Talk:The Philosophers' Football Match

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 17 September 2007, see discussion.
Closure endorsed, 23 September 2007, see discussion.

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Monty Python task force.

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I came here to get cursory information on a satirical sketch that is a classic example of why the general public is skeptical of philosophy (for a paper). I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that someone has decided it needs to be deleted based on misuse of Wikipedia guidelines.

While I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor (this is exactly why), and I don't intend to cite Wikipedia for obvious reasons (this is exactly why), I'd appreciate it if you didn't delete an article I'm using to help write my paper until I'm done with it. Also, if you want my opinion (which I'm sure you don't) the sketch is clearly culturally relevant and worth a stub, at least.

Sorry if I didn't format the talk page right.

205.206.20.35 21:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Illisium[reply]

OK , obviously there is a protocol here and maybe this isn't really a discussion page, I don't know! I probably won't come here again, it's all a bit confusing I was expecting some kind of discussion forum or something, anyway.... Is the joke that Beckenbauer is playing a defensive position and therefore as a German obeying orders waits for an attack that doesn't come... otherwise he would just go up to the ball and score!! or is it just using a famous name in football for a joke...? It doesn't really matter, most of Python is just deliciously silly.. well this is my first experience of Wikipedia and I find it a little confusing! Please do delete this if you find it is totally in the wrong place! I'm just a newbie like 99% of the world !!

The joke seems to be that a footballer has been included in the German team. He is notable as the only player to sport a football kit (albeit in a red and white stripe not immediately associated with the traditional natioanal team). Apparently not included in the earlier first leg, "Bayern Becks" might at least have been expected to string together a few exisentialist long crosses with fellow midfielder Jaspers. Alas, he seems overawed by his team-mates' protracted declaimation of their philosophical positions and he neglects to kick the ball. He gets only one mention in the commentary during the game and doesn't even participate in the post-goal protests. But 4-2-4 an obvious and tragic mistake. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

offside?[edit]

the different view @replay may be a joke in the joke, one view is onside, one view is offside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.221.80.52 (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]