Talk:Tim Howard

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

Can someone please get a better picture of him (top right)? I would but I am on dial up at the moment. A simple Google Images search on Tim Howard should work.

copyright Chensiyuan 01:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent Dates and Statements

The dates and statements in the paragraph below are inconsistent. Who knows the facts and can fix this paragraph?

Howard was victorious in his MLS debut with Metrostars on August 18, 1998, making five saves in a 4–1 win over Colorado at Giants Stadium (his only appearance of the year). He later played in one game with the Nike Project-40 Team, a 3–1 win over the Staten Island Vipers at Giants Stadium on May 6, 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.170.98 (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility to play against Manchester United

Hello! Can anyone tell me where's the source citation that reads that Howard will be eligible to play against Manchester United on 28 Apr 2007? Cos I have sources that point to the contrary, that he is not eligible. So which one is true? Kiwi8 08:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard was eligible to play against Manchester United on 28 April 2007, and David Moyes could have picked him if he'd wanted, but as part of Howard's permanent transfer to Everton, Moyes and Alex Ferguson had come to a gentlemen's agreement that Howard would not play. This was not a contractual obligation, and Moyes had every right to play Howard, but in the interests of keeping good relations with Alex Ferguson, he left him out of the team and played Iain Turner instead. – PeeJay 12:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High School

The Kearny High School page has him listed in the notable alumni section, however the information here has otherwise. Which is correct? Wschart 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whole host of claims made with no citation

I'm gonna start removing some of this stuff if no one can provide some sources for the information. I read at least a dozen things cliamed in this wikipedia that a cursory search on google could not back up.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I'm mostly stuff about his biographical early life stuff etc. None of the cites seem to jive with much of the supposed information and all the hits on google merely rip off this wiki for their information.Whatzinaname (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Birth

Would the blokes that keep insisting Howard was born in North Brunswick please refrain from doing so. He was born in a hospital in NEW BRUNSWICK - heck North Brunswick doesn't even have an urgent care center. Yes he grew up in North Brunswick, but was welcomed to this world out of his mother's womb in New Brunswick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.160.50 (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that Howard didn't have a home-birth? Anyway, Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth, and all of the sources state that he was born in North Brunswick. – PeeJay 09:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the link to Tourettes says NEW BRUNSWICK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.160.50 (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A native of New Brunswick, New Jersey, he hopes to one day establish his own foundation to raise awareness about this disorder." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.160.50 (talk) 07:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it says "native", not that he was born there. – PeeJay 12:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

native, adj, belonging to a particular place by birth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.160.50 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another cite for PeeJay since he obviously does not know where Mr. Howard was born. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/everton-fc/everton-players/2006/07/03/24-tim-howard-50061-17325738/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.160.50 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OED, you are right that "native" can mean "a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth", but it goes on to say that "native" may also mean "a local inhabitant". Anyway, for every source you come up with that says Howard was born in New Brunswick, I can come up with several that say he was born in North Brunswick. Even according to a Google search, there are more results for "tim howard" "north brunswick" than there are for "tim howard" "new brunswick". The following books corroborate the fact that he was born in North Brunswick:
  • "Manchester United: Player by Player" by Ivan Ponting (2008)
  • "Manchester United: The Football Facts" by Dean Hayes (2009)
  • The 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 editions of the "Sky Sports Football Yearbook" by Jack & Glenda Rollin
  • The 2008-09 and 2009-10 editions of "The PFA Footballers' Who's Who" by Barry Hugman
  • The 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 editions of the Manchester United Official Yearbook
And as if that wasn't enough, there's also the following websites:
And I found all of those websites within the first five pages of my Google search for "tim howard" "north brunswick". In the search for "tim howard" "new brunswick", there were few pages that specifically stated that Howard was born in New Brunswick, and the ones that did were far less reliable than the ones I have quoted. The ones that were equally reliable merely stated that Howard was a "native" of New Brunswick, which - as I have explained - may simply mean that he lived there, not specifically that he was born there. I rest my case. – PeeJay 18:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I just checked the external links at the bottom of this article. ESPNsoccernet (an American site) agrees that he was born in North Brunswick, as does timhowardstory.com, which is allegedly some kind of official website (though I know not whether it is Howard's official website, or that of some video biography of him). – PeeJay 18:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


And for every source you claim I can claim several as well. Howard was born in New Brunswick, and the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Office of Vital Statistics concurs. Howard was born at St. Peter's Hospital, 254 Easton Ave, New Brunswick, NJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.160.50 (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show me your source. – PeeJay 11:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You people need to sort out whatever argument you are having, because there are now 9 sources in the article for his place of birth and it looks STUPID. 87.210.35.24 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When sources don't agree, that should be noted in the article. Including those 11 citations doesn't make North Brunswick more verifiable.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that we shouldn't judge verifiability on mere numbers of sources, but the quality of the sources I've provides is FAR better than that of those provided by the anon. – PeeJay 17:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add new photograph to article

I have uploaded the following image and I feel like it could be incorporated into the article. Either under the #Everton section or #International section, since Howard has become a mentor for Hamid. Numerous sources state that it was his influence that led Klinsmann to call-up Hamid for the last few friendlies.

[[File:Hamid-howard-rfk.jpg|thumb|right|Howard speaks with [[D.C. United]] goalkeeper [[Bill Hamid]] before an international friendly on July 23, 2011 at [[w:en:Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium|RFK Stadium]]]]

~ Fopam (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edit

I should have included a comment with my edit, but I failed to do so. I changed a statement that Tim Howard was the second American to score a goal in the Premier League to him being the third American. Both Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey scored goals in the Premier League before Howard's January 4, 2012 goal against Bolton.

Supereditor1971 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to American goalkeepers (Friedel and Howard). He also isn't the third American to score - Brian McBride, Joe-Max Moore and Stuart Holden spring to mind and there's probably a few more. Remember to look up sources for your edits before making guesswork. Spc 21 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Tim Howard also holds a hungarian passport, making him eligble for any club in the EU. Please edit that somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.69.221 (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

This 23:44, 21 February 2013‎ Addbot version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand the existing content.--Wing (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia incident

I recently added the section on the Wikipedia incident to bring in some information with regards to the Secretary of Defense/Wikipedia edits. I personally believe that the incident is worth mentioning on this page in some fashion due to the widespread media coverage and responses from both Jimmy Wales and Chuck Hagel. Others have, quite reasonably, argued that this section runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. On this issue, I think there are good arguments for both including and not including the section and I would like to try to reach a consensus here if at all possible. AtlasBurden (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for clarification, if no one seems to feel strongly one way or the other, I am perfectly fine with keeping it removed as the editor who removed it is much more experienced than myself. AtlasBurden (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel strongly that this is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS, as it is clearly a transient and trivial news item. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit meta (and certainly silly), but I believe it warrants being included, especially after the actual Sec. of Defense became involved: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/07/the-secretary-of-defense-called-tim-howard-after-his-historic-performance. Not a whole section, mind you, just a sentence referencing the incident. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am on Ohnoitsjamie's side. This is WP:NOTNEWS and unencyclopedic. It's a one-off incident that has barely received any international coverage. A week after the incident, nobody's talking about it. At the very least, it makes no sense to mention it in this article because the article is about Howard's playing career and he has not done anything. Heymid (contribs) 14:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a picture on it as well..hehe..--Stemoc (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 300 Google news sources discussing the "Secretary of Defense" issue, it was mentioned by Obama, and it is worthy of mention in the article. At any rate, if this article is to be pushed up to GA or FA status, excluding that information would be a problem as it was so widely covered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least some mention would be appropriate even if it is only a line or two in the paragraph discussing #ThingsTimHowardCouldSave.Cptnono (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 References sections

There are two references sections. Is there any way these could be merged cleanly into one? 131.128.73.6 (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I put the general references section at the bottom of the References list, captioned "General references". —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dual nationality?

The article notes in the body that he has dual US/Hungarian citizenship so I've altered the opening sentence to say he is "an American/Hungarian football/soccer .." (player). I think this also helps remove the ambiguity of the previous edit that said he is "an American football/soccer player: readers might assume he plays two sports (1) American Football (2) Soccer (Association Football). If this edit isn't right perhaps a further edit like "he is a United States football/soccer player" ? --mgaved (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer, Football? WP:ENGVAR

Okay, there's been a slow edit war going on over the question of what to list as Timmy's sport. Now, 'football' seems inappropriate, because many USMNT fans come to this page, but so is 'soccer', since many Everton fans are likely to stop by. Given the confusion, it's my belief that we should use 'association football'. That's what we do at Brad Friedel (former USMNT and current Spurts keeper), and also seems in keeping with WP:ENGVAR: "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms". This is also why 'soccer' redirects to Association football. Can we get a consensus here instead of reverting each other out there? Achowat (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although he's played in England since 2003, he's still American, and I think that creates a stronger tie to the United States and American English. – PeeJay 21:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Stronger"? Maybe. But strong enough to say he plays 'soccer' instead of the universal term 'association football'? I really don't so. Now that the World Cup is over, most of the edits and page views are going to be from Evertonians. Achowat (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's American, so "soccer" makes sense. And, he plays in the UK, the country that invented and popularized the term 'soccer'. Not us Yanks' fault that the Brits abandoned the term. JoelWhy?(talk) 21:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But they did abandon the term. Achowat (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the majority of edits are by Evertonians, Americans or people from Timbuktu. ENGVAR says that if a subject has stronger national ties to a particular country (i.e. Howard's place of birth as opposed to his place of work), we should use that country's variety of English. – PeeJay 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:COMMONALITY? To quote it directly "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia." Achowat (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and yet you're insisting on the use of a single term as the only correct option. No one here is saying soccer isn't also called football. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article and many others in dispute - 15 saves or 16?

The following articles are being reverted multiple times:

There are multiple users involved. All official documentation points to 15 saves being correct, with 16 being the initial tally that was revised:

These edit wars need to stop. All current FIFA documentation shows 15 saves. Any out-of-date articles are simply that: out of date. Even the YouTube video showing 16 saves is irrelevant because it's not the official FIFA documentation. (It looks like save #2 was probably discounted.)

Please help to get this edit war stopped and/or to move this discussion to the right place. The facts clearly state 15 saves. I want this documented somewhere so people stop making incorrect edits. TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TimHowardHad15Saves: Can you find a source, other than Facebook, that states the save count was revised? The news stories say 16, the stat sheet says 15, but it's unclear the sequence of events. I can find a lot of Facebook pages that say the save count was changed, but nothing in an independent reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This video from the BBC shows Howard making 15 saves, and the adjoining news item agrees. It's unclear why there's a disparity between the figures, but since FIFA's own statistical records show 15 saves and we have a reputable news source backing them up, perhaps we should change the articles to say 15 saves. – PeeJay 12:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and this article by The Guardian also says 15. – PeeJay 12:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one reverting the change so I feel I can explain myself. The very reliable FIFA source that was used claimed 16 saves and the matchreports from FIFA are often left uncorrected. So with two sources against eachotheriot was a question of what was most reliable and it was (at least to me) whgat was already on the article. If we can find unbiased reliabel sources (like User:PeeJay2K3 did) that say it should be 15 saves and not 16, then I am all for it, if it can be reliable sourced. But we should not change so easily like the blocked IP did. QED237 (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no debate here. 15 saves is from the FIFA official documents. What "very reliable FIFA source" are you talking about? I cannot find a better result than the Facebook link either, but it's clear that the link represents the official US Soccer page, and that it states FIFA started with 16 and changed it to 15. Where is the debate? The user above says "if it can be reliably sourced"... but FIFA is the reliable source, and their webpage and official document say 15 saves. Where is the debate? 24.170.240.79 (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, there's no debate? This FIFA source clearly says he made 16 saves. There's obviously a debate to be had here. But IMO, since the official stats have been amended, so should we amend ours. – PeeJay 17:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this FIFA article that says he made 16 saves. – PeeJay 18:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And this one. – PeeJay 18:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And this one. – PeeJay 18:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles written about the game are irrelevant. Any Joe Schmo can write stuff that's wrong, even if they are employed by FIFA. 15 saves is pretty obvious, especially given that US Soccer says that's what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.240.79 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, any Joe Schmo can write down wrong statistics, even if they are employed by FIFA. Kareldorado (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war continues with editor Qed and others. Not only that, they make the edit and then accuse other editors of being the ones making the war. The webpage and the PDF for the game show 15 saves. We have proof that FIFA revised it from 16 to 15. WHY DOES QED GET TO HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON WHAT IS ACCURATE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardHad15Saves (talk • contribs) 00:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont I just restored the page until there is clear consensus different sources say different things and your pushing when editing the page is not acceptable. QED237 (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the evidence is with 15. It sure seems to upset you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardHad15Saves (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another link showing that 16 was changed to 15. https://twitter.com/Ginnadog/status/488900143932919808 Anyone care to find where the number was revised to 16? Nope, I'm sure that doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardHad15Saves (talk • contribs) 01:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:PeeJay2K3 just gave you four FIFA sources saying 16 saves, and no I am not upset, you are the one shouting at my talkpage in anger trying to get admin help. The admin just said what we have been saying. QED237 (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter and Facebook are not WP:RS (reliable sources) and no there are no source saying it has been revised to 16 as it has been 16 from the start. QED237 (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The official FB page from US Soccer is absolutely a reliable source. Good god. And you know what? It HAS NOT BEEN 16 FROM THE START if we have people posting that it was changed AND THE OFFICIAL STATS FROM THE MATCH SHOW 15. What is wrong with you people? You think those posts were just mistakes? What's the bottom line on this THE OFFICIAL MATCH STATISTICS SHOW 15 SAVES. And that makes you wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardHad15Saves (talk • contribs) 01:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent tweets to US Soccer, FIFAcom and FIFAmedia. We'll see who's right. But if they reply and you don't like the answer, I guess we need to go with yours because why exactly? The official match statistics show 15 saves. One of his punchouts on a corner cross was probably eliminated from the number of saves. Watch the Yt video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardHad15Saves (talk • contribs) 02:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Please also note that the document says "updated version" and the reason is Change of statistics. Gee, I wonder what was changed from the original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardHad15Saves (talk • contribs) 02:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, do not WP:SHOUT and use excessive bolding, we can read anyway. When a text look like yours it is just not helping you., it only looks like a aggressive child not getting his wish through than a proper discussion. And as I have said in the past, if there is good reliable sources this has been corrected to 15 I can consider a change but there has still not been reliable sources, facebook and twitter are not reliable sources. QED237 (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources have been provided, mate. I provided them. – PeeJay 13:53, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay2K3: Can you give me those again? I cant see any reliable sources saying they have changed it. QED237 (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm in favour of changing the stats to 15 saves. That's clearly the most up-to-date number, IMO. – PeeJay 10:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, because of this pdf-document made by FIFA you showed I am also willing to follow the "15 saves opinion", since it came out on 5 July (AFTER the 2 July text in which FIFA talks about 16 saves). So yes, it seems like available evidence proves you right. But, I also have to agree in Qed237 his comments: shouting out loud all the time is not the way to achieve consensus - only the way to get yourself expelled. Please take this into account the next time you enter a discussion. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't need to take anything into account. All I did was make an edit to the correct statistic, and the WP mob-gang jumped on me. You want reliable citations, but you ignore the official document from the governing body that shows you are wrong. Seriously, it's like you're a religion believing what you want and I'm the one atheist saying "but look at the evidence." And you don't care. There is nothing, and I repeat nothing, more official than the PDF from the event. The fact that there are comments about FIFA revising it is also helpful, as is the FACT that the document shows it is "Version 2" changed for statistics. Why you have chosen to ignore all this, seemingly just to use "what's already there" (again like a religion) is beyond me. I don't care about the shouting or discussions. I am a new editor and got jumped on for being right. This is how WP veterans treat newcomers? I'm done with this account as soon as all pages show 15. TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me respond. DIfferent sources sau different things and that is why consensus is needed. You got reverted over and over again because you refused to discuss and find consensus and just went on editing (and you should probably already have been blocked earlier) This has nothing to do with how many edits you have made (although it seems almost like a sock doing block evadision from the IP being blocked). You were not right it was a case that needed discussion. Do not consider yourself a victim, when you were the one going in head first and not listening to others. QED237 (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qed you are wrong again. You're the one reverting over and over even when we cite the proper resource that you have chosen to ignore. This isn't a question of consensus. Just because a billion people believe in a god doesn't make it right. The evidence is that there were 15 saves, so why do you keep reverting ALL edits by me and other editors? Am I the victim? No. The victim is truth. Consensus is a joke; evidence and facts are truth. You've chosen to ignore because you want a discussion that's not necessary. Again why do you keep reverting to think your way is right? You are flat wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardHad15Saves (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a joke, and Wikipedia operates on a policy of verifiability, not truth. Unfortunately, we have sources to back up both statistics, and even more unfortunately, you both have acted very badly when it came to the introduction of the new source(s). @TimHowardHad15Saves: You must not edit war, regardless of whether you think you are right or not; and even if you are right, that doesn't vindicate your actions in retrospect. @Qed237: You shouldn't just revert people without checking out the sources for yourself; you have a very bad habit of simply reverting others' contributions when they get something only slightly wrong - perhaps in future you should try helping them to correct their mistakes instead of acting like a bit of a knobhead. – PeeJay 17:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PeeJay I see you are on the "15" side of this so I appreciate that. Let me clarify "consensus is a joke". Consensus is simply not needed if facts state something. If I show evidence that the sun is bigger than the earth, it doesn't matter if 10 people say the opposite. Saying something is irrelevant. Qed has ignored all posts and reverted them despite having the proper citations (and all posts had said citation). Qed is the edit warrer here, I'm just getting articles to the correct state. He's a horrible wikipedia editor, and he has ruined my experience. TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Qed was quick on the revert trigger, I don't think he's editing in bad faith here. Though frankly, I'm not interested in a discussion here about editors' conduct. I am interested in seeing what statistic is most verifiable, since that what Wikiepdia policy says the article should state. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated all along, the PDF document is the official match statistic from FIFA. Further, it was edited after other links and it even shows that it's the edited version with a stat change. And we have sources from US Soccer stating that FIFA revised the number from 16 to 15. There is no dispute as to what is more verifiable. Qed has never once offered a reason why he thinks his sources are better. He just reverts. Frankly he should have been blocked long ago. TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look, the PDF file seems very convincing to me. I hadn't seen it until today, since in the edits before this topic you only emphasized the statistics website. Note that I do appreciate your perseverance. Sometimes a lot of at first sight mean people jump on your edit with good intentions (I experienced it as well). If you're right and you know it, of course, go for it, but you should give the needed arguments right away. Keep up the good work, Kareldorado (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming around Kareldorado. (Although I listed the PDF as the link for my references and it is in this initial thread here too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimHowardHad15Saves (talk • contribs) 16:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright. Yes, I only noticed this thread today, through your talk page. Kareldorado (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I go with 15 saves as the pdf file (which is the official one) was changed a few days later and is the most up-to-date (as already explained here). The other sources saying 16 are "older" than the pdf file, so 15 is the right choice. Kante4 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be one source from after the updated PDF that says 16 saves, but that's probably just copying earlier sources rather than checking for updates. – PeeJay 18:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I think it can be changed to 15 now. Kante4 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latest problems

Do prevent the "16" from reappearing, can we please reference the PDF on all pages? Also perhaps make a note that the original count was 16 and it was changed? (I don't know how to do refs or notes.) I think this is relevant to all pages to prevent bad edits. TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A note that the original count was 16 would make sense, but I'm opposed to the idea of using the FIFA PDF as a source in these articles, since it's a primary source. I've used the BBC article as not only is it extremely reliable, but it is also a secondary source, it uses the correct number, and it has a video to support that number. If that's not sufficient, add the Guardian source I listed above. – PeeJay 11:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? The primary source can't be used? Is this a joke? If I want official MLB or NFL statistics, those sites are where to go. Further, I'm sure I could find several BBC articles that incorrectly show 16. You must use the primary source as the reference. Using anything else makes no sense. TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid WP:PRIMARY applies here and we should avoid using only primary sources. However I think we can use the FIFA pdf together with other sources (but not alone). QED237 (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is wrong. All the sources reporting on this are themselves discussing FIFA's statistics! So why aren't we. Wp:primary can't apply here. It's insane. TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it appears to be OK. According to WP:PRIMARY a primary source can be "used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." WP:PRIMARY doesn't say that we can't use primary sources, only that we should be careful. Sjö (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sjo for bringing sanity to this thing TimHowardHad15Saves (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad sourcing, and copyvio

It would be helpful if editors would add sources when adding text. This text was inserted without a source in 2008, and the US Youth Soccer Association has the exact wording in 2014.[1] They may have copied it from Wikipedia, or we may have copied it from MLS earlier. Still trying to locate original source of that wording, which smells like copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016

His club stats are wrong. Please correct them accordingly. And please do not locked this page if you don't have time to edit it. Let someone else do it.

222.167.74.128 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are the right stats, and where can we verify them? And if other new/unregistered users hadn't been messing up the article, we wouldn't have needed to protect it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stats

These typically come at the end for all players, any reason it is in the middle?--MattyMetalFan (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

There are a lot of Tim Howards out there. This should be a disambiguation page. Morganfitzp (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Of the Tim Howards listed at the top of this article, one is an attorney best known for teaching law at a university, one is the sheriff of a single county in New York state, and the other goes by another name in his professional life. This Tim Howard is clearly the primary topic. Feel free to create Tim Howard (disambiguation) though. – PeeJay 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A disambiguation page should be created. This person is just not that important. Alialiac (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Tim Howard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GOAT? Not the undisputed greatest American keeper!

He's certainly not the concensus GOAT American goalkeeper; while two of the citations support the claim, the third uses the qualifier "arguably." It appears the OP simply googled "Tim Howard greatest;" similar results can be had for Keller and especially Friedel who probably surpasses both, albeit mostly in EPL and USMNT.TjoeC (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Tim_Howard"