Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:00, 27 June 2006

2006_FIFA_World_Cup_controversies

Article is POV (note the word blatant used a couple of times in it for example) and really doesn't deserve it's own article. At the very least it should be moverd to a subsection on the main worldcup 2006 article-- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) 13:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Contrary to my nom above now Very very weak keep it does read better now but I still think it is better suited in another article, on it's own it just looks like alot of POV rather than say criticism in a balanced article about refereeing at the world cup. -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) 21:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete blantant POV. Article is not at the moment long enough to justify seperation from its parent article. Nothing salvagable content to merge either Ydam 13:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blatantly fails WP:NPOV. Absolutely nothing here worth merging. --Coredesat 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although something on the 3 yellow card controversy (as this can be objectively viewed) is possibly worth having (a subsection on main WC page?).--Binnor 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but modify. There is value is pointing out that certain events generated controversy. This can be done in a NPOV fashion. However, this article needs to focus on a factual recounting of the fact that there was controversy, not re-hashing the controversies themselves. For example - 1. Graham Poll mistakenly failed to send off a player after the 2nd Yellow. This generated the following controversy: a. Failure of the 4th referee to catch this {cite sources here}. 2. Ghana was awarded a penalty shot in injury time of the first half. This generated the following controversy: a. Video replays seemed to indicate misapplication of the rule. {cite sources here}. This would be a useful and informative article. The hard part is the subjective evaluation of what events should be included, but that's nothing new to wikipedia, now is it? --NThurston 14:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for now at least. It could probably be rewritten after the event is complete, its too early for such an article. --Boochan 15:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and adapt to NPOV standards. Also, another good idea would be to describe the alleged controversies in chronological order, instead of just mentioning them in passing. A more formal approach, with information such as date, time, and location of the match, as well as venue names etc would definitely help. It could be like a "controversy recap" in that it could provide the contentious referee calls made throughout the 2006 WC. As NThurston said, there is value in mentioning the controversial plays and calls, but it must be done in an organized manner and in keeping with NPOV rules. --macgirl 16:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it serves no real purpose and is very POV orientated. - Deathrocker 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, it serves a purpose although is currently very badly written. Cleanup and keep. --Guinnog 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have begun to wikify and restructure, but this article needs more content. Feel free to add your info, as well as to re-evaluate with new NPOV structure and format. --204.113.19.8 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This anonymous comment was made by NThurston who forgot to login.
• Keep or at the very least merge, for example this year's Cup has been marred by an inordinate amount of very poor refereeing. Georgeslegloupier 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, could easily end up being POV rants, but doesn't have to be. Well done it could be very informative. - Jon Stockton 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I think it can be cleaned up... --Ori Livneh (talk..contribs) 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge It can be cleaned up, and FIFA's president has now joined in criticism of the referees. However the refereeing problems are the only significant controversy so far, none of the other topics are notable. The number of yellows handed out far surpasses previous records, and the matches aren't even over yet. Xombie 18:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep / Merge I have only read it after N Thurston's restructuring efforts, but it seems to me that the POV is in the eye of the beholder. I read it as an informative piece, and it came across that way. More detail would definately help it seem more POV though.
• Week keep / cleanup - less POV, more neutral, accurate, factual information. --Ouro 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, there are human mistakes, anybody can do them. This article is very POV. Gadig 20:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable, but cleanup or rewrite to conform to WP:NPOV. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article's purpose seems less about information, more about whining. PHF 21:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: In response to Starghost and Gadig's thoughts - The purpose of this article is to document that there were mistakes made and there was a lot of whining about the officiating. This is very different from actually being a POV whining page. This page should not be a forum for people to say "my team got ripped." Rather, it is to say that many people felt that a particular mistake, event or action caused a lot of discussion among followers of the tournament. I know this is a very fine distinction, but it is a very important one. I fail to see how documenting facts surrounding an argument is POV, just because it involves documenting an argument. I agree that it still needs a significant rewrite, but maintain that it is notable and can be NPOV. --204.113.19.8 22:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is important to note that some of these actions have led to consequences that impact the event. Graham Poll was a likely candidate to referee the final, but that is now very unlikeley. Finally, it's not all about the refereeing. There have been other meaningful controvesies surrounding this event that need to be documented. --204.113.19.8 22:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that the article is supposed to document mistakes. To afirm that there really were mistakes in most cases is POV (to say there's something fishy about the number of fouls between BRA and AUS is misleading, to mention a 3rd yellow card doesn't deserve it's own article). You say it's supposed to document the whining. Newsflash, fans get upset when their teams lose. You say other controversies are meaningful or notable. I disagree. I also think giving the spotlight to some of the controversies unintentionally validates them, therefore stepping over that fine distinction you mentioned. PHF 00:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOAP; unverifiable and/or non-notable refereeing errors are not the basis of an NPOV article in an enyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete was deleted from the main world cup page for problems with POV, one mans controversial call is another persons great call, one only needs to read two different newspaper articles to determine that. Batman2005 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Batman2005. POV essay going nowhere fast. Australia call the penalty a controvery, but Italy don't. Same applies to all the rest. Intrinsically POV and poised to turn into a full blown Conspiracy Theory WP:NOR fail. Some parts - the record number of sendings-off in one game, for example - need to go in 2006 FIFA World Cup trivia section, but the interpretation of this as a "controversy" should be left to the reader, not rammed down their throat. --DaveG12345 01:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

World Cup trivia section? That would be 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany. Carcharoth 07:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and review later after tournament has finished. By the way, I got very confused about what looks like an earlier deletion of this article. See the deletion log here. I tried to find a discussion about this, but failed. Can someone confirm that this article did indeed get deleted and then undeleted? Carcharoth 01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a subsection of the World Cup 2006 article, check the archives and you'll find the discussion where it was deleted as POV.

That makes no sense (and you didn't sign your comment). Deleting a section of an article is a totally different process to deleting an actual article. I definitely saw a red link at some point, so I want to know what got deleted, by who, and when, whether it got recreated or undeleted, and why I can't find any "paper trail" showing what happened! Carcharoth 07:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Looking at the date in the deletion log, and seeing the date of creation of the article, I see that this is in fact a recreation of already deleted content. An admin earlier speedy deleted the article as "patent nonsense". The article probably looked different then, but as non-admins cannot see deleted content, we have no way of looking at the history. Does this affect the debate? Was it improperly speedy deleted before? Can it be speedy deleted now as a recreation of deleted content? To answer the last question, this debate already means that speedy deletion because of recreation is not an option. Carcharoth 07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Continue to improve the article as far as NPOV and references are concerned. It's a very useful reference, especially in the context of the ongoing debate whether video should assist in refereeing football matches: Many of the controversies hinge on what the replays show. Also, historians and future Misplaced Pages users will want to consult the controversies pertaining to individual matches, or issues such as the Togo players threatening to strike over compensation, or their coach leaving the team in their support. The issue of hair-pulling during a goal at the England-Togo match is a good example of a controversy not resulting from a referee's decision, and one that a referee may well be expected to miss but which affected the score -- a fine addition to the historical record. -- Mareklug 01:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is absolutely no possible way this article can ever be NPOV. Personally, I think Australia got screwed today, but Italians would likely disagree. Which side is correct? Any answer that can be offered is inherently NPOV. Resolute 02:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep but adapt to POV regs. Article necessary especially in light of the debate on usage of technology in football. Clean up and keep.--203.199.202.97 04:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)BalsNDolls.
• Keep as per comments from Mareklug. It would be good to have a record of what has caused controversy, even though it may be just a "portal" to media references and broadcasted "action replays". --ric_man 06:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but as said above, needs a bit of cleanup. Just stating the word 'controversial penalty' means very little - controversial to who and why? , although if links to relevant articles and clips could be provided. Examples such as the 3 yellow cards are unavoidable and even FIFA acknowledge that these are real 'controversies' and are definately worthy wiki topics.
• Comment - please note that this article was initially a recreation of previously deleted content, though it presumably has improved since then. It would be nice if an admin could somehow merge the page history of the deleted page into the page history of the recreated article, so that everyone can see the full history of the articles written on this subject. Carcharoth 07:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the useful stuff, and Weak Delete the rest. What "controversies" were there in previous FIFA World Cups that would warrant a separate page like this one? The unusual occurrence of 3 yellow cards to the same player is discussed elsewhere, and this is notable for not having occurred before. The T&T pay dispute is also notable and is discussed elsewhere. These should be migrated elsewhere and merged with other similar text if possible. However, it's not unusual to have refereeing decisions that caused discussion among fans of the game. Such decisions would likely occur in every World Cup and whether they were dubious or controversial can be strongly POV. No good criteria exist for selecting dubious refereeing decisions. Such a list could be very long indeed! Most of the article lacks references. The article lacks the time the various refereeing "controversies" occured and thus it is more difficult to substantiate them. Finally, the user that created the page has made no other Misplaced Pages contributions. --B.d.mills 08:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but expand (at tournaments completion), and watch for sources and word selection. Currently working on formatting/sources at the moment, to improve the quality of the article. --Killfest2 09:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite where necessary. This subject is encyclopaedic. --A bit iffy 10:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the moment, but when the dust has cleared on the tournament (which should allow for some more NPOV to come into proceedings) it might make more sense to merge the useful stuff into articles on the players/referees etc and delete the irredeemable bits. BigHaz 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and a whole 'nother bowl of alphabet soup... terrific example of what does not belong on an encyclopedia... unverifiable, original reserach... whole thing should be scrapped hoopydink 11:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)