Talk:Jürgen Klinsmann

Untitled

The man's name is Jürgen, not Jurgen. ;) Markalexander100 02:37, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but they don't have those funny dots in English :)) -217.237.32.69 20:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny dots? Umlauts, dear...

I wish we had umlauts in English -- they are cool! --Amcalabrese 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the best pic we can find of klinsmann? pitiful

best performance since 2002? that sounds crazy since there hasnt been any other world cup ^^

What is with all the nonsense about diving? 2 of the related links convey nothing about diving and one of them goes to the "urban dictionary", hardly an erudite selection more fitting of trivia than anything other. Changing. Ernham 03:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Ernham

I am a Tottenham supporter and I think Jurgen Klinsmann was a fantastic player, but he was a diver. Just look back to when he was playing for Monaco and got Costacurta sent off against Milan, Costacurta was about 2 yards away from him and didn't touch him whatso-ever!!

You are not a German and you have never celebrated Klinsmann's goals. You are not a Bayern fan, so get fucked!!!

stop the hating please^^

Fact is, Klinsmann was never booked for diving. This kind of reputation came up, when he went to the English Premier League, and hostile fans were looking for an excuse to hate the guy before he even played a game, and this was the best they could come up with.

So it is kay to mention 'he was criticized by fans for diving', but it is factually not right to qualify him as a diver, so not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. Greetings, Jonathan. (<---not Klinsmann son^^) Jonathan0007 (talk) 07:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

the "wikidaily"

Wikipedia isn't a daily of life fo recent events. Can't believe that this page has 22 years of playing career on the same space that 2 years of coaching.

But then there are hundreds of players having their daily playing careers, but only 2 or 3, or so, of them in a life-time who might be called upon to helm their national team. Those are some other numbers to consider.

Still others would be some dates. Like the date the Internet reached critical mass, or the date Wikipedia started. I've found it to be pretty universal that--not just at Wikipedia--but everywhere online, that going back to certain dates becomes in some respect pre-historic and sparsely reported or simply neglected. Even if from books, there may be none for Klinsmann or many sports figures. I don't think this is a good thing, but it is a real limitation of these kinds of web-based projects, in many case.

One thing I found lacking in the article were some of the examples of Klinsmann's innovations in brigning in fitness trainers, experts on increasing foot speed, or even some of the unorthodox things like the sessions of table tennis or archery, or pyschologists. If these things go on to revolutionize German or even European soccer, then perhaps Klinsmann's contribution will have been much greater as a coach than as a player. It is too early to know how these things will play out yet, but my point is that just counting the years doesn't always translate into what parts of a career are significant or worth discussing in detail.

You get this all the time with writers or composers who were also teachers or conductors. They may have spent many years doing the latter but when you read about them in an encyclopedia that only gets a sentence or a phrase, often no more than a short paragraph. The former, on the other hand, may receive pages of attention.

Also, you can't assume the part you object to will always be there in that form. For example, if the Kilnsmann approach, now passed on to others, turns out to be something truly lasting, maybe it will get its own subpage and most of that material will be moved there in future years. So call what you see now a "wikiworkinprogress"! W.C. 21:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the Chicago Tribune sport section, Mr. Klinsmann was also offer the position to coach the national team of Mexico. So, I think it's just fair to add it in the article because they added he was offer to coach the US national team.

Source: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/soccer/fire/cs-0610100160oct10,1,148288.story?coll=cs-fire-headlines

Apprentice ?

The article claims Klinsman to be a "qualified baker's apprentice" ? That sounds quite misleading, since he actually completed his apprenticeship and passed the required exams. So his correct qualification (for bakery) would (in German) be "Bäckergeselle" which should translate to "journeyman baker" (since bakery is a traditional craft it has retained the traditional titles). More colloquial, he would be called "gelernter Bäcker" ("learned Baker", but within a context where "learned" is understood as to have completed a well regulated apprenticeship and passed an examination regulated by the craftsmen's chamber in that craft). So he is everything but an apprentice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.199.13 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Goals

The article mentions Klinsmann scored 31 goals with Bayern Munich .. well thats partially correect if consider only the goals scored in Bundeslega 16 in season 95-96 and 15 in season 96-97 but in season 95-96 he scored 15 goals in Uefa cup also ... why is that not mentioned ?!!--Blain Toddi (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Height

How true is the claim of 182 cm being Klinsmann's height? In the link below, the apparent 180 cm (as per his article) Guardiola almost towers over him. Is Klinsmann shorter than 182 or is Pep taller than 180? Or would Jurgen be standing on a lower platform in the picture?

http://www.uefa.com/multimediafiles/photo/competitions/ucl/81/79/97/817997_biglandscape.jpg Depor23 (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

After looking at some other photos, I would say that Guardiola is definitely standing on a higher platform than Klinsmann. It seems Klinsmann is indeed 182 cm. Nothing to see here. :P -Depor23 (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

German-language TV

On multiple occasions, during his appearances on ESPN, the hosts have referred to his work on German TV broadcasts. I Googled a bit but didn't find details about his German appearances. The details should be in this article. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

At http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Klinsmann is written in section "Trivia" "Bei der Fußball-WM 2002 in Japan und Südkorea war Klinsmann Fußballexperte des ZDF, bei der WM 2010 in Südafrika hingegen Experte und Co-Kommentator bei RTL." It means Klinsmann was cocommentator for the World Cup 2002 for the station ZDF (Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen - 2nd german television) an for the World Cup 2010 for the station RTL (german speaking).

Another german source (http://www.zdf-jahrbuch.de/2002/programmarbeit/figgemeier_gruschwitz_deike.htm): "Das WM-Finale in Yokohama setzte den würdigen Schlusspunkt. Brasilien gegen Deutschland, 26,52 Millionen Zuschauer im Durchschnitt, ein Marktanteil von 88,2 Prozent, die beste deutsche Fernsehquote 2002. Ein letztes Mal war Anchorman Poschmann im Sony-Center, Sympathikus Klinsmann mit Partner Hiepen im Stadion, Reporter Réthy vor dem Mikrophon – geballte Kompetenz. Doch verbietet sich eigentlich eine Auflistung einzelner Namen, es war schließlich und allein eine wunderbare Teamarbeit, die den ZDF-WM-Erfolg möglich machte. Ein Dank an Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus Technik, Produktion und Redaktion! Sie alle haben, auch mit der emotionalen Übertragung des glorreichen Empfangs der deutschen Nationalmannschaft in Frankfurt, die Antwort gegeben." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.191.218 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Kaiser

It is written in the article "He was even referred to as "Kaiser"". But this is not true. Here, in Germany, nobody associated Klinsmann if you say "Kaiser" reagarding to football. "Kaiser" regarding to football is Franz Beckenbauer only.

West Germany / Germany

I just would like to point out that the article's strict distinction between the 'West German team' and the 'German team' is very misleading. Klinsmann only played for and coached one single German national team, the team of the German Football Association (DFB) which represented and still represents the Federal Republic of Germany. Team West Germany and Team Germany are identical. EnemyOfTheState_|talk 19:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately this misleading distinction is made in many Wiki articles, and even in the article about Germany before reunification. It is colloquial language to call the DFB-team until 1990 "West Germany", but this is not factually correct, the proper name was always only "Germany", representing the "Federal Republic of Germany" and all "Germans" with their governing body "German Football Association". No "West" in any of the names. The DFB represented (even before 1990) all German people and the German country "Federal Republic of Germany" awarded citizenship to every German, no matter where (Federal Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic, Silesia, Russia...) he was born or lived. The governing body of the German Team, DFB, is the same since 1900, over hundred years now, and has never changed the name which was and is still today "German Football Association". There were other German Teams like "Böhmen und Mähren", "DFV" and "Saarland", but they are increasingly irrelevant, and execpt for an olympic gold medal of the "DFV"-team in 1976 they never really accomplished anything worth mentioning, and an olympic medal is not a big deal among footballers, the World Cup and continental tournaments are much more important.

So if nobody minds, i will correct the redundant/misleading distinction between "Germany" and "West Germany". Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:86.137.26.211

Youtube is not an acceptable reliable source, even as a primary source. See WP:RS. Additionally, reverting 3 times, such as [1], [2] and [3] Dennis Brown (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

I am disgusted by the behaviour of the some of the established users here, who seem to think they are the only ones to add their opinions to this article. I see many things unsourced here, lauding Klinsmann's abilities, yet when I add a book source and a video interview with the man himself - pertaining to his poor performance in the 1990 Semi-final, I am railroaded and told I need a 'reliable source'. What can be more reliable than the English Official History which includes that game and the man himself saying the same thing in an audio video? And this is a European person, it should be British English. The fact that he now coaches the US team has no bearing on the use of 'defense' over defence when discusing his playing days in the 1980s.

It looks as if people here don't want this information in this article, and whatever source I produce, will find some excuse to have it removed. The above rubbish about 'reliability' is absurd in the circumstances. It appears this is only a free-to-edit wikipedia if your comments are agreed with by a pack who assume ownership of these articles. 86.137.26.211 (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• You can't use yourself as a "source". That is the very foundation of Wikipedia, one of the WP:Pillars, and one of the biggest violations you can have. Before you call the guidelines "absurd", it would likely do you good to actually READ THEM. WP:V, WP:RS apply here. Then you might understand why they exist. You can't be expected to understand something you haven't read, but you are still obligated to abide by the same guidelines. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• • What are you talking about? I have never used myself as a source. I ADDED sources. What's wrong with you? Don't you listen? One of them was a BOOK SOURCE. So you're objections ARE 'absurd'. 86.137.26.211 (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • Every footballer earns criticism, especially by fans of the opposing teams. Since Klinsmann has had a successfull career, played in many leagues, clubs and tournaments, it is certain to say he has many enviers. Although for starters I don't want to make assumptions about your motives. The desire to include "negative facts" about footballers is there, but it is not standard to include them unless they are relevant in a way that they are widespread opinion in the public. And even then you can't present a "poor performance" or a "dive" as a fact, but you have to say "observers/the coach/the media criticised footballer XYZ for his poor performance", you cannot include this subjective information as if it is a fact. Also keep it relevant: If we need to include every bit of criticism made somewhere in every article about footballers, WP articles about these footballers would morph into grotesk bashing of these persons accomplishments, that's not what WP is all about. If you think it is, please show me another article that evaluates the degree to which a footballer has been fouled and if his reaction to this is appropriate in all of his games, like some people for some reason want to do here. Other than many strikers Klinsmann has never been booked for a dive, this is a FACT, and that is pretty strong case for people assuming, that his alledged reputation is basicly build up by enviers and opposing fans, and not advocated by neutrals who want to judge him in a fair manner. And when I see how you phrase things like a foul that was "barely a contact" while that same foul left Klinsmann with a 15 cm bleeding wound on his leg, then it is kind of obvious, that you are not interested in a neutral evalution of what happenend, but that you hold a grudge or something like that and want to carry your personal feelings into WP articles. And this is really not the place. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • PS As for that spelling discussion: Since Klinsmann is US coach, i think the article is more relevant to US users, and therefore should use American spelling, even in parts that are about European competitions. But tbh i don't care strongly one way or the other. Jonathan0007 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

What a load of sh1t. You say you won't attack my alleged motives yet instantly complain that I am not being neutral because I referred to an incident in the final - which did NOT result in a 15cm wound. Klinsmann said he made it out to be worse than it was - "twice over" according to him. If you'd bothered to wait, I'd have a source for that too.

And if you had bothered to sit and wait some more, I'd be adding more than just negatives - his entry into the Pele's 125 living footballers list, along with a wealth of other things etc, etc. And by the way, I'm a Germanophile actually. So don't tell me I'm not interested in producing a neutral article. I'm not the one deleting sources, which are completely legitimate and dreaming up illogical and contradictory 'reasons' to do so.

No justification for non-use of Brit. Eng. See Wikipedia guidlines on the subject. 86.137.26.211 (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

First I would have to ask you to keep this discussion in a moderate tone, no need for swear words. Secondly I said "for starters" in the part you referr to, because I wanted to make something else clear before (of course) questioning your motive, since it seems pretty obvious. As for that wound, that is not dreamt up by me, it is already included in the sources. That you deny this is just another piece in the puzzle that shows you selecting and editing in what your personal taste is. Also what do you mean "if i'd bothered to wait"? I am waiting, am i not? On this article I didn't delete any content lately, but still since I'm capable of logical thought it is to me still pretty obvious that you don't seem to be neutral. That you are Germanophile doesn't proof you are neutral. Klinsmann had many opponents in Germany too, fans of opposing clubs, supporters of rival strikers, critics of his coaching abilities and his choice of living in California and not in Germany, and fans especially since he left after WC2006 (against the wish of the overwhelming majority of the fans) some people were angry or frustrated and are since then not very happy about Klinsmann. So this is not as simple as "you like Germans" = "you like Klinsmann". Actually, it is not about what you like at all. Rather than your acclaimed background I look at your actions, and that is adding non-encyclopedic content. Anyway, let's keep it simple, because my experience is people who possibly have emotions over these cases seem to have the will to discuss this forever, and I'm not in this for lenghty pointless discussions, and therefore will not engage here any longer in trying to help you by explaining what you seemingly don't want to understand. It is as simple as that:

Edit the article in a neutral way and in keeping with policy and editing standards, and your participation is welcome. Everything else will be reverted. Simple as that. For anything else I would referr you to what has already been said, especially the part of one of the other users that gave you advise to read about how to improve articles before actually editing. And I don't mean this in a disrespectful way. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was about what I like! For goodness sake. You're talking a cross purposes all the time.

I found the accussation that I was a klinsmann 'hater' insulting. I'm not. I'm not German either, so I'm not an 'enemy within' - I assumed that when I said "Germanophile" you'd understand that I was not German - just interested in all things.....

I did not add none-encyclopedic content. I sourced it, and was well on my way to covering it all until this lot started deleting everything.

The only thing I'm emotional about is my treatment and the lack of logic from you. So whatever you've previously said is immaterial. I doesn't fit. And stop patronising me - I certainly don't need help. And I have no intention of beating my head against a brick wall created by you for much longer. 86.137.26.211 (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing here is really counterproductive. I will review this article and try to find a source for every contested passege, and I will comb out any none-neutral phrasing that isn't justified with a source.

As for your "I never said it was about what I like", so why meantioning the Germanphile-thing then? You cannot be angry about me missing the point when I simply respond to you missing the point. Plus I even said this is missing the point.

You cannot be emotional about my lack of logic, since I argue logical. There is a difference between lack of logic, and lack of understanding or will to acknowledge logic. In this case it looks more like you're annoyed because you don't get what you want, which is to use WP to critize a public figure you seemingly don't like. Again: I'm well aware that this is missing the point, I'm just responding to your explanation why you are emotional.

I'm sorry if it looked as if I was patronising you, I certainly didn't want to do that, I just wanted to clarify the situation, so you have an explanation and not just some reverts to see what is going on. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)