Talk:Hope Solo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHope Solo has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 12, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
October 22, 2013Good article reassessmentListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 30, 2022.
Current status: Good article

World Cup[edit]

What should we do regarding game-by-game updates? Probably nothing... I dunno. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup, every game. Oh Snap 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think she was big part of this team now..hope the womans league had more good players like her — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalo1954 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, she has a Very Cool name . This needs to be highlighted so people know she is representing the SOLO clan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.240.155 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra photos[edit]

Click on 'images' under a Google-search for more pictures. -- AstroU (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 195.241.26.184, 10 July 2011[edit]

Hope is still listed at being 29, even though her birthday has been a few days ago and she's 30 now.

195.241.26.184 (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The article is showing her birthdate to be July 30th which has not occurred yet. Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

she's italian american[edit]

there is an article on USAToday, where she says her father was an italian from the Bronx.. I don't know why but I can't do paste and copy.. 93.56.51.12 (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put a link to your source here. Sentient Planet (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/national/2007-07-24-hope-solo_N.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.184.122 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mysterious gap between 2005 and 2009[edit]

what did she do then? which Team did she play for? On which money did she live? This article does not seem to give any information about her club (ont national team) career in that time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.143.96 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think in that period the USA national team held residential training camps that went on for months at a time and played 20 to 30 international games a year. Presumably the Football Association in America had the top players like Solo on some sort of central contract? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same seems to be the case for the other USA team members also. The only things that are mentioned are 2007 world cup and 2008 olympics. It also results an odd thing: most of them have more national team appearances than regular teams appearances. 82.141.64.160 (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam[edit]

We have a reliable source saying Solo's father fought in Vietnam. On the other hand, Solo's half-brother David, their father's son from another marriage, "isn't sure." The interview with David is here. And there are also other details there that may be worth including in the article.—Biosketch (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request[edit]

I tried to enter her major individual honors into the infobox, but was unsuccessful; perhaps someone familiar with templates/infoboxes will consider posting these data: 

|Individual Honors
|2000-02 - 3-time NSCAA All-American
|2009 - US Soccer Women's Player of the Year
|2009 - WPS Goalkeeper of the Year
|2011 - Golden Glove Women's World Cup
|2011 - Bronze Ball Women's World Cup

Thanks Patrickwooldridge (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement over the terminology used in the lead here, particularly between User:Hmlarson and User:Barryjjoyce. Please refrain from further edit warring on the article itself and try to determine a consensus here. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for jumping in to the discussion with me and @Hmlarson:. Perhaps I don't fully understand what needs to be cited in the lead, and what does not. My impression was that the applicable policy here is WP:LEADCITE, which describes when material in the lead must be cited: "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation" and particularly "contentious material about living persons, must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement." Is that the right standard here?
Regardless of the answer to my question, I'm not quite sure what are the objections to providing the cites. If there are cites available, they should be easy to add. If no cites are available, that raises a different set of questions. Barryjjoyce (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

shady[edit]

this entire page reads like it was written by solo's PR team. terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.226.20 (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. Anything in specific? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of any reference to the fappening, for one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8E6:CAC0:E16A:B51A:2FA8:9B03 (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an encyclopedic event and has no reason to be listed. Anything else? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. In an encyclopedia. Along with a list of people affected ... Fappening — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:b8e6:cac0:6900:6927:bcb2:1b54 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed the point. As a phenomenon, it is notable. Unless a reliable source can be provided, there is no need to mention it. Not everything that a notable individual does, or happens to that person, is immediately notable. A blog that shows the images is not a reliable source. A talk page is not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

name shared with irish singer[edit]

Hello, shouldn't this article be entitled "hope solo (american athleet)? there is a manchester born Irish singer that died of ALS in 2010 that has the name Hope Solo too if i remember that episode of SOT in 2010 correctly, she went under the stage name Aliana. she was dating swedish producer Marcus Schossow from 2009 untill her death in late 2010. 199.195.166.103 (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth consideration should there be an article about the Irish singer you have mentioned? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what i can find. I was actually on here trying to find out if she was in other Armin Van Buuren stuff when i came accross the football player with this name. 199.195.166.103 (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC) I couldn't find much about her, except for what Marcus was able to confirm, that her other two stage names were Kimbalee and Deanna and has worked with people like Solu music and Austin Leeds. She really didn't do much under Aliana except for one song that i heard on ASOT by armin van Buuren in 2010 after her death. That's all i know at the moment, but i will continue to update you on your talkpage as info comes in. I'll be sure to find sources so you know that i'm not just rambilng on about things i can't prove. thanks. PS, marcus did the ice bucket challenge. 199.195.166.103 (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this athlete's real name is Hope Stevens, while the Irish singer's birth name is actually Hope Ann Solo probbibly clears up some confusion between the two, not to mention the singer is deceased. Eric Ramus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article, TNKS[edit]

Thanks for the work on this article, well done. Pictures are good. Click on 'images' under a Google-search for more pictures. -- AstroU (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: I'll be 'watching' and helping edit.[reply]

Information on the DV charges?[edit]

More detailed descriptions about the domestic violence charges was given out. Uhm, bear with me as I'm trying to learn wiki, but this ESPN article gives more details about the incident. The police report was also used, but I'm not too sure if we could take quotes from that or not. Anyways, I'm wondering if we could add what both sides claim happened or just quotes from the article or something.

As the is now it kind of leaves the reader wondering what happened to lead to those charges, but I dunno if it was written that way on purpose or not. Anyways, thanks for helpin' a noob editor like me out. Sethyre (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caps count[edit]

today is July 10th 2016, Solo's cap count should be 197 not 196... I'm just wondering how does it change? Can someone fix it?

this is the link to the official cap count: Solo 100 shutouts and caps and wins — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelM0105 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the infobox? I did that here, so you can see how it's done. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suspension/termination[edit]

I think this does merit its own sub section now, since as well as the suspension Hope has been "terminated" from her USWNT contract. A shot in the wider legal battle over the gender pay gap? I reckon we could find sources to support that. Perhaps our kind and hospitable host Walter Görlitz could oblige us with the section's reinstatement, or provide some further clarification for its removal? Many thanks, 2A02:C7D:46F1:2B00:C9C0:FE36:2681:4EB2 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terminated? That's not actually in any source and so I call WP:NOR.
The action for which she was suspended was the key, not the suspension itself. I don't own the article either, I monitor it for editors like you who want to blow trivia out of proportion and make unsubstantiated claims (such as her contract being terminated). There are many examples of players being suspended for their on-field (or on-court, or on-ice) behaviour. See how those articles treat the subject and I will have no problems following them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Walt, I humbly submit that her contract has been terminated. See for example [1], [2]. There is a good overview here which situates the termination within the context of the labor dispute. The head of the players' union says he will be appealing the termination on grounds of, inter alia, gender discrimination. Craving your indulgence, I don't think any of this is disproportionate trivia and/or unsubstantiated. 2A02:C7D:46F1:2B00:85DC:FE0C:8280:ECC0 (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the updated information. This could be a larger story and would be deserving of a section of its own. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish coach Pia Sundhage said: "I don't give a crap. I'm going to Rio, she's going home."[119] The comment resulted in a six-month suspension by US Soccer.[120]

The way this is written makes it sound like Sundhage has been suspended for six months, not Solo. I propose this should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.192.222 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out! I've clarified it. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anymore up to date information regarding the suspension? Can we add Solo's thoughts and potential future plans? MeredithMimoso (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for anything in particular you want to add? -- Irn (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Football importance[edit]

@Walter Görlitz, Bring back Daz Sampson, and CUA 27: According to the WikiProject Football importance scale, a designation of "high importance" is to be given to "Top-rated world-class players and managers." I would definitely say that that applies to Solo. -- Irn (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought so too! Also Joy Fawcett and Christie Rampone seem to have been tweaked downwards by the same editor, who seems to handing a free rein to his or her own subjectivity. It seems bizarre to me when you consider the evidence i.e. all the World Cup/Olympics medals they racked up over the years. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement?

Regardless of your answer to that question, if you are interested in understanding the motivation behind my efforts on the US Soccer articles I've been working on in recent weeks (eg, see my edits in recent weeks at USWNT or Alan Rothenberg) to find if we can collaborate, I'd interested in having that conversation, perhaps on your talk page or mine, but probably not here. If on the other hand you are merely looking to score a cheap win here in an edit disagreement war, I'm not interested in that discussion. CUA 27 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war? re: WP Football assessment issue? Ok... if you wish. For the record, I agree with @Irn: and @Bring back Daz Sampson:. The talk page where such "edit wars" occur is the appropriate page to discuss and re-establish consensus. Hmlarson (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CUA 27: I'm not interested in your motivations. I'm interested in your interpretation of the above-quoted guideline to this article. -- Irn (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to WP:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Hmlarson (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: Why are you giving orders? Why can't you simply respond here? -- Irn (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Irn: Sorry if I made is seem as though it was an imperative. Allow me to explain. What I meant was I do not agree that Solo is a top-rated world-class player at all (which is obvious since I reverted). Primarily because the woman's sport is not in the top flight. The FIFA Women's World Cup does not command the viewership that the Men's version does. The number of spectators at any given qualifying match is significantly lower. The women's leagues play shorter seasons and draw fewer spectators. The best that can be said is she's a large fish in a small pond. That's why I suggested that the discussion should be made in front a larger audience of domain experts, but by all means, carry on here and make changes based on your biased opinion which will be repeatedly reverted because they're based on a flawed criteria rather than an objective criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This viewpoint is severely outdated: Record-breaking FIFA Women’s World Cup tops 750 million TV viewers, U.S. Women Shatter TV Ratings Record For Soccer With World Cup Win. Objectivity requires re-assessment now and then for accuracy. Hmlarson (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Irn — You've asked me a fair question. I look at "world-class players" as being a rather select group. When the modifier "top rated world class player" is added, that to me further emphasizes that it's a very small number of players that make the grade. I don't know if that helps, as the guideline we are examining here leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation. I'll add that in no year has Solo been considered one of the top three female players in the game; I'm not arguing that this list is definitive and the only guidepost that we can/should use, so if there is something objective or objective-ish that points in the other direction, please share. CUA 27 (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You realize that that's the total viewership of the tournament, was only a fraction of the Men's game, right? With the men's final eclipsing the total tournament's ratings, right? The record that was "shattered" was not viewership for a football tournament, but of the women's tournament. The men reached 3.2 billion. Even if it was 750 million for the final match, Solo was not the player of the match, she was just on the team. The only thing she's outstanding at is making an ass of herself by being a sore loser. Fortunately for her, there's no rating for that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Mirror. Serious mirror. Hmlarson (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: A sports' viewership has nothing to do with being a “top-rated world-class” player, and I don't understand why you think it's relevant. -- Irn (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Participation from a world-class player will guarantee increased viewership. That's why MLS teams try to hire them as designated players. That's why the top European teams try to hire the best players. If they win more, they garner more interest and greater viewership. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Viewership has a direct correlation on stardom. The English Premier League pays the most, has the most world class players. Next is La Liga. After that, nothing. If a brilliant Brazilian plied his trade in Belgium, no-one would consider him "world-class". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Solo was the best goalkeeper and an all-star team member at the last two World Cups. That seems pretty elite to me. Hack (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she is a "world-class" goalkeeper according to the likes of Fortune, CNN, Bleacher Report to start... and completely in line with WP:Footy's assessment guideline. WP:FOOTY has generally deemed itself irrelevant for women's football / soccer around the world and several editors seem to love getting wrapped up in silly "wars" like this which appear to have little to do with actual policy and guidelines. Time is better spent working on actual content. Hmlarson (talk)
A business news writer is not an expert on a football player. Deborah E. Bloom and Ray Sanchez reporting for CNN is not an expert on a football player. At least Bleacher Report is an expert on sports, but the author, Mike Chiari specializes in wrestling and (ice) hockey. Likely not a specialist in footballer. She did make the inaugural Women's World XI, but that award was ignored by mainstream media, while the men's award is highly covered and analyzed. The only news story I found on it was the BBC complaining that no English players made the list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article describing Denilson as a world class player, as he was moving from the Saudi Arabian league to MLS, where he was cut after half a season because he was a flop. The phrase "world class" is bandied about in the media quite frequently, and if we used media mentions of "world class" to decide which players are high importance, the standards would be so diluted as to be almost meaningless. CUA 27 (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay we can I think see a clear consensus forming that 200+ caps for the best team in the world puts Solo in the high importance bracket. After all that was the long-time stable version of the page before CUA 27's contentious intervention. After CUA 27's peculiar first reply he/she has now at least tried to come up with some objective justification. It should be clear to all of us that CUA 27 made their edit in good faith, but - on this occasion - has made a simple misjudgement which is why they've received all this static from other editors. Hey, it happens. But if you were feeling as though your other work on here had been somehow impugned, CUA 27, let me assure you that it hasn't. The single editor supporting the change is citing a non-existent rule against females being high importance in WP:FOOTBALL. This editor is arguing against Solo's "importance" despite being all over her article (and its associated talk page) like a dog eating beetroot! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the most recent post proposed for the first time using 200 caps as the criteria, I don't see how a clear consensus has formed around that proposal. Using a threshold of a certain number of caps has the advantage in that it's clear to see if a player falls above that threshold or below. But the downside of using a cap cutoff is that we get odd results: a 200 caps cutoff would put 18 female footballers in that category (most of them from one country), and no male footballers in that category. If we lowered the cap for male footballers to 100, we'd get 19 players from Saudi Arabia but only 4 from Brazil. Whatever standard we come up with to interpret "top-rated world-class footballer" would have to be workable, not just as applied to this article, but to other footy bio articles too. Are there other criteria we could apply that would lead to a sensible result at this article and at other footy bio articles? CUA 27 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it will need to happen on a case-by-case basis. With all due respect 200 caps for Saudi Arabia does not denote a Top-rated world-class player, whereas 200 caps for consistently the best team in the world probably would. Anyway, the consensus isn't just about caps but an objective consideration of all honors and titles: Olympic gold medals etc etc. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the criteria for high importance were interpreted as 200 caps plus played on a World Cup winning team, we would end up with no male footballers on the list and likely over 10 female footballers on the list, most from the USWNT. One problem with using caps as a threshold is that the USWNT plays A LOT of matches, in some years playing over 30 matches, so we get a skewed picture. CUA 27 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I think we should keep caps out of it. It's arbitrary and blunt, eliminating all sorts of nuance.
I like that you brought up the FIFA Player of the Year Award as a place to start, and it is worth noting that one female goal keeper was on that list was Solo was active (Nadine Angerer). That said, I should note that I don't follow football very closely, and so I don't know how Solo compares, but I was under the impression that she's been pretty much regarded as the best female goalkeeper in the world for the past few years. I just did some googling to see if I could confirm that and found that she has won the IFFHS's Best Woman Goalkeeper award four years in a row, with 148 points to Nadine Angerer's 66 points for 2015. (And two sports websites that I’m not familiar with put her at the top spot as well.) Is that enough to say she's a “top-rated world-class” player? I don't know, but I definitely think it's enough to say she's a “top-rated world-class” goalkeeper. -- Irn (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From a completely neutral, outside perspective (I follow men's European football), Hope Solo is absolutely one of the top ten female players in the history of the game, so her importance is high to the project. Simple as that. But while I'm here, please realise that these importance parameters really have no impact on our readers at all so there's little point in arguing ad infinitum about them. Spend the time you would have used up arguing by improving the article, or any other article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ironically the importance parameter is not, er, important because it doesn't seem to do anything or mean anything. I find it amusing that we have a proliferation of obscure Albanian journeymen among the hundreds of articles currently basking in high importance status, while editors express genuine horror/outrage at the prospect of "likely over 10 female footballers on the list". Amusing but also a little sad. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Albanian issue is an easy one to resolve (reduce the players' priority), while I am opposed to sexual discrimination and would argue that it's unfair, but not our problem to resolve. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to User:Irn) — Welcome back to the discussion! (BTW: I'm really impressed at your ability to bring the conversation back to the merits. And I appreciate your link to confirmation bias, something that is good for all of us to be aware of).
Thank you for sharing your research with helpful links. I am familiar with the IFFHS and find it entertaining but dodgy. Their list of "48 football legend players" has more players from Egypt and China (2 each) that it does from Spain (1), and even includes a player each from New Zealand and India, which unfortunately are footballing backwaters. I'm not familiar with the last two sports websites you cite, but note that the SportsLook article also links to an article titled "top 10 hottest female soccer players 2015", so draw your own conclusions there as to how much weight to place on that one. And finally, I'm less enthusiastic about lists that evaluate one position only; I'd put more weight on a list that looks at footballers for all 11 positions.

Even though you and I are on the opposite side of this debate, I think we agree in principle that a reasonable way to determine notability levels is to look to experts' views on which players are great and which don't make the cut. My preference would be to rely on official or quasi-official pronouncements from FIFA (not everybody's favorite organization right now, I know). CUA 27 (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

My suggested criteria that we would use to evaluate whether Hope Solo (or any other footballer) is high importance would be something like the following:

"A player is considered High Importance if he/she meets any of the following three criteria:

  1. Any player designated by FIFA as one of the greatest players of all-time or one of the greatest players over an extended period of time. This includes the FIFA 100, World Team of the 20th Century, FIFA World Cup All-Time Team, and the top three players on the FIFA Female Player of the Century.
  2. Any male footballer who has placed in the top three on at least two occasions in the FIFA World Player of the Year or FIFA Ballon d'Or ballots. Any female footballer who has placed in the top three on at least three occasions in the FIFA World Player of the Year ballots.
  3. Any male footballer who has placed on the FIFA World Cup Dream Team or All Star Team for at least two tournaments. Any female footballer who has won the World Cup Golden Ball as the tournament's best player."

Criterion #1 is something I'm raising for the fist time. Criterion #2 I raised previously, and criterion #3 was previously suggested by User:Hack, and I don't think any editors to date have condemned either of those criteria. For criterion #2 and #3, by adding the requirement that a player appears on the list at least twice, we're avoiding the situation of a player who has one brilliant year or one brilliant tournament, but overall not a brilliant career.

I hope you will all give this proposal some thought, and ask you to spend at least a few moments evaluating the proposal on its merits before deciding you like it or hate it because Solo happens to fall on the "right" or "wrong" side of the line. Cheers! CUA 27 (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 & 2 assume Women's World Cup is of equal ranking to men's and has equal recognition in the eyes of all. Oppose on those grounds. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your point re the men's tournament having greater viewership/support/notability than the women's tournament is a valid one. Not everyone is happy about that fact, but it is what it is. I have revised the criteria above in response. I don't think a proposal that has zero women's players will achieve consensus, and I don't think a proposal that splits men & women 50/50 will achieve consensus, so I'm trying to find a balance that not everyone here will like but hopefully most can agree it's at least not an unreasonable set of criteria. CUA 27 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler proposal: Solo is of "high importance" to football, simple as that. Other such proposals need to be made at the football project, not on the talk page of one specific article. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a clear consensus (5:2). Per WP:BRD CUA 27 should reinstate Solo's high importance and take all this other stuff to the appropriate venue. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the importance rating is not that important anyway. Time is better spent improving articles. -Koppapa (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS is WP:NOTAVOTE. The real issue is that Solo has no class when she complain about opposing players. That is why she should not be considered a world-class player. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, like Ronaldo who bitched about the whole Iceland team. He's not world-class either..... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with The Rambling Man. No need to have a broader vote here. Whether Solo's rant after losing was appropriate is irrelevant, we can't constantly update players importance up or down based on on-field actions (and we're assessing notability here, not sportsmanship). What is patently evident is that Solo has been amongst the very top elite of women's players for several years and that this is reflected by reliable sources. Not the biggest issue, but clearly should be high importance in my view. Macosal (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Ronaldo isn't a world-class player. Totally classless. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria at the WP:FOOTBALL assessment page refers to "Top-rated world-class players and managers." Solo (and Ronaldo) clearly meets this criteria. What you think of them as people is irrelevant. Hack (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Messi's tax fraud must lose him points on the 'Walter Görlitz morality index' too? Perhaps then, it's a good thing it only exists in Walt's imagination and not on Wikipedia! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Declasse and being void of morals often go hand-in-hand, but don't conflate the two. Greed is not classy, and yeah, Messi goes down in my estimation as a result. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... well since we're now clear that you've been talking about something else, CUA 27 hasn't got any support for his change. So I've reverted in line with the clear consensus here. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Hope Solo. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 22:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hope Solo. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 15:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Rio Olympics quote[edit]

The article says "The remark was made to Grant Wahl in the raw aftermath of the defeat, part of a wide-ranging interview in which she also praised her team's Scandinavian conquerors." The quote to Grant Wahl was NOT wide ranging and at no point in that quote was she complimentary to Sweden as described. Further the footnote for that sentence ( Lauletta, Dan (August 26, 2016). "Lauletta: Thoughts on the Hope Solo suspension". The Equalizer. Retrieved September 3, 2016.) does not support the main idea of the sentence. Should be edited.Deriobamba (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The positive spin was added after the initial statement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legal name in intro?[edit]

Minor point, but should the opening sentence read as follows?

Hope Amelia Stevens née Solo, known professionally as Hope Solo (born July 30, 1981)

Or at least something to that effect? My understanding is that we lead with legal name, maiden name, then commonly used name if it differs from the legal name? Ytoyoda (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if a RS for her purported legal name can be found and it is commonly used (WP:COMMONNAME) in media publications. I have seen neither. On the latter, FIFA doesn't have that name and she did not have that name before being dropped by Seattle. Is there any proof that it's her "legal name"? Many women do not change their names after marrying and before making such a change we would need proof. MOS:FULLNAME deals with this as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hope Solo. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request Television section[edit]

The article mentions that Hope Solo worked for the BBC on the Women's World Cup in 2019. It omits that she was a panelist on Irish Television station RTE 1 for the 2018 world cup. Hope provided analysis pre and post game for Brazil v Mexico and was very well received.

https://www.sportsjoe.ie/football/hope-solo-rte-world-cup-debut-166614#:~:text=Hope%20Solo%20made%20her%20punditry,and%20two%20Olympic%20gold%20medals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.146.196 (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James Mackenzie (actor) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change[edit]

Consider changing the section that reads "The team finished 2013 undefeated with a 13–0–3 record" to something like "The team finished 2013 undefeated in 16 matches, winning 13" (because in many places 13-0-3 reads as 13 wins and 3 defeats) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.40.23 (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James Mackenzie (actor) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yourself and kids[edit]

Hope , please get a.grip ! DENwiki2000 (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

her book[edit]

what is her book about 2603:6010:2903:E83D:D40B:62B0:2602:8F74 (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hope_Solo&oldid=1193711622"