Talk:FC Zenit Saint Petersburg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dragan Chadikovski

Him listed on Zenit site: http://www.fc-zenit.ru/info/person.phtml?id=229
One of numerous articles about his return to Zenit, namely the reserve squad: http://www.rusfootball.info/2007/08/02/dragan_chadikovski_vernulsja_v_zenit.html

This is the list of players eligible to play in the Premier League. No Cadikovski. Conscious 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Rotenberg

Boris Rotenberg (Борис Ротенберг) is in Zenit's squad, see this and this. I'm not sure this spelling of his name is correct though, I have no English-language sources. Conscious 14:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Zenit's official site is quite trustworthy. — Anrie Nord 2006-03-25 22:58Z

Spivak and Horshkov

The situation with these guys is quite complicated, so instead of just changing flags back and forth I suggest that the footnote be improved. So, these players have played for Ukraine in official matches, and thus are not eligible to play for any other national team ever. That's why it makes sense to have Ukrainian flags next to their names (according to their "football nationality", so to speak). Now, they seem to have obtained Russian citizenship (see [1]) because of restrictions on the number of foreign players. So they are citizens of Russia now. AFAIK, to obtain Russian citizenship one must refuse citizenship of any other country, so they shouldn't have Ukrainian citizenship now.

I have tried to improve the footnote; any suggestions? Conscious 12:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

On the Russian version of Zenit on wikipedia, these two players both have the Russian flag listed next to them. Would this be something for consideration concerning the English version?

Likthem

Jerseys

I am not quite sure what the situation is but I have seen Zenit play a numebr of their games in light blue jerseys. Could anyone tell me whether these are the home, away or third jerseys. I am pretty sure that the away jerseys are still white though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likthem (talk • contribs)

The facts and figures for the 2006 season (official matches only) are (Source):

• Zenit played 17 home matches in dark blue jerseys, 3 in white, 2 in light blue;
• Zenit played 12 away matches in dark blue jerseys, 10 in white.

So I'd say that the light blue jerseys are third choice. Conscious 09:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright after that Ill agree that the light blue jerseys seem as though they are the third jereys. Likthem

RFPL squad list

Zenit have communicated their squad list to the Russian Premier League. It doesn't contain Panov and Hyun, and Dominguez is listed as a midfielder. Conscious 05:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Famous players list

While the criteria for inclusion in this list are yet to be established, I think that current players should not be added. And please stop adding Hyun Young-Min, he may be a star elsewhere, but his career it Zenit wasn't too long or successful, with only 17 matches during one season. Conscious 06:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard of this one player named Mikhail Birukov (I'm not sure if thats how you spell his name). He was a goaltender for the team during the 80's. I'm not entirely sure if he should be added or not but hear that he was an excellent player. Also I think someone should find an article or write one about Lev Burchalkin since he is listed as a famous player but no one know about him. Can someone also check what I wrote in the Spivak section of this page. Thanks!

Likthem

RE: Main discussion

As has been discussed priorly, a firm criteria needs to be established in including notable players and not just every footballer who had an extensive stay with the club. I do not know of any global criteria, but a more straneous filtering process with better formatting for the display (akin to those of European clubs) should be considered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.178.99 (talk • contribs). 04:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just discovered one from WikiProject Football: "Noted players of the club, who have had a major impact on the club's history. The section should use external sources for the list, not the personal opinions of editors". Is this a good criteria, what do you think? — Ash063 23:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In regards to listing of transfers: there are three main problems. They soon become irrelevant, as for example some of the listed transfers were quite dated and no longer held any bearing - it would be unfair to consider some of those players recent transfers any longer as they are fully integrated into the team and have been with Zenit for a long time. Seconadly, the quality of the article suffers as it is hard to maintain a complete list of transfer - minor players such as Cadikovsky are far too easily overlooked and false reporting is likely to occur as transfers to the RPL have a tendancy to fall through after seemingly being done deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.178.99 (talk • contribs). 04:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Recent transfers are transfers from recent transfer window. So transfers section should exist (as it exists for every major european club article, and also some local one articles have it, see Lokomotiv) and should contain only recent transfes like Lombaerts one, are you agree?
Secondly, strongly disagree, quality of the article wouldn't suffer. By the same logic Wikipedia shouldn't exist because somebody can post false info in it. You know there are tools in Wiki to revert wrong edits. You can see how it is put into practice in connection with Pato in AC Milan article history. And it's easy to create a rule about including player in transfer section or not. For example, if
1)There was a press-conference where player was presented
and 2)Club representative gave an interview where said that the player will play for the first team
then this player should be in transfer section. Agree? — Ash063 23:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I think that transfers section isn't required. But anyway likes of Poskus and Samsonov should be mentioned somewhere as loaned out players. So is it ok to mention them in the squad list or it's better to create an 'out on loan' section? — Ash063 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, it is necessairy to maintain the present format of team infomation articles for all RPL clubs, which may not be possible to do at the present moment for quite a few clubs. Until these issues are thouroughly adressed, it is my recommendation that Zenit's article be maintained in the current format, with any information that garners mention being added in the written section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.178.99 (talk • contribs). 04:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, the quality of articles would suffer hardly. Look, for example, at Amkar Perm article. Since november 2006 there is only some changes in the squad list, spelling etc. How the fact that nobody at the moment wants to develop this article may affect development of other article like Zenit one? That's obviously a bad idea about a single format. Need examples? Compare Porto article with Leixoes one, Bayern article with Karlsruher one, Ajax article with Venlo one, Lyon article with Lorient one, Milan article with Livorno one, Barcelona article with Almería one, ManUtd article with Wigan one, and you find that there is no single format in articles of clubs from the same league. These are clear examples that all clubs are not the same and some single format for all articles should not exist. Any objections? — Ash063 23:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Firms

You forget about NORTH BASTION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.48.208.215 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominguez

Alejandro Dominguez is listed on his site as a Striker/Attacking Midfield. I claim that he should be listed as midfield however another says he should be listed as a forward. I need your opinions. Likthem 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No need for further investigation. I have checked out the official website and he is listed as a forward. I correct my mistake. Likthem 23:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

He is a forward who can also play in midfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.52.119 (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable Former Players

As it stands now, the list of notable former players is too extensive and messy. Many of the players on the list and and their corresponsing tenures in St. Petersburg are simply not notable. A reduced list is in order, until then, it serves no purpose whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.178.99 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Main discussion

Is there really any "RPL article style"? I know only that there is some good articles about major European teams, see: Manchester United F.C., Chelsea F.C., FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, Sevilla FC etc. So why the article shouldn't aim to be as cool as european ones are, but should forever stay as poor as some local ones are now? Why Real Madrid encyclopaedic article should contain transfers, huge list of former players, foreigners etc but Zenit encyclopaedic article shouldn't? Is there any reason why useful information can not be added? — Ash063 00:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What I think about notable former Russian players list (I've simply copied USSR part from ru-wiki). This list was created as a guideline. Maybe some players shouldn't be there, but it's a controversial point for every player for sure. It's only a question of justice. Almost all of this guys were important or even key players for years, some were included for other reasons. I think that excuding some important player of 90's just because many forgot him or even never knew him is very unfair. And of course "notable former Zenit players" means "former players which are notable for Zenit" not "former Zenit players which are notable for everybody in the world of football". By the way, is there any rule about player's notability? — Ash063 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to ongoing defamation campaign by British press

As Zenit's fine run in UEFA Cup continued, British press, having taken bad relations between Russian Federation and United Kingdom into account, decided to launch a defamation campaign against Russian champions, accusing Zenit fans of racism. This article, titled "Zenit fans are racist, admits Dick Advocaat", is an example of that. These articles are libellous synthesis of lies, and I strongly recommend not to insert any information from them in Wikipedia, because such edits will be reverted as per Wikipedia:Libel. "Advocaat's Russian interview" they are referring to is originally there, posted in a blog which belongs to Russian sports journal with dubious reputation. According to this unreliable source, Advocaat said the following: "В составах всех российских команд есть темнокожие игроки, и я бы с радостью с ними работал. Дело в наших фанатах. Если честно, я не понимаю, как можно уделять так много внимания цвету кожи. Я одинаково отношусь абсолютно ко всем – белым, черным, красным. Однако фанаты – самое важно, что есть у «Зенита». Поэтому я ближайшем будущем я собираюсь спросить у них напрямую, как они отреагируют, если в «Зените» окажется темнокожий футболист. Я не хочу покупать игрока, которого не примут фанаты." (translation: "Every Russian team has dark-skinned players in their squad, I would like to work with such players as well. The point is our fans. Honestly I can't understand why they put too much emphasis on skin colour. I equally threat white, black and red. However, fans are most important of those which belongs to Zenit. That's why in near future I'm going to ask them directly what they will do if Zenit will sign dark-skinned player. I don't want to sign a player whom fans won't accept.") Zenit fans reacted fiercely on their guestbook. As of 5 May, it's still unclear whether this interview was made up or not, and the club's management still made no statement, nor they brought an action against libel-spreaders. As I pointed out above, articles in British press are synthesis of a few words from the dubious original and lies, such as:

• Dick Advocaat was unable to recruit Brazilian players because the first question Zenit fans asked when a signing was imminent was: "Is he black?" - lie
• fans were unlikely to give their permission for buying a black player - lie
• When Advocaat tried to sign Frenchman Mathieu Valbuena recently, the first question on fans websites was: "Is he a negro?" - lie
• In March some of Olympique Marseille's black players complained that Zenit fans made monkey noises and hurled banana skins at them during their Uefa Cup tie. - these allegations will be heard by UEFA's Control and Disciplinary Body on 8 May.
• In November, Cameroon midfielder Serge Branco, who played in the Russian League for Krylia Sovetov Samara last year, said: "Each time I play in St Petersburg I have to listen to racist insults from the stands. Zenit bosses do not do anything about it which makes me think they are racists too." - he lied, FC Krylia Sovetov Samara publicly apologised to Zenit for his words [2]
• Regarding "Zenit are the only Russian premier team never to have signed a black player", this is actually true, but not related to racism. Zenit have signed their first expatriate footballer not from ex-Soviet countries only in 2002, and their first and only expatriate footballer from South America, Argentine player Dominguez from fellow Russian club Rubin, only in 2007! Zenit are the only Russian team never to have signed Brazilian.

I hope this message would help to make the whole situation a bit more clear.  Jhony   04:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, all pretty predictable stuff from The British media - should we add the racist histories of the entire Premiership to their club articles? And Rangers! That cesspool of sectarianism!! Irony abounds. Sarah777 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777, I suspect you are a Fenian Celtic fan, I guess your team and Zenit share a mutual hobby of throwing bananas at black people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.209.247 (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a Celtic fan - little interest in football actually. But given the history of violence and racism (and in Rangers case add sectarianism) in British football I'd advise that folk in glass-houses should not throw stones. At least it appears Zenit have signed Catholics. Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get into making personal attacks.

Whatever the truth of these allegations, there doesn't seem to be any support for the statement "hundreds of Zenit fans racially abused Marseilles' black players ..." in the articles cited. Camillus 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't get too worked up by unsigned comments by cowardly sectarians! Sarah777 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the original interview of Advocaat in Russian http://www.sports.ru/blog/dud/4622031.html. Those who speak Russian can check that he doesn't mention racism. As to publications in some British newspapers, I think it's an awkward attempt to discredit somehow Zenit before the final match. I'm curious, would you call each club that doesn't have black players "racist club". I hope it'll be brilliant game. Go, Zenit. Crash anti-football. P.S. I'm actually an old fan of Spartak Moscow . Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, as I've said above, trustworthiness of that original interview is challenged, especially taking into account that a blog from the same site which belongs to another Russian sports journal (which means pretty the same people) once misrepresent Tymoschuk's words so considerably that the captain made an official statement that he has never said such things.[3] Jhony (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Zubar's accusations: "Club is very surprised with the accusation of our fans in racism propaganda, and for racist statements about French footballers, which appeared in press after team left our city. There wasn’t a single word about this before or during the match, as well, as on the post-match press-conference, by Olympique’s players, coaches or managers." - from official statement [4] Jhony (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The BBC have jumped on this bandwagon. Even if it isn't true (which I have no idea whether it is or isn't), that doesn't matter, if enough reliable sources (such as the BBC) mention it then eventually it can go into the article. Remember verifiability, not truth. John Hayes^talk 07:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And The Times. That's now two usually very reliable sources. John Hayes^talk 10:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And in this article Martin Samuel (an award winning journelist) says he is unconvinced by Zenit's explanation, which in any case isn't independent of the subject, so should be disregarded here, beyond mentioning that they denied it. John Hayes^talk 12:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously the Times, Telegraph and the BBC; could you find any more reliable and trustworthy media institutions.Londo06 12:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh...yes. The old Pravda for example was about equally supportive of it's establishment. None could be accused of reliability though. Didn't the BBC and The Times tell us horrendous giant fibs about Iraq and the WMD thingies? Which led to a million slaughtered innocents in Iraq? Neither reliable nor truthful if you ask me. Sarah777 (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On the bright side a young man hereabouts informed me that Zenit "crushed" the sectarian British team and that the typical British hooligans behaved like, well, typical British hooligans. Clearly the plodding Colonel Blimps in BBC/Times have zeros sense of irony. Guess that's what comes of being an American poodle! They say dogs come to resemble their owners. Sarah777 (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, please, with all due respect, don't drag this off-topic like this. This not the place for Anglophobic soapboxing. Almost all Rangers fans in any case are Scottish or Northern Irish, and "Britain" has no common footballing culture. Regarding conspiracies in the "British" press. I seriously doubt an English journalist sat down and thought "lets tell a lie about Russia in revenge for Litvinenko". They've just read the stories and put it all together with little scepticism, Russia being in eastern Europe where such things are normal (I'm describing here how they'll think, not the reality). Something along the lines of "their fans have been accused of racism in some quarters", though I fail to see why these stories are getting so much attention on wiki when Zenit have just won the UEFA Cup. This is wiki though, so I guess it figures. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, I'm contextualising not soapboxing. There is a common culture of British hooliganism in the areas you mentioned; Linfield, Rangers and Milwall - all with their thugs, hooligans, racists and Union Jacks. Very common. And the simplistic example of the hack plotting misses entirely how the conditioning media works. The monkeys are not so much trained as selected. Also; I doubt there is a single British club that hasn't got a racist element or some incident in its past - should I introduce that into every article? And imagine the reaction!! But if it goes into Zenit then Chelsea and Man U and Rangers and Leeds etc etc etc will follow. Fully referenced. I promise. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's "British" about it, and your comments might cause offense as you are attempting to group people together in a negative context by means of "national character". For which I see no purpose here other than soapboxing! And btw, every culture in the world has young men inclined to violence, and the fact that English, Dutch and German fans are all known to misbehave doesn't make it a European thing, as there is hoologanism in Uruguay and elsewhere. Scottish fans have a better behaviour record than even Irish fans, let alone English fans. Rangers have always been a dark horse though, with their songs and their sinister sectarian Ulster unionist backers, but in this case you had 150,000 + people in a city that had prepared for a few thousand. The troubles two days ago weren't really typical of English or Scottish "hooliganism", such as it exists ... more like social disorder in part of a large gathering (normal football hooliganism is more organized). Regarding the political and historical sentiments of Linfield and its sister Rangers ... there's little British about that either, as such things are extremely foreign to all British outside Northern Ireland and the latter's colony in south-west Scotland. ;) As much as these guys are proud of being "British", they are in practice strange to the rest of the kingdom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess there are Zenit fans here taking offensive at the politically motivated attempt to label their club and supporters as more racist than the average British team. Sauce for goose; sauce for gander. And I'm being repeatedly told, as are a raft of other Irish editors, that verifiability trumps "not giving offence" per Wiki rules. The hooliganism and racism of British clubs is verifiable. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the accusations are politically motivated. I don't care for your love of grouping people into abstract made-up "national" categories, esp. football fans actually from 4 different football nations, but before trying to exploit wiki policy to soap-box and POV-push, you should read those again and you might wanna read WP:UNDUE too. You're responding to theories of conspiracy of "British football media" (which doesn't really exist) about racism among the fans of one Russian club, a story reported elsewhere in Europe, by pointing out on the wikipedia talk page of that club that "British" clubs have a history of racism and sectarianism. This is irrelevant. It's only relevant if the story is accurate, and if it's accurate, is it is noteworthy or a violation of WP:UNDUE. While I sympathize to an extent with your frustrations in other parts of your wiki experience, I think you need to read WP:POINT, as your interest in Zenit appears not to be content-motivated, and your contributions don't look likely to do anything but stir up anglophobia and other forms of unhelpful irrationality. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Britain not a nation? And again I (politely) point out that I am not soapboxing, but supplying much-needed context. Please note your repeated accusation is bordering on breaching WP:CIVIL. I am not responding to any "theories" - I am observing facts. Elimination of POV is surely content-motivated? As I said giving offense is something we Irish are constantly told is second to verifiability; so if "anglophobia" is a collateral effect of the verifiable truth what can one do - it certainly won't be "irrationally" stirred-up by me. I don't do irrationality. As for WP:POINTY, that charge is one of the most abused on Wiki; usually to cover up naked applications of double-standards in terms of the application of the rules. Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, convo has gone far enough off topic. Keep it on your own or my talk page. If you wanna continue with such rhetoric, keep it there. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was replying to YOU, point by point. Maybe you'd stay on-topic then? And btw - replying to questions/charges isn't "rhetoric". Again I must draw your attention to WP:CIVIL. Sarah777 (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The allegations by the British press could very well be true because they tend to correspond with well-reported racist incidents in Saint Petersburg (that were unrelated to soccer). Andries (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And the allegations of racism in British clubs could very well be true because they tend to correspond with well-reported racist incidents in the UK (that were unrelated to soccer). Sarah777 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)