Talk:2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup

Group Draws[edit]

When are the group assignments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.1.206.20 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Guadeloupe???[edit]

What is the specific flag being used? The one currently on the template (although correct) is slightly inaccurate because its an unofficial flag. Guadeloupe uses the French Tricolore as far as I'm aware. The Gold Cup website also seems to list Guadeloupe under the official French flag rather than the unofficial one being used here. Gaijin84 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is very confusing to use the French tricolor since France has nothing to do with this tournament. It would be like Guam using the American flag in some random Oceania tournament! I think it's better to use the local but unofficial Guadeloupe flag.

But Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States while Guadeloupe is technically a department of France just like Hawaii is a state to the United States. I say we use France's flag since the official CONCACAF Gold Cup site is using it. Azuran 16:50, June 9 2007 (UTC)

But, if Hawaii were competing independently in a tournament, wouldn't it be extremely confusing if it were represented by an American flag and not the Hawaii state flag?? Using the French flag would look weird in my opinion. oopla32606 21:17, June 12 2007

Canada vs. Costa Rica[edit]

Didn't DeGuzman score his second goal in the 68th minute not 73? I'm watching the game on The Gold Cup home page's match tracker, so I think this is correct...

Okay nvm 73' is right, sorry!

3rd Place teams[edit]

I take it that the best 2 of the 3rd place teams qualify for the knockout stages. An explanation of that's kinda missing from the page. Aheyfromhome 12:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T & T Lockout[edit]

Should somebody mention that the World Cup players from Trinidad & Tobago aren't playing due to a pay dispute? This is my understanding anyway.

No, I don't think that is neccesary, atleast at this moment in time. When we right the overviews for each group, one group stage is over, we may include it then...

Something Wierd[edit]

Okay, something wierd keeps on happening. I open the page, and Group B's results arent' up yet, so I try to edit them, but they are already changed in the edit window. Anybody know w'sup? Bornagain4 19:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine for me. I don't know what it would be then.Sportyguy03 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's showing up on both for me... 20:17, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Red Cards[edit]

Should they be mentioned in the match results?

No, that's for scoring only, but we could include a disciplinary list for yello and red cards...

Goal Scorers[edit]

How many of you think we should change the goal scorers back to alphabetical country, then alphabatize the names from inside their own nation? I think thats how it usually is organized... 22:41 (EDT) June 8, 2007

Usual practice is by number of goals, then by country, then by surname. 85.92.162.245 11:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full Names of scorers[edit]

Seriously, I see no point in having the full name of the scorers in the results section. Why not just use the last name like every soccer article in this site? It takes less space and looks more clean in my opinion. Azuran 16:50, June 9 2007 (UTC)

First names removed as per WP standard for football and rugby articles. Mjefm 21:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guatemala vs. El Salavador[edit]

Does anybody know who the ref was for that group B game? If you do will you add it?

Done. Referre added. Azuran 18:22, June 9 2007 (UTC)

Group Standings[edit]

Im gonna go ahead and change the colors for the group standings to make them more understandable. At this point, only the USA has secured a place in the quarterfinals, and no team has been eliminated. So only the United States will be green, and no team will have any other colors, if there is a controversy, please respond here instead of changing it. Bornagain4 13:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct to update goal differentials in the standings before the games are completed. This is confusing and technically wrong. AnnBee 00:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States Hasn't Qualified Yet[edit]

If El Salvador beats the US by two goals, and Guatamala beats Trinidad and Tobago by four goals, the United States will finish in third place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bornagain4 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that happens, the US will be one of the two best 3rd place finishers and will go through anyway. - MTC 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Point Bornagain4 22:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified automatically?[edit]

Why are these three teams Qualified automatically? Anybody? thanks168.156.37.191 16:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the official reason is that they have all won the tournament in the past. In reality it's probably because they wouldn't fit into either of the qualifying tournaments. - MTC 16:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Group C Overview?[edit]

I have to admit that I did not keep up on the Group C action other than tonight's games to determine who might play the U.S. Can someone write up a brief overview to be added to the Group A & B overviews covering the progression of Group C in match play? Thanks. ju66l3r 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guadeloupe in 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup?[edit]

Maybe Guadeloupe would have the right to represent Concacaf at the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup, if they win 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup. At least Fifa mentions Guadeloupe positively in their section about the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup. See: http://www.fifa.com/confederationcup/news/newsid=535207.html#little+guadeloupe+knifes+edge I have already asked User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Surge79uwf to refer to a source. His Revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup&diff=prev&oldid=137596150 introduced the claim, that in the case of a Guadeloupe-win, the runner-up would represent Concacaf at the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup. The footnote has been reedited later on (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2007_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup&diff=137837799&oldid=137831793). But there is still no source given. If you know a source, please add it in the article or name it here, and I will add it. I believe it is a very interesting aspect! Who decided this and when? Was it Concacaf or Fifa? Is it even true - or could Guadeloupe, not being Fifa-member, go to 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup, if they would win the Gold-Cup? Thank you very much! -Rheinländer 09:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup article gives further explanation of why Guadeloupe wouldn't be allowed to compete, that explanation being that the Confederations Cup is a FIFA tournament, and only FIFA members may compete in FIFA tournaments. I've never really thought about a source, I just disregarded it as common knowledge, though I've never seen anything related to it from FIFA itself. A quick Google search found me this article from an online news source which states:

The winner of the Gold Cup earns an automatic bid to the 2009 Confederations Cup in South Africa, unless the winner is Guadeloupe, which is not eligible for that invitation. On the off chance Guadeloupe pulls off a major upset and wins the Gold Cup, the second-place team would advance to the Confederations Cup.

Is that a reliable enough source? - MTC 11:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very interesting article (I wonder which 7 french players had guadeloupian roots) but I would not regard this article from a Northamerican Newspapaper e-version reliable enough. Best would be a source from Fifa or Concacaf or at least a reputed soccer-expert like http://www.kicker.de or http://www.donbalon.com — Rheinländer 13:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

Guadeloupe national football team#Notable (former) players has a list of French national team players with Guadeloupian roots. - MTC 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the leading German Soccer-journal I found: http://www.kicker.de/fussball/intligen/startseite/artikel/366633 Translation of the last sentences in this article of June 7th 2007: The Gold-Cup this year is carried out between 12 participants (in 3 groups in 6 cities of the US). The winner qualifies automatically for Confederations Cup 2009. Together with the article of Fifa (I quoted above) in the chapter confederationcup, I believe these are more reliable sources! But which statement is right?-Rheinländer 13:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible the article from kicker.de is simply ignoring the possibility of Guadeloupe winning or perhaps isn't aware of the possibility of them being refused. Unless an article can be found that specifically says "Guadeloupe will compete in the Confederations Cup if they win the Gold Cup", then there is no real way to disprove the statement currently in the article. In any case, I'm going to go ahead and add the source I found to the article, as it's better to have a sourced statement there than an unsourced statement. I still don't know which is right though... - MTC 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't Guadeloupe just join FIFA? FootyStavros 22:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real reason they can't, though according to FIFA regulations they have to have permission from the French FA if they want to join FIFA. - MTC 05:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article, which I found now as a source, isn't well written in parts (example: "They are not a member of FIFA because they are technically part of France. This is why they are able to compete in regional competitions." - this is not logical, it needs an "only" to become logical: This is why they are able to compete only in regional competitions) but it is on the official site of the Gold-Cup. The article is of June 5th 2007: http://www.terra.com/deportes/articulo/html/fox403009.htm It says, that Guadeloupe can not represent Concacaf at the Confederations Cup South Africa 2009. -Rheinländer 10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third place in tournament bracket[edit]

Shouldn't there be a "Third Place" part in the knock-out stage bracket? I'm not referring to the third place qualifiers for the second round though.

SaintFireMole 18:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a third place match in the 2005 Gold Cup, and I don't think there is one for this tournament either. Che84 18:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada-Guatemala[edit]

This article's scoring for the match does not match with the official results on goldcup.org, which states: De Rosario 17' and Gerba 33', 44'; Perhaps this should be fixed? http://www.terra.com/deportes/articulo/html/fox407303.htm Dlong 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC

I think you are right. The latest wire reports agree.

I made the appropriate edit, but it was deemed to be wrong.

Flag of the Guadeloupe football team[edit]

The Guadeloupe footbal team uses the French flag. You can see that on the CONCACAF website here: [1]. You can also watch the beginning of this video (Honduras vs. Guadeloupe in the 2007 Gold Cup) where it is the French flag that is used: [2]. I made changes accordingly. Godefroy 23:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat ambivalent, but I agree with what was said above - if the teams of Guam or American Samoa were playing in a tournament, one would not be using the American flag with them, probably the same for Guadeloupe. One does not use the Dutch flag for Aruba. - RPIRED 23:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is still being discussed and shouldn't have been changed unilaterally. The actual Guadeloupe football federation doesn't use the French flag. [3]. The fans at the Gold Cup don't wave the French flag. Their uniforms are mostly green. Their football crest uses the sun and sheaf motif. The CONCACAF Gold Cup commercials on TV use the sun and sheaf flag. And most of all, Guadeloupe isn't France. Imagine if French Guiana and Guadeloupe were both in the tournament...it would be very confusing to use the same flag for both. A compromise might be to use the region flag, which is an official flag of Guadeloupe but doesn't add the confusion with the French flag, but personally I think it looked way better before with the sun and sheaf flag. Oopla 24:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "sun and sheaf flag", as you call it, is actually a coat of arms displaying the sun, a bundle of sugarcanes, and fleur de lis on top. It was the coat of arms of Basse-Terre, the capital city of Guadeloupe, in the days of the monarchy before the French Revolution. There are now some people who use this old coat of arms as the flag of Guadeloupe, as if Guadeloupe was just Basse-Terre (!), and as if the French monarchy was still in existence (fleur de lis). It has of course no official recognition whatsoever, and is merely used by some as a tourist flag of Guadeloupe, a bit like some people in metropolitan France use the coat of arms of the old French provinces from before the French Revolution as tourist regional flags today (but these flags have no official recognition whatsoever).

The Ligue de Football de la Guadeloupe use the sun and the sugarcane bundle in their crest, but they don't use the fleur de lis. Check on their website. So that tourist flag with the fleur de lis is definitely out of place here. Personally I'm in favor of using the French flag which is used in the video that I linked to above. Apparently TV channels don't see any problem or confusion with using the French flag, so why should we?

Also, I don't know if Guadeloupean supporters wave French flags or not (I haven't seen any Guadeloupean supporter in the videos, there seem to be very few of them), but note that the Guadeloupe team sing the French national anthem (La Marseillaise) at the beginning of their games. Godefroy 01:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see that the Guadeloupe supporters do use the sun and sugarcane bundle flag: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoDhCEXc3tY So that flag is definitely NOT out of place here. Scroll up to the previous conversation where this has already been discussed and resolved. To use a French example, if Brittany were competing in an international tournament independent of France, it would be confusing to use the French flag instead of the Breton flag. So I say use either use the region flag or the actual one the fans wave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oopla (talk • contribs).

I still don't see why we wouldn't use the flag that CONCACAF officially uses, which is the French flag. Fans aren't official. CONCACAF is, and they use the French tricolor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.42.88.195 (talk • contribs).

Oopla, in the video that you linked to the supporters are waving the Ligue de Football de la Guadeloupe's crest. This is not the same as the flag that was used here. Look at the video again, the Football League's crest does not have fleur de lis, it has football balls instead of the fleur de lis, and the sun is displayed on a red background, whereas the unofficial tourist flag that was used here displayed the sun on a black background. For people who want to compare both, here you can see the Football League's crest flown by the supporters ([4]), and here you can see the unofficial tourist flag of Guadeloupe that was used in this article ([5]). Godefroy 03:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Guadeloupe living in the US and went to the Guadeloupe games at the Orange Bowl. Maybe other websites do not know what to do with the flag. At home we support our team of a small island with our local flag. This is because, _we are not France_. Why France gets glory when the team is from our island? Yes, we are a part of France, but this team is not the French team. This is why we take the local flag with the sun to the games to support our boys. The football crest is based on the local flag. This is not a question of vexillologie, but of showing difference between France and Guadeloupe. All other overseas territories use local flag, please Godefroy change it back. AngeliqueGarneau 13:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other users. The above account (AngeliqueGarneau) seems to have been created for the only purpose of posting this message here. This account has no record of editing on Wikipedia except this message today, so I am strongly suspicious of the real identity of the person here. Godefroy 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the state of New York were, for whatever reason, competing in an international competition, you would use the state flag, not the United States flag. Using the French flag is misleading, as it suggests that all of France is represented, when it is, in effect, a state being represented. Using anything other than the local flag just seems wrong in this situation. Che84 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:GuadFlag.png

Official regional flag

This flag (with a sun and sugarcane bundle on a black background) is not the official flag of Guadeloupe, so your comparison with NY State is not valid. The only official flag of Guadeloupe is this one (on the right). Using an unofficial and unrecognized flag makes no sense. What would you say if people on Wikipedia used a flag for NY State which is not the same as the official flag used by state authorities? Godefroy 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I didn't realize that was the official flag. If that's the case, why isn't that used here? Che84 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the official flag, it should be used here in place of the French flag. Also, just as a point, not wanting to make a ruckus over this, but Godefroy, for future reference, it is considered courtesy and appropriate to leave the article as it was (i.e., with the black flag) when there is an established dispute over content. WP:BB and all is fine, but once there's a dispute on the talk page and it is reverted it should stay that way until the dispute is resolved. - RPIRED 22:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RPIRED, when I put the French flag yesterday there was no controversy or dispute (not any that I knew of at least). It is only afterwards that I was reverted. In fact I was reverted in almost all my edits in these football related articles, and that's what I find uncivil and bad attitude, as if people taking part in the WikiProject Football owned these articles and nobody but them was allowed to edit them. The normal procedure if people disagreed with my changes (changes made in good faith and without prior knowledge of controvery) would have been to discuss it on the talk page instead of reverting me outright. Check also Guadeloupe national football team where I was reverted outright by User:Matthew hk and then User:Angelo.romano and aggressively warned to stop editing these articles ([6]). Godefroy 23:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were right to go ahead and put the French flag there when you thought that would be best. WP:BB practically demands it. And you're right, there was no dispute at the time, but the action was what created the dispute on this page. After that, it ends up becoming part of the WP:BRD - BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. After the dispute began, the answer was to revert back to what it had previously been while the discussion commenced and continued. Reverting it back before the end of the discussion was not the right action in that context. At present, it ought to be reverted to the black flag, or if we have a consensus, perhaps the white region flag is appropriate. If there's anyone here that is not WP:AGF with you, they are wrong since you've been very civil throughout to your credit. - RPIRED 23:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article shows the national flag for every other competing nation, not the emblem of a Football Association. I see no reason why this should be any different for Guadeloupe. The only official national flag for Guadeloupe is the French flag. The main reason proposed here for using anything else seems to be the expectation of the readers: why should an unjustified expectation take precedence over fact? If anyone remains confused by the apearance of the Franch flag in this article, they should be directed to the word Guadeloupe which occurs next to it at every occurence ;@) Kevin McE 11:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous IP (70.254.243.14, from Oklahoma City) has again reverted to the black flag. This anonymous IP keeps reverting to the black flag without taking part in the discussion here. So what are we to do now? Godefroy 21:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, it is appropriate to revert back to the black flag, as the originally accepted consensus, until a new consensus on the issue is formed. Please do not continue to engage in an edit war in the meantime. For what it's worth, I'm in favor of using the Region flag, not the black or French flag. - RPIRED 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godefroy, I continue reverting the French flag to the black flag originally posted because when a dispute arises, it is proper (at least as far as I understand) to keep the article the way it was until the dispute is resolved. I call your attention to the language you used--I was REVERTING the article to the way it was before, while you were CHANGING the article even while a dispute was (and is) still going on. My action is very defensible. As for my not discussing my actions here, just because I don't post doesn't mean I am not monitoring this debate. - 70.254.243.14 17:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McE, ordinarily, I would agree with you, but using the French flag is misleading, as the Guadeloupe team does not represent the whole of France, much like a New York team would not represent the entire United States. It seems to me that the appropriate flag to use is the official regional flag of Guadeloupe, which has been posted in this discussion, and that no other flag really makes much sense. Che84 07:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see how it misleads anybody who actually reads the text, and sees that the team represents Guadeloupe. I pity such easily confused people when a tournament includes both Netherlands and Luxembourg. Kevin McE 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It misleads because, well, it's wrong. Guadeloupe is a part of France, but it is not all of France, which is what the flag implies, again. Che84 15:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think that the black flag looks quite distinctive next to all the other red, white, and blue regional flags. I realize that it's a strictly unofficial flag based on a single crest which did not represent the whole island, and I understand that aesthetics is not a compelling issue in the argument, but it just happens to be my personal preference. However, I think the white regional flag is also acceptable. The simple fact is that though the official national flag of Guadeloupe is the French flag, and this is unquestioned, using it here is wrong. I find the New York state argument listed above to be a good analogy. Guadeloupe represented no part of France but their island at this tournament, and therefore, only the flag that represents their part of France should be used as their standard. As I said before, I rather like the way the black flag looks, but since the white flag posted in this discussion is the official regional standard, I move that it be used in place of the black flag currently being used in the article. - 70.254.243.14 17:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another good analogy - England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are all part of the United Kingdom but we would never use the Union Jack for those teams. Same applies to Guam, Puerto Rico, etc. Now, I understand that there are other French territories (most notably, New Caledonia) which use the French flag in their articles, but a quick check notes that these regions and dependencies do not have a flag of their own, like Guadeloupe has. Do we have a consensus on the official white flag for Guadeloupe? - RPIRED 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do, RPIRED. It might be best if you modified it, since you have been the most level-headed through this debate, with a note to the effect that anyone who's interested can check this thread. - 70.254.243.14 01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the white region flag is the best compromise. The French flag may not be so much an issue of confusion but just one of looking awkward within the context of this article. There is some support and validity for using each of the three flags in question (and I agree with 70.254.243.14 that the black flag looks very distinctive and aesthetically pleasing) but I think the official yet regional flag is the road down the middle which should be accepted given all the viewpoints. Oopla 03:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this debate be extended elsewhere? There is inconsistency between articles, especially the many relating to the Caribbean Nations Cup because some people out there are in a "revert war" between different flags for Guadeloupe and French Guiana. 23:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Canada-US Semifinal[edit]

C'mon guys, these immature edits are just plain crap. I'm a Canadian, I think Canada deserved that goal, I'm not happy with the ref's decision, BUT vandalizing wikipedia is a silly way to vent your frustrations. I think, if there is considerable coverage of the incident, an NPOV note could be added to the game about it (CNN has already discussed that Canada "should have had that goal"). But, in the meantime, could you all calm down? 24.69.65.237 01:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, am I the only one who thinks the U.S. should be listed as the home team? It doesn't matter who was the "home team," but one country was playing in its country in front of (a few) of its fans, etc. Jyardley 20:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canada was the official home team. The tournament is being hosted in the United States, but that doesn't make them the home team for all of their matches. Germany wasn't the home team for every match in the World Cup. Same thing applies here. Che84 21:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue Germany was the home team for every match in the World Cup, based on the same logic - practicality, not technicality. But I understand the counterargument. Jyardley 23:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by the rules, they WEREN'T the home team so they shouldn't be listed as one. Why would you consider that?

This comment is needlessly rude. Jyardley has already conceded the point. 70.254.243.14 17:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overview section: journalism or encyclopedic content?[edit]

I deleted the wholeof this section as it contained minimal additional information, and much journalistic commentary on the facts that atre already present in the article. Somebody recovered it without justifying their actions. I am removing it again: before undoing this, please justify its encyclopedic content. Kevin McE 11:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several other football-related articles have a similar section, including the article on the previous edition of the Gold Cup, so there is precedent for including it. I was the one who recovered it before, because I could see no reason given for WHY it was deleted. (It is possible that you listed a reason before, but if so, I was unable to locate it.) I also see no previous topic on this talk page dealing with the content of the overview sections, except one request for an expansion of one section. This means you have now deleted twice -- without any discussion -- something that clearly some people have found valuable enough to include and expand upon. 70.254.243.14 16:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the explanation in the edit note. The section is rife with opinion, error, observations on uncited and unfounded prior speculation, and unencyclopedic language. I cannot find one single piece of information that is not prewsent in the results data already present. The fact that editors add to it does not make it any more encyclopedic: it is pure journalistic commentary, and has no place in an encyclopedia. Kevin McE 08:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you give the explanation in the edit note the first time you deleted it, then? Because I saw the second time, but not the first. As has been said before, sections like this one (yes, even including journalistic commentary, and restating data included elsewhere in the piece) are included in several other footballing articles, so this is an issue you need to take up in a larger context. As for the section being rife with error, I have scanned the section and can't find any misstatements of fact, which is the only thing I would regard as error. Is it possible that you're overstating your case a bit? 70.254.243.14 17:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the article's edit history, 21st June, 18:44. To say that Haiti are defending their Carribean nations cup is an error: they are not even competing in it for more than 3 years. Yes: I stretched the point slightly (although I believe that I have cited an error) to include "error" in my list of the faults of this section: maybe I should have conceded that three fundamental reasons for deleting it (as opposed to the one reason "There are other sections like this in other articles" against doing so) were sufficient.

Since Haiti won the last Caribbean Nations Cup, they are the defending champions until such time as the tournament is played again. That is not an error. Also, please keep in mind that I am citing precedent for other footballing articles as the defense of this section, and as far as I can see, you are the only person who had a problem with the section as it previously existed. I am restoring it as it was. - 70.254.243.14 20:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a shame. Someone beat me to it. - 70.254.243.14 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your apology for having twice accused me of deletion without explanation through your failure to properly review the edit history as read. Haiti are the current Caribbean cup holders: they will start defending it when that competition resumes. Precedent is not a defence for breaking encyclopedic policy: I challenge you, again, to justify any part that you wish to revert as free from "opinion, error, observations on uncited and unfounded prior speculation, and unencyclopedic language" Kevin McE 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize if you thought my intention was to apologize to you earlier. I was not the person who reverted the text earlier, though I dearly wish I had been. Thus far, you have been the only person who has seen a problem with a) the section itself and b) the wording contained therein. Apparently other people are interpreting the rules another way entirely. Given that, I think it's incumbent on you, not on me, to mount a defense. - 70.254.243.14 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple viewing of the edit history (see 20:01 on 24th June), or indeed of your own contributions history, shows that it was indeed you who made that reversion, and the accompanying error of repeating several sections: I am unclear as to your motivation in denying this. I would invite you to propose a reason why any one of the phrases that you have reverted 3 times (oh: maybe there was a motive) is more encyclopedic than the version I edited. I have already explained why I found the wording as it was to be unsuitable: you (the only person who ever found it necessary to revert my alterations to the text, so your argument of "you are the only person bothered" works both ways) have made no explanation as to why you think, for example The group was dominated by the host and defending Gold Cup champion United States side, who gave the best first-round performance of any team by breezing through group play is more encyclopedic than The group was won by the host and defending Gold Cup champion United States side, who acheived the best first-round record of any team. My reasons for prefering the latter, in an encyclopedia, is the avoidance of POV and informal vocabulary: i.e., adherence to the MoS. Kevin McE 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "earlier," I thought it was obvious that I was referring to my above comment, "What a shame. Someone beat me to it." I have indeed reverted your edits before (as you say, no point in denying that), and I have not been the only person to do so. Check the edit history if you don't believe me. In the meantime, I suppose I will have to accept your rewritten text as an effective compromise, since you were originally for deleting the entire section. - 70.233.233.121 23:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to examine the edit history, as I have already looked closely at it and drawn your attention to the denied edit. I posted my version of the overview section at 19:43 on 24th June; you reverted it (and repeated several other sections, an error which I later corrected) at 20:01. Although there were 7 other edits in between, none of them touched the section in question. In the meanwhile, all I have tried to do is to follow the wisdom of your own edit note of 06:44, 22 June 2007 on Canada men's national soccer team: This is not a place for editorializing. Kevin McE 00:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. When I argued with you on that point before, I honestly did not think I had made that edit, as it did not appear to go through. I didn't go back to check the edit history because I was so sure. I know I've riled you up on the point, and you have every reason to be angry. Please accept my humblest apologies. - 70.233.233.121 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevin McE that this entire section is journalistic rather than encyclopedic in nature. It has led to blatant POV edits (see my comment below) and the article would be better served without it. Best regards. Jogurney 01:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to link to a youtube clip titled "Canada robbed"? It certainly appears to violate POV. I think one sentence saying the match had a controversial ending is sufficient. Is it really encyclopedic to give so much weight to one play of one match during the tournament? I don't see anything comparable in other articles for confederation championships and it doesn't get a mention on the CONCACAF official site. Best regards. Jogurney 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found more evidence that this is a POV problem. The editor is the same one that vandalized the score of the same match here: [7]. Looks like it should be reverted, but I'll wait for concensus here. Jogurney 02:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the YouTube clip, which is actually "Canada x USA June 21 2007. Gold Cup Soccer Robbery!" may not be neutral, but the video is, and since it was the most succinct and of the best quality that could be found, there is reason for it to be kept (if a better version with a different title can be found, all the better). There was another citation to a written article that states with neutrality that the goal should have counted, in addition to the context in which this referee has done this before. Even most Amercian sports columns addmitted that the goal should have counted, which means mention of this incident is not infringing NPOV. It is encyclopedic to mention this one play because it altered the outcome of the tournament in a significant way that has garnered the interest and attention of neutral and non-neutral readers alike. Citation of video evidence and written analysis by journalists supports NPOV and maintains objectivity on this point that might otherwise be construed as violating NPOV. G(A)IA 23:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the revised version of the article text is no longer POV (as it now matches the earlier version). I'm not sure about the youtube citation, but the other article cite is probably sufficient on its own (and avoids POV). Thank you for modifying this. Jogurney 00:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance figures[edit]

Where are the attendance figure being taken from? They list both of the semi-finals of having the same attendance of 50k+, yet I can assure you that there were nowhere near as many fans at the US game as there were at the Mexico game. Dav2008 13:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that paid attendance is what's being recorded here, because very few places actually count how many people are there. Che84 15:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but where is the data being taken from? Dav2008 23:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the Gold Cup tickets for most of the tournament were good for both of the day's games at that venue. Thus, the attendance numbers are a composite of both games and not indicative of total attendance at either individual game. - RPIRED 00:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense, although it's still missing a source. That would be a good piece of information to add if a source exists. As far as the attendance of the final, I highly doubt that the attendance figure was exactly 60,000 (unless they put exactly 60k tickets on sale). Although the source says it was a sellout crowd of 60,000 I wonder if that is an exact amount or just a figure for the article (it's easier to say 60,000 than 60,523 or something) Dav2008 22:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All -Tournament Team[edit]

I went ahead and added the Honorable Mentions chart. Source taken from concacaf.com Modelun88 22:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The attendance is incorrect. The Gold Cup has never reached over 500,000. Someone is taking average and adding to all games. There were double headers so the attendance should be 1/2 that figure...please remove the inaccuracy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.68.134.174 (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky issue, but one must treat each match attendance as an individual event rather than one crowd at a doubleheader to get an accurate picture. Particularly because that many people held a ticket to BOTH matches. Its a slightly deceptive number since we obviously have no idea how many would have bought tickets to each game if they'd been separate events. However, HALF of the group stage games would be counted as "0" in average attendance if you only count the one attendance for two matches (that don't have an opportunity to be counted on their own). Perhaps the format at the top should be changed, but factoring in the attendance at each match is a more accurate representation of the attendance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Concacafire (talk • contribs) 15:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA Wins The Cup?[edit]

Yes i know the us won it but shouldn't it be fair?The ref got the calls wrong so dosen't that mean the us CHEAT on that match?and there should be penalites.the problem is that the Mexico national football team And the association is blaming FIFA Or CONCACAF.there not blaming The United States Soccer Federation But Blaming FIFA Or CONCACAF.dosen't that mean the US cheated on that match?thats all im saying.Do you think This should be fixed,Shoulden't there be something to make witch team wins it?Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokepepsi (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...no. The USSF is not responsible for the outcome of the Gold Cup. The United States soccer team didn't cheat. If the referees blew a call, that does not mean the responsibility for the call automatically goes to the team who benefited. And by the way...learn how to capitalize and spell. No, really, thank YOU. --74.192.5.13 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.190.202 (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

The argument seems to be based on the fact that the table represents standings. I made the heading Team Statistics instead of Standings or rankings because that is precisely what it is- team stats. I have now removed the numbering and replaced it with round designations. Either way the number of games played and percentage were already included so there should be no dispute over the fact that different number of games played detracts from the tables usefulness. The table's usefulness is moreso if not equal to nearly all of the other sections. In fact most sections on here are redundant. In fact the only section needed are the box scores since they cover all the remaining information on the page. We really don't need Cuban defections on here nor do we need every goal scorer or the flag of the winning team to tell us who won, even the bracket looks nice but is overkill. Some of the external links and references are less than appropriate. This is longwinded I realize but I also realize that it irks some purists to have tables for knockout tourneys. Over an event teams compile stats and regardless of what round they reach, presenting that information is far from innapropriate. The changes I have made to the table should be suitable if they weren't already. I feel we should show team stats for all tournaments knockout or otherwise. Libro0 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]