Talk:2004 AFC Asian Cup: Difference between revisions

Is there a reason why the official site does not have a Japanese option?

I'm guessing not enough Japanese web-developers... dissappointing though. Colipon 21:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Japan is one of the countries in the world where internet use is most prevalent. Japan is the defending champion of the Asian Cup. Japan co-hosted the 2002 World Cup. There is a Korean version of the Asian Cup 2004 website. Curiouser and curiouser. -- Kaihsu 09:23, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Surprisingly, uefa.com has a Japanese version, but asiancup2004.com doesn't. --Nanshu 01:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The website is maintained by the AFC and not by China. Mandel 10:56, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

---

I have an interesting stat about the second round.

	self		opponents
	red	PK	red	PK
China	0	0	4	3
Bahrain	2	1	1	0
Korea	2	0	0	0
Jordan	1	0	1	0
Uzbekistan	2	0	1	0
Iraq	2	2	2	0
Japan	1	0	1	0
Iran	2	0	0	1

--Nanshu 01:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

China as a Host

Ran, "POV" isn't a magic word to kill unfavorable sentenses. You have to clarify what are POV and why.

And you should learn what "some" means. Several tens of thousands of Chinese "fans" are only a small percentage of whole Chinese population but it wan't inside the stadium.

PS. China's loss isn't controversial. --Nanshu 02:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

POV is a magical word to kill sentences that obviously take a lean.

Obvious to whom? You have to clarify what are POV and why (and I think you did after my request). --Nanshu 03:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The AFC's Asian Cup 2004 finals were held in the People's Republic of China between July 17 and August 7 and were considered a qualified success by the PRC despite the mood of the last matches.

So who's not considering the Asian Cup a qualified success? Is the PRC the only entity to consider the Asian Cup a success? Has AFC issued an official statement boycotting the 2008 Olympics yet?

You are making it sound like the PRC is trying to salvage and make the best of a PR catastrophe. Well — no, it wasn't. It was a soccer tournament, a controversial one with rowdy fans, just like any other soccer tournament. It went smoothly from beginning to end, and everyone, except possibly for some far-right Japanese or Chinese nationalists, walked away satisfied.

First, are there only black and white? No. We have to note that not considering the Asian Cup a qualified success doesn't mean considering the Asian Cup a debacle. We have a option of silence. Secondly, it is better to clarify the doer in general. It is certain that the PRC spread around their view, not reporting the riot. But I don't know other entities that express this opinion. In contrast, there is an opinion that The Asia Cup 2004 proved China's inability to host the Olympic Games. The existence of opposing opinions urges you to clarify who think so. --Nanshu 03:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Then, please do clarify exactly who believed that the Asian Cup proved China's inability to host the Olympics, rather than leaving it hanging and giving off the implication that everyone *except* the PRC thinks so. -- ran 09:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

IMO, a successful game would be without rowdy fans. Even a qualified success wouldn't raise a diplomatic problem. It is natural that fans jeer at opponents that their team faces, but in an ordinary soccer tournament they wouldn't have booed those who had NOT faced their team. --Nanshu 03:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That would be your own personal opinion. Anti-Japanese sentiment does exist in China, but I find it mystifying to think that a minority of rowdy fans would put the entire success of the entire tournament into question. Geez, have some perspective here. -- ran 09:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

When foreign media brought up the issue, the PRC government called for restraint and deployed thousands of police to maintain order since it feared that Chinese hooliganism damaged diplomatic relations with Japan and raised doubts about Beijing's ability to host the 2008 Olympics.

You are implying two things here that are POV and factually wrong.

Firstly: are you saying that the PRC deployed police only because of the 2008 Olympics and diplomatic relationships? So what if the Olympics had gone to Toronto and the PRC had sore relations with Japan? They'd not deploy any police and just allow rioting to tear down the city? I mean, give me a break here — which country doesn't deploy police for a major sporting event (soccer, no less) that it is both hosting and taking part in?

Of course, I don't mean a paricular action like deploying police. An authority always deply police to maintain order. That's not the point. I mean the PRC's reactions in general to bring the disturbance under control, and calling for restraint and deploying thousands of police are typical examples. --Nanshu 03:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, so what would be wrong with the additions that I made? -- ran 09:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Secondly: are you saying that the PRC deploying police only after foreign media reported on the hooliganism? So if foreign media hadn't reported, it would have been okay for rioting, stampedes, etc. to take place? Please.

Again, I don't mean a paricular action like deploying police. And it was after foreign media reported on the hooliganism that the PRC became serious. --Nanshu 03:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mmm? Please give a source for that assertion. -- ran 09:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Nevertheless, rioting broke out after China was defeated by Japan in the final match.

You are making it sound like the reason for the rioting was the fact of the defeat itself. Perhaps you've not been following developments such as Arie Haan's (admittedly ungracious) response — people responded not because it was a defeat, but because it was a controversial defeat.

A matter of balance. It is misleading to take up only that judge and not to mention other questionable judges. Throughout the tournament, China enjoyed hometown decisions as the stat above suggests. The Iran team was especially outraged at questionable judges in favor of China.
I took a look at a couple of other football articles on Wikipedia but they don't focus on a particular judge of a particular match. So I don't know whether we should deal with it or not. But again, I want to maintain consistency and fairness. --Nanshu 03:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was the final game, and it did result in a revert war, so yes, it should be dealt with. If you want to write about the China vs Iran match go ahead. -- ran 09:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Now, you may not think that the defeat was controversial at all, and guess what, I might actually agree with you on that. But whether something is "controversial" is not for you or me to decide. If rioting took place, then clearly it was controversial, no matter how hard you wish that it wasn't.

Here in Wikipedia, we should be more cautious. It ended 3-1. If it had been 2-1, it would have been a controversial victory. I cant figure out what 1.2 billion people think. But a controvertial goal doesn't directly lead to a controvertial victory, and I don't think all Chinese mixed things up. --Nanshu 03:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Try reading Arie Haan's accusations. I might not agree with him, but he's the coach, and those are his opinions, as well as the opinions of lots of people. By the NPOV principle, the final match, including its result, should be described as controversial. -- ran 09:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm now doing my third revert of the day. -- ran 03:37, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ran, this is business as usual for Nanshu - his hallmark is to highlight anything that can paint Chinese in a bad light. Before editing this article, Nanshu and others, read the Reuters and other news stories about this - it was hundreds of rioters and hooligans, out of the 65,000 attendees. It was not even 10% of the audience. Also Coach Haan not accepting the medal is a sign that controversy was indeed a major cause of consternation, not just the loss itself. Was this an embarrassing and disgraceful display by some PRC citizens who were sore losers? Absolutely. But by the same token there are soccer hooligans in the UK, Italy and other European nations. It should not bring into question the mental fitness of the entire country. And one should not use one op-ed piece by one foreign newspaper to draw the general conclusion that the PRC is unfit to host world class sporting events. Sheesh. Fuzheado | Talk 04:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you, if such things happened only at the final match. But could you tell me the reason of the followings. Chinese people did booing at Thailand/Oman/Iran vs Japan, during singing of the national anthem. I've seen many games with booing in many European countries, but I have never seen audience booing during national anthem, especially at the game of not related countries. It was majority of the audience, every game with Japanese team in three cities. And after the final match, most of the audience quickly went back to home, didn't wait awarding ceremony to praise China team's nice trial. The rest of them did booing again when Japanese Goal Keeper get an award. These things are disappointing, at least, for me. -- Poo-T 11 Aug 2004

• At least, [Obserber] is questioning 2008 olympic game. 'raises serious doubts about Beijing's ability to host the 2008 Olympics.' In most International sports games, polices are placed to prevent terrorism, or guiding audience. It's a very rare case to use so many polices against majority of the audience. Did you see so many Right-wing Japanese aduring the soccer game? I could see them only in Japan. On the contrary, there were thousands of Chinese nationalists/riots around the stadium. To protect japanese, japanese were kept to stay in the stadium, for hours after the game. Windows of their hotel/ Car window of Japanese envoy were broken. 'everyone except** satisfied?' It sounds just like Joking. -- Poo-T

I don't believe what I see going on here (YES I unfortunately do)

A perfectly good article, ruined by silliness. Two points will suffice.

• The article is entitled Asian Cup 2004, not Asian Cup which is a title elsewhere, so my version was written accordingly.
• WHO WON THE FINAL? Sheesh, you guys have even edited out the result. No wonder so many people finally give up and leave wiki. Moriori 04:13, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Asian Cup not only China vs Japan

Just to point out that the Asian Cup is not merely involving two teams, China and Japan. Don't make it into a nationalistic issue. How about Iran and Bahrain? And obviously there's a lot of NPOV to be had here.

I've edited it for NPOV, removing unsavory insidious remarks (oh yes I can read them and I know who added them in). Again such things happened all the time in football. See Barca-vs-Real Madrid; Turkey-vs-England match up and Korea-vs-Japan matches (it's not just in China that the Japanese team are booed). Booing happens between teams all the time.

"We like it when they whistle at us, we give even more," Nakamura said before the championship game. "And here, at the most, they yell against you. In Italy they also throw things at you." [1] What's the fuss?

As for the second goal, it's not just the Chinese media who says it's a handball. [2] But I've tone down for NPOV. Mandel 10:38, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is because the Chinese media is making fuss. -- Taku 10:42, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Did they? Well, it's a one-liner throughout the papers in Chinese. The Japanese media, like all others, like to misportray and make a huge point from nitpits, for publicity's sake. Stop this China-vs-Japan; Asian Cup involves 16 nations, not just two.

I think what is worth mentioning in wikipedia article is that Japan and China's reactions to this anti-Japanese sentiments. It is unusual that Japanese politicians asked China to slience anti-Japanese people. I think they are overreacting but it is worth to mention. -- Taku 10:45, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well then mention it, but don't blow it up unnecessarily. Anyway I for one think that Ali Karimi has been fantastic throughout the tournament. And he's neither Chinese nor Japanese. Mandel 11:03, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

About the second goal, we should look at some neutral papers. An article [3] at BBC, which I think looks quite unbiased, says "Japan restored their lead mid-way through the second half through Koji Nakata, despite the midfielder appearing to use his hand when bundling home Shunsuke Nakamura's corner." I think that is all. He appeared to use a hand. Is this sort of thing really that special? Like I said, such a thing happens many times. Even his goal was not a winning goal. -- Taku 11:10, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Did I take sides in my edit? This is what I changed it to:

The Chinese players claimed that the second goal by Japan has been handled before it entered goal; Japanese player Nakata appeared to have make contact with his arm after the ball had skipped off Suzuki's head from a corner. China's Dutch coach Arie Haan was unhappy with Kuwaiti referee Saad Al Fadhli of making allegedly wrong calls on all three goals by Japan and subsequently refused to the awards ceremony following the match.

But you still deleted it all away. The BBC uses appeared; so did I. Mandel 11:20, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Controversial goals

I don't think we should go deep regarding any goal in soccer-related articles. We are not judges if the goal is good or bad. In many, really many games, many people complain that the goals are controversial. We don't have to spend much space detailing them. I know Zico, a Japan's coach said his is not satisfied with decisions by referees. But are we sure to be about this sort of things? It'd better stay away from delicate but irrelevant issues. In short, if we start to describe games as being controversial, many games would become so. -- Taku 10:42, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Controversial goals should be maintained. See "Hand of God" goal. The World Cup 1966 final between Germany and England. Mandel 10:56, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

It's completely different. That hand of God goal was obviously hand and this time it was not hand perhaps. Personally, I have watched a replay and I don't think it was hand at all. -- Taku 11:02, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Who are we to say? I personally think it is a handball, but are we going to write the article thus: The handball is not controversial because Takuya Murata says so?

Regarding, my recent edits, in addition to above, I think we should think of relevancy and balance. As I said, what is interesting thus worth discussing is that how Chinese and Japense peoples and governments behaved. It is unusual that Chinese supports brough a placard that reads "Japanese must look into history and Japan must return some island which they think they own." or something. I heard a lot from the Japanese media that background of this like so-called anti-Japanese education. Also, I reworded the first paragraph so that it now read that a riot is not due to the second goal. I mean does anyone doubt that a riot would have not broken out if the goal were not controversial. It is usual that fans making fuss around goals but it is unusual what those Chinese people say and Japan's reactions to them. -- Taku 11:02, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

You are being childish in making this edit. Who says in the England-vs-Germany match the third England goal is not controversial? Years after that game people still cannot conclude whether it pass the line. Please revert this or else this will be brought up as an edit war: it will not reflect nicely on some Japanese wikipedians. You insist on blowing up the anti-Japanese sentiment without giving a proper reason for it. You remove the controversy by insisting that the second goal is not controversial just because you think it is so. This is not NPOV. Mandel 11:15, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Now you mess it up further with the third edit, saying that some Chinese think it controversial. Not just the players, both BBC and South African independent mentions it as controversial, and they are not Chinese media. In fact, the Bahrain press thinks it a handball too [4], so does ESPN [5]. Revert pls, before this is being taken up as an edit war. Mandel 11:31, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think I didn't make myself clear. I feel sorry for not explaning my edits well. I didn't remove the paragraph on the ground it is inaccurate but because, as I said, I was thinking of relevancy and balance. As I said, Nakata appeared to use his hand. But that is all, I think; it was not only controversy. By the way, of course, what I personally think of it is irrelevant, which I don't know why you think it is relevant. I have completely no idea why you think I am blowing up the anti-Japanese sentiment because I am not and I mean what sort of text did I add, which looked to you that I am blowing up? I am sorry for upsetting you but please tell me more speficially what part you would like to see be reverted. -- Taku

I also have to say that I was mistaken saying some Chinese. That part was added before I saw articles like one in BBC. I think my mind wasn't quite set. I probably have to apologize for it. Please let me know what you think the current version. I think we are on the same side. -- Taku 15:30, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

You still censor those parts mentioning the second goal. The second goal is controversial, it happened on the field and must be mentioned.

People read the text to find out what happened to the match. Yet nothing about the match is mentioned at all. I'm reverting my edits on the match, which I think is fairly unbiased. Mandel 11:11, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Folks, with the edit warring over the hand ball, this article has been so badly butchered it is ridden with typos. I've attempted to fix. Also, TakuyaMurata, this article must include the controversial handball goal. It is not a matter of your opinion or my opinion, the fact is there has been lots of ink spilled discussing the handball goal, and it was the root of lots of bad feelings with the Chinese fans that led directly to the rioting. Therefore, it is important to be in here. No whitewashing of history please. Also you must provide sources for things before generalizations are made like "Japanese reacted by questioning Beijing's ability to host the 2008 Olympics." Fuzheado | Talk 13:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reference please. Before going to details, we must understand a simple logic:

• Anti-Japanese sentiments are present throught the tournament.
• Things like riots were expected to happen
• Those who behaved bad are not driven by qualities or results of games but feelings to Japan; remember they are demanding Japan look into history and return some island they think they own. It is nothing to do with soccer.

-- Taku 19:31, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Taku, you are becoming nonuseful. Your first point is the only one that is correct. Number two is wrong - where is your references on this? Number three is unproven as well and shows your bias - rioters can be affected by both. Your knee-jerk anti-Chinese rants make you practically unable to perform any fair or balanced edits on this article. I've removed the polemic in the second sentence - it's simply not appropriate to have an article about the Asian Cup be a soapbox to amplify how much you think Chinese dislike the Japanese. I hope you'll stick to what is provable and what has been reported in the press. Fuzheado | Talk 01:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I must ask, have you ever proven your POVs so far? You didn't provide any reference that riots are caused by controversy and disappointment. You just think so. Why do you think the Chinese government put thousands of police or security people? Why do you think the Japanese government asked the Chinese government to ensure the safety of Japanese people? Why do you think those Chinese fans talk about political stuff like history, not soccer? In short, you have invented points. Since you have started, where are you from? We do agree on anti-Japanese sentiments, then why don't we mention it in the first paragraph? For example, do you speak Japanese? If not, how could you be practically able to be unbiased without reading materials in Japanese as well as Chinese ones. If you are not knowledgable enough to discuss this, don't try to do anything. -- Taku 01:58, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

It is routine for any government, sensing a tense situation, to put in police to guard against disruption. It happens at peace marches, religious functions, sports events and protests alike. "Controversy and disappointment" is the only phrase worthy of sentence number two, though you can add more if you like as long as it keeps with putting the whole picture in view. As others have pointed out, Asian Cup 2004 had many more teams, people and events than this one match. The paragraph on the final match can, and should, go into the historic bitterness between nations. That is clearly appropriate and necessary. But your point of "they would have rioted anyway" is clearly biased and unprovable. I have not invented these points, as you will see in op-ed pieces in many languages in many papers around the world. Your reading Japanese gives you one set of viewpoints, but there are plenty of others that you need to integrate as well and seem to discount. And I'll ignore your advice of "don't try to do anything." That's not how Wikipedia works. Fuzheado | Talk 02:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, let's stop talking what I and you have said. My point (my advice?) at the last post was that if we keep saying that each of us is not qualified to edit, then we cannot go further. Since it seems you agree on that, I am glad. Again, I am just asking you to show me any reference that riots are caused by disappointment and controversy. If you think I haven't proven my points like riots are expected to happen, it's fine, but I still think neither have you. Especially, we should make an impression that riots would have broken out whoever the opponent of China at the final. It did because China was against Japan. Do you even disagree with this? I suggest we should omit mentioning the cause of riots at least for a while. My second point is that the first paragraph should talk about the tournament not too much about the final. Why do you think it is so relevant to mention riots at the final while the hostality to Japan wasn't unique to that final. Your sentence gives an impression that other games involving Japan were peaceful. As you said, this is not about China and Japan. Then the first paragraph should go too deep about them. -- Taku 15:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

The {{disputed}} template should only be put on when multiple parties are in dispute. Other than Taku, is there anyone who disputes the article's factual accuracy? If not, we should remove the label. Fuzheado | Talk 03:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I thought you are arguing the fact that riots are caused by controversy and disappointment. If you think you are not arguing, I have nothing against removing that label. -- Taku 15:19, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)