that cesc is #4 and rosicky is #7? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.151.222.182 (talk • contribs) 22:21, July 3, 2006.

Arsenal-Mania claim that the store accidentally revealed them (though I can't find them anywhere) - but that is not the same as official confirmation. It's still just the close season, no need to be hasty in updating the squad numbers until the team actually starts playing again. Qwghlm 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah - Yonatanh (talk · contribs) has supplied the relevant URL in the edit history. The numbers are probably still provisional but I'll go with them for now. Qwghlm 09:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)