Talk:Battle of Old Trafford

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Old Trafford (2003)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• This article passes the quick pass/fail criteria, and I will look at in more detail section by section. Harrias (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• First issue for me is the title, and the opening statement. "The "Battle of Old Trafford" is a name used by the British press..." which you then cite to The Times. For this name to be used, I'd expect at least one more area of the British press to be cited here to show it is a commonly used name for the match, and not just something The Times alone coined it.
  • This is now sourced to three different UK newspapers: the Times, the Sun and the Independent.
• "0-0" and other instances throughout the article, per WP:DASH should be replaced with an En-dash.
  • Done.
• "...something that had only been achieved once before in English football, by Preston North End in 1888-89." I would prefer if this were cited, as it is an important claim, and per WP:LEAD, information should not be present in the lead that isn't also in the main article content.
  • Sourced, and I've slotted the fact into the "Aftermath" section.
• "The match is memorable for the sending-off of Arsenal captain..." In your opinion, it is memorable for that; try to find another way to describe the key events in the match without using the term memorable.
  • Re-worded.
• Wikilink "second bookable offence" to something that would let a non-football fan know what it means.
  • Linked to Misconduct (association football)#Sending-off offences (red card.
• "...controversial decision..." Provide a source that describes it as controversial, otherwise it just seems to be controversial in your opinion, a United fan might not agree it is!
  • Still looking for one that specifically describes the penalty as controversial. The BBC source describes Keown's challenge that led to the penalty as "innocuous", but if I can't find a better source, I'll re-word the statement.
• Wikilink "penalty", an ice hockey fan might think someone is going to the penalty box!
  • Linked to penalty kick.
• As you use "FA" later in the article, it might be best to put "...by The Football Association (FA) for their..."
  • Done.
• "...and Arsenal were forced to pay fines." As I read it in the Aftermath section, Arsenal paid a £175,000 fine, while their players paid a variety, as did two United players. So I would say that Arsenal paid a fine, not fines. Maybe just say that Arsenal and x number of playes were forced to pay fines?
  • Done.

I'll have a look through the rest of the article later this evening (UK). Harrias (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied above. Hope you enjoy the rest of the article. – PeeJay 18:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to get to the rest of the article tonight unfortunately, but I will give it my priority. Good work on your changes so far! Harrias (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Background

• "However, he rivalry" should be "However, the rivalry"
  • Done.
• "McClair got his revenge" how did McClair get his revenge?
  • Added info based on the source already provided.
• Viera and Keane should be linked in the first usage (end of the first paragraph) and not in the third paragraph.
  • Fixed.
• "Martin Keown received a £5,000 fine for an incident with Ruud van Nistelrooy." As well as requiring a citation, this could do with expanding upon; what was the incident, would it lead to the possibility of vN trying to 'get back' at Keown?
  • Apparently this never actually happened, or at least I can't find any mention of a previous incident between RvN and Keown.

Match

Summary

• No citations at all; would like to see at least one for the section, and ideally more. Particularly for phrases such as that starting the second paragraph, "The match was characterised by petty fouls and yellow cards handed out by referee Steve Bennett." Call me touchy, as I'm a referee myself; but 'petty' seems an opinion, and as such I want to see a source saying it, not an encyclopedia alone.
  • I'll see what I can do, give me a couple of days.
    • I can't find a source which explicity states the nature of the fouls. Can you think of a better way of putting the point across? I have utilised a source from the Independent used elsewhere in the article for that section. 03md 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
      • The source you provide is about a match played in 2006, and although it references the 2003 match, it certainly doesn't provide sources for a match summary. PeeJay said he was working on something with regards to this section, I don't know how much or how relevant it is, but I'm willing to wait a few days to see. Harrias (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• The first two sentences: "As several matches involving Manchester United and Arsenal in recent years had been, this match was competitive. Arsenal came into the match at the top of the Premier League, holding an unbeaten record that stretched back to the end of the previous season. Manchester United were in second place in the table, but they had already lost one match that season, against Southampton." This sounds more like background to me; should it possibly be in the previous section?
  • Moved.
• 40 yards, per WP:MOSNUM requires a non-breaking space between the number and the measurement.
  • Done.
• "13th-minute", "90th minute" be consistent, I would prefer it without the hyphen personally.
  • In the context it is written in, "a 13th-minute free-kick" is correct grammar, just as "in the 90th minute" is also correct.
• "... goalkeeper Jens Lehmann received a yellow card for his protests." There isn't a yellow card symbol beside his name in the details section below.
  • The BBC report states "Van Nistelrooy and Arsenal keeper Jens Lehmann were also shown yellow cards as players squared up to each other", but they don't list the Lehmann booking at the bottom of the page. Since no other sources record Lehmann as having been booked, I've removed the statement.
• If possible, in addition to some more citations, I think this section could be expanded somewhat; though my review won't depend upon it.
  • I'll try to expand on the review based on the print sources I have here, but the only video source I have focuses on the Giggs free-kick that hit the post, the Vieira sending-off and the Van Nistelrooy penalty, so I don't have much more to go on.
    • If the review does not depend on expansion I will leave it and possibly expand this section if I decided to go for Featured Article status. 03md 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, I'm sorry it's taken so long, and I hope it's not too late, but I've finally managed to expand the match summary to the best of my ability. Good luck, guys. – PeeJay 00:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Details

• Minutes are supplied for substitutions, and the cautions given to Keane, van Nistelrooy, and Viera; but none are given for the other cautions, are those times not recorded anywhere?
  • I can only find times for the Keane, Vieira and Van Nistelrooy yellows. I think the Fortune, Ronaldo and Keown ones were shown after the final whistle, but I can't be sure.
• Edu links to a disambiguation page; pipe it accordingly.
  • Done.
• Again, while the review doesn't depend on it, it might be nice to make the image an image map, and be able to get to the players article by clicking on the relevant place on the image. Just a thought.
  • I don't know how to do that, but since all other pages use SVG formation images, I don't think it's much of a problem.

Aftermath

• First section needs citations.
  • Done.
• "Lauren, Martin Keown, Patrick Vieira and Ray Parlour were all suspended for between one and four matches, much less than had been originally anticipated." Would it be worth discussing the original speculation regarding suspensions?
  • Re-jigged the passage. Only Lauren escaped his maximum potential ban by a significant amount (he got four games when he could have got eight), while Ray Parlour got three games fewer than he could have, but had to pay a £10,000 fine.
• There aren't inline citations for Lehmann and Cole's charges/fine.
  • Done.
• "Van Nistelrooy's penalty, therefore," Might it be worth reiterating, and saying "missed penalty"?
  • Done.
• It might also be an idea to add the result of the other league game between them that season, and clarify whether there was any trouble in that match.
  • Done.
• "dubbed the Battle of the Buffet." If it was dubbed Battle of the Buffet, why is the article called Battle of Old Trafford (2004)? Maybe something like "variously dubbed the Battle of the Buffet, the second Battle of Old Trafford, and simply The Battle of Old Trafford"? (I don't know if there are sources for all three, but I have heard it referred to by them all.
  • Done.

References

On the whole pretty good, but some inconsistencies I'd like to see fixed:

• "BBC Sport (British Broadcasting Corporation)" is linked in 5, 8, 11, 13, 17, 18 & 19, but not in 4 & 10.
  • Linked only the first usage.
• 6 has "The Observer (Guardian News and Media)", while 9 just has "The Guardian"
  • Done.

Right, that's the rest of the article. I'll place the nomination on hold to give you some time to get them done. It is for the most part a good article though. Feel free to strike-through any of my original points that you fix. Harrias (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, mate. I've acted on most of them, and I'm too tired to do the rest right now. Give me a couple of days and I'll get it sorted! – PeeJay 20:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I have responded above. 03md 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

David-King's edits

Recent edits to this article have introduced unnecessarily flowery language. I will address each problem I have with it below, point by point: – PeeJay 22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Arsenal's attacking play lacked its usual ambition and flair" – The original statement only mentions their ambition, which was specifically mentioned by the source provided. The source mentioned nothing about flair, so to add that now would either count as original research or we require another source.

  You can use words which go beyond the source provided the facts are not distorted by consequence. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  But who says Arsenal ever attacked with flair? Not that I disagree, but you can't say it unless you have a source to back it up. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Why is a journalist's judgement (the most probable source) anymore reliable than our own?! David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Because they are experts in the field they write on. You and I (but mostly you) are just amateur Wikipedians whose opinions count for exactly... erm, let me think... fuck all. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  You can't generalise like that! Not all journalists are 'experts in the field they write on'. To name a famous one, Jeremy Paxman was an English graduate and yet the BBC deemed it appropriate that he report on politics. There are many journalists who are not qualified experts. Most of the journalists who report on CERN, for example have no degrees in the respective field. Anyway, THIS IS A FOOTBALL MATCH, not the discovery of the Higg's boson. You don't need an expert. Oh and your opinion is that I'm worse than you??! That really surprises the bejesus out of me, it really fucking does!!!!!!!!! It may have eluded you, but I really don't value anything you say in any kind of regard, not to mention the evident disregard other Wikipedians associated with this page have for your opinions in this particular episode, so please keep your irrelevant opinions to yourself. It would be greatly appreciated. David-King (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "their best opportunity coming late on in the match, in the 75th minute," – This is a tautology.

  This is EMPHATIC! Deliberate hyperbole to stress the point being made. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  What point? Let the facts speak for themselves. The incident happened in the 75th minute, let the reader decide whether that's late on in the match. 15 minutes is an eternity in football. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Okay, whatever. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  How magnanimous of you. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Oh, actually, something you won't understand, but I actually have a life to get back to. The less points of debate in this very needless debate the sooner this'll finish and the sooner I can get back to my life. David-King (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The match was characterised by a large number of fouls; 13 were committed by United, 18 by Arsenal" – This is less concise than the original version.

  Writing articles in good English is I would say more important than being succinct. I've simply made it flow better. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  There was nothing wrong with the writing as it was. It flowed just fine. But as this is a matter of opinion, we really need a third voice to come in on the matter. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  ... and it flows just fine with my edit. This is just plain petulance. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  No, this is a content dispute based on the opinions of two editors, one of whom made a substantial contribution to getting this article to GA status (no, it's not you). This is why I'm asking for a third opinion. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Well fucking done! What do you want??? A medal?! In fact, take that back, I don't care about what you want as what you want and what you may or may not have done is irrelavant to this particular edit. It flows just fine with my edit and you're just being plain petulant. David-King (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "causing the startled Manchester United centre-forward to recoil in surprise" – How do we know Van Nistelrooy was startled? Even if he were startled, why do we need to say that in addition to the fact that he "recoiled in surprise"?

  How do we know? Well, his facial expression was pretty good evidence of this. I can provide a link to a picture of it to avoid POV issues if needed. Wouldn't you be startled if someone spontaneously kicked out at you? I was the one who added the words 'recoiled' and 'surprise'; you haven't deprecated their inclusion so you must have no objection to them I assume. It does no harm to have both. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  You can't use a person's facial expression as a source. That's original research. Interpretations of Van Nistelrooy's actions require a source. And actually, I replaced "recoil in surprise" with "jump backwards to avoid being kicked". – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  You replaced it after you said this and after I invoked it. Who you trying to fool? Petulance again! Require a source? What type of source? If we go with your method, then the only person who knows how RVN felt is RVN himself. Stop being ludicrous! I've just made a rational judgement based in decent logic. If someone lashes out abruptly because of an ordinary foul, one will be startled. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, I replaced it afterwards, once I'd had a chance to re-examine the language of the article. I examined both options, decided neither was preferable and came up with a third one. It's called copyediting. You've heard of interviews, haven't you? If RVN had done an interview about the game and mentioned why he jumped back, then we would have a reliable source. All we can say is that he jumped back. After all, some people say he did it intentionally and exaggerated his reaction to get Vieira sent off! – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  You used MY WORDS; to quote you verbatim, "Even if he were startled, why do we need to say that in addition to the fact that he recoiled in surprise?" You can't deny it, you condoned it and then on my declaration that they were inputted courtesy of me, you then finally decide to attack the choice of words. Petulant. David-King (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "although Vieira's retaliatory kick failed to connect with van Nistelrooy" – It was clearly retaliatory, judging by the previous couple of sentences. We don't need to say it again just for the sake of saying it.

  It's actually not clear. Don't assume all reader's have the same level of comprehension skills as yourself. There's nothing like clarity. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  If people reading this article had problems with comprehension, I would tell them to go read the Simple English Wikipedia. It was obviously a retaliation as we have a clear instigating factor, i.e. Van Nistelrooy's jump. Besides, if we must say outright that it was a retaliation, there are better places to do it. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  That's elitist and facetious. My edit adds clarity and removes any lingerings of doubt. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Maybe you should try reading the current version. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Guess what, I have! I deemed my edit appropriate and no one else thus far but you has rejected it. David-King (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Arsenal goalkeeper Lehmann applied distraction and intimidation techniques to put off the centre-forward" – What the hell does this even mean? I don't think there was any intimidation involved. It's also redundant to the bit about putting Van Nistelrooy off.

  Be courteous and at least attempt to understand it; it's not that unintelligible. Intimidation alludes to how he made himself look bigger. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  No, this is just verbosity for verbosity's sake. You make it sound like Lehmann had studied "distraction and intimidation techniques" at university or something. It's better just to say he tried to put Van Nistelrooy off. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Fine, be obstinate. I don't know why that which you decree to be 'better' should be taken as gospel; who the hell are you in the scheme of things? Why are YOU tinkering with MY non-vandalistic edit? I did rounds today with a survey at my university (Queen Mary) and asked people what they made of this particular sentence. None seem to have drawn the conclusion you have and bear in mind the average IQ of students at Russell Group univeristies is fairly above the general average. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Bear in mind that your "survey" is hardly representative of Wikipedia's overall audience. You should also bear in mind that I am a professional journalist and I have several years of experience writing and editing text for public consumption. That's who the hell I am. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  It didn't matter that it wasn't representative. All that mattered was that on asking numerous people of their drawn conclusions, after having read my added sentence, they didn't draw the same ludicrous conclusions that you have drawn. You received a BA in journalism, a non vocational qualification! Most pukka journalists complete undergraduate courses in proper subjects and then go on to do an MA in journalism. They then as professionals have expertise knowledge in a chosen field and the necessary journalistic training. i.e. more than you have. Please don't make yourself out to be more than you are. Who the hell you are is actually not that much! A lot of journalists don't even have qualifications in journalism. Take Nick Robinson and Boris Johnson for example; they completed their respected subjects' undergraduate degree courses and then went straight in to their respective careers as journalists. Also, there's nothing special about journalists. You don't think lawyers for example publish writing in the public domain or a lot of other professions for that matter. David-King (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "as it transpired" – This is way too flowery for an encyclopaedia.

  I've seen much more 'flowery' language used on other Wikipedia articles and I've merely put this article in to better English! I'm not compromising its GA status! You'll find as many people who agree with this assertion as you will people who disagree with it. It's just a slightly not so commonplace word. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  You may have seen more flowery language elsewhere on Wikipedia, but what you've read on other articles is no justification for doing it here. Please see WP:OSE. Put plainly, you don't need to say "as it transpired". Just say, "Lehmann tried to put him off by strafing along the goal line, and it appeared to work". – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  You're not qualified to be an arbiter in this matter. Do you not think I've read WP:OSE?! I'm fully aware of it's contents and I don't see how my edit doesn't abide by it's guidelines and so far, nor does anyone else but you. Also, your proposal is insufficient as he did more than strafe along the goal line. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  You clearly don't understand WP:OSE as you're trying to justify your flowery language by saying you've seen it in other articles. That is not a valid argument. And no, he didn't just strafe across his line, he waved his hands around a bit too. I'd say that all comes under the relatively simple handle of "putting Van Nistelrooy off". – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Firstly, your weak comprehension skills are being exhibited again. That wasn't my argument. My argument was that genuinely flowerey language has been severely deprecated on other articles and this particular edit of mine so far has had only one objection; from you! David-King (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "van Nistelrooy's shot dazzled Lehman but not the crossbar" – Apparently this is a quote a commentator used during the 1998 World Cup to describe an entirely different incident. Regardless, it's inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.

  If only I could find the clip with that commentary. It's a turn of phrase; don't read in to it literally. The ENGLISH SPEAKING commentator used it in the WC 98 2nd round match between Yugoslavia and Holland when Predrag Mijatović missed in the same way RVN did in this match. It's a vividly descriptive phrase, more accurately conveying and outlining the penalty miss so the reader can envisage it more easily and vividly. It wasn't an 'entirely different incident'; it was an identical incident with a penalty missed in EXACTLY the same way. Go watch it if you don't recall it. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  You're ignoring the fact that the language a commentator uses on television is not the same type of language we should be using on Wikipedia. Commentators have to be more colourful with their words to keep the viewers interested. We do not have that same concern, we are simply concerned with the facts. The shot didn't "dazzle" anyone. It hit the bar and rebounded back into play. The only element of your edit I would retain is the comment about the crossbar still shaking, but we'd need a source for that. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  I've said, and I'll say it again, STOP READING IN TO THE TURN OF PHRASE LITERALLY! I didn't use it because a commentator used it; I repeat, it's a vividly descriptive phrase which more accurately conveys and outlines the penalty miss so the reader can envisage it more easily and vividly. Again, I asked 2 professors of English at my university with whom I have had no previous contact and both said my wording was preferable as a description. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  I'm not taking it literally at all. I know exactly what you mean by the word "dazzled", it just doesn't apply here. If Lehmann had been "dazzled" by the shot, he'd have stood stock still and watched as the ball crashed against the crossbar. But he didn't. He dived (the wrong way) in an attempt to save it. I still don't understand the point about the shot not "dazzling" the crossbar though; under what circumstances could Van Nistelrooy's shot have "dazzled" the crossbar, I'm intrigued to know? – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  You're intrigued to understand an idiom in a literal way! Well, that's not something most people concern themsleves with so you'll have to overcome that particular obstacle on your own I'm afraid. David-King (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "the Nike Geo Merlin II football rebounded back into play" – Why do we need to mention the brand name of the ball being used?

  The PL's ball design and engineering changes each season and players are endlessly commenting on how it affects play. The ball design is a factor and this was a particularly controversial game and by consequence I should think it appropriate to mention all possible game influencing factors and so yes, that includes the ball!!! Do you not remember the players' qualms with the Jabulani?1 The penalty wasn't the only event which involved the ball but its description allows for the invocation of the ball's name and thereby its design. It may have had an influence, it may not have, one cannot conclusively say. Its inclusion however I believe invokes in the reader's mind the potential influence ball engineering has in games! They've done studies on championships which have used different balls and observed how the stats vary as well as analyse how they correlate to the used ball's design. My edit is not vandalistic, this is an encyclopaedic fact and no actual harm to the article is induced as a result! David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  I can't comprehend why you're so intent on adding the name of the ball. There were no incidents in this game that were blamed on the ball's design. As far as this encyclopaedia is concerned, it could have been a plain black and white ball, it would have made no difference. You admit yourself that we don't know whether the design of the ball had an impact on the game; you need a source to back up a claim like that. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  What you can and can't comprehend is irrelevant! I never said colour was an influence; I specifically said 'engineering' and 'design'. Nothing about 'black and white'! The whole world is dependent on engineering and physics! Why is this match an exception!? David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Because there's no evidence that this specific design of ball had any bearing on the match. If you can prove otherwise, then it deserves a fuller scientific analysis, but at the moment it sounds like you're just taking an opportunity to advertise a Nike product. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. The ball changes every season and like all other things, it is identified in a unique way. Its name is a label. Of course, whenever you cite the name of anything, you are inherently 'advertising' it. You don't need proof to show that engineering and physics determines, how structures don't fall down, how planes fly, how your shoes don't collapse and fit perfectly, how cars move and support people on seats and not least how the trajectory of objects and contact with them is affected by design. David-King (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The Dutchman was immediately confronted and roared at by Arsenal centre-back Keown" – Why do we need to say "roared at"? Is it not enough to say he was confronted?

  No, it isn't as he did actually ROAR at him. The word 'confront' does not adequately and accurately convey this. Keown's 'roar' is actually quite famous. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Did you hear him roar? I don't remember seeing him roar. I saw him shout in Van Nistelrooy's ear as he clouted him over the back of the head with his outstretched arms, but I never saw a roar. Perhaps Keown's reaction isn't conveyed 100% adequately by the original phrasing, but you can't fix this just by adding "and roared at". – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02727/martin-keown_2727196k.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/08/article-2492557-003F41F41000044C-926_634x489.jpg

In these .jpg links you can see that that's a roar, not a mere confrontation. I have multiple prominent sources which describe it as 'a roar' as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/picturegalleries/10433387/Arsenal-vs-Manchester-United-the-top-10-games.html?frame=2727196

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2492557/Arsenal-v-Manchester-United--Gunners-terrible-record-Old-Trafford.html

This is but two quality sources which describe it as 'a roar'. I've found 16 more sources and I'm sure there are numerous more. I just don't have time to cite them here to prove the obvious just because of your petulance. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should add those sources then. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know you can't add content without a source. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• The concession is appreciated and no, like most things in life, a balance has to be struck. Not every flaming word on Wikipedia is there because of a source.

• Moving the opening part of the "Aftermath" section into the "Match summary" section is inappropriate as it happened after the final whistle and therefore wasn't part of the match itself.

  Actually, the altercations started just before the match finished and CARRIED ON after the final whistle. They didn't actually commence after the whistle. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Are you sure about that? There was a scuffle after the Vieira–Van Nistelrooy incident, a little bit of afters as soon as Van Nistelrooy missed the penalty in stoppage time, and then he was fouled again just before the final whistle, but the real fight didn't start until Steve Bennett blew the final whistle. See this highlights package from Man Utd's end-of-season DVD. – PeeJay 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  I've watched that video on more than one occasion and I have a personal recording of the entire match on VHS. Actually, what happened after the match is just an escalated continuation of the scuffles which occured subsequent to the pen. miss! The 'real fight' as you describe it is an escalation of an altercation which commenced before the final whistle which play briefly interrupted. David-King (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  So you're agreeing that the altercation described in the "Aftermath" section did indeed happen after the final whistle? There's nothing in that section that happened before the final whistle, so it would be inappropriate to include it with content that did. Thanks for proving my point. – PeeJay 23:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Your comprehension skills are obviously deficient and are in need of tightening up. In the law, which I can talk about with some authority as a second year law student at a Russell Group university with a first in my criminal law module, we talk about the aftermath of events as having no factual AND legal causation to the actual event. Were this event being discussed in court, the altercation which CONTINUED after the whistle would have been seen as legally and factually linked to the initial events which started just before the blowing of the whistle and thereby the link of causation had not yet been broken. David-King (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Calm down. — Thank you   Cliftonian (talk)  for your intervention. I really do appreciate it but I have some responses to your assertions and proposals. David-King (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
2. The addition of "and flair" should be either sourced or omitted. It doesn't add that much to the prose in my opinion anyway. — It doesn't detract from it either and were my edit to be redone, I believe it would fit in nicely. David-King (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
3. "late on in the match, in the 75th minute" is tautology, as PeeJay says. Just saying the 75th minute is enough. — This issue was finalised and shouldn't have been invoked again. David-King (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
4. The original wording ("The match was characterised by a large number of fouls – 13 by United, 18 by Arsenal") is better prose and should be retained. — Professors of English always say it is preferable to keep hyphens out of prose and this writer amongst others on the web concurs. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2011/05/the_caseplease_hear_me_outagainst_the_em_dash.html David-King (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
5. We've already said in the previous line that Vieira "kicked out at Van Nistelrooy in retaliation" so it isn't necessary to say "retaliatory" again. — My edit rephrases this part completely and by consequence the word 'retaliatory' becomes necessary. David-King (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
6. "Arsenal goalkeeper Lehmann applied distraction and intimidation techniques to put off the centre-forward"—I agree with PeeJay's comments above. Better just to say what he did, which was shuttle back and forth along the line. "Distraction and intimidation techniques" sounds like something out of Apocalypse Now. — The fact is he did more than that. 'Distraction and intimidation techniques' illustrates that Lehman used the full repertoire. I think the conclusions being drawn from this edit are severely hyperbole. David-King (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
7. "as it transpired"—have looked at the old version of the page including this; it adds no meaning, just clogs up the prose. — Again, with my edit, I deemed it an appropriate fit. David-King (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
8. "van Nistelrooy's shot dazzled Lehman but not the crossbar" per Manual of Style more literal wordings should be preferred to stuff like this. I can imagine someone not so football-savvy might have trouble understanding this in any case. — You don't need to be football-savvy; it merely conveys the idea that Lehman was beaten but the crossbar wasn't. The crossbar would've 'been beaten' had the ball hit the crossbar and gone in or if it had simply gone in. One famous GK described the crossbar as an aid to his hand implying that the crossbar's function is to keep the ball out of the goal in addition to supporting the goal structure. David-King (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
9. "the Nike Geo Merlin II football rebounded back into play" I understand David-King's point above about specific match ball brands and models being commented on in recent years, but so far as I'm aware the exact kind of ball used in this specific match has never been made the focus of discussion. If reliable sources consider the exact model of ball relevant specifically in the context of this match then perhaps there is a case for including it; otherwise, as PeeJay says above, it's just irrelevant. It would be like going to the article on the US Declaration of Independence and adding the brand of pen it was signed with, or what the air humidity was that day. — The pen (or quill) used and the air humidity at the signing of the US Declaration of Independence were not as instrumental in that event as the ball and weather conditions were in this match. As I've stated above, its addition merely invokes in the reader's mind the possibility that the engineering and design of the match ball MAY have influenced the game's events. It is regardless of this, still a fact and a permanent fixture of any PL match which took place in the 2003/2004 season. Given that this was a match of that season, the ball type I think is a fact which is inert when stated. David-King (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
10. If information like Keown roaring at Van Nistelrooy, etc is added it should be with sources, which David-King asserts above exist in great numbers but concurrently does not wish to add. It is not necessary to say both that Van Nistelrooy was startled and that he recoiled in surprise—this is tautology. Just one is enough (the latter is better in my opinion). — I am waiting for this debate to wrap up before I make any further edits and 'recoiled in surprise' was my contribution so I thank you for your preference. In order to shorten this debate, I will no longer argue this point any further. David-King (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
11. The match ends at the final whistle. Anything after that is something else. — As I've explained above, I don't think this is factually correct. The event started before the match. You can't split the event in to half of it being beforehand and the latter half being the aftermath. David-King (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Cheers. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)