Talk:Gregg Berhalter

Berhalter's comments

Look, this isn't difficult to understand. Berhalter made obnoxious comments about an opponent in this year's World Cup. Those comments were fully sourced. Said opponent beat the U.S. 2-1 and sent an embarrassed U.S. World Cup squad to the bottom of its group. Comment highlights propensity of US Soccer personnel to overrate their team, talent pool, etc. and to underrate the potential for countries outside the elite to knock them off.

A real World Cup contender takes every squad seriously, and doesn't count on beating any team. They understand that in each tournament, as Bill Parcells would say, "you are what your record says you are". That's why you see Italy play so cautiously against the "weaker" teams throughout the tournament. That's also why you saw Italy holding the trophy after the World Cup final.

No, what you are doing is including a quote to push your own pov. Fully sourced or not we do not include every quote that every player makes about every team that they face. Furthermore you push your own pov by calling the comment "obnoxious," saying that it was "an embarassed U.S. World Cup Squad," and making the original research conclusion that the US has the propensity of overrate themselves and underrate their opponents. If this were an article about the U.S. Team in the World Cup of 2006 then the inclusion of said material would be appropriate. As is now though, this article discusses his ENTIRE career, and does NOT include other comments from other games about other opponents, just your one sided non-neutral posting. Further, you then try to use your OWN rationale to compare the United States side to the Italy side...which shows where your loyalties lie and shows that you are incapable of making a neutral judgement on the issue...as you've already outlined your disdain for US Soccer and its personnel. Therefore, until we are either A) Inclusive of every comment this person (and others) have made about every team in every game they have played, we should not include only one comment or B) we make the decision not to include trivial non-points such as this in any article as it highlights a 10 second period of a persons career and is not indicative of any sort of realistic encyclopedic value. 75.2.53.168 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with above comment, no encyclopedic value of just a single quote. no point in only listing one quote...very pov. 157.91.44.1 23:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote has been restored. It's sourced, it's verifiable, it's encyclopedic, and it capture's the attitude of Berhalter and the rest of United States team going into the World Cup. Other users can feel free to add other quotes if you feel balance is needed. My only connection to Mr. Berhalter's article is that he was born one town away from me; I have on POV or axe to grind. It's just a great quote. Alansohn 22:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

YOU don't get to decide if the quote stays, what we have here is a discussion of the quotes encyclopedic value, which is disputed. Under WP:BRD, since you obviously can't be bothered to read the policy, a change is made to a page in a BOLD way (hence the B in BRD), it is then disputed and REVERTED (hence the R in BRD, are you seeing a pattern yet?) and then without it being readded until DISCUSSION (guess what the D stands for) from all interested parties, you are not the only interested party, thus, you are not the sole person deciding on the quote. Read WP:BRD, several times if necessary, and then when discussion is completed, we'll figure out if the quote belongs on the page. 157.91.44.1 11:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have seen WP:BRD before and reread it now that you seem to believe it to be gospel. Unfortunately, as stated at the top of the article, WP:BRD is merely an "essay. It is not a policy or guideline", yet you insist on misrepresenting it as policy. I reread the quote a handful of times, then reread your arrogant, obnoxious post above a few times. Then I reread your initial post here, where you try to push your own POV by blaming others for what you have arbitrarily decided is their POV. I double checked the edit history and saw a pattern of reverts claiming that the quote is nonencyclopedic, without justification, and then an explanation that reinsertion of the quote violates what is in fact NOT A WIKIPEDIA POLICY OR GUIDELINE. Then I saw several edits explaining why it belongs here, including the very specific suggestion that this quote can be balanced by other, relevant quotes from the same individual. Then I reviewed all of the comments here and concluded that it looks like we have a pretty even two-two split on this one. As the quote is verifiable, relevant, came directly from the individual in question and reflects the biased POV of only one individual -- Gregg Berhalter -- I fail to see any legitimate reason to remove it. I have repeatedly suggested that you can provide additional context for this quote and/or add other quotes that might better capture Berhalter as an individual. You, in turn, have offered no suggestion as to how to reach a compromise on this issue. If you feel that this quote does not capture Berhalter as an individual, I would encourage you to make responsible additions above and beyond the original quote which has been reinserted. Alansohn 13:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Berhalter defenders are whitewashing the article. A real biography includes bare-bone facts, as well as "flavor" that is verifiable. The Berhalter quote fits into the latter category. Why do you think Allen's "Macaca" comment was so powerful? Most of the time public figures are careful in what they say, so an unguarded comment such as Allen's provides insight into the true person.

The Berhalter quotation, while about matters far less serious, is nevertheless similar to the Allen flub. To paraphrase Alansohn, go find quotations from Berhalter or other insights that balance out the above quotation. Better yet, go to Berhalter's agency and insert their PR material about Berhalter verbatim. Just include this full, verified, relevant, and direct quotation from Berhalter alongside. Then the Wiki community can judge whether the quotation adds value to our "understanding" of Mr. Berhalter.

Quote for deletion

It has been suggested that the quote from Mr. Berhalter is inherently POV and should be omitted. Others have suggested that the quote is indicative of Berhalter's views and should be retained, with additional sources added to provide context. Let's see what consensus is on this issue and if any middle ground can be reached. This "QfD" should help us gauge attitudes and find a mutually-agreeable middle ground.

• Keep It's sourced, it's verifiable, it's encyclopedic, and it captures the attitude of Berhalter and the rest of United States team going into the World Cup. Other users can feel free to add other quotes if you feel balance is needed. Alansohn 13:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete the encyclopedic value of this quote is non-existent. Addtionally, saying that it "captures the attitude of Berhalter and the rest of the United States team" is the POV of the previous poster and original research at best. Unless Alansohn was involved in the team in 2006 then he has no way of knowing how to accurately capture the teams attitude. What we have here is a guy who simply does not care for the US Soccer Team. As well, this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA...not a useless collection of quotes/facts. These articles are supposed to be emblematic of a person/place/thing/idea/occurrence, etc. A single quote said in passing during a press conference is not encyclopedic, it's just that...a quote said in passing. There is absolutely ZERO encyclopedic value to this quote that doesn't stem from the POV and OR of Alansohn and another user who I highly suspect is a sockpuppet of Alansohns who has made about 8 edits to wikipedia in his history and about 5 of them are to this page...seems awfully suspicious...that and their edit summaries are nearly identical each time. Obviously my vote is delete as there is absolutely NO encyclopedic value to the quote and the Alansohn is using his own pov and original research to back up his argument...no no's in wikipedia. 75.2.6.197 05:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a single word in your rant that addresses any issue or that is not completely and totally false. I have no view on this issue other than the fact that the quote is reliably sourced, verifiable and encyclopedic. Unless you can provide documentation related to a Wikipedia policy that would exclude this, it must be reinstated. Alansohn 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP--I restored the quotation to the article. I don't understand why you wouldn't keep something that's sourced, verifiable and indicative. My goodness, it's utterly rare that an athlete fails to follow the Bull Durham rules for dealing with the media. The rules are designed to prevent exactly what we see here; candid views denigrating an opponent. I really suspect one of these people writing in so much is Gregg or Ms. Berhalter (any generation) or perhaps Gregg's agent or PR person or someone in a similar position who's trying to push this down the memory hole. Please, please, please provide PR releases or other truthiness to balance this out; let the audience read the arguments and draw their own conclusions. joejones20032003 1:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

My challenge, which you would have gotten had you actually read my response is that the quote is NOT enyclopedic. Your claim that it accurately captures the attitude of th United States going into to the world cup is both your pov and you using original research to justify inclusion. You are pushing YOUR pov about both Berhalter AND the US Soccer team, which is...AGAINST POLICY. Additionally, like I said previously, joejones only edits about 1 page a month and its typically this page, so his opinion is pretty much null and void as he's likely YOUR sock puppet. 75.2.9.78 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nonenycylopedic and per reasons by IP user. Once again, we don't include every quote that is ever said, similar quotes by Bruce Arena and other managers, players and officials are not included in theirs. It is not an accurate representation of his overall life, which is what this enyclopedia is for, not for stirring up every small quote that's ever been said. That's what wikiquote is for. I also agree with the other user about pov and original research being used to justify inclusion. 157.91.44.1 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, Alansohn has now resorted to calling edits by myself and the other IP user vandalism because we choose to follow wikipedia guidelines about consensus and inclusion. Looks like he and his sock puppet have run out of legitimate arguments and have chosen the name-calling route. 75.2.9.78 02:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Gregg Berhalter

This is a dispute about inclusion of a quote in this article regarding the 2006 World Cup. 04:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• A quote has been added that is sourced and verifiable, and has been removed several times. The quote has been modified on several occasions to provide even greater balance. Suggestions have been made to add other quotes to provide context or add balance. Alansohn 04:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• • NOTE: Batman2005 (me) is one and the same with IP editor from IP starting with 75. Please note that this is not an attempt at duping anyone, just that sometimes I don't sign in when I edit. This quote serves zero enycylopedic value. There is no valid argument that has been made for its inclusion that is not 1) Original Research (saying that it reflects the usa viewpoints going into the cup) or 2) pov. Alansohn is the only regular user to believe that this quote serves any purpose in the article. Another user (whom I personally suspect is a sock puppet of Alansohn's has only 10 or so total edits of which about 7-8 are on this page regarding this quotation). Additionally, Alansohn has shown continued bad faith by calling my edits vandalism and refusing to work towards consensus and continuously pushing his pov and original research. There is NO reason to include this quotation or any others, we don't include quotes about every team, every time the media asks his opinion. The insertion of this quote is pov and an effort by Alansohn to push his own pov (quote reflects usa attitude prior to the cup) and stances that he is not in any position to have any accurate knowledge of. The quote is simply non-encyclopedic. I'll point out precedent on the Bruce Arena page where a pre-tournament quote about Australia was added and subsequently deleted as non-encyclopedic. I'm not saying that Berhalter did not say the quotation, my contention is that it is non-encyclopedic. It would be even if Alansohn wasn't resorting to Original Research, POV and Bad faith in his edits. Batman2005 04:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take this opportunity to weigh in with my opinions. 1) I agree with Batman, the people posting are using a clear case of Original Research to justify inclusion. 2) my thoughts are that this quote does not accurately represent anything. What question was asked to elicit this response from Berhalter, what was said immediatley before and after? It matters a great deal if he said "nobody is calling it the group of death because of Ghana. That being said we're taking them as seriously as every other opponent." That information is not contained in the article so we don't know. The quote is being used to defame both Berhalter and the US Soccer team. It is wholly unencyclopedic and so are all of the attempts by the two users to include it. Like I've said before, we don't include random quotes in articles just because. We don't include all the other quotes he's ever had about other teams that he's played against. I'm a firm believer in keeping these articles encyclopedic only, not as a forum for pushing of pov or making a statement. The article should contain his personal and professional status, information about that status, achievements and referencing material. This quote falls into none of the categories. I'm also a fan of "controversy sections" but there was no controvery here, and saying that there was because they ended up losing to Ghana is original research. Remember...wikipedia users can't create the story, just write about it. There is no story here, just wikipedia users drawing a single quote out and using it to make their own point about what they think it means. I don't/won't support the inclusion of this quote (or any quote for that matter on the grounds that they're unencyclopedic) if quotes need to be added I believe somebody already mentioned that there is a sister project for the inclusion of quotes over at wikiquote. 157.91.44.1 15:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

(diff showing an example of the disputed quote) First up, no vandalism has occurred, this is a content dispute only. Comments made in an argumentative tone and accusations of sockpuppetry do not help to resolve it. I don't think the quote would be such an issue if the rest of the article was fuller, but when Berhalter's international career is summed up in three lines it comes across as undue weight. That an athlete shows confidence in the run up to a major tournament is not surprising, the key is the context in which such a quote is used. As the article stands now, the reader is not given any information about Berhalter's role at the 2006 World Cup other than stating that he was an addition to the squad. Appending the quote to this gives the impression that it was one of the defining moments of his career. As Berhalter was a substitute in all three games, and did not take to the field at any point in the tournament, this is clearly not the case. Perhaps it could be referenced in a sentence such as "Berhalter expressed confidence in the ability of the USA team in run up to the tournament, but was an unused substitute in all three group games. The USA was eliminated after finishing bottom of Group D with one draw and two defeats." though this involves a certain amount of word juggling to get the quote to fit. Oldelpaso 11:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that no vandalism is evident. Even if it were, warning multiple times for the same edit is not called for. I think assumptions of bad faith are being made on both disputants' parts, to some extent. On the content dispute itself, I think the quote is being taken out of context in such a way that it appears to say something that was arguably not intended by Berhalter. The article from which the quote is derived is regarding a match between the US and Czech Republic teams. The context of the article is as follows:

The US has steadily evolved from patsy to legitimate international contender, reaching the quarterfinals four years ago in South Korea and demonstrating the ability to beat or at least impress the world's best. They'll need confidence against the Czechs, ranked second in the world by the questionable system used by international soccer officials that puts the US fifth.

The US has never beaten a European team in a World Cup held in Europe, but players don't appear intimidated by that history.

"They're not calling it the Group of Death because of Ghana," US defender Gregg Berhalter said, implying that his team had as much to do with the label as any other in the four-nation round robin.

In general terms, the match looks like a clash of Czech finesse versus American athleticism. [...]

In other words, the source being used to support the quote does not support the contentious implication that it is a disparagement of Ghana, but rather suggests that it is a statement of confidence in his own team's ability to match the other teams in the group. Misplaced confidence, apparently, but given this context, I find the article's previous usage of the quote to tread uncomfortably close to POV. If this quote is to be used, then care should be taken to provide more of its context and to use it in a neutral fashion. However, I'm not at all convinced that the quote is meaningful to Berhalter's biography -- though it might be to an article on the Cup or its games. Shimeru 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Batman2005, please answer one question before I comment: are you also using IP address 157.91.44.1? If you are not sockpuppeting, please excuse me and my skepticism... its just that you and 157.91.44.1 are from the same area (Indiana), you both edit a lot of Indiana, Indianapolis and Indiana sports related pages, you both have similar editing styles, you both like to emphasize with uppercases in your edit summaries (Batman2005 and 157.91.44.1) and you both edit similar things (Like adding the exact same content to the John O'Brien article: Batman2005 edit and 157.91.44.1 edit). - Ektar 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is ip 157.91.44.1 and i have no idea who Batman2005 is. I'm editing from a school in Plainfield which is west of Indianapolis. I will point out that literally HUNDREDS of people at this school could potentially edit wikipedia from here.157.91.44.1 23:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

157.91.44.1, since you could be one of hundreds of people who can edit from that IP, what really matters is if Batman2005 edits from that address. Thank you for comment anyways. - Ektar 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see your point now. I don't know for sure to be quite honest, I suppose it is possible, though doubtful i've been looking through the contributions coming from this IP and most of the soccer related ones i've seen have been ones i've made, not too sure about whether or not this Batman person edits here or what. 157.91.44.1 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

References

mediator

Hello everybody! I might be here representing the mediation cabal, but I don't think it exists, so how is that possible? There has been a request for mediation concerning the comments made by Berhalter about the Ghana football team. Judging by the discussion above, the issue seems to have worked itself out. I must admit, even though I'm not supposed to take sides, the quote seems superfluous in such a small article. If there was a more extensive analysis of his personal life or personality, there may be a place for the quote. However, in view of the comparitive insignificance of the quote pertaining to this particular article, I am rather pleased with the decision to reject it. Perhaps a seperate article Attitudes of US football team at the World Cup would certainly allow for the quote, but here it's a bit much. Just my two cents. If there are any questions or if further mediation is required, refer to the appropriate page on the Mediation Cabal page. Otherwise, I'll close this case in a few days. Antimatter---talk--- 01:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)