Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

Barclays Asia Trophy

Someone needs to add the Barclays Asia Trophy to Tottenham's honors. It may not be a major honor but its still a trophy. 86.158.238.107 (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth noting. These competitions are just friendly games with a name that will make more money. It seems like most teams in them are a win or two away from winning a trophy. This was Tottenham's second "cup final" in about a week. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A more appropriate place to mention it is probably on the 2009-10 season page. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see here for a related discussion on the inclusion of friendly tournaments in players article honours sections. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish

From the article - Support section - 'Many fans, however, disagree with the use of the name "Yid", and believe it will only attract more racism.'

Many should be changed to some. Some is unquestionable whereas many is highly debatable and impossible to quantify.

Also a visit to the spurs ground on a match day will find many tens of thousands singing songs related to this heritage which is highly relevant to judging supporters attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.43.32 (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also a reference should be made to articles such as one by a Spurs fan David Aaronovitch at http://timesonline.typepad.com/david_aaronovitch/2007/03/aaronovitch_yid.html who explains the use and origins of the term amongst Spurs fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.43.32 (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also that few, if any, of these "many fans" support Spurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.123.101 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ownership and share issue

I have re-inserted the ref to increase in share capitalisation (£30m) and purchase by ENIC which disproportionatly increases the % in ownership by ENIC. This is not insignificant given the amount involved at a time of economic uncertainty.If the concensus is that this is not of import then I am happy to see it removed againTmol42 (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just posted a comment on your talk page apologising for reverting your original edit. I didn't mean to do so. I'm not quite sure how, but I reverted it in the process of making another edit. Sorry again. I had a 'mare, as a football pundit might say. The news is obviously relevant. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I know the feeling I wish sometimes there was a WP button that allowed you to bury over hasty reverting in a deep dark hole so nobody can see it. To be honest I got bored watching the g*****s on MoTD and needed a more healthy and worthwhile distractions.Tmol42 (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Add 10:10 support per 4-11 September 2009 Guardian?

Add 10:10 support per 4-11 September 2009 Guardian? 99.54.141.242 (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Superleague Formula

Do we really need this section? This article is suppose to be about the Spurs football team not the Spurs F1 team. Govvy (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that a link to Tottenham Hotspur (Superleague Formula team) is sufficient. No need to summarise that article here, since it is of very minor significance in comparison to the topic as a whole. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, maybe there's scope for merging some sections, such as the affiliated clubs and social responsibility sections, with this one into some sort of affiliations or external relations section? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

New affliated club

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/international/news/tottenhamhotspurlaunchpartnershipwithsouthchina031109.html

The Hong Kong football Club, South China AA is now affliated with Tottenham. Someone please update the page. Endlesstalks (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Eight one win merits mention

Today (November 22 2009) Tottenham beat Wigan 8 goals to 1 - a win so notable that it surely deserves mention here. It might also be worth pointing out that most of the goals were in the second half. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was 9-1, not 8-1. But yes, we should find out if this is a club record of any sort and include it in the article if it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a Spurs record win for a top-flight match. The best place to note this would be the statistics and records section, but all that contains is a link to List of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. records and statistics, which already mentions it. I think that it would make sense to have the most important records listed in the main article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

A NPOV tag has recently been added to the article, Giving there was not a single sentence in this discussion page about the neutrality of the article, I have removed it temporarily. Personally I don't see much in this article that differs from other football club pages, however if some users feel it is bias then fair enough, but hopefully we can discuss it here first before simply adding a tag and degrading the article, thanks Prem4eva (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been through this article a hell of a lot performing clean-ups for POV over the years to help try and keep all aspects neutral. The only thing I haven't done is citation the history. But it should not need any tags for NPOV at all. Govvy (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I re-read the article a couple of times after seeing a tag had been added and I couldn't really see what had provoked it, if the user that added it comes here and says what they feel is NPOV then fair enough, but nothing jumped out at me to warrant it. Prem4eva (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference to POV is that which had been added yesterday to a rather old posting on POV from 2008 at Talk:Tottenham Hotspur F.C.#Some POV in article removed above. Tmol42 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, You're right there Tmol, I'll have a quick look through the article tomorrow for possible POV parts, (if someone doesn't get there before me), think a neutrality tag was prob a bit harsh, phrases like that are used quite often but there you go, cheers Prem4eva (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you have a "quick look", or are you just assuming nobody will notice? - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Have been/am v.busy at the moment, so only doing a small amount on the current season page, but I will get round to it, maybe you should make a real discussion about it instead of an interchangeable response to a comment left in 2008 and it would get a proper look-in, as I said, I will give it a "quick look" when I am able to, which as you seem so worried, will hopefully be in next few days. Prem4eva (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that Dudesleeper has a point here, as proven by these two edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing there isn't POV, The tag was kind of added out of the blue and because I didn't see the comment made in the upper reaches of the page, it was difficult to know where to start, some of the stuff removed is POV and I have been planning to have a look but as I said I have been very busy over the last few days and apart from the quick update of the season page, haven't had time. I started this section simply to find out what was considered POV and when I realised my mistake of missing the explanation, I said I would have a look, since wikipedia isn't any of our jobs, for a few days it took a back-burner and certainly don't think there is any need for snide comments. Prem4eva (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and I'm pleased (as I'm sure Dudesleeper is too) that you're willing to help fix the POV. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made a lot of edits to the History section and all its subsections, I believe that was the only place to really have POV because the rest of the article is just facts and stats, hopefully that sorts it out suitably for the tag to be removed, if not, examples please. 23:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Splitting History section into new article

It seems to me that the history section for Tottenham is too large to sensibly remain on this page. A separate article called something like History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. could cover this in depth, with a briefer version remaining on the main club article. Dancarney (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would support this. The history section is far too long and should be replaced by summary style text. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are also plenty of precedents at Category:History of football (soccer) by club. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As there's no dissent, I've moved the whole section into a new article. Dancarney (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Taarabt

Where is he?! Should be in the 'on loan' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.54.63 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Celebrity supporters and appearances in popular culture

Would this section be of interest beneath the supporters section with verifiable examples such as...in celeb supporters Paul Whitehouse who stated on the Danny Baker radio show broadcast Saturday 13th February 2010 that he was a season ticket holder at Tottenham although he is now more of a fairweather fan. In pop culture an example would be the BBC drama the glory glory years [broadcast in the 90s] in which four girls try to get tickets to the 1961 cup final. Norniron (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need to be mentioned, there has been has been additions before and it just turns into list craft and it starts to get far to big and doesn't really add to the article. Besides the article is about the team, not the supporters. Govvy (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular opinion, but Chelsea have such a section, while another club have an entirely separate page for similar.--ClubOranje^T 22:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Govy. It will add nothing of value and we will spend time removing uncited edits from flyby IP's about so called celebs.Tmol42 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

External Link Broken

The stock quote link is broken. The correct link is http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-news/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=GB0008962986GBGBXAIMI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialmedia (talk • contribs) 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 89.242.44.143, 17 May 2010

The Celtic midfielder Scott Brown is listed as part of the spurs squad.

89.242.44.143 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)