Talk:Thierry Henry

Sources

While reverting the removal of Clairefontaine I found this Telegraph article which might be useful to cite. I would actually recommend that the article move away from using goal.com as a source, and perhaps jockbio too. It's merely a fact checking matter, but I'm 100% certain that the goal.com information can be found in better and more informative sources, and perhaps a couple of inaccuracies may be ironed out in the process. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, probably a ref at a time. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

All-time English Premiership goal-scorers

From the article:
"Henry is currently third in the list of all-time English Premiership goal-scorers, behind Alan Shearer and Andy Cole.".
How about mentioning the #goals for each, and perhaps the #years it took to achieve this? Shearer and Cole played for ~16 years, while Henry did this in 9 years (If not mistaken). Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

2005 FA Cup final

People keep editing this to be wrong. With the FA Cup, only players involved in the final (the starting XI and named substitutes) get receive medals regardless of whether or not they have been involved in the previous rounds. This is unlike the Champions League where every member of the official CL squad for the season gets one. Henry therefore DID NOT get a medal in 2005, as Robert Pires DID NOT get a medal in 2002 when he missed the final due to his serious knee injury.

Can you find a source to back this up? The rules at the moment states that 25 medals are given to the winning team for players and staff. They say nothing about having to have been involved in the final to get one. srushe (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Teams can even request extra medals for players they deem to have had a significant impact but missed the final, just like players who have not played enough league games to automatically warrant a league medal can still get one on their teams request. So jut because Henry missed the game doesn't mean he did not get a medal, so an actual source would be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.131.58 (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived

Just a heads up to say that I archived all the old talk. Was surprised to see a GA review still hanging around! Hope no one minds. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Career statistics

I was looking at Barcelona FC website. Their statistic for Henry is different than the one here. I've notice that the current statistic is from soccernet.espn.go.com . I went to UEFA official website and La Liga official website. They have the same statistic as Barcelona FC official website. Here are the link if anyone want to take a look

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/futbol/temporada_08-09/estadistiques/jugadors/Henry/fitxa.html

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/players/player=24057/index.html

http://www.lfp.es/Default.aspx?tabid=113&Controltype=plan&IDEquipo=5

Elsonlam1 (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh. I just notice that UEFA website gives Henry 3 assists for the 2008-09 Champions League but Barca website only give him 2. Beside that, everything else looks the same. Anyone want to weight in? Elsonlam1 (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably should decide on one source for easier referencing purposes. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the friendly games with France? The goals we have listed here are just for the competitive games and not for the friendlies. Other players, like Nicolas Anelka, have the friendly goals included.--Janisterzaj (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Assists Statistics

Some of those stats are wrong. For instance I know for a fact from watching videos that Henry had more than 1 assist in the Champions League in 02/03. If I wanted to change it would I need to provide a corroborative source, or is my own testimony enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.4.83 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The former. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, is a youtube video a good enough source? Renoog (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The keys to citing sources in Wikipedia are found in WP:RS and WP:verifiability. Once you've read these, you can make the call as to whether youtube is suitable in this instance. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Man of the Match Award

Henry was not MOTM against Italy in the Euro 2000 final. Francesco Totti was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.41.60 (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Simply following the ref. You've got a ref? Chensiyuan (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Career stat total

Why is it that whenever I try to affix a career stat total to the stat box it gets erased? Club appearances, goals, and assists totals are included but a cumulative total is not. What is the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.151.50 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Because nobody ever updates the totals regularly, causing a lot of counterproductivity. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Castrol Rankings

Should we include the Castrol Rankings in this article and on other football players articles who are ranked high up?

Simba1409 (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry's handball against Rep. Ireland

On 18th Nov 2009 in extra time in the the World Cup qualifier against Rep. Ireland Henry controversially double-handled the ball in the penalty area to control it before passing the ball to William Gallas who tapped the ball in sending France to the World Cup in South Africa. Chrismccarthy (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a line about this at the end of international career and cited appropriate sources. let's keep this factual even if understandably it is an emotive topic.

There are a numerous sources. It's easy to keep this factual. I'd imagine more fallout and references will be available in the coming days. Fribbler (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or chatroom, but the signal to noise ratio has been out of kilter for a while, so I've taken the unusual step of semi-protecting for a short period. Please see WP:TALK for reasons why, but meanwhile there are thousands of footy chatrooms out there; use them, not us. That's if you really think it matters.Rodhullandemu 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)I agree entirely with semi-protecting for a while. I'd likely add at least a date to the incident, though. Nialler (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

/* The handball... */ It is factually inaccurate to describe Henry's handball in the France versus Ireland playoff as "controversy".Controversy implies debate yet there is not debate about this issue as Henry has admitted that he has cheated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.161.202 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The handball should be moved up to the intro section in order of significance. Surely it is at least as significant as his endorsement of Gilette that he is now "perhaps the most vilified footballer on the planet" (the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/nov/19/thierry-henry-france-football-worldcup)? There can be no reasonable ambiguity about this. Even the french newspapers report his actions as cheating and sporting misconduct. This is now a central aspect of his biography and the page should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.72.164 (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody never talk about the fault on Anelka, after he had passed all defence including goalkeeper ... any ref on this ? 82.66.246.185 (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this is English Wikipedia so we only care about referee calls that the English and the Irish don't like. It is not a problem that referees give advantages to the English and the Irish, but if it's the other way around, we should create articles about it and put notes about it in about every article there is. Is it NPOV? No, it is extreme chauvinism, but that's the way English Wikipedia works, unfortunately.Jeppiz (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeppiz, Your trolling is unhelpful here. To 82.66.246.185, this article is about Henry - minute details about one game should not be put in here. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right Neil, but it's hard not to get the impression that that's the way it works. Not by any policy but by the behaviour of so-called "fans". Every time a team from the British Isles exits a major competition we see the same thing here on Wikipedia, but never if they should win by a contested call. Jeppiz (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand it's frustrating responding to drive-by editors but the problem is not limited to the British and football. Things go pretty much the same way in American football or international hockey articles. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you're right. The biggest advantage of Wikipedia is that people can edit topics for which they have a passion, and that is also its biggest disadvantage.Jeppiz (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Michel Platini himself monitering this talk page? Comments are being deleted for no other reason than that the petty clique of henry-philes that pander to him on this page have enough wiki-muscle, by sheer virtue of their years of servility, to have entries deleted. Well guess what, the comments are going to keep on coming.

The handball...

Nialler (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Two of the links are already dead.

I'd also advise close monitoring of this biography. I'd suspect that it will be subject to quite a bit of comment, and possibly some vandalism in the near future. FWIW, the only link regarding the handball that is still working is the Guardian link.Nialler (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All three links are working for me as of 00:03 UTC. Fribbler (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nialler (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) My apologies; all links are working. I'd remain vigilant of vandalism, though, particularly in article rated so highly. Nialler (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is semi-protected at the moment, at least. As, unusually, is the talk page. Fribbler (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nialler (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC) To be fair, the contraversy has reached a very serious pitch in the international press.

It doesn't serve Wiki well to allow such a major inciden in his career to be minimised to a minor mention. I'll be upfront and declare an interest: I'm an Irishman living in France. All of the major media outlets to which I have access have covered it in a manner which questions what will be the legacy of his career, and whether this incident will tarnish his previous good name.

The FAI have requested a replay and the calls for a replay have gone to Government level in Ireland, even resulting in a reply at French Government level: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1119/ireland.html

We are less than 24 hours from the incident, we cannot say whether it is a major incident in his life or not. This is an encyclopedia, not a news agency.Jeppiz (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Irish minister of justice Dermot Ahern made a personal appeal to Sarkozy to ask for a rematch - an unprecedented action as Sarkozy himelf acknowledged as his own defence for keeping out of it. This is a massive incident. And much as I abhor any member of Fianna Fail, the ruling Irish party, even they trounce Henry, Domenech, and Michel Platini for credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.217.134 (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So? What we CAN do is judge to the best of our abilites whether it will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GustenNyberg (talk • contribs) 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we CAN'T do that - see WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia documents what was and what is, not what will be. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It already IS an international incident, with the Irish government weighing in. It needs more than one line!--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The criterion goes beyond "is" -- this governmental response is part of a development in a wider context; I don't see how this article needs to go beyond what it has said so far. What is wrong with waiting? Chensiyuan (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the assertion that this will be a major incident in his life. It probably will be, but Wikipedia should be behind the curve in documenting this rather than ahead of it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But why is this partiality for Henry's article alone. There are other articles like Tom Henning Øvrebø even mentioning the usage of F word used by players for bad refereeing decision. P|^|C (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Any text referring to recent notoriety should be carefully examined and removed if warranted. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The incident is being widely referred to as the 'Hand of Gaul' - what is the criteria for putting that in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.8.42 (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources for starters. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

to do...

delink second wikification of Italian national football team in the international career section. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

--Djln (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Although I can clearly see this is an emmotive issue, Henry has cheated, not only himself and Ireland but Football in general. Case in point, see Diego Maradonna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.209.216.245 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Link

Could be linked to Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off) when unblocked Djln--Djln (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}}

Please can the article Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off) be pipe linked into the International career section, like such: Henry was involved in a controversy in the second leg. The word 'controversy' could probably be changed to 'controversial handball incident' for accuracy. MickMacNee (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not use the word "controversy" as a link like that. Nor do I think that it's essential that this be added during the cool-off period. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And ye shall know a thousand pissed off Irishmen and Women descended on this page… But why is full protection necessary? EDIT-Now I see, wasn't IPs.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What is it if not a controversy? And what is this cool off period you speak of? There is no reason not to add it now, it exists, it should be linked. MickMacNee (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Best not do this while the page is up for deletion. I've removed the request for now. — Jake Wartenberg 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand this. Why would we not want to add it just because it is up for deletion? Currently, given the huge interest, the amount of information in this article, and its protected status, makes Wikipedia look like a bit of a joke tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't see why it's a joke (though WP is a joke in many other respects). It goes back to the fundamental rationale of the BLP policies. Moreover, WP is not meant to be at the forefront of updating developing stories. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, how is keeping a link to an article out of this article, just because it is up for deletion, respecting BLP? How is not describing something that is being called in hundreds of sources a 'controversy', a controversy, respecting BLP? If the issue is BLP, then reword it, all I want is the link to the article added. When they get there, they will be more than able to see for themselves that it is a controversy. As for not the place for developing stories, I am quite sure the article on Fort Hood had a link to Fort Hood shooting added to it within microseconds of it being created, so why the foot dragging here? Makes no sense at all to me. P.S. To the admin whoever protected it, you're now famous! MickMacNee (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely pointless ot mentioning it, it's now historical fact and unless I'm mistaken this is an encyclopaedia of sorts? One of two things is happening here: An admin is getting all excited over their powers or their French - possibly both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.58.171 (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps admins are just not as much in a rush, because they have experience with similar cases. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the International career section. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the request. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I got no actual answer to the question above as to why the above requested edit cannot be done simply because the article is up for deletion. The article exits, why can it not be linked to? We don't hide articles just because they are up for deletion. Change the word controversy if you must (it is used in all the sources though), but that isn't a reason not to treat wikipedia as a wiki, and actualy link between articles. MickMacNee (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I came to this page looking for a link to France vs Republic of Ireland (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off), but instead had to dig through layer upon layer of 2010 qualifying rounds. There is obviously consensus (above) that this should be linked. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I, too, looked for France vs Republic of Ireland (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off). See below.—Chris!_c/t 21:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

How does this work for people? --Deskana (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Many thanks. MickMacNee (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thierry Henry official twitter is fake

The self proclaimed official Thierry Henry twitter page is in fact fake & has since been suspended by Twitter because of this. Please remove the external link. 82.4.184.39 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for telling us about this. — Jake Wartenberg 23:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Biggest cheater in the history of sport?

Time magazine has listed the top ten sporting cheats and Thierry Henry is at the top of the list. [1] [2]--Kevinharte (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no way we're going to add that to the article based on one very subjective list so what are you proposing we do? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

When will this farce end? Chensiyuan (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not what the Times wrote, they listed the top sporting cheats AND Thierry Henry. The top of the lis if Maradona, Henry is not even on the top 10 list. Even if he were, it's completely irrelevant and it's much too recent to evaluate it. If a similar list is made in a year and Henry is in it, it could perhaps be mentioned that one journalist though so.Jeppiz (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're looking at, but Henry is #1 under "No Luck for the Irish"; Maradona is #11. But as I said above, the list is unusable. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at other Top 10 lists, its not really obvious that they're ranked at all. Some have extra rank numbers added to them some times reverse order, sometimes not. It seems every list made because of a current event, the current events are put as the first page example,or again. Why Jeppiz would think the list is reverse? Because no on in their right mind would have Henry over Maradona, or Rivaldo over Maradona... It's just silly, more to the fact that Maradona and Rivaldo did their things very delibirate. The ball bounced up on Henry's hand. chandler 09:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying but it's equally as silly to think American writers would rank a cricket scandal above the Black Sox scandal. Regardless, I think we all agree that the list cannot be used in any way in this article. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The text also makes it clear that The Times meant that Maradona was worse than Henry, but as you say, our interpretations aren't very important (not important at all) and we all agree that the list cannot be used.Jeppiz (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno,i'm neutral about the whole thing,but this article is completly ignoring all the press coverage and contravercy.Surely that deserves some mention.--Kevinharte (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not completely ignoring - the last part of the International career section directly refers to what happened. If you wish to expand, then I suggest you list the exact changes here complete with wording so we can discuss. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The controversy deserves mention in his intro. Especially considering there's mention of his endorsement deals in there now. At this point in time, it looks VERY significant and notable. When Prime Ministers are commenting, there's enough fire for the smoke. When protection is removed, I will be putting in something regarding the handball incident.99.245.37.46 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously no, it does not deserve a mention in the lead. chandler 20:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, yes, it does. ... Wait, does saying "seriously" make it seem like you really know and others should listen to you? ;) 99.245.37.46 (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please restrict the arguments to the parameters of WP:LEAD rather than just stake an unsubstantiated claim. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Posts relating to improving the article welcome

If anyone has any suggestions,or a typed up section regarding the handball contravercy,please submit it here.Just a section regarding the handball incident and all the coverage and outrage it brought. I feel this would best balance out the page for everyone.--Kevinharte (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It also belongs in the intro, the way the intro stands now. ie, quite long.99.245.37.46 (talk) 22:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Maradona's lead mentions the Hand of God so it's only fair that Henry's one mentions the handball Spiderone 22:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate goal with the hand in a World Cup quarter final that has been famous for over 20 years != Handling the ball in the the other teams penalty area in a qualifying match that has been famous for 4 days. Seriously, this is NOT on the same level as the hand of god... And take a example which is much more closer. Lionel Messi who actually scored a goal with his hand[3] a goal that almost won Barcelona the title. Is it in his lead? No. chandler 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall the Prime Ministers of the respective countries talking about the Messi goal. As I stated, with the current length of the intro, it certainly belongs.99.245.37.46 (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that there are over 15,000 newspaper reports on it,it doesn't matter if it was only 4 days ago.It was front page on google news for a couple of days.I'm not requesting a long winded section that is attacking the player.A section though is justified as every team's nation that will play them now in the World Cup will most likely bring it up.--Kevinharte (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A section regarding the controversy is certainly appropriate, as it will go down as one of the defining moments of his career. Petepetepetepete (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Speculating on whether it will go down as that is WP:CRYSTAL. If it does, we can add it. At the moment, we simply do not know and we are far too close to the event to comment. The number of newspaper reports doesn't tell us much, every major game is reported in at least 10.000 newspaper reports, often much more. I'm not saying we should never ever add it, and it's already mentioned, but putting it in the intro and having a whole section about it because of how defining it might become is premature.Jeppiz (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest that it already is one of the defining moments of his career, and as such deserves a mention at some point in the article, detailing not only the incident, but also of the global reaction and criticism he received for it. Petepetepetepete (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone would have said the same thing following the much stronger reactions against David Beckham in 1998 or Cristiano Ronaldo in 2006, but with hindsight it blew over. I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a news agency and we should not give undue weight to very recent events just because they happen to be in the news right now.Jeppiz (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

To suggest that it will 'blow over' is just as WP:CRYSTAL as things you've cited as being WP:CRYSTAL, people in crysal houses shouldn't throw stones... Besides, both Beckham and (more so) Ronaldo's articles have far lengthier mentions of their controversial acts in them. Petepetepetepete (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did not say it will blow over. Please don't put words in my mouth just to then attack them, it's not an honest way to debate. I said that it blew over in those cases and that is not speculation, it's a fact. What is more, I'm not suggesting we could not add more about it but we are in no hurry to do so. Once again, Wikipedia is not a news agency and should not be at the forefront of reporting.Jeppiz (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, no need to be so defensive, you said that reactions to those incidents 'blew over' and you compared the reaction to Henry's handball now to those incidents then... Seems silly to be saying you didn't say it, but that's by the by... There is no objective way of determining whether something has 'blown over' so it is not 'fact' that Ronaldo and Beckham's incidents even did. Wikipedia is not a news agency, but details such as his thoughts of retirement and the international furore it caused are more significant a feature of the life and times of Thierry Henry than this article currently suggests. Petepetepetepete (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not suggesting we should never include anything more about it, but now may not be the best time to do it as it's all too WP:RECENT for us to even be able to evaluate it. The incident is already mentioned, as it should be, and only time will tell what impact it will have. When we know that, we should of course treat it accordingly.Jeppiz (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost winning the title is very different from winning it.If Ireland had of scored a goal after the handball and won FAIRLY the whole incident wouldn't have got 10 % of the media coverage. --Kevinharte (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad edit

Someone is in love with the word "cunt". Page needs fixing. Cheers. dreamwalker (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Dreamwalker

Page is fine; you're probably looking at a cached version. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes in this article

"Henry left Monaco in January 1999, one year before his friend and teammate David Trézéguet, and moved to Italian Serie A club Juventus for £10.5 million.[4] He played on the wing,[7] but he was ineffective against the Serie A defensive discipline in a position uncharacteristic for him, and scored just three goals in 16 appearances.[8]"

How was playing in the wing uncharactaristic for him? Up until that point, he had been a winger his whole career. Citation 7 is also expired now.

The section on Henry's playing style uses citations that merely someone's point of view.

Handball contravercy section welcome

Please type up the section here for review.--Kevinharte (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

How's this for a fair, balanced and reasonable atricle discussing the controversial handball incident?

In November 2009, Henry was involved in a scandal relating to France's playoff against the Republic of Ireland for a spot at the FIFA 2010 World Cup Finals. With the score over two legs tied at 1-1, the game went to extra time. A France Free Kick was kicked over the Irish defence and Henry, standing on the goal-line, controlled the ball with his hand twice, once to stop it going wide, and again to push the ball to his feet. He then crossed it with his foot for William Gallas to score. The Referee, Referees assistants and fourth official all missed the double handball, though the Irish players, most notably goalkeeper Shay Given, protested vehemently. The goal was allowed to stand, and France won the match and qualified for the 2010 world cup. After the Game, Henry sat with Ireland defender Richard Dunne in what many believe was a gesture of sympathy for the Irish. The incident has been dubbed 'le hand of God' in the media, a reference to Diego Maradona's famous Hand of God goal against England in the 1986 World Cup quarter Final. Unlike Maradona, however, Henry admitted his handball to the press immediately after the game, and claimed to have told the Referee about it. Two days later, with International Media attention focused on the incident, Henry joined with the Football Association of Ireland, Ireland Captain Robbie Keane and many in the world of sport in calling for the game to be replayed. FIFA publicly stated that the game could not be replayed due to the rules of the game dictating that the referees decisions are final. Meanwhile, FIFA is understood to have given private assurance to the FAI that if the French Football Federation agreed to a replay, FIFA would not object. Despite the overwhemling support of the French team, the French media and the French Public, the French Football Federation left the decision in the hands of Coach Raymond Domenech, who declined to allow the game to be replayed. While Henry has been vilified in many quarters, many people, including Irish footballer Damien Duff, have quietly stated that singling him out for criticism is unfair as other players, including Ireland players, in the same position would have done the same thing, and many (like Maradona) would have denied it afterwards. The incident has re-ignited debate within FIFA over the use of Video-Replay technology in Football, and is believed to be the main reason why FIFA has announced an Extraordinary General meeting to take place in South Africa in December 2009.

No official action was ever taken against Henry by FIFA or the FFF. Henry considered quitting International Football after the incident. 

(talk) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencedunne (talk • contribs) 23:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting, but I have some comments. First, it's much too long (and I mean MUCH too long) and would give WP:UNDUE weight to the incident. I don't think we need to know the detailed background, that an own goal was scored in the previous game, that it was a freekick, that Shay Given in particular protested etc. All of these comments are correct and perfectly WP:NPOV, but I don't see how they are relevant to an article on Thiery Henry. Cutting out such information would be a start. Then, there are far too many POV words in the text. Talking about a "scandal" or the "cheated team" is not encyclopedic. I'm not saying it's not true, but that's another matter. We should stick to using a neutral and encyclopedic language.Jeppiz (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I shortened it. See above. Laurencedunne (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Way too long and loaded. Can't imagine it being more than 3-4 lines; that's why you have wiki links. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah,4-5 lines max would be more than adequate.Just how he handled the ball,they scored,Ireland lost and a media backlash happened.Also that the incident made Henry consider quitting international football.Maybe?--Kevinharte (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Considered international retirement - edit request

{{editprotected}}

Please add the following line to the end of the last paragraph in the current international career section:

Henry considered retiring from international football after the reactions to the incident.

It's pretty significant imo. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please,no more of the whitewashing of the whole incident.the whole argument here has basically stated that time will tell the signifigance of this event.The fact that Thierry henry has stated that he is considering retiring from international football is surely worthy of mention.Jeppiz clearly has an agenda favouring Henry.--Kevinharte (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, I know you're new here but your habit of attacking everyone who disagrees with you on any subject is not suitable. I recommend you to read WP:NPA. Yesterday I stood up for you of WP:ANI when your behaviour was discussed, but recommended you to read up on Wikipedia's policies, I now urge you to do so once again. In the future, comment on content and instead of trying to guess what motives other users have. FYI, I have no strong feelings for or against Henry but I'm not too keen on making Wikipedia into a copy of The Sun either. We should not add everything that is in the news immediately, that's not the aim of Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

everyone? That's not true.I'm not getting into a silly argument with you or anyone else on this,I've better things to do with my time.I'm mearly stating fact.I don't see how adding the handball contravercy here is going to turn this website into a copy of the Sun,you clearly don't want anything negative said about Henry at all.I think the Ireland vs France article is acting like a news article though,that might be what your talking about.But this article isn't giving the whole picture of Henry.Whether you like it or not,the contravercy will most likely eventually get added.--Kevinharte (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The word is 'controversy'. Kevin, if you are going to be a wikipedia editor, you must make your writing credible. Also, this is a forum for intellectual debate and concensus about topics resulting in valid and authentic encyclopedic entries, not a blog for addressing personal opinions or grievances. I am Irish and just as aggrieved as any other over the incident, but the entry on Wikipedia must reflect concensus and fact only, not hypothesis, opinion, and certainly not bad writing. Thanks. .--Laurencedunne (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That'd be "consensus". Just sayin' :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that MickMackNee's edit should probably be added. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Really,I don't know what your talking about.This is a discussion page,not an editing page.I'm not looking for a debate but a discussion of topics regarding the issue at hand.I'm not going to get into an intellectual argument with anyone,like i said before.I just want to bring different topics to the table.--Kevinharte (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite the other way around, this is not a discussion page, only a page for discussions about how to edit the article. Read WP:NOTAFORUM.Jeppiz (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The word is "consensus" Laurence.Jeppiz,I'm not going to get drawn into a trolling incident with you,so you would be better spending your time elsewhere.--Kevinharte (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like to discuss, you're welcome to leave any time but suggesting that those who disagree with you should leave is a bit thick. The aim of this page is to discuss how to improve the article and you're as welcome as anyone else to do so.Jeppiz (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeppiz, you have a long history of starting fights with people.You've completely mis-interpreted what I said and then accused me of being thick-to start a row.Get a life.--Kevinharte (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done @Kevinharte don't make conspiracy accusations right of the bat, @Jeppiz don't take the bait. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't take the bait? I wasn't the one name calling.Conspiracy accusations? All you have to do is look through his contributions.Anyway,doesn't matter--Kevinharte (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As Kevin continues to accuse me, I point out that I have not once been blocked while Kevin has been blocked indefinitely but let back. Like many others, I have been in arguments with a few people but that is a rare exception, the overwhelming majority of topics I've edited have either been completely uncontroversial or resolved in perfect harmony.Jeppiz (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Blahblah--Kevinharte (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

International section

The end is not actually true.Henry only asked for a replay after FIFA said it would not happen.This caused more crticism on him as a person.--Kevinharte (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true. Colin Murray on this week's fighting talk said it disgusted him more than the incident itself. Not that that means anything, but it should certainly be noted that he called for the replay shortly after FIFA completely ruled out a replay. Petepetepetepete (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, the sentence beginning with "The problem though was that..." implies Wikipedia thinks there's a problem. We don't make judgements like that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

ok.--Kevinharte (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sepp Blatter comment on Henry cheating

The comment by the head of FIFA on the incident surely merits inclusion in the article.

"How can it happen that all over the world, through tv cameras, we have seen through a cheating handball that a pass was given for a goal? said Blatter. "Everyone is asking what is and what isn't fair play. The highest crime in football is touching the ball with the hands."

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/706016/ce/uk/?cc=3436&ver=global Utopial (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Better to place it in the piped link to the game, where a whole array of views are being canvassed. Please also format your references accordingly. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good faith vs Rules lawyers

Three weeks ago I made some points about the failings in this article and they were reverted off the talk page by a editor called Jeppiz who cited WP:FORUM. I put them back tonight and they were deleted again by the same user.

I can only conclude my my points are too close to the bone regarding this article so they have been reverted by Jeppiz (ironically they don't realise their actions is a point I am making).

As I can't reinstate my full text , I will just make my points again in simple direct point:

The problems with this article are as follows:

1) It is plainly obvious, there are too many editors with their own agendas reverting edits because they are claiming they are adhering to WP policies = neutrality/uncited etc, but their real motives are to remove anything they do not agree with. Is that good for the article? No, it just promoting another version of the truth.

2) Balance. The huge number of positive claims in this article. I can't be the only one who think it reads like a resume or fan site. If this article is to believed, the only thing Henry has not done is walk on water, turn water into wine or heal a leper! The article has been created from cherry-picked sources from the sporting press. Is that neutral?

3) Hand ball. The events in Paris have not been addressed at all. There isn't even a section on it!!! Doesn't anyone else think the article should reflect such a fall from grace? This is an incredible change in the subject's image. However, as I perceptively noted, (until my comments were deleted by the Jeppiz) there will be a huge battle as those with vested interest will make it nigh impossible to get change (as made in point 1). Good faith, be damned!!

Overall, the article is almost untouched since last month. Does WP not operate like the real world? Henry has destroyed his reputation. Or are the global press reports and the ire of an entire country just an aside?

4) Image. Henry has made a vast amount of money being football's "Mr Nice Guy" - vroom vroom. But at the Stade de France he handled the ball, not once, but twice. Once could be argued long into the night as a heat of the moment mistake, doing it again was premeditated and cynical.

I can't find in this article anywhere where the enormity of this transgression gets a full and serious examination. (He messed up in sporting terms on a par with the Pope be-getting a child!)

5) Parity. I previously mentioned that comparisons should be taken from the Maradona article which mentions the Argentinian's own controversial World Cup handball (his cheating is up there in the article's second paragraph - but it did happen well before the age of the Internet and WP - or due to time that makes it beyond a doubt?).

6) World-wide view. This article does not reflect the huge amount of media coverage concerning Henry. I said that editors should be aware and be prepared to accept the changes. Does it reflect that in the article? Of course not. This article is trapped in the designs and motivations of a small number of WP editors.

If these criticisms are not addressed with this article, then balance that with the amount of articles on the discussion page....editors like Jeppiz don't seem to grasp that if an article is honest, balanced and accurate. Just look at the discussion page → about half a dozen minor queries about page layout or image, and minor content queries. Try and suppress the truth and you create resistance.

"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.113.97 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We are only concerned with the facts. If you find anything in the article that is untrue, feel free to flag them. As for the handball controversy, it has been mentioned sufficiently. People who are interested in reading the wider controversy and the implications of the incident can click on the wikilink provided. Your rhetoric of fall from grace is irrelevant in this discussion because that is not an established fact. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It was I who reversed you last time as well? I don't remember it, but I take your word for it. It would be easier if you would create account but you're of course welcome to contribute anonymously as well. The reason I reverted you is not because of any views you hold, you're free to hold and express any views you want. What you need to keep in mind, though, is that this page is not here for anyone to express their views on Henry. The sole purpose of Wikipedia talk pages is to talk about how to improve the article. To give you the benefit of doubt, I'll read through what you wrote once more and reinsert it in case it is about how to improve the article about Thierry Henry.Jeppiz (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've read it again and invite anyone else to read it [4]. Once again, I don't object to your views but, to be quite honest, your rhetoric is perhaps not as good as you may think. Well, it's not at all bad as such, but misplaced at Wikipedia. For a political speech, it has certain qualities, I'll gladly admit that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, though, and we much more prefer dry, boring, factual comments here. You go off in long irrelevant rants ("However, as the famous adage always notes: Pride comes before the fall.", "It's like finding out the Pope, who spent his life promoting pious chastity, has a child!" ) personal opinions ("one of the most flagrant acts of poor sportsmanship ever", "As he did not he shown himself a small-time cheat.") and personal attacks on other editors ("the usual cabal of WP editors who cry foul at any criticism of their vested interest" it more than legal issues that certain editors are concerned about"). I would advice you to remember three simple things. 1. Comment on content, not on other editors. 2. Keep your personal opinions and your rhetorics to a mininum and focus on facts. 3. Remember that the purpose of talk pages is to discuss how to improve the article.Jeppiz (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

First I'll just make two points:
1) Account. I have never created an account since first editing WP around 2004. Why? I believe in good faith. Once you create an account, you create an image. When you create an image with all your little medals and awards, you create bias, supposition, and authority. This is an inherent flaw in WP. Like George Orwell noted, "all pigs are equal, it's just that some pigs are more equal than others". An admin, who is human after all, will always have more kudos, seniority, power than an unregistered IP like me. WP has become a kind of online totalitarian state, espousing liberal virtues but actually it's run by tight inner party who set the tone, values and content. I can see this, that's why I won't join.
2) Rhetoric. Oh please! Again are my points too close to the nerve with you? Does it force the door of rational thinking open letting a cold wind blow into your warm comfort zone? The way things are written are how we view the world.

"It is like a pair of glasses on our nose through which we see whatever we look at. It never occurs to us to take them off" Ludwig Wittgenstein.

The article:
1) it should be rewritten as it does not accurately reflect the world view of Thierry Henry.
2) articles should be in continual flux not static. (can you predict what is going to happen in the next 5 minutes?no) There is a revisionist battle going on to stop history being recorded contemporaneously.

Using the illogic of WP, other articles' tones therefore could be severely changed if they used this page's content layout as a model:
Lee Harvey Oswald - confused US marine moved to USSR, didn't like it, moved back to US. One day assassinated the US president.
OJ Simpson - football star, actor, successful businessman, doting family man. He was acquitted of murdering his wife, and now is in jail for robbery
Adolf Hitler - Austrian painter, war veteran, industrious German politician. Responsible for the deaths of +6m jews 1939-45.

OK these are extreme examples (top of my head ones), but the point I am making is the undue weighting given to the person's preceding life up to the point, where incidences occur, that makes them the person they are now commonly remembered for.

Thierry Henry has been recognised for being one of soccer's most famous faces due to his integrity on and off the ball (working for UNICEF). However in one instance he has destroyed that image by cheating in a very, very important match. Isn't that a notable schism, a sizeable detour away from the image this player has tried to cultivate??? Should it not be given proper and due examination and consideration? I think so, and so do many others considering the amount of discussion on the subject. But has anything really been done in the article, er no!

My evidence, for repeating again and again this point. Well look at the amount of news article on the web that discuss the incident and Henry, it is pretty clear how the image of the man is now considered. He has even claimed he thought about quitting the sport. An indication of what he felt about the handballs.

Yet this article's antecedence buries all of this in the bottom of the page. But do you think the article the way is written, reflects the country of Ireland's view of the man, the French public's view of the man (and some of that criticism has been stinging), the international view of the man? No. It reflects your view of the man. And there is the rub of it. If you are still have trouble grasping what I mean then please read the The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Besides do I really care, not really, the thing that I have learned on WP is that when you don't agree with something you make your case and walk away. If editors like yourself don't want to accept this, then fine. But don't be surprised if the discussion pages just keeps on growing and growing, as more and more people become frustrated with the tone and style of this article.

So are we all now clear now on what needs to be done to IMPROVE this article on Henry?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.154.133 (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll only be surprised if no sockpuppets come about. Anyway, the quality of this discussion is regressing. Maybe you want to draft and post here what you think is an appropriate encapsulation of the incident. Speaking in the abstract is difficult to address. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To briefly address your two points. 1. You're absolutely right, I already said that you're very welcome to contribute anonymously. 2. No, your opinions are not the problem, I even agree with them. I merely pointed out that while you seem to think that you're a great orator, I'm afraid few would agree. If you continue to make your points in such an abstract, illogic and badly argumented way, I'm afraid you'll find it hard to convince others. Once again, that has nothing to do with your views, just with the way you try to present them. The point I think you're trying to make is "Henry used to be seen as a role model but that is no longer the case". I fully agree with that, no problem there. However, Wikipedia should be behind the news, not ahead or even on par with them. We have already included the incident and it is very likely we'll include more when we know the long-term effects. Two weeks afterwards, that call is too early to make now but that doesn't mean it should never be made.Jeppiz (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is like a fan page and is pretty biased.--Kevinharte (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You're aboslutely right about that. Even if we forget the handball for a second and look at the rest of the article, it is written more like an essay than in an encyclopedic way and far too often turns into a fan page. That is true of many articles on people in sports, but that is no excuse. A major revision of the article would be a good thing.Jeppiz (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no wonder it is a featured article, miraculously passing consensus. When comments lack specificity and bear no relation to the FA criteria, they get us nowhere. Chensiyuan (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this page does not reflect even-handedly on Henry, most notable in the lack of mention of the handball controversy in (a very lengthy) lead and also small details such as mentioning the fact that he called for a replay, but not mentioning the fact that this was less than 24 hours after FIFA had ruled out any possibility of a replay, a move which was called cynical by a number of commmentators. Agree that this is indeed a common of sports (particularly football) pages, where editors are great at getting pages set up and go to great lengths to update statistics etc, but at the same time can be overly defensive of players from their favoured clubs etc. Petepetepetepete (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead is well within the guidelines of WP:LEAD, so alluding to its supposed length is a red herring. The lead is concerned with a macro perspective of the footballer's biography; right now, calls for the inclusion of the handball incident are situated behind lens that magnify the gravity of a situation hitherto indeterminate. In other words, the decision to include it in the lead should be left to a later date. Yes it is a fact some commentators viewed Henry's call cynically, yet there are also others who did not and actually defended Henry (which is not mentioned in the article). Insofar as both a literal and purposeful reading of WP:BLP demands conservatism with regard to a person's "character", the less said the better. The pedigree of the arbiter, in the context of impugning a person's character, is important but left undemonstrated here. It seems too that a number of fairly inexperienced users in these parts have conflated inclusion of criticisms and controversies with a balanced and informative article. I will recommend reading the talk page of Barack Obama to get a better sense of what constitutes the required standard. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the lead is overlong per se, just that since it's long enough to mention: "Henry is an active spokesperson against racism in football." and "he has been featured in advertisements for Nike, Reebok, Renault, Pepsi and Gillette." it should also include the fact that he once set up a goal which meant France qualified for the World Cup by deliberately handballing to keep the ball in play... With regard to the the calls for a replay coming after FIFA ruled one out, at the moment its position next to him saying he was not a cheat almost puts it in a context of being a comprehensive apology, which few saw it to be. The need for conservatism for BLPs has been, in this case, an excuse for editors to keep Henry's page as a glowing fan page. Even the mention as it stands was fought against a huge amount of protest and deliberation. I will recommend reading the lead of Diego Maradona as an example of how a famous handball should be included in the lead of a footballer. Petepetepetepete (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I referred you to an FA, and you refer me to a failed GA? Chensiyuan (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The definitions for each seem fairly arbitrary to me to be honest, especially inlight of tonight's edits. Petepetepetepete (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thierry Henry FAR

As per the above discussion, i've nominated this for a Featured Article Review...

I have nominated Thierry Henry for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

The review seems to have been foreclosed for now. Might be more viable to commence a dialectic here. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that it's not up for review... we can have it anywhere, but I think even you as the principal editor are aware that all four of those claims are true to some extent. Petepetepetepete (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it ridiculous actually. And I disagree with the claims you make. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

good for you Petepetepetepete (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole article should be re-written as an encyclopedic entry and not a fan page essay type one. I believe the handball incident should be mentioned in the lead,as people not even into football at all now know who he is.I'm not asking for a negative campaign against him,but I'm irritated that there has been such a resistance to balancing out the article.--Kevinharte (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Constant edit warring

There seems to be an agenda from some editors to minimise the handball incident altogether.Why can't it be mentioned in the lead? Nothing but positive information is mentioned in the lead,is wikipedia a propaganda engine or what?--Kevinharte (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no agenda in this article; the only thing possessing an agenda is yourself. There are only rules and guidelines on this encyclopedia that guide the content, but you've demonstrated a recurring refusal to read them, let alone adhere to them. Here's a suggestion: prepare your drafts here so that we know how to avert the whole multiplicity of issues and problems that they produce and have produced. Chensiyuan (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea...how about you do the same?Insted of acting like your senior editor,how about you discuss the issues as well?From what i can gather,the majority of editors here agree with me,but people like yourself keep on re-editing the article if it is anywhere balanced.If you continue to re-edit the article to the original,I'll report you and see what the administrators.--Kevinharte (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're the only one who's not discussing and editing disruptively. Note that only YOUR edits have been reverted, because they make NO sense. Manderiko (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How do they make no sense? They state fact.They were originally in the international section and insted I moved them to the lead.--Kevinharte (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no reason to entertain you further because you're being belligerent and refusing to read the supplied rules. The lead is supposed to contain a summary of the article. Apply some rudimentary syllogism. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

"rudimentary syllogism"?Ok-the whole article should be re-written as it is like a fan page.Who is this guy?The next Mother Teresa?--Kevinharte (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The article reads like a fan page, because the hand ball incident isn't completely blown out of proportion like you would want? Per WP:LEAD, your edits are unacceptable. I don't see how simply and lazily copying a section from one place to another changes this article from a fan page to a neutral article anyway. Making pointless remarks about Mother Theresa won't get anyone more inclined to agree with you.--Atlan (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Blown out of proportion? There were over 15,000 news articles mentioning the incident.It's predicted that over 30 million euros will be lost in Ireland because of that handball.I copied and pasted the text as it was buried in the article.Fair enough,the article would have to be restructured to work around the new lead.--Kevinharte (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly,I've had it with this page.If people want to read about Thierry Henry,all they have to do is type his name into a search engine and have over 15,000 articles to read from.It's no surprise that all colleges say that wikipedia should be avoided for any type of research. --Kevinharte (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well boohoo, cry me a river. If you want to leave because your not getting your way, be my guest. Anyway, what part of WP:LEAD don't you understand? It has to introduce the subject to the reader and summarize important points. The hand ball is summarized in the lead just fine, any more on it would be too much. The hand ball may be big in current events, but this is not a news article. We do not give undue weight to a single incident simply because it's big news now.--Atlan (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a little unnecessary, but sadly, User:Kevinharte, if you still can't understand the concepts of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE then we can't help. Read Maradona's article - one sentence about the Hand of God. Or Eric Cantona's - no mention in the lead about his famous assault on a fan. I'm sure that far more newspaper column inches have been expended since 1986 and 1995 about those two incidents than have been so far about the Henry incident. We simply don't concentrate on one aspect of a notable living person's life just because it happened last month, unless it's one of very few things that makes them notable at all (and even then it should have a separate section). The information is still there - it's just not concentrated in the lead, so how that makes any difference to using the article "for research" I don't know. Black Kite 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok.This is a featured article following the strict rules and guidelines of wikipedia.Contact a college/university and ask them if they would recommend using wikipedia as a form of research.I guarantee they'll say no.Why's that?--Kevinharte (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Because we are not a primary source, since we forbid original research and synthesis of existing sources. We are, at best, a tertiary source, collating those secondary sources who have done the work that makes this whole project possible; however, we *should* refer to our sources, primary (in rare cases) and secondary reliable sources whom we trust. That's why no college should allow citation of Wikipedia; not because our rules forbid it, but because theirs do, because academics are allowed to refer to primary sources and draw their own conclusions- without that, about two-thirds of Wikipedia would not exist. Sorted. Rodhullandemu 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Because editors such as yourself constantly seek to degrade the quality of articles; such is the price Wikipedia has paid, where everybody, including uninformed, agenda-wielding people like yourself, can edit. Chensiyuan (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So Kevin, you're saying colleges and universities don't recommend Wikipedia as a source for research, because we don't spend enough article space on a hand ball incident in football? What a joke.--Atlan (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that?I was just stating a general fact.Handball incident aside,this article is very biased.--Kevinharte (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you have to remember Bill Shankly's statement that "Some say football is a matter of life and death - I'd say it's much more important than that." Here we have editors who believe that football, and its surrounding culture, should somehow fall outside the usual rules here. Respectfully, of course, I disagree. Rodhullandemu 00:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the neutral observation.--Kevinharte (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll give an example in this article.Under the outside football section,a "Time" source was allowed to be used.[[5]]Time magazine also had an article about the biggest cheaters in sport,and Henry was no.1.The article sources are very subjective,but how come they are allowed to be used as a source for something positive,but not a negative one?--Kevinharte (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote an article before and it got deleted because it was promotional in nature.In hindsight I agree.From social causes downward,I don't see how these deserve mention as they seem promotional.Why can't these get mentioned in a few sentences?--Kevinharte (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Another example."His footballing style and personality have ensured that he is one of the most commercially marketable footballers in the world; he has been featured in advertisements for Nike, Reebok, Renault, Pepsi and Gillette." Where's the sources for that statement? Sounds more like opinion to me.--Kevinharte (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Another refusal to read the guidelines on lead. If the lead is a summary of the body, why should the lead contain the sources when the sources are in the body? The only exception to this, inapplicable here, is if the lead contains highly contestable claims. Done dealing with trolling. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is highly contestable.He most likely got the advertising contracts because of his position on the France team and his scoring record.What about the other points I've made? They are valid.--Kevinharte (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's trolling because I don't agree with you?--Kevinharte (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)