Talk:Thierry Henry

Sources

While reverting the removal of Clairefontaine I found this Telegraph article which might be useful to cite. I would actually recommend that the article move away from using goal.com as a source, and perhaps jockbio too. It's merely a fact checking matter, but I'm 100% certain that the goal.com information can be found in better and more informative sources, and perhaps a couple of inaccuracies may be ironed out in the process. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 14:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, probably a ref at a time. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

All-time English Premiership goal-scorers

From the article:
"Henry is currently third in the list of all-time English Premiership goal-scorers, behind Alan Shearer and Andy Cole.".
How about mentioning the #goals for each, and perhaps the #years it took to achieve this? Shearer and Cole played for ~16 years, while Henry did this in 9 years (If not mistaken). Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

2005 FA Cup final

People keep editing this to be wrong. With the FA Cup, only players involved in the final (the starting XI and named substitutes) get receive medals regardless of whether or not they have been involved in the previous rounds. This is unlike the Champions League where every member of the official CL squad for the season gets one. Henry therefore DID NOT get a medal in 2005, as Robert Pires DID NOT get a medal in 2002 when he missed the final due to his serious knee injury.

Can you find a source to back this up? The rules at the moment states that 25 medals are given to the winning team for players and staff. They say nothing about having to have been involved in the final to get one. srushe (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Teams can even request extra medals for players they deem to have had a significant impact but missed the final, just like players who have not played enough league games to automatically warrant a league medal can still get one on their teams request. So jut because Henry missed the game doesn't mean he did not get a medal, so an actual source would be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.34.131.58 (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Archived

Just a heads up to say that I archived all the old talk. Was surprised to see a GA review still hanging around! Hope no one minds. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Career statistics

I was looking at Barcelona FC website. Their statistic for Henry is different than the one here. I've notice that the current statistic is from soccernet.espn.go.com . I went to UEFA official website and La Liga official website. They have the same statistic as Barcelona FC official website. Here are the link if anyone want to take a look

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/futbol/temporada_08-09/estadistiques/jugadors/Henry/fitxa.html

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/players/player=24057/index.html

http://www.lfp.es/Default.aspx?tabid=113&Controltype=plan&IDEquipo=5

Elsonlam1 (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh oh. I just notice that UEFA website gives Henry 3 assists for the 2008-09 Champions League but Barca website only give him 2. Beside that, everything else looks the same. Anyone want to weight in? Elsonlam1 (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably should decide on one source for easier referencing purposes. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the friendly games with France? The goals we have listed here are just for the competitive games and not for the friendlies. Other players, like Nicolas Anelka, have the friendly goals included.--Janisterzaj (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Assists Statistics

Some of those stats are wrong. For instance I know for a fact from watching videos that Henry had more than 1 assist in the Champions League in 02/03. If I wanted to change it would I need to provide a corroborative source, or is my own testimony enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.4.83 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The former. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, is a youtube video a good enough source? Renoog (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The keys to citing sources in Wikipedia are found in WP:RS and WP:verifiability. Once you've read these, you can make the call as to whether youtube is suitable in this instance. Chensiyuan (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Man of the Match Award

Henry was not MOTM against Italy in the Euro 2000 final. Francesco Totti was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.41.60 (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Simply following the ref. You've got a ref? Chensiyuan (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Career stat total

Why is it that whenever I try to affix a career stat total to the stat box it gets erased? Club appearances, goals, and assists totals are included but a cumulative total is not. What is the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.151.50 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Because nobody ever updates the totals regularly, causing a lot of counterproductivity. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Castrol Rankings

Should we include the Castrol Rankings in this article and on other football players articles who are ranked high up?

Simba1409 (talk) 08:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry's handball against Rep. Ireland

On 18th Nov 2009 in extra time in the the World Cup qualifier against Rep. Ireland Henry controversially double-handled the ball in the penalty area to control it before passing the ball to William Gallas who tapped the ball in sending France to the World Cup in South Africa. Chrismccarthy (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a line about this at the end of international career and cited appropriate sources. let's keep this factual even if understandably it is an emotive topic.

There are a numerous sources. It's easy to keep this factual. I'd imagine more fallout and references will be available in the coming days. Fribbler (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or chatroom, but the signal to noise ratio has been out of kilter for a while, so I've taken the unusual step of semi-protecting for a short period. Please see WP:TALK for reasons why, but meanwhile there are thousands of footy chatrooms out there; use them, not us. That's if you really think it matters.Rodhullandemu 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)I agree entirely with semi-protecting for a while. I'd likely add at least a date to the incident, though. Nialler (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

/* The handball... */ It is factually inaccurate to describe Henry's handball in the France versus Ireland playoff as "controversy".Controversy implies debate yet there is not debate about this issue as Henry has admitted that he has cheated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.161.202 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The handball should be moved up to the intro section in order of significance. Surely it is at least as significant as his endorsement of Gilette that he is now "perhaps the most vilified footballer on the planet" (the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/nov/19/thierry-henry-france-football-worldcup)? There can be no reasonable ambiguity about this. Even the french newspapers report his actions as cheating and sporting misconduct. This is now a central aspect of his biography and the page should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.72.164 (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody never talk about the fault on Anelka, after he had passed all defence including goalkeeper ... any ref on this ? 82.66.246.185 (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this is English Wikipedia so we only care about referee calls that the English and the Irish don't like. It is not a problem that referees give advantages to the English and the Irish, but if it's the other way around, we should create articles about it and put notes about it in about every article there is. Is it NPOV? No, it is extreme chauvinism, but that's the way English Wikipedia works, unfortunately.Jeppiz (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeppiz, Your trolling is unhelpful here. To 82.66.246.185, this article is about Henry - minute details about one game should not be put in here. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right Neil, but it's hard not to get the impression that that's the way it works. Not by any policy but by the behaviour of so-called "fans". Every time a team from the British Isles exits a major competition we see the same thing here on Wikipedia, but never if they should win by a contested call. Jeppiz (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand it's frustrating responding to drive-by editors but the problem is not limited to the British and football. Things go pretty much the same way in American football or international hockey articles. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you're right. The biggest advantage of Wikipedia is that people can edit topics for which they have a passion, and that is also its biggest disadvantage.Jeppiz (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Michel Platini himself monitering this talk page? Comments are being deleted for no other reason than that the petty clique of henry-philes that pander to him on this page have enough wiki-muscle, by sheer virtue of their years of servility, to have entries deleted. Well guess what, the comments are going to keep on coming.

The handball...

Nialler (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Two of the links are already dead.

I'd also advise close monitoring of this biography. I'd suspect that it will be subject to quite a bit of comment, and possibly some vandalism in the near future. FWIW, the only link regarding the handball that is still working is the Guardian link.Nialler (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All three links are working for me as of 00:03 UTC. Fribbler (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nialler (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC) My apologies; all links are working. I'd remain vigilant of vandalism, though, particularly in article rated so highly. Nialler (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is semi-protected at the moment, at least. As, unusually, is the talk page. Fribbler (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nialler (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC) To be fair, the contraversy has reached a very serious pitch in the international press.

It doesn't serve Wiki well to allow such a major inciden in his career to be minimised to a minor mention. I'll be upfront and declare an interest: I'm an Irishman living in France. All of the major media outlets to which I have access have covered it in a manner which questions what will be the legacy of his career, and whether this incident will tarnish his previous good name.

The FAI have requested a replay and the calls for a replay have gone to Government level in Ireland, even resulting in a reply at French Government level: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1119/ireland.html

We are less than 24 hours from the incident, we cannot say whether it is a major incident in his life or not. This is an encyclopedia, not a news agency.Jeppiz (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The Irish minister of justice Dermot Ahern made a personal appeal to Sarkozy to ask for a rematch - an unprecedented action as Sarkozy himelf acknowledged as his own defence for keeping out of it. This is a massive incident. And much as I abhor any member of Fianna Fail, the ruling Irish party, even they trounce Henry, Domenech, and Michel Platini for credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.217.134 (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So? What we CAN do is judge to the best of our abilites whether it will be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GustenNyberg (talk • contribs) 21:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we CAN'T do that - see WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia documents what was and what is, not what will be. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It already IS an international incident, with the Irish government weighing in. It needs more than one line!--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The criterion goes beyond "is" -- this governmental response is part of a development in a wider context; I don't see how this article needs to go beyond what it has said so far. What is wrong with waiting? Chensiyuan (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the assertion that this will be a major incident in his life. It probably will be, but Wikipedia should be behind the curve in documenting this rather than ahead of it. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

But why is this partiality for Henry's article alone. There are other articles like Tom Henning Øvrebø even mentioning the usage of F word used by players for bad refereeing decision. P|^|C (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Any text referring to recent notoriety should be carefully examined and removed if warranted. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The incident is being widely referred to as the 'Hand of Gaul' - what is the criteria for putting that in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.8.42 (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources for starters. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

to do...

delink second wikification of Italian national football team in the international career section. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

--Djln (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Although I can clearly see this is an emmotive issue, Henry has cheated, not only himself and Ireland but Football in general. Case in point, see Diego Maradonna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.209.216.245 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Link

Could be linked to Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off) when unblocked Djln--Djln (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotected}}

Please can the article Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off) be pipe linked into the International career section, like such: Henry was involved in a controversy in the second leg. The word 'controversy' could probably be changed to 'controversial handball incident' for accuracy. MickMacNee (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not use the word "controversy" as a link like that. Nor do I think that it's essential that this be added during the cool-off period. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And ye shall know a thousand pissed off Irishmen and Women descended on this page… But why is full protection necessary? EDIT-Now I see, wasn't IPs.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What is it if not a controversy? And what is this cool off period you speak of? There is no reason not to add it now, it exists, it should be linked. MickMacNee (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Best not do this while the page is up for deletion. I've removed the request for now. — Jake Wartenberg 01:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand this. Why would we not want to add it just because it is up for deletion? Currently, given the huge interest, the amount of information in this article, and its protected status, makes Wikipedia look like a bit of a joke tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't see why it's a joke (though WP is a joke in many other respects). It goes back to the fundamental rationale of the BLP policies. Moreover, WP is not meant to be at the forefront of updating developing stories. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, how is keeping a link to an article out of this article, just because it is up for deletion, respecting BLP? How is not describing something that is being called in hundreds of sources a 'controversy', a controversy, respecting BLP? If the issue is BLP, then reword it, all I want is the link to the article added. When they get there, they will be more than able to see for themselves that it is a controversy. As for not the place for developing stories, I am quite sure the article on Fort Hood had a link to Fort Hood shooting added to it within microseconds of it being created, so why the foot dragging here? Makes no sense at all to me. P.S. To the admin whoever protected it, you're now famous! MickMacNee (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely pointless ot mentioning it, it's now historical fact and unless I'm mistaken this is an encyclopaedia of sorts? One of two things is happening here: An admin is getting all excited over their powers or their French - possibly both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.58.171 (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the International career section. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the request. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I got no actual answer to the question above as to why the above requested edit cannot be done simply because the article is up for deletion. The article exits, why can it not be linked to? We don't hide articles just because they are up for deletion. Change the word controversy if you must (it is used in all the sources though), but that isn't a reason not to treat wikipedia as a wiki, and actualy link between articles. MickMacNee (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thierry Henry official twitter is fake

The self proclaimed official Thierry Henry twitter page is in fact fake & has since been suspended by Twitter because of this. Please remove the external link. 82.4.184.39 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for telling us about this. — Jake Wartenberg 23:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)