Talk:1949 England v Ireland football match

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Barbados v Grenada (1994) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 00:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of comments on the makeup of the Irish team

Hi, I note with interest that my amendments to the article have repeatedly been undone - these which simply point out that more than half of the team had previously played for NI, and therefore the game can technically be regarded as a friendly game against a "home nation". I'm happy to discuss this, but I do think my comments should remain. I am happy to have my edits reviewed independently, and to abide by the opinion the Wikipedia editors. Coopuk (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For reference, here is the statement I would like re-instated: "...although the Republic team contained 6 players who had previously also been selected for the Northern Ireland-based IFA, causing many to mistakenly regard the result as victory for a "home nation" side." Coopuk (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

have you got a source for this assertion that there was a large majority of ill-informed English supporters who thought this or is it merely an opinion?Caomhan27 (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Your edits lack in-line references and as this is an encyclopedia Coopuk, technically is not really good. "Some regarded the match as a Home Nations match, but this is incorrect as the Ireland team represented a non-British nation", would be in-line with fact, but even as such should not be placed in the lead as it is a marginal view. But this was a notable match for the fact that it was Englands first home defeat by a side not in the Home Nations, as was mentioned several times two weeks ago when they played each other at the New Wembley, in the match programme, in newspapers in the run up, and in the live TV coverage that night. As for your comments remain - they have been removed 3 times. And the other thing is at the time both FAI and IFA teams were "Ireland" one a HN the other not but both using the same name might have too led some to believe this to be a HN match would have to be addressed if there is a source also. talking should have happened before now if you wanted them kept. Murry1975 (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the importance of this game - the first defeat of England at home by non-Home Nation country - has been mistakenly overshadowed by the later 3-6 defeat by Hungary. Certainly the reporting of the Ireland result in national papers and reference books of the time does not regard it as a significant event. All my comments/edits are attempting to do is provide an explanation of why this might be - it is an unfortunate fact that even today, many people (and not just ill-informed English supporters) regard England's defeat to Hungary as their first ever home defeat. Still, I can see why my comments might rankle with those looking for perceived slights on Ireland where none were intended. Coopuk (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Mighty Magyars game is the one that most remember and the first defeat at the Empire Stadium. But Coopuk, the information added needs to be balanced, factful and cited. None of which are currently being addressed here. Murry1975 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering if the article needs a "Significance" section in it - the main body of the article should concentrate on the match setting, events and players - whilst a new Significance section should outline just why the match is significant, and outline the background of why it is not universally recognised as the first defeat on English soil of the England team. For example, I would like to see mention of the fact that all of Irish players were all born in RoI, but that some had played for NI as well - also that many of them were plying their trade in the English league and that might have been a contributing factor to why the result is NOT given the significance it merits. It is just a suggestion, but I would welcome thoughts. Coopuk (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are not being genuine and are simply once again attempting to try and include this non factual un-sourced opinion into the article under the guise of this "significance section", your own words prior where as follows "therefore the game can technically be regarded as a friendly game against a "home nation" so this clearly shows that you are putting forward a completely incorrect opinion that you hold. Yes the game was significant from an England perspective as it was Englands first loss to foreign team at wembley those are the simple facts, as discussed previously if a particular unknown number/section of English fans decided not to acknowledge this it does not change the facts. Caomhan27 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A thought would be to source stuff. As I stated above it is recognised as the first, as it was mention on TV the other week umpteen times. But then what do football pundits know... Murry1975 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a suggestion, nothing more, nothing less. Please note I am not disputing them - simply pointing out that there is a recurring belief (a mistaken one, I agree) that Hungary were the first team to beat England on English soil. I suggested a section simply to explain why that belief exists and is common held. If Caomhan27 finds that objectionable because of some perception that I am English biased, it is incorrect, and perhaps suggests that you are not considering my suggestion in a neutral, objective manner. As Murray1975, I shall look for sources and then comment on the talk page later. Coopuk (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers bud, but added 25 June 2011 by you and only now are you trying to varify your edit with a source? Murry1975 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected, told off and sent to provide you with links :) Mind you, I would point out my other edits did correct some fairly obvious peacock phrasing - "coolly and calmly" indeed :) I am sure the original author reserached that and provided links for it too. Coopuk (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You should have provided links, pointing the finger at others isnt good, you are responsible for your edits, who ever added the phrasing is responsible for theirs but it is also pointing out your double standards on the issue, I can add OR or but no-one else :) I actually have a question, WP:BRD, in all the times its been removed (your Addition) why have you never bothered sourcing it? Just re-adding and hoping nobody notices? Or just plain POV-pushing? Murry1975 (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and I stand corrected and apologise - the correct approach should have been to cite sources and discuss here. I have been doing some digging and have identified a couple of articles in football books from the 1953/4 period (post England-Hungary) where the writers present similar opinions - they provided the basis for my original comments - but unfortunately dur to their age they are not online, they are still copyrighted so I cannot copy them, and so therefore I am scuppered as I cannot provide verifiable links. I can only apologise. On a plus side - during my digging I have found a wealth of links to support the existing article in its current form. With that in mind, any objections if I add the links to the article? Obviously if there is anything contentious then it can be removed. Coopuk (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Use them as ref's, eg, Hungary v england by Mark Potter, page 42 ISBN 123456789. It doesnt have to be on line, just within the public domain- even subscription only newspapers can be used. But dont stick it in the lead. Add on a "reaction" section towards the end. Also just make sure its neutral and balanced bud. "In England the public and press likened the defeat as to that of a home nation match <ref>Hungary v england by Mark Potter, page 42 ISBN 123456789<ref>. Throw in a ref from on of the resent papers/magazines to balance it out. Murry1975 (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)