Talk:North London derby

Soccerbase stats

Although soccerbase says Spurs have won 4 League Cup ties against Arsenal, in actual fact they have only won two - on 04/11/80 and 08/02/87 - both of them 1-0; these can be checked by using the form here. I've corrected the figures in the table and restored the total number of Spurs wins to 49. Qwghlm 23:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Soccerbase have now corrected the error, so the two sets of statistics match now. I've deleted my above comments as they no longer apply. Qwghlm 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger

The suggestion that the article on St. Totteringham's Day should be merged into the North London Derby article is interesting. The two are undeniably linked but I think the concept of St. Totteringham's Day is strong enough for it to have an article of its own. Jack White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackwhite (talk • contribs) 14:16, July 31, 2006 (UTC).

Once you remove duplicated material, it's only a couple of paragraphs at best, and shares the same categories as this page; I think it is better incorporated as a subsection here. Qwghlm 14:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the St. Totteringham's Day article borders on non-sense in the first place and would like to see the criteria under which it qualifies for inclusion in wikipedia at all. Timb0h 13:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"St Tottering's Day" is a fatuous web concept created by a small number of modern day internet based Arsenal fans. It has no real significance in the history of this fixture and only a small portion of one of the team's support has knowledge of it. It should not have it's own heading let alone several paragraphs.

It is known by the players and the club. Jack Wilshire has mentioned it this season (frex) and the club programme has mentioned it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.13.197.229 (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Crossing the divide

The Crossing the divide section reports on players who have played for both clubs, but not on players who have played for both sides in the derby. That more specific infomation should be added if anyone has the details. jnestorius^(talk) 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how easy this would be - I have a book with Arsenal teamlists for every match back to 1970-71, but no further; I don't know of anywhere online which does Spurs lineups, though. In any case, delving through results archives like this is borderline original research, so I am not mad keen to do it. Qwghlm 09:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is with the article name. It's not specifically about the North London derby; it's about the rivalry in general. Compare Old Firm, which is not called Old Firm derby (that's just a redirect). jnestorius^(talk) 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the match itself and the rivalry in general, together - the two are intertwined, you can't separate them. Also, what else would you call it? The Old Firm title is the exception, not the rule - all the other British derbies in Category:Football (soccer) rivalries use the word "derby" in them. Qwghlm 23:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can separate them conceptually. The Birmingham derby does not take place in those years when Villa and City are playing in different divisions; but the rivalry still lives on. I'm not suggesting this theoretical distinction means there should be separate articles. But at the moment, the article is just about derby matches until the "Crossing the divide" section. Which is another reason to support merging in St. Totteringham's Day. I agree there is no obvious alternative name; Arsenal-Tottenham Hotspur rivalry sounds half-baked, and fans will dispute which team should be named first. But in any case, it's worth modifying the intro para of this (and the other Foo Derby articles) just to make explicit what you've said: the article is about the rivalry in general, not specifically the derby. jnestorius^(talk) 00:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to modify it if you don't think it's up to scratch. Qwghlm 08:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added the details using Bob Goodwin's "The Pride Of North London" and Soccerbase (for Sol Campbell).If there are any other statistics that you think my be of use, let me know.--Goonerak (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Why is this page about two English teams using US dates? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IrishCheeseMaker (talk • contribs) 23:44, January 31, 2007.

Could you clarify exactly what you mean? If it's a problem with how the dates are shown in this article, then you can change that with the "Date and Time" tab in Special:Preferences so that all dates are shown the way you prefer them. Qwghlm 23:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Stead

I've removed Kevin Stead from the list of players that have played for both clubs. It appears that www.arsenal.com has mixed up Kevin & Michael (Mickey) Stead. Kevin was a Tottenham player but never appeared in the first team. He did, however, play for Arsenal's first team. Mickey played 14 games for Tottenham's first team and was never an Arsenal player at any point in his career. Reference books such as Barry Hugman's Football League Players' Records and Rothmans Football Yearbook confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonerak (talk • contribs) 12:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable derby matches

Hi. I think its time to discuss this subject. Personally I can't see a problem why a high scoring match cannot be included, they are all notable in their own way and make interesting reading. Which these pages are all about. Any thoughts please. Northmetpit (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Because there's loads of high-scoring derby matches. Here's a list of just a few North London derbies with lots of goals (Arsenal score given first):

25 Dec 1911	Football League First Division	A	0–5	
07 May 1927	Football League First Division	A	4–0	
20 Oct 1934	Football League First Division	H	5–1	
06 Mar 1935	Football League First Division	A	6–0	
02 Sep 1944	Football League South (World War 2) A	0–4	
22 Feb 1958	Football League First Division	H	4–4	
26 Aug 1961	Football League First Division	A	3–4	
06 Oct 1962	Football League First Division	A	4–4	
15 Oct 1963	Football League First Division	H	4–4	
23 Dec 1978	Football League First Division	A	5–0
04 Apr 1983	Football League First Division	A	0-5
26 Dec 1983	Football League First Division	A	4–2

I haven't seen much clamouring for their inclusion at any point. Which is not surprising, because all too often despite being high scoring the matches have little impact on the season for either team in terms of winning trophies. Just writing about ones that happened in your memory is recentism - subjective bias to the present. Either do it properly and include all high-scoring matches, or not at all, but don't make a list subjective to your personal favourites. Qwghlm (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I take your point. You say you haven't seen much clamouring for their inclusion, but at least two matches have been deleted. And by the way football isn't all about winning trophies. Cheers Northmetpit (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the 4-4 game at Emirates should be included. It was a match both teams will remember for a long time. To prove this, here is a quote form one of the players:

"It was probably the best night of my career, but I felt like an emotional wreck at the end of it," Bentley said.

--Lindberg47 (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The recent 4-4 game deserves inclusion because it's been an exceptional season for Tottenham, their worst start ever, their possible relegation from the premier league which would have been thought unthinkable, and it could be a turning point. And the fact it was the order of the goals and the manner of them rather than simply the quantity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.151.68 (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a full list of results like in the artcicles on the Manchester and Merseyside derbies?

Honours

Further information: Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

Further information: History of Arsenal F.C.

Honour	Tottenham Hotspur Year(s)	Arsenal Year(s)
Premier League Champions		1998, 2002, 2004
Premier League Runners-up		1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005
Football League Champions	1951, 1961	1931, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1938, 1948, 1953, 1971, 1989, 1991
Football League Runners-up	1922, 1952, 1957, 1963	1926, 1932, 1973
FA Cup Winners	1901, 1921, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1981, 1982, 1991	1930, 1936, 1950, 1972, 1979, 1993, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005
FA Cup Runners-up	1987	1927, 1932, 1932, 1972, 1978, 1980, 2001
FA Cup semi finalists
UEFA Cup Winners' Cup Winners	1963	1994
UEFA Cup Winners' Cup Runners-up		1980, 1995
UEFA Cup Winners	1972, 1984
UEFA Cup Runners-up	1974	2000
Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Winners		1970
Old Second Division Champions	1920, 1950
Old Second Division Runners-up	1909, 1933	1904
League Cup Winners	1971, 1973, 1999, 2008	1987, 1993
League Cup Runners-up	1982, 2002	1968, 1969, 1988, 2007
League Cup semi finalists		1978, 1983, 1996, 1998, 2004, 2006, 2008
FA Charity Shield Winners
FA Charity Shield Runners-up
FA Youth Cup Winners

St. Totteringham's day

Regardless of which way the moderators decide this argument the section on St Totteringham's day is atrociously written. Particularly paras 2 and 4. If it has to stay at least let someone who can write edit it properly.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Unreturnable (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

New comment: user: unreturnable

Saebhiar. However well-researched your piece on St Totteringham's day it seems to me it does not merit inclusion at its current length. The word count is almost as long as the entire list and description of all the major clashes in this fixture over the last 100 years. Neither is it worth 50% of the words detailing the entire history of the rivalry.

The main issue with the concept is that it is a total internet neologism. It is rooted in the attitude that the start of the Premiership was the start of football whereas the whole point of this article is the huge history behind this fixture.

To tackle a couple of your points - I don't think that a mention in a club programme merits 450 words on Wikipedia. The Arsenal Soccer School gets mentioned in the Arsenal programme far more frequently that this concept but I don't see an article on Wikipedia or indeed even a mention on the entirety of the main Arsenal page.

Similarly, 1,500 (or even 10,000) Google results is an absolutely miniscule amount in internet terms, which given it is an entirely internet-based concept shows that it has not really permeated the consciousness of Arsenal fans in general (a search for Arsenal Soccer School returns more than 500,000 results). 'Flapianski' - the nickname many fans across the country have adopted for the Arsenal 'goalkeeper' Lucasz Fabianski has more than 3,000 Google results but no one is claiming is should be on his Wikipedia page (which incidentally has fewer words in its text that you believe should be devoted to St Totteringham's Day).

If Spurs fans set up Arsenalwithoutatrophycounter.com - an internet clock counting the days, weeks and months since Arsenal won a trophy it would not merit inclusion here and neither really does this given it is a concept only endorsed by Arsenal fans who began supporting the club during its years of success. Genuine fans who lived through the darker periods of the club's history would not have bothered with such a fatuous concept.

It perhaps deserves a mention, maybe two lines, and no more. I see the moderators have locked the page - I am sure common sense will prevail when it is re-opened.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Unreturnable (talk • contribs) 12:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I know this is probably a delicate issue with Spurs fans and they'd probably like to keep the whole Totteringham's day concept quiet. But the fact is, it has become too big to be ignored any longer. A simple Google search on the subject will pull 1,500 pages and it has even been mentioned on arsenal official day programmes.

It is becoming an Arsenal tradition that's relevant to the north London rivalry this article is about. I understand some people might not like it but you can't just un-invent it or pretend it doesn't exist.

I wrote the section and I tried to keep it as short and neutral as possible. I am not a troll or a schoolkid trying to aggravate people. I'm just a middle-aged, reasonable guy, trying to add something interesting to an article.

I've spent quite some time researching and writing that section. If some people feel it shouldn't be included, let's discuss it and hopefully we can reach a consensus. In the meantime, let's not just delete it without so much as a by your leave as someone has already done. I'll just put it back on again. You'll only be wasting your time and mine.

Thank you. Saebhiar Adishatz 01:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. So what about the years Tottenham have finished ahead of Arsenal- and the ones to come. What funny little name will give that? Northmetpit (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Tottenham fans could come up with something as well. The north london rivalry is one of the most colourful in England. Anything that would add to it is a good thing in my opinion, regardless of which side it originates from. If spurs fans come up with something I'm all for it. I'm all for friendly rivalry you know. Just because I like Arsenal doesn't mean I hate Tottenham, I've never suscribed to the idea that when you like one you have to hate the other. I love it when we beat Spurs but I have too many Yid friends to really hate the club they support. Saebhiar Adishatz 15:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Its still mathematically possible for Spurs to finish above Arsenal. 7 points difference with 9 points to play for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.249.149 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You realise we are in 2010 not in 2009. You deleted last year's bit. Tott's day hasn't happened yet this season (and probably won't the way things are going)... Saebhiar Adishatz 05:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, ofcourse it will. this weekend? ;)

At any rate, it maybe the most colourful in England and anything that adds to it maybe be exhilrating, but does that merit its place on an encyclopaedia because the layfan enjoys it? Especailly the sources WP:RS, and then its cites a personal page, it is a product of a blog, and its cites facebook for affirmation?

I've put a tag on, but left the info alive till consensus.Lihaas (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to football most traditions are started by fans. The idea of calling the Barca-Real game el clasico was started by fans, calling Samp-Genoa the derby della Lanterna was started by fans. To dismiss the whole idea because it was started by layfans is a bit weak. As for the notoriety of the term, a quick Google search returns 3,500 results. Granted, compared to other football related terminologies it's not an awful lot but it's more than enough in my opinion. Not enough for a whole article but surely more than enough for an article section. Oh, and yes, colourful is indeed spelled with a u. I'm not above spelling mistakes but there's really no need to correct the ones I haven't made. I thank you. Saebhiar Adishatz 04:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Traditions take generations to establish themselves and have a shared meaning actoss the fan base of the teams involved. Just because there are 3500 Google hits does not make it notable. As mentioned above and critical to whether it is valid to be included or should be removed is that the current content and the references provided fall someway short of what WP:RS requires. So suggest someone will have to go and find acceptable cites which meet these standards from the other 3496 google references. The content written in that longwinded blog-journalism style is also innapropriate for Wikipedia.Tmol42 (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Google page count is now at 10,000+ The closer we get to the actual day the more pages there is about it. Hopefully by next weekend we should have reached St Tot's day 2010 and we'll be able to see how many reputable sources are referencing it. Saebhiar Adishatz 04:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say leave it alone as it does have the references for it's inclusion (as Saebhiar states) along with including the background and recent events. If tottenham fans come up with their own version about this or something else, then it should be included as well to be balanced (and to appease tottenham fans calling for this section's blood) but since they don't, the section should be left as it is untill such a time arises. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I think we can come to a compromise here. I propose that we reduce the section on this page to a brief mention (couple of sentences) and move the bulk of it to the Arsenal_F.C._supporters page, which is probably more suited to it since it's an Arsenal supporters thing after all. Everybody cool with that? Saebhiar Adishatz 02:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unreturnable (talk • contribs) 08:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved the bulk of the article to Arsenal_F.C._supporters also found and added refs from Sun, Mirror, Daily Mail and BBC Sport's websites. Happy St. Totteringham's day everyone! Saebhiar Adishatz 00:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This whole little section should be removed wholesale. It is a complete and utter fabrication, and is only being kept present on the article due to the antics of Arsenal fans, The C of E and Saebhiar. There is no such thing as 'St Totteringham's Day', outside of the bounds of obscure Arsenal fan forums. A typical Arsenal fan won't even know of the concept - and to be frank - it undermines the whole history of this iconic fixture. References from Facebook fan pages and Arsenal forums cannot be considered viable citations. 77.75.110.130 (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed the paragraph header says St Totteringham's Day AND St Hotspur's Day which shows it contains pro-Tottenham comments as well as pro-Arsenal comments. You should condier reading the whole thing and looking at sources before blanking the section which at the moment has no consensus to be done. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point, The C of E. Neither 'day' is actually celebrated. Neither 'day' actually exists. The whole thing is some crackpot internet-generated fabrication which is only spreading due to places like Wikipedia giving the idea (and that is all that this actually *is*) creedence. If Wikipedia continue to report fallacy as fact, then gradually that fallacy becomes accepted as fact. This puerile nonsense has no place on this page. 77.75.110.130 (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, if you're going to go on a rant get yourself a username. Second of all, both days have been mentioned in the media (BBC, Mail, Mirror etc...) they're anything but "obscure". Third, the section has been reduced to bare bones in order not to offend sensibilities on either camp. You should relax a little bit, you'll live longer. Saebhiar Adishatz 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no need to obtain a username in order to express my opinion, Saebhiar - I just would like facts to be reported, and not un-notable internet twaddle - which is what both of these 'days' are. I appreciate that you have seen to edit the section down to a mere two paragraphs, but the question here isn't really one of quantity - it's quality. Quality, viability and truth. Facts, in short. Your citations given for St Totteringham's day are laughable - blog entries on the Mirror and BBC (and a live, ad-hoc, unedited blog at that on the Beeb!), and a footnote in the arbiter of all that is sure and true - the esteemed daily publication, The Sun. I feel also that the hitherto completely unknown 'St Hotspurs' Day' is also an internet fabrication - even more obscure than the Arsenal one, but drummed up here in order to make the laughable Arsenal 'day' justifiable in its inclusion. Fact is - neither of these so-called celebrations actually exist outside of the mindset of a handful of armchair internet Arsenal fans and therefore are not in any way worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Rest assured, I'm quite relaxed, almost as relaxed as the Emirates Trophy Cabinet polisher. ;) 94.193.106.168 (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I cede on one point - perhaps I *do* need a username, as my posting of the above now looks quite confusing as it originated from a completely different IP address to my earlier ones. I will get right on that. 77.75.110.130, or - 94.193.106.168 (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And there we are. Captmonkey (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If I were you, i'd be careful with the way you say that because the way you've said about the account you have found "just lying around" because someone with a differing view to you may not like what you've done and report for sock puppets trying to avoid a semi-protection (silly I know, but, silly things can happen on Wikipedia). I would reccomend that maybe you could reword that a little just to avoid any incovinence. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of 're-wording' things is, as everything is viewable in the edit log, but.... - this is a Wikipedia account I've had for some time though I rarely log into it as by its very nature, Wikipedia is editable by anyone without an account (generally speaking, of course). Rest-assured, there is no sock-puppetry going on, I just don't log in as often as perhaps I should, but I vouch for the posts above and the edits on the article itself that originate from either of those IPs or from this username. They are me. I am them. It's still not notable. ;) Captmonkey (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the matter in hand. St Totteringham's Day is mentioned here not in a blog or an Arsenal forum but a match report. I understand that you wouldn't want to trust a gossip rag that insists on placing Gentlemens special interest pictures in it (I wouldn't either.) But a better respectable source from a more respectable newspaper surely sits fine with the inclusion criteria. Oh and by the way, that St Hotspurs day was not added with the rest of the paragraph so I think that was added by tottenham fans rather than Arsenal fans trying to balance the page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So what exactly constitutes a reputable source? You'll excuse me if I'm confused here. Since apparently the Sun, Mail, Mirror and the Beeb are out what should we aim for? The Torygraph? The London Gazette? The other day there was an article about St. Totteringham's day on a swedish newspaper of all places! But I suppose that doesn't qualify either, bloody foreigners and all that. Saebhiar Adishatz 01:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah-ha, excellent - now I'm painted as a Xenophobe! Whatever next? Keep it up Saebhiar! You have provided citations which are scant, single-line mentions in matchday reportage - reportage that *all* originates from the last weekend of this past season - a little more than two weeks ago. You then ask if this is notable? Seriously? I would wager that 99% of Arsenal fans have no idea at all of this concept (though I'm sure they would revel in it if they did - which is *exactly* your motive here - to make this nonsense become accepted as fact). I would also wager that the very reason these recent press mentions are even there at all is because the hacks that wrote the articles Googled for 'North London Derby' or 'Arsenal Tottenham rivalry' and - lo - landed upon this very page, with your (previous) acres of original research into the rapidly-becoming-Red-Letter-Day, St Totteringham's day. What do you reckon? Captmonkey (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this mention from an Article in 2008 mentions St Totteringham's Day as not a recent creation and also this mention in another paper gives sources that should facilitate it's inclusion. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The C of E - You may wish to proof-read things before you post them, as I'm not clear what you're trying to propose - both of those URLs are match reports from the last weekend of this season. 2010. Match reports that I humbly suggest have been created by journalists who've recently tripped upon the concept of 'St Totteringham's Day' *because* of the creedence Wikipedia has given it. Captmonkey (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Arsenal didn't play Blackburn on the last day. That kind of blows your theory that it was just a last day of the season thing. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I give up with you, The C of E, you're missing the point entirely. Please either give constructive input, or keep quiet. 'Last weekend' is perhaps a bit loose (yes, damn me to hell - it's a report for a match on the 2nd of May - the week before the last day), but as I seem to have to triple-explain things here - this has only been picked up by these hacks because of coverage on Wikipedia. Why are there no match reports from last season, or the season before? Or even from the mighty 'invincibles' season? Because no one had heard of it. That's why. No one. Captmonkey (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all in jest Captmonkey, I'm only yanking your chain. But seriously though, someone read the mirror or the sun articles and want to know what St Totteringham's day is. Where do they go? Isn't this an encyclopedia? Have I been confused all these years? I don't understand your logic at all. Those papers have millions of readers, surely one or two must have wondered what the journalists were on about, where do you propose they go to find out? If it's not the purpose of an encyclopedia to explain it then whose is it? Listening to you St Tot's day is only talked about here. There are thousands of Blogs and Fanzines out there mentioning it. In fact I challenge you to find me an Arsenal blog that doesn't talk about it. How about that? As for your assumption that 99% of Arsenal fans don't know what St Tot's day is, I'll take that bet! Saebhiar Adishatz 14:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough before. I am proposing the very reason that these recent articles mention a St Totteringham's Day is *purely* because of its erroneous inclusion on Wikipedia *before now*. Do you not think that if this wonderful celebration had existed since 2002, Arsenal fans would be crowing about it everywhere already? How come it's only *this* season, and in particular *this* weekend, that it has been caught up on? Surely Arsenal fans would have crowed louder than this before if it was *such* a celebration - bearing in mind that according to the rules of the 'day', this past season would be the first in a good while that actually occured on the last day of the season - what with Arsenal's superior recent league performances? Whatsmore, this is a page regarding a fixture that goes back nigh on 100 years, and as someone up there ^^ said before me, and i'll embolden it as I do think it is an excellent point; 'it is a total internet neologism. It is rooted in the attitude that the start of the Premiership was the start of football'. It deserves no inclusion whatsoever on this page. Captmonkey (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I reckon that if you asked any Gooner on Youtube (for instance), they'd know what St Totteringham's day is. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a caveat on the article pointing out that both celebrations are a fan thing and neither are recognised officialy by the clubs (yet). Saebhiar Adishatz 15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the page - see what you think... obviously, I expect you to revert it immediately, but - that's the truth about the so-called 'St Tot's day. The quicker this nonsense is off this page, the better. Captmonkey (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No comments I note, since The C of E got the page protected. No discussion since then. Very poor. Clearly reverting each others edits isn't the way forward. I state again that this fatuous bumpf has no right whatsoever to be on this page. End of. It has *nothing* to do with the North London Derby as a fixture, and isn't notable in its own right. Revert, revert, revert! Captmonkey (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally do think St Totteringham's day should at least get a mention as there are sources to back it up. The small section that Saebhiar whittled it down to is fair by that it doesn't go over the top in pro-Arsenal stuff and the majority of it is compressed into 2 sentences. As for the St Hotspurs day, if there's a source pertaining to that It should be included but if not then It should be removed when protection expires. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Once more again; I state again that this fatuous bumpf has no right whatsoever to be on this page. End of. It has *nothing* to do with the North London Derby as a fixture, and isn't notable in its own right. Revert, revert, revert! Captmonkey (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it can do as it was born out of the North London Derby, which makes it related to the fixture as sometimes the Day is detirmined when they play each other. The section has been drastically cut down to a minor section which couldn't hurt being had in the article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well - no, not at all. Name an occasion when this mythical day has been decided by the result of a North London derby tie.... It isn't notable and has no place on Wikipedia. What do we do - once the protection runs its course, I will, of course, revert the current revision of the page. Presumably, Saebhiar or yourself will then revert my deletion, and we circle back to square one. If we vote - what happens? It is hardly going to be impartial, as both yourself and Saebhiar identify as Arsenal fans... Captmonkey (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It happened as a result of a direct NLD tie in the 2006-07 season. We include it as it is a noteworthy date that goes with the rivalry. If the problem you have is that it's too "pro Arsenal", if tottenham have a similar day and it can be sourced that could be included as well. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The 'problem' I have is with Wikipedia allowing tripe like this to exist in an encyclopedia. I have asked, multiple times, for verifiable references (eg. not Facebook pages, or Arsenal forums) to this day *before* the end of this past season. There have been *none*. It has no bearing on the tie as a whole, it is a concept which only exists in the minds of a handful of Arsenal fans, and has only been picked up by the media purely *because* of its inclusion on this page for the last month or two. Wikipedia is a powerful tool - and people will blithely believe whatever they read on it - if Wikipedia says St Totteringham's day exists, well - then - it *must* do, right? Bullshit. Get this tripe off. Captmonkey (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call The BBC, The Mirror and The Sun, Facebook pages or Arsenal forums. And anyway where is your proof that those papers only wrote about St Totteringham's Day just because it was mentioed on Wikipedia? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, The C of E, but I refuse to waste my fingers any further by typing the same things over and over again to you. Are you being monumentally disingenuous deliberately, or are you just plain thick? Captmonkey (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And you seem to be ignoring the facts put before you. It is mentioned by 3 reputable sources so it is notible to be included in here and that's that. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Just thick then. I'll get with the bold again, see if it helps: I have asked, multiple times, for verifiable references (eg. not Facebook pages, or Arsenal forums) to this day *before* the end of this past season. There have been *none* If the wonderful St Totteringham's Day actually has existed, and more than a handful of interwebby forummers knew about it - then - what - *surely* someone would have mentioned it in a news report - somewhere impartial, you know.... anywhere in the 8 years it has been since the celebration was dreamed up on some forum? But... no. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. I implore you to re-READ this entire section, and try to understand the situation, rather than let your footballing allegiances muddy the waters. This is an encyclopaedia of facts, and should not be used to promote this fatuous nonsense. Captmonkey (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh for..... You seem to have not noticed what was brought up in the discussion. If you seem ignorant enough to ignore that just because it suits you, the sources given here, here and here as well clearly are NOT (I repeat) not Facebook pages or Arsenal Forums. If it's mentioned by 3 national newspapers, it's more than notable. I Implore YOU to take another look and understand that this is perfectally notible for inclusion. <sigh> I didn't want to have to use such strong words, but insulting me just too much to aviod doing it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god - are you seriously for real? READ. THE. PAGE. R-E-A-D. Once again:

I have asked, multiple times, for verifiable references (eg. not Facebook pages, or Arsenal forums) to this day *before* the end of this past season. There have been *none* If I could make it flash and blink in bright red, I would. Captmonkey (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because it's being mentioned this season and has origins back to 2002 doesn't make it any less notible than if say a newly founded amateur club gains national recognition. I would also appreciate it that you didn't use blasphemy. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As trolls go, you're quite good, The C of E. I do hope that when you grow up, you read things like this back and realise just how remarkably silly you look. When can we get someone with a modicum of common sense to have a look at this and see some wood for the trees, then? Captmonkey (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

St Totteringham's Day & St Hotspurs' Day

NOTES FOR ADMIN/EDITORS regarding edit war:

This page became protected by admin a week ago. The protection stems from my reversions of The C of E and a co-conspirator's edits on this page, which continually try to establish a fatuous nonsense celebration day that allegedly all Arsenal fans celebrate - St Totteringham's day. By its inclusion on Wikipedia since early April, it has been picked up on by a couple of online news reports - as Arsenal and Tottenham were both vying for 3rd place until the last day of the season this year - who have believed what they've read on Wikipedia and have mentioned (exceptionally briefly) this so-called day. These mentions have given The C of E and his cohorts the belief that this is now grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia. It has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as far as they are concerned.

I have asked for any verifiable references to this day *before* the last week or two of the last football season - and they have been unable/unwilling to come up with any - other than Facebook pages and Arsenal forums - my position is that *if* this day has really been celebrated by thousands of fans around the world - then, surely there would have been a mention of it somewhere verifiable before now? Allegedly, its been an on-going celebration since 2002 - yet there's no mention of it in any news source, other than in the last couple of weeks of this past season - a time when the nonsense was available on Wikipedia.

This isn't simply "You're wrong, I'm right!"/"No YOU'RE wrong, I'M right!"; as The C of E identifies as an Arsenal fan on his user page, as do his co-conspirators - hardly unbiased, balanced editorial - it appears to be a co-ordinated case of a couple of Arsenal fans trying to legitimatise a so-called celebration dreamed up on some Arsenal fan forum by having its inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm sure that a handful of Arsenal fans who are internet users and who frequent Arsenal forums will have heard of such a day; but what fraction of the 60,000 that turn up at Arsenal home games? Or what fraction of the potentially millions of fans around the world? This is not notable, not verifiable and not worthy of inclusion.

In addition to this, all reasoning with The C of E seems to be utterly, utterly fruitless as he appears to disregard any facts or contrary information given to him and appears unwilling and unable to engage in meaningful dialogue.

Can I ask that you review the edit log of the page, and in particular the this talk page (the long section above beginning 'St Totteringham's day'), and offer your thoughts. Thank you. Captmonkey (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out that Captmonkey's behaviour here has been less than suitible for discussion. Accusing someone of being a troll and a conspirator without firm evidence is hardly model behaviour for a discussion and is violating WP:NPA. I asked for the page to be protected to avoid an edit war and to stop Captmonkey violating the 3RR rule. This is not an edit war, it is a discussion anyway. As I said the sources given are from reputable sources and just because it has been common knowledge to most now when it wasn't before doesn't exclude it from inclusion. I would also like to point your attention to the edits before the page was protected and the fact I warned both Captmonkey and Sabhier not to persist and continue the discussion on the talkpage, not the main page. The sources he disputes as Facebook pages or Arsenal fourms here, here and here as well are clearly NOT any of those but mentions from 3 reputable national newspapers. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins - this is *exactly* what I mean by saying that dialog with The C of E is fruitless... He *constantly* ignores the fact that these news reports are *all* from the closing week or so of the past season - a time when there was around 10 paragraphs of original research on the North London Derby page dressing up the concept of St Totteringham's day as if it was some kind of national holiday for Arsenal fans, when in fact, it's a complete neologism that only exists in the minds of a handful of internet-savvy fans. I paint him as a troll because of his antics on this page - which, if you read the sections above, should either make you laugh or cry. No one, surely, can be *that* disingenuous. Captmonkey (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh again with the WP:NPA violation! Need I remind you that I was originally for having all of the paragraph in it but I accepted to compromise given by Saebiher to cut it down drastically, you seem to be continuously trying to push your "no pro-Arsenal stuff" angle on the page. Admins the compromise was what you currently see on the page as of me making this comment. Captmonkey's claim this is an internet neologism is incorrect as it was mentioned in national newspapers which are not just circulated on the internet so it cannot be only "internet-savvy" fans who know about it as it is circulated to people who may not even use the internet much. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For crying out loud, St Totteringham's day is mentioned in a 2007 Arsenal-Villa official match programme. And has been referenced in national newspapers since, what more do you want? It's not like we dedicated a whole article to it, it's just 2 lines at the bottom of a secondary article, why are we still fighting this retarded crusade?!? St Totteringham's day exists, I didn't make it up, C of E didn't make it up. It's aliiiive! Accept it and move on.Saebhiar Adishatz 04:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Provide viable references, and we'll do just that Saebhiar... And, please refrain from personal attacks - it is hardly 'retarded' in removing non-notable, un-factual information from an otherwise well-written article. Captmonkey (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will point out there that what Saebhiar said was not a personal attack as he did not say that Captmonkey was retarded, ust the discussion. Anyway I've made my views crystal clear on this and since I'm supposed to be on a semi-wikibreak and this has taken too much of my time up I will not be continuing to partake in this in regular intervals. St Totteringham's day is a legitamate existing thing and should remain on this page with all its sources. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will point out that *I* never made a personal attack either, I merely asked a question, and you confirmed the answer with your irrelevant and ignorant answer. *rolls eyes* I suggest you take that break, The C of E. One viable reference, gentlemen, that's all it takes.... Captmonkey (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that all dialogue ceases when admins lock the page - Very poor. Captmonkey (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it was only because I am supposed to be on a semi-wikibreak and don't have much time for things like this that dialouge has broken down The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Truly, truly depressing. A whole month and neither offender offers any citations or references, and instead - one regurgitates the nonsense verbatim. And this user seeks Adminship!! Incredible. Captmonkey (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

C of E - I've asked for a Wikipedia:Third_opinion on this. Captmonkey (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'll ignore all the NPA stuff and focus on the content:

St Totteringham's Day: This is now (or was before it was reverted) sourced to four sources, namely the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, and a very short mention in a BBC live update. All of these sources appeared in May 2010. Before May 2010, this page was sourced to clearly unreliable sources. It was thus my initial view that we had circular sourcing here. However, other articles exist from as early as 2005.[1] There may be a bit of self-fulfilling here - I can't say for sure whether some or all of the news outlets have used wikipedia as a reference - but I think there is enough to be confident that not all of the verification is circular sourcing.

St Hotspurs' Day: This seems to be entirely unverified and should be deleted.

There is then the issue of presentation. Even at its best, the sources only discuss this "day" in passing mentions. Therefore I don't think it is significant enough to warrant a separate section of the article, and there's not enough sourced content to support any more than a sentence or two. I therefore suggest that the "day" be mentioned briefly in an existing section of the article (eg "History").

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As you say how can we know for sure if they did use Wikipedia? There was a mention above that it was mentioned in an Arsenal programme against Aston villa a few years ago which is not exactly recent and could be a direct reference. I'd agree with the removal of the St hotspurs day but I still feel that St Totteringham's Day is worthy of inclusion as it has the sources from 4 (now 5) reliable sources and that the section has been dramatically cut down from what it originally was but unfortunatly Captmonkey seemed to reject that compromise as it's allegidly pro-Arsenal. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But the second paragraph of the section is totally unsourced so it needs to go. That leaves us with one very short paragraph that stylistically (and for reasons of undue weight) really shouldn't have its own section.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but surely you should see that if you look up St Totteringham's Day on Arsenal.com you get a total of 0 results, this would suggest that the club doesn't acnowledge it offically which would back up what the second paragraph is saying. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's true but it's also impermissible original research.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It also suggests just *how* many Arsenal fans *actually* 'celebrate' this day - zero. Captmonkey (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Tut tut tut, Just because it's not mentioned by The Club does not mean it is not celebrated by Arsenal supporters. I celebrate it, Sahebier celebrates it (that's 2 who do already, so that theory that no-one celebrates it is flawed) and I'm sure if you looked on any Arsenal forum, you'd find many others who do as well. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk)

Oh and what have we here? Oh it looks like we have comments from Gooners celebrating St Totteringham's Day. So much for no-one celebrating it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, C of E, you do make me laugh sometimes. You don't actually 'celebrate' it - do you have a cake? Do you light fireworks and dance traditional gooner dances around the Emirates? No, you don't. Its just a day like any other. But, I digress - we have a 3rd opinion, and that opinion is that the concept itself is so frail that it doesn't really warrant a separate section on the page. I therefore propose we remove it, but with the proviso that if further, repeated, reliable references are made in the mass media, it may warrant a small section in the future. Do you concur? Captmonkey (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What so 5 reliable sources (1 from 5 years ago) still isn't reliable references? However I don't really have the time to continue this discussion so I will merge it into the history section, and I may well take you up on that when more come(which they invariably will). The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Mkativerata. Thanks, also, for finding a reference from 2005! However, I do believe that the concept itself is somewhat fatuous and really doesn't actually merit inclusion on this page. What does it *actually* have to do with the North London derby as a fixture? I still maintain that it shouldn't be on this page. Captmonkey (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable - still trying to game the system, C of E? I see the same nonsense has now appeared on this page and a handy St. Totteringham's day redirect has been created and linked to on this page... Give it up, C of E. Captmonkey (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're so full of it Captmonkey, you're claiming it has nothing to do on the North London derby page and you could have a point but at the same time, while nobody is looking, you're trying to delete the section from the Arsenal Supporters page as well! I guess Arsenal customs have no place on the Arsenal support page either by your logic. You've lost all credibility mate. Anyhoo, I'm tired of this. I've logged a complaint on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents so we can have an official resolution to this. Saebhiar Adishatz 16:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Everything on Wikipedia is logged, you buffoon. I'm not trying to delete things whilst 'no one is looking' - I'm striving for QUALITY on Wikipedia. This is fatuous nonsense and has no place here, either on this page, or your Arsenal supporters page - which, in itself probably doesn't actually warrant a page of its own anyway. You're only sore because you've been caught with your fingers in the honeypot in your efforts to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Captmonkey (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right of course, you got me. It was me all along. I managed to convince a guy I never met to start the idea 8 years ago. I alone, managed to have half a dozen national newspapers to talk about it. I also hacked the BBC website and managed to put of mention of St. Tot's day in there as well. And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that pesky Captmonkey! Bloody hell, get a grip mate. Saebhiar Adishatz 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No - you created several paragraphs of original research, and plonked it on this and the Arsenal supporters page, and, at the tail end of last season, when Arsenal and Spurs were vying for a top 3 finish in the Premier League, lo - it was caught upon by the media - which is where your references came from. A nice perfect circle. I've said many times that I don't doubt that *some* Arsenal fans follow this 'day', but the overarching vast, vast majority have no idea of it. Captmonkey (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Again with that speculation (or what some may consider a conspiricy theory). Can you prove that these reliable sources all used Wikipedia to get the idea of including St Totteringham's day? If you cannot, what you're saying is just hearsay or maybe a nice piece of WP:OR! The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re what does it have to do with the north London derby as a fixture? This is a good point that I didn't consider earlier. Despite the article's title, it is clearly to do with the rivalry between the two clubs generally rather than the derby fixture specifically. For instance, it covers the Sol Campbell move, Tottenham allowing Arsenal to play at White Hart Lane during the war, etc. So perhaps the title of the article is a little too narrow (compare Yankees – Red Sox rivalry). I'm not suggesting an article move or anything but just to note that this article does appear to go beyond the mere derby fixture. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with Captmonkey that there really is no valid basis for the mention of St Totteringham day on this page. It is a trivial and puerile invention - and was clearly only ever initially included on this page by a puerile Arsenal fan with a fondness for trivia. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. Whatever next? Are we to post all the songs that each clubs' fans sing about each other? Let's see now.....what else of a trivial nature can we possibly include? Nevertheless, since it is quite clear that Captmonkey is fighting a losing battle, I see no option but to embrace the principle of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". I have therefore restored mention of St Hotspur day, which pre-dates St Totteringham day by a good ten years. It's quite frankly preposterous to argue that the one should be included and not the other. Shelfsider (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization - s/b North London Derby

I can't fix the capitalization because the page is protected. Admins, please! Chris the speller (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Made consistent. Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC).

William Gallas

Added to 'Crossing The Divide: Arsenal, then Tottenham' db1987db (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

According to our tables, Gallas had 101 caps for Arsenal and only played for them in one derby. That can't be right, can it? --BDD (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

He was there from 2006 so there must be more. Did they count any Carling Cup games as I'm sure he may have played in at least 1 of the 2007 or 2008 semi's? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

He played for Arsenal against Tottenham on 21 April 2007, 22 December 2007, 22 January 2008 (League Cup), 29 October 2008, 8 February 2009 & 31 October 2009 - a total of 6 derbies.Goonerak (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fans

I added a section on fans since it seems to me that fierce, local sporting rivalry is even more about the fans than it is about the teams / clubs. Shelfsider (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

St Hotspur Day

Since my restoration of the mention of St Hotspur Day was undone by C of E on the grounds of a lack of source, I have provided five separate sources. These sources might not be deemed to be recognized or reliable by some. However, the whole point of both St Hotspur Day and St Totteringham Day is that they are fan inventions. Therefore, virtually all mention of them will inevitably be restricted to fan websites and publications. The fact that a mere handful of more recognized sources have very recently mentioned St Totteringham Day in no way validates it more than St Hotspur Day. As Captmonkey has pointed out, these more recognized sources would have sourced their information from this very page. And this page only ever mentioned St Totteringham Day because some Arsenal fan decided to post it here (without citing any initial reliable sources - for the simple reason that, at the time, there weren't any). I don't doubt that these same recognized sources would have picked up on St Hotspur Day if it too had been mentioned on this page. So I repeat my earlier position on the matter. Neither St Hotspur Day nor St Totteringham Day belong on a page such as this. But if one must be mentioned, then the other must too - especially since the notion of St Hotspur Day has been in existence for considerably longer than the notion of St Totteringham Day and was, in fact, the inspiration behind St Totteringham Day*. It would be nonsensical to argue otherwise. Any further mention of one and simultaneous omission of the other would invalidate this page as not being written from a neutral point of view. *The term "St Hotspur Day" was first coined in the former fanzine, The Spur, in the first published edition after the 1991 FA Cup semi final. Shelfsider (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish to point out to you is have you read the source there from the Guardian? That was written in 2005, before this page even existed so that claim is incorrect. As for them sourceing from here thats a very tenious link and the proof? As was discussed earlier we couldn't use Gooner blogs to source St Totteringhams day, so why should we be allowed to use spurs blogs to source St Hotspurs day? That doesn't work, you need 3rd party sources to source things like this like a newspaper, not a fan made blog. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As you well know, C of E, that Guardian source, like most of the sources that have been cited in favour of the inclusion of St Totteringham Day, is merely a blog too. The fact that it is a blog attached to the online version (but not the print version) of the Guardian does not validate it. Another source that has been cited for St Totteringham Day is a BBC live text commentary page. Well, since that has been deemed acceptable, I have now cited a Daily Telegraph "As it happened" page for St Hotspur Day. On a more general level, can I ask what has changed for you over the past six months? It wasn't so long ago that you accepted the mention of St Hotspur Day on this page as reasonable. But now you insist on its exclusion. I sincerely hope that we are not seeing a smallness of mind at work here? You and I know perfectly well that St Hotspur Day exists as a notion in the minds of Spurs fans every bit as much as St Totteringham Day exists in the minds of Arsenal fans. We both know that the notion of St Hotspur Day pre-dates St Totteringham Day by a good decade. And we both know that St Totteringham Day was inspired by St Hotspur Day. So I repeat, while I feel that neither is worthy of mention on a page such as this, if one must be mentioned then so must the other. I can't see an individual atom but I know that it is there. I can't provide you with reams of articles in the Times or Guardian about St Hotspur Day but we both know that, as a notion, it exists. If we must have mention of either on this page, let's not allow petty club rivalry, and recourse to pedantry to get in the way of a full and proper disclosure. As I said, if one is included and not the other, then this page cannot be deemed to have been written from a neutral point of view - which would render it utterly worthless. Is that what you want? I have enough faith in you to believe that you don't. Please don't prove my faith to be misplaced. Shelfsider (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah.....I've just seen your edit, C of E. Fair enough. And well done for confirming my faith in you. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelfsider (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no problem with St hotspurs's day being included as I only wanted sourced things to be included from the reliable 3rd party sources which I had to do tooth and nail to have St Totteringham's day included (despite it being allowed by a wikipedia policy) that the st hotspurs day got ignored as at the time when it was included there were no sources for it so it was removed. I just want to see it included with 3rd party sources and not fan blogs (I know it sounds familiar to the debate above but it's true) and if no 3rd party sources can be found, then it can't go in there and the burden is on the adder to source it satisfactory. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable derby matches

The Tottenahm 5-1 Arsenal sounds awfully bias.

Why can't we include the 4-4 draw and the Arsenal 4-1 Totteham just last month? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.143.38 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like that 5-1 thing either but as the section subheader says, it's for only if a team wins a trophy via victories over the other so for example if Arsenal won the Carling Cup this year, we could include the 4-1. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the 4-4 game should be included. The League Cup games are after all not that important compared to Premier League games - and the 4-4 was a spectacular one that wont be forgotten in a long time. --Lindberg (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it was certainly notable, I'd agree to it's inclusion. The Carling cup one this year will probibly be included in March as the Carling Cup is very highly likely to be going to Arsenal. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, The Carling cup thrasing of 4-1 should be added. It seems Arsenal will win that. The match reports seem extremely bias though, there is a constant shot at Arsenal in them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.89.96 (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

History

I saw that there was a revision taking out the portion of the history section which gave synopses of games from about 2010 to 2013 and then it was put back in. Perhaps there should be a "recent history" section where little snippets regarding recent games are. Otherwise, I don't believe that so much of the 100+ year history between the clubs should be focused on games between 2010 and 2013. Frankly, I think the only ones that deserve any mention are the 2-0 to 3-2 at the Emirates, because it was Spurs first win there and the first in a long time over the big clubs. And Arsenal's 5-2 win in the 2011-12 season, because they were down 2-0 and because it was the first step in erasing a 10-point lead that Spurs had in the table. (The latter fact isn't even mentioned in the article.) The other games weren't particularly noteworthy. All these games are noteworthy because it's the North London Derby. But there is nothing that makes the other games particularly noteworthy and there's no reason those games should be listed over others or take such a huge amount of the 100+ year history between these clubs. Dawindler (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

This part of the article is looking messy and I agree with above comments. I seem to remember this happened before and it was agreed just to include notable matches such as title deciders. Can I suggest all this recent stuff to be deleted and maybe put under a different heading. Northmetpit (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

As nobody replied to the above comment. I will take out the offending text within the next week. Northmetpit (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Extraneous info?

"Arsenal play their home games at the Emirates Stadium, while Tottenham Hotspur play their home games at White Hart Lane. However, the latter will play its UEFA Champions League home games at Wembley Stadium for the 2016/17 campaign."

Is there a reason why this is included? Doesn't seem very relevant to a page about a rivalry that occurs in the Prem—unless they eventually do meet in the Champions League, the point about Wembley seems rather tangential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.54.58 (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Statistics confusion

The numbers given in the article are confusing. Why start with 1909 for the count in the stats section? If we are talking about matches between the two teams, then it goes further back than that, and if we are talking about matches between the two team after Arsenal moved to north London (i.e. when matches between them can be properly called North London derby), then it's later. That their first Football League meeting started in 1909 is neither here nor there. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There still seem to be a number of discrepancies in the figures in the articles, someone needs to check them. Hzh (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)