Talk:Football/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13


Please do not feed the trolls.

"football" is used in english-speaking countries to refer to a sport. The greater percentage of that population lives in the USA or Canada - where "football" means the contact sport involving two teams of 11 players each. Thus, because this is in the English Wikipedia, this page should explain that sport - not soccer. Failing that, a disambiguation page should be used.

i aggree with this. there should be two pages
Olulade (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing quite like flogging a dead horse is there? Grant | Talk 14:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely correct...this is a dead horse issue, but those "soccer" fans contuinue to argue that here at Wikopedia, soccer should be known as football. Not disgraceful of course, but annoying! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 28 December 2007

When an english speaking user types in "football" - chances are (due to population numbers) he/she is not looking for soccer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong but I've never posted on Wikipedia before. I just wanted to say that the scope of this article is perfect for the word "football" and there shouldn't need to be a disambiguation page. I am from the US and have a sister who plays "soccer" and I looked up this page originally because I wanted to know why there is a single word that refers to completely different sports in different countries. This page not only describes each sport, it also gives a link to each particular take on the sport, and describes the history of each set of rules, far beyond what I had actually expected to see here. If I had just come across a disambiguation page, I would never have seen the rich history about how a simple concept (foot+ball) became such a complex family of games. And furthermore, anyone who declares that the word means only one thing, for any reason, is showing the kind of attitude that detracts from the free global share of information and the crossing of culture borders that I expect from Wikipedia.

Did you look at the article first or just jump right in with the vandalising? It's actually about all types of football not just soccer. Also Canadian football has 12 players not 11. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The comments posted by (talk) should be disregarded for a number of reasons.
  • The number of english speaking people on this planet exceeds the number of people in english speaking countries, so the relative numbers of people in North America is not a reasonable indication of anything.
  • Large numbers of people in the EU use english as a second or third language and if a subject is not adequately covered in sources available in their first language, they will will use the english wikipedia as a reference. They would not expect a Wikipedia page on football to only cover American football.
  • The same goes for people in China, Japan, South America, etc. I wonder how many countries user has visited and did he/she have to learn the language of that country, or did he/she find that there were people in those countries that spoke english?
Well, feel free keep wondering, but keep it to yourself. Please refrain from spamming your random musings on talk pages. 07:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Even if english speakers in North America (who may or may not be football fans) were the majority of english speakers, the English Wikipedia does not mean, The wikipeda for people from english speaking countries and all those funny people from countries that speak funny languages and eat funny food and worship funny gods should stay away... In wikipedia we must write articles from a Neutral point of view, which includes freedom from systemic bias, including Geographical Bias.
  • User is a vandal who has vandalised the Football page 5 times on 10 February 2007 (UTC), and is now attempting to put foward an argument to excuse his vandalism.
Disclaimer: Football does not generally mean association football (soccer), in my county either, but it would be absurd to have an Wikipedia article on Football without including association football (and others). --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Both arguments are quite strong. However:
While it is possible that there are more speakers of British English (and other forms that prefer "football = soccer"), this would only be the case if we were counting non-native speakers. And while I'm all in favour of the English Wikipedia being useful to non-native speakers, there is no logical reason why they should decide the location of articles ahead of native speakers. I mean even if I spoke/wrote fluent French or Japanese, I would still be hesitant to suggest how the French or Japanese Wikipedias could be better organised.

No, No, NO!!! I am a non-native English speaker from the EU and I believe that I have the right, no! I DEMAND to have the exact same rights around here as any native English speaker. I did pass a Cambridge CEA Exam with A, so I belive I am entitled to the same basic rights in the English Wikipedia as any native speaker of English. Besides, I could probably state that I know more about English grammar, at least in a formalised way, than many native speakers in the U.S. Not to mention the fact that a greater percent of the population of say Netherlands know English at an intermediate or higher level than the percent that do in the U.S. (which, I will admit, is due to immigration patterns in the U.S.). Anyway, to sum it up, yankee boy, I took your comments as a personal insult, an ad personam argument and a direct attack to my rights around here. And I could bet there are SCORES AND SCORES of people who felt exactly the same. Believe me you won't be able to classify us as second class netizens around here. We won't go quietly, no matter how experienced you are in this sort of things after what you did to the Asian Americans and the Black Americans... and the Latin Americans. Besides, this page is like a bigger disambiguation page, explaining the differences between different codes of football. It's not about the association football only. So, we have favoured diversity and presentation of all points of view. You are arguing for removal of all other points of view but yours. I believe that violates a couple of Wikipedia policies. And yes, I do have the balls to say this as a netizen of the English Wikipedia with the exact same rights as anybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulurimaru (talkcontribs) 12:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this right - you passed an exam based on the native-speaker model and this validates your view that native speakers have no particular ownership of the English language? That's rather an odd view. Anyway Wikipedia is not a democracy and individuals don't any rights at all, policy is to follow native speaker usage finding a compromise between different standardised forms not to follow individual indosyncracies.
And if you are interested in doing CPE, it's "I got an A at the Cambridge CAE exam (uncapitalised)" not "I did pass a Cambridge CEA Exam with A".GordyB (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as English speakers in the EU are concerned, it is a myth that they overwhelmingly favour British usage. For instance, in German-speaking countries, soccer is füssball and "football" is used for American football. Similarly, if you Google for "soccer" on English language pages on .de, .fr, .it (etc) sites, you will get quite a few hits, because U.S. English is not uncommon in Europe.

I don't see how it REALLY matters. Seems like this whole discussion is not about names, but rather it's just a pretext for a fight between nationalities and sports. Everyone knows 'soccer' is the world's most popular sport, dwarfing American football by enormous numbers. The point about 'fussball' and 'football' is irrelevant: 'fussball' came first, then they needed a word for the american sport. It's true this is an English language encyclopedia, but it seems like it should be a factor that the majority of the world's languages' words for football are based on that word, rather than soccer.

And, to the comment above, you chose the country that's most influenced by American culture in Western Europe, that enjoys basketball and is even very remotely interested in American sports. I assure you that most countries would use the word that's most similar to their own language - FOOTBALL, and so would Germans if they didn't already have a word for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

China is debatable, but I am reliably informed that Japanese speakers of English favour U.S. usage, and the Japanese word for association football is sakkaa (derived from soccer). I suspect that South Americans have also mostly learnt U.S. English, so the same goes there.
There is simply not enough information/evidence about non-native speakers to decide either way, which is part of the reason why this page is not simply about American football or soccer, and never will be. Grant | Talk 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I am someone who spent over five years working in that particular industry and just because someone prefers 'movie' over 'film' and 'elevator' over 'lift' does not mean that they will favour 'soccer' over 'football'. The choice is mostly down to their first language, Spanish speakers are likely to say 'football' not 'soccer'.
It's still no reason to change the page, if the page was given over to one sport or another, we would still need to find a new name for this page. What better name exists for this page other than football?GordyB 13:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That's an easy one...."soccer"!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:56, 8 January 2008
Sure, I suspect it varies from country to country. Bear in mind the German usage of "football" I have quoted, and let me point out that someone who says fútbol or futebol in their own language, does not necessarily mean soccer if they say "football" when speaking English. Taking Google hits of Latin American sites as an example: "542,000 for soccer"" and "296,000 for football"; "206,000 for football"; "189,000 for soccer" and "199,000 for soccer" and "90,500 for football".
That says to me that Brazilians and Mexicans are likely to call the game "soccer" when speaking English, whereas Argentinians favour British usage. Some might consider that odd and/or ironic, but Argentina was long considered an anglophile country, prior to a certain disagreement in 1982. Grant | Talk 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Internet usage tends to be commercial. A lot of the 'soccer sites' seem to be trying to sell things to Americans. As for Argentinians, the old joke is that an Argentinian is an Italian who speaks Spanish and would like to be English.GordyB
Interesting info. "Fußball" is literally "football" in German, meaning soccer, whereas they have taken the English "football" into German as a "foreign word" for American football. There is or was a tabletop soccer game call "foosball" that was popular in the USA a couple of decades ago. "Fútbol" is what soccer is called in Spanish, a "spanishized" transliteration of "football", and the foreign word "football" is also used in Spanish. In French, supposedly "football" as a foreign word is used for soccer, and "football americain" is used for American football. If there isn't already such a section or article, maybe there could be one, of the different names for this family of games in various languages. Wahkeenah 10:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
See football (word) Jooler 10:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
And football (soccer) names. Grant | Talk 15:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Roger. It occurs to me there's a fair amount of overlap in those articles, as well as with the football article. Seems like overkill somehow... too many words. Maybe that situation will fix itself over time. Wahkeenah 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It also occurs to me that this is vaguely analogous to the term "corn". Cereal grains are grown all over the world, and the main grain of a given country is usually called "corn". In the US it's varieties of maize. In the UK, as I understand it, it's wheat or rye... and so on. Basically you have the same situation. "Football", by itself, is the predominant version of football in a given country. In the US, it's American football. In Canada, it's Canadian football. In the UK and Europe and Latin America and so on, it's "soccer football", a longer version of the term that isn't used much nowadays, but it serves to distinguish the name. I guess poor li'l old Rugby isn't the predominant football game in any country. That's the way things go. Wahkeenah 15:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Rugby union is the national sport in Wales, New Zealand and many of the Pacific Islands. Grant | Talk 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Whenever I think of Rugby, I think of a couple of bumper stickers I used to see around campus: "Give blood... play Rugby!" and "To play Rugby you need leather balls!" Why the women's Rugby team had that second one, I don't want to know. Wahkeenah 16:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not vote? Leotolstoy 22
17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this not a pretty irrelavant string to this conversation. Officially there is not one single sport on the planet that can be called true football. The original game fragmented as it spread around the world. The term football, as the article correctly points out, refers to a collection of sports which each have their own codes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeecher (talkcontribs) 23:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As to whether or not Football should be called Football or Soccer, I think that it should be called the latter. Football was a name given to the sport long before soccer and as the Americans didn't even invent the sport I think that they should not be allowed to start naming it. The only logical reason as to why they call it soccer is because using football in their country would suggest 'American Football'. Well sorry but I'm not bloody American and I don't play/watch American Football so I'm going to continue to use Football. Europeans seem to share a similar frame of mind when choosing which name, German's (as mentioned above, somewhere.. ##!?) call it Fussball, literally translated as Foot ball. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

More flogging of a dead horse: A. Americans represent an absolute majority of native speakers of English, so whatever you, I or the whole of Wikipedia does is not going to affect the way that most native English speakers us the language; B. its not just Americans who call it soccer anyway; C. an Englishman invented the word soccer; D. Germans are a bad example for your case, as they also use "football", as a loanword, for American football (see German Football League). Grant | Talk 20:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fully agreed, I use football and don't like the word soccer. However, I also fully realise that it is not just the United States that uses soccer. It's not as if the word is not even used in the UK. See Soccer AM and Soccer Saturday. But as you point out this is flogging a dead horse, and not only that a dead horse whose carcass is infested with worms. The last real debate in this topic took place nearly a year ago.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rugbys not a footballThisMunkey (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are simply wrong, rugby (both kinds) does call itself football and I'll give you as many references as you like.GordyB (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it's absurd to say that rugby or rugby league are not called football. The reason that "soccer" is used instead of "football" in New Zealand and Australia is precisely for that reason—there are several codes that can go by that name. - Shudde talk 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I have to acknowledge how mistaken I was about what rugby gets called and its very obvious that these uses of the word football will continue but that doesn't mean they are being represented correctly on this wiki page.
Acknowledging information correctly is next on order of importance as providing information at all which is a blindingly obvious importance on this talk page where every one has something to say about the name of football. That has to indicate some thing unclear. Leotolstoy suggests a vote and my opinion is that undisputed information can be made out without the dispute.
I am pointing out the absurdity (thanks to the Shudde for the word) of misleading description. You might not appreciate it.
The game of Gaelic Football closely follows a foot ball game being that the foot and the ball are required in the game play. The rules are to carry the ball but you must use your foot. It is basically a high contact, hand ball game but the foot is required by rules and is most commonly used to attempt scoring but the contact rules are much less permissive than other rugby style games. Aussie rules might be in between Gaelic and Rugby regarding contact rules(or at least they seem to be when they are playing Gaelic rules).
Who knows the rules of rugby and would finish a try with the ball on your foot? No you wouldn't know the rules then. Hand ball is not only permitted but the rule is hand on ball or no score. I didn't have to look it up. I learnt it. Foot is allowed and free kicks seem to be taken with the foot but aside of mobility, foot is not such an essential part of the game play otherwise. I don't know if you can score between the bars with out a free but that will be irrelevant for this. The other rugby style games also require foot in some large part but are primarily hand ball wrestling games. This is relevant in any description therfore should be acknowledged on this page (it is not and that lacks something fundamental).
The fact they display their inspiration from football in the sport names and even the name of the ball should not be misrepresented or discarded as it is like displaying their colours and those games are a big part of sport as we know it.
Football is, surprisingly, unique in this variety of football games that it uses the foot and the ball primarily with rules governing contact and obstruction. This is considered extremely distinctive and requires ackowledgement. Hands are allowed in football for goal keeping but this fits into the game without lessening the basis distinguishing the styles.
Football is the primary of these sports in popularity and history (look through the page for instance) and so inspiring in this regard that hand based ball sports worldwide are most often named (regional) foot ball. Some exceptions including basketball (with the basket), baseball (bases), volleyball (volley the ball), cricket (er..ribbet), and handball itself. It is an indicator of fond the esteem of the football basis and should be treated as such and acknowledged boldly.
Some refer to a game of football and some refer to a game with a football. Rugby style football games are based on a form of wrestling. It seems that until these sort of facts are acknowledged around this page people are going to dispute its contents. Wrestling with a football - it's as valid as any other style of game I can think of, wrestling, football, or anything bar racing. I can't imagine any lovers of these games being dissapointed with that description of them and the disputes here dont go much into wether or not football is football but rather wether rugby or such is football. That school of thought also has a place in acknowledgment on a correct and concise page (if not what is the point?).
The brief description 'These games involve:' does not acknowledge the contact style which distinguishes the games for any fan. That is absurd and incitful to provocation. Some people hear that obvious information is kept back and they fight and die hoping to correct it.
As for refering it as 'Association Football' it has to be acknowledged that these days that is old hat and it is and will be FIFA football (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) since a long time back and will be as far as anyone beleives so in this opinion. FIFA being represented only by a mention of 5 a side on this page only is not only piss poorly disappointing but it is misleading like the rugby relation. What about Masters Football? If these facts were made out correctly there would be less gripes on the page and it would be more apparent that soccer was a name to suit a non football area where football was not seen as the more common football sport. Grant should know that only the English can represent the vast majority of native English speakers and that the English language includes the word greeble picked out at random.
The issue of naming football as soccer only applies to informing people that football is the more widely accepted name. (or fus or fut or etc)
I am going to leave a quote from the FIFA page before considering minor interference in both pages regarding the language (just a little) and the lack of mention of FIFA (a very important addition not included) which would be much more suited to some moderator who is a good football boffin which I am not but it's nice to see the right links and the major stuff on the wiki pages.
And quote from the FIFA page:-
""FIFA Anthem

Since the 1994 FIFA World Cup like the UEFA Champions League FIFA adopts a anthem composed by the German composer Franz Lambert. This anthem also known like Fair Play Hymn term used by the Mexican TV sport commentator Enrique Bermudez de la Serna known like El Perro Bermudez. The FIFA Anthem or Hymn is played at the beginning of FIFA structured matches and tournaments such as international friendlies, the FIFA World Cup, FIFA Women's World Cup, and FIFA U-20 World Cup.""
 :::I am not saying that the wolf is on the dog page. I am sayin that the munkeys are bein called apes by the scientists.ThisMunkey (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are labouring under several illusions, one is that the other types of football are derived from soccer - this is not the case; another is that football played with the hands was not in the original concept of football (which it was), thirdly you seem to think that the English have consistantly applied the word "football" to soccer which they have not and even today don't. I suggest you read the article from start to finish.
Your argument is what we would describe as original research which Wikipedia doesn't do. We aren't here to judge which sport deserves the name "football" and which does not.GordyB (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Gordy but read the wopping big comment I worked on or don't bother remarking as I put a deal of thought into it and below in addition are some quotes from respectable sites about the knowledge of ancient football games not corroborated here and I know of at least one definite respected part of human footballing history that is definitely not chronicled on this page but I wont mention any more I do not get a worthwhile reference to online.ThisMunkey (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to tell you more clearly that you are wrong than simply you are wrong. Football has never referred solely to soccer in any Anglo country even England. This has been debated to death in the past, you are hardly the first person to make this point. However the consensus has always been that neither "soccer" nor "American football" will have sole use of the term "football" on Wikipedia.GordyB (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is incorrect Gordy as it doesnt distinguish the styles of play and no matter what you call it football is very unique. That is more important on the page than wether or not to call rugby or american football. It doesnt acknowledge FIFA or the IFAB and the ancient histories of kicking a football as sport are at least incomplete. Football also fills the largest followings of any other sport in the world which is not plaeced importantly on the page. The page is biased against the existence of football with no hands in the gameplay although that is the dominant sport of the entire world. Who thinks it is not neccesary to include these things on the page?ThisMunkey (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Read original research.GordyB (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And what you mean to say is that football has never refered solely to football. You may beg to differ but it boils down to the fact that the English did not invent the foot or the ball or the idea of kicking it. I have more respect for my feet and my balls than I do for protecting the pride of modern institutions when absolutely unnessecary. Neither FIFA or the IRB need to pretend they invented the foot or the ball. Come down off the horse and give it some hay.ThisMunkey (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC) ThisMunkey (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Football is an ancient game. Some 2,500 years ago the Chinese played a form of it called Tsu chu, in which they kicked a ball of stuffed leather. Natives of Polynesia are known to have played a variation of the game with a ball made of bamboo fibres, while the Inuit had another form using a leather ball filled with moss. However, much of the game's development came about in England where it was first known in the 12th century. It became so popular that kings, including Edward II and Henry VI, tried to ban it on the grounds that it distracted men from the necessary military duty of regular archery practice. Such edicts had little effect.

Varieties developed in England and in Europe (in 14th-century Florence there was a form called calcio). A traditional version in England was known as Shrovetide football, common in the Midlands and the north of England for centuries. Such games might involve hundreds of men on each side and were usually a free-for-all between sections of a town, villages, or adjoining parishes that would often develop into a brawl. Many schools played football and some, notably Eton, Harrow, Winchester, and Rugby, evolved codes of their own, particularly Rugby, which established a code from which others (American football, for example) developed. During the 19th century there were concerted efforts to organize and structure the different forms and provide acceptable rules. " /br>"The Greek 'Episkyros' - of which few concrete details survive - was much livelier, as was the Roman 'Harpastum'. The latter was played out with a smaller ball by two teams on a rectangular field marked by boundary lines and a centre line. The objective was to get the ball over the opposition's boundary lines and as players passed it between themselves, trickery was the order of the day. The game remained popular for 700-800 years, but, although the Romans took it to Britain with them, the use of feet was so small as to scarcely be of consequence. "
"Tlatchi was a game played by the Aztecs and some individuals have claimed that it is over 3000 years old. We cannot verify this but it is quite possible that the game was being played around 500 BCE. This would make it older than the Chinese game of Tsu Chu. However Tlachtli was more a mix of basketball, volleyball and football rather than just a forerunner of football. One key rule was that players could not use their hands, although they could use their heads, elbows, legs or hips(?).

The ruins of almost every ancient city include a walled court for the sacred game of Tlachtli. The courts were often close to temples, reinforcing the spiritual nature of the game. Tlatchi has been described as a spectator sport, an astrological study and a political engagement all at the same time.

The sense of astrology comes from the fact that the Aztecs and particularly the priests felt that the movement of the rubber ball during the game symbolised the future path of the sun.

Great prominence was given to the mystic similarities between ball and sun.Only the ruling elite were allowed to watch the game and gambling on the outcome of the game was very popular. Money, clothes and even slaves were bet on games.

Tlachtli was played in a sunken stone walled court surrounded by fans. The court was normally an 'I' or 'H' shape with one stone ring at each end of the court. (The stone rings were similar to basketball hoops and were 8-10 feet off the ground. The actual hole was less than 30 cm wide.

The actual game involved passing the ball from side to side without it touching the ground. If the ball fell to the ground on the other side your team would win a point and vice versa (similar to volleyball.) If you struck the ball with an incorrect part of your body you could lose points for your team.

However the real purpose of the game was to get the ball through the hoop at each end. The team that did this first won, irrespective of the current score of the game.

Players were given kneepads and helmets to protect them from the heavy rubber ball, although this was only a temporary measure as the losers of the game were sacrificed to the gods!

ThisMunkey (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one thing, someone previously said that in México Association football is called soccer, that is a lie, in Mexico and latinoamerica (in other countries I'm not as sure as I'm about Mexico but I'm quite sure) Association football is called futbol pronunced football, it may sound stupid but futbol is actually a correct and accepted word and is more often used to name Association football than soccer. This is a link to the royal academy of the spanish language dictionary that shows I'm telling the true, also if tou use google Mexico (searching in Mexican pages only) you'll find 262,000 results of soccer and 486,000 results of futbol. I don't know if this informations deserves to be in the article. I'm mexican and I'm sorry if made a mistake, my english sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first statement. Because this is the english wikipedia, football should be described as the sport where games consist of two teams on a football field. Each team has eleven players participating at once during the game. The point of the game is to score a touchdown, or to get the football into the endzone. that is the football America is known for, so that is what should be described on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfilibert (talkcontribs) 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)