This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
A separate article on 'London riots' seems
too soon. No sources have described the difficulties with fans as 'riots' as far as I can see, and there certainly doesn't seem enough to justify a dedicated article. It would be better to have a detailed section in this article.
RoanokeVirginia (
talk)
23:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)reply
As above. There was an attempt to storm the match, and some drunk behaviour in Leicester and Trafalgar squares. Nothing worth making a new article for. And before people say "yeah but what about...", most of the serious "incidents" that are being shared on Twitter (for some reason by Kpop accounts, I have no idea why) are unfounded or fake. The video with the kicking is not of Italian fans trying to get out, it's of people kicking the English stormers. Notice they're running from a tunnel into an indoor area, and fans are segregated. The video of the person being thrown in the Thames has absolutely no context and no corroborating sources. The "12 stabbed in Chadwell Heath" story is
unknown to the people who live there, and was
actually a scrap much earlier than the game, and according to the police,
caused no injury; nobody can provide any source for it rather than an anonymous facebook status screenshot.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
08:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)reply
England campaign support
Hi! I want to add this statement to the article. Is this notable enough to add?:
Many British athletes spoke out in support of England's Euro 2020 campaign. Cricketer Ben Stokes stated that English footballers are "absolute legends" and the nation is "incredibly proud of what they managed to do."[1]
I don't think so. I don't think one quote from Ben Stokes is enough to substantiate the "many British athletes" claim, and I also don't think we need to be flooding the page with testimony from others to coddle the footballers further. –
PeeJay06:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm relatively new to this but please can you consider the following for inclusion:
One positive impact from social media came about from Chiellini's foul on Saka at the end of normal time, which was the subject of many memes due to the cynical actions of the experienced Italian defender on the young Englishman.
This is the English language wiki not an England wiki. The broadcasting section heavily features the UK coverage with a token mention of RAI. As part of countering systematic bias the article should feature every channel, viewership figures, commentator and pundit from each country that broadcast the game. Of course this would bloat the article so I think the entire section should be deleted.
The "notable spectators" section should also go. Why should "person attends football match" be included in an encyclopedia?
--
Dougal18 (
talk)
13:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)reply
One negative consequence of this being the English language wiki means that most of the contributors are limited to using sources they can understand, i.e. ones in English, which means coverage will probably show a bias towards the England team. If you can provide sources that go into greater detail about the RAI coverage of the game, that would be great. I disagree that we need to add info about broadcasting in other countries; since the match featured England and Italy, their national broadcasters are the most important ones. Broadcasting in other countries is relatively irrelevant. –
PeeJay19:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, it is worth mentioning broadcasting/viewership information for the countries of the two finalists, along with global viewership data if available. The broadcasting information on Italy should be expanded, though its lack of current detail does not necessitate the section's removal entirely (
WP:DIY also applies). I do not see a major issue with including information on notable spectators at major sporting events (see also
2014 FIFA World Cup Final#Notable spectators), especially dignitaries.
S.A. Julio (
talk)
21:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)reply
England fans racism
currently there is basically no context to the section, although England has been one of the most visible teams of Euro doing the BLM knee, and probably the team who got the most vocal backlash. right now the section reads as if the racism came out of nowhere, when in reality it's a lingering problem that, to a certain degree, should have been expected.
2601:602:9200:1310:8D0D:1229:EF80:D043 (
talk)
18:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Done all. There were some links I shifted since they were already mentioned. Didn't add qualifying group since I think it's already clear when it says "England qualified for the tournament..." Inquired about the (H) situation. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★15:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)reply
(
talk page stalker) I've done most of these, except for the block info, merging the UEFA investigation paragraphs, and the cited attendance in the "details" section. I didn't watch the match or have any interest in it, so it's been an interesting read for me to approach the subject in a neutral manner.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I have seen mentions of BBC and ITV pundits on the page while there is no such information regarding the pundits and commentators of bbc 5 live radio. In my opinion radio media details is as important as tv media details. I think it is worthy of a mention atleast. Not necessarily in detail though. You could just mention the commentary team that's it.
Priyavrat Chaudhary (
talk)
07:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I think this source is enough to make a mention about radio commentators.
There is a full match commentary of bbc 5 live radio on YouTube which confirm who were the commentators. But I don't think youtube sources are considered valid.
Personally I think our section on the TV coverage is too detailed already - mentioning who the touchline commentators were and whether the BBC started 10 mins earlier than the ITV coverage, is excessive. I decided to let sleeping dogs lie and not to remove it when working on this for GA and FA last year, but really it could be cut down by a lot. And by the same token we certainly don't need to add radio as well. Note that other football match FAs such as
2014 FIFA World Cup final don't have any such detail, they simply give the global television audience as a one-liner in the match summary. —
Amakuru (
talk)
15:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I appreciate the sentiment that it could be cut down, but using another article as justification for that isn't right. Couldn't we make the reciprocal argument that the 2014 article should be expanded to feature such information? –
PeeJay16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I think adding the media (radio and tv) from the countries that are playing in a match should be included. Only thing that was missing was radio commentators that is why I pointed out in this thread. I agree with you Media details of commentators should be on the page.
Priyavrat Chaudhary (
talk)
16:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah sure, absence of that detail in another article isn't absolute proof, but consulting other examples is a fairly common way to judge whether a particular topic is merited or not. And evidently the FAC reviewers at the 2014 article didn't feel that the absence of detail on German and Argentinian TV pundits for that game was a major problem. But anyway, leaving that aside, it seems we agree on the principle in this article that there may be excessive detail, so the question is how much? Personally I would at least remove commentator details and what time the coverage began, and just leave which networks covered the game, plus the viewer figures. As a neutral reader I don't really care much about any of this detail. —
Amakuru (
talk)
17:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
No, you're right, absence of that information isn't a major obstacle to an article about a football match reaching FA status, but its inclusion shouldn't be either. I think if the commentary was particularly notable, then we'd be justified in using a primary source just to identify the commentators, but as things stand, all we have is a primary source, which doesn't suggest to me that the commentators need mentioning. The broadcaster perhaps, but not the people who worked on the broadcast. –
PeeJay02:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Number of unticketed entries appears way off
Today in Parliament, MP's from both sides cited the figure "3000 - 5000" people who entered without tickets. This article refers only to "eyewitness reports saying the number of illegal entries might be in the hundreds." Does anyone know where the MP's got their figure? It seems this section could use an update.
Also, the bill being debated in Parliament criminalizes ticketless entry into football matches as a direct result of this incident, so maybe it should be mentioned in the aftermath section.
Dcs002 (
talk)
20:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
A separate article on 'London riots' seems
too soon. No sources have described the difficulties with fans as 'riots' as far as I can see, and there certainly doesn't seem enough to justify a dedicated article. It would be better to have a detailed section in this article.
RoanokeVirginia (
talk)
23:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)reply
As above. There was an attempt to storm the match, and some drunk behaviour in Leicester and Trafalgar squares. Nothing worth making a new article for. And before people say "yeah but what about...", most of the serious "incidents" that are being shared on Twitter (for some reason by Kpop accounts, I have no idea why) are unfounded or fake. The video with the kicking is not of Italian fans trying to get out, it's of people kicking the English stormers. Notice they're running from a tunnel into an indoor area, and fans are segregated. The video of the person being thrown in the Thames has absolutely no context and no corroborating sources. The "12 stabbed in Chadwell Heath" story is
unknown to the people who live there, and was
actually a scrap much earlier than the game, and according to the police,
caused no injury; nobody can provide any source for it rather than an anonymous facebook status screenshot.
Unknown Temptation (
talk)
08:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)reply
England campaign support
Hi! I want to add this statement to the article. Is this notable enough to add?:
Many British athletes spoke out in support of England's Euro 2020 campaign. Cricketer Ben Stokes stated that English footballers are "absolute legends" and the nation is "incredibly proud of what they managed to do."[1]
I don't think so. I don't think one quote from Ben Stokes is enough to substantiate the "many British athletes" claim, and I also don't think we need to be flooding the page with testimony from others to coddle the footballers further. –
PeeJay06:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm relatively new to this but please can you consider the following for inclusion:
One positive impact from social media came about from Chiellini's foul on Saka at the end of normal time, which was the subject of many memes due to the cynical actions of the experienced Italian defender on the young Englishman.
This is the English language wiki not an England wiki. The broadcasting section heavily features the UK coverage with a token mention of RAI. As part of countering systematic bias the article should feature every channel, viewership figures, commentator and pundit from each country that broadcast the game. Of course this would bloat the article so I think the entire section should be deleted.
The "notable spectators" section should also go. Why should "person attends football match" be included in an encyclopedia?
--
Dougal18 (
talk)
13:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)reply
One negative consequence of this being the English language wiki means that most of the contributors are limited to using sources they can understand, i.e. ones in English, which means coverage will probably show a bias towards the England team. If you can provide sources that go into greater detail about the RAI coverage of the game, that would be great. I disagree that we need to add info about broadcasting in other countries; since the match featured England and Italy, their national broadcasters are the most important ones. Broadcasting in other countries is relatively irrelevant. –
PeeJay19:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Yes, it is worth mentioning broadcasting/viewership information for the countries of the two finalists, along with global viewership data if available. The broadcasting information on Italy should be expanded, though its lack of current detail does not necessitate the section's removal entirely (
WP:DIY also applies). I do not see a major issue with including information on notable spectators at major sporting events (see also
2014 FIFA World Cup Final#Notable spectators), especially dignitaries.
S.A. Julio (
talk)
21:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)reply
England fans racism
currently there is basically no context to the section, although England has been one of the most visible teams of Euro doing the BLM knee, and probably the team who got the most vocal backlash. right now the section reads as if the racism came out of nowhere, when in reality it's a lingering problem that, to a certain degree, should have been expected.
2601:602:9200:1310:8D0D:1229:EF80:D043 (
talk)
18:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Done all. There were some links I shifted since they were already mentioned. Didn't add qualifying group since I think it's already clear when it says "England qualified for the tournament..." Inquired about the (H) situation. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★15:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)reply
(
talk page stalker) I've done most of these, except for the block info, merging the UEFA investigation paragraphs, and the cited attendance in the "details" section. I didn't watch the match or have any interest in it, so it's been an interesting read for me to approach the subject in a neutral manner.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)reply
I have seen mentions of BBC and ITV pundits on the page while there is no such information regarding the pundits and commentators of bbc 5 live radio. In my opinion radio media details is as important as tv media details. I think it is worthy of a mention atleast. Not necessarily in detail though. You could just mention the commentary team that's it.
Priyavrat Chaudhary (
talk)
07:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I think this source is enough to make a mention about radio commentators.
There is a full match commentary of bbc 5 live radio on YouTube which confirm who were the commentators. But I don't think youtube sources are considered valid.
Personally I think our section on the TV coverage is too detailed already - mentioning who the touchline commentators were and whether the BBC started 10 mins earlier than the ITV coverage, is excessive. I decided to let sleeping dogs lie and not to remove it when working on this for GA and FA last year, but really it could be cut down by a lot. And by the same token we certainly don't need to add radio as well. Note that other football match FAs such as
2014 FIFA World Cup final don't have any such detail, they simply give the global television audience as a one-liner in the match summary. —
Amakuru (
talk)
15:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I appreciate the sentiment that it could be cut down, but using another article as justification for that isn't right. Couldn't we make the reciprocal argument that the 2014 article should be expanded to feature such information? –
PeeJay16:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I think adding the media (radio and tv) from the countries that are playing in a match should be included. Only thing that was missing was radio commentators that is why I pointed out in this thread. I agree with you Media details of commentators should be on the page.
Priyavrat Chaudhary (
talk)
16:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah sure, absence of that detail in another article isn't absolute proof, but consulting other examples is a fairly common way to judge whether a particular topic is merited or not. And evidently the FAC reviewers at the 2014 article didn't feel that the absence of detail on German and Argentinian TV pundits for that game was a major problem. But anyway, leaving that aside, it seems we agree on the principle in this article that there may be excessive detail, so the question is how much? Personally I would at least remove commentator details and what time the coverage began, and just leave which networks covered the game, plus the viewer figures. As a neutral reader I don't really care much about any of this detail. —
Amakuru (
talk)
17:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)reply
No, you're right, absence of that information isn't a major obstacle to an article about a football match reaching FA status, but its inclusion shouldn't be either. I think if the commentary was particularly notable, then we'd be justified in using a primary source just to identify the commentators, but as things stand, all we have is a primary source, which doesn't suggest to me that the commentators need mentioning. The broadcaster perhaps, but not the people who worked on the broadcast. –
PeeJay02:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Number of unticketed entries appears way off
Today in Parliament, MP's from both sides cited the figure "3000 - 5000" people who entered without tickets. This article refers only to "eyewitness reports saying the number of illegal entries might be in the hundreds." Does anyone know where the MP's got their figure? It seems this section could use an update.
Also, the bill being debated in Parliament criminalizes ticketless entry into football matches as a direct result of this incident, so maybe it should be mentioned in the aftermath section.
Dcs002 (
talk)
20:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply