Talk:Disgrace of Gijón

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pious anti-German garbage?[edit]

Given how many times this sort of thing occurs in football (where teams legally play out a mutually beneficial result especially if both teams have some cultural link) I'm not sure this one game merits an entire article all to itself as if unique in football? At the time it just appeared to be an excuse for German-bashing.

Many aspects of the 1982 World Cup were suspicious point blank (e.g. the draw was done in secret and some newspapers printed/predicted the group draw 50% right beforehand based on what they said had been fixed beforehand by FIFA - ok so they didn't get it 100% right beforehand but what are the chances? Has Wikipedia got that article and if not why not?)

Untitled[edit]

Before it does go up:

  • The game didn't change tournament rules: it is assumed to be (but I don't recall FIFA ever admitting) that it was a catalyst for such change.
  • previously, not previous.
  • Close relations is an unremarkable claim, but friendly might need either a source or rephrasing.
  • Most of the participants are probably still alive, so care should be taken of anything potentially libellous. Current phrasing looks like an assertion, rather than a report of wideheld suspicion, that there was an implicit pact.

Good idea to get it started though. Kevin McE (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Didn't notice this comment before I moved the article.--EchetusXe 14:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Disgrace of Gijón. The other article is now at United States v England (1950 FIFA World Cup) and I won't revert that move, even though moves should not be made while at RM, but there is no prejudice against a new RM for that article specifically. Jenks24 (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– Restore original titles from later moves. These games aren't referred to by their score (very few are); they're referred to by their year. Check any newspaper bringing up "West Germany & Austria's 1982 match" and "West Germany & Algeria's 1982 upset" and the like lately (due to fears of collusion on US v. Germany and now Germany & Algeria's rematch); they don't say "West Germany 1-0 Austria." Similarly, the US and England have surely played each other many times in friendlies, and a score of 1-0 is hardly uncommon; if you want to talk about the 1950 match, you have to say 1950. Also note that the score-as-disambiguator is quite rare in Category:FIFA World Cup matches (for all that I'd be willing to scrap consistency if these matches really were referred to by score-only in modern sources - but they aren't.). Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC) SnowFire (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note: I'd have no objection to Austria v. West Germany (1982) if we want to do alphabetical order, but not sure what the standard is here. Regardless, 1982 needs to be in the title.

Not included in this move: Note that Italy 4–3 West Germany (1970 FIFA World Cup) was originally at "Game of the Century" before being moved, which seems a problematic title. I'm not really familiar with that match, so I'll defer to others whether it should be restored to "Game of the Century" or "Italy v. West Germany (1970)" or something else; seems worthy of a separate RM, anyway, pending the results of this one. SnowFire (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a bit more context, but I also think there should be some sort of consistency, like perhaps "home team vs. away team (competition)". The title "England v. United States (1950)" tells you nothing of what the article might really about: sporting match? International court case? I don't mind removing the scores from the titles, but I absolutely think the competition should be included. —howcheng {chat} 22:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That might apply for other matches, but Home & Away are meaningless at the World Cup. Anyway, to be sure, (19XX World Cup) or (19XX FIFA World Cup) would still be better than using the score as a disambiguator, but I don't think it's actually necessary. A Google search for "England United States 1950" returns 10/10 links that deal with the soccer match; the same is true for "West Germany Austria 1982", 10/10 links on the World Cup. SnowFire (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something, the current name has no indication of sport or which match. The suggested titles should also be clarified as to what particular sport and match they refer to. I suggest using full dates (day+month+year) and the competition (FIFA World Cup) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the date is only necessary in rare cases. If two teams played each other twice in the same competition and both matches were worthy of articles, then a date might be necessary. For example, "Real Madrid vs. Barcelona (2011–12 La Liga season)". If we follow the "home team vs. away team" format, the reverse fixture would be "Barcelona vs. Real Madrid (2011–12 La Liga season)", so technically they would be titled differently, but the date may help the reader just because the article titles would be so similar. —howcheng {chat} 12:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with FIFA included i.e. West Germany v Austria (1982 FIFA World Cup) and England v United States (1950 FIFA World Cup) (already there!) as per Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup) Uruguay v Brazil (1950 FIFA World Cup). Once something has brackets there's no value in playing hide the article and aggravating mobile users. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think Disgrace of Gijón would be a better title. That's the title that the media seem to be preferring these days. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc. --Tocino 6:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • That's an inherently POV title. I'm sure the players themselves wouldn't call it a "disgrace". —howcheng {chat} 17:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter what the players think, it matters what the sources say - and some of the players DID apologize for the disgrace afterward, so I doubt the claim players don't think it was a disgrace is true anyway. Anyway, while a number of newspapers mention "Disgrace of Gijon", a number don't (especially American sources?), for example A Matchup to Recall a 32-Year-Old Injustice (New York Times) or a passing reference in the Washington Post. As such, I'd rather it be at the more descriptive title of West Germany v Austria (???). That said, to be clear, I support any and all moves away from score-as-a-disambugator, any of the titles offered so far are better than the current title. SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disgrace of Gijón is acceptable. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be explicit for my comment above: I'd be fine with Disgrace of Gijón / England v United States (1950 FIFA World Cup) as well, I support all moves away from the current title. SnowFire (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Disgrace of Gijón → West Germany v Austria (1982 FIFA World Cup) – Per many other similar articles and because these articles shouldn't have subjective nicknames. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC) The Evil IP address (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

User:JoshDonaldson20[edit]

I told you to engage dialogue, but again you choose not to, and you removed the message when I told you to start dialogue. This behaviour is not acceptable.

I told you about WP:BRD. If you make a big change to an article and it gets undone, you do not keep putting it back in. You go on the talk page and get consensus. You especially do not undo without an explanation as you have done here, and on Netherlands national football team, when you undid my work on removing recentism and unsourced information.

Gain consensus for why the 2008 match should be here. At first you just put a description of the game and a link to a report on it. I undid for synthesis and you reverted for no reason. Then you said "commentators" were talking about the game. And you added a CBC source written before the 2008 game. I can assure you that before any football game there will be reports written about previous meetings. I read many on the recent France-Germany game about their 1982 meeting, but that would be irrelevant to mention the 2016 game as there is no connection. No German or Austrian manager in 2008 mentioned 1982, like how the Algerians mentioned this result in 2014 or how the Euro 2004 scenario with Denmark and Sweden was likened to this. CBC is not the alpha and omega of football coverage, you have no evidence that anyone associated with that 2008 game had the 1982 game on their mind at all.

But I don't know why I'm writing this anyway, because if patterns are anything to go by you're just going to add what you put in again. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first tournament finals match for Germany-Austria since 1982, and the CBC article details the similarities and differences between the 2008 and 1982 games. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any further objections? JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similar game[edit]

2004 Euro Cup match between Sweden and Denmark was rigged to end 2-2 to eliminate Italy. UEFA ignored the claims but you know it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:4F68:7300:B0B3:F554:7566:736E (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 August 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved(non-admin closure) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Disgrace of Gijón → West Germany 1–0 Austria (1982 FIFA World Cup) – The Disgrace of Gijón is only a nickname for it. It doesn't mean that the article should be called that. The 2005 UEFA Champions League Final article isn't called the Miracle of Istanbul is it? Could someone please move this page and redirect the current name. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose If this had a better name option (i.e. was a Final or Semi) I might agree with you. Given the alternative uses the terrible naming conventions of individual football games I would prefer to keep this at the nickname. Anyway sometimes nicknames become the common name, and when that name still gets used nearly 40 years on[10] this is usually the case. AIRcorn (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. Nickname or not, "Disgrace of Gijón" is the best option. O.N.R. (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case 1953 FA Cup Final should be moved to The Matthews Final. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is an official final match, not a random group stage encounter. This is an insane false equivalence. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 18:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this is it's better known name, see eg Irish Times. GiantSnowman 18:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose move, and Strong Oppose move to suggested title. I think the current Disgrace of Gijon title does appear to be the common name in sources, but there's an argument for using a dry descriptive name rather than something of a rabble-rousing name (e.g. Uruguay v Brazil (1950 FIFA World Cup), not Maracanazo ). If the article is moved, though, it should be back to West Germany v Austria (1982 FIFA World Cup) in alignment with all other World Cup article titles for individual matches. For whatever reason, European league football seems to like to use score in their article titles (unlike nearly every sports / competition article title on Wikipedia...), which is a mistake IMO, but we shouldn't propagate that mistake elsewhere - score should not be in the title. SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to moving the page to West Germany v Austria (1982 FIFA World Cup) instead. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even a non-football fan as myself knows this is the WP:COMMONNAME for this match. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again there are many other matches with common names but the article isn't named after them. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then start a WP:RM for those. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be easier to move a few to one type of name then to move many others to a different one? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accusations of Fixing[edit]

The single source cited regarding the supposed admission that the match was fixed is an unnamed journalist quoting Hans-Peter Briegel as saying "We made the decision between all of us with them to not make too much of an effort in the game against Austria". The article makes no mention who "all of us" are, and doesn't conclude it was collusion. The article was written, the quote was taken, while Hans-Peter Briegel was the coach of the Bahrain National Football team.

This is an too-vague quote from an unreliable source recorded by an unreliable story teller that doesn't backup the assertion @Esszet made on December 11, 2022 (16:32). The references to this being fixed should be removed, there is every reason to believe the players were just culturally inclined to support each others teams. That is not fixing a game. Bob10011001 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you do have a point, according to a much better source I found (see article), the fix wasn't decided in advance. Although it is extremely unusual for a fix to come together so spontaneously, it's still a fix, and in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the article should remain as it is. Esszet (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disgrace_of_Gijón&oldid=1208728054"